Fwd: [antigrav] Cold Fusion is Back

Carl Nyblom-Waltenburg ibogalab at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 20 13:09:04 EDT 2002


a charming piece of "military intelligence",now that we have such a 
distinguished ibogaine fan club in the armed forces of the U.S.of A.
                               The End of the Oil Age?
                                              cheers,Carlito



>From: "Carl Waltenburg" <saucertrips at hotmail.com>
>To: ibogalab at hotmail.com
>Subject: Fwd: [antigrav] Cold Fusion is Back
>Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:55:16 +0200
>>
>>Forwarding a message from the newelectrogravity group. Article 5 (by
>>Chubb) of the first document mentioned (right at the end: tr1862-
>>vol1.pdf) is particularly interesting, as it analyses the deleterious
>>effects of "conventional thinking" on the whole Cold Fusion
>>discussion.
>>
>>John T.
>>
>>________________________________________________
>>FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS ...................
>>
>>From:  "Integrity Research Institute, Thomas Valone" <iri at e...>
>>Date:  Sun Apr 14, 2002  7:37 am
>>Subject:  Navy Report Supports Cold Fusion
>>To:  "Integrity Research Institute, Thomas Valone" <iri at e...>
>>
>>
>>Future Energy
>>eNews
>>April 15, 2002
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor at infinite-energy.com>
>>To: "Eugene Mallove" <editor at infinite-energy.com>
>>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 7:28 PM
>>Subject: New Navy Report Supports Cold Fusion
>>
>>All,
>>
>>A new official report just out, prepared by the U.S. Navy, is strongly
>>supportive of cold fusion research:
>>
>>TECHNICAL REPORT 1862, February 2002
>>Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System
>>(In two volumes)
>>
>>It is a public document with unlimited distribution, so we are
>>posting below
>>some of the introductory material in each of the volumes.
>>
>>Infinite Energy will be making copies of the full report -- hard
>>copy, CD
>>version, and perhaps web site posting. We'll keep you posted about the
>>availability of the full document.
>>
>>I wish to highlight in particular this statement from the Foreword:
>>
>>"As I write this Foreword, California is experiencing rolling
>>blackouts due
>>to power shortages. Conventional engineering, planned ahead, could
>>have
>>prevented these blackouts, but it has been politically expedient to
>>ignore
>>the inevitable. We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to
>>future
>>energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon
>>through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It
>>is
>>time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever
>>benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time
>>for
>>government funding organizations to invest in this research.
>>
>>Dr. Frank E. Gordon
>>Head, Navigation and Applied Sciences Department
>>Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego"
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
>>Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine
>>Director, New Energy Research Laboratory
>>PO Box 2816
>>Concord, NH 03302-2816
>>    editor at infinite-energy.com
>>    www.infinite-energy.com
>>Ph: 603-228-4516
>>Fx: 603-224-5975
>>
>>
>>***********
>>TECHNICAL REPORT 1862, February 2002
>>
>>Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System
>>
>>Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories
>>
>>S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, Editors
>>
>>Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
>>
>>SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego
>>
>>SSC San Diego
>>San Diego, CA 92152-5001
>>
>>SSC SAN DIEGO
>>San Diego, California 92152-5001
>>
>>P. A. Miller, CAPT, USN Commanding Officer
>>
>>R. C. Kolb, Executive Director
>>
>>
>>ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
>>
>>     The work described in this report was performed for the Office of
>>Naval
>>Research through the collaboration of Space and Naval Warfare Systems
>>Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego); the Naval Air Warfare Center,
>>Weapons
>>Division, China Lake; and the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).
