Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
-
-
@Peter Ekstrom
QuoteIf that is so, what is Nuclear Physics? I think Nuclear Chemistry is an historical name for what today is classified as Nuclear Physics.
Nuclear Chemistry is taught in the Universities.
I personally like this textbook:Karl Heinrich Lieser (Darmstadt)
Nuclear and Radiochemistry: Fundamentals and Applications
John Wiley & Sons 2008There are many others textbooks; who is interested in nuclear chemistry can ask me.
I belong some very old textbooks, which are a curiosity:Williams
Principles of Nuclear Chemistry
Van Nostrand 1950Haïssinsky, M
La Chimie Nucléaire et ses applications
Masson & Cie 1957G Friedlander; J. W. Kennedy
Chimie Nucléaire et Radiochimie
Dunod 1960 -
@Jed Rothwell
QuoteWhen you [Mary Yugo] claim we are "uncertain" of this, you are expressing your own irrationality and ignorance.
I can't find stuff like lenr, canr, cold fusion in international database; I can't find them in textbooks of Nuclear Chemistry, one of which was edited in 2013. Should I think they exist?
You have translated T. Mizuno. Let me quote you about electrochemistry:
In the liquid in a cell are many ions that make it an electrolyte; for example, Li Na, K ions are usually present. Usually?
Under powerful electrolysis, these ions are galvanized onto the surface of the cathode, and it is well known that they have a a major influence on the electrolysis process. Galvanized? Major influence?
When the metal is placed in a solution and positively charged, hydrogen H+ ions approach the metal surface. Positively or negatively charged?
I could continue.
If you rely on Mizuno and people like him you can collect more than thousand papers on cold fusion. A contented mind is a perpetual feast. -
I can't find stuff like lenr, canr, cold fusion in international database ....
cam,
have a look at the heading of this Forum: the acronym LENR stands for Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions, thus the absence of LENR in the nuclear databases is perfectly justified. -
GinoB,"Nuclear" is also used for the N, since there must be some nuclear mechanism yet to be identified.
And the LE have also meant Lattice Enabled.Personally I liked the name LANR= Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, since this phenomenon is connected to condensed matter lattice, as opposed to high temperature plasma for ordinary fusion processes.
Since the mechanism is not identified, the new nickname is may be the better one:
AHE=Anomalous Heat Effect
Or The origin of it all FPHE= Fleischmann and Pons Heat Effect.
They Even patented the use of Nickel, but they never investigated Nickel experimentally AFAIK.May be CMAHE should be used, which indicates it is connected to condensed matter only(?)
CMAHE= Condensed Matter Anomalous Heat Effect.When CF us finally understood, the final name will also rise, based on the excact mechanism.
-
The official position will be something along the lines of "we looked into it but have ceased all further funding or research into this phenomena" aka SPAWAR style. (But then secretly carry on research.)
Are you saying that the Secretary of Defense is going to lie to the Representatives of the US people? In an official briefing to the US House? On a subject, the energy, which is vital for the US (as well for the rest of the world)? About the status of a technology, the LENR, which is considered by you, and by many other people here and elsewhere, capable to solve the major problems of the world, and that many DoD units have studied and supported for more than 27 years?It seems really impossible to me.
It would be a huge responsibility, also from an historical point of view. By coincidence, Mr. Carter received also a B.A. in Medieval History from Yale University, summa cum laude, in 1976. He knows that historians look at the documents kept in a few archives. I don't know how long our civilization will survive, but I'm quite sure that one of the last archives to be lost will be the one which contains the acts and the other official documents of the US Congress.
-
Are you saying that the Secretary of Defense is going to lie to the Representatives of the US people? In an official briefing to the US House?
Yes. Snowden's revelations proved that they have and they will. Do you believe everything your government representatives say?
