The Industrial Heat Answer

    Alan,


    It is your prerogative to moderate as you wish, it is a thankless job, and I can understanding your getting annoyed with Abd. I would in your position. But maybe you can lead by example here and resist calling names just because others do it, and also take prejudices from past behaviour out of the equation? It would certainly be virtuous if you did...


    Anyway, i'm not suggesting you should do this - it is not my place - but it might help the tone here.


    "When we don't like things, the only person we can change is ourselves..."

    Quote from bang99

    @axil -> Ni and Defkalion
    "Facts are stubborn things."


    Please, post your facts about the relation ship between NI and Defkalion in 2011 and the situation at present date.
    We could move that thing also to the playground, if you like.



    Just look at the demo and you will see that it was completely automated using National instruments components.

    Quote from THHuxley

    (1) Data selection. For example, a cell that showed He higher than that expected might (correctly) be viewed as leaky - given that lab atmosphere He content can be high and requires more care than was mostly exercised to control.


    That is the sort of objection a person will raise when he is not read the papers carefully. The researchers addressed issues like that. They worked on this for many years and they thought about that and many other problems, and avoided them. They used various different methods, depending on the base technique. For example, Miles showed that any leaks would produce helium levels far higher than his measured levels, and the leaks would produce random amounts, always far exceeding the amounts he measured from cold fusion. He demonstrated this by using flasks exposed to laboratory air. In other words, with deliberate actual leaks.


    People who will not carefully read the existing experiments will never be satisfied, I am afraid. They will keep thinking up objections that were answered years ago. For some reason they imagine that the researchers did not carefully consider such objections, and they are the first to come up with them.


    That is not to say these experiments should not be repeated. As I said there may be some good reason to repeat them. That is for the scientists doing the research to decide.

    Quote from axil

    Just look at the demo and you will see that it was completely automated using National instruments components.


    Yes, it was. However it was not done with the approval or assistance of National Instruments engineers. They pulled out when they saw the experiment was badly done.


    You do realize, I hope, that anyone can purchase National Instruments equipment and put on an automated demonstration with it. It does not take a high level of skill to automate a test these days. Just because you use their equipment that does not mean they approve of your demonstration, or endorse it.

    @axil
    (not offensive)
    Watching a demo gives me no deep insight of what is really going on, especially the LabView SW Setup -> no facts)



    My company is NI platinum partner.
    I do R&D testing and validation for mechatronic systems.
    It's a commercial, money oriented company.
    NI is proving everything we want. In all ways.
    You get what you pay for.
    NI does not care/bother, what I'm doing with my setup and the results.
    It's the usual system ...


    Don't get me wrong, my company is not an "Free Energy" type setup.
    We only use standad physics, no Bose-Einstein reactions.
    We just prove, if a component can run several years in a defined environment.

    Right. What this showed was a company not ready to reasonably obtain major funding.

    Quote from Jed

    That is the sort of objection a person will raise when he is not read the papers carefully. The researchers addressed issues like that. They worked on this for many years and they thought about that and many other problems, and avoided them. They used various different methods, depending on the base technique. For example, Miles showed that any leaks would produce helium levels far higher than his measured levels, and the leaks would produce random amounts, always far exceeding the amounts he measured from cold fusion. He demonstrated this by using flasks exposed to laboratory air. In other words, with deliberate actual leaks.


    I'm aware this is getting very OT - so if you'd like to continue we could move to a new thread?


    To answer what you have written here. Of course I have only a rough idea of the details here, so can't be authoritative. But, what you have said now of the methodology used, would not suffice to remove these objections.


    The methodology you suggest, with deliberate leaks showing large He, in no way precludes the possibility of a different leak mechanism leading to smaller leaks. In fact that would be expected since the real leaks were not deliberate. Now I realise you have said this is only one method, but it does not convince.


    For this type of experiment the only safe "He leak avoidance" mechanism is to ensure that the collected He concentration is >> than that in the ambient environment. Since labs have very variable He concentration that means control the ambient He levels, measure them (well mixed), run the experiment long enough for He to be convincingly high in concentration. These things are doable if the effect is real. If not real you will find that there is always some loophole when you get positive results.


    Sounds like justification for Abd's new experiment. If it is done rigorously.


