Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    LENR is a riveting topic. For those of us who are not scientists, and yet have followed LENR (and its various-odd cold-fusion iterations) for years, each twist and turn adds to its mystery and allure. Who, after all, except for those with contrary vested self-interests could nay-say humanity's continued hope for abundant and cheap clean energy?


    It is a disappointment to hear that e-cat world is apparently attempting to throttle open scientific inquiry. Respectful disagreement and dialog--which has to include honest and data-supported skepticism--is essential to arriving at scientific proofs and verification of experimental results of LENR. Be they "positive or negative." (Hmmm...)


    I am indebted to all of those who engage in such an informed and spirited debate. That includes Mary's contributions. I would hope that he/she might offer to lend those considerable talents to MFMP's open quest for truth.


    Thanks for this, and in-advance for that, George.

    • Official Post

    there are three statements in that report, that need to be separated.


    One is criticizing the bad calorimetry, and this is founded. This mistake is shocking many LENR scientist who worked for two decade unders very strict standards. the excuse is that temperature was high, causing many trouble...


    The second is exploiting the the available data, to conclude something, that COP is 1.00, similarly as the Lugano team did. It is as erroneous as the report itself. Sadly, there is nearly nothing to say because we miss many details.


    Third there is a conspiracy theory that it is a fraud. This is simply irrational given the freedom of the testers, the variety of the team, the Ferrara test before, the business evidences... I perfectly see that skeptic cannot accept the reality, and since the isotopic evidences, unlike Lugano (not Ferrara) calorimetry , is clearly showing nuclear reaction, they simply do what biased people... they ignore the evidences.
    Same happened with ferara when the solid calibration, and result, let no other doubt than a conspiracy theory.


    there is experimental errors, but using conspiracy theory when the science is not helpful to support the bias, is really not dign for someone pretending to be scientific.


    To get around that flawed calorimetry, and in the context of huge bias, the test should be redone. It seems [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is focused on the field test, so it is hard. I hope the team of Lugano is working hard to save the report...


    Another could be to make a similar report to this one, trying to find the range of possible COP. sorry this report, and the conspiracy theory on isotopic shift and wires is removing most credibility, is hugely biased and should be taken with care.


    As Thomas have done with a huge negative bias, someone with a positive bias should bound the possible COP given the available data, depending on the unknown parameters. This will be hard, and the result may be the same lower bound as Thomas .


    The process should be the following :


    Conclude from the calibration phase what are the parameters of convection, of IR cam, given all possible emissivity at 450C.
    then try to extract some data on power relative to emissivity at 800 and 900W, computing convection, radiation, using the detailed estimated IR cam temperatures, rebuilding the temperature for each assumption.


    My first rough computation, show that emissivity underestimation have good and bad effect on the COP.
    the change from 800 to 90W0 is the best result, as 800W can be judged as a calibration phase, and 900W does not see a noticeable change in emissivity whatever it is. From rough computation half the COP, no more... computation have to be redone in details.


    One great mystery is the IR cam, whose algorithm are not well know, even if we have hypothesis (from the documentation it is simply bolometer in the 7.5-13um range)


    If someone with courage and competence can do that.
    Not sure it is worth, as the report is missing key data, and that if people accept incomplete data, then the isotopic result and ferrara test provide much more solid evidence.


    My experience is that all is a question of bias. You cannot wake up someone who pretend to be asleep.
    Anyway this is the game, and really they screw up. :(


    My advice for later is to make an incremental test with permanent feedback from the skeptics and critics.
    even when an experiment is well done (see isotopic shift, Ferrara electricity, invertad clamps) , there is always a conspiracy excuse that is invented and need to be addressed. Nobody can be perfect on the first round.


    This is the good point for open-science. note there an openscience can be done on a blackbox, as long as the testbench is open.

    Quote

    The second is exploiting the the available data, to conclude something, that COP is 1.00, similarly as the Lugano team did. It is as erroneous as the report itself. Sadly, there is nearly nothing to say because we miss many details.


    I don't conclude COP=1 from these results. The data indicates COP=1.07, however there are many possible errors which I point out. A fair tolerance would be +/- 30% or maybe even 50%.


    I conclude that there is no evidence to support COP different from 1. It is easy to do an experiment with a +/- 50% error margin. Clearly that cannot be evidence for excess heat.


