tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1893724621360177695.post6088213694567352352..comments2023-03-30T16:45:53.919-05:00Comments on The "C" Word - that's chemistry of course: Total C-FAylwin Forbeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16051125260705797284noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1893724621360177695.post-4229049540937783732007-04-06T22:05:00.000-05:002007-04-06T22:05:00.000-05:00Jed:Thank you for drawing my attention to the cold...Jed:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for drawing my attention to the cold fusion archives.<BR/><BR/>I cannot agree that the degree of reproducibility of CF and High Tc are on a par as you claim. If CF had been reproduced easily, there would not have been the furore that transpired. How many, on the hand, refuted the high Tc results? None. In fact, almost right away, new compositions appeared that were even better than the original one. It was all too easy to reproduce and I did it too with a simple mixture of chemicals and a furnace. We even made some small single crystals. Now, it may well be the case that reliability on a manufacturing scale is another issue, but there was never any doubt at all as to the effect; and there was a relatively straightforward theoretical underpinning of the observed effects.<BR/><BR/>The analogy with the silicon transistor is a poor one. There was no dispute as to the silicon transistor's action. The reasons for low yield were clear and easily understood in terms of materials issues. I am not sure that the same clear-cut characterization of the CF process has been made. The early cost advantage of the tubes over silicon is a reflection of the processing questions and has no bearing on the science at stake.Aylwin Forbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16051125260705797284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1893724621360177695.post-70663670361335217612007-04-05T18:03:00.000-05:002007-04-05T18:03:00.000-05:00You wrote:". . . the results with CF could not be ...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>". . . the results with CF could not be reproduced, whereas those with high Tc were all too easy to reproduce ."<BR/><BR/>Both statements are incorrect.<BR/><BR/>First, it was and remains difficult to produce hight Tc material from scratch. One expert told me that a few years after the discovery many batches of material still failed, for unknown reasons. It should be noted that the failure rate for transistors in the early 1950s ranged from about 50% to over 90% for some devices, which is why transistors remained more expensive than vacuum tubes for a few years.<BR/><BR/>Second, cold fusion was widely replicated, albeit with difficulty. The experiment calls for expert knowledge and it takes several months to do, so reports of these replications were not published in the peer-reviewed literature until 1990. However, by September 1990, 92 groups in major laboratories reported replications. See: Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT., http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf Hundreds of positive, peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion were subsequently published in mainstream journals.<BR/><BR/>Many other replications were not reported in the peer reviewed literature, but the researchers do not doubt that they replicated, and that the effect is nuclear. For example,as Krivit noted here, researchers at AMOCO replicated, and they said their results were "conclusive":<BR/><BR/>"The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment."<BR/><BR/>http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf<BR/><BR/>Our web site, LENR-CANR.org, includes an index of over 3,400 cold fusion papers and 500 full text reprints of scientific papers. I suggest you review some of this literature before commenting on this research.<BR/><BR/>- Jed Rothwell<BR/>Librarian, LENR-CANR.orgJed Rothwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179077151947615762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1893724621360177695.post-45452892671962666332007-04-05T17:31:00.000-05:002007-04-05T17:31:00.000-05:00Hi Aylwin,When you were a member of the Amoco watc...Hi Aylwin,<BR/><BR/>When you were a member of the Amoco watchdog team to monitor "progress," did you happen to learn about the cold fusion research performed at Amoco which yielded positive, though poorly repeatable results?<BR/><BR/>Lautzenhiser, T., Phelps, D.W., Eisner, M., "Cold Fusion: Report on a Recent Amoco Experiment," Amoco Production Company, Report T-90-E-02,<BR/>http://www.newenergytimes.com/Reports/amoco.htm<BR/>http://www.newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm<BR/><BR/>Are you aware that the charges of tritium spiking against Bockris were fabricated? http://newenergytimes.com/SR/sciencefabrication.htm<BR/><BR/>Are you aware that the AEC of India performed substantial supportive tritium research?<BR/>http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm<BR/><BR/>Are you aware that I performed an investigation into D2Fusion?<BR/>http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET16.htm#d21<BR/><BR/>You mentioned that it is "imperative to treat the Internet with the utmost of suspicion when searching for information." I wholeheartedly agree with you. I formed New Energy Times because when I developed my curiosity about the subject I couldn't find anything that was either based on original reporting or that was comprehensible. I hope you will find our site helpful and reliable and I am certainly open to any critique you may have to offer. <BR/><BR/>Kind regards,<BR/><BR/>Steve KrivitSteven B. Krivithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14332865120155769065noreply@blogger.com