FP's experiments discussion

I have tried not to be insulting and attempted to summarize what is said as fairly as possible. Nevertheless, the arrogance of the replies is clear.
For example, Cude claims I do not know what a "volt" is. I quote Wikipedia below. Note the term electromagnetic FORCE. This is the nature of the phenomenon we call a volt, which is measured in different ways. Initially, it was measured as the FORCE exerted between two plates on which the same charge was applied. The amount of charge determines the amount of FORCE. I suggest Cude and the others refrain from personal comments especially since they frequently have no idea what they are talking about.

The temperature is a measure of the energy contained in a material using the heat capacity to store the energy. It is also related to the amount of vibration experienced by the atoms. Temperature and voltage are not related or equal in any way, which was the point I tried to get across.

As Eric points out, fractofusion and LENR are not related in any way. Fractofusion produces the nuclear products produced by hot fusion. In contrast, LENR does not produce these nuclear products or involve the same mechanism. Fractofusion is easy to trigger. LENR is not easy to cause.

As for the evidence describing LENR, it ranges from the trivial to as close to certainty as we get in science. The skeptics seem to focus on the trivial end of the spectrum while the believers concentration on what is very certain. The important question is ,"Is LENR a real phenomenon or not"? This question has a clear black or white answer. The skeptic seem to say, "it may be true or it may not, we simply do not know, but we will act as if it does not exist while looking for all the reasons we can imagine to support this conclusion". In contrast, I assembled all known information in two books, tested the behavior in the lab and concluded that LENR is real. This experience seems to have no importance to the skeptics. My effort now is to explain how it works. This goal is too far removed from how the skeptics think to allow effective communication.

I find a difference between teaching in a class room and on the internet. In the classroom, arrogance would get the student kicked out of class and lack of doing any serious thinking or home work would fail the student. No such incentive to learn is present on the internet. Consequently, very little learning takes place. Simple asking the same questions that have been answered already and then complaining about the lack of answers is not learning.

"The volt (symbol: V) is the derived unit for electric potential, electric potential difference (voltage), and electromotive force.[4] The volt is named in honor of the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta (1745–1827), who invented the voltaic pile, possibly the first chemical battery."

Quote from oystla

Shanahan:

But talkers have never been good doers. It's the doers that change this world.

And These are just a few of the good ones:

http://www.currentscience.ac.i…mes/108/04/0491-suppl.pdf

Display More

Not since the age of the great christian persecutions by the Romans on the blood soaked sands of the coliseum has a group of sainted men been exposed to such ridicule, humiliation and belittlement. As a Johnny come lately, Rossi knew what he was getting into, he saw the rough treatment that was heaped upon these first long suffering LENR heros, and he prepared himself for the abuse rendered by the snakes and clowns. But the others who were first, who broke the ground and kept the faith were fully exposed, those who placed the fate of all mankind about their own welfare and prospects, we own these men the utmost in respect and devotion, we must insure that their accomplishments, inherent goodness, and sacrifice are recognized to the latest generation and shall not perish from the memories of all humankind.

Storms wrote:

Quote

For example, Cude claims I do not know what a "volt" is. I quote Wikipedia below. Note the term electromagnetic FORCE.

With all due respect Dr Storms, if you think a voltage is a force, you don't know what voltage is. As I suspected, it is the term "electromotive force" (not electromagnetic force, by the way) that confused you, as it does many first year students. But I already said it's a misnomer.

For example, in Cutnell & Johnson's first year text, they write "The word "force" appears in this context for historical reasons, even though it is incorrect. As we have seen ... electric potential [voltage] is energy per unit charge, which is not force."

Hecht, in his excellent first year text writes: "A potential difference... is an 'electromotive force', or emf, although that's a misnomer -- it's not a force at all."

Some texts, like Knight, Jones and Field avoid the confusion by not writing the word out at all, and simply defining "emf".

So, no, it's not a force, it's an energy per unit charge, or alternatively, its (negative) gradient is an electric field.

Quote

Initially, it was measured as the FORCE exerted between two plates on which the same charge was applied. The amount of charge determines the amount of FORCE.

But the force measurement does not give the voltage without knowing the charge and the plate separation.

