Nanomagnetism and LENR

  • I began a replication of Arata in early 2009 under sponsorship of EPRI. I completed that work with a report dated August 2012. It was a collaborative effort among 6-8 LENR experts.


    We found excess energy in 14 consecutive experiments, but the power output was only on the order of 100-200 milliwatts. This result was real, but it was dwarfed by Rossi's claims. At that time Rossi had failed in over ten consecutive experiments to demonstrate his claims.


    The Lugano effort was the Mount Everest of bad Science. I and others demanded that the Lugano test not use optical pyrometry. Levi and his noble band did us one better by refusing to use thermocouples to corroborate their own data.


    I had abandoned all hope of the Rossi claims when Parkhomov announced his replication of Lugano. I dropped everything and began my own replication since I had all the equipment set up from the EPRI experience.


    I found no excess energy in 7 consecutive experiments. Then I learned that Parkhomov had trouble replicating his own claims. This followed with a Chinese claim, but that too was withdrawn.


    At the end of my EPRI study I discussed adding high voltage pulses through the nanopowders to enhance energy output. I burned out the power supply and I was introduced to Arthur Manelas (Pelham NH) to fix the supply as he was an expert on high voltage pulsed power. He showed me a device that seemingly violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. He had an electric car powering itself with a supply based on Tesla and Floyd Sweet.


    I and two other talented engineers set out to make independent measurements of the performance. We found a large ferrite billet (1" x 4" x 6") weighing one kilogram. The billet was highly insulating. It was also ferromagnetic with unusual field characteristics.


    The billet was wound around each of its 3 axises with about 150 feet of magnet wire. High voltage pulses were sent in through two windings and power was extracted from the third winding to charge the battery pack of the car. We found an excess electrical power out put of 60 watts for the 6 days of the test. During this period the billet ran 5 degrees C below ambient.


    This is the first report of any transformer showing a Negative Hysterisis. This has caused us tobelieve that LENR has magnetism at it core.


    Arthur Manelas took the device apart to rebuild two new ones.In the interim he suffered a stroke and died without leaving a circuit diagram or notes on the operation. I remain baffled by the operation in 2011-2012 period and believe that the excess comes from a new magnetic interaction

  • Wow. First you speak sense about Rossi -- only you left out mention of Levi's liquid flow calorimetry experiment of 2011 in which he saw power out/power in > 30 and peak power of 135kW with averages around 18kW from a baseball sized device. But oh noes! He forgot to calibrate the power out measurement despite having a huge electrical heater in the device. And of course, even when Dr. Brian Josephson asked him to, he would not redo the experiment! But anyway, yes to what you say about Rossi AND Levi AND the Swedish scientists, and also the very weird Parkhomov.


    But then, you spout absolute nonsense about Manelas! Electric cars don't power themselves! Wouldn't that be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Where would that power come from? What evidence is there other than the claim? And of course, it's classical for free energy claimans (and prima facia absurd) that they take apart the only working copy to make new ones! Who, with the sense God gave a wooden duck, would do a dumb thing like that? Instead of properly testing, showing, patenting, and inviting replications of the only working model ever made! And no notes? No diagrams? Classic. Wake up please. It was a fraud. A con. Or massive self-delusion... but it was not real.


    My God man! Do you believe ANYTHING someone claims? You seem smarter than that but there it is... you really need to study classical frauds and recent ones like Steorn, Sniffex, Bedini, Dennis Lee and Otto, Howard Johnson, and of course Defkalion -- and you already seem to know Rossi is bogus. Good for you on that one.


    As to your current experiment, why not publish the details in a refereed journal so others can try to replicate it?

  • Dr. Ahern,


    Thank you for your posting. Yours is one of the very few, sadly, I have seen of a primary LENR inside players, account. We LENR defenders on the net, with our limited access, need more of your, and others equally connected, input. Actually the public needs to hear that also, but first things first.


    It just baffles me how so few that do the research, see the effect, choose to stay silent. Yes, I am very much aware of the professional ramifications of speaking out, but as a professional myself, and having spoken out myself many a time to my professional detriment, I am at a loss to explain what I see. If you believe it, then you just have to defend it, fight for it...or at least in my world. Honestly, I see that same fight in you by your post. Irish obviously by your name, so in your heritage. Clearly so to come here to confront the skeps. Good on you.