    Quote

    Third there is a conspiracy theory that it is a fraud. This is simply irrational given the freedom of the testers, the variety of the team, the Ferrara test before, the business evidences... I perfectly see that skeptic cannot accept the reality, and since the isotopic evidences, unlike Lugano (not Ferrara) calorimetry , is clearly showing nuclear reaction, they simply do what biased people... they ignore the evidences.Same happened with ferara when the solid calibration, and result, let no other doubt than a conspiracy theory.


    I don't conclude it is a fraud. I don't conclude it is a conspiracy. Logically, the results could come from:


    (1) unusual fractionation, no LENR,
    (2) mistake, innocent or deliberate, in samples from Rossi alone.


    I see no conspiracy in either case. Fraud is remarkably difficult to prove, when the alternative is innocent mistake.



    Quote

    As Thomas have done with a huge negative bias, someone with a positive bias should bound the possible COP given the available data, depending on the unknown parameters. This will be hard, and the result may be the same lower bound as Thomas .


    Bias is often in the mind of the beholder. No doubt it cannot be eliminated, however hard we try. I'm wondering which of my conclusions somone with a different bias would change, and how? It would be good to have more scrutiny of these calculations.

    I don't see any evidence that the Swedish professors, or the late Kullander and Focardi, or Mats Lewan conspired with Rossi. They are simply overpolite, afraid of angering Rossi and being shut out of future experiments, and extremely gullible and uncritical. But not dishonest. Levi is an open question. I suspect he did not conspire either in which case he must be incredibly inept and lacking even the slightest skill in doing scientific experiments! How anybody can make it to even assistant professor at UNIBO and be that dense defies the imagination!


    As to the issue of fraud, it is absolutely impossible that Rossi could have made so many "honest mistakes," each systematically designed to make his energy gain seem real when it clearly is not. And he has been told how to fix his experiments every step along the way by friendly optimistic people including those on the Vortex mailing list. There are only two explanations -- one, that Rossi is crazy, but he exhibits no signs whatever for psychopathology and has no relevant medical history that anyone has been able to find. That would be unusual if Rossi were crazy. That leaves only fraud. And everything points to it, not the least of which is the mysterious unavailability of the ecat when people capable of testing it are present, for example Quantum/Australia and NASA in 2011. And Rossi refused entirely reasonable testing suggestions and offers from Rothwell and me in cooperation in early 2011, before I had written much negative opinion on the internet. Anyway, Rossi didn't know who Rothwell was collaborating with at the time. And then there is Petroldragon which was felony fraud according to the Italian courts based on excellent and copious evidence, all of it documented in newspapers of the time and extensively referenced by Steven Krivit. Finally, there was the OBVIOUS rip off of CERL/DOD with the thermoelectric fiasco. Oh no. It can not be a well meant error on the part of Rossi. Either Rossi is right, or he is a fraud. I can not see any other possibility after all that has happened. I suppose you could postulate terminal stupidity but like insanity, there is no evidence of that either. Rossi may be artless at hiding his conniving but he is hardly stupid.


    If anyone has supporting evidence for honest errors, I'd sure like to read about it.


    And Thomas, your politeness is touching but I sort of doubt that what you say is really what you think.


    As for proving fraud, that is indeed difficult. One would have to interview Rossi's close associates. I bet that famous NATO colonel who has never been found except once at the megawatt plant demo in 2011, would have a lot to say if he could be persuaded to talk, perhaps by a plea bargain. A police interview with Levi, under oath, would also be interesting. Unfortunately, Rossi is small potatoes as scams go so I doubt we'll ever get either.


    Quote

    You cannot wake up someone who pretend to be asleep.


    Not even if you hit them between the ears with a 2 x 4 piece of seasoned lumber?

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Thanks for these comments, I'll try to reply.


    Isotopic shifts. If the shifts are as stated in the report then it is prima facie evidence of nuclear transformation, but also inconsistent with mass-energy balance as I've argued. If the shifts are partial (which they could in principle be), then this is no evidence of nuclear transformation. Such partial shifts could come from one of many possible fractionation processes. I reference the Hg CFL fractionation in the my comment.


    The point is that without excess heat, the evidence here is more easily explained by fractionation (if you think the isotopic results are partial) or some sort of mistake, if you think the isotopic results are real.


