Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi
Next Big Future ^ | Oct 22 2011 | Admin

Posted on 10/22/2011 11:31:55 PM PDT by Kevmo

Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi

Ecat site - Long-time cold fusion researcher Dr. George Miley, affiliate professor at the University of Illinois, has recently released a report documenting his successful replication of the work of cold fusion pioneer James Patterson. Dr. Miley feels that the work of Mr. Patterson and Andrea Rossi have many similarities and has offered a theory that is felt to cover both. Dr. Miley recently spoke at the World Green Energy Synopsium in Philadelphia, PA from October 19-21, 2011. A Microsoft Power Point presentation was released on October 3 documenting his work and experimental results. I have included a slide show of this presentation below. Please note that such presentations usually serve as a guide to an accompanying lecture, of which I do not have access to at the present time. I will post it if and when it becomes available

Here is the link to the 56 page powerpoint presentation - Nuclear Battery Using D-Clusters in Nano-materials --- plus some comments about prior H2-Ni power cell studies

Excess heats of 1-2 kW were consistently produced with the Patterson cells. How? Light water and Ni should not produce a reaction!! The next slides explain my search for an answer. I propose that similar studies should be done for rossi’s cell.

Rational for Combined SIMS-NAA

Analysis for a large number of isotopes needed
NAA is time consuming and was limited to nine elements with appropriate cross sections where reference standards were available
SIMS, with ultra low detection limits, could detect all isotopes rapidly, but it provides relative isotope concentrations and abundance ratios are more precisely than it does absolute concentrations
Thus the SIMS concentration values were normalized to the more accurate NAA results.

There is some discussion that he not getting the kilowatts that Patterson was claiming I hear from attendees that Miley is getting about 300 watts of thermal power without inputting any energy.

George Miley has worked on all kinds of nuclear fusion and headed the nuclear fusion department at the University of Illinois. He is a far more respectable source and researcher than Rossi.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: cmns; coldfusion; ecat; lenr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
The Cold Fusion Ping List,0_

IB4TS In Before The Seagulls FLAP FLAP----"SQUAWK" "SQUAWK"-----—~*SPLAT*

( { -------> ~&

{ -------> ~@ this thread

( { { -------> *~

1 posted on 10/22/2011 11:32:03 PM PDT by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc; citizen; Lancey Howard; Liberty1970; Red Badger; Wonder Warthog; PA Engineer; ...

The Cold Fusion Ping List,0_


2 posted on 10/22/2011 11:33:45 PM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; y'all; et al

[Vo]:People who did not believe in airplanes in 1912
Jed Rothwell
Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:24:55 -0700

In 1908, the Wright brothers ignited the first modern worldwide media frenzy
by demonstrating the airplane. They were soon feted by Royalty in Europe,
and by the president in the White House. They were in the headlines for
months. They flew in front of a million people in New York City in 1909. Air
races soon began, and aviators become international celebrities.

Meanwhile . . . in small towns across America, many people thought it was
all a gigantic hoax. They thought that airplanes are impossible, and the
news stories were bunk. They resembled the people today who think the moon
landings were staged, and the airplanes that crashed into the buildings on
9/11 were holograms.

Around 1912, an aviator came to a town in the U.S. with an airplane crated
up in the express freight car. He wanted to do a demonstration, and charge
admission. The sheriff soon came to him and said: “Son, you better take the
next train out of town. A crowd is gathering to tar and feather you for
fraud. You can’t fool these honest country folk with your big-city hoax.”

That really happened, although I embellished the dialog . . . Anyway, let’s
imagine I am standing out in a field with one of those stalwart sons of the
soil, and an airplane flies over.

ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?

SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry,
and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet.

ME: Okay, but it is way up there.

SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot
error! That’s 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it
could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be
on the ground.

ME: But, but . . . it was right up there. It can’t be that far down . . .

SKEPTIC: You don’t know how far up or down! You can’t say with any
precision. If you don’t know exactly how high it is, you can’t prove it was
up in the air at all. Look at Heffner’s analysis. He shows the COP might
even be negative. For all you know, that airplane might be 100 feet under
the ground. Without precision measurements and the proper instruments, you
have nothing.

ME: But we saw it!

SKEPTIC: Let’s not talk about what *you* saw. Let’s talk about what I know,
as an expert in trigonometry. I assure you, that airplane could not have
been more than 653 feet, 4 inches, and 5 sixteenths of an inch. Since I can
determine that with such precision and authority, I must be an expert and I
must be right, so the airplane might actually be on the ground.