    Good of you to speak about Parkomov, and his lack of replication. Except it seems in Russia... away from prying eyes. His behavior alone with Bob Greenyer in Moscow and Padua, should have disqualified him from serious consideration. Or at least to me and it appears to you also? Lugano...well again good of you to comment. Appears, as you admit, to have been poorly executed. As Thomas says.


    Again, thank you. And by the way; ignore Mary Yugo, you dig down a little with him, and you will find little of substance.

  • Quote

    It just baffles me how so few that do the research, see the effect, choose to stay silent.


    Why would anyone who saw a reproducible, replicable, clearcut substantial effect choose to stay silent rather than to win untold riches and prizes? Oh... you didn't mean REAL effects, just supposed, presumed and evanescent ones?


    Quote

    Yes, I am very much aware of the professional ramifications of speaking out, but as a professional myself, and having spoken out myself many a time to my professional detriment, I am at a loss to explain what I see.


    Speaking about substance, when have you ever said anything of substance? About science? What did you speak out about as a professional? What sort of professional? What happened to you professionally that was detrimental?


    Quote

    And by the way; ignore Mary Yugo, you dig down a little with him, and you will find little of substance.


    Oh yes. Nothing of substance. In 2006, I helped to destroy the Sniffex explosive detector scam. I called out Steorn as liars and crooks as early as 2007. I nailed Defkalion in mid-late 2012 on their own forum. I helped prevent a famous billionaire from investing a million dollars in Defkalion. See where they are now? And in mid 2011, I was trying to get together with Jed Rothwell to develop a protocol to test Rossi properly, a protocol he, of course, rejected. So what were you saying about substance?

  • MY,


    We go back quite a ways and have established somewhat a truce. In honor of that, I withdraw my comment and leave it to the others; skeps, and believers alike, to make their own conclusions from what you and I said.


    That said, trust me, I was a pain in the ass to my own. You really don't know me.

  • My God man! Do you believe ANYTHING someone claims?


    I and two other talented engineers set out to make independent measurements of the performance. We found a large ferrite billet (1" x 4" x 6") weighing one kilogram. The billet was highly insulating. It was also ferromagnetic with unusual field characteristics.


    The billet was wound around each of its 3 axises with about 150 feet of magnet wire. High voltage pulses were sent in through two windings and power was extracted from the third winding to charge the battery pack of the car. We found an excess electrical power out put of 60 watts for the 6 days of the test. During this period the billet ran 5 degrees C below ambient.


    @mary, I was going to tell you that your reading comprehension is truly appalling, but then I remembered, you are just a troll (and harking back to your Sniffex salad years doesn't change this).


    Or perhaps you were one of the 'talented engineers' Brian refers to? ...As you appear to have first-hand knowledge of what actually happened?



    @Brian, I guess you can consider yourself well-and-truly 'hodied'! 8|

  • A more detailed discussion of the Manelas device: (start at 10:40)


    "It's preposterous, it seems to break the first law of thermodynamics ...But that's the business we're in..."


    [url='https://youtu.be/0PS2v1kN1U8?t=641']


    From Mark Dansie 2015:


    Quote

    Several highly qualified and accomplished parties have worked with Arthur over a number of years. They are working on what was learned in their own labs. There are many groups, parties and individuals involved. Each will reveal or publicize what ever they develop in their own time. Many of these people network together, while others do not even know about each other. The equipment for testing used in one case I know of is world class. And yes Arthur's claims on the devices mentioned were tested.You have not heard of this and many other research projects for a variety of reasons. It is not always the case that people have to publish, discuss things on free energy forums, or be featured on Peswiki. Many people do not want to engage in public debates...


    ...If you think anyone is stepping up to the plate and discuss the work publicly at this stage to satisfy someones curiosity then you are sadly mistaken.

  • As a long time observer of the LENR, clean energy bubble, I am quite amazed that you found no way to further pursue the Manelas device. I trust that you and the other testers are skilled and competent and honest reporters of the energy effects you observed in New Hampshire. It is clear, however, that it sometimes takes a skilled debunker to detect the amazing "magic tricks" sometimes used to fool just such observers as you and your team. Can you take a moment to reflect on that? How many times did you see the device in operation? What were the environments (his shop or yours?) Can you imagine any way the results could have been faked?


