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.
If those are the top men I would hate to see the bottom ones!
The test was a fiasco and the assay was a joke, because the material came from Rossi himself.
Axil. Please read the write-up? It was half-immersed in a temperature-controlled 80C bath of aluminium beads.
I believe his point was that nobody touched it. Not for long, anyway.
If those are the top men I would hate to see the bottom ones!
The test was a fiasco and the assay was a joke, because the material came from Rossi himself.
Did IH produce the fuel or did Rossi?
interested observer : No of course it is not too painful. But observing and blabbering are two different things in my mind
If you don't have a clue what Axil is writing than what about reading the paper and asking questions?
Here's the thing that technically conversant people here have learned from Axil's long history of long technical sounding posts over the years: Even Axil does not have a clue about what Axil is talking about. Techno-gibberish just kind of gushes out in convulsions periodically.
But your suggestion to read the paper is a good one.
Did IH produce the fuel or did Rossi?
Rossi did, but it makes no difference. You can run the test with no fuel at all, just air, a vacuum or sand, and you get the same results. It is a calorimetric error. When I.H. demonstrated that to Rossi he went ape-shit, as he is prone to do.
Here's the thing that technically conversant people here have learned from Axil's long history of long technical sounding posts over the years: Axil does not have a clue about what Axil is talking about. Techno-gibberish just kind of gushes out in convulsions periodically.
But your suggestion to read the paper is a good one.
Use wikipedia!
Here is an example...Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_exchange
Read the article and you will see what the meaning of this effect is. Easy.
Display More
Off Topic but I suppose this is the place for that:
What's your take on this? How does something like this happen?
Oh, so after all these years, you finally know who I am! I am flattered.
One thing that was hammered into us at the airlines was safety, and preventing stuff like this. They taught you (CRM) that there is seldom one specific reason that something like this happens, but more often a "chain of events" that lead up. Each link in the chain can be broken, but only if you are trained, aware it is happening, and willing to take action to stop it.
Good example I have been in many times: On a layover, get little sleep, early wake-up, go to Ops and do flight planning, go to airplane, start preflight, weather rolling in, tired, so tired, flight attendant is bitchy, push back, taxi, ATC being A...holes giving you a hard time, get airborne, climb to altitude, kick back and look out at the scenery, think this is the best job in the world, FA finally brings your breakfast, eat it, eyes get heavy, time to start decent into SFO, complicated simultaneous approach even in VFR, look up and you are aligned with the taxiway, and low.
Well, fortunately, I had a successful career and stopped my close calls early enough in the chain, so as not to not risk my passengers, or others. The pilot in the article however is not so fortunate, as while he avoided a major accident at the last second, he will pay the price for not interrupting whatever his chain of events were at an earlier stage.
Rossi did, but it makes no difference. You can run the test with no fuel at all, just air, a vacuum or sand, and you get the same results. It is a calorimetric error. When I.H. demonstrated that to Rossi he went ape-shit, as he is prone to do.
Calorimetry is an imprecise indicator for LENR activity as compared to the analysis of transmutation, What is the problems with the reliability of the assays of fuel and ash in the Lugano test?
Why does IH have such a positive opinion about the Lugano test results?
Magnetic skyrmions are localized non-collinear spin textures. They result as particle-like solutions of non-linear field equations and can be regarded as multidimensional, static, topological solitons. The twisting in the skyrmions' magnetization profile leads to a gain in energy with respect to a homogeneously magnetized, ferromagnetic state. As a result of this magnetization twisting, skyrmions have non-trivial topological properties, described by a topological charge, and are topologically protected against a transition into topologically trivial states. The energetics of skyrmionic states is explained by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction being relevant in material systems exhibiting large spin-orbit coupling and a lack of inversion symmetry, in contrast to magnetic bubbles which are stabilized by dipolar magnetic interactions.
Skyrmions can interact very efficiently with electrons and magnons, thereby offering great potential for future spintronic applications. In current-driven devices, skyrmions exhibit a high mobility and can be driven by current densities being several orders of magnitude smaller than in the case of magnetic domain walls. Therefore, skyrmions can be useful for race-track type magnetic memories and skyrmion based logic devices.
Skyrmion lattices were initially observed in bulk non-centrosymmetric materials based on neutron diffraction experiments and Lorentz microscopy observations. However, recent experimental and theoretical work has focused on atomic- and nanolayers of magnetic materials with intrinsic or interface-induced chiral interactions. It has been shown both experimentally and theoretically that magnetic skyrmions in ultrathin film systems can be as small as one nanometer in diameter and that their properties can largely be tuned by the choice of the substrate and overlayer materials. Here, atomic-resolution spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy has proven to be an invaluable tool for revealing the atomic-scale properties of ultimately small skyrmions and for the local creation and annihilation of skyrmions by vertical spin-polarized current injection.
The preparation, detection, and manipulation of individual skyrmions have become particular hot topics in view of the realization of skyrmion-based devices. Most recent activities have concentrated on metallic multilayer systems with the goal of stabilizing skyrmions of small size at room temperature and also achieving full compatibility with state-of-the-art technology which has been developed over the past decades in the field of GMR- and TMR-based devices.
This focus issue on magnetic skyrmions will highlight recent trends in experimental and theoretical research activities aiming at an improved understanding of the fundamental properties of magnetic skyrmions in a variety of different material systems as well as advances of the methods for preparation, detection, and manipulation of skyrmions in view of skyrmion-based devices for magnetic memory and logic applications.
Axil is right. As a matter of fact, Geordi Laforge used almost the exact same words while explaining why he was having trouble with the dilithium crystals.
Axil is right. As a matter of fact, Geordi Laforge used almost the exact same words while explaining why he was having trouble with the dilithium crystals.
Indeed...We have now reached a stage in the ascent of man where most people have descended below an intellectual level where they cannot possibly understand how the everyday things that make up their lives work yet they will place incomprehensible trust in those mysterious necessities that make their lives livable. The same will be true for the Quark QX. There will come a time Its users will have no idea how it works but they will be happy that it does work...it will be beyond imagining how they could ever live without it. Yet they will be relieved that someone understands how it works and like the saints of yore include those wonderful people of benevolence that provide the pillars of their lives reverence in their daily prayers.
One thing that was hammered into us at the airlines was safety, and preventing stuff like this.
I've heard modern autopilot systems can land a plane by themselves. I've also heard the argument that this is probably safer than a human pilot - no human error/tiredness etc. Do airlines permit autopilot landings, and do some pilots use it for that now? Would ShaneD. trust his plane to land itself? Could your DC mange this feat?
Also, Jed mentioned cars being safer when on autopilot... I nwonder how the statistics were affected by the Tesla that drove into that truck, killing the driver. One death might not seem like much, but if divided by a small number of total miles driven by all autopilot cars, it could be quite significant.
That isn't to say car autopilots won't improve... There's probably some truth in the argument adding a LIDAR sensor (instead of just a camera) would have prevented the Tesla accident. (The driver was also well outside of Tesla's operating procedures).
Axil: "Indeed...We have now reached a stage in the ascent of man where most people have descended below an intellectual level where they cannot possibly understand how the everyday things that make up their lives work yet they will place incomprehensible trust in those mysterious necessities that make their lives livable. The same will be true for the Quark QX. There will come a time Its users will have no idea how it works but they will be happy that it does work...it will be beyond imagining how they could ever live without it. Yet they will be relieved that someone understands how it works and like the saints of yore include those wonderful people of benevolence that provide the pillars of their lives reverence in their daily prayers."
@Thefullmonty: you asked what my interest is in coming here. Reading stuff like this is the answer.
Calorimetry is an imprecise indicator for LENR activity as compared to the analysis of transmutation,
No, it isn't. I have seen more mistakes in mass spectroscopy than excess heat measurements, and many more disputes. For example, the NRL analyzed many samples from Mitsubishi. They found no indication of the transmutations that Mitsubishi claimed. Toyota independently replicated and they did find the transmutations in their own samples, but at a lower level. The Japanese National Synchrotron tested Mitsubishi's samples and found the same level Mitsubishi described.
As a non-expert I have no idea who is right, but I can see these results are much less clear than most calorimetry.
The only time transmutations produce an irrefutable result is when the product is radioactive, such as tritium, or when the experiment is repeated many times and it produces large & proportional results, such as helium.
What is the problems with the reliability of the assays of fuel and ash in the Lugano test?
