Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Eric Walker

I'm going to guess that fractionation of Hg in the case of the CFL bulbs was a hand-wavy explanation adopted to explain away a mysterious phenomenon while maintaining current understanding of nuclear physics, rather than an explanation that was necessarily adopted after having ruled out all of the alternatives (incl. LENR).

Imagine two people with lab coats:

A: What's going on with the changes in the isotopic ratios of Hg in CFL bulbs? They're regular, predictable and well above the noise floor.

B: Beats me. Maybe it's fractionation.

A: What about something nuclear going on?

B: Then you'd have all these theoretical problems, and we can't think of possible ways through them, so it has to be fractionation.

A: Ok.

Display More

Alas I can't post Mead's paper, which is very well written, and resolves the issue nicely. But I can summarise it which I will do here. I'll also post some pics. They analyse the Hg vapour in old CFL bulbs and the Hg present in the bulb glass.

The key data is the correlation between isotopic ratios of Hg in the lamp glass and isotopic ratios of Hg in the vapour, of used bulbs. They cannot compare this for the same bulb, because the two collection procedures each destroy the bulb and cannot both be used on one bulb. however, they can compare bulbs with similar lifetimes and as you can see the results are striking. The changes in isotopic rations for the vapour and the glass, from natural composition, are in opposite directions as expected from fractionation (it is a closed system) but not transmutation

Less clear is why this fractionation happens. But they have a proposed mechanism - "self-shielding" which has resulted in isotopic anomalies in other systems and is understood theoretically. They have a curve-fitting exercise based on what is known about self-shielding:

There are still some aspects of the data they cannot explain (the odd/even split) but they have most of it.

This shows undoubtedly that there are detailed mechanisms relating to fractionation in these systems we do not yet understand. That is expected, and not a sign of any fundamental new physics, just detailed application of known physics in complex systems.

Quote

But you forgot to say that there was other people in that same forum who deny that idea. One of the many arguments is for example that having to know the exact band emissivity function of every material would make impossible to make any temperature measurement with IR devices. IR measuring apparatus have only one input number for the (total) emissivity coefficient.

Why do you need to know the exact band emissivity function? No-one has suggested that except you, to my knowledge. The Optris instrument detector collects a signal based on the radiated power weighted by the spectral sensitivity of the bolometer integrated over the passband. Therefore the relevant emissivity is an integrated total over the passband. Sure, this can change with temperature, but most materials have pretty flat response integrated over the IR passband so there is little such chnage. Even alumina is flat enough over this passband for the range of temperatures considered.

The manuals for all such instruments say that you must determine emissivity experimentally for a given material. If that is done there is no problem, and the correct effective band emissivity is found. Where emissivity is the same over all active frequencies this will also equal the total emissivity.

The key matter here is not that you need a spectrum instead of a number. It is that the (whole spectrum) number used for total emissivity is very different from the (IR passband spectrum) number used for the IR camera.

Quote from ele

Dear THH if a concept, a statement or an idea is not true, remain false even if there is a number of people promoting it.

You, IH and others promote the idea that one have to use band emissivity instead of of total emissivity. That is false and remain false even if a number of anonymous pseudonyms would sustain it.

IH for sure had interest to promote this idea in order to try to nullify the results of the Lugano report. And for sure IH is paying people to write in this forum(e.g. Weaver is working for IH) in order to diffuse this idea.

But you forgot to say that there was other people in that same forum who deny that idea. One of the many arguments is for example that having to know the exact band emissivity function of every material would make impossible to make any temperature measurement with IR devices. IR measuring apparatus have only one input number for the (total) emissivity coefficient.

Science, in contrast to Humanities, is not democratic. If an idea is false it doesn't matter how many pseudonym or avatar on the net sustain it.

Is natural for the Authors of the Lugano Report not to answer to the net. Probably they revised the critiques and found them ill based !

They openly put their names on their ideas while the net is full of anonymous trolls that could be driven just by economical and not scientific interest.

Display More

Heating an empty alumina tube to glowing, using total emissivity of alumina for the IR camera setting results in an apparent COP of around 3 compared to electrical input.

There is no need for any fuel at all, nor to posit any reaction, nor any fancy electrical supply or special waveforms. The fake COP of around 3 is a direct result of using the wrong emissivity for the camera function.

You will see it live streamed on the Internet soon enough, recorded and available to everyone.

Anyone can try it anyway. I suggest that you try it. I suggest that everyone capable of trying it to do so.

Para,

Interesting if true,

would definitely not be surprised if true

But like all of Rossi's blather,

Would like to see this replicated:

Same set up,

Same testing procedures

Accurately measured

Same results

Etc

As Para rounds the troops, Nissan hints at Parkhomov replication.

Stop peddling fake news. Neither Japan nor japanese companies do fund Ni-based LENR research, period. Which can only mean one thing: Rossi is a con artist and the people following his research are conspiracy theorists.