I can measure distance with a stop-watch if I know my speed, but that doesn't mean the distance is time.

We measure mass by measuring the force of gravity, but that doesn't mean mass is force.

And current is measured in an analog meter by the force (deflection) on a needle, but that doesn't mean current is a force.

The elementary error you made was quite surprising, but your attempt to save face by digging in your heels surely has the opposite result, at least for anyone who has learned a little electricity and magnetism.

Storms wrote:

Quote

The temperature is a measure of the energy contained in a material using the heat capacity to store the energy.

That's a clumsy way to put it. (Absolute) temperature is proportional the the average kinetic energy of the constituents of an ensemble. For a monatomic ideal gas, for example, <KE> = 3/2 kT

Quote

Temperature and voltage are not related or equal in any way, which was the point I tried to get across.

Sure they are, in the right context, and the context the statement appeared in was the right context.

A temperature defines an average kinetic energy. And a voltage determines the kinetic energy of a charged particle accelerated across it.

The temperature normally given for the core of the sun is 15 million K, corresponding to an average energy of about 2 keV.

The energy of a singly charged particle accelerated through 10 kV is 10 keV, corresponding to a temperature of about 80 million K, so the presence of a 10 kV potential difference, means particles could attain an energy higher than in the core of the sun.

I'm not sure why you objected to that. It's entirely consistent with what you said after, that fusion in this context is ordinary hot fusion.

Storms wrote:

Quote

As for the evidence describing LENR, it ranges from the trivial to as close to certainty as we get in science.

You lose credibility when you make statements so obviously wrong. You may be completely convinced, but most of the world isn't, including two DOE panels that examined the best evidence.

On the other hand, a demonstration of the Meisner effect in 1987 convinced essentially everyone that HTSC was real. So, that evidence is manifestly *better*.

And surely you agree that a completely isolated device that produced 10 kW of power without input, and after a month of operation showed helium at commensurate levels with the heat corresponding to orders of magnitude above background levels, would represent much better evidence, and that it would succeed at convincing a great many skeptics. Therefore, it's easy to conceive of better evidence.

Moreover, the MFMP only exist because they are (were) certain that much better evidence could be found and used to convince the world that LENR is real.

Quote

The skeptics seem to focus on the trivial end of the spectrum while the believers concentration on what is very certain.

I don't know what you're talking about. The discussions here have been about the same evidence.

Quote

The important question is ,"Is LENR a real phenomenon or not"? This question has a clear black or white answer. The skeptic seem to say, "it may be true or it may not, we simply do not know, but we will act as if it does not exist while looking for all the reasons we can imagine to support this conclusion".

I guess it's necessary for you to mischaracterize the skeptical view so it's easier for you to rationalize your continued belief.

Yes, skeptics are not certain, but as Feynman says scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty....none absolutely certain.

But, they contend that the erratic and marginal nature of the evidence, and the wide variety of not always consistent observations, can be much more plausibly attributed to artifacts and confirmation bias, than to a variety of completely unprecedented nuclear reactions, many radiationless, and that (like the ether of the 19th century) contrive to prevent discovery of their nature.

Quote

In contrast, I assembled all known information in two books, tested the behavior in the lab and concluded that LENR is real. This experience seems to have no importance to the skeptics.

You have described the observations that led to your conclusions, or if you're a good scientist, you should have, and your description of those observations fails to convince other scientists.

Blondlott tested N-rays in the lab and concluded they were real, but he was wrong. You should allow for the possibility that you might be wrong too.

Quote from joshua cude

You should allow for the possibility that you might be wrong too.

Ed is not wrong.

Rossi's customer opted for another year of heat output from Rossi's reactor...case closed.

Money talks, bulls**t walks

Quote

You did remind me of a question for Thomas though. Did you (Thomas) use the paper by Manara, Keller, et al that showed the alumina emissivity as a function of temp? It is clearly a non-Plankian emitter. I would think that would make the use of the Optris very questionable.

It is questionable. The emissivity if a function of temperature and wavelength. At the IR wavelengths used by the camera (7-13u) the material looks like a black body and things vary very little with temperature (there is some change but it is very small).