>>
>>Released by
>>G. W. Anderson, Head
>>Applied Research & Technology Branch
>>
>>Under authority of R. H. Moore, Head, Environmental Sciences Division
>>
>>
>>Contributing authors (in alphabetical order)
>>
>>Dr. Pamela A. Mosier-Boss
>>Code D363
>>Spawar Systems Center San Diego
>>San Diego, CA 92152-5000
>>(619) 553-1603; FAX (619) 553-1269; e-mail bossp at spawar.navy.mil
>>
>>Dr. Scott R. Chubb
>>Code 7252
>>Naval Research Laboratory
>>Washington, DC 20375-5343
>>(202) 767-5270; FAX (202) 767-3303; e-mail scott.chubb at nrl.navy.mil
>>
>>Professor Martin Fleischmann, F.R.S.
>>Bury Lodge, Duck Street
>>Tisbury, Salisbury, Wilts SP3 6LJ
>>United Kingdom
>>FAX (+44) 1747 870845
>>
>>Dr. M. Ashraf Imam
>>Code 6320
>>Naval Research Laboratory
>>Washington, DC 20375-5343
>>(202) 767-2185; FAX (202) 767-2623 e-mail imam at angil.nrl.navy,mil
>>
>>Dr. Melvin H. Miles
>>Department of Chemistry
>>Middle Tennessee State University
>>Murfreeboro, TN 37132
>>(615) 904-8558; e-mail mmiles at mtsu.edu
>>
>>Dr. Stanislaw Szpak
>>3498 Conrad Ave
>>San Diego, CA 92117
>>(858) 272-9401
>>
>>
>>FOREWORD
>>
>>Twelve years have passed since the announcement on 23 March 1989 by
>>Professors Fleischmann and Pons that the generation of excess enthalpy
>>occurs in electrochemical cells when palladium electrodes, immersed
>>in D2O
>>+ LiOH electrolyte, are negatively polarized. The announcement, which
>>came
>>to be known as "Cold Fusion," caused frenzied excitement. In both the
>>scientific and news communities, fax machines were used to pass along
>>fragments of rumor and "facts." (Yes, this was before wide spread use
>>of
>>the internet. One can only imagine what would happen now.) Companies
>>and
>>individuals rushed to file patents on yet to be proven ideas in hopes
>>of
>>winning the grand prize. Unfortunately, the phenomenon described by
>>Fleischmann and Pons was far from being understood and even factors
>>necessary for repeatability of the experiments were unknown. Over the
>>next
>>few months, the scientific community became divided into
>>the "believers"
>>and the "skeptics." The "believers" reported the results of their
>>work with
>>enthusiasm that at times overstated the significance of their
>>results. On
>>the other hand, many "skeptics" rejected the anomalous behavior of the
>>polarized Pd/D system as a matter of conviction, i.e., without
>>analyzing
>>the presented material and always asking "where are the neutrons?"
>>Funding
>>for research quickly dried up as anything related to "Cold Fusion" was
>>portrayed as a hoax and not worthy of funding. The term "Cold Fusion"
>>took
>>on a new definition much as the Ford Edsel had done years earlier.
>>
>>By the Second International Conference on Cold Fusion, held at Villa
>>Olmo,
>>Como, Italy, in June/July 1991, the altitude toward Cold Fusion was
>>beginning to take on a more scientific basis. The number of
>>flash-in-the-pan "believers" had diminished, and the "skeptics" were
>>beginning to be faced with having to explain the anomalous phenomenon,
>>which by this time had been observed by many credible scientists
>>throughout
>>the world. Shortly after this conference, the Office of Naval Research
>>(ONR) proposed a collaborative effort involving the Naval Command,
>>Control
>>and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, which subsequently has
>>become the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San
>>Diego); the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake;
>>and the
>>Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The effort's basic premise was to
>>investigate the anomalous effects associated with the prolonged
>>charging of
>>the Pd/D system and "to contribute in collegial fashion to a
>>coordinated
>>trilaboratory experiment."
