Quote: “Who has the best evidence to date in your opinion?”
I'll agree with Abd here. If correlated He/excess heat evidence from Pd/D could be found that was controlled for the obvious correlations (time/heat/leakage/diffusion) it would indicate…
Thanks. It's sad that nearly thirty years after PF, still no one really has a simple LENR experiment so blatantly energetically obvious as to copious energy production as to be convincing.
From jcf14
This is a report on 16 peer reviewed papers, out of which 14 papers were submitted to the editorial board.
Extract:
We, Japan CF-Research Society members, started the research of the cold fusion more than two dozens of years ago. The cold fusion has a potential ability to establish a small-scale, radiationless nuclear reactor, and hopefully to shorten half-lives of radioactive wastes by nuclear transmutation. We believe that our approach is one of the most challenging ways not only to realize an environmentally-sound nuclear power system with zero emission of the greenhouse gases and other harmful oxides, but also to develop a novel technique for disposal of the nuclear wastes produced by fission reactors.
Pretty impressive I would say, especially to a judge and jury.
Best regards
Frank
From jcf14
This is a report on <span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>16 peer reviewed papers</b></span>, out of which 14 papers were submitted to the editorial board.
Extract:
We, Japan CF-Research Society members, started the research of the cold fusion more than two dozens of years ago. The cold…
If it really works then they need not wait for the worlds permission. Just build something as Mills is attempting to do. On Mills' site it says "Prototypes are already continuously producing hundreds of thousands of watts of light that is ideal for concentrator photovoltaic conversion being engineered and fabricated at leading photovoltaic (PV) companies."
Dear LENR forum. Wyttenbach wants me to look at some papers, but perhaps was not able to answer my request for more specific reading matter due to people disliking it and iyt therefore sort of disappearing.
It is a proper request, and I see no reason to dislike it.
Quote from WyttenbachJust dig in jcf14.. - proceedings.
You'd need to be more precise and substantive than that for me to identify which set of results we disagree about.
I could of course just go for the first paper in jcf14? But it may well not be suitable.
Alan
See: http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf
I checked this a couple of times so I know it works where I am, maybe its blocked in some countries.
You will need to download an Adobe 'font' file but its in English and the science looks like what you would expect from high end main stream professionals, although I don't pretend to understand it, maybe Tom could shed some light on it. Each paper has at least one page of references, the last paper by Hideo Kozima of the 'Cold Fusion Research Laboratory' has 10 pages of 'references'. many of these references I think will be found referred to in Ed Storms books. He expands on the history of 'Cold Fusion' from a acientific perspective and asks 'If we want to find a common cause of peculiar events in both deuterium and protium systems, we have to open our eyes to experimental facts themselves obtained in both systems.
I can understand why this unsettles Thomas.
It's an 'Aladdin's cave' of information and links, ideas and research. The genie is in there somewhere!
Best regards
Frank
PS: Another link - to the sponsoring Tohoku University I think: http://cleanplanet.co.jp/index.php?lang=en
This also has a link to the above jfc document. The catalyst for the 'Clean Planet' research appears to be the Fukushima meltdown.
Thomas
I could of course just go for the first paper in jcf14? But it may well not be suitable.
This is a study on Anomalous Heat Evolution from H-Ni Nanoparticle System at Elevated Temperature with Mass-Flow Calorimetry which should be right up your street.
Don't ask me to comment, I don't understand it but I know you will! But I do understand this: "The excess power grows to the maximum value of 15 W (0.25 W/g-Ni), and is quenched suddenly at midnight of Nov. 28, forming an 80-hours hump. Integrating the power, we obtain an excess energy of 3 MJ/mol-Ni (30 eV/atom-Ni). This is several to ten times larger than the energy generated by any chemical reaction".
Best regards
Frank
Just a little thought experiment:
Dr Andrea Rossi's case:
(1) He has invented a mechanism to make LENR work and work very well. Many others can make LENR work and it is a proven phenomena for real, of that there is no doubt (exhibit 1 jcf14, exhibit 2 ERV report). He has sold his IP to IH in good faith under strict contract terms, but they are not expert enough to make it work for themselves and so they claim ("without success"). As a result they have given his IP to his competitors who also have tried to make it work under contract to IH ("without success") or so they claim, the Judge and members of the Jury will be asked to consider IH may be stalling for time so they can beat Dr Rossi to the market. This they have done without his consent and which forms part of his complaint as it is in contravention of the terms of the contract.
(2) As proof IH believes his invention works he has evidence they submitted an application (without his consent) for a patent in which they claim it works and is useful.
(3) Were it not for the fact that IH have refused to pay him the agreed balance of $89 million on a successful outcome of the one year test COP > 6 - (see exhibit 2 ERV report), he would still be helping them transform his invention into a marketable product.
(4) He will of course invite the judge and members of the jury to see the invention working for themselves in his 'container'.
Industrial Heats defence:
(1) IH cannot make Dr Rossi's invention work, they have asked other experts in the field to help with this which is 'legitimate due diligence', 'without success'.
(2) Yes IH applied for a patent with IP which Dr Rossi sold to them which they believe is 'their' property and so the patent application is legal, they have not broken any contract conditions doing this.
(3) Yes IH believe Dr Rossi's invention works and have not questioned the ERV report, but can't make it work for themselves, they can only conclude Dr Rossi has not given them the necessary IP and technical assistance to make it work since it is very clear to IH Dr Rossi's 1MW e-cat works. Until Dr Rossi does help them make it work, they have 'legitimately' withheld the $89 million.
