Pr Songsheng Jiang publish a report on newer experiments done in December 2015

  • Chinese LENR portal publish a report by Songsheng Jiang about two batch of experiments, done in July, and then Decembre 2015.
    The report is in Chinese so most of us need help to understand it.


    [news=111,meta][/news]

  • My first question will be about the history of experiments.
    I remember of the first experiment with a TC that get overheated, and a second that seemed to have survived. There was much hope, many questions, and some plan to make it better.


    The article talk of July and December, which seems to say there have been 2 more experiments ? is it?


    Finally a translation of the article (by a good samaritan, or by the author) will be great.

  • Essentially he repeated the experiment with all the errors/objections as before:
    1- No calibration (if the Chinese text mentions it, please let us know)
    2- No B type TC (K type shows the same behavior which a faulty TC would show)
    3- No correlation between T1 and T2
    4- No calorimetry (One would switch to calorimetry as soon as positive results are obtained to verify them)
    5- No radiation measurements


    Its sad that I must call it inconclusive again.

  • I would like to ask if he changed the pressure in any way manually during the experiment? For me it look like there was added hydrogen for a few times to trigger/boost the reaction. There were similar things in the previous experiments.


    Next question is, if the heater is completely separated from the reaction chamber? - it is not in a hydrogen atmosphere.


    Thank you

  • The paper translation clarify many points.


    The failure of T2 is acknowledged. I know this raises some doubt, but a I read the report it seems there are raised points that support an anomalous event.


    One point to confirm is about the failure mode of type-K TC, after short and long over heating.
    There is a claim that it lead normally to underestimation of temperature (the seebeck effect is reduced? because junction is less effective?).


    -> Maybe Pr Songcheng, or experts could develop on that point.


    One interesting, maybe convincing, event is

    Quote


    The power was turned off to protect thermocouple T2. Even though the heating power was disconnected, and T1 temperature decreased rapidly after the power is turned off, T2 temperature remained in the 1100-1300°C temperature range due to self-sustaining heating effect of the fuel sample. After 120 minutes, thermocouple T2 was broken and the experiment was over.


    One fear is that T2 was already dysfunctioning while showing 1100-1300C. However the comments says that broken T2 should rather underestimate temperature, not overestimate it?


    -> Maybe Pr Songcheng, or experts could develop around those ideas.


    Another phenomenon is even more convincing for me, it is T4 grows significantly after


    I notice however that there is a long delay (1h latence, 4h stabilisation) between power start and T4 response.
    However the step after power change and pressure change (pressure change seems caused by temperature change, not by external action? another evidence of anomalous event), is much less than 1 hour.


    if you live in the paradigm of no LENR, then the raise of T4 from 110C to 167C cannot be caused by the modest pulse of input heat around 14:00, especially if you compare with the longer pulse around 11:00 and 9:00.
    Pressure boom at 14:00 is also anomalous, especially after 4 hour of decrease.


    -> Maybe Pr Songcheng, or experts could develop around those ideas.


    Something happened, and just blaming T2, or even T1 malfunction, eve assuming they show higher than real temperature, cannot explain all.
    Using more temperature resistant TC would close the discussion.


    -> Is there a plan to move to better TC? to flow calorimetry ?

  • Hello Pr Songsheng Jiang,


    Would it possible to receive the raw data of the acquisition? In the graph it is very difficult to understand what is the cause and the consequences of all the events that occurred in the experimental setup.

  • I would like to see the experiment done in liquid helium.


    The electric field forces the hydrogen against the metal matrix, and the extra low temperature will decrease Brownian motion which is suspending the H2 above the matrix.
    The extra cold will cause more intimate contact with the metal matrix causing much greater penetration.


    At present we are using a semi-hot fusion philosophy.


    I believe that the hydrogen penetration will be orders of magnitude greater and so I urge extreme caution. Please use microscopic samples and a blast proof wall.

  • Yet more censorship Alain,
    I'm not popular over at peak prosperity and have been muzzled. The cold fusion thread has vanished. If you are a member you can post these results on the "Daily Digest"


    Don't worry, and post on Fortune :D

  • Unfortunately I can not promise that we get quick answers!
    This morning Dr Songsheng Jiang told me that LENR forum does not work in China, he is also very busy in those times.


    Feel free to continue writing questions, I promise to try to get answers from him.
    But Please, use this thread instead.

  • I've been censored here before. But I may have gone a bit overboard:)


    There is something that should be said about some of these claims however. Given the nature of the beast the parties have a motive to lie. We are talking about an energy source that has a huge profound impact. Put yourself in their shoes. Say you are a Russian or Chinese official. You get wind of some Western European working with the Americans in secret on a cold fusion device. Chances are it is baloney but what if it comes out that it is for real. You will look pretty stupid. To come out and say it is there when it is a hoax will make you look foolish. So they find some obscure low level scientist to come out and say they replicated the effect. It is great insurance. If it is real then your country A) knew about it all along from the get go. B) do not need a patent because you invented it in the first place. If it is not real then your country A) disavows a rogue scientist who has since retired. B) had nothing to do with the matter


    These reports by Parkhomov and Jiang are a reaction by the big superpowers to Rossi's move. I would not read too much into them.


    PS it's Feb 2016, the report claims to be from May 2015, and Rossi was granted a US patent in August 2015