"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Rodin may have sincerity in common with Pons and Fleischmann, perhaps all three really believe what they present. But P&F at least presented some kind of evidence. What makes Rodin stand out to me is the complete lack of any evidence for nearly all of his claims. The only claim he seems to have evidence for is that he made a torus shaped coil, but there's no evidence it has magical properties or black holes.

The only evidence of the effectiveness of his technology - if it could be verified in the public record - is the military using a variation of the coil. But it can't be verified in the public record, since it's secret, I would presume. And we probably don't have enough information about it to do a search, anyway.

There is a pattern here, of superb inventions being so secret as to be unverifiable, and amazing devices flying straight from the hands of the inventor up into outer space, so that you can't verify this either. Now you see it, now you don't. What the hell are we talking about?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think the keywords in the text are, ". . . the two sets were 'asymmetrically treated.'"

Too bad I can't locate the analysis by MIT graduate Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz.

Did you read the explanation I posted? Did you understand it?

Neither version shows the effect they were looking for which was a sudden increase. He admits he zeroed out the steady background, that's not what the experiment was looking for.

So even if you take every word Mallove says at face value, there's still no sudden increase in the data anywhere.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think there is another side to this story. But I need the Swartz document.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think there is another side to this story. But I need the Swartz document.

No other document will make the graphs Mallove complained about look like the red line in this graph:

fireball.izmiran.ru/dagomys/previoussite/MeD.pdf

That's what the MIT author was looking for. He didn't see that.

His graph looked more like the blue line. Mallove and Swartz may be saying he should have published the horizontal line a little higher, that's what the debate is about in their minds, but in the MIT author's minds they had little confidence about the significance of any such offset and anyway the red line is what they were looking for and didn't find.

Here's a paper where the authors say they found excess heat on 5 of 18 runs, which means that on 13 of 18 runs they didn't.

www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

Since the beginning of our experiments, in 1993, 18 runs have been carried out. Only five of them have produced excess heat, with high purity palladium cathodes.

They also have small offsets on their horizontal lines on their calibration runs which they mentioned might be due to effects their model didn't account for, but they don't think those are significant either, just like the MIT guy.

Figures 3a and 3b show a small apparent excess heat when temperature rises. This is most likely due to the heat losses by conduction, not taken into account in our formulas that assume all heat transfer is radiative. In any case, this apparent excess heat is low, at most 50 mw, or 1.25% of to the energy input.

So they are very dismissive of this apparent excess heat below 50mW just like the MIT scientists. And they aren't part of any conspiracy because they claim to have successfully reproduced the P&F experiment on 5 out of 18 runs, where the excess heat was much higher, well over 100mW. MIT never saw anything like that even on the unaltered graph.

So from my perspective, the authors who found slight offsets on some of their 13 runs that showed no excess heat like the MIT run also dismissed the significance of it. They focus on the five of 18 runs which did show excess heat that look more like the red line in the P&F graph.

So this all makes Mallove sort of look like he's complaining about something below 50mW that even other authors who successfully replicated the P&F experiment also found irrelevant in their experiments, which sort of makes Mallove look like a nut to me. I understand what he's complaining about, but I'm afraid I'm almost as dismissive as the MIT folks about the significance.

Now if the before graph looked like the red line and a faked published graph looked like the blue line, then Mallove would have a point, and the MIT authors should be strung up or whatever they do to faking scientists. But that's not what happened.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He was a teacher of science journalism and a fanatic of cold fusion.

From page 10 of "MIT and Cold Fusion- A Special Report," where Mallove presents the sequence of events of his experience with the cold fusion controversy at MIT:

In 1991, I thought that both cold fusion and hot fusion could play a complementary role in the energy economy of the world—even though neither technology had been developed to the stage of commercial devices. I offered that opinion in Fire from Ice.

Come on Mary, do some Googling. People called him "the torch bearer" and "champion" of cold fusion. But he wasn't only that.

www.aetherenergy.com...

There is Space and Time but no Space-time. That is, Einstein's theories of relativity are fundamentally wrong (despite their efficacy in rote formulaic application in certain areas) and must be replaced by one or more developed or developing theories.

Well, the more I read the more I think the guy was a nut in Rodin's vein. Sure, Einstein's theories will one day be supplanted by more general ones once we get evidence, but Mr Mallove didn't have anything of that sort. It always strikes me as pompous bullcr@p when people dismiss Einstein like that.