Unfortunately the testers did not understand the difference between band and total emissivity and so vastly over-estimated the temperature. Obviously alumina is not a grey body and at the temperatures used the emissivity at higher optical frequencies drops sharply, as does total emissivity.

Worse, at those higher frequencies alumina is translucent and therefore you cannot safely estimate power out from an alumina rod with internal heating using total emissivity, which will only exactly apply when the entire rod is the same temperature and also thick enough that what is behind it does not matter (there is a paper somewhere showing dramatically different emissivity values in different cases).

So while (as corrected by me) the temperature readings are pretty safe, the corresponding radiated power analysis is highly unsafe.

Quote from Ed

For example, Cude claims I do not know what a "volt" is. I quote Wikipedia below. Note the term electromagnetic FORCE. This is the nature of the phenomenon we call a volt, which is measured in different ways. Initially, it was measured as the FORCE exerted between two plates on which the same charge was applied. The amount of charge determines the amount of FORCE. I suggest Cude and the others refrain from personal comments especially since they frequently have no idea what they are talking about.

This is absurd. It sounds from the above as though you don't know the physical definition of voltage! What Josh (and I) have written is precisely correct and any person on this site with high school physics (LENR believer or no) can validate this.

What you said was at best misleading, as I pointed out. Your defence of it now would seem to indicate that you still don't understand voltage and are just wrong.

Voltage is not force for two reasons. One, forgivable, is that the force arising depends on the charge. More charge means more force. I can see from your restatement that you understand this. Good. The other, more serious and unforgiveable, is that the force on a charge varies with the electric field, which is voltage/distance, not the voltage. A given voltage may give rise to a very large force over a short separation, or a very small force over a long separation.

Misunderstanding the effect of integration over distance in this way is a serious error. I'm still pretty sure that you don't really think this. But in that case your lack of correction here must come from some inability to reflect on criticism, or some inability to publicly admit mistakes. Surely that is non-optimal in any field? Making mistakes is perfectly OK, we all do it. Not being able to reflect on criticism and acknowledge mistakes is something else.

Quote from Shanne said quoting MFMP

In the past week we have been checking, cross checking to verify and this morning we cleared our last serious doubt, again live, with shared data. Because this is already in the open we want people to know so that they can start replicating based on what works, moreover, the insight will allow people to immediately start improving on our results.

I'll look at this with interest. Bob et al at MFMP clearly think that they have proved the existence of anomalous heat in their experiments beyond doubt. It would be great for science were that true. I'm willing to bet here that the chance of them having made some error (perhaps even a systematic error!) that has not yet been detected is much much higher than the chance that they do have this anomalous heat.

There is some middle way here. They may (it would be interesting if they had) have discovered some chemical anomaly that delivers unexpectedly high chemical levels of heat. I'm writing all this not having looked at their results so I don't know over what time period they have measured significant excess power.

I'm sorry they are making these grandiose claims. It shows a lack of proper caution and while they have imperatives to get funding, and will be naturally excited when they think they have discovered something, they are naive and don't I can see yet realise the way mistakes can be made.

The other good thing about this is that they will get funding, I expect, and they will be able to investigate the matter thoroughly. Any anomaly will in the end be understood. Should it prove nuclear Josh, I and I guess Kirk (not sure of his view on the broader question) will be very highly surprised, but happy. I just hope it is an interesting enough anomaly (maybe unusual chemical heat) that MFMP don't end up with too much egg on their faces. But it could easily be some experimental issue.

Quote

I'm writing all this not having looked at their results

Why even bother? I mean, it's not going to change your mind.

Quote

1. The claimed excess energy results from a calibration error or from a normal chemical reaction.
2. The detected helium results from an air leaking into the system,
3. The detected tritium results from contamination by tritium in the local environment,
4. The transmutation products result from contamination by normal impurities,
5. The detected radiation results from poor measurements,
6. Observations that cannot be explained using these conclusions must result from fraud
or incompetence.

Display More

This 'hits the nail on the head' perfectly, as far as I'm concerned, and no amount of long winded sophistry will change it.