>>
>>Each laboratory took a different area of research. At San Diego, our
>>goal
>>was to understand the conditions that initiate the excess heat
>>generation
>>(the Fleischmann-Pons effect) and the search for evidence that
>>indicates
>>their nuclear origin. To eliminate the long incubation times (often
>>weeks),
>>Drs. Stan Szpak and Pam Boss decided to prepare the palladium
>>electrodes by
>>the co-deposition technique. Initially, they concentrated on tritium
>>production and the monitoring of emanating radiation. More recently,
>>they
>>extended their effort to monitoring surface temperature via IR imaging
>>technique and showed the existence of discrete heat sources randomly
>>distributed in time and space. This discovery may prove to be a
>>significant
>>contribution to the understanding of the phenomenon.
>>
>>At China Lake, Dr. Miles and his collaborators showed that a
>>correlation
>>exists between the rate of the excess enthalpy generation and the
>>quantity
>>of helium in the gas stream. Such a correlation is the direct
>>evidence of
>>the nuclear origin of the Fleischmann-Pons effect.
>>
>>The research at NRL was directed toward the metallurgy of palladium
>>and its
>>alloys and the theoretical aspects of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. In
>>particular, Dr. Imam prepared Pd/B alloys that Dr. Miles used in
>>calorimetric experiments. It was shown that these alloys yielded
>>reproducible excess enthalpy generation with minimal incubation times
>>(approximately 1 day). The theoretical work of Dr. Chubb contributed
>>much
>>to our understanding of the Fleischmann-Pons effect.
>>
>>Although funding for Cold Fusion ended several years ago, progress in
>>understanding the phenomenon continues at a much slower pace, mostly
>>through the unpaid efforts of dedicated inquisitive scientists. In
>>preparation of this report the authors spent countless hours outside
>>of
>>their normal duties to jointly review their past and current
>>contributions,
>>including the "hidden" agenda that Professor Fleischmann pursued for
>>several years in the 1980s when he was partially funded by ONR.
>>Special
>>thanks are extended to all scientists who have worked under these
>>conditions, including those who contributed to this report and
>>especially
>>to Professor Fleischmann.
>>
>>As I write this Foreword, California is experiencing rolling
>>blackouts due
>>to power shortages. Conventional engineering, planned ahead, could
>>have
>>prevented these blackouts, but it has been politically expedient to
>>ignore
>>the inevitable. We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to
>>future
>>energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon
>>through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It
>>is
>>time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever
>>benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time
>>for
>>government funding organizations to invest in this research.
>>
>>Dr. Frank E. Gordon
>>Head, Navigation and Applied Sciences Department
>>Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego
>>
>>
>>TABLE OF CONTENTS
>>
>>1. THE EMERGENCE OF COLD FUSION
>>S. Szpak and P. A. Mosier-Boss
>>
>>2. EVENTS IN A POLARIZED Pd+D ELECTRODES PREPARED BY CO-DEPOSITION
>>TECHNIQUE
>>S. Szpak and P. A. Mosier-Boss
>>
>>3. EXCESS HEAT AND HELIUM PRODUCTION IN PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS
>>Melvin H. Miles
>>
>>4. ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENT MC-21: A CASE STUDY
>>Part I: Development of Diagnostic Criteria
>>Part II: Application of Diagnostic Criteria
>>S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, M. H. Miles, M. A. Imam and M.
>>Fleischmann
>>
>>5. AN OVERVIEW OF COLD FUSION THEORY
>>Scott Chubb
>>
>>APPENDIX: LISTING OF PUBLICATIONS/PRESENTATIONS RELATED TO COLD
>>FUSION BY
>>NAVY LABORATORIES
>>
>>STAFF
>>
>>************
>>VOLUME #2
>>
>>TECHNICAL REPORT 1862
>>February 2002
>>
>>Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System
>>Volume 2: Simulation of the Electrochemical Cell (ICARUS) Calorimetry
>>
>>S. Szpak
>>P. A. Mosier-Boss
>>Editors
>>
>>Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
>>
>>SPAWAR
>>Systems Center San Diego
>>
>>SSC San Diego
>>San Diego, CA 92152-5001
>>
>>FOREWORD
>>
>>The calorimetry of any electrochemical cell involves two type of
>>activities: data collection and data evaluation. The required data
>>are the
>>cell potential-time and cell temperature-time series. The evaluation
>>is
>>based on conservation laws subject to constraints dictated by cell
>>design
>>and the adapted experimental procedure.
