IHFB - IH has numerous sample test results of before and after runs which have complete chain-of-custody integrity and show ZERO isotopic shifts. Rossi refused to return to Raleigh to participate in any of those tests. We didn't wait around. The facts get more interesting from there regarding Lugano samples. Rossi will be learning more about that in court should he survive the MTD.
Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)
-
-
entire establishment is to blame.
The entire establishment is to blame! Nearly the entire establishment botched it completely. They were then, and remain today, completely wrong about cold fusion. Especially Nature magazine and the DoE. It is the worst fiasco in the history of science. Here are some examples of what mainstream establishment people said:http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf
It is as if you saw the news of the Titanic and you said, "well, at least they got halfway across the Atlantic."
I pointed out, that with the benefit of hindsight, F & P made erroneous claims.
Hindsight hell. They admitted the problems by mid-1989. It was water under the bridge. At the time, regarding the neutron claims, Stan Pons said to me, "in our line of work, getting something half-right is an excellent batting average." The important claim was the excess heat with no chemical reactions. That's what mattered, and that is what the establishment still denies. -
IH has numerous sample test results of before and after runs which have complete chain-of-custody integrity and show ZERO isotopic shifts.
Do you have sample test results of before and after the 1MW one year test with complete chain-of-custody integrity?
Do you have sample test results of before and after the Lugano test with complete chain-of-custody integrity?
And if not, why not?
-
But what will convince physicists is not exactly "more cogent reasoning," because reasoning always proceeds from assumptions.
No, what will convince physicists is funding. Money. Tom Passel of EPRI said that in 1989, some of the big-name scientists who attacked cold fusion most vociferously were quietly applying to EPRI for research funding to study it. If funding becomes available, overnight hundreds of major scientists will say they believed in cold fusion all along."Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe." -- Stan Szpak.
They are no different from anyone else in that regard. Programmers who claimed to hate the Mac system in 1995 loved it when Apple became top dog in the computer business a few years later. Car companies that said electric cars are a stupid idea are scrambling to catch up with Tesla now that Tesla outsells all other luxury brands combined. It is all about money -- nothing else. Physics has nothing to do with it. Physicists are happy to blab on about multi-universe theories or string theories or other stuff with no experimental evidence and no practical use. They don't care if something seems impossible. They can't even tell what's possible half the time. Ask any three top physicists a question about any phenomenon, and you will get five different answers.
-
It is all about money -- nothing else.
Very cynical Jed. But I happen to basically agree.
One of the great ironies is that cold fusion has the ability to make most things not about the money. It might take 50 years, maybe even 100, but once the energy loop is closed, it is then within the realm of possibilities.
-
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Speculation about science, LENR, at this point, is likely to be a waste of time, because the experimental evidence is too shallow
Quote
What a pessimistic answer!Gee, I don't feel pessimistic. I wonder if Jed thinks I'm pessimistic? Anyone else who knows me? Speak up! Hey, @AlainCo ?
QuoteThe major purpose of speculating is to ask scientific questions not to answer them!
It's not like we have a shortage of questions! Nor of theories, the problem in the field often stated is that we have too many theories. Some really bright people have worked on cold fusion theory for what is now starting to push thirty years. We have theories that might be partially correct, but ... not adequate to create much in the way of testable predictions, too much remains vague. So ... is it thought that a couple of people on a blog are going to find the Great Answer? Really? I can't say it's imposisible, I simply am not counting on it. We need more data, and, yes, some of this will come from experiments designed to test theories, such as the theory that the reaction takes place on teh surface rather than in the bulk. How about the theory that high loading is required for the reaction to take place, is that true? Or is that an illusion, with high loading causing something else that then causes the reaction, but then, once the something else is in place, high loading is not necessary?
QuoteThe answers come from well designed experiments.
Right. And that is what is needed, experimental design, acceptance by those who can do the work, and funding and other support. As part of this process, it is necessary to understand what has already been done, what is solid and what is missing. Wishful thinking will lead to waste of precious funding. This has nothing to do with pessimism, I'm fully confident that all the issues will be addressed and all the problem will be solved. And I fully intend to support that process.