    Thomas Clarke,


    First, thanks for bringing this discourse to the LENR Forum. I appreciate both the content and the methodology of your approach.


    I have pulled out the issue of "Isotopic Shifts" from one of your earlier posts here. Let me ask you what is the date of the publication on which you base an argument (I have not read your discussion yet). The latest I see is Chris Mead et al out of Ariel Anbar's lab at ASU, where they have quite highly evolved the discussion of Hg isotope enrichment / decrement in CFL bulbs. One fascinating argument had been the "self shielding" by the most abundant isotope, preventing it from undergoing photoionization and hence presumably decreasing its vulnerability to lodging in the glass envelope of the lamp. I see that they do address the issue of line broadening, which would have been my first question. In their 2013 Environmental Science and Technology article they do end up admitting (it appears on page 2546) that some undisclosed / undetermined mechanism must be affecting the Hg 199 and 201 abundances, since their several mechanisms all fail to explain the magnitude of those isotopic shifts.


    My recollection is a bit dim on this, but I am certain that someone (Parkhomov?) recently indicated the sampling regime for subsequent mass spec isotopic analysis was taken from what were likely condensates on the inner surface of the aluminum oxide reaction vessel. It seems that your mass/energy balance analysis might be highly confounded by such sampling bias. That is suppose there were some LENR effect but that it only occurred at say the solid/liquid or liquid/vapor interface-- certainly something that has been repeatedly suggested. Then the highly enriched results in a condensate would give a highly distorted set of numbers for A) isotopic composition and differential deposition, B) percentage of isotopic transmutation C) mass/energy balance as per your excellent approach.


    Anyway those are friendly and respectful suggestions or questions, depending on how you wish to take them. Looking forward to your responses.


    Longview

    Quote

    And Thomas, your politeness is touching but I sort of doubt that what you say is really what you think.


    Politeness is surely saying the things that help communication, rather than saying everything that one thinks?


    I am not however hiding anything, and will respond to any direct questions about my personal opinions if anyone is interested (I don't see why they should be).

    Quote

    I have pulled out the issue of "Isotopic Shifts" from one of your earlier posts here. Let me ask you what is the date of the publication on which you base an argument (I have not read your discussion yet). The latest I see is Chris Mead et al out of Ariel Anbar's lab at ASU, where they have quite highly evolved the discussion of Hg isotope enrichment / decrement in CFL bulbs. One fascinating argument had been the "self shielding" by the most abundant isotope, preventing it from undergoing photoionization and hence presumably decreasing its vulnerability to lodging in the glass envelope of the lamp. I see that they do address the issue of line broadening, which would have been my first question. In their 2013 Environmental Science and Technology article they do end up admitting (it appears on page 2546) that some undisclosed / undetermined mechanism must be affecting the Hg 199 and 201 abundances, since their several mechanisms all fail to explain the magnitude of those isotopic shifts.


    So the issue with CFLs is that there was discovered in old CFL bulb glass non-natural isotopic ratios of Hg. This turned out to be explained by a fractionation mechanism in which sputtering of Hg into the bulb glass was mass dependent. I forget the exact mechanism, but the conclusion seemed non-contentious. If you are interested we could start a new thread. What was interesting was that the exact mechanism for the separation of different isotopes was novel.


    The relevant paper was Chris Mead: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es303940p as you say.


    Quote

    they do end up admitting (it appears on page 2546) that some undisclosed / undetermined mechanism must be affecting the Hg 199 and 201 abundances, since their several mechanisms all fail to explain the magnitude of those isotopic shifts.


    that is, if I may say, a provocative way to describe the facts. they explain (with a detailed mechanism) the most compelling and surprisingly large isotopic changes. they note that their specific mechanism does not explain an additional (much smaller) change. that is not surprising, and they did not have enough data (or I guess enough interest) to develop detailed models for every single isotopic change here. The point is that isotopic change in part of a system is not prima facie a sign of nuclear activity. It occurs in many systems and is expected - even in high atomic weight nuclei.


    The relevance to the matter at had is that while 100% change in Ni isotopic ratio would be a sure sign of nuclear reactions, partial change could be explained by some novel fractionation mechanism without recourse to the more extraordinary hypothesis of nuclear reaction. In this case the other things expected from nuclear reaction (high energy products, excess heat) are not observed, so with such a vacuum of evidence it is really pushing things to see here any evidence of nuclear reactions.