Also:

Quote

7. The craters found on electrodes were created by a multi-headed mythical creature.

colwyn repeated (as a caricature of skeptics' beliefs):

Quote

1. The claimed excess energy results from a calibration error or from a normal chemical reaction.

2. The detected helium results from an air leaking into the system,

3. The detected tritium results from contamination by tritium in the local environment,

4. The transmutation products result from contamination by normal impurities,

5. The detected radiation results from poor measurements,

6. Observations that cannot be explained using these conclusions must result from fraud

or incompetence.

Display More

On the other hand, advocates seem to argue:

1. The claimed excess energy results from an unspecified and completely unprecedented radiationless nuclear reaction, contrary to the robust predictions of nuclear science as understood from a century of experimental evidence.

2. The detected helium results from an unspecified and completely unprecedented radiationless nuclear reaction, contrary to the robust predictions of nuclear science as understood from a century of experimental evidence.

3. The detected tritium results from a different unspecified and completely unprecedented nuclear reaction, contrary to the robust predictions of nuclear science as understood from a century of experimental evidence.

4. The transmutation products result from a wide variety of unspecified and completely unprecedented radiationless nuclear reaction that always begin and end on common stable isotopes, contrary to the robust predictions of nuclear science as understood from a century of experimental evidence.

5. The detected radiation results from unspecified and completely unprecedented nuclear reactions, that do not produce any recognizable patterns, contrary to the robust predictions of nuclear science as understood from a century of experimental evidence.

6. Observations that cannot be explained using these conclusions must result from other unspecified and completely unprecedented nuclear reaction, contrary to the robust predictions of nuclear science as understood from a century of experimental evidence.

----

The wide variety of observations is intended to make artifacts and errors seem implausible as explanations, but in fact it makes nuclear explanations far more implausible. The observations can't be explained by a single nuclear reaction, but requires dozens of unprecedented and inconceivable nuclear reactions, and unprecedented mechanisms to convert nuclear energy to heat. The different experiments have sensitivities and specificities that range by factors of millions or even billions, and it's completely implausible that the corresponding intensities of nuclear manifestations would similarly vary, keeping all the observations near the detection or noise limit. On the other hand, that is exactly what one would expect if the observations are the result of artifacts and confirmation bias.

You missed out number 7.

Joshua said (as a caricature of skeptics' beliefs):

Quote

Egad.

MFMP was formed to bring clarity to LENR. To identify one simple experiment that gave unequivocal evidence for the phenomenon that anyone could repeat.

And *this* is supposed to be that? They haven’t even repeated, let alone anyone else.

The evidence for excess heat is as obscure and prone to artifacts and error as any ever claimed.

And the gamma burst which has the exact spectrum as the background, and as expected, orders of magnitude too low to be commensurate with the heat. What sort of nuclear reaction produces gamma rays on a continuum of energy like that?

It would be a desperate journal that would publish claims like these as definitive evidence for LENR. Chalk one up for open science as a new way to produce unjustified euphoria with a COP of 1.2.

Let’s wait for the next MFMP strip-tease, and hopefully, they won’t reveal falsies next time.

Display More

Beta-minus bremsstrahlung, genius?

Quote

Why even bother?

Because I will be better informed, and it will be interesting

Quote

I mean, it's not going to change your mind.

You are making assumptions. I don't know how it will change my mind.

Maybe what you mean is this. There is no single experiment MFMP could do that would alone make me think nuclear reactions were likely as an explanation for any anomalies. But they might make me think - hey here is a reproducible experiment that shows a clear anomaly. I don't think that at the moment - so it would change my mind.

and with further investigation of said anomaly I could be persuaded it most likely indicated something nuclear was going on - though it would need quite a bit of additional work. As long as MFMP maintain openness to criticism, the more interesting the results the more criticism they will get. If they answer this their results will become clearer.

Quote

MFMP was formed to bring clarity to LENR. To identify one simple experiment that gave unequivocal evidence for the phenomenon that anyone could repeat.And *this* is supposed to be that? They haven’t even repeated, let alone anyone else.The evidence for excess heat is as obscure and prone to artifacts and error as any ever claimed.

Josh, you are being a bit hard on these guys. they are amateurs. Personally, if they remain open to criticism and reflection they will be one up on most LENR scientists, amateur though they may be.

