Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)

No, Thomas, I'm serious. I'm convinced all that talk about "hundreds of replications" is BS. I wouldn't bet a pound on a horse, but in this case, I'm not betting, I'm fleecing some believer.

Conditions? I'll have you, Popeye and MY as controllers. I don't care who they choose. (Ideally, Swedish professors.)

Neutral grounds.

COP of 1.5

According to what the believers have been parroting for years, this should be easy money for at least ONE of the HUNDREDS of replicators.

I'm waiting.

Pierre & Henry,

Note that developing commercial products may take a long time. Like decades. Very difficult particularly for CF since we don't yet know all parameters that control the excess energy Events.

Another more conventional example is ocean wave energy. A large energy source, but still companies have not yet been able to make a commercial product after decades of research (and hundreds of failed attempts)

Being where we are on LENR 26 years after discovery is no surprise to me.

LENR Replications are well documented in Peer reviewed papers and can be found here.
http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm

But If you would like closer to commercial products, you would have to contract Companies like Brillouin Energy (Godes) or JET energy (Mitchell Swartz), and ask them to demonstrate.

The NANOR of Swartz was demonstranted at MIT in 2012. Paper from the test can be read here:
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0595.pdf

What is considered as Cold Fusion? Does the production of mesons in Holmlid's experiments and the nuclear disruption that follows serve as an instance of cold fusion?

Does the reaction that LeClair produces in cavitation qualify as cold fusion?

Axil, how about SOMETHING that can be used for SOMETHING?

Edit: you might remember that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] sunk 12 mil there. They did not do that expecting "an interesting phenomenon."

Pierre,you require CF to be "....SOMETHING that can be used for SOMETHING?"

why?

We have used Billions of USD to make the CERN Laboratory. It has now proven the Higgs Boson (may be).

Can the Higgs it be used for something other than expand our knowledge? Probably not.

Was it worth the money? Definetly.
CERN expands our knowledge of the universe.

Same with CF. May be it will not be a cost efficient power source. But it will expand our knowledge of nuclear physics, I'm sure.

"........vanishingly small and inconsistent levels of power from LENR" ?

in the Peer reviewed 1990 paper I linked above from Fleishmann et. al showed 20 times more out than input energy during the heat burst. Hardly inconsistent.

the problem was repeatability. And you will not get good repeatability before you understand all the parameters that control the reactions, like D/Pd ratio in the F&P cell. what other parameters are there?

That's why we do research: to understand nature, and identify the parameters that controls LENR.

The companies you mention have some claims yes, but we have not a full theory yet, so only time will show If they have something repeatable, and enough heat to may be become commercial.

Quote

Pierre's point about why we don't have "something that can be used for something" had to do with all those people who CLAIM we do. So either all these companies and individuals are deluded or fraudulent or we would have something that can be used for something. Because they claim they do. That's pretty obvious, no?

What if we wouldn't have something that can be used for something, so either all these companies and individuals do claim that they don't have something that can be used for something, or not. That's pretty obvious no?

@oystla

Quote

"........vanishingly small and inconsistent levels of power from LENR" ?in the Peer reviewed 1990 paper I linked above from Fleishmann et. al showed 20 times more out than input energy during the heat burst. Hardly inconsistent.the problem was repeatability. And you will not get good repeatability before you understand all the parameters that control the reactions, like D/Pd ratio in the F&P cell. What other parameters are there? That's why we do research: to understand nature, and identify the parameters that controls LENR.The companies you mention have some claims yes, but we have not a full theory yet, so only time will show If they have something repeatable, and enough heat to may be become commercial.

You will get your continuation of the detailed discussion of F&P's paper + its criticisms from me - but I said it would take a while. I just have not had free time - I need half a day when doing nothing else to read everything and reach collected conclusions. Within 7 days.

However your comment above needs comment.

"showed 20X more energy out than in during heat burst". The problem is that heat bursts tend to be uncontrolled and difficult to measure. No-one other than somone wanting LENR data would try to quantify the output from such a burst without the correct "heat burst calorimetry" eqpt.

"You will not get good repeatability before you understand all the parameters". That is an excuse. A good one, because it cannot be disproved. But consider. We have all these inconsistent (yes, I hold that it is the correct word) results. We have two hypotheses for the inconsistency:

(1) experimental error + wishful thinking or delusion (look at the Swedes' mistakes!). This is inherently inconsistent, because the issues in any given case will be different and specific to that case.

(2) "LENR depends on exact parameters not understood".

The problem with (2) is that we never have results conclusively beyond chemical, yet often have results in the margin of error, over many different experiments. The OOMs here are so large (10^8), between chemical and nuclear, that the chances of some nuclear effect always calibrating itself to within even one OOM of "experimental error" are very low. You would expect at best some samples much higher, some much lower. That is not what we see. Over the thousands of experiments most are showing within 30% of experimental error. There is just not enough variation for (2) to look probable.