Estimating the height from observations, first principles and common sense
is junk science! You cannot know anything unless you look at how the
will be partially shorted. This is VERY obvious. You have to look at “fine”
sources of errors, and unknown errors. You haven’t even considered the issue
of thermal electroosmose.

Not only that, but there is a huge difference between a crude flying machine
and a real means of transportation. Rossi claims he will sell his products
soon, actually they are not usable yet, they are technologically immature.

Yes, that sounds ridiculous. But it is no more ridiculous than the assertion
that 30 L of water in a poorly insulated metal box can boil for 4 hours with
no source of energy, while you add another 60 L of cold water. (Or 30 L, or
10, or 5 if you like!)

If you accept the eyewitness accounts that the power was off; that the box
remained hot; water at a visible flow rate emerged from it; and it was so
hot it burned someone three hours later, then either you accept that it was
producing kilowatt levels of heat internally, or you are a scientific
illiterate. This does not rule out fraud, but fraud is about as plausible as
the notion that the airplane flying by in 1912 was actually suspended on a
steel cable. How would you get the cable so far up with no visible means of
support? Fraud is more implausible than a real reaction would be.

- Jed

3 posted on 10/22/2011 11:39:38 PM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All; y'all; et al

RE: [Vo]:Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi
Jones Beene
Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:14:17 -0700

BTW one thing not discussed earlier was slide #48 - entitled “Preliminary
Excess Heat Measurement” etc.

This used nanopowder supplied by Brian Ahern, if I am not mistaken, and yet
it was NOT his most active nanopowder. Not even close. There is a typo in
the description which should have included Ni at 65% — so the material had
a Ni:Pd ration of 65:35 and this nickel alloy was embedded in a zirconia
matrix (using the Japanese technique which Arata/Takahashi and others used).

As you may have noticed, a few of the last slides seem to be kind of an
after-the-fact addition to an overall presentation that may have started out
to be about Patterson only. These later slides have typos, and they seem to
have been added as a hasty afterthought.

I think what could have happened was that this line of experiments started
out as a Patterson replication, but in the meantime they tested nano-powder
from Ahern and got spectacular results with deuterium - to the degree that
they wanted to get the information out there. Rumor has it that several
hundred watts of continuous excess has been seen by Miley’s group.

I am hoping Brian will now send his most active powder, which has the copper
addition (in the Romanowski ratio) instead of palladium, and let them use
hydrogen for comparison. BTW - Copper is NOT a transmutation product in
Ahern’s results, it was specifically added in order to improve spillover,
which it does better than palladium (with hydrogen).

Importantly, slide #48 shows the run with deuterium instead of hydrogen. The
lesson seems to be Ni-Pd nanopowder works best with deuterium and Ni-Cu
works best with hydrogen. You can get the Pd ratio down to 5% and it still
works. The zero-point vibration amplitude hydrogen vs deuterium depends on
mass, and the 2:1 ratio means far different displacement parameters, when
confined in cavities or matrices.

Ahern used no deuterium in any testing, and he assumes Rossi did not either;
but Ahern gets only a small amount of excess heat. That is why he has been
so critical of Rossi. He thinks that Rossi is also getting only a smaller
amount of excess than is claimed, but is making it look like far more by
using intentionally deceitful measurements. You may be aware of Ahern’s
negative comments on Rossi on other forums. He does realize that Rossi is
getting “some excess” but thinks the guy is dishonestly padding the results
to make them look better. For instance, the “frequency generator” could be
drawing FAR more power than indicated, if employs high voltage pulsation.

AFAIK - Ahern has not considered the possibility that Rossi has been
secretly using deuterium in his private testing (and plans to on the 28th).
Rossi may realize that hydrogen works for some excess, but deuterium works
more reliably.

That could be the message we could be getting from Miley’s slides. Miley’s
group apparently could be getting up to 50 times more excess heat from the
same powder supplied by Ahern, using deuterium instead of hydrogen. This
begs the question - given Rossi’s past problems with confusing “trade
secrets” with outright dishonesty: could he be planning on using deuterium
(when it matters most) but trying to keep that as a trade secret by not
using it at all, until the appointed hour?

In one early test in Bologna, a tank of deuterium was seen, which -LOL-
Rossi claimed was use to quench the reaction! In retrospect, this could be
part as an outrageous deception - and D2 is in fact Rossi’s only big secret,
not the catalyst.

Please do not remind us that Rossi has made it clear from the start that he
uses only hydrogen. We can all agree that is what he has indicated publicly
in the past many times. If he were an honest man, it would be case-closed,
so spare me the counter-argument - as Rossi is not an honest man.

