“Nature’s Energy” — New Video Introducing Brillouin Energy

Quote from lenrisnotreal

Well, there are items called stars (such as our own sun) whose very existence proves that hot fusion works. For LENR, however, the extremely common conditions of a temperature less than 1000C and a mixture of nickel and hydrogen, two of the most abundant materials in the universe, has resulted in zero observances of natural LENR in either a cosmic or local (on Earth) scale. The reason for this? Say my name.

I'm really starting to like the "Block" feature here. It actually saves me hours a day. I do not block anyone merely because I disagree with them. I block when I see that there is no point to conversation. This is my last response then, to "lenrisnotreal." However, if someone else, a regular user, given to cogency, quotes him, I will reconsider. I do notice that there are suppressed comments and sometimes look at the user profile to see a summary, and sometimes unblock so I can read the full comment. Then, usually, I restore the block. The process reminds me of my decision to avoid wasting time.

At least one user I have blocked has mentioned this -- and more than once -- as if blocking is some kind of message, as if it is, itself, trolling. No. I do think that generally a person has the right to know that they are blocked. This site doesn't automatically do that. I suspect that they could find out by trying to PM me. Tests are welcome. (I will not complain if a blocked user PMs me, unless it becomes harassment. I am also very public and it's easy to find ways to communicate with me.) Blocking is a way to control my own time, and everyone has the right to do that.

Someone who registers an account here. a site dedicated to LENR, called "lenrisnotreal" is a troll. This is not what a genuine skeptic would do. There are plenty of pseudoskeptics out there, fanatics of various kinds, and some even have PhDs -- or are grad students. What they present, though, is not science and scientific argument. It is circumstantial, ordinary debate, political argument. The message is generally some variation on "you idiots."

The argument given by this user above is based on an assumption that if a phenomenon is real, it would already have been observed.

First of all, the strongest LENR evidence is not for nickel and hydrogen, which is not well-established by comparison. Yet the user makes a generic argument against LENR based on a fact: natural LENR is allegedly not observed. There is a problem with that, which is that low-level LENR might be very difficult to observe. The best form of this argument looks at the long-term possible shifts in elemental abundances that would occur from a low rate over a billion years. There are, in fact, some anomalies in elemental abundances, but that's not a topic for today, here. The argument is simply not as strong as this user imagines.

However, the best, most widely confirmed evidence is with palladium deuteride. Palladium and deuterium, while rare, do exist in nature. Would natural LENR be observed if it happens? Is there a study?

The original report from Pons and Fleischmann involved creating palladium deuteride at a loading in excess of 85%. Until that work, most who were familiar with palladium hydrides (including deuteride) thought that 70% was about the maximum loading that could be obtained with effort. Given the rarity of deuterium in natural hydrogen, that is far, far above natural loading. However, we could suspect that local loading (i.e, a very small patch of loaded PdD in some natural palladium metal, might happen. Nevertheless, the Pons and Fleischmann results do not lead to a prediction of natural LENR of this kind.

This is, by the way, where they differed with Stephen Jones, who did (and does?) think that there is some natural fusion explaining certain isotopic analogies. It is not clear that this would be LENR, i.e., "low-energy." The reaction Jones was looking at and for would have so-called "hot fusion" products. The FPHE ash is not that, it is helium, almost totally, and this is known through controlled experiment, by many groups, confirmed and the heat/helium ratio is reproducible.

That's actual science, not befogged and ignorant provision of stupid arguments. There are people here arguing against that evidence. That's fine. But at least they know it exists. The most prominent skeptic here uses his real name, and he's been published under peer review (as have I).

Trolls are welcome to fly a kite. Serious skeptics are useful and even necessary in science, and are, in my book, not only welcome, but invited.

Quote from Eric Walker

That does not mean there is not controlled electron capture taking place, or that Brillouin are not seeing excess heat, which they might be accurately observing. If heavier nuclides unstable against electron capture or beta decay were capturing electrons directly, instead of protons capturing them and then the neutrons that were formed reacting with lattice sites, you'd have a release of energy as well as isotope shifts that look vaguely like neutron capture. There would be a remaining problem of delayed gamma emission after beta decay, but I wonder whether this would happen as much if the electron capture/beta decay were induced, in contrast to spontaneous processes that occur in naturally unstable nuclei.

Very little experimental evidence has been revealed regarding Brillouin work. In some ways, I must classify Brillouin's claims with how I classified those of Rossi, until recently. Not verified independently, not trustworthy other than as an indication. Given that the methods are secret (are they?) this cannot be confirmed. Brillouin gets a notch up because Godes is working with experts with established reputations who are not about to trash that reputation with fluff. But just a notch up.

