Brian Ahern: Parkhomov replication

Open in new tab - Chat about MFMP and Brian Ahern
http://www.lenr-forum.com/foru…dex.php/Chat/1-LENR-Chat/?

Will check it with @barty

Update from brian

I am at 575C now. No excess yet.I heard that 700C is the lowest temperature where excess heat was observed

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: Try again, I changed some user permissions.

It seems Brian Ahern obtained no excess heat at 1150C It is from a twitter account, who can confirm?

Bad news from Brian Ahern: At 1150°C no excess heat! #LENR #replication #ahern #parkhomov #ecat #lugano

— smogm (@smogm) 6 Avril 2015

ok, so this is not a failed replication.

Game still open.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Brian has tried first LiAlD4; this does not work. As you know (if you read Ego Out)
both Piantelli and Hasdjichristos have stated that Nickel does not work at all
with deuterium. This seems to be confirmed now In Hot Cat conditions too.
You will see Brian's results with LiAlH4 soon.
I have asked Parkhomov to do a comparison test with LiAlD4.

Peter

Update from @brian ahern today

Quote

Went to 1115 again. No improvement

You raise a fundamental question, but it seems more in the creative nature of scientists than in LENR domain specially.

Jed rothwell covered many time that subject and noticed what you noticed.

In that article on Wright Brothers compared to cold fusion, he covers that problem

Quote from Jed Rothwell: The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion

No Replications and Little Progress Until 1908

News of the Wright's work caused a rebirth of interest in aviation, particularly in France. Yet nobody else flew until 1906, when Santos-Dumont staggered off the ground in barely controlled hops. The French tried some of the innovations the Wrights described in their papers and patents, which circulated widely. But nobody tried all of the innovations in a single careful copy of the patent. For seven years, nobody really tried to replicate. Popular revisionist history books still blame the Wrights because the French did not do their homework.14Figure 4 (see IE Issue #9, pg. 41) shows a famous example of how not to replicate, paid for by the French army in 1902. It built this whirling tower in Nice, France and suspended a biplane built by Captain Ferdinand Ferber. He said it was designed "along the same lines as" the Wright machines. Please note the wings are flat, not chambered. Ferber figured he did not need any fancy wing chambering or warping controls (flaps). He missed the whole point of their work!

You might think that scientists are more sophisticated today and they would never perform such inept "replications." Well, think again. A scientist at a National Laboratory once told me that he had done a close replication of the Mills experiment, except Mills used water and he decided to use acid instead. A few weeks ago, Barry Merriman at the University of California announced that he had done a replication of the Patterson cell, and he saw no heat.15 Well:

Merriman used glass beads. Patterson used plastic. Merriman called that a "minor" difference but for all he knows it could be critical.
Merriman has no idea whether his beads absorb hydrogen rapidly, as shown in the patents. He has not even measured that parameter; like Ferber, he ignored the most critical point in the published work.
The man who fabricated the beads never saw the patents.

Many Frenchmen tried to replicate the Wrights apparently without bothering to read their scientific papers or patent. They thought they knew better than the Wrights. When their machines failed, they blamed the Wrights, saying the design was fraudulent. Today, many scientists who made equally ridiculous mistakes pontificate in the newspapers about how they proved cold fusion is wrong. They do what I call "South Pacific cargo-cult science," where you tie a pine cone to a stick, pretend it is a microphone, and you call down results from the sky. Going through the motions is not enough.

These non-replications share another quality with bad cold fusion experiments: more money and attention was lavished on the experimental apparatus than the actual device. Langley spent thousands on the elaborate launch platform built on top of the houseboat (Figure 1, IE Issue #9, pg. 37). The Wrights did a better job with a monorail costing a few dollars. The French Army must have spent a fortune on the whirling tower. Ferber's airplane looks like an afterthought in comparison. Langley built a similar whirling tower in Pennsylvania that cost many thousands. The Wrights did a far better job with a wind tunnel that cost less than $50. In cold fusion we have seen many splendid calorimeters and ultra high-tech neutron detectors hooked to sloppy, ill-prepared electrochemical cells.

Even after Farman, Voisin, Delagrange, and others finally did manage to replicate the Wrights in 1908, they used empirical trial-and-error methods, instead of basing their work on wind tunnel data and engineering analysis. The results were predictable. "It must have been an embarrassing situation, for despite having three and four and even five times as much engine power as was available to the Wrights, the thrust from their propellers gave them less flying power than the first Wright Flyer."16

The Aviation Boom

After the Wrights became international media stars, French airmen copied them carefully. Still, many screwball ideas were developed after 1908. Alexander Graham Bell was no fool, but his Cygnet II never left the ground in 1909. In 1910 a Professor Mertz decided that if two wings were good, five wings must be better. But, for every Bell or Mertz there were soon dozens of talented people who got it right. By 1911, Scientific American said that a half-million men were working on aviation. Progress over the six years before the First World War was unprecedented. It was free-for-all competition. If you want rapid progress, you must make room for screwballs like Mertz along with geniuses like Sopwith. The boom culminated in 1914 when Igor Sikorsky set a record carrying six passengers for 6 hours 33 minutes in the Ilia Mourometx, a multimotored enclosed airplane that could carry 16 passengers in comfort.17

If the Wrights had not demonstrated the airplane to the world, progress would have limped along the way it did from 1901 to 1908, with just a handful of people. It takes thousands of people to develop revolutionary technology. Each individual works on his own ideas, in chaotic competition. An organized, centrally directed project like MITI's will not cut the mustard. The 1908 demonstrations galvanized the world. Without it, aviation would not have advanced enough to play a significant role in the war. The allies, who depended on a thin edge of technological superiority, might have lost.

Display More

You simply have to analyze the bad quality of caltech and MIT experiments to understand, that beside the low loading which can be forgiven to ignorance, there was also more ego than competence in those teams who stated they "replicated".
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedg.pdf#page=138

the exact replication was done by longchampt, after help from Fleischmann to understand the tricks acquired from decades of experience, and sample of palladium.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

Here , thanks to internet I see much more communication between the scientists and various experimenters.

If Internet was developed like today when F&P made their publication, the importance of Baltimore manipulation would have been diminished and balanced by direct informations.

By the way LiAlD4 seems to be a good blank, and many claim of artifact will be void , if it work with LiAlH4 (I bet there are more secrets than LiAlH4+Ni).

Science is far from the myth in the books. It is very human.