Let me end this testimonial with an assessment of the greater significance of the discovery and proof of an omnipresent, biophysically active energetic aether. It is comparable to the magnitude of the Copernican upheaval, and opposition to it will be, as expected, no less intense. Let me state the implications and conclusions into ones of which I am personally very certain:

There is an energetic aether that can be tapped to create electrical power and heat.

The energetic aether has definite biophysical properties with possibly a strong bearing on living systems.

I see a huge bag of New Age Crystals right here, and not much substance. It is also quite ironic that Mallove was dabbling in cold fusion -- because nuclear reactions happen (as far as we know at this point in the development of science) in accordance with Einstein's theories; and having insisted on that particular reaction being observed, he proceeds to try and discredit Einstein? That's not in the least schizophrenic.

These two letters I found are equally bizarre from another perspective: Mallove is essentially writing a science paper (and is very amateurish at that) about an experiment done by others, in a form of a letter. Like "you connected wire A to wire B, and then showed be a coffee-cup sized device blah blah blah".

What I see in Mallove is an obsessive type who could create pages upon pages of pompous cr@p without providing any substantial facts. I see now that his credibility is the same as Rodin's, and obviously it's not much.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I need the article "Re-Examination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: 'Phase II' Calorimetry by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center," Fusion Facts, August 1992, pp. 27-40.

I see now that there is an excerpt of the article on page 16 of "MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report":

From: Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz’s, “Re-Examination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: ‘Phase-II’ Calorimetry by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center,” Fusion Facts, August 1992, pp. 27-40.

The light water curve was published by the PFC essentially intact after the first baseline shift, whereas the heavy water curve was shifted a second time. The cells were matched,[12] and solvent loss would be expected to be greater for H2O.

The Phase-II methodology is flawed because it masks a constant [steady-state] excess heat. Furthermore this paradigm fails to use either the true baseline drift, and may avoid the first 15% of the D2O curve in Types 3, 3B, 4, and 5 curves.

What constitutes “data reduction” is sometimes but not always open to scientific debate. The application of a low pass filter to an electrical signal or the cutting in half of a hologram properly constitute “data reduction,” but the asymmetric shifting of one curve of a paired set is probably not. The removal of the entire steady state signal is also not classical “data reduction.”

In the May 1992 Appendix, the PFC retroactively claims its “systematic errors now total 100 to 400 milliwatts, implying an insensitivity of >30 kilojoules.

Much current skepticism of the cold fusion phenomenon was created by the PFC paper’s reporting “failure-to-reproduce.”[12] as opposed to its later claimed “to insensitive-to-confirm” experiments[17]. Because it may be the single most widely quoted work used by critics of cold fusion to dismiss the phenomenon, the paper should have clarified all “data” points and the methodology used. Apparent curve proliferation, volatile points, asymmetric curve shifts, combined with an impaired methodology have needlessly
degraded the sensitivity, and believability of the Phase II calorimetry experiment.

12. D. Albagli, R. Ballinger, V. Cammarata, X. Chen, R.M. Crooks, C. Fiore, M.P.J. Gaudreau, I. Hwang, C.K. Li, P. Linsay, S.C. Luckhardt, R.R. Parker, R.D. Petrasso, M.O. Schloh, K.W. Wensel, M.S. Wrighton, “Measurement and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma-Ray Emission Rates, other Fusion Products, and the Power in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd Cathodes,” Journal of Fusion Energy, 9, 133, 1990. 17. S.C. Luckhardt, “Technical Appendix to D. Albagli et al., J. Fusion Energy, 1990, Calorimetry Error Analysis,” MIT Report PFC/RR-92-7, (May 1992).

Mallove goes on to say:

Present MIT students as well as alumni should investigate this most unfortunate episode for themselves, and take action—for the well-being of MIT. There is no doubt in my mind that the MIT PFC calorimetry was mishandled and fraudulently misrepresented. Dr. Swartz’s paper, using proper analysis that could have been performed by the MIT PFC, determined that “the average power by this method is 62 milliwatts (±34 milliwatts).” As Dr. Swartz states, this is “qualitatively similar to the value expected for a ‘successful’ experiment.” Furthermore, Dr. Swartz credits in his references and conclusions my August 1991 complaint to President Vest (see Exhibit R) that a “20% discrepancy in heater power, used to heat the same volume of fluid, has been suggested as corroborating evidence that the heavy water cell produced excess heat.”