Bottom line: deuterium may be substituted for hydrogen on the 28th, openly
or in secret even though there is admittedly NO clear indication of this in
the public record (other than the “quenching gas”)... which nevertheless,
does not rule it out.

Side note: It is also likely that the lead shielding would be superfluous if
it were not anticipated that deuterium would be used eventually (for the
important testing).

Side note: It should be noted that it is not incorrect (semantically) to
call deuterium “hydrogen”. Deuterium is hydrogen. If one has an intent to
mislead onlookers or potential competitors, and to protect trade secrets,
then this possibility is not out of the question.


-——Original Message-——
From: Terry Blanton


Hi, David,

This was discussed earlier in this thread if you are interested: href=””>


4 posted on 10/22/2011 11:42:28 PM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Critics Kill Prof. George Miley’s Historic U.S. DOE Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Contract”

“A secret “review” of the science behind the award by an unnamed panel of six individuals (increased for some unknown reason from the original three panelists) did the killing.”

.......Looks like other scientists have a problem with this scientists science..

5 posted on 10/23/2011 12:01:41 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I discovered Dr Miley when I was researching the Hirsch-Farnsworth Fusor, as there were references to Miley's work with them.

I had considered contacting him with some thoughts on the Fusor. He's academic staff at one of my Alma Maters (How do you pluralize Alma Mater in the Latin?).

6 posted on 10/23/2011 12:01:50 AM PDT by Erasmus (I love "The Raven," but then what do I know? I'm just a poetaster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

It might be helpful to read the history of human flight

Kevmo, the Wright Brothers were the first to invent sustained powered flight ... not the first to fly.

7 posted on 10/23/2011 12:03:32 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Erasmus

alma mater - Wiktionary
alma mater (plural alma maters or almae matres). A school or college from which
an individual has graduated or which they have attended. A school’s anthem or ...

8 posted on 10/23/2011 12:10:21 AM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dila813
As usual, the seagulls are poopulating this thread with their negative nitpicking. What Jed Rothwell calls 'irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather.' [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT Jed Rothwell Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:50:12 -0700 Peter Heckert wrote: > > This discussion about "close contact to the metal" and "chemogalvanic or > electroosmotic voltages" is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it is > irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather. > > It is not. > Put 2 identical copper electrodes in water. Heat one, and the other not. > You get a voltage and a current between the electrodes. > You misunderstand. It is blather because it is not important. Even if you right, it does not affect the conclusion, and it does reduce confidence in the results. As I said, if you had cut the thermocouple wires with scissors, or Mats Lewan had accidentally dropped his temperature log papers off a bridge -- if we did not have a single numeric measurement of temperature -- we would still know with absolute certainty that massive anomalous heat was produced, far beyond the limits of chemistry. You are discussing thermocouples instead of confronting this fact. You are nitpicking. Now let me nitpick a little. I suspect you are wrong Omega sells these bare wire K-Type themocouples, and they do not say in their catalog or on-line guides that things do not work when you tape them to a pipe. People do that all the time. I have done that. I have not seen unexplained fluctuations. The TCs remained in reasonable agreement with dial thermometers and other non-electronic devices. You might experience a problem if you are trying to measure a smaller temperature difference, such as 0.02 deg C, but you will not see a problem measuring tenth-degree increments. The problem is, the primary water flow is unknown. Rossi says 4g/s and Lewan > measured 0.9-2g. > No, that is not a problem. The water flow could 1 g/s or 10 g/s. That would not affect the conclusion at all. Again, you are nitpicking. If it was 1 g/s, that is 14 L over 4 hours. You cannot add 14 L of tap water to a 30 L vessel of boiling water without lowering the temperature, and without stopping the boiling. That is physically impossible. The outflow rate varied, and it was only 0.9 g/s when Lewan measured it, because the vessel was not full, and that was coming entirely from condensed steam. That volume of steam at that time matches the power measured by the secondary loop reasonably well. > All these unclear points, temperature instabilities and contradictions say, > there are unknown error sources in the measurement. > Yes, there are, but they have no impact whatever on the inescapable conclusion. The measurement error are large, but there is no doubt at all what the measurement proves. When the first atomic bomb was tested, Fermi dropped strips of paper to estimate the power of the bomb. The shock wave moved the paper so it fell in a different spot. Of course this was an extremely crude method, but it worked. It showed that the bomb produced roughly 10 kilotons TNT equivalent. Actually it was probably more like 15 or 20 kt I believe, but 10 kt proved beyond doubt that the bomb was nuclear, not chemical. If the only data from that explosion had been Fermi's falling paper -- and all other details lost to history -- we could still be certain that it was a nuclear effect far beyond the limits of chemistry. The same is true of the observation made of the Rossi device, that it was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. No possible combination of factors -- no flow rate, no surface temperature, no mass of hot metal inside the thing -- can begin to explain that. It can only be caused by kilowatt-scale heat generation continuing for 4 hours. A method can be extremely imprecise and yet still provide certain proof. The flow rate was nominally 4 g/s. For the sake of argument you can suppose it was 0.5 g/s, or 20 g/s, or any plausible number you like. We know that the flow of water was visible to the people, so it wasn't 20 mg/s. We know the pump works to some extent. Pick any plausible number you want. Nitpick it to death, and show that it might actually be 0.5 g/s. You are wasting your time. That has NO IMPACT WHATEVER on the conclusion. - Jed
9 posted on 10/23/2011 12:14:56 AM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