(4) As soon as they can make one of their own e-cats work with Dr Rossi's IP and expertise to their own satisfaction they will happily give Dr Rossi the balance of $89 million, IH will of course invite the Judge and members of the jury to see their own failed attempts to make Dr Rossi's invention work after following all Dr Rossi's instructions.
Best regards
Frank
Unsettling indeed. OK - 1st paper - no-one was prepared to tell me which to look at - 30 minutes of inspection only and we get:
(1)
Quote− A new mass-flow calorimetry system has been installed to investigate the excess-power phenomena at elevated temperatures up to several hundred degrees C with an increased amount of the Nibased nano-composite sample. The first trial runs with a silica-included Cu⋅Ni nano-composite sample (CNS) containing 4.1 gram of Ni showed an implication of a few-days-lasting excess power of 5 W/g-Ni. Next, a Cu⋅Ni⋅Zr oxide nano-composite sample (CNZ4) containing 61 gram of Ni has been examined to show excess power of 15 W lasting for 3 days and that gradually increasing at a rate of 10 W per 3 weeks. Each corresponds to 30 eV/atom-Ni and 100 eV/atom-Ni, which implies a nuclear origin of the excess energy.
This abstract is annoying because it does not state the calorimetry error, nor the input power. For example if the input power was 1W this would be X10 increase and pretty astonishing, unless they have made Rossi-type erors which is unlikely. If the input power is 100W this is +10% and within the range of mass flow calorimetry errors (unless you are careful).
So, we have to read the whole thing to find out: (1) what is the ratio input poiwer / measured excess. (2) what is the expected error of teh mass colorimetry.
One other thing to note here. They are using oil coolant at high temperature. This is not necessary - there is no reason for the coolant to have the same temperature as the reactor, it can be adjusted as you like. However it does introduce some extra sources of error:
(1) heat loss from coolant tubes, pump, etc which must be explicit controlled and will be higher than normal
(2) coolant viscosity varies very largely with temperature affecting potentially both pump and flowmeter.
So with these extra (unnecessary) error sources we have a tougher job to check the calibration and controls for possible errors than would normally be the case. And, nowhere in the body of the paper can I find clearly stated the input power used for the steady-state measurements which give rise to the 15W excess. (I'm sure it is there, just not headlined).
However we do get some negative information from the abstract:
The 15W steady-state measurement shows a 3.3W/week linear increase (over 3 days) that would normally be taken to mean some not understood calibration drift.
The two experiments with 4gNi and 60gNi of powder deliver steady-state measured excess of (20W implication) and 15W respectively. Unfortunately they are different powders, with different Ni fractions, so can't be compared, but the roughly constant excess power is consistent with some error mechanism independent of the fuel. It is not clear why they use incomparable units to state the excess power.
Had they done experiments with say 4gNi and 60gNi of the same powder, under otherwise identical conditions, we would have a much clearer indication of whether this excess heat is fuel-related, or some expected error from the elaborate calorimetry.
Can anyone work out why they have omitted this useful data? They must surely have done that...
Anyway - do you think we should investigate this 1st paper more thoroughly? It would take quite some time to do a proper analysis to see what can change between their control and active runs in the calorimetry system, especially with the extra uncertainty from the oil coolant?
Thomas
Figure 2 on page 4 shows the input power (W1+W2) = (0+26) W to (69+78) W.
The excess power is shown in figure 10 on page 12. The heater power appears to be calculated from the measured voltage across the heater and the resistance at room temperature. The graph appears to show the origin of the fluctuation of the input power is not the origin of the temperature humps.
Best regards
Frank
David
This is your thread, what do you think?
In
Just a little thought experiment:
above, I suggested the case will not be about the reality of LENR or the Rossi effect, but about Intellectual Property and support (or lack of it) to make it all work as a reason to withhold the $89 million.
Once Industrial Heat begins to cast doubt on the 'reality' of LENR and in particular the 'Rossi Effect' their whole investment strategy will collapse. This is not what they want IMHO.
So all the nay sayers who claim the Rossi v Industrial Heat case will close down the LENR for good are well off the mark in my opinion and just capitalising on a wave of 'misinformation' and at worst 'disinformation'.
Thomas
Since I appeared to win our little debate re paper 1 jcf14, shall we go on to paper 2?
Best regards
Frank
QuoteSince I appeared to win our little debate re paper 1 jcf14, shall we go on to paper 2?
just here for 5 minutes.
No - I think you should stick with paper 1. When I'm here for more than 5 min I'll have a look. I can see nothing in my statements so far, or the paper, or your statements, that contradicts my original statements? Suppose you try to work out in your own mind which observation in that paper is not expected from non-LENR physics, and why?
Well I am not interested in whether the paper shows artefacts that prove LENR or that known physics are at work, I am not skilled enough to consider that; I am only interested in what seems to me to be 'proven' excess energy hence my comparison of figure 2 (power in) with figure 10 (power out) by what principles this was achieved I will leave to those who can understand.
So for me that is a win! Excess energy end of storey.
Paper 2
JCF14-2. Recent Advances in Transmutation Experiments Induced by Deuterium Permeation Using Nano-Structured Pd/CaO/Pd Multilayer Thin Film.
Now 'transmutation' can lead not just to 'excess energy' but also to reducing the risks inherent in the 'nuclear energy' industry. I can see why Japan are particularly interested in this. Table 1 shows the transmutations detected and table 2. Gamma-ray measurements were made using a Germanium detector.
Best regards
Frank