    On the other side of this is the question of what happened to the device itself? Can you take some time to create, as near as possible, it's characteristics? Obviously, you understand that the story, on the face of it, seems wildly unlikely, like the first chapter of a grade B Sci Fi story. An earth shaking discovery lost to an unexpected death with no trace left behind. Reminds me of the Morris Ward "starlite" super insulating material, demonstrated convincingly on television, but lost at his unexpected death. Look it up on youtube if you are not familiar with it. Clearly this invention might have had astounding impact in many ways had it been genuine, and not lost.


    I am sure you have searched your memory for any lead to follow, but can you please take a moment to describe what steps you took to rediscover this device?


    Thank you.

  • Science grows through explaining exceptions. For example, Newtonian physics explains most of the universe, but there are a few exceptions that it cannot explain: the orbit of Mercury and the bending of light through the influence of high mass is another. To explain these exceptions, the general theory of relativity is required. Einstein was judged to be a kook until Max Planck took him under his wing and sponsored his ideas. Not until then did general relativity gain any traction in the science world.


    LENR is another example of the exception to the rule. Quantum mechanics works well for most things but there are a few things that it cannot handle. For example, what goes on inside the proton and neutron is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics, so a new force was invented called the color force that handles this exception. The color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force which extends beyond the proton or neutron to bind them together in a nucleus. The other exception that goes along with the color force is the fractional charge that quarks have. There are also the strange cases that come up involving the fractional quantum hall effect where magnetism produces balls of fractional charge that really surprised physics.


    The color force is carried by gluons which makes it different from magnetism. But the quarks inside the protons are thought to be monopoles and they cannot be separated. But why is a quark different than a monopole which can be separated. This confinement is caused by superconductivity inside the proton or the neutron.


    The monopole magnetic field comes from Surface Plasmon Polaritons solitons that form on the surface of all nano and micro particles. All nanowire based nanoparticles produce superconductive behavior due to topological restrictions in current flow. So most nanowire shaped nanoparticles will be LERN capable. This low level of LENR activity is what is seen in many LENR reaction. Where Rossi has improved the process is the production of graphite like nanowire particles called Rydberg matter.


    If we could produce a monopole that was inside a superconductor, then we would have something special. We would have quarks. This is the exception that quantum mechanics cannot handle. The color force, quarks, and superconducting monopoles are covered by non-associative quantum mechanics. It is the repeated graphite like plate structure that is the key to a powerful LERN reaction.


    It just so happens that nano particles can produce a superconducting monopole. This is accomplished in Rydberg matter which has been proven by Holmlid to be superconducting and subject to the Meissner effect.


    The Rydberg matter that is produced in the LENR reaction is a carrier of the color force that keeps quark contained. This conjecture is proven true in the experiments of LeClair. The water particle is a water based Rydberg matter formed under the tremendous pressure and temperatures produced in the collapsing cavitation bubble. When this nanoparticle begins to eat through material no matter how hard, the particle is protected by destruction from nuclear level forces equal to that of a supernova by the quark based superconductive strengthen color force at the tip of the water crystal. The monopole shield is impenetrable and can withstand a supernova based explosion. When LeClair puts this extra force into the cavitation erosion equations, the equation becomes valid after a hundred years of failure.


    LeClair states:


    NanoSpire Cavitation Erosion Model Prediction of Fusion Thermodynamics


    Mark LeClair of NanoSpire has solved the one hundred year old problem of accurately predicting cavitation erosion for all materials, as a function of cavitation and material properties. Researchers including Lord Kelvin, Lord Rayleigh and many scientists since their day have been unable to solve this seemingly intractable problem. Previous attempts at deriving an accurate general equation have been off by a factor of up to 300X compared to data.


    Mark has derived a general equation for cavitation erosion that is a 98% R^2 curve fit for ASTM-G32 cavitation erosion data for 22 different materials. The equation takes van der Waals repulsion into account during high speed impact of cavitation reentrant jets. The equation predicts that a thin layer exists at the point of cavitation reentrant jet impact with a substrate where van der Waals repulsion dominates. The pressure in this thin zone is in the range of a few hundred up to just over a thousand gigapascals depending on the strength of the material.