>>
>>Volume 2 of this report deals with the modeling and simulation of the
>>Dewar-type calorimeter. It was written by Professor Fleischmann to
>>provide
>>an authoritative discussion of the calorimetry of electrochemical
>>cells.
>>The emphasis is on the interpretation of data and the accuracy of the
>>determination of the excess enthalpy generation via the appropriate
>>selection of heat transfer coefficients. The discussion of the
>>calorimetry
>>of the Dewar-type cells is presented in the form of technical report
>>for a
>>number of reasons, among them: (I) its length would likely prohibit
>>publication in topical journals, (ii) to clarify misunderstandings
>>regarding the principles of calorimetry as applied to electrochemical
>>cell
>>in general and to the cell employed by Fleischmann and his
>>collaborators,
>>in particular.
>>
>>S. Szpak and P.A. Mosier-Boss, eds.
>>
>>TABLE OF CONTENTS
>>
>>INTRODUCTION
>>SYMBOLS USED
>>
>>1. THE EVOLUTION OF THE ICARUS DATA EVALUATION STRATEGIES
>>2. DEFINITION OF THE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
>>3. DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS GOVERNING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE CALORIMETERS:
>>SIMULATIONS OF THE TEMPERATURE-TIME SERIES
>>4. SPECIFICATION OF THE ICARUS-1 EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOLS AND DATA
>>EVALUATION
>>PROCEDURES
>>5. EVALUATION OF THE "RAW DATA" GENERATED USING THE SIMULATION
>>DESCRIBED IN
>>SECTION 4
>>6. EVALUATION OF A MEASUREMENT CYCLE FOR    A "BLANK EXPERIMENT"
>>USING AN
>>ICARUS-2 SYSTEM
>>7. ASSESSMENT OF THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ICARUS-1 EXPERIMENTAL
>>PROTOCOLS
>>AND DATA
>>
>>EVALUATION PROCEDURES
>>
>>REFERENCES
>>FIGURES
>>TABLES
>>
>>INTRODUCTION
>>
>>Apart from some fragmentary investigations, primarily related to the
>>study
>>of the self-discharge of batteries, there exists no well defined set
>>of
>>studies in the field of the electrochemical calorimetry. We note that
>>such
>>studies would allow the investigation of the thermal behavior of a
>>wide
>>range of reactions, especially irreversible processes. Thus, the
>>establishment of an accurate model of an experiment is very important.
>>However, as this aspect is not generally understood, we felt it
>>necessary
>>to produce this document.
>>
>>In spite of its length, this volume only covers the analysis of a
>>data set
>>generated by calculation and one measurement cycle for a "blank
>>experiment." We believe that it is very important to produce a
>>detailed
>>analysis and account (as far as is possible at this stage) of the
>>methodology which we adopted. This is especially important in view of
>>the
>>misleading comments which have been made about the calorimetry of the
>>Pd/D
>>system. Taken at face value, one must believe that the workers
>>concerned do
>>not understand the difference between differential and integral
>>coefficients, the disadvantages of differentiating "noisy" data as
>>compared
>>to integrating such data, the differences between the precision and
>>accuracy of data evaluations, the recognition of "negative"
>>and "positive
>>feedback," the analysis of cooling curves, etc. They do not understand
>>relaxation nor recognize the presence of strange attractors and the
>>way in
>>which the effects of such complications can be circumvented. [1]
>>
>>It is relevant here to reflect on the precision and accuracy of the
>>experiments. Of course, if the precision is high, then there will be
>>no
>>difficulty in interpreting changes in the rates of excess enthalpy
>>generation as small as 1 mW at the 10-sigma level. [2]. Of course, the
>>question of the magnitude of the errors raises three further important
>>questions: (I) what error limits are required so as to be able to
>>detect
>>excess enthalpy generation at an adequate level of statistical
>>significance? (ii) what is the difference (if any) between the
>>experiments
>>carried out with ICARUS systems and ICARUS lookalikes and with other
>>types
>>of calorimetry? (iii) how can one assess the error limits of a given
>>piece
>>of instrumentation?