    Would NI test designers allow a bad flow meter setup to get through to contaminate your experiments? After the demo was setup, would you allow someone to come in and change that setup by adding their own equipment?


    If you saw how the flow meter can be subjected to such misinformation, misinterpretation, and functional underestimation, would you not question how the same tactics might have been used to steal the IP of another inventor when that IP is found in the recent patent application of another company?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Abd, you shared your opinion of me with the forum, I returned the compliment. And as for your being exempt from moderation by me or anyone, in yer dreams, pal. I have seen you in action on many other forums, you enter, attempt to dazzle with your eloquence and having wound up the both other posters and the moderators depart in a huff. As you will no doubt depart from here, it's just a matter of time.


    I did not claim exemption, rather I pointed out that if you act on my content, and communicate with me, like this, it invites the response that you are requesting I avoid. You ask me DNFTT but continue to poke and provoke, you accuse me of waning to "be right," but keep pushing your own point of view. By now, on most fora with any kind of recusal policies in place, you'd be staying away. As an administrator on Wikipedia, you'd have lost your tools.


    I have never seen "the moderators depart in a huff." That's a fantasy. Show an example, or STFU.


    This is intended to be "the trusted LENR Community." That sets out a mission that requires at least occasional participation; I may be the most widely-trusted general writer on LENR (setting aside certain scientists). I am not departing from LENR except in a casket.


    If this community is going to claim to be trustworthy, it must set up structures and procedures to create that. Ad hoc moderation by an incompetent and reactive moderator -- the opposite of the kind that will create community confidence -- will harm the goal. So the easiest way to avoid my comments is to resign as a moderator, though a more difficult but ultimately more productive way would be to create process to facilitate and show community consensus.


    When a moderator engages in conflict with a user, a moderator with integrity will refrain from action except in an emergency, and will request response from another moderator or administrator. An owner may do something different. An owner can say, "My site, go away!" It might not be smart, it might be inviting sock puppetry, etc, but it is legitimate. But this site is expressly a community, except it has developed no real community decision-making process. That's very common, very ordinary, and ... inadequate.

    @Abd


    Quote

    If this community is going to claim to be trustworthy, it must set up structures and procedures to create that. Ad hoc moderation by an incompetent and reactive moderator -- the opposite of the kind that will create community confidence -- will harm the goal. So the easiest way to avoid my comments is to resign as a moderator, though a more difficult but ultimately more productive way would be to create process to facilitate and show community consensus.


    Perhaps you don't realise how this sounds. If Alan does not moderate then things here will be worse. But regardless, he is a moderator. If you bait him, as you are now doing, he will more likely react. We are all human. Your comment here can be interpreted in various ways, some of which do you no credit at all and seem like bullying. Not helpful IMHO.

    Quote from THHuxley

    For this type of experiment the only safe "He leak avoidance" mechanism is to ensure that the collected He concentration is >> than that in the ambient environment. Since labs have very variable He concentration that means control the ambient He levels, measure them (well mixed), run the experiment long enough for He to be convincingly high in concentration. These things are doable if the effect is real. If not real you will find that there is always some loophole when you get positive results.


    Sounds like justification for Abd's new experiment. If it is done rigorously.


    Thanks. There is work that created helium above ambient. A clean example is Apicella et al, 2005. Three cells. Ambient helium was not excluded, so what they were measuring was elevation above ambient. (Krivit completely misunderstood this in attacking Violante). The helium measurements showed correlation. One of these included anodic stripping and produced a result very close to the theoretical value, it was actually "on the money," but ... this cell had the lowest heat and lowest helium so the error bars are large (I think about 20%). The others did not have anodic stripping and showed roughly, off the top of my head, about 60% helium release on the assumption of 24 MeV/4He. This experiment did not generate all that much heat, but I think it had a very small headspace, so a little helium raised the levels substantially.


    Most experiments had much more headspace, so raising helium levels above ambient would be difficult.


    It is not necessary, in fact. Key is the correlation across many experiments. Leakage is extremely unlikely to somehow create the 23.8 MeV/4He numbers. Yes, ambient helium should always be measured, but Miles was able to show that leakage was not experimentally significant. His lab, in fact, had almost double the natural helium, from what else was going on there. It's an obvious place to consider possible artifacts. Miles handled this with controls, for the most part. Leakage should not depend on the presence or absence of the excess energy. (And, no, experiments with excess heat are not significantly hotter than those with it, and in some cases, they are at the same temperature by design.)


