Guam, a little Island in the very western Pacific. SPAWAR/Global Energy Corporation, and their "Genie Reactor. Impeachment. Politics. 1st LENR commercial reactor. Could there be a connection?:
http://mvguam.com/local/news/2…er-eyed.html#.VpwyIiorLIU
Why of course! A very interesting LENR story. One of my favorites. But you have to search a little, as this one article isn't all there is.
Shane
Interesting article:
See also:
http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org…012/February/02-13-02.htm
The company, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Department of Energy, says it has developed a "hybrid fusion-fast-fission" reactor called GeNiE which, according to GEC, "is compatible with the decades-long development of very high temperature, helium cooled reactors." so not quite LENR perhaps.
Thomas
You did say you would have a look at this, have you had the chance yet?
See lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf
Best regards
Frank
QuoteHaving looked at the paper, and the conclusion, which I suggest you read, your observations of Eric's observations are less than compelling. Your critique is of Eric's comments not of the paper which is of no value whatsoever.
I critique Eric's comments because he was saying the paper's conclusions were astonishing, and provided strong evidence for LENR.
I have no wish to critique the paper - its conclusions and abstract are broadly unobjectionable. It is speculating from this to what Eric thinks it means that needs critique.
I don't mean the paper is perfect, and it does sort of imply nuclear stuff, but it never directly says this and the evidence in the paper, which could be explained by LENR (perhaps - since LENR, being undefined, can explain anything) does not require any such explanation.
Interesting article:
See also:
pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2012/February/02-13-02.htm
The company, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Department of Energy, says it has developed a "hybrid fusion-fast-fission" reactor called GeNiE which, according to GEC, "is compatible with the decades-long development of very high temperature, helium cooled reactors." so not quite LENR perhaps.
Franktwu,
Yes it wasn't "quite LENR", more a blend of Hot and Cold, with an LENR cell one of the ways to provide the neutrons. Lots of discussion about the Genie reactor when it came out, other than the Guam interest story you link to. The story starts with this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2009108331.html
Note in particular embodiments 11-19.
Global Energy Corporation's (GEC) website appears gone. It described an LENR process for it's Genie reactor without mentioning LENR...as does the patent above. I found a Vortex comment from Spinnacker at the time who made note of that:
The Genie sounds like LENR after it's been accepted:
1. Our experiments are repeatable.
2. Our experiments have been replicated by others.
3. Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are
involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our
experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories,
*the results are real*.
I critique Eric's comments because he was saying the paper's conclusions were astonishing, and provided strong evidence for LENR.
My position is not that the paper provides strong evidence for LENR. My position is that the signal in the paper is strong, and that the finding is astonishing. And that whatever is being observed is suggestive of LENR, and might be LENR-proper. In addition, I think the strong findings of the paper, if true, undermine a major claim for the supposed impossibility of LENR.
I don't mean the paper is perfect, and it does sort of imply nuclear stuff, but it never directly says this and the evidence in the paper, which could be explained by LENR (perhaps - since LENR, being undefined, can explain anything) does not require any such explanation.
The paper is saying that energetic particles with energies in the MeV are being recorded by the CR-39 and that something the experimenters are doing is triggering the production of these particles. It says these things directly.
The question of whether what Mosier-Boss et al. are seeing is LENR or not is a little bit of a rabbit hole, as you allude. That's why people are often more specific and speak about the "Fleischmann and Pons heat effect," to make things more precise. Perhaps LENR is only the F&P heat effect, or perhaps it involves other things as well. In the F&P effect (as I understand it), excess heat, and helium correlated with the amount of heat, are reported in connection with electrolysis in a PdD system. The CR-39 experiments might or might not be providing evidence of the same phenomenon that is behind the F&P heat effect, whatever it is or isn't.
QuoteThe paper is saying that energetic particles with energies in the MeV are being recorded by the CR-39 and that something the experimenters are doing is triggering the production of these particles. It says these things directly.
That is the point. the abstract says something much weaker, and the substance of the paper claims something much weaker, that what is recorded is consistent with energetic particles.
To show that it is energetic particles would be more complex. And then to show that these are not due to mundane radioactivity (from many different possible sources) would be more complex again.
I think it is clear that the experimenters have what you say as a hypothesis they are investigating, which is fair. The point is that what they have to support it is nowhere near what is needed to make that hypothesis likely, in spite of them doing their best to find any supporting evidence.
So what is needed for Eric's take home is two extra things which are assumed in some of the paper's language but nowhere shown by the paper, and not strong enough to make it to the abstract, nor the conclusions except for a throw-away comment.
QuoteGlobal Energy Corporation's (GEC) website appears gone.
I'd not be happy, were I an LENR researcher, about GEC's stuff being associated with LENR.
QuoteMy position is not that the paper provides strong evidence for LENR. My position is that the signal in the paper is strong, and that the finding is astonishing.