-
It is perhaps the most meaningful example of outright refusal of human beings to associate with or even consider vast troves of confirmatory experimental evidence spanning a quarter of a century. (*)
When you say "experimental evidence", are you talking about excess heat? Including that one allegedly produced by the Ecat in the kW-MW range? For what I saw, no "experimental evidence" confirms any excess heat. On the contrary, the tests for which we have sufficient and objective information confirm that the data are wrong, and, in many case, deliberately wrong. Being these results considered real for years by the more informed and attentive followers of CF/LENR, we can be quite sure that all the other anomalous heat claims, ranging at most up to the 10 W level, are all but illusory. Can't we?QuoteIt is a study in the aversion of people like you to the topic, and the lengths to which you will go to attempt to "save" us from our supposed delusions.
If "us" means "you (pl.)", ie the LENR supporters, you are wrong. I don't have such an ambition. For me, everyone can believe what he wants, and it wasn't my intention to jump into a forum to convince its users that they are wrong. It would have been unfair, to say the least.On the contrary, if "us" means "us", ie all the people whatever they believe, you are partly right. In the sense that the illusory, but widely spread, belief that it will be possible to harness (in any way, at high or low temperature) the fusion energy has heavily affected the global economic choices of the last decades, and is going to influence those of the coming years. Therefore the LENR subject affects everyone's life, including the future generations. So, made clear that is out of anyone's possibility to "save" anyone else, I find anyway interesting to know what is really happening in this field, and this forum is the most suitable place in the www for asking about.
(*) PS: Just now (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), you confirmed your opinion that the briefing of the head of DoD to the US Committee could contain false information. Let me better understand your position. You here claimed "vast troves of confirmatory experimental evidence spanning a quarter of a century", but a big part of these troves comes from initiatives directly performed, funded, sponsored or followed by some DoD units. How can you exclude that also these troves are wrong or even deliberately false?
-
How can you exclude that also these troves are wrong or even deliberately false?
It is a nice attempt to twist logic--but it fails for the reason that the persons researching LENR, even if DOD funded, are low-level scientists having a personal interest in the phenomena. They are fortunate to have apparently scratched out some funding. The overall objectives of the U.S. military would not include freely releasing information to the general public in a congressional hearing. As can be seen in the SPAWAR incident, as soon as a spotlight gets shined, they clam up and "officially" shut down research.
-
When you say "experimental evidence", are you talking about excess heat? Including that one allegedly produced by the Ecat in the kW-MW range?
No. Rossi has never published anything, not in the peer-reviewed academic literature or anywhere else. -
Quote from Ascoli65: “When you say "experimental evidence", are you talking about excess heat? Including that one allegedly produced by the Ecat in the kW-MW range?”
No. Rossi has never published anything, not in the peer-reviewed academic literature…
But, I didn't talk about Rossi, nor I referred to the peer-reviewed academic literature. I just asked IH Fanboy, which were the "vast troves of confirmatory experimental evidence spanning a quarter of a century" that I should have considered, and if they included the Ecat results, in whichever way they are documented.Anyway, on which basis do you have stated for years, by means of thousands of comments posted in every web site containing any smallest doubt on the reality of its claimed performances, that the Ecat had for sure generated many kW of excess heat?
-
Anyway, on which basis do you have stated for years, by means of thousands of comments posted in every web site containing any smallest doubt on the reality of its claimed performances, that the Ecat had for sure generated many kW of excess heat?
I did not state that. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. If you review my comments over the years you will see that I wrapped them in a layers of academic deniability. "It seems . . ." or "evidence indicates . . ." The passive voice is your friend! My worst misjudgment was quoted by Mats in his book, and even there I said "“I admit I could be wrong about all of this. . . ." -
Anyway, on which basis do you have stated for years, by means of thousands of comments posted in every web site containing any smallest doubt on the reality of its claimed performances, that the Ecat had for sure generated many kW of excess heat?
Ascoli! We all know and agree about the fact that there is , up to now, no certified prove of a claimend COP for any Ecat!.