At the very least it was scientifically and morally required that the MIT PFC group repeat its experiments, rather than having them cited year after year against cold fusion, when they should have been retracted or corrected, per the suggestion of physicist Dr. Charles McCutchen—see Exhibit Z-11. . . .

I don't have the technical expertise to comment on Swartz's analysis. But I do have a sense that it is not true that cold fusion was debunked by MIT in 1989.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't have the technical expertise to comment on Swartz's analysis. But I do have a sense that it is not true that cold fusion was debunked by MIT in 1989.

If you don't have capacity to understand, your stance is faith-based. Might as well shift this thread to "Religion" forum.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Or the hoax forum.

reply to post by buddhasystem

reply to post by GringoViejo

If you look at the top, this forum is sort of for religious beliefs without the deities:
"Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum."

Extreme theories? check
Without corroboration? check

So this seems like as good a forum as any to me.

In fact if it weren't for all the wet blankets in here asking for facts and evidence, this thread might still be where it was originally posted in the science and technology forum.

Feynman made an observation describing the problem Mallove had. He saw the universe as he wanted it to be, rather than seeing the universe as it reveals itself to us. Mallove decided there was cold fusion and free energy and looked for confirmation of that, instead of seeking the truth. Even Mary might like this video with audio by Feynman:

The Feynman Series (part 1) - Beauty

If you can watch it in HD it's got good graphics.

Partial excerpt starting at about 2:20:

people say to me: "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?"

No I'm not. I'm just looking to find out more about the world, and if it turns out there's a simple ultimate law that explains everything, so be it. That would be very nice to discover.

If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then THAT's the way it is.

But whatever way it comes out, nature is there and she's going to come out the way she is.

And therefore when we go to investigate her, we shouldn't pre-decide what we're trying to do except to find out more about it.

I believe that Mallove pre-decided that cold fusion is real and free energy is real and that biased his view such that he was trying to verify that pre-conceived notion, rather than learn the truth. A better perspective is to be uncertain if cold fusion really exists or not, and examine the experimental evidence in a neutral fashion, and let the evidence reveal whatever it reveals.

He also touches on the topic of religion and similar beliefs.

we should look to see what's true and what may not be true. Once you start doubting....
which to me is a very fundamental part of my soul, is to doubt and ask....
and when you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe

That video may be titled "beauty" but in fact I think the deeper message is one about seeking truth. Based on what I've read by Mallove, I don't think he understood how to seek truth with an open mind. And I've certainly seen no evidence of Rodin seeking the truth either.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb,

thanks for the beautiful quote from Feynman. What honesty! It's the same theme as in that video already posted in that and other threads...

"If you don't like this Universe, go some place else!"

...and that other place, for some people, is a dark cave of fantasy right inside their heads, where they make up things according to their beliefs. As Feynman said, to make them more "philosophically pleasing".

reply to post by Mary Rose


Hopefully, a well-thought out response from a knowledgeable and truth-seeking technically-inclined person on ATS will be posted for this.

Without sarcasm and silly graphics.

Without obfuscation or changing the subject.

Without crude remarks.

Without ridicule.

Without other various fallacies of reason.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Hopefully, a well-thought out response from a knowledgeable and truth-seeking technically-inclined person on ATS will be posted for this.

Mary, you've had plenty of this coming to you every day. But that's not what your heart desires. You don't want truth. You want fantasy world which is elegant and easy to understand, without investing a tremendous amount of effort. You won't find it in this Universe, which is devilishly complex.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Can you respond to the post in question objectively and knowledgeably?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Can you respond to the post in question objectively and knowledgeably?

I've spent way too much time on that Mallove person, and he turned out to be a nut. Excuse me, but it's time for a beer and some quality family time. You've had you chance -- you still have it -- go to college and learn physics. I've done my due diligence.

reply to post by buddhasystem


So, the answer is no, you can't.

Maybe someone else can.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

From: Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz’s, “Re-Examination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: ‘Phase-II’ Calorimetry by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center,” Fusion Facts, August 1992, pp. 27-40.