    If the Ni conversion is complete it could not be due to fractionation, but then the energy argument comes into play.

    Condensation of a subset of Ni atoms that are preferentially involved in some LENR reaction would potentially and perhaps completely upset your well intentioned analysis. See my points "A, B and C". Of course I am asking you to see the "other" side for the moment, at least. Sorry about that.


    Also please look at the 2013 Environmental Science and Technology article by Chris Mead et al. They seem to be the pre-eminent workers in the CFL Hg isotopic shift work. Please note their comment about masses 199 and 201 not fitting any of the models (none of which included LENR as we might expect-- nor am I saying that is what is happening).


    [I see on further reading your post that you may have addressed the latter issue, or at least you have looked at it critically... I'm typing faster than I'm reading...].


    I still see a problem with selective or fractionated reaction subsets within say nickel... brought about by the exact circumstances that have been frequently mentioned in LENR mechanistic discussions... that is perhaps, as I understand it among various possibilities, orbital confusion at interfaces between phases or between redox states and other possible explanations of NAE (a term and acronym I don't particularly like, but will live with). The fact that only a small proportion of the nickel atoms may have been involved does not support or obviate a possible LENR mechanism. But I acknowledge we have to get to real excess heat or plausible transmutation products and preferably both. We won't get there by blanket denials based on over-general presumptions about the process-- whatever it might or might not be.

    Quote from Longview

    Condensation of a subset of Ni atoms that are preferentially involved in some LENR reaction would potentially and perhaps completely upset your well intentioned analysis. See my points "A, B and C". Of course I am asking you to see the "other" side for…


    The ToF-SIMS isotopic analysis was of the presented particle surface, so I agree that a hypothesis of surface only nuclear transmutation would provide these results at overall levels so low they were not detectable on heat balance.


    That is not quite my point. I can never argue "LENR could not have done this" since LENR is not precisely defined and therefore what it might do is broad. All that can be argued is that something else is more likely to have done this. Suppose I were to say "magic could not have done this!". That statement would be unprovable - manifestly magic could have done this, or anything else. The situation with LENR is not quite as extreme, but nearly so. If I define LENR-magic as the subclass of magic that makes experiments show heat and (naturally ocurring) isotopic anomalies the analogy becomes precise, because there is no more predictive power in LENR theories than in LENR-magic.


    Scientists look for coherence in data, where theories make predictions that are subsequently found true. In this case LENR makes no predictions except "something anomalous". The replacement of Ni58+Ni60 by Ni62 is not what any LENR theorist would have predicted as plausible before these observations. A posteriori, LENR can be invoked to explain them, but only with other assumptions which then make less radical explanations likely. So we do not have an impressive anomaly requiring LENR to explain.


    In this case, for example, I can continue to give explanations to do with handling other than deliberate substitution (though that could obviously be done by Rossi alone and therefore must be on the table). There could be contamination of Ni in the fuel or ash with bought 62Ni, which we believe Rossi may have been using as a catalyst etc (there was some evidence that Rossi has bought such, and while such evidence is weak, it is certainly plausible that at some time Rossi had been working with readily available 62Ni, since he has stated that 62Ni is necessary for his process). Also Rossi has previously stated that ash submitted for isotopic analysis was contaminated. What happens once can happen again, and one of the Lugano team present during insertion/removal could not possibly speak to whether or not contamination occurred. Suppose, for example, that the inside of the reactor tube was contaminated with a previous sample of 62Ni?


    Whatever problems there may be with selective surface fractionation it must be that we do not know. We cannot rules out all possible mechanisms, or even properly reason about what they are, through lack of knowledge. And fractionation would fit the other observations:

    • no non-natural nuclei
    • no high energy products detected
    • no heat excess

    better than LENR


    For LENR to be a preferred hypothesis, because it is extraordinary and makes no specific predictions found true here, we would need to have ruled out other more plausible explanations. As you can see there are at least three (not ranked in any specific order):
    (1) fractionation
    (2) contamination
    (3) deliberate substitution


    In the absence of anomalous excess heat they all take precedence over LENR.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    The ToF-SIMS isotopic analysis was of the presented particle surface, so I agree that a hypothesis of surface only nuclear transmutation would provide these results at overall levels so low they were not detectable on heat balance. .