Of Lugano we know that the COP must be at least 2. But Rossi claims 6 or more... ( Even TC took the back door..)
You too, have to live, one time, with the fact that Rossi at least had something, whether it made him happy or you doesn't bother us!
Physics is a path of error and correction. The people, who walk it, should not deny any facts, unless there is overwhelming experimental prove against it.
You "niers" have no prove (in the physical way..) as we have none too.., thus we walk on.
-
@Jed:
QuoteWhen you claim we are "uncertain" of this, you are expressing your own irrationality and ignorance. You are just like the anti-vaccination fanatics who express "doubts" about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
You were equally sure that both Defkalion and Rossi had valid claims. You still are not circumspect enough about the issue to avoid another embarrassing repetition except now, your credibility is pretty much shot. I've looked at some of the low level results and they are very difficult to read and understand, much less extract convincing evidence from. That the reproducibility is so poor suggests that what is being examined is mostly noise. This is why I prefer not to comment definitively only on high power levels with high "COP's" and long durations of runs without fresh fuel, done by credible people in reasonable ways. And so far, the yield of a search for those, is absolutely zero, zip, nada. If you want to contradict that, please start by naming a single best paper (not, as you usually do, a snowstorm of dozens) and then show where this has been replicated by someone qualified in a conventional science and associated with a credible major institution (cite the second paper). I'm sure skeptics here will be glad to read these and to comment, from appropriate perspectives. The only area I am qualified to evaluate is calorimetry but there are people who read here occasionally (for example "Giancarlo") who know even more than I do about that. And others know about the physics, transmutations, nuclear chemistry, etc. as well as the history, for example Joshua Cude, Cam, and of course Clarke, who this weird bunch chased out.
There is no similarity WHATEVER between trials of vaccines (for example with the hundreds of thousands of participants and flawless statistics of the polio or smallpox vaccines replicated again and again over decades) and trials of various proposals for LENR. That you think there is a worthwhile comparison between LENR and vaccine skepticism proves how vacuously you think and how extremely biased you still are about the big picture when it comes to LENR. I would have thought the Rossi and Defkalion debacles would have taught you something but they clearly have not.
-
Quote
Of Lugano we know that the COP must be at least 2.
No we don't. Lugano was mismeasurement or deceit or both. Clarke showed clearly how the "COP" (inept naming) probably was one.
-
You were equally sure that both Defkalion and Rossi had valid claims.
Nope, not at all. Read the last page of Mats book. I said, "I may be wrong about all this . . ." You can never be sure about a one-off (unique) claim. You can only be sure when a claim is widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios using a variety of different instrument types (to avoid systematic error). -
SO you didn't say you knew on "first principles" that one of Rossi's "reactors" made excess heat and that this could not be reasonably doubted? Are you going to make me dig out the quote?
-
Quote
it wasn't my intention to jump into a forum to convince its users that they are wrong. It would have been unfair, to say the least.
Unfair? A Forum is only useful when scams and errors are put in evidence. If I quote Mizuno writing:
the electrons combine with protons to form neutrons.
and I comment that Mizuno is wrong I am only doing my duty.QuoteTherefore the LENR subject affects everyone's life, including the future generations.
Do you think I am unfair if I consider this phrase bombastic, considering that LENR doesn't belong to GANS? -
If I quote Mizuno writing: the electrons combine with protons to form neutrons.
and I comment that Mizuno is wrong I am only doing my duty.
I take an opportunity to link to the Wikipedia article on electron capture. -
@Mary Yugo
QuoteIf you want to contradict that, please start by naming a single best paper (not, as you usually do, a snowstorm of dozens) and then show where this has been replicated by someone qualified in a conventional science and associated with a credible major institution (cite the second paper).
I have already promised to investigate five lenr by means of exfor, where all nuclear reactions are archived. For each of them I will find the excitation function and other relevant data.
Perhaps not JR but somedody else will answer your and my challenge.