We discussed this before, none of this is known, it is all assumed ... in fact what we know is only what we see through the camera lens during one of Rossi’s shows.

Only Rossi completely handing over the device to someone who has a vested interest in the device actually working will validate this device.

For the public to know it works, will require this to be done publicly. We will have to know that the customer is either a utility or a utility equipment manufacture with a history easily verifiable.

Not like Rossi’s latest partner which created a website for 2.95 in January.

10 posted on 10/23/2011 12:23:19 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

When you can’t get your work published and your funding gets canceled, you make up a Power Point presentation and go to the World Green Energy Synopsium.

11 posted on 10/23/2011 12:26:05 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813
There you go again, your stage magician theory. The only problem with it is that it doesn't hold water. [Vo]:Best and worst aspects of the Oct. 6 test summarized at LENR-CANR News Jed Rothwell Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:27:43 -0700 Terry Blanton wrote: > > And many people are paid for performing grand illusions that > > cannot be exposed by observers in audience and live television. > > And who is going to pay Rossi for a hoax? This engineer will tell you > that none of us will be fooled. > Yeah! About those stage magicians: they only fool you because you are in the audience, not on stage. Put Terry on the stage for a few minutes, let him go behind the apparatus, and he will tell you how the trick works. Special effects in movies are blatantly obvious when you are on the sound stage, watching them film. Look here: Do you think anyone would mistake this for an actual space ship? This notion that "fakers" or "scammers" can fool engineers is silly. I been watching this business for nearly 20 years. I have heard of many scammers and met a few in person. They did not fool me or any other knowledgeable person. There are claims difficult to judge. There have been confused people, or people who had complicated machines that took time to understand. Especially the magnet machines. There are cold fusion experiments claiming effects close to the margin of error, such as 2% excess heat. That is hard to confirm or deny. Those are all a different story. Rossi's machine is dead simple from the point of view of calorimetry. Let's see a scammer or stage magician disconnect the power from a box with 30 L of boiling water, change out the water twice, and still have it boiling hot. Not gunna happen. As I have often said, it is a lot easier to find blatant, deliberate fraud than a subtle experimental error. Nature knows more ways to fool us than man will ever dream up. - Jed
12 posted on 10/23/2011 12:28:03 AM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

13 posted on 10/23/2011 12:28:19 AM PDT by onyx (You're here on FR, so support it! Compiling New Sarah Ping List. Let me know if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
He is a far more respectable source and researcher than Rossi.

Calling Rossi a researcher is a stretch, but saying someone is far more respectable isn't a stretch at all.

14 posted on 10/23/2011 12:29:26 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Dr. Miley is quite well known in LENR circles. A comment such as yours would suggest that you haven’t been keeping up with LENR developments, which is completely in line with the last few times I’ve had interactions with you. You’re just not keeping up. But that doesn’t stop you from seagulling, does it?

15 posted on 10/23/2011 12:29:37 AM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Why don’t you format posts like that? Don’t you want anybody to read them?

16 posted on 10/23/2011 12:30:19 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Your Seagulling contribution to this thread is duly noted

Why don’t you buzz off and eat some garbage?

17 posted on 10/23/2011 12:31:21 AM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Why don’t you post a summary of Miley’s theory that covers Rossi’s work?

18 posted on 10/23/2011 12:32:06 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Yeah, right, as if you actually read this stuff.

19 posted on 10/23/2011 12:32:20 AM PDT by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I can’t read this, sorry, it looks like sea gull splatter ..

20 posted on 10/23/2011 12:33:37 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson