The Playground

Quote from JedRothwell

Axil's comment seems a little off the wall, but the paper he refers to by Cravens is pretty good. You should read it. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDcoldfusiona.pdf

Hi Jed. Thanks for this. I read an earlier account - this has a little more information.

The thermistor datasheet shows 2K at 25C . With 250mV that is 100uA current. Or for 250ohm (80C) 1mA. Much higher than the recommended current of 10uA. However the main problem here is self-heating of the thermistor relative to air, with a time constant of 10s and thermal resistance of 1C/mW (much more significant than the claimed ball to bath resistance of 4C/W). The test noted in the write-up does not determine this, but at 250 ohm and 250mV we have only 0.25mW - this error possibility can be dismissed if the given data is correct.

With the active thermistor in a D2 atmosphere the obvious issue is permanent drift due to chemical contamination. It is encased in epoxy - but that would not be enough to prevent D2 diffusion. This fits all of the data and the standard check of temperature stability after the test has never been done, as far as I can see. Also, metal oxide thermistors would likely be affected by exposure to hydrogen (thermistors without coating are also used as deoxygenating gas sensors!) From the datasheet:

Stability and Drift
While thermistors are generally very accurate and
stable devices, conditions such as over-temperature
exposure, humidity, mechanical damage or corrosion
can cause uncontrolled changes in the resistance vs.
temperature characteristics of the device. Once this
characteristic has been altered, it cannot be
re-established.

I think this is a pretty good high likelihood explanation for these results. Of course, were this a serious test, a before and after sensor calibration would be done, and this detected.

From the write-up:

It was interesting that only two people had serious doubts
about the heat. It is just hard to argue with a 4 degree signal
that is hotter than its surroundings.

The only way to determine this 4C difference was the thermistors. They were epoxy bead - not designed for industrial environments, and not checked after the test (at least it does not say this).

4C can easily be detected by touch. But not up at 80C where only transient touch is possible and so experienced heat varies with touch time and thermal resistance.

Quote from axil

Prove it...

Not my job. It is their job to provide convincing evidence, which they haven't done for a number of reasons, all of which they choose to ignore in typical pathological scientist fashion.

Quote from andrea.s

Some of us do enjoy proving that demos are no proof - it happened for all of Rossi's demos and likely easy on these Golden Balls - nomen omen. No one in their right mind will engage in trying to prove that the Balls don't work, for the epistemological reasons repeated a thousand times.

No-one can prove they don't work. But there is a very plausible error mechanism that explains all the data!

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think this is a pretty good high likelihood explanation for these results. Of course, were this a serious test, a before and after sensor calibration would be done, and this detected.

I believe it was done, but you should ask Cravens.

Quote from axil

[regarding transmutations in Rossi experiment]

Prove it...

There is no proof either way yet. The experiment has not been independently replicated. Until it is replicated, it does not mean much. In this case it means practically nothing.

Quote from maryyugo

What's your take on this? How does something like this happen?

Human error. Airplanes and cars are far safer than they use to be, but I doubt there will another large increase in safety until they are piloted exclusively by computers. Self-driving cars are already significantly safer than human-driven ones. Experts are confident that when all cars are driven by robots, the accident rate will be far lower.

I know something about aviation and piloting because by coincidence my office is located in an airport. I sometimes gab with pilots and buy time on a room-sized flight simulator just for the heck of it. *

* Based on this, I can say with confidence that I would be a TERRIBLE pilot and I would probably land on the wrong runway at the wrong airport more often than not. Spend 10 minutes in a full-sized realistic flight simulator and you will not only understand why pilots make these mistakes; you will be amazed that they ever manage to land in one piece. As pilots say, it's a good landing if you can walk away from it.

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe it was done, but you should ask Cravens.

I'll e-m him if you can PM me his e-mail.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'll e-m him if you can PM me his e-mail.

I know not how to PM (private message). You can contact me at [email protected]

Quote from kirkshanahan

Not my job. It is their job to provide convincing evidence, which they haven't done for a number of reasons, all of which they choose to ignore in typical pathological scientist fashion.

The top men in northern European science set up and conducted the long term Lugano test for IH which included an air tight assay of both the fuel and the resultant ash. That assay showed unassailable evidence of transmutation by using cross checking assay method of both the surface and bulk of the tested material. Prove that this standards setting and prototypical effort was flawed and ineffective or refrain from baseless criticism.

Quote from THHuxleynew

With the active thermistor in a D2 atmosphere the obvious issue is permanent drift due to chemical contamination. It is encased in epoxy - but that would not be enough to prevent D2 diffusion. This fits all of the data and the standard check of temperature stability after the test has never been done, as far as I can see. Also, metal oxide thermistors would likely be affected by exposure to hydrogen (thermistors without coating are also used as deoxygenating gas sensors!) From the datasheet:

@THH: Does your reasoning take into account, that always both balls should exhibit the same error (s)? Or do you know of an isotope sensitive chemical reaction??

As a denier I would argue that people touched the hotter ball much often and therefor it got hotter .....

Quote from Wyttenbach

CC

@THH: Does your reasoning take into account, that always both balls should exhibit the same error (s)? Or do you know of an isotope sensitive chemical reaction??

As a denier I would argue that people touched the hotter ball much often and therefor it got hotter .....

The ball attained a temperature of 80C. a fact that speaks against your reasoning.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@THH: Does your reasoning take into account, that always both balls should exhibit the same error (s)? Or do you know of an isotope sensitive chemical reaction??

As a denier I would argue that people touched the hotter ball much often and therefor it got hotter .....

You make as poor a denier as you do a believer in that case.

Why is your question relevant to this demo? Nowhere does DC say that the control ball contains H2. Actually this effect would be highly isotope sensitive, since diffusion rates would be that. But you would expect H2 to be larger than D2 were dffusion the limiting factor. In any case, here we have D2 => 4C apparent temp rise vs nothing => temp same as bath.

Quote from axil

The ball attained a temperature of 80C. a fact that speaks against your reasoning.

Axil. Please read the write-up? It was half-immersed in a temperature-controlled 80C bath of aluminium beads. The claim is 4C excess temperature from this as opposed to a control with no excess (and almost identical 80C temperature). Exactly explained by a thermistor altering its calibration slightly due to hydrogen contamination.

Quote from interested observer

I see. You are protecting Axil. I have seen Axil's "work" for years. Like THH, I do not choose to engage. But I am glad that you find his musings illuminating. I am sure they give you a deeper understanding of the world than the rest of us poor slobs.

I am also protecting Axil he as a voice and supplies educational links. He is trying to make this world a better place. I am not sure if after all these years I have ever ever seen him make a personal attack on another forum member. We would all lose if we lost his voice. And you can choose not to read his stuff. And take anything with a grain of salt. That link provided was valid.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Axil. Please read the write-up? It was half-immersed in a temperature-controlled 80C bath of aluminium beads. The claim is 4C excess temperature from this as opposed to a control with no excess (and almost identical 80C temperature). Exactly explained by a thermistor altering its calibration slightly due to hydrogen contamination.

Touching a 80C object cools it, not heats it no matter what the article states.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is no proof either way yet. The experiment has not been independently replicated. Until it is replicated, it does not mean much. In this case it means practically nothing.

When will IH replicate the Lugano experiment if such an effort is required to validate the results that have been cited in their LENR patent application?

Quote from axil

Touching a 80C object cools it, not heats it no matter what the article states.

The article did not say anything different from that. And W was the only guy here claiming that others might argue that. And these 80C brass balls cannot be touched for any significant time - you try it!

Quote from axil

Touching a 80C object cools it, not heats it no matter what the article states.