ECW Poll: Your Thoughts on the E-Cat as a Commercially Viable Technology

Bob Greenyer mentioned that it might be time to verify the Rossi flow meter to see how it could be defeated in experiments. MFMP con become a friend of the court and offer unbiased experimental experience to confirm or deny the accusations made about the 1 year test.

ME356 has seen how rudely LENR developers are treated and being as sensitive and vulnerable as he is, he might decide to keep a low profile. Furthermore, Rossi has not submitted many of his patents at this juncture so ME356 could make much of Rossi's tech open source by releasing his methods at the current time.

Quote from Mary Yugo

If that inventor submits his invention for proper testing by an accredited lab (Sandia, CERN, ORNL, NRL, etc. etc.), there will be no claims of fraud.

You're probably right. In fact, we would not get any claims of anything. If LENR+ worked, best we could get from the government labs, I'm afraid, is silence. The early cold fusion confirmations would be illustrative of what would happen. NASA, for example, buried their successful replications of P&F for years.

Quote from IH Fanboy

NASA, for example, buried their successful replications of P&F for years.

No, they did not. They talked about it often. I knew all about it, and there were several references to it in the literature. It was similar to one of the BARC experiments, and as I recall the two compared notes.

I uploaded their paper. I do not recall when. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGCresultsofa.pdf

Quote from Mary Yugo

NASA successfully confirmed and replicated cold fusion? And buried it? WHat gross and total nonsense. is anyone really dumb enough to believe that?

Are you suggesting it did not happen? Or do you mean it wasn't buried?

If you have in mind the former, you are ignorant.

Generally speaking you are too lazy or biased to read anything or learn anything about this field, so you often make uniformed remarks. You have the notion that there might errors in McKubre's work, or that all experiments are at "low power" (whatever that means). You make yourself look silly. Since you have no interest in cold fusion, and you refuse to learn anything about it, I recommend you refrain from commenting on it.

Quote from axil

No matter what the LENR inventor does, no matter how open his experiment is, there will alway be outcries of fraud in his flow meter setup and/or placement to negate the positive results of his experiments. If a optical thermometer is used tp measure heat, their will be doubt about its calibration. That's just the way it is.

In truth, the peanut gallery can be harsh. What I conclude from what I've observed over the last few years, not necessarily something I would have expected in advance, is that anyone who claims something had better be prepared to have the claim submitted to scrutiny of the most ungenerous kind and be willing to engage in a give and take with observers, possibly running new tests and incorporating feedback. If for whatever reason things are not ready for that yet, perhaps better to keep a very low profile (or stay invisible) and make only extremely modest claims. In the Bay area, a lot of startups stay in stealth mode for a while, perhaps for related reasons.

An inventor is not obligated to do these things, and he doesn't owe the people in the peanut gallery anything. But it's good to know how things can unfold in advance before taking initial steps to share what he has with the world. If maintaining proprietary secrets is a core part of the inventor's strategy, and demos must be tightly managed, and there can be no genuinely independent experiments, perhaps better to keep things under wraps for as long as possible. This is not advice I'm giving to anyone, merely an attempt at summarizing what I've seen.

Quote from axil

If a optical thermometer is used tp measure heat, their will be doubt about its calibration. That's just the way it is.

Did you know that an old glass-mercury thermometer will temporarily (briefly) show a drop in temperature when quickly immersed in boiling water, from room temperature or colder? (Sensitive to the size of the thermometer). One might infer all sorts of weird things from that.

It's all in knowing your instruments and learning their behavior, thereby avoiding silly mistakes and being able to answer to the grumbles from the spectators.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Did you know that an old glass-mercury thermometer will temporarily (briefly) show a drop in temperature when quickly immersed in boiling water, from room temperature or colder? (Sensitive to the size of the thermometer). One might infer all sorts of weird things from that.

It's all in knowing your instruments and learning their behavior, thereby avoiding silly mistakes and being able to answer to the grumbles from the spectators.

When you see that nickel powder is melted in the core of the reactor and calibration says that the temperature measured by the optical sensor only got up to 780C, you know that the principles used for the calibration of that sensor are wrong. But to justify this calibration method. the melted nickel has been accused of being planted by the experimenters, a accusation that distroys the reputation of those very careful experimenters.

Quote from axil

When you see that nickel powder is melted in the core of the reactor and calibration says that the temperature measured by the optical sensor only got up to 780C, you know that the principles used for the calibration of that sensor are wrong. But to justify this calibration method. the melted nickel has been accused of being planted by the experimenters, a accusation that distroys the reputation of those very careful experimenters.

What melted nickel? Why not the thermocouple that was stuck inside the fuel door? Melting metal is a limited use thermometer, but the thermocouple is metal, and melts at a lower temperature than pure nickel. About 1380°C for a type K, which was what was in the Lugano reactor (and Jian's). Also the heater coils are under the surface of the reactor, so they also are hotter than the outside. and they did not melt. That puts two more melting metal thermometers in the reactor. And they did not melt, so it did not get to the melting point of nickel. The Ni62 particles from the reactor in photos are identical to the brand new one Bob Higgins imaged. Strike 3. They are not melted either.
Evidence. Not theory.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

What melted nickel? Why not the thermocouple that was stuck inside the fuel door? Melting metal is a limited use thermometer, but the thermocouple is metal, and melts at a lower temperature than pure nickel. About 1380°C for a type K, which was what was in the Lugano reactor (and Jian's). Also the heater coils are under the surface of the reactor, so they also are hotter than the outside. and they did not melt. That puts two more melting metal thermometers in the reactor. And they did not melt, so it did not get to the melting point of nickel. The Ni62 particles from the reactor in photos are identical to the brand new one Bob Higgins imaged. Strike 3. They are not melted either.
Evidence. Not theory.

The nickel was the Ni62 ash particle that measured 1000 microns

see page 45

http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

So its big. Whoopee.
And does it look rounded and melted? No.
Compare.

What probably would happen at 1400°C external is that the lithium and aluminum would make a nice flux and the Ni would run together into a solid piece.

Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

Prepare yourself for probably at least two reports using identical Lugano type reactors, tested many times.
With zero excess heat.
And gory details about what happens at several high temperature ranges, and what the emissivity actually is, using thermocouples.
Even thermocouple data from Lugano.

Al and Li help improve the rate of "necking" in Ni particles which enhances the sintering rate of Ni particles. Too much Li and Al and you end up with a glass.

Quote

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Alfvén

And experimental science without a Herculean and skeptical attempt to understand results is alchemy.

Regards, THH