Quote
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I thought this was settled 15+ years ago by experiments is multiple laboratories (China Lake, SRI, ENEA etc.). Where is your lab? What does your investigation show? What do you conclude so far? Will you be publishing a paper?Gee, I'm reminded of the Nikki Minaj line, from http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nickiminaj/superbass.html
Quotesomebody please tell him who the F I is
I am Nicki Minaj,Really, if you have to ask these questions, you are a noob who thinks he's smart. Who are you, anyway? You do have the right to anonymity here, but we also have the right to ignore your mishegas. Now, to the actual point:
Yes. My paper, which I have cited and Jed has cited and you can find it on the Current Science web site in the archive, covers that work. It convinced me, but ... "settled"? What would that mean? There is a lost performative there.
"Settled" according to whom? Is the heat/helium correlation an established fact in mainstream science? Is this being taught to students in universities?
And it is mainstream science that is needed, the cold fusion theoretical problem may need the best minds on the planet. And that would not be good enough unless they have More Data.
There are questions about the heat/helium correlation, within the community. The exact value is disputed. Some dispute it entirely, because of asserted weaknesses in the reports. Hey, ask Joshua Cude, he will point all that out. Or Kirk Shananan, the last standing peer-reviewed published skeptic still writing about cold fusion.
I wrote that paper, not to "prove" the heat/helium correlation, but to stimulate confirmation/disconfirmation with increased precision. (The classic test of "pathological science.") And that is happening, and I've already mentioned that a number of times here, so WTF?
Here is the work: http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf
QuoteI note you are looking at the conditions that allow the reaction. One way which I have verified is to reverse the electrolytic cell polarity for a few seconds. After this treatment the temperature of the cell climbs (overtaking the control cell temperature).
Evidence other than the say-so of an anonymous blogger? This would raise many questions. Absent other evidence, that would not be considered evidence of "the reaction." It might be the reaction, indeed. I can come up with possible mechanisms. But ... details matter.
What's the point?
(And this is what occurs to me: such a reversal will generate oxygen at the former cathode and hydrogen at the former anode. Both are typically highly catalytic of recombination. So initially and when it is reversed again, expect substantial recombination in the cell. Expect chemical heat. If this effect is reliable, in cells that have not show XP without it, that would be an almost certain sign that it is not causing the FP Heat Effect. While this may be overcome with future work, at this point unreliability is a signature of the effect. And then we are looking at exceptions.)
-
What you are unaware of, Hermes, is that we know this. And we are paying attention to physics.
So you are paying attention to physics without even attempting to find an explanation!We do not know what the reaction is.
Perhaps a little less arrogance would be in order then? I wonder why you assume there is but 1 reaction?8Be will normally spontaneously fission within about a femtosecond, and that would generate a very hot gamma,
Well I can see you are not a physicist. Why would you expect a hot gamma if 8Be were to fission? You are right in supposing that the life-time for ground state 8Be fission is about a femtosecond.In the case of Takahashi's tetrahedral condensation, any 8Be formed would be in a highly excited state and would fission without any Coulomb barrier some 7 orders of magnitude faster, say 1e-22 S. This time is far shorter than the time required for an electromagnetic transition and consequently there will be no/few gammas. That's good because no gammas are observed. The energy would instead be carried away by two 23.8 MeV alphas. We would therefore expect knock on effects (neutrons, Hagelstein limit). That's a problem. But maybe the Hagelstein limit is wrong - nobody has verified it experimentally AFAIK.
When a physicist is given the evidence, with a duty to actually review it, they understand the problem. Robert Duncan is a great case in point. Are you saying that Robert Duncan doesn't "pay attention to physics"?
This proves my point that cogent reasoning rather than insult is more likely to lead to agreement. And I agree, reasoning should be based on evidence in preference to assumptions.And no I never mentioned Robert Duncan so you are not entitled to infer that I think he doesn't "pay attention to physics". This is another strawman argument.
I make this prediction: within two years, a major cold fusion skeptic will comment that his earlier conclusions were wrong, and there is something of high interest going on in these experiments. I have excellent communication with the fellow, but, again, no permission to disclose what has been said.
Appeal to authority?? Anonymous authority? Why bother to inform us? An argument rests on its own merits not on the reputation of its proponent. I wasn't aware that there were any cold fusion skeptics left. Maybe you are referring to @Mary Yugo!
-
So you agree with me Jed. $1Bn,10 Bn - I think you mentioned $1Tn too. Almost enough money to start a war. But it proves my point surely, that these are figures 'plucked from the air', so useless as 'advice for investors' because there are so many unknowns.
-
So you agree with me Jed. $1Bn,10 Bn - I think you mentioned $1Tn too.
Read what I wrote: $1 billion to develop; $10 billion to build a factory, and $1 trillion to supply all of the energy in the world. So, no, I do not agree with you.But it proves my point surely, that these are figures 'plucked from the air',
No, it does not prove your point. It proves you did not read the message. -
Well I can see you are not a physicist. Why would you expect a hot gamma if 8Be were to fission? You are right in supposing that the life-time for ground state 8Be fission is about a femtosecond.Actually, that was a blatant typo. There is no gamma for 8Be fission, and, of course, I've written about this many times, and that was actually the point, i.e., Huizenga's imagination did not include anything like that, and even if he'd thought of it, he'd then think "multibody fusion, impossible, the odds are of those four deuterons finding themselves in the same place, ridiculous." And it would not occur to him that this is just two molecules, because how could molecules fuse? Molecules don't even exist in a plasma. And then if he managed to think of a BEC, he'd think, that only happens near absolute zero, not realizing that it is local temperature that matters, not bulk, etc, etc. What is the relative momentum of two deuterium molecules in a trap?
And there is still the problem of how that energy is distributed.
It would generate a pair of very hot alphas, we would expect. They are not observed. The Hagelstein limit is 20 KeV, and the ground state decay is roughly 45 KeV for each alpha even if the energy is all radiated by nuclear transitions first.
As to the rest of Hermes' post, well, that's it. Never mind. Hermes suggests the obvious, thinking that nobody else has thought of it, and offensively, like "why are you so stupid as to think," and then he says the opposite of what I think. I don't carry on conversations with people like this, not beyond confirmation that's how it is. I thought I'd give it a try.
-
LENR insiders going wild. Running roughshod over mere mortals that dare reasonable questions. Not pretty here lately. Hopefully this is an anomaly. We shall see.
Repeat comment: I sometimes wonder if LENR does not deserve it's reputation?
-
But do they have negative evidence of this nature.
Do they have isotopic analysis results that were jointly secured, with an unquestionable chain of custody, that show nothing of significance?
I do not know anything about that. But I do not see how there could be isotope shifts from cold fusion, since there was no excess heat.The ERV report is being disputed. Given its disputed nature, the ERV report provides little clarity, unfortunately, even if it is released.
I think it will be 100% clear. It proves the Rossi & Penon's experiment was garbage. If it is published, the only people who will still "dispute" it and claim it is positive will be a handful of Rossi true believers. -
I do not know anything about that. But I do not see how there could be isotope shifts from cold fusion, since there was no excess heat.
Fair enough. But your answer is speculative. We need some trustworthy data (with confirmed chain of custody) on the isotopic shift analysis of the 1MW year long test. In fact, we need that for the Lugano test as well. Is IH really so incompetent that they would not have secured this?
-
We need some trustworthy data (with confirmed chain of custody) on the isotopic shift analysis of the 1MW year long test.
Why? There was no reaction, so it is sure thing there were no isotope shifts. Heat is the principal signature of the reaction. No heat means no cold fusion means no transmutations.Anyway, I.H. is not likely to give you that information, and Rossi will never give you any information about any aspect of the test, ever.
Also, who's "we" and why should "we" need this?
If there were transmutations, you would know. I.H. would pay $89 million. That ain't going to happen.
-
A new post 1 year test ash analysis document has surfaced on NewVortex, showing the author as Bo Höistad.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…onversations/messages/790
Document download here:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=02747932063906224836&t=0274793206390622483690244 -
If there were transmutations, you would know. I.H. would pay $89 million. That ain't going to happen.
Not necessarily. Because IH may have been sufficiently incompetent to have secured the chain of custody of the fuel, and therefore, might have no way to substantiate the claims.
I agree with many of your points that you make. I disagree with some of the points you make but let them slide. After all, IH supporters and Rossi supporters are kissing cousins in the grander scheme of things.
But, on a few of your points, I take issue with. And this is one of them. Calorimetry cannot be the end all be all in cold fusion substantiation or lack thereof. It is a weakness of our community that has been highlighted by outsiders as well. Let us be humble and seek for more decisive information such as isotopic analysis results. And let's hope that at least one competent soul in this saga ensured that such evidence was gathered with secure chain of custody in the Lugano and 1 year test. Forebodingly, I get the impression that nobody did. What a shame.
-
Quote from "Jed"
If they had determined the effect is real it would be crazy not to pay the $89 million. You have no reason to doubt that. You also have the word directly from I.H. that the test did not work.
