The Playground

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Nope. Not in this case. The people at the NRL did all kinds of destructive analyses, stripping off layers and finally dissolving the samples. They told me, "the angels weep when they see what we did to those samples."

Heat as measured by calorimetry does go away but you can capture the data, and with a good cathode you can make it produce heat again and again. Heat as measured by some other techniques, such as melting things, leaves more permanent physical proof. Things seldom melt in cold fusion experiments, but in some of Fleischmann and Pons experiments the Kel-F plastic holder for the anode and cathode melted. You can estimate the highest heat from that. In many experiments, the water boils away. That would be an absence of evidence. As in Mizuno's grad student who asked, "Where'd the water go?!"

X-rays can be captured in a way that cannot be disputed or refuted, with x-ray film (autoradiographs).

Quote from JedRothwell

X-rays can be captured in a way that cannot be disputed or refuted, with x-ray film (autoradiographs).

X-ray film is sensitized by exposure to hydrogen (the technique is called 'hypering') and is sensitive to heat. X-ray film evidence presented in support of CF propositions typically has a exposed region (image) reminiscent of a smudge. These two issues combine to suggest the exposure of the x-ray film occurred due sensitization of the film due to hypering followed by exposure to heat, probably from recombination when the cathode unloads. I know of one exception to the 'smudged' appearance, which was a report from the Indian BARC lab (I believe) that showed well-defined spots. But a) that's one case only, and b) the mundane explanation is that the researchers accidentally used x-ray film that had been previously exposed by x-ray diffraction from a crystalline material. (When I learned how to orient metal single crystals in order to cut off a sample with a particular surface orientation, the tech who taught me this stuff mentioned 3 or 4 times to always put the film away before you shot the x-rays...)

Quote from kirkshanahan

X-ray film is sensitized by exposure to hydrogen (the technique is called 'hypering') and is sensitive to heat. X-ray film evidence presented in support of CF propositions typically has a exposed region (image) reminiscent of a smudge. These two issues combine to suggest the exposure of the x-ray film occurred due sensitization of the film due to hypering followed by exposure to heat. . . .

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you think the people who use x-ray film are unaware of these things? This technique has been used since Roentgen discovered x-rays in 1895. Do you imagine you are the first person to know this stuff?

There are many ways to detect these problems or ensure they do not happen. The cold fusion literature describes them. So does the physics and medical literature. For example, you insert two or more films. Put one behind the other and see if the same pattern appears in both. Remove one and put another in the same place and see if the pattern appears. The anode wire has to come between the film and the cathode. It stops the x-rays, so look for its shadow. Consult with the manufacturer to be sure the dental x-ray film is impervious to water over long periods. Use an electronic sensor instead of x-ray film, or in addition to it. (My dentist now uses an electronic sensor and he says it is more sensitive and reliable than film.)

And on, and on.

You come up with this stuff and you assume that people are making mistakes. Read the literature and you will see that you are wrong, and they know what they are doing at places like BARC and the ENEA. BARC is one of the world's biggest power reactors, in addition to being a nuclear research lab. As one of the people there said to me: "If we didn't know what we are doing, we would be dead."

The whole MFMP Ecco device has taken a weird turn; now with a need to raise $320k to prevent all of the inventor's company assets to be sold off.

http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/…al-regarding-ecco-device/

I'm looking forward to the testing, but this whole pressure to buy random assets or otherwise the invention disappears is very concerning.

A short discussion about the Cravens balls gave me an idea for IR testing of alumina regarding the camera Total and Spectral emissivity confusion.

Simply heat water to 99.5 C, and pipe it through a 99% pure alumina ceramic tube. Set the IR camera or IR spot gun to the suggested emissivity setting from Plot 1 of the Lugano report (0.69).

Now the tube will read 120 C, and the water should boil strongly if the IR camera or gun is correct at that setting.

*SAFETY WARNING* make sure the water flow is unrestricted at the outlet

If it works, congratulations, you have made an overunity water heater. Use the extra 20 C to heat more water, and feed it into another cylinder, and recirculate.

Now you will have a free hot water heater for life!

((The Cravens inspiration part was originally putting an alumina tile with the back side just into sub-boiling water, and using the Lugano Plot 1 suggested emissivity for the IR camera setting to show that the tile was 20 C hotter than the water. ))

Quote from JedRothwell

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you think the people who use x-ray film are unaware of these things?