    In cold fusion, we are dealing with a special exception to standard reality involving the color force, gluon force carriers, quark confinement, non-associative quantum mechanics produced by a special shape (topology) of a special nano/micro particle.


    See for the theory as follows:


    Vortices in Non-Abelian Gauge Field Theory


    http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20110113_1507.pdf

  • I believe the secret to Rossi and most LENR is the trigger mechanism. You need more than pure heat to get it going. Some experiments may have a trigger mechanism that initiates the reaction but the experimenters Are not aware off it, and therefore have troubles replicating their own experiments.


    A note how Focardi triggered his Ni cells (long before Rossi):


    "After several loading cycles, the sample was ready and it was possible to trigger the exothermic process. Such an operation can be performed by lowering the input power, waiting for the sample temperature to decrease down to about 300 K, then suddenly restoring the previous power level. After this operation an increased equilibrium temperature, as shown in fig. 4, is obtained: the cell is producing an excess heat. Another way to trigger the process is to provoke a pressure step-like variation, as shown in fig. 5. After the triggering procedure, the production of excess heat is maintained for months ."


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…nomalousHeatEffects-w.pdf




    Or from the Piantelli patents:
    "........impulsive trigger action consists of supplying an energy pulse"


    ".....trigger means (61 ,62,67) for creating an impulsive action (140) on said active core (18), said impulsively action (140) suitable for causing......"


    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=EP&NR=2702593A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20140305&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP


    ".........an impulsive application of a package of electromagnetic fields, in particular said fields selected from the group comprised of: a radiofrequency pulse whose frequency is larger than 1 kHz; X rays; v rays; an electrostriction impulse that is generated by an impulsive electric current that flows through an electrostrictive portion of said active core...."


    "- an electric voltage impulse that is applied between two points of a piezoelectric portion of said active core; an impulsive magnetostriction that is generated by a magnetic field pulse along said active core which has a magnetostrictive portion."


    "Such impulsive triggering action generates lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons..."


    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2010058288A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20100527&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP


    And triggering of the Brillouin reactor: electrical stimulation Of the core


    Ref. Mckubre stated on Brillouin: "The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”

  • @colwyn
    Apparently, you still don't get "measurement errors."


    If the laws of thermodynamics did not work exactly as advertised, the universe would be wildly different from what we observe. Natural laws can be modified to fit some circumstances and experimental results but the original law always remains, for the domain it was developed in. For example, Newton was not repealed by Einstein. Einstein's laws become significant for domains Newton could not imagine. I doubt that Papp and Tesla and Manelas ever worked in completely new domains. If so, the evidence for it is execrable.


    As for the crooks and dangerous or expensive cons I exposed, efforts you seem to deprecate without understanding them, which ones did you manage to reveal and/or help to stop?


    As for what McKubre said about high frequency/high energy pulses triggering the "phenomenon" -- what they most likely triggered or rather caused, is the measurement errors.

  • Mary

    If the laws of thermodynamics did not work exactly as advertised, the universe would be wildly different from what we observe.


    Assumption, again the language you use does your argument no credit. the proposition leaves no room or acknowledgement for further discovery, particularly subtle but complex principles such as Einstein's over Newton's. Further, such language would not be tolerated by Judge Judy in an effort to bring crooks to justice.


    best regards
    Frank


  • Or from the Piantelli patents:
    "........impulsive trigger action consists of supplying an energy pulse"


    ".....trigger means (61 ,62,67) for creating an impulsive action (140) on said active core (18), said impulsively action (140) suitable for causing......"


    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=EP&NR=2702593A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20140305&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP


    The key to the Rossi effect is the generation of Rydberg hydrogen matter creation during the fuel preparation process. Rydberg Hydrogen Matter might be created using a shock wave during the fuel preparation phase.


    The intensity of the pressure applied to a material is proportional to the instantaneous power applied to the surface of the material. The faster that a material is shocked, the larger the pressure wave that will be created. To get great pressure to be generated, a intense amount of energy must be applied in the shortest amount of time to the smallest possible area.


    Rossi does not do this in this reactor, but he does it in his fuel preparation process. Once Rydberg matter is formed, it will stay active for a long time so a fuel preparation process may create LENR active hydrogen that has a long shelf life.