I'm obviously more open-minded than you - it does not seem astonishing to me. Whether the signal is strong depends on what you view as the signal. Also, I'm not sure there is evidence in the paper that the signal is strong, since the signal to noiuse ratio is never quantified except for teh throw away 4 OOM comment. The problem with that is that we have no control info, in fcat no real info at all, so don't know what the 4 OOM signal (which I agree is strong) comes from. I've suggested tritium contamination of deuterium.
I critique Eric's comments because he was saying the paper's conclusions were astonishing, and provided strong evidence for LENR.
But Thomas, I don't think you have made Eric's observations any less astonishing by your critique. He at least has come to his conclusions by studying the paper, you have only come to your conclusions by studying Eric's observations.
The paper is saying that energetic particles with energies in the MeV are being recorded by the CR-39 and that something the experimenters are doing is triggering the production of these particles. It says these things directly.
That is the point. the abstract says something much weaker, and the substance of the paper claims something much weaker, that what is recorded is consistent with energetic particles.
Here are two sentences from the abstract:
So in the abstract, they refer to particles that made it through spacers and went on to generate the tracks in the CR-39. Are we to entertain the possibility that Mosier-Boss et al. believe that the particles that made it through the spacers were other than high-energy?
Here is what the conclusion says:
QuoteThe purpose of these experiments was to characterize the particles emitted during Pd/D co-deposition. By placing a 6 μm thick Mylar film between the cathode and the detector, it was observed that ∼90% of the energetic particles are blocked. Using LET curves, a 6 μm thick Mylar film cuts off <0.45 MeV protons, <0.55 MeV tritons, <1.40 MeV 3He, and <1.45 MeV alphas. However, this is the energy of the particle when it reaches the CR-39 detector.
So we see that the conclusion talks about energetic particles that have reached the CR-39 detector, particles which have ~ MeV energies, but which are significantly attenuated by the Mylar. We can safely infer from the second sentence quoted above that Mosier-Boss et al. are of the understanding that ~ 10 percent of those energetic particles make it through the Mylar. Here the conclusion is giving us to believe that Mosier-Boss et al. are claiming that there is a significant flux of energetic particles originating somewhere in the cell that make it through the Mylar and go on to create tracks in the CR-39.
The conclusion continues:
QuoteAssuming water thicknesses varying between 0 and 10 μm, it is estimated that the majority of the particles formed as a result of Pd/D co-deposition are <0.45–0.97 MeV protons, <0.55–1.25 MeV tritons, <1.40–3.15 MeV 3He, and <1.45–3.30 MeV alphas.
So here they're estimating that the majority of particles that were seen, ten percent of which were energetic enough to make it through the additional Mylar attenuating spacer when it was used, were protons, tritons, 3He and alphas. Did those protons, tritons and alphas exist in the Pd/D system before the experiment started? The conclusion seems to say that Mosier-Boss et al. believe otherwise: the particles were formed as a result of the Pd/D co-deposition. This part about the particles being formed in the Pd/D system pertains to their hypothesis, as Thomas points out. But presumably Mosier-Boss et al. have taken enough steps to believe that this proposition can be placed right there, in the conclusion of the paper.
The abstract and the conclusion make it clear, then, that Mosier-Boss et al. believe that energetic particles were originating in their electrolytic cells, some with sufficient energy to make it through Mylar attenuators, which would put a lower bound on the energies in the range of MeV's, particularly in the case of alphas. And clearly we encounter these propositions not only in the body of the article but in the abstract and the conclusion as well. (Is this a meaningful distinction?)
To show that it is energetic particles would be more complex. And then to show that these are not due to mundane radioactivity (from many different possible sources) would be more complex again.
I think it is clear that the experimenters have what you say as a hypothesis they are investigating, which is fair. The point is that what they have to support it is nowhere near what is needed to make that hypothesis likely, in spite of them doing their best to find any supporting evidence.
Ok. At least one person on the Internet thinks maybe that they haven't met the burden of proof for their claims. This, despite the various steps they outline to support them that are detailed in the body of the article. What would you have us conclude from this individual's doubts?
If that person wanted to, he could help us to appreciate that these claims are well-founded by writing a letter to the editor, to which the group that did this research could reply and give us more information.
So what is needed for Eric's take home is two extra things which are assumed in some of the paper's language but nowhere shown by the paper, and not strong enough to make it to the abstract, nor the conclusions except for a throw-away comment.
Hopefully I've put to rest the doubt that what I mentioned was not discussed in the abstract and conclusion, in more than a throwaway comment.
Also, I'm not sure there is evidence in the paper that the signal is strong, since the signal to noiuse ratio is never quantified except for teh throw away 4 OOM comment.