From the CF community, yes, based on a couple of facts/observations. 1.) When I first brought up 'hypering' on sci.physics.fusion, Scott Little was astounded. That means he didn't know about it. And Scott was an active, involved searcher for CF. 2.) No one else has ever mentioned it ('hypering') to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, please cite a CF reference that states this. 3.) Also, no one from the CF community has ever mentioned the heat sensitivity of x-ray film to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, please cite a CF reference that states this.

Quote from JedRothwell

There are many ways to detect these problems or ensure they do not happen. The cold fusion literature describes them.

Where?

Quote from JedRothwell

For example, you insert two or more films. Put one behind the other and see if the same pattern appears in both. Remove one and put another in the same place and see if the pattern appears.

Cite the report that illustrates this for a claim that purports to prove CF via dental x-ray film exposure.

Quote from JedRothwell

The anode wire has to come between the film and the cathode. It stops the x-rays, so look for its shadow.

Said anode would also 'shield' the heat from the cathode (which is where I normally consider ATER to occur).

Quote from JedRothwell

Consult with the manufacturer to be sure the dental x-ray film is impervious to water over long periods.

Not relevant to my comments.

Quote from JedRothwell

You come up with this stuff and you assume that people are making mistakes.

No, I observe what they never mention and point out things they should have considered and mentioned.

Quote from axil

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?

IH argued that Rossi's technology could not work because it was against the principles of physics. This of course was only said in pretrial documents, when IH had already forgotten the first positive results obtained from their reactors. Yet they claim to get a patent on that same technology ...... opportunism is just the best talent of VCs!!

Quote from maryyugo

Or... some unknown scientists with no prominent accomplishments (AKA the blind mice) mangled what was the wrong experiment to start with on the wrong device.

Scientists (unknown only to you) have tested the reactor that was presented to them and that was at that time the most advanced E-Cat available and they did it using a technique that was, among other things, the most practical to use. Remember that they were not in their labs, they were guests in a company room (from the photos of the Lugano report it seem quite small) and I don't think they had the chance and the time to build here a proper calorimetry system. Furthermore, there is nothing absurd in the use of an Optris camera, which is a very common tool, especially among engineers who analyze the plants.

Quote from axil

Did IH produce the fuel or did Rossi?

Quote from JedRothwell

Rossi did, but it makes no difference.

Instead it makes difference...... when Darden is the one who prepare the fuel, things don't go in the right way ..... ask Boeing for confirmation.

@kirkshanhan

"dental" X-ray

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CellucciFxrayheatex.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

As a non-expert I have no idea who is right,

We all see that you are non expert ! Is quite evident from what you write,

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

You are not presenting a single proof of what you are writing. You are simply inventing this garbage just to insult Rossi.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Cite the report that illustrates this for a claim that purports to prove CF via dental x-ray film exposure.

All of them. See, for example:

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

Or the Cellucci paper cited above.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Said anode would also 'shield' the heat from the cathode (which is where I normally consider ATER to occur).

Heat does not work that way. You can't "shield" it with a wire. Try holding a wire in front of an electric heater and you will see. In any case, the entire cell gets hot, and with most calorimeters the heat is measured externally, so it makes no difference where the heat originates or whether some parts of the cell are warmer than others, or magically "shielded" from heat with wires. That's one of the many reasons why your theory is wrong.

Quote from Ahlfors

@kirkshanhan

"dental" X-ray

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CellucciFxrayheatex.pdf

Quick look comments.

One picture. No replication, so this is anecdotal, and would have to be considered with similar results to be meaningful.

One picture. 3 blobs, roughly located at the corners of a right triangle. Supposedly "roughly reproducing the image of the cathode". Cathode is a wire bundle, i.e. hexagonal rod. 3 blobs = hexagonal rod? C'mon. Long involved calc to assign the blobs to source points in wire bundle. Not very convincing.

See this for a quick discussion of the things that can give false signals with x-ray film.

https://books.google.com/books…ty%20x-ray%20film&f=false

(Brogdon's Forensic Radiology, Second Edition edited by Michael J. Thali, M.D., Mark D. Viner, B.G. Brogdon pg 510)

Think any might have been present? (How about heat?)

It is interesting that the film was located 5 cm from cell, but no variation of that condition either, so what would one see if that was done?

Typical anecdotal evidence, leaves you with more questions than answers. With regards to folding it in with others, I would lump it in with all the rest of the dental film experiments excepting the BARC case I discussed.