    Do you have the full article? Your response there looks like it is from the abstract. I can probably get you the full article, although I have not tried forwarding these pro bono articles courtesy of ACS.


    Regardless, that is not too critical. I think your main points are clear. I am not ready to accept that there is no excess heat in the whole genre of Rossi, Lugano, Parkhomov. But even if so, there still remains excess heat abundantly in Lipinski UGC, which inventors shrewdly avoid identifying with LENR nor with CF. To most pro-LENR readers here it is clearly the real thing-- that is LENR. It certainly is not hot fusion in any sense.


    Further, we have "fusionist" now as "ogfusionist" kindly back in our midst again, with claims of very abundant excess heat and a rather simple reactor. The main issue there will be preventing the system from melting itself with runaway excess heat. I recall that his work may have originally predated F-P and was probably a complete mystery at the time. Now it is just the kind of experiment and potential parameter establishing tool for setting the boundaries of LENR (which I agree with you has too much leeway, too much lack of specificity--- but that is what big physics created by prematurely vilifying the former designation.)


    It might not please many around here, but I see that there is some chance that big physics can participate this time around. I suspect that exhaustion with hot fusion's prospects might just increase the reception there. But I don't really care, a lot of hard work has been done and a LOT more needs to be done. Physics can go bifurcate itself for all I care X( .

    Quote

    Do you have the full article? Your response there looks like it is from the abstract.


    Yes I have the full article. I read with some interest a few years ago so was reminding myself from a very cursory re-read! But i did check the 199/200 mismatch to the known mechanisms. it is small, and could clearly come from some second-order modification of known mechanism. Interesting to work out what this is but maybe difficult.


    Quote

    Further, we have "fusionist" now as "ogfusionist" kindly back in our midst again, with claims of very abundant excess heat and a rather simple reactor. The main issue there will be preventing the system from melting itself with runaway excess heat. I recall that his work may have originally predated F-P and was probably a complete mystery at the time. Now it is just the kind of experiment and potential parameter establishing tool for setting the boundaries of LENR (which I agree with you has too much leeway, too much lack of specificity--- but that is what big physics created by prematurely vilifying the former designation.)


    So there are many claims of abundant excess heat. I will predict what I think likely, which is that none will stand up. To examination and replication. But here's the thing. This is not some claimed minor effect contentious and inside experimental error. If these COP > 2 effects are real they can easily be measured beyond shadow of doubt. MFMP and a few others have the persistence and (with help) the competence to get to shadow of doubt. So if you are correct we will have that within 6 months at the outside.


    Otherwise you might want to consider the possibility that I am right.


    Best wishes, Tom


    What is all that in reference to? I looked up Lipinski's web site and to the non-specialist it's underwhelming. Can you give some specific quotes and links for the excessive heat, power ratio and method of measurement for those of us who are not particle physicists but have a healthy curiosity and considerable skepticism? How much power are we talking about? Generally, what is "respectable" is simple to specify. Something above 10 watts and a power ratio (out to in) of better than three, sustained long enough to rule out any conventional, non nuclear energy source. Is this the sort of thing we're talking about? Where are the papers? The replications? (thanks)

    Quote

    What is all that in reference to? I looked up Lipinski's web site and to the non-specialist it's underwhelming.


    This is a misundestanding. I have not read nor referenced Lipinski.


    I was talking about Meade's CFL paper.


    I've been looking at these claims. The ones with decent evidence and methodology just don't stand up. See for example my reply on the Jiang thread. He assumes T3 does not work, when it is clear it does from the readings. He says T2 works, based only on exponential decay, when its clear it could have the wrong gain voltage amplification (many ways for that to happen).


    What I don't understand is that the LENR people here and (I guess) on ECW don't look at this evidence - I'm sure they are more interested in it than me!

    Quote from Mary Yugo


    What is all that in reference to? I looked up Lipinski's web site and to the non-specialist it's underwhelming. Can you give some specific quotes and links for the excessive heat, power ratio and method of measurement for those of us who are not particle physicists but have a healthy curiosity and considerable skepticism? How much power are we talking about? Generally, what is "respectable" is simple to specify. Something above 10 watts and a power ratio (out to in) of better than three, sustained long enough to rule out any conventional, non nuclear energy source. Is this the sort of thing we're talking about? Where are the papers? The replications? (thanks)


    For me [Longview], Lipinski UGC is mainly about this, their WIPO patent application, corrected version of 2014:


    patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014189799


    Here is a somewhat different link, perhaps more recent:


    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014189799A1?cl=en


    (There is also a US Patent of around 2009 which I have not read, but may be quite similar with less data).


