» MAKE: NOISE — Discuss this article

Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.

• Letter to the Editors of "Make" re C. Platt articles on Edmund Storms in Vol. 3
  You must be logged in to reply.
  
  
  Letter to the Editors of Make Magazine:
  
  We have read Charles Platt's published work for a number of years and consider him to be an excellent writer and thoughtful reporter of the leading edge of science, including the controversial subject of cold fusion. That having been said, we read his July 21, 2005, article, "The Fascination of Extreme Science" and his Make - Volume 03 article titled "A Fusion Reactor for the Rest of Us " which referenced the ongoing work of Dr. Edmund Storms in the field of "cold fusion" (a.k.a. low-energy nuclear reactions) and would like to clarify the following:
  
  1. Dr. Storms is not currently engaged in research in this field as a "solitary endeavor" nor is he a "lone garage scientist" nor is he a "lone scientist" working on his own. Quite to the contrary, he conducts LENR research as an employee, senior scientist, and minority owner of a privately held company named Lattice Energy, LLC which received its initial funding in 2001. Dr. Storms' affiliation with Lattice was not disclosed in the articles other than stating that, "His latest acquisition, the electron microscope, is on loan from a small Chicago company of speculative investors who hope that Storms may make a crucial breakthrough in his one-man research initiative."
  
  We do not agree with the characterization that Lattice is a "company of speculative investors." Since its formation, it has conducted R&D activities with a variety of scientists at several institutions, developed a portfolio of intellectual property, and entered into discussions with potential strategic partners. Lattice's business goal is to commercialize the company's proprietary LENR-related technologies. Lattice plans to establish corporate research facilities in the Chicago area in the near future. Dr. Storms was a consultant to the company in 2003, became a senior scientist to the company in 2004, and continues to conduct laboratory experiments for the company on a full-time, exclusive basis.
  
  2. There is only one (not two as stated in the article) major piece of analytical equipment in Dr. Storms' home laboratory. It is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with an integrated energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDX) used to perform elemental analysis of surface structures seen with the SEM. The SEM/EDX equipment is owned by Lattice and was installed at Dr. Storms' home laboratory in mid-2004 (not in 2005 as stated in the article).
  
  3. Dr. Storms did not devise Lattice's commercialization plan nor was he involved in identifying initial market applications for LENR-based technologies, such as nuclear battery-like devices, or possible manufacturing techniques. Lattice plans to develop actual commercial prototypes at other facilities, not at Dr. Storm's home laboratory.
  
  4. We do not agree with the statement that low-energy nuclear reactions "… violate our understanding of physics." To the contrary, Professor Allan Widom of Northeastern University (Boston, MA), Department of Physics, and I have published a technical paper on the arXiv preprint server that offers an alternative explanation for many anomalous phenomena that have been aggregated under the label of "cold fusion." This paper, "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026. Our theory, if verified experimentally by other laboratories: (a) falls solidly within the established laws of physics; and (b) does not involve any D-D or D-D-like fusion.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Lewis G. Larsen
  President and CEO
  Lattice Energy, LLC
  Chicago, IL
  (312) 861-0115
  lewisglarsen@cs.com
  

  Posted by lewisglarsen on August 11, 2005 at 13:35:36 Pacific Time

• Update on theory of LENRS
  You must be logged in to reply.
  
  
  Dear Makers:
  
  Researchers attempting to interpret the results of LENR experiments may be interested in a very recent physics arXiv preprint by Widom and Larsen as follows:
  
  "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"
  
  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0602/0602472.pdf
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Lewis Larsen
  President and CEO
  Lattice Energy LLC

  Posted by lewisglarsen on March 09, 2006 at 06:59:39 Pacific Time

• Letter to the Editors of "Make" re C. Platt articles on Edmund Storms in Vol. 3
  You must be logged in to reply.
  
  
  Although there are a number of discrepancies in the actual article. Including that of sole LENR research by Ed Storm. As many of us are aware LENR research continues World wide. Even those who have been publicly discredited, by going to publication to quickly, have achieve much better results. However there is one important point that most of the research facilities did not take into acount when attempting to replicate the said LENR experiments. 'The altitude above sea level of the Laboratories'. The higher you are above sea level the greater amount of nucleonic compression forced is needed. Very basic physics really, but even the most simple factors do escape us sometimes. This was a dominant factor to a lot of failed attempts at replicating the reactions. There are easier ways to achieve LENR results purely by exploiting the existing compressive forces around us. A pointer to this would be to study what causes the pitting in large ships propellers. Directed in the correct manner as in within my own CNFT experiments. 30³ meters of plain old H₂O can supply 30,000 Kg per 0.00001mm² compressive force.So so called cold fusion is not dead the likes of Ed Storm and the rest of us have been working continually in this research field.

  Posted by 13thHouR on September 24, 2005 at 16:53:56 Pacific Time

• Letter to the Editors of "Make" re C. Platt articles on Edmund Storms in Vol. 3
  You must be logged in to reply.
  
  
  Things seem to be bubbling along:
  
  Thermonuclear Squeeze: Altered method extends bubble-fusion claim: Science News Online, Jan. 21, 2006
  
  Also:
  There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, a form of aneutronic fusion , Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as follows:
  
  "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
  chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
  that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
  EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
  work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
  Motors)."
  
  Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion (Below Is an excerpt).
  He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:
  
  
  "for larger plant sizes
  Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale
  Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:
  Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)
  Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%
  Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%
  
  Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities
  • Research & development is also needed in
  the area of computing power.
  • Many fusion researchers of necessity still
  use MHD theory to validate their designs.
  • MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism
  and perfect conductance.
  • These qualities may not always exist in the
  real world, particularly during continuous operation.
  • More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory
  such as the Vlasov equations.
  • ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.
  • Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the
  limits of the available computing power.
  • Governments need to fund these efforts."
  
  
  I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.
  
  You may see my efforts with my "A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy" article:
  
  http://www.scienceforums.com/earth-science/3665-a-new-manhattan-project-clean-energy.html
  
  which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will soon run an article on these companies efforts toward aneutronic fusion.
  
  About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.
  My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.
  I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.
  
  I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.
  http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm
  
  This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.
  My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.
  
  Thanks for any help
  
  
  Erich J. Knight
  shengar@aol.com
  

  Posted by erichknight on January 31, 2006 at 19:01:07 Pacific Time

• Letter to the Editors of "Make" re C. Platt articles on Edmund Storms in Vol. 3
  You must be logged in to reply.
  
  
  Should Google go nuclear
  
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
  
  If anyone could make the Fusor work it probably would be Google.
  
  
  Also:
  The Navy Heats up "Cold Fusion" with Use of CR-39 Detectors in LENR Experiment:
  
  Extraordinary Evidence - "Cold Fusion"
  
  The field of low energy nuclear reactions, historically known as cold fusion, has never had simple physical evidence of the claimed nuclear processes to physically place in the hands of doubters.
  
  Until now.
  
  Scientists at the U.S. Navy’s San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center have produced something unique in the 17-year history of the scientific drama historically known as cold fusion: simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.
  
  Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry detectors, researchers have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.
  
  New Energy Times, issue #19
  "Extraordinary Evidence"
  http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee
  
  
  Regards,
  Erich

  Posted by erichknight on December 06, 2006 at 18:13:48 Pacific Time