    Once the wafer is coated with lithium, nickel, and hydride, Rossi might treat the surface with a high energy laser, spark, proton or electron beam to produce the required shock pressure needed to convert hydrogen into Rydberg matter.


    Additives that might aid in the Rydberg matter preparation process are graphite, lithium, and/or potassium.

  • Quote

    The billet was wound around each of its 3 axises with about 150 feet of magnet wire. High voltage pulses were sent in through two windings and power was extracted from the third winding to charge the battery pack of the car. We found an excess electrical power out put of 60 watts for the 6 days of the test. During this period the billet ran 5 degrees C below ambient.


    The issues for me here would be the measurement of the input and output power. When there are high power spikes measurement is difficult anyway - it requires care. EMI from the spikes can then contaminate measurements in apparently unrelated sensors and lead to false readings.


    So without a massive amount of skilled checking I would not trust this measurement one inch - that is not saying the people doing it are deliberately dishonest - just that it is an easy thing to get wrong and not know you are getting it wrong. "skilled people" does not help because there are many different skills and you'd need the right skills + the time and effort to do a thorough careful check. Neither are clear.


    The same applies to many of the Brillouin results where the claim the output power switches on and off pretty quickly with the electromagnetic high power stimulus. It is very difficult in such a system to know whether the apparent excess is real or an artifact if you are not aware of all the issues and positively checking for them.

  • The above is why I part company from Mary.


    When an honest and skilled person, operates slightly out of their own area (say) using high-power RF electrical pulses with sensitive instrumentation, do you say they are dishonest just because they firmly believe something which is not true?


    The difference is subtle - dishonesty is where at some point the experimenter realises they have an error and does not deal with it. But what if you know there is an error, have checked and (you think) plugged it, but don't validate this completely and the error continues? This has happened to me many many times with problems. In most cases the real world catches up with you and you end up needing to mend it.


    In the case of LENR the real world never does that because you accept the unusual behaviour as from LENR and that is it.


    So for LENR experiments where the correct results are not predicted you need much more checking for this sort of problem than normal.

  • Re. Measurement of power spikes: I guess this is one of the benefits of using a battery as the energy source. The total amount of energy used over time can be measured, perhaps most accurately when it is recharged (My £20 chinese Lipo charger can do this suprisingly accurately).


    In this case, I assume the battery is discharged and recharged simultaneously, but that shouldn't prevent a decent measurement if some kind of conditioning is added to the loop before a well-shielded charger? I'll defer to you (an EE?) on this one...


    Two things intrigue me though: the 5C temperature drop (Tom, you must admit this is pretty interesting, and difficult to mess up the measurement of?). Also the voltage drops coinciding with the aurorae borealis (mentioned in the video), which can surely be argued not be to any sort of rigorous 'proof', but still, could help those who choose to theorise about how it might work.

  • Quote

    In this case, I assume the battery is discharged and recharged simultaneously, but that shouldn't prevent a decent measurement if some kind of conditioning is added to the loop before the charger? I'll defer to you (an EE?) on this one...Two things intrigue me though: the 5C temperature drop (Tom, you must admit this is pretty interesting, and difficult to mess up the measurement of?). Also the voltage drops coinciding with the aurorae borealis (mentioned in the video), which can surely be argued not be to any sort of rigorous 'proof', but still, could help those who choose to theorise about how it might work.


    I make no assumptions about how the +50W excess was measured - and doing this from the charge state of the battery looks impossible to me if it is charged and discharged. But we don't know this. This whole setup looks like classic silliness, and it is for a decent credible write-up to change that impession. It would have, as I've said, to be done by a very good EEE.


    The other claimed anomalies look even flakier! They are also incoherent with any other experiment. (5C temp drop - stored night-time temperatures? Or mistake?).


    It is sort of embarrassing to have this anecdote classed with LENR experiments, however bad many of those are.

  • Charging a car without using up something? Sounds as if you are talking perpetuum mobile here, a machine that can deliver energy indefinitely without any kind of fuel.