I agree their announcement was premature - but it was only to funders, not quite public (and I hope publicly they do not repeat it yet). Anyway they still have much to learn about the dangers of rushing to judgement.

I don't knock them for having judgement different from mine or yours. If they had our judgement they would not be doing the work in the first place.

Tom

Can somebody comment this: ?

What MFMP claims to be a new, - a now public setup -, can be read in far more detail in the following public Paper (2013).

Proceedings of the 14th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society, JCF14
December 7 - 8, 2013 Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Study on Anomalous Heat Evolution from H-Ni Nanoparticle System at Elevated Temperature with Mass-Flow Calorimetry
A. Kitamura#1,2, A. Takahashi1,3, R. Seto1, Y. Fujita1, A. Taniike2, Y. Furuyama2
1 Technova Inc., Tokyo 1000011, Japan 2 Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Kobe 6580022, Japan, 3 Osaka University, Suita 5650871, Japan # [email protected]

Paradigmnoia wrote: "As far as the camera can see, the spectrum for alumina looks very much Planckian."

This is what I am not following in relation to the emmission spectrum from alumina at
several temperatures shown in Figure 5 of J. Manara, et al[*]. In the 7.5-13 micron region,
I compute the blackbody emission to be a very smooth decreasing function (exponential) at
whatever temperature. No structure to speak of.

On the other hand, the alumina emmission spectrum in that range shows a nearly flat emission
from ~8 microns up to just past the Christiansen wavelength (cited as 9.8 microns), whereupon
it starts dropping off rapidly to a value ~50% lower by ~11.5 microns. Then it increases slightly
up to 13 microns, the increase being lesser at higher temps because the dip at 11.5 isn't as deep
as T goes up.

I am not trying to reopen any discussion with my question. I am not skilled in this area and
I'm just trying to understand, so am I comparing apples and oranges, or do you have a
different definition of 'very much'? I actually see very little resemblance. The steep drop
at 11.5 microns is very 'un-Plankian' to me.

(FYI - I have included the data I am using from the ref below.)

* J. Manara, M. Keller, D. Kraus, M. Arduini-Schuster, "DETERMINING THE TRANSMITTANCE AND
EMITTANCE OF TRANSPARENT AND SEMITRANSPARENT MATERIALS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES", 5th
European Thermal-Sciences Conference, The Netherlands, 2008

Hand digitized alumina emmission spectrum from Fig. 5 of ref. at 1050K

Microns 'normal emittance'
4 0
4.5 0.02
5 0.1
5.5 0.23
6 0.38
6.5 0.64
7 0.86
7.5 0.94
8 0.95
8.5 0.95
9 0.95
9.5 0.95
10 0.95
10.5 0.93
11 0.68
11.5 0.42
12 0.4
12.5 0.43
13 0.46
13.5 0.43
14 0.42
14.5 0.38
15 0.3
15.5 0.35
16 0.35
16.5 0.12
17 0.15
17.5 0.4
18 0.54

Ed wrote: "The skeptics seem to focus on the trivial end of the spectrum while the believers concentration on what is very certain."

Please supply us with a (preferable) or a few references (related, not for totally independent experimental configurations) that demonstrate "what is very certain". Thank you.

Quote

Can somebody comment this: ?What MFMP claims to be a new, - a now public setup -, can be read in far more detail in the following public Paper (2013).

MFMP seen excited about correlations between excess heat and (gamma?) emmission. This experiment describes only excess heat.

In both cases, (this experiment and MFMP) the evidence for extraordinary excess heat is not strong. MFMP take this evidence combined with emission correlations and use that as the basis of their strong claim.

I don't endorse this. There are very many artifacts for emissions, especially at low levels. But I'm not commenting on the MFMP stuff in detail till I've had time to read and consider it. it is raw data, not a proper writeup - so that will take some time. Maybe this weekend.

colwyn wrote:

Quote

Beta-minus bremsstrahlung, genius?

Conceivably, yes. But why the same profile as the background? Anyway, don't they say x/beta emissions thermalized in lead? The lead would produce most of the bremsstrahlung, but would have characteristic peaks at 73, 75, and 84 keV (unresolved with NaI as a peak at 78 keV). This appears in the background, but is absent in the excursion.