    Specialist or non-specialist should read this document carelully. Warning, it takes some time, at least 70 pages, plus another 30 or so pages of supplementary material, and that is just for the recently "corrected" 2014 WIPO patent application. Personally, I would not pay too much attention to the novel theory, unless gravitational unification is your thing. For me it is the open and explicit description of nearly every aspect of their work, basically almost the diametric opposite of Rossi's failed application. The Lipinski data represent many different variables, the simplicity of the setup is remarkable, as is the extreme technical detail. There are numerous tables showing hundreds of experimental conditions, with apparently a generous array of results from conditions that do not work, and apparently everything that works moderately well and of course everything that works very well. The very high Q values which are somewhat equivalent to COPs-- one Q at 7500 something, Their work starts by replicating the accelerator based attempts to induce fusion of protons into lithium by Herb in 1938. They proceed from there changing many variables. The most impressive change is that moving the impact energy down by several orders of magnitude progressively increases the number of fusions monitored. Target bias voltages and oscillating bias voltages are shown to be very important variables. I was impressed by the fact or claim that the work was conducted successively in three different US National Accelerator facilities (Alabama, Louisiana and Texas). They now have a complete owned facility California. If their claims are real, it is historic. If they are not, it is likely also a historically impressive waste of effort and/or would be an historically detailed attempt to defraud.


    The main reaction to mention here is p+ + Li 7 --> Be 8.


    I will have to return to reread their application, but one of the most definitive endpoints they measure is the alpha flux that results from the very prompt decay of Be 8 to two energetic He 4 nuclei. Those here may recognize that to be one of the famous aneutronic reactions so prized for the potential to produce very "clean" nuclear energy.

    OK. Actually I do remember looking at this stuff a while ago.


    (1) the theory is rubbish, as many such are.


    (2) the experimental take home - that there is a resonance which enables 233eV protons to fuse, has no support in the experimental data and is simple enough that were it real (rather than an artifact) it would be known. Notice that the "good" results aare not clustered around beam energy of 233eV.


    (3) We then have a large number of experiments which are shooting a proton beam at lithium and observing particle counts. The claimed out out power of 140W max is exceptional but also very unclear. This power has not been measured but is instead esitimated. I have neither the patience nor the expertise (I know nothing of detector characteristics etc) to evaluate these. What I do know is that:
    (1) it is easy to get artifacts from this type of highly indirect measurment
    (2) patents are not the right way to evaluate this. If real it could be published and critiqued. If real and commercially secret it could be shown under NDA and the chance of getting 140W from 0.5W is enticing enough for very large industrial interest.


    So, I find this interesting, but totally insufficient to break 50 years of experience shooting proton beams at targets and comparing teh results with very accurate standard model theory for nuclear cross sections.


    If it were true it would lead to extreme interest. Scientists like new stuff, and something like this if robustly demonstrated would generate that. Which is why I suspect it is not so robust. But, if robust, you can expect a solution to the worlds energy problems shortly.


    Speculative patent applications, as this one, are no substitute for science. They are generally done by people wanting funding. They do not give enough detail to allow critical evaluation of the experiments.


    I would suggest that anyone believing anything they read from Thomas Clarke here, had best read the patent application themselves. It is a bit of an effort-- and well worth it. The effort of a careful read likely was not fully undertaken by Thomas Clarke. Identifying this patent as "speculative" is a key indicator of some "attitude" [something LENR / CF has seen before]. Not to criticize his kindly demeanor, which is appreciated. And I would agree completely on perhaps only one point, that is one should not pay much attention to the grand theory aspect, at least not until we see other successful predictions from the Lipinski unified gravity ideas.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    OK.


    Speculative patent applications, as this one, are no substitute for science. They are generally done by people wanting funding. They do not give enough detail to allow critical evaluation of the experiments.