>>
>>The answer is that one simply stops the development of the
>>methodology when
>>one is able to make an adequate set of measurements. We note here
>>that this
>>particular specification is itself dependent on the physical size of
>>the
>>systems being investigated as well as the chosen operating
>>conditions. In
>>our particular investigation the limit was certainly reached when the
>>errors had been reduced to the 0.01% level. Naturally, the first
>>question
>>impacts on the second and we note that it is the use of less precise
>>and
>>accurate calorimetric methods which has bedeviled so much of the
>>research
>>in this field. The reason is that with the use of less
>>precise/accurate
>>methods, it becomes impossible to monitor the build-up of excess
>>enthalpy
>>generation. This then brings us to the third question and the answer
>>to
>>this is exactly with the methods outlined in this document, at least
>>as far
>>as isoperibolic calorimetry is concerned (although it is not very
>>difficult
>>to specify improvements in those methods!). [3] It is relevant that
>>although errors had undoubtedly been made in setting up these
>>experiments,
>>the detailed data analyses had also shown the way in which such errors
>>could be allowed for. [4]
>>
>>To reiterate, we considered it necessary to produce this document for
>>the
>>following reasons: Firstly, it is always essential to determine the
>>Instrument Function (or of a parameter or sets of parameters which
>>define
>>the Instrument Function) and to validate the methods of data
>>analysis. Such
>>validation is best done using simulated/calculated data. Secondly, one
>>needs to see the extent to which "blank" experiments conform to
>>expectations. Thirdly, one needs to investigate the ways in which
>>methods
>>of data analysis may fail.
>>
>>Footnotes:
>>
>>(l.) Of course, it is possible that the researchers concerned do not
>>understand any of these matters, but what is so remarkable is that
>>they
>>have failed to understand these topics even when they have been
>>described
>>to them.
>>
>>(2) However, the high precision of the instrumentation (relative
>>errors
>>below 0.01%) has been converted into a 10% error by the group at NHE.
>>It is
>>hard to see how anybody can make such an assertion while still
>>keeping a
>>straight face. If the errors were as high as this, then it would be
>>impossible to say anything sensible about calorimetry - for that
>>matter, it
>>would remove one of the main planks of scientific methodology
>>
>>(3) The answer to this question brings us to very interesting further
>>lines
>>of enquiry which can be summarized by the question: "why is it that
>>NHE
>>have never made any sets of raw data for blank experiments available
>>for
>>further analysis?" If one considers this question in a naive way,
>>then one
>>would say that there can hardly be any reason for not releasing data
>>sets
>>which do not show any generation of excess enthalpy!
>>
>>(4) Instead of seeking to establish the correct way(s) of calibrating
>>the
>>systems, the group at NHE used the procedure leading to (k^',0 R)362,
>>probably coupled to timing errors in the calibration pulse which they
>>did
>>not allow for. Needless to say, this produced nonsensical results
>>which
>>they used as a justification for substituting an invalid method of
>>data
>>analysis. Moreover, this invalid method of data analysis was applied
>>to
>>just two experiments, regarded as being typical, although the fact
>>that
>>there were malfunctions in these experiments has also been pointed
>>out.
>>
>>These reports are available at:
>>Vol.I, 3.5 Meg   ~121 pages
>>http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-
>>vol1.pdf
>>
>>
>>Vol. II, 178 pgs, 42,810 kbytes
>>http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-
>>vol2.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




More information about the Ibogaine mailing list