    The work I suggested is being done. See http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf. I am told that they have been fully funded. I can't imagine a better team for this work.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    You misread that, possibly deliberately - it is you who departs in a huff. Every time. Poor baby.

    So, here, I am accused of "possibly deliberately misreading" -- which is a form of lying. what was actually written was:


    Quote

    I have seen you in action on many other forums, you enter, attempt to dazzle with your eloquence and having wound up the both other posters and the moderators depart in a huff.


    Yes, you intended a particular reading, and I did read it differently, because your syntax was clumsy. "and the moderators depart in a huff." You would put a comma after moderators to be clear. I apologize for the misreading (because I would normally notice the alternate reading and that my reading was grammatically incorrect.)


    But this is beside the point. Your post was hostile and provocative. I do leave fora where I'm harassed, and I have been harassed here. Spending a few hours writing a post and having it deleted as spam, when it was a direct response to what was allowed, but moved to an off-topic forum because of the noise problem here, is not acceptable.


    However, at the moment, I have something major to study and to contribute. Which should be obvious. And I will not leave because of one clumsy moderator. If that "spam" trick is repeated, though, I reserve the right to respond with "all means necessary." I will put that post up again.

    Quote from THHuxley

    But, what you have said now of the methodology used, would not suffice to remove these objections.


    I only gave a thumbnail description of one aspect of one paper. There is much more! You cannot expect me to give a complete presentation describing why this objection has been removed. That would take weeks of careful study. I am not exaggerating.


    Quote from THHuxley

    The methodology you suggest, with deliberate leaks showing large He, in no way precludes the possibility of a different leak mechanism leading to smaller leaks.


    To make a long story short, Miles shows that such a small leak is physically impossible. Data produced from leaks of all sorts can be characterized and recognized. The slowest, smallest possible leak is helium coming through glass. This was measured, carefully, and accounted for. Plus he switched over to stainless steel flasks.


    Along the same lines, it has been suggested that tritium in some cells was caused by tritium leaking in from the outside from reactors at Los Alamos, or by deliberately adding tritium to cells (sabotage, or fraud). To answer that, Ed Storms at LANL deliberately added tritium to cells. The profile this produced was completely different from production within the cell by cold fusion. It was easily recognizable. He also showed that tritium levels at Los Alamos would have to be extremely high for the tritium to enter the cell from the outside on its own. Tritium levels would be so high, in fact, they would trigger the radiation alarms and the building would have to be permanently abandoned.


    I have only touched on the subject. To the point is the researchers thought about these things carefully and described them extensively. I mean in hundreds of pages of boring papers. You have to read these papers carefully before you begin to critique them. You cannot just wave your hand and say "maybe the helium leaked in." Nope. That did not happen. That was carefully ruled out.

    Jed, the work you describe is indeed complex, and by its very nature impossible to validate. Leaks are complex things, and proving some unconsidered class of leak cannot happen under different conditions, or some considered class of leak cannot happen in a different way under different conditions, is a tough call.


    Rather than rest extraordinary conclusions on such inherently problematic foundations, much better to do an experiment without such an artifact, or with the artifact directly controlled. Until then you will I think not find many objective observers convinced. It is a very basic matter of methodology.

    Quote from axil

    Would NI test designers allow a bad flow meter setup to get through to contaminate your experiments?


    When the NI test designers saw this setup, they said it was full of problems, and they refused to work with Defkalion any more. They cut off the relationship. The bad flow meter problem was not their problem, because they pulled out long before the ICCF demonstration.


    Quote from axil

    If you saw how the flow meter can be subjected to such misinformation, misinterpretation, and functional underestimation, would you not question how the same tactics might have been used to steal the IP of another inventor . . .


    I understand how you can deliberately set up a flowmeter or some other instrument to produce fake data, and an exaggerated COP. I understand how you can accidentally set up instruments to give the wrong answer, because I have done that myself.


    I cannot begin to imagine how you could use a bad flow meter to steal IP. How would that work? Does the flow meter reach out into someone's computer and abscond with the information? What you say makes no sense. Bad instruments give bad results. They do not magically "steal IP."

    Quote from Hermes

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    So the first Plan B project I declared was to confirm the heat/helium ratio in the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect with increased precision


    If you already know that heat and helium are correlated,and this result had already been replicated several times, why would you waste resources on yet another useless and expensive replication? What possibl;e interest is there in increased precision? Are you trying to say that the historic measurements are not reliable? What possible scientific insight is gained?


    As I said, there were those in the field who thought this was useless.


    If you study the history of heat/helium, you will see that many objections were raised. For example, the most precise measurements were not published in peer-reviewed journals. (SRI, as a major consulting company, publishes internal reports, with their own allegedly rigorous review system. Much of Miles' work was published by the Navy.) There are theoretical issues where the precision of the results is not adequate to distinguish between alternatives. What I can say is that the correlation is unmistakable and not rationally challenged (in spite of Shanahan's efforts here), but the actual ratio is subject to major uncertainties, mostly because most FPHE experiments but two simply measured outgas helium. Which gives roughly 60% of the expected "fusion" ratio. Well? Is that so? How much helium is actually retained? If you look at the numbers, it's loose enough to allow doubts.


    What I found in the work was that the two experiments that came up with the expected fusion ratio shared a common trait: they both used anodic reversal and it appears to have released the otherwise retained helium. While in hindsight this may seem obvious, it is also a fact that it was not noticed explicitly before, to my knowledge. There is, then a natural suggestion: repeat this work using anodic reversal at the end to "clean up." I've been told that this is going to be done, and that I would be credited.


    Which I think is really cool. It means I actually made a difference, in something where the lost opportunity cost of delay is maybe a trillion dollars per year. That helps get me up in the morning. At 72, it can start to become, ah, "interesting."


    There is another reason. When I write about cold fusion research, a common skeptical response is "that was all twenty years ago, the latest thing you have pointed to is ten years old. If this were real, it would be all over the journals, and it's not."


    A rigorously-done set of heat/helium determinations by more than one reputable laboratory, published in a major journal, will transform the field, I predict. So it's political, and my Current Science paper was actually polemic. Designed for effect. It worked with the reviewer, he was convinced, and he was not a pushover, he was initially rejecting and highly skeptical. (it has been pointed out that the paper did not consider all the possible errors. While few papers do, in fact, considering all the possible errors -- a sound academic practice -- would have made the paper much longer and it would have had less impact, and impact was the purpose. To convince, not necessarily if the reality of the conclusions stated, but of their importance and the value of full investigation and (dis)confirmation. The paper was also designed to establish cold fusion as a real possibility, worth of more general investigation, and another avenue of investigation of interest was mentioned (the dual laser work of Letts), and my understanding is that this is also now funded.


    I'm bullish on cold fusion. Even if Rossi seems to have been a big dud. So, maybe it will take 20 years. I might even live to see it! Meanwhile, I'm having fun. (Actually, I think that much faster is possible. But I don't want to see a rush of stupid funding, I want to see focused research "to address fundamental questions." And some to develop control of the reaction. Heat/helium was a place to spend some money because results are almost guaranteed. Want to make the reaction reliable? Great. We need that. Be prepared to spend many millions of dollars, possibly without results. It has already happened. What I called Phase I research is research that really is clean-up, doing what should have been done maybe twenty years ago. Predictably useful.)

    Quote

    JedRothwell: "When the NI test designers saw this setup, they said it was full of problems, and they refused to work with Defkalion any more. They cut off the relationship."


    What in the world are you talking about? National Instruments personnel designed the demo. Why would they walk away from their own work? What proof do you have that NI cut off the relationship?


    Prudence dictate that the current level that your veracity has dropped to would require multi sourcing of each and every one of your assertions. Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery.


    Your attacks on these inventors is based on removing the actual designers of the tests such as the ERV and NI from responsibility , then make false claims the the INVENTORS set up the meters to peritrate fraud when the INVENTOR had nothing to do with metering setup or any other function associated with the metering. You saw how the IP thievery of the Dekalion IP was accomplished so you decided to use the same cannard to help the IP thieves of Rossi's IP to do their nefarious deeds.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.