    Longview responds respectfully: So all can see how unspeculative this particular patent application really is, please read (compare with Rossi, for example):


    http://unifiedgravity.com/reso…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    So, I find this interesting, but totally insufficient to break 50 years of experience shooting proton beams at targets and comparing teh results with very accurate standard model theory for nuclear cross sections.


    Are you suggesting that you have '50 years of experience shooting proton beams at targets.....' I'm sorry, that must make you a bit of a victim of dogma and groupthink. It reads as though you never lowered the energy by 3 to 6 orders of magnitude because you "knew" it would not accomplish anything... Not surprising given the self certainty manifested in "big physics" over the last few decades. [Later I will point out some of the huge mistakes they have made, some fatal.}


    Or do you mean that physics in general has been doing that for 50 years? It has actually been a lot longer than that, the Lipinski WIPO application goes into extensive discussion of the 1938 published work by Herb, in fact that is their ostensible starting point for investigation. Again the insight one would have to have is that vastly lower energies may be mandatory for conducting effective proton fusion with lithium [I assume you perhaps missworded "proton fusion" earlier.... which the UGC Lipinski patent app is NOT claiming-- for readers, I know you Thomas Clarke no doubt realize this).

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    (2) patents are not the right way to evaluate this. If real it could be published and critiqued. If real and commercially secret it could be shown under NDA and the chance of getting 140W from 0.5W is enticing enough for very large industrial interest.


    In chemistry, which is thankfully still alive, there is the common wisdom that the majority by far of the disclosures of new chemistry and new chemical technology are first seen in patents. Further, that much technology never appears in journals. The rule is that you cannot do a thorough literature search without extensive patent searching as well. I see no reason to doubt that, and have some considerable experience confirming it personally. In the days when one could easily browse Chemical Abstracts at your nearby University library it was quite clear, even though the Abstracts reviewed only a subset of the extant new patent literature.


    Let us add this to the situation the Lipinskis find themselves in: big physics, that is big name laboratories and big name "investigators" have a set of likely unwritten rules. One of the rules is that anything new suggested by someone from outside the "club" is surely "rubbish" (using your unfortunate term for something the Lipinskis call "MEE" theory, that is a "grand" theory that is quite unproven and perhaps improbable and/or unprovable, and with which you, along with me, disagree). We really don't know how difficult it may have been to get their material published. Were you on any editorial board or review committee that may have judged some of their work? I know I was not. I do not think it is fair to pre-judge their efforts simply because of the circumstances beyond their control which may have forced them toward the patent route to disclosure-- a route that is not that unusual when dealing with genuine innovation by small entities. The quality of their disclosure speaks robustly to the fact that patent disclosures can be effective ways to transmit technological progress--- the most important function of patents from the outset.


    I should add, there is no indication that the Lipinskis are suffering for lack of funding (they sold cc:mail to Lotus in the 90s, seem to be moving upscale in addresses with each move, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and now Silicon Valley). In addition to their office in Palo Alto and there laboratory nearby, they seem not to be inviting outside investment. I am sure that in due time someone will take that interest.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    (3) We then have a large number of experiments which are shooting a proton beam at lithium and observing particle counts. The claimed out out power of 140W max is exceptional but also very unclear. This power has not been measured but is instead esitimated. I have neither the patience nor the expertise (I know nothing of detector characteristics etc) to evaluate these. What I do know is that:
    (1) it is easy to get artifacts from this type of highly indirect measurment


    Actually the results are quite clear, if you care to look at them. It is the alpha counts that are carefully measured. One could perhaps argue that their aperture was much larger than they report. Well, that would certainly come out in future replications. The specificity is such that replication is very straightforward, unlike the situation of "cat and mouse" with Rossi dropping tiny bits of information to lure followers. The Lipinski patent application appears to have all the details, and shows a large number of ways to do the experiments and what effect those changes have on the results.


    The power "estimation" is quite straightforward, it is taking the particle counts and their energies and fluences and converting them using standard assumptions to the equivalent of watts. It is detailed enough that it should enable you Thomas Clarke to critique that analysis. I know that will take some time, just as your analysis of the Lugano radiography took time and effort. I presume you will let us know when you find some flaw in the Lipinski analysis....or give it a "clean bill of health". To me these experiments are far more revealing and potentially far more valuable than the Rossi style efforts... and I have written as much here at this Forum several times.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.