Also telling is that when the same system is remeasured with better calorimetry the LENR effects go down. The systems that apparenttly work well (like the MIT demo) do so with some combination of:

• calorimetry (wire temperature in bulb) that is inherently inaccurate
• very small heat outputs - high power claims coming from the assumption of some even smaller active mass
• heat input which is relatively large

This is all consistent with (1) but inconsistent with (2).

Thomas, regarding the F&P et. Al paper from 1990, and your:

“The problem is that heat bursts tend to be uncontrolled and difficult to measure. No-one other than somone wanting LENR data would try to quantify the output from such a burst without the correct "heat burst calorimetry" eqpt.”

Difficult to measure? And if there was anything Fleischmann was comptetent of in his life, it was calorimetry. The temperature graph from this heat burst is shown in below figure (from the paper).

I consider this a very strong signal far from any “noise levels”, and which absolutely needs an explanation.

[/img]

Thomas re “we never have results conclusively beyond chemical, yet often have results in the margin of error”

Thomas, You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. And The above statement is a claim, not a fact.

And the conclusion that LENR exists is not only based on excess heat developped, but also on anomalous amount of particles, like tritium, neutrons, He4 generation as some examples.

The below graph show a nice correlation between He4 generation and excess heat measurement, as one single example from a paper from 1998.

Thomas, Have you studied the MIT NANOR test? Again you make claims – “out of the blue”?

I think the data from the MIT test seems to a pretty good setup:
“For verification, the calorimeter had parallel diagnostics including Heat Flow measurement, and repeated ohmic (thermal) control calibration”
“reproducible, controllable, energy gain which ranged generally from 5 to 16 [energy gain of 14.1 during the course demonstration].”
“Voltage accuracy: <0.015 +/-0.005 volts, or ~+/-0.5% Current accuracy: +/-1%”
“Data Acquisition: 24+ Bit Resolution. Nyquist issues: 0.2 - 10 Hertz Sampling. Time-integration of Input electrical and semi-quantitatively derived output power - Rules/out peaks, and false positives.Noise Power Measurement – Rules out false positives”
“EXCESS HEAT IN NANORS™ Determination by:
dT/Pin input-power-corrected dT
HF/Pin input-power-corrected dT
Time-integrated, ohmic control calibrated, waveform checked, calorimetry”

Results:
Power Gain Determination by:
- dT/Pin = 1096%
- HF/Pin = 1103%
- Calorimetry = 993%

Energy Gain = 7.92 XSE = 1594.9 J

So three different types of measurement with pretty consistent results if you ask me.

And note the ohmic control I located just next to NANOR, and should be exposed to the same inaccuricies.

And an example of control and excess heat curves, very clear if you ask me.

"Obfuscation" ??

what is so unclear with the graph?

it's actually very easy: the Ohmic control gives much lower heat signal than the NANOR. Meaning the Nanor are producing more heat than If it where pure and only heat by resistance. Something is producing more heat in the NANOR.

dT/Pin is a very clear way of showing the difference in response.

Scale it up? You are asking for a commercial product. They are not there yet.

No ubfuscation, other than a nice proof of LENR.

Quote

"Obfuscation" ??what is so unclear with the graph?it's actually very easy: the Ohmic control gives much lower heat signal than the NANOR. Meaning the Nanor are producing more heat than If it where pure and only heat by resistance. Something is producing more heat in the NANOR.dT/Pin is a very clear way of showing the difference in response.

Oystla, I will bow to your superior abilities to decode this stuff, but you will have to put up with me thinking it is obfuscating until I understand it.

(1) what is dT? (where measured, what measured with)

(2) what is deltaT? (as above)

(3) What is the calorimetry? (what type, what errors, what time inetgration)

(4) What is HF?

(5) The headline ratios (all about 10) are over what time period?

(6) dT/Pin, HF/Pin are not ratios. How therefore can they represent power gain? Methinks there is something else going on here which when we understand it will make things look different...

Without answers to these questions (which perhaps are in some paper I won't read yet because I've got the F&P stuff to do first) would turn your above posts from meaningless to interesting.

Quote

the Ohmic control gives much lower heat signal than the NANOR

As we all know, "heat signal" is not a sign of anything since small things like NANORs can get hot with not much energy, and further how hot they get depends on stuff that is very variable (thermal resistance to some heat sink). So what we WANT - which is a power generated signal, or, integrated, a total energy generated signal, must be decoded carefully from any "heat signal". I am happy, after I've spent some time with F&P, to try to do this.

Can you say that you have done it? Or that S & H et al (there - covered my bases) have done it?