It was fake. Rossi said he purchased the monoisotopic samples, and lo and behold they showed up in the ash which he provided. They later ran a test which supposedly produced more energy and once again the transmutations were seen, in the same ratios. If the transmutations were real and related to the heat, that would be impossible.
Why does IH have such a positive opinion about the Lugano test results?
They do not have a positive opinion! That is ridiculous. They replicated the effect was no fuel in the cell. When they showed that to Rossi he went ape-shit.
Your statement makes no sense. When someone proves beyond doubt that a result is an error, why on earth would they have a positive opinion of it?!?
Also, Jed mentioned cars being safer when on autopilot... I nwonder how the statistics were affected by the Tesla that drove into that truck, killing the driver.
No, that did not count. That car was not authorized or tested for full autonomous operation. The driver was using it in a way Tesla never intended. Tesla and the others are still years away from selling a fully autonomous car.
Prototype autonomous cars have been driven millions of miles in urban and rural traffic. There is enough data now to be sure their accident rate per passenger mile is lower than a human driven car.
Axil is the cat, and you guys are his playthings. He has produced some gems over the years (and, in this case, perhaps a prescient one):
Dear Jed,
I know that you're a man of fire and steam weaned on your father's knee with tails of the iron clad sailing ships and the iron men who sailed them when the 20th century was young. But steam drove a way of life that has long passed. The testimony about calorimetry will be so boring it will peal the paint off the courtroom walls and nary a soul in that august room will follow such a dry subject. As much as you love the stuff, a good lawyer will avoid talk of bubbling steam like the plague.
Ok. I see. Defending a criminal is the general accusation. I wonder what would be the equivalent for the Rossi deniers that put so much effort into disrupting and delaying a global energy breakthrough?
Here many persons accuse us of defending a criminal, then they give support to people who have accumulated Orders for jobs never done (but for which they have raised funds) and escape from troubles passing from a bankruptcy to another bankruptcy. And they also have the courage to consider them as benefactors and defenders of the environment!
I've heard modern autopilot systems can land a plane by themselves. I've also heard the argument that this is probably safer than a human pilot - no human error/tiredness etc. Do airlines permit autopilot landings, and do some pilots use it for that now? Would ShaneD. trust his plane to land itself? Could your DC mange this feat?
Zeus,
Sure, planes can and do land themselves. Depending on the plane, most nowadays have the equipment package to do what are called "Cat III" approaches, which are fully automated. The landing runway must also have Cat III equipment. The more advanced planes can do a Cat III with zero runway visibility, but my aircraft (MD-82/83) needed 600 ft vis at the landing runway.
It is a very coordinated and tense process for the Capt/FO, as one is monitoring instruments, while the other is making altitude call-outs. Any blip, or if the runway not spotted at what was called Decision Height -50 ft for my aircraft, you did an immediate go-around....either by hand flying, or through the a/p. But if the runway was spotted you let the autopilot do the landing. It actually flares the aircraft at 50 ft, lowers nose on touchdown, and tracks centerline. Real cool.
I only did maybe 6 or 7 actual Cat IIIs in my 17 years as Capt. Did hundreds though in the simulator.
No, it isn't. I have seen more mistakes in mass spectroscopy than excess heat measurements, and many more disputes. For example, the NRL analyzed many samples from Mitsubishi. They found no indication of the transmutations that Mitsubishi claimed. Toyota independently replicated and they did find the transmutations in their own samples, but at a lower level. The Japanese National Synchrotron tested Mitsubishi's samples and found the same level Mitsubishi described.
As a non-expert I have no idea who is right, but I can see these results are much less clear than most calorimetry.
You need to be careful here Jed. A sample of material is a finite object which can be tested as many times in as many different laboratories as its quantity allows.
Calorimetric measurements can be repeated many times too, but only in a completely meaningful way when repeated in an identical (preferably the same) calorimeter. The key to good calorimetry is proper controls and repeated testing of both control and experimental samples.
Ideally we need both kinds of measurement carried out on the same candidate samples as often as is practical and possible.
It was fake. Rossi said he purchased the monoisotopic samples, and lo and behold they showed up in the ash which he provided.
JedRothwell : May be I missed it. Can you give us the A.R. source statment of your enlightening statement?