Now, if Brillouin is seeing reliable XE, significant (a few watts would be plenty unless COP is below, say, 1.05), then a scientific approach would be to use this to determine the ash and other presumably correlated phenomena. On-off switches can be used to establish powerful correlations, quickly. Until this is independently confirmed, however, it would still be relative fluff. Independent confirmation is possible without giving away the farm. it's merely a bit more cumbersome.

My a priori position is that without extraordinary evidence, a claim of making neutrons is not to be accepted, for the reasons you give, Alain, in your full post. Widom-Larsen theory is rejected for the same reason. Theories like this create more confusion than they clarify.

I trust Godes, he's telling his reality. He had a theory and it seemed obvious to him that this was the "explanation of cold fusion." So he got to work and he found some heat. To him, this could prove that he was right. That's an enormous temptation!

Pons and Fleischmann had a theoretical concept and decided to test it. They found heat -- much more than they had expected might be barely possible. To them, this confirmed their "theory," such as it was, and that they did not quickly abandon that theory is part of what led to such massive rejection. The heat they had found was real, and it actually was from a nuclear reaction, we now know that, though we still don't know the mechanism. Their theory required that the reaction be taking place in the bulk. Because that then predicted, if helium was the ash -- and helium was the only ash seriously on the table -- that helium would be found in their rods. They had already detected helium in the outgas. So they had rods tested by Johnson-Matthey. They announced the testing. Then they completely shut up about helium. They never released the results. Park saw that and it is what convinced him that this was some sort of flim-flam or stupidity.

Why did they not release the results? It's pretty clear. There was no helium in the rods, particularly if the outer layer was removed to eliminate the possibility of atmospheric contamination.

Their theory was wrong. What they had found was a surface reaction. But they thought they had a correlation with volume! We could go over how they were fooled.

Yet what they found may transform the energy future of humanity, and that is because they looked outside of ordinary expectations. So they are heroes, with feet of clay, they became attached and defensive, fatal to science.

If I see Godes again, I would suggest that he treat his experimental evidence as golden -- including all the failures. I would encourage him to test the hell out of those experiments. If he is surrounded by yes-men -- it can happen! -- he should engage at least one serious skeptic, knowledgeable, to suggest experimental testing, and he should try vigorously to prove his own theory wrong. As one activity.

His core activity would remain gaining better and better control of the reaction, and it really does not matter much what the reaction is. What is not real will come out in the wash.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Alan Smith,
The unfortunate continued pattern to many more recent excess heat reports is to identify a higher than "normal" thermocouple reading (frequently with no calibration, or unrelated calibration), calculate this extra heat in terms of what would be required in terms of energy input to make something this much "extra" hot, multiply it by time, and arrive at a very high, often MW scale energy value. Without A) proving that the thermocouple was showing a valid measurement by complimentary means, and B) showing that the high temperature is actually correlated to an increase in heat content.

The most questionable (IMO) reports are those that show almost exact, lock step thermocouple traces, separated by something like 50 to 100 C (for example), in the excess heat portion.

What is happening, commonly now, is that some researcher, sometimes even an established scientist, but typically without LENR experience, does a test that appears to show XE. Instead of repeating and verifying and running single-variable controls, before publishing, the scientist releases the report. Then it is critiqued, sometimes by experts. The report is shown to be unclear, sometimes the errors are obvious, sometimes not. Then others do experiments that are allegedly "similar" but that may be quite different, and all the reports together are considered, by some, overwhelming evidence, since "so many are reporting." The file drawer effect is completely ignored. That is a common pseudoskeptical argument, so we might, way too easily, set it aside. It is a real effect. It is handled by creating experimental series and reporting the whole series, not just the "successful experiments." Artifacts are patiently sought and confirmed, where possible, or ruled out where possible.

The real work is difficult and requires patience. It can take years. As MFMP matures, this is being realized.

At this point, I would not be putting much money or effort into NiH, but those with the money and the work to invest will make those decisions. I'm recommending basic research, mostly with PdD, because this is the fastest path to full-on mainstream recognition, which will then open up massive funding floodgates. It's leverage. It's really not a far goal to reach for, I expect to see this well within my lifetime, and I'm 72.

@ STDM :

Quote

Rossi's reactor works, Lugano proofs it. If you don't like that fact, find an expert who disagrees.

First, you have to find an "expert" who even knows about it and gives a damn. That's difficult. Most experts in heat transfer and fluid flow never heard of Rossi and if they did, would dismiss him out of hand as a fraud after looking him up on the internet.

The idea that the appropriate way to test Rossi's claims to technology is with a thermal camera in a high temperature system which has no forced cooling is absurd to begin with. As I have amply explained time and time again because people like you just don't get it.