This is apparently the same Dr. Swartz, from PESWiki:

Company: JET Thermal Products

JET Energy has developed High Impedance and Codepositional Phusors, Optimal operating point control, multi-ring calorimetry with thermal waveform reconstruction, and other quality-control procedures used in calorimetric analysis and the material fabrication of lattice assisted nuclear reaction (LANR) (cold fusion) devices.


Inventor: Dr. Mitch Swartz

Mitchell Swartz, MD, ScD

Dr. (scientific and medical) Mitchell Swartz is the founder and present director of Jet Thermal Products.

He is also the founder and chief editor of Cold Fusion Times. He is also responsible for organizing a number of cold fusion conferences at MIT, spanning at least from 1991 - 1994 [3], including one that was dedicated to honoring the memory of Dr. Eugene Mallove, a cold fusion champion who was murdered.

Swartz received his BS, MS, and EE degrees in Electrical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, 1971). He earned a Doctorate in Medicine from Harvard in 1978, and a Doctorate in Science (ScD) from MIT in 1984.

His specialties include the interaction of radiation and matter, materials, antennae, phototherapies involving electron transfer, high dose multifractionated photoradiotherapy, biological-semiconductor sensors, and positron emission tomography.

His clinical interests are radiation oncology and biomedical engineering, diagnostic and treatment devices, and the development of artificial internal organs and therapy systems powered by LANR.

Mitchell Swartz: ZoomInfo Business People Information - Mitchell Swartz (MIT '70, '84) is to be commended for arranging another scientific meeting at MIT for cold fusion scientists, other scientists and engineers ...

PESWiki has links to a 12 part video series of a Coast-to-Coast interview of Eugene Mallove that took place February 3, 2004. I'm on part 5; it's a very informative interview: Videos

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So, the answer is no, you can't.

Maybe someone else can.

Oh please. I did more than my part to bring insight to all subjects discussed here. Enough is enough. You should consider yourself lucky, and be sending Arbitrageur and I 1-800-FLOWERS and all for all that we have contributed. You have engineers and bona fide experimentalists with publications under their belt, what else do you want? Sorry you can't expect knowledgeable people to be a part of a lunatic fest. Suit yourself.

No seriously -- you fetch a paper that you think would bolster your point and then freely admit you can't even read it. Why do you bother??? What's the point of this nonsense when you can't read data but still insist you "sense" something? How can you not laugh at yourself after all this circus?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Videos

Part 8 is especially relevant to the present discussion:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Company: JET Thermal Products

From PESWiki:

JET Thermal Products is Developing

Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR),

Derived from Cold Fusion

The company JET Thermal Products, under the direction of Mitchell Swartz, ScD, MD is in the process of developing cold fusion technology to the point that it could be commercialized. They have been instrumental in bringing the technology through many generations of advancement.

In August of 2003, they made history running a successful demonstration of their technology for five consecutive days at a cold fusion conference in Cambridge Massachusetts, including at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). [2] The demonstration included modifying the input energy while showing a corresponding increase/decrease in output heat produced. The amount of excess heat generated was documented to be 2.3 times greater than the amount of heat generated from an ohmic resistor used in electrical series in the apparatus as a control.

JET has pioneered contributions in the development of the evolving landscape of cold fusion and its utilization, by developing a continuum electrophysics model which has led to the quasi-1-dimensional model of isotope loading of a metal, and then to codeposition, the optimal operating point, Phusor technology, control of "heat after death", among other directions.

"We have sought not only the better performance, improved understanding and control of the physics, better and more diverse materials, and advanced engineering, but also quality assurance and quality control. By tackling this advancing science with these new ideas, we have moved closer to maximizing the rate of the desired safe, heat-producing reactions."

Swartz envisions that when cold fusion technology matures it will be totally clean and affordable, eliminating our dependence on all fossil fuel technologies, powering everything from automobiles and power plants to implanted medical devices.

Photograph of Phusor Cathode shows asymmetric electrolysis of a different type of cold fusion system

This figure demonstrates an important finding of this system - asymmetric electrolysis which is seen on only one side of the cathode (which is facing the anode). In this high voltage system (~1500 volts), videos (including those shown at ICCF-10 by Dr. Mitchell Swartz, of which the above figure is a single frame grab) have demonstrated that cathodic electrolysis bubbling occurs, if the conditions are appropriate, almost solely on the anode-side (left hand portion of the spiral wound cathode in the photo) of this PHUSOR palladium cathode. [1]
(c) Dr. M. Swartz, JET