Thanks, Horace, good stuff. I'm busy for a while.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: > >> I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it >> isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further >> research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may >> show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries, >> (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car >> catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must >> already know about it! >> >> I don't understand his objection to "cold fusion". From a science >> perspective, what he describes: >> H or D + Metal going in ==> very detailed and particle physics sound >> description of processes happening ==> Metal + He + E coming out. >> >> Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his >> theory. "cold fusion" is just the abstract of the thing in the middle >> of his reaction scheme. >> >> I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit >> is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and >> your theory is right? >> >> If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for >> correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped >> experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi >> device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the >> theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the >> right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care >> about the right theory for something that does work. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: >>> >>> More controversy between LENR competitors --- >>> >>> Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi & E-Cat >>> Technology-Nov 26 2011 >>> >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011 >>> >>> >>> > > > The theory in the slides is nonsense if applied to Rossi's E-cat. > > One of the early tests involved use a coincidence counter, a pair of gamma > counters with coincidence circuitry, which picks up the gamma pairs from > positron annihilations. None were observed above background. It was used > up close to the reactor. > > Here is a photo in which the pair of opposed coincidence counters can be > seen: > > http://www.ccemt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/files/rossi_cold_fusion_aparatus_scintillator_300.jpg > > posted on this blog: > > http://www.cce-mt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/cold_fusion.html > > regarding a February 2011 test. Part of the second counter can be seen > protruding below the surface on which the E-cat rests. > > Celani has observed some single (not positron annihilation) counts : "I > brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with an > energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the > reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with > respect to background." See: > > http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/18/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-celani-report/ > > http://tin*yurl.com/4djya8 > > Further, the number of neutrons produced generating 10 kW thermal by the > suggested reactions, much less 0.5 MW, would be dangerous in the extreme. > Neutron activation would produce long lasting radioactive products. For > example 58CO27 + n -> 59CO27, then comes the famous 59CO27 + n --> 60Co27, > which is used to produce radioactive cobalt used in medicine (half life over > 5 years.) > > Furthermore, the neutrons could activate (make radioactive) many elements > likely present in the device or water, like Ni, Fe, Cu, Pb, Sn, Zn, Cl, Ca, > Mg, S, Mn, Na, etc. No residual radioactivity was detected. > I don't know how this stuff gets passed off as credible. The implications > of the theory are not credible: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html > > Hagelstein and Chaudhary pretty much demolished the theory as well. > > Further, it seems to me if the gamma shielding part of the theory were > correct, i.e. the ability of heavy electrons to shield all gammas produced > at close range, then it could easily be checked by passing gammas through a > metal film supposedly exhibiting the shielding property. > > The Larsen & Windom Patent on gamma shielding: "Apparatus and method for > absorption of incident gamma radiation and its conversion to outgoing > radiation at less penetrating, lower energies and frequencies ": > > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7893414.PN.&OS=PN/7893414&RS=PN/7893414 > > http://tin*yurl.com/47al74f > > It was discussed by NET: > > http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/22/cold-fusioneers-complain-lenr-researchers-patent/ > > http://tin*yurl.com/46zgbfu > > It is notable that, despite the huge amount of content on cold fusion and > LENR, it is not a patent on a nuclear energy production method, merely a > gamma shielding method. > > Also, unless I missed it, there does not seem to be any test data provided > in the patent proving the method works. It would seem sending a gamma beam > through such thin shielding material and *measuring* attenuation would be > the minimal level of proof required to show that the theory is not > completely bogus. > > Again the authors make the absurd claim that "cold fusion" reactions do not > encompass weak reactions: "Together, the four scientific papers by the > present inventors comprising Attachments 1-4 can explain all of the major > features exhibited in many seemingly anomalous experiments (lumped under the > unfortunate term cold fusion) that have previously been regarded by many as > theoretically inexplicable. In contrast to other earlier theories involving > penetration of Coulomb barriers, the present Invention's methods and > apparatus for creating low energy nuclear reactions are scientifically > reasonable within the context of the well-accepted standard model of > electroweak interaction physics. The key process responsible for producing > most of the experimentally observed anomalies explained by these > publications is not any form of cold fusion, nor is it any form of fission. > On the contrary, the key physical processes driving the unique behavior of > these systems are primarily weak interactions." > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
