DAILY SHARED LENR DISCUSSIONS, December 19, 2014

Today's quote is longer - a rational statement of David Roberson our colleague on Vortex (Vortex is open and citable):

"I just completed another brief review of the interesting report that was produced using the measurements from the Lugano, Switzerland test.  When the isotope changes and the over unity gain seen in power production by the Hotcat are taken into proper consideration, there is very little doubt that the device is as remarkable as many of us believe.  It is amazing that there remains a significant skeptical attitude among some groups." 

Amazing? But if the report is true,  nuclear but not fusion, not nuclear reactions but interactions and 4 orders of magnitude intensification of heat effect compared to classic LENR then the Old Paradigm of LENR is treated by these unaesthetic facts as sadistically as the ISIS fighters treat the prisoners.
It is painful to lose certainties obtained with great efforts, both experimental and of imagination- even if these certainties did not lead to the expected/promising useful things. 
For me to see that after 25+ years of conceptual stagnation, LENR slowly hesitantly chaotically but irreversibly starts to participate  at the global nano-bio-info- techno-cogno revolution.
http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/1/NBIC_report.pdf  
The formulation borrowed from this excellent blog paper: 
http://jarche.com/2014/12/becoming-collectively-smarter/

LENR+ is nano-dynamic, bio-similar, info-dependent, techno-created, cogno-ressurected. At the end of this revolution, it will have an entirely new identity.

I well know you want the most to see news here, however towards the end of year
we cannot expect significant announcements.

However the E-Cat sites tell us:

a) that USPTO has an oppressive politics toward Cold Fusion/LENR patents, but actually this is info over 20 years old.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/uspto-has-shadow-program-subjecting-patent-applications-to-heightened-scrutiny-and-i 
The great question is IF the politics would have been more open and friendly and today there had been tens or hundreds of CF patents around - what then? What is the real worth of a patent that cannot be applied in practice- except the inventor's CV seems a bit more impressive? Who or what has oppressed the patentable technologies?

b) It is laudable that many people try to help Rossi with his battery problem:
 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/18/battery-power-e-cats-rossi-asks-for-help/
After a 25 years good collaboration with the Romanian car battery industry- for the plastics parts mainly separators. I hope that a new high tech generation of batteries will be on the market soon.

My message of yesterday regarding Russ George's cooking has generated comments. My CF encyclopedic discussion partner, Abd is, seemingly discontented
with what I have written and says this:

"Russ George is an entertaining writer, but his understanding of cold fusion is appallingly poor. First of all, for some history, see
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/RussGeorge/Russ-George-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Research-LENR-and-Plankton-Carbon-Credit.shtml

Krivit is a yellow journalist, one must factor for that. However, I do know that Russ George became persona non grata in at least one major lab. And then I see this today on the page you linked, Peter:

"Hydrogen readily enters into palladium and in fact there can be upwards of 1000 times more hydrogen inside a bit of palladium as there is palladium!"

No way. The palladium loading of Pons and Fleischmann was state-of-the-art. It approached a 1:1 ratio, i.e., where there would be as many deuterium atoms as palladium. Not 1000:1.

Then he has:

"Martin’s forte was ultra density and by following his recipes the hydrogen broth achieves a density far in excess of metallic hydrogen and indeed may reach the density of hydrogen quark soup that is thought to exist in the center of some stars."

Martin (Fleischmann) loaded palladium more intensely than had apparently been done before, going from sixty or seventy atom percent to more than ninety. It is possible to think of highly loaded palladium deuteride as a metallic alloy. But it is not as dense in hydrogen as metallic hydrogen. Skeptics often made the point that the interatomic distance between deuterons in palladium deuteride is greater than the average distance in liquid deuterium.

The idea that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect was due to very high pressure was an error that dogged the field; it resulted in a belief that the effect took place in the interior of the metal, whereas the bulk of the evidence is that it is a surface effect. It is still a very unusual material, palladium deuteride, that's true. But this stuff about quark soup is pure fluff.