    Suppose that we have a machine that delivers pure energy to its surroundings, e. g. electricity to a battery. As most people know the exchange rate from mass to energy is c2. Therefore the perpetuum mobile will disappear long before passing of an eternity, a sad fact that invalidates the perpetuity of the machine, QED.

  • In physics, a lot of "unexplained" phenomena. For example - of the two strips of lead-sulfuric acid battery do. Charge, measure the amount of energy, and then discharged. And after - raise the temperature and ?? EMF increased! Discharge, again measuring the amount of energy, even stand up at a high temperature, measure the back emf discharge, and so the circle many times. Question on filling - where does the energy come from? Is the direct conversion of heat into electricity? But thermodynamics forbids it.
    Maybe
    "engine Bedini" works on the same principle, but he does not want to
    pass for an idiot and invents all sorts of different buzzwords?

  • Thomas, who did I say was most probably a crook that you don't agree with? Surely, you can't think Defkalion was an honest mistake? If so, you never read their forum, run by the crookedest of them, Hadjichristos. I should say he was either very crooked or incredibly stupid and as I said then, he could tell us which, but he won't. Try reading that forum a bit... search for example, for the guy's arrogant, duplicitous and obviously contemptuous responses to my and other people's excellent and rather obvious critiques and questions.

  • I make no assumptions about how the +50W excess was measured


    Apart from assuming it must have been measured incorrectly somehow...


    This whole setup looks like classic silliness


    For sure, I don't think anyone can deny that. But at the same time, the guy who looked at it, is prepared to say it does work. Probably knowing he's going to get some grief from his peers.


    To say "the temperature dropped at night" tells me you probably didn't watch that video, as there's a graph that showed what happened. It's just something you came up with to avoid giving a more considered answer. Do you really think a 5C difference could be a mistake? My fingertip says otherwise. And presumably you think no-one would double check that ever-so-slightly unusual result? That's borderline offensive! :)


    I jokingly called you "skeptileptic" the other day, I had just heard it, and I thought the definition was amusing (convulsive skepticsm :rolleyes: sorry to anyone who finds that to be in poor taste). Now I'm thinking that maybe, many a true word is said in jest?


    It is sort of embarrassing to have this anecdote classed with LENR experiments, however bad many of those are.


    Classic quote. Although perhaps more suited to the Huw Price Reputation Trap thread?

  • Colwyn,


    Re assumptions. If your spouse came to you and said their were three-legged green men from Mars standing on the garden lawn you would probably want a bit more evidence before believing this.


    Few people would say that you were "making assumptions maybe it was a joke etc" in this case.


    Extraordinary things require better than good evidence. In this case the evidence is not even ordinary - these guys are testing their own stuff, the test method is weird and could go wrong in any number of ways - in short even with perfect honesty any decent experimenter (or sensible person) would view such results with suspicion and need to check.


    It is only in magic LENR world that every weird thing that happens has to be proven wrong - other wise it stands as a miracle. If science worked to those standards we would have evidence for fairies, ghosts, UFOs and green three-legged Martians.

  • Translation: You are all gullible idiots with zero professional knowledge.


    @mary. I missed your last post to me about measurement errors, thermodynamics, Newton and Einstein:


    I do understand "measurement errors": they are the first step of TC's standard argument. Generally qualitative, rather than quantifiable, but nevermind... Next step is to assume that only he is aware of these mechanisms, and only he can be trusted to avoid them.


    In the case of measuring the voltage of a battery, I'd say measurement errors are next to impossible. A child could probably manage. We are basically back to allegations of fraud.


    And no need for the lecture on the so-called laws of the thermodynamics. They are as much laws, as Newton's "laws" are... And similarly they are known to break down depending on scale; the smaller the scale, the less suitable model they become.

  • Mary Yugo's comments are not without merit. He may be right; I may be crazy. But it just may be a lunatic your looking for.


    We measured Battery voltage continuously for a week while the power supply developed an excess 30 watts with a 100 watt loss in the system components. Arthur had the unit running for nearly 2 years when I showed up.


    I was the first one to make rigorous measurements that seemed to confirm an energy gain. There are many ways to dispute that measurement, but the HOBO thermistor measurements were revolutionary. Four thermistors were mounted around the trunk with one of them mounted on top of the ferrite billet.