What? Are you this stupid? IH not paying is hardly a proof or any type of indication of not working. It is only proof of not paying, which is the base of the Rossi complaint.
IH either simply did not have the money, did not get enough training (probably due to not skilled enough engineers) to operete the IP they acquired or was pissed because of the quarkX (as Dewey Disqus trail reveals)
-
Quote from "Dodge Weaver"
IHFB - IH has numerous sample test results of before and after runs which have complete chain-of-custody integrity and show ZERO isotopic shifts. Rossi refused to return to Raleigh to participate in any of those tests. We didn't wait around. The facts get more interesting from there regarding Lugano samples. Rossi will be learning more about that in court should he survive the MTD.
Oh no, I can feel a "hand on the bible" moment closing in
Dewey deliberately answering another question than asked, dodging the important one. Only reason to do this is that IH has numerous samples from the MW test and that those are showing exactly the data that has now been revealed. My take is that Dewey is now working very hard to have these evidences destroyed, since they are still in the MW reactor.
-
Calorimetry cannot be the end all be all in cold fusion substantiation or lack thereof.
Calorimetry is the be all, end all proof of cold fusion. That is how cold fusion works. Like it or not, excess heat is the "principal signature of the reaction" (Fleischmann). If you do not detect heat, there is no reaction and you will not find anything else. The ratio of neutrons and other direct nuclear evidence to heat is 10 to 100 million times smaller than plasma fusion. People have speculated that low level reactions with no measurable heat can occur but I do not know of any evidence for that.A natural phenomenon is what it is. We can't dictate to nature how it will work. It would be easier to detect cold fusion if it had the kinds of nuclear signatures plasma fusion does, but it doesn't, so we can't.
-
IH Fanboy wrote:
Calorimetry is the be all, end all proof of cold fusion. That is how cold fusion works. Like it or not, excess heat is the "principal signature of the reaction" (Fleischmann). If you do not detect heat, there is no reaction and you will not find anything else. The ratio of neutrons and other direct nuclear evidence to heat is 10 to 100 million times smaller than plasma fusion. People have speculated that low level reactions with no measurable heat can occur but I do not know of any evidence for that.A natural phenomenon is what it is. We can't dictate to nature how it will work. It would be easier to detect cold fusion if it had the kinds of nuclear signatures plasma fusion does, but it doesn't, so we can't.
There are some semantic issues here. "Cold fusion" became a colloquial term for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect FPHE). This is now being neutrally called the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE). The word is confusing because we don't know the exact nature of the reasion, and that it is "some kind of fusion" was originally speculation. Jed is correct, and it almost a tautology: the signature of the FPHE or AHE is heat. All that work to measure nuclear products, meaning neutrons, tritium, and gammas, in the early days, was largely wasted. Sometimes they didn't bother to look for heat, since that's messy and they were not set up for it, but being physicists, they had lots of radiation detection equipment. If they didn't get heat, they wouldn't find any other products, and on top of that, we now know that the reaction does not produce those products.
But where Jed falls of the rails is where he denies the presence of a "nuclear signature." First of all, de novo helium is a nuclear product, just as tritium would be. The difference is that helium is more common. So finding some helium, by itself, is not "nuclear proof," unless the study is much more careful. Tritium is found, in fact, but at levels far too low to have anything to do with the main reaction.
That is not the case with helium. The preponderance of the evidence, from multiple independent studies, is that heat and helium are correlated at a value within apparent experimental error that is the "nuclear signature": 23.8 MeV of heat for each helium nucleus formed. (Experimental error at this point is roughly 10-20%).
As to Jed's comments on nature, I'm glad to see that what I've been repeating for years now seems to be spreading. Or it was already there. I don't care.
More to the point, if heat is being generated by nuclear process, there will be "nuclear products." Storms thinks that NiH is generating deuterium. This will be difficult to detect, because deuterium is already present. However, if a cell runs long enough, it might be possible to detect elevation in deuterium levels, and this can be easier if deuterium-depleted hydrogen is used. But that's a nuisance.
Looking for nuclear products, to be believable and solid evidence, must involve many independent samples from independent experiments. That's not possible with the Rossi Effect yet, and both samples now, with apparently similar results, have come by the same hand, Rossi.
Rossi must know by now what the effect is of his personal action, yet he continues it and avoids independent testing. He is, then, responsible for the results as to world opinion. I think he wants that result.