The core of the sun has a density of about 150 g/cm^3, which is not high density as stars go. Palladium metal has a density of about 12 g/cm^3. Palladium deuteride would have a density in the same ballpark. The deuterium would add a little weight, but it's only 2% of the atomic weight of palladium, and the palladium expands a bit when highly loaded.

A neutron star may have a density of roughly 7 x 10^14 g/cm^3, if I did the math right. That is more like quark soup, which is *not* thought to exist at the center of any stars. Rather, quark soup is a hypothesized stage of the Big Bang, perhaps up to the first few milliseconds, when the entire mass of the universe was concentrated at the Singularity and exploded.
Peter, I'm amazed that you were taken in by this.

First, if he does not like what Russ has stated, the best place to express this is the author's Atom Ecology blog- in a firm, civilized manner.

Second, I do not admit that my words should be interpreted in a different manner
than i have told them, my words are in good harmony with my thoughts, If I say that Russ's paper is inspiring, my unique reason is that I was inspired by it, and this on the background of some modern papers written or sent by my friend Tibor Braun about molecular and supra-molecular gastronomy or foods in form of aerosols.
I disagree that Russ a low understanding of cold fusion; by the way this is such a bad spell you can apply to everyone who thinks differently than you and not only in the case of cold fusion.
What Krivit has written about Russ is not new for me, I have collaborated with Steven very closely from 2007 to 2011 and I  have translated a lot about Russ' activity in Hungary- from the Hungarian press. Steve was an excellent journalist and a good friend of mine- however a terrible illness has hit him- at some time he started  to believe, deeply, seriously with no returning that he is the only person in the wprld who understands LENR, much better then anybody else, all the others have an apallingly low comprehension of the field. I was almost an exception but when I took the risk tp think that Andrea Rossi may "have" excess heat I joined the group of LENR-illiterates and my name was erased from the list of his friends. This Steven Krivit Syndrome is one of the most destructive illnesses, Steven has invested all his hopes in the Widom-Larsen non-fusion theory that produces beautiful images but no new energy. Will this cure the Syndrome? Till then I am reading what Steve writes but why should I take seriously anything except the facts?
With a bit of attention and healthy sense of humor, Abd could have observed that the soup from Russ' cooking paper is a playful metaphor- and in other sense a poetical interpretation of the reality. Martin Fleischmann's initial interpretation was a fusion reaction enforced by electrochemistry. Then, later has he bought the Giuliano Preparata collective effect theory.
The first period has generated the axiom/myth/fact of high D/Pd ratio- minimum 0.95
molar (if I remember well the cathode 64 of Energetics that generated the highest excess heat ever (documented) had a 0.6 D/Pd ratio so it is something unexplained or unknown here. Russ has alluded to the high solubility of h or D in Pd- he will explain it better.
Then Abd mixes in the Sun and the neutron stars and also the Big Bang, OK these  are good scientific Jolly Jockers in any discussion. But why does he ask this nasty 
implicit question: "Peter, I'm amazed that you were taken in by this."
This is unjust, I have told  the Cooking paper is inspiring,  I consider it well written, nice LENR lecture- but "taken in?" Do I think it is inerrant truth on the way to a Solution?
Generally and especially in my blog posts I make increasingly desperate efforts to be or at least to seem intelligent; this virtue is defined in the dawn era  of my blog:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/01/first-seed.html
 "To be intelligent means to NOT mix (confuse) the points of view"

Therefore, I am not mixing paper and author, inspiration with taking in, experimental fact with speculation, existence with imagination wishful thinking with thoughtful wishes and so on. I am also not mixing LENR with LENR+, the former being a heat effect 20000 times smaller that the later. For a faithful LENR classic believer the right solution is to deny the existence of LENR+ as long as possible. And to focus on uncertain certainties.

My thanks go to Axil who has answered first to Abd's comment.


Other
LENR's cousin continues to reveal his/its secrets:
Electron spin could be the key to high-temperature superconductivity
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-electron-key-high-temperature-superconductivity.htm

Peter