Yes -- I agree. They could be wrong. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying my sense is that they're a competent group and that, as a competent group, they've surely looked at the signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, there were referees that did or did not ask them to substantiate this claim. Have the group looked at the signal-to-noise ratio that pertained to the 4 OOM claim? Maybe they didn't. Did referees ask them for data to substantiate this claim? Maybe they didn't.
The problem with that is that we have no control info, in fcat no real info at all, so don't know what the 4 OOM signal (which I agree is strong) comes from. I've suggested tritium contamination of deuterium.
They might have a ready answer to the suggestion of tritium contamination of deuterium. Or maybe they wouldn't. Letter to the editor?
"I'd not be happy, were I an LENR researcher, about GEC's stuff being associated with LENR."
Thomas,
Maybe this would be easier if you just tell me, us, when you find anything LENR, or even LENR related, that you finally like? 
Shane
I think Thomas likes the Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts paper entitled “The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt” This is a paper in Statistical and Bayesian studies (a discipline often quoted by Thomas as lacking in the claims of others relating to LENR or at least observed by himself when formulating his critiques). This shows that the observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with ‘four criteria’ necessary as a pre requisite, conditional on which the production of “excess heat” is a real physical effect “beyond a reasonable doubt i.e. attained a certainty of 99%".
He promised to look at this and has been reminded of his promise but I have heard nothing.
I can only conclude he likes it.
Thomas
See lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf
Quite impressive I think!
QuoteYes -- I agree. They could be wrong. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying my sense is that they're a competent group and that, as a competent group, they've surely looked at the signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, there were referees that did or did not ask them to substantiate this claim. Have the group looked at the signal-to-noise ratio that pertained to the 4 OOM claim? Maybe they didn't. Did referees ask them for data to substantiate this claim? Maybe they didn't.
What referees do is very variable. If they had looked at signal to noise ratio, and it was positive evidence, surely they would strengthen their paper by including it. It is the most direct way of substantiating their claims. The absence speaks volumes.
QuoteLENR you finally like
I liked Holmlid's first bizaare experimental paper, not because I thought it was real, but because it made an apparent case. Then subsequent followups were dissapointing, sort of disproving the original case
QuoteHe promised to look at this and has been reminded of his promise but I have heard nothing.
Sigh. You seem to think reading stuff and evaluating it is a sort of knee-jerk reaction, not needing time.
I did read it. For once I'll make you do the work.
(1) what is the (Bayesian network) proposition that is found 90%, or based on later work 99% true? I need this precisely in terms of the network inputs, with for each an explanation of how it is determined from a given paper (hint - everything is boolean).
(2) Does the "F-P" effect as defined in this paper imply LENR?
(3) Why are Bayesian networks not much to do with Bayesian probability theory? (Hint - you'll need some googling for this one if you don't know, but should find a good explanation).
Sigh. You seem to think reading stuff and evaluating it is a sort of knee-jerk reaction, not needing time.
Thomas
I was only interested in what you thought, you said you would look at it. Sorry if it appeared to be putting you under undue pressure, I am very interested in the exchange between you and Eric which seems to be quite time consuming.
So you have looked at the paper Thomas and only have questions. For me I don't have the skill to answer your questions. But to answer a question with a question which seems to highlight this, does seem to suggest that you are willing to re direct the critique to examine the questioner rather than the paper. Somewhere on this forum I received some very valuable advice which proposed 'ad homs do your case no good' An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.
So, do you have any views on the paper itself??
Perhaps you are not in a position to refute of challenge the papers proposition, and I quite understand that, it is quite compelling. Unless you can offer reasons why it should not be taken so?
Best regards
Frank
What referees do is very variable. If they had looked at signal to noise ratio, and it was positive evidence, surely they would strengthen their paper by including it. It is the most direct way of substantiating their claims. The absence speaks volumes.
What volumes does the absence of the signal-to-noise ratio for the 4 OOM claim speak? What if they had to cut out 10 pages of similarly important information in order to meet the word or page count requirement? Perhaps they would have a ready answer to the suggestion that they didn't look closely at this question. Or maybe they wouldn't.
Sorry if it appeared to be putting you under undue pressure, I am very interested in the exchange between you and Eric which seems to be quite time consuming.
Please don't let me detain you guys or be a distraction.
Eric
No worries; but it does sort of bring us back to the 'reputation trap' that Huw Price speaks of.
Had I accepted the challenge that Thomas set for me I think I would have fallen right in, that would have been me dispatched!! I genuinely thought the article well written and researched and so for me was strong evidence for an 'anomaly' (whether LENR or the so called Fleishmann Pons effect') which I have come to believe has been proven beyond reasonable doubt but I am open to 'objective critiques' in order to further 'discovery' on the subject which I was hoping for from Thomas. I am much less interested in questioning the reputation of stakeholders.
Very Best regards
Frank
