Two recent videos from Energy 2.0 Society

1st Official Post

    Pardon if these have already been posted --


    "LENR: Fanning the New Fire by Bob Greenyer"

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    "LENR: Studying the Rossi Effect in the Basement or Garage by Brian Albiston"

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    About Bob Greenyer’s video
    Many seem overly impressed by the Lugano report in spite of the many question marks that soar above it.


    On simple observation, look at Bob’s video at this position 7:40. As it says in the Lugano report, “Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor.”


    As you can estimate from the video, a few centimeters of the three inconel wires are sticking out from the dogbone and you can see that they are glowing strongly giving off yellow light. You can also see that these hot wires are forming light emitting closely spaced spirals on the dogbone.


    To my eye the glow from the dogbone is perhaps less than you would expect from the hot wires, definitely not three times more as the reported COP would imply. This is of course just a subjective judgement, but still.


    About Brian Albiston’s video trying to reproduce the “Rossi Effect”
    I think that he is doing a great work and so far he summarizes it this way:
    Result "No evidence of excess heat."


    My prediction is that he eventually will arrive at the correct formula for the Rossi Effect:
    Output power = Voltage x Current

    • Official Post

    The Lugano test is screwed because the physicist were not experts of IR calorimetry.
    IR emissivity was probably 0.95, even if total may be as said in the report (0.7).


    Question is whether COP is 1 or above 1.5...
    Anyway current situation make COP=1 in the test plant more than improbable.


    I remember that the worst article on cold fusion were done by physicist, and the best replication of F&P were done by an engineer (George Longchampt).

    Alain, what do you mean by “more than improbable”? Do you mean closer to probable? Because judging by Rossi´s incessant use of F9 this seems to be the correct way to go. I suggest that P(COP=1) = 1.


    You mentioned your favorite F&P replication by Georges Lonchampt. I presume you mean this one, from 20 years ago:
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf


    Nothing notable happens until they bring the cell to boiling. Then they evaluate the energy needed to boil the cell dry. They arrive at excess heat varying from 29% to 153%.


    If there is one thing that we have learned from Rossi’s exercises it is that boiling off water is not a good form of calorimetry. I think this is valid even if you are not using a long hose to let the purported steam out into a sink in the next room.

    • Official Post

    It seems common sens is incompatible with pretended skepticism.


    Of course the test can still fail, because the reactor is not so reliable... this is F9.
    but you don't make a F9 on a COP=1... You close the plant and flee.
    You don't participate to ICCF19, you rather go to another fashion conference


    now yes, it can fail as F9 say.
    My car can also break down going to see mum.
    This does not make the existence of the gasoline engine uncertain.
    If my car was a bike, I would take the train. But my car is F9 anyway.


    Extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence some say...
    But some time you should accept extraordinary claim, if the excuse used to deny them are even more extraordinary. Sometime I really feel like on a 9/11 conspiracy forum.


    That some people screw up totally, does not justify an alien conspiracy.

    Another video from from Energy 2.0 Society


    "LENR: Quantitative Model of the E-cat Based on the LAV Theory by Vladimir Dubinko"


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    AlainCo,
    Common sense is not very helpful when it comes to deciding whether a claim of nuclear reactions in a test tube with ordinary substances is valid or not. My opinion on this matter cannot be described as one of “pretended skepticism” as you say in your previous post, probably aiming at me. Remove “pretended” and you are a bit closer but not good enough. I would prefer to be regarded as a LENR atheist.


    The [lexicon]Low Energy Nuclear Reactions[/lexicon] god does not exist. If it did, why couldn’t it give us just ONE reproducible LENR experiment with clear indications of nuclear reactions? In the absence of such an experiment I find it much more compelling to believe in the God god. At least he/she/it can claim to have created colibris, nice job. But not even that has convinced me, this is how skeptic I am! At least in this universe.

    • Official Post

    There are reproduced experiments, that were reproduced by
    F&P, Miles, McKubre, Storms, ENEA,Longchampt...
    There is also the Fralick(Nasa89), U Tsinghua, Biberian, Nasa GRC 2008, Fralick 2012 (gas permeation).
    There is Iwamura reproduced by Takahashi.




    If you cannot see it is not only reproducible, but reproduced, it is that you are biased.

    Alain, when you prepared this nice list of replicators for me, did you also consider my bias for "clear indications of nuclear reactions"?


    Ionizing radiation is what really sets nuclear reactions apart from chemical reactions. Isotopic shifts are also good, but much harder to verify and more often than not too expensive for the average LENR researcher.


    I have already (briefly) studied the G. Lonchampt (the "g" should be before name, not in it) report on his F&M replication attempt. As I said, I was not happy with the calorimetry, boiling water creates a lot of mist.


    As for my confidence for Mike McKubre, it hit the rock bottom when I heard him say as late as 2012 about the Papp engine that "it clearly works". Mike has clearly been bamboozled.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    As for my confidence for Mike McKubre, it hit the rock bottom when I heard him say as late as 2012 about the Papp engine that "it clearly works". Mike has clearly been bamboozled.


    McKubre claims to have examined Bob Rohner's device. Are you aware of the details of that set of trials? Are you passing judgment on the basis of the free-association "Papp-McKubre"? Is free-association a suitable basis for concluding a researcher is gullible or feeble-minded?


    Having taken a look at the patents, I can imagine how the Papp engine might have worked. But what is even better is when someone actually takes a look at a device. I love McKubre's intellectual integrity in the face of such criticisms.

    Eric, there is no need to examine the details. Part of the beauty of knowing some basic physics is that you can often recognize a piece of BS from a distance, you don't have to smell it or poke your finger into it. Good luck with your studies!

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Part of the beauty of knowing some basic physics is that you can often recognize a piece of BS from a distance, you don't have to smell it or poke your finger into it.


    Then in your knowledge of basic physics you will know that induced alpha decay is entirely implausible, on the same level as alien visitations and a 6000-year-old earth. You are probably too knowledgeable to want to tutor someone unpromising like me. I'm ok with this.


    Having set aside both empiricism and simple, common-sense extensions of known phenomena, we now have more time to devote to multiverses and string theory.


    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Good luck with your studies!


    Thank you.

    Quote from AlainCo


    Anyway current situation make COP=1 in the test plant more than improbable


    I would say impossible, because the cop in the test plant was obviously <1, as it should be. Nice to agree with you.


    Now that it is more than evident that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] has abandoned Rossi, I find it especially amusing to follow your Iine of thinking.


    Soon it would be the time for Believers to run and hide, but I don't think their are intelligent enough to realise that.

    • Official Post

    About evidence of nuclear reaction, the usual fallacy (because it is not an accident) is not to consider that excess heat above anything chemistry can explain is evidence of something nuclear.


    Incompetence of physicist in calorimetry since the 50s are reported by Beaudette, and as exemplified by Lugano, Lewis/caltech, Hansen, MIT, is not an excuse to dismiss the work of competent people.


    Iwamura and Takahashi anyway reproduced evdience of transmutation, with very convincing evolution of the reaction, and specificity to initial produc, eliminating the conspiracy theories of artifacts.


    Evidence of tritium, a million time less than expected, but much above measurement capacity of seasoned experts, is reproduced from india to texas and LANL.


    I'm tired to talk to dishonest people, sorry.
    Don't pretend you don't know those numerous experiments. You are not an illiterate fool as you pretend to be.


    Write a paper or stop arguing from your armchair...
    PS: not personal, yo follow a collective behavior... funny for LENR.

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.