    To our great surprise that thermistor ran 5-7 degrees COLDER than ambient for the entire week.I do not understand any of the thermodynamic mechanisms, but heat must have been flowing in an unaccustomed manner.


    I expected that I would have many years to learn the approach needed to optimize this heat flow. Arthur contacted me on September 23, 2015 and told me he was turning it over to me and my band oftechnologists. He had a major Aneuryzm on September 25, 2015 and never recovered.


    I have his equipment and I am seeking help from LENR folks to figure it out.


    I recommend reading Norman Ramsey's 1956 physical Review article on Negative ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURES
    I met Norman and discussed this work in 1995

  • Thanks Brian.


    I suppose anyone might build something of a small attempted model of this apparatus. Hopefully some of the brilliant engineering "replicators" who have focused their energies on the more mundane task of a Parkhomov replication might step up to look at this in various ways. The measurement errors in the presence of electromagnetic interference are a common issue in neuroscience labs for example. Once it was customary to include faraday screening (literal aluminum screen isolation "chamber" to avoid at least much of that which Thomas warns.)


    Do you, Brian, happen to know exactly, or approximately what type of ferrite composition is in the "brick"? What is its appearance, approximate density etc. Does the ferrite look like any commercially, or milspec surplus available-- say from microwave and/or high power radar work? Dimensions and weight of the ferrite? Any "branding" evident? Any preferred residual magnetism, or magnetic bias evident with a compass for example? Any anisotropy with respect to resistance or impedance through the bulk? And if so, how might such anisotropies correlate with the winding orientations?


    Thanks,
    Longview

  • Brian,


    Thank you for the interesting description and video. To me it seems implausible that nanomagnetism, by itself, could be responsible for LENR, as the energy balance does not work out. Nonetheless I think it's great that you've stood by the inexplicable results of your own nickel powder experiments and your testing of the Manelas device despite the lack of an explanation. Here we see empiricism at work. The skeptics on this forum would require that you have gotten a negative result in your testing to be credible. They have put theory before experiment.


    The argument that Manelas was bamboozling you requires some substantiation, to say the least.


    Did you make some critical mistakes in your testing? That is not something I can be the judge of, but I have some questions, and would be interested in seeing further testing done:

    • Does the Manelas device still work? Are you still seeing the odd behavior you saw before?
    • Can you boil the device down into an extremely simple thing that reliably shows the effect without any extraneous components?

    Perhaps induced beta decay was involved. You mentioned strontium ferrite. 90Sr is a beta emitter. Lots of energy in such reactions, well above chemical. Electrons are emitted at high velocities; if this happens anisotropically, there could be some magnetic effects.


    Eric

  • Quote

    Brian Ahern wrote:
    I have his equipment and I am seeking help from LENR folks to figure it out.


    This device that you had (still have?) sitting on your dining room table, when you studied it working in situ, did you make absolutely certain that it was only connected to an otherwise isolated system?


    Judging from its appearance the system seems to contain nothing but ordinary electric components. The only thing that looks “homemade” is the well wrapped ferrite core. It is not reasonable to expect that this system could produce “free electricity” as you certainly seem to be aware of.


    Or that any other system could for that matter. Did you prepare any kind of report covering your investigation of this mysterious apparatus?

  • Quote

    When an honest and skilled person, operates slightly out of their own area (say) using high-power RF electrical pulses with sensitive instrumentation, do you say they are dishonest just because they firmly believe something which is not true?


    Yikes, Thomas. I didn't say that. Nor did I say to Brian Ahern that he is crazy. What I said was that he was probably gullible if he believes that someone (Manelas) operating under every classical criterion and characteristic, text book quality, for free energy fraud could be real and honest.


    As for Rossi, time and circumstances tell all. He *is* a crook just as Defkalion were crooks. The jury is still out on what Brillouin is and has. Perhaps they're great but my suspicion from listening to what they say and how they say it (especially Godes) -- my suspicion is that they are either crooks or mistaken. With them, there is not enough evidence to tell what they are yet.

  • In my experience, the belief or hope, that basic physical laws can be broken in "some special cases", yields from misunderstanding how very fundamental they actually are.


    Sorry to say, but as attractive as it may seem, looking for shortcuts or loopholes in reality is a huge waste of time.


    We need to do it the hard way, there is no holy grail of energy.