Quote from Roger

Stop peddling fake news. Neither Japan nor japanese companies do fund Ni-based LENR research, period. Which can only mean one thing: Rossi is a con artist and the people following his research are conspiracy theorists.

http://jcfrs.org/JCF17/jcf17-abstracts.pdf

"16:30-17:00 JCF17_07 M. Uchimura et al. .(Nissan Motor Co., Ltd) Materials structure clarification for novel exothermic reaction between metal and hydrogen"


So much for the fake news ...

I think Roger was being sarcastic, but sometimes hard to tell with him.

Quote from Roger

Neither Japan nor japanese companies do fund Ni-based LENR research, period.

That's incorrect. Technova has done some Ni research. See:

"Effect of Minority Atoms of Binary Ni-based Nano-composites on
Anomalous Heat Evolution under Hydrogen Absorption"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedr.pdf#page=143

Jed

After reading your comments about the current dearth of LENR research I would be interested on your view of this rather upbeat link;

http://www.anthropoceneinstitute.com/lenraries/

Apologies if this has been brought up before.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

http://www.anthropoceneinstitute.com/lenraries/

Apologies if this has been brought up before.

We did discuss this here. I pointed out that the list of institutions in that report includes several defunct companies; KAIST, where they talked about research but never did it; places where one person is listed who is also listed at several other institutions (more institutions than people); and places such as BARC where they have not done research for 20 years, and most of the author are dead of old age. In short, there is practically no activity in these institutions.

Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

I doubt they would be calling it a novel exothermic reaction if they found nothing.

And I doubt it has anything remotely to do with Rossi, or that it gives any credence to his claims. I don't see how it could, since he cannot make his own devices work. The fact that someone else gets Ni-CF to work is not to his credit. He gets no credit for the nanoparticle approach either; others came up with it before he did.

The authors of that study have a low opinion of Rossi. * It is possible they were inspired by him, and they would prefer not to admit that.

* They call him a "petenshi" (ペテン師) which is a wonderfully rendolent word of obscure origin meaning charlatan, clip-artist, con man, crook, dipsy-doodle, dodger, faker, flimflam artist . . .

http://eowp.alc.co.jp/search?q…3%83%86%E3%83%B3%E5%B8%AB

Words like this make my day.

@Jed

It doesn't matter whether they think Rossi is a dipsy-doodle or not. They expressly hint at a replication of Parkhomov's device, which was a replication of Rossi's Lugano device. (Parkhomov was very clear about using the Lugano report to guide his replication.)

So get off your high flying horse.

Clarke gets it pretty close. I had calculated closer to 820°C.... ha ha!

(He might be closer than this looks, since it involves looking at both spots in the same place in the frame for ε adjustments to actually do the conversion exactly.)

I did find a neat thing with the way the software jumps from the 150 to 900°C setting and the 200 to 1500°C setting though. I'll fiddle with it some more before reporting much more on it. Suffice to say that the software cannot be forced to report a higher T by lowering the ε setting, beyond the ambient T plus the maximum T of the recording range. (either 1500 or 900°C). So maybe ~927.4 (lower range) and ~1524 (upper range) seem to be maximums, no matter how much the ε setting is lowered.

Edit: After re-reading the Clarke 2015 report, I realize that I used the wrong ε values. So disregard the Clarke 002 image (I will leave it because I discuss it briefly later), and instead consider the Clarke 003 version. The temperature he was using for this was 1401°, so actually quite close.

Quote from IH Fanboy

They expressly hint at a replication of Parkhomov's device, which was a replication of Rossi's Lugano device.

Which was a replication of Arata's device, and Piantelli's device. Read the letters from the patent lawyers for Arata and Piantelli claiming that Rossi's patents infringe on theirs.

Combining two ideas into one is good science, in my opinion, but the patent lawyers dispute it.

As I pointed out, Fleischmann recommended this approach in 1990. Perhaps that is where Rossi got the idea. If he had made it work, he would deserve credit for that. But he did not make it work. If others in Japan have now made it work, they deserve credit. Rossi and others who failed are a footnote to history.

Just about every approach to cold fusion has been tried by someone. In most cases, they fail. I don't recall any previous nanopowder Ni cells, but I know of people trying other absorbent Ni materials, and Arata did nanoparticle Pd, and various mixtures of Pd and other metal nanoparticles.

Quote from JedRothwell

Just about every approach to cold fusion has been tried by someone. In most cases, they fail. I don't recall any previous nanopowder Ni cells, but I know of people trying other absorbent Ni materials, and Arata did nanoparticle Pd, and various mixtures of Pd and other metal nanoparticles.

Yeah. So the playbook now is even if Rossi has it, he deserves none of the credit for his world-changing device. Talk about a whiny defeat.

Doc. 173, an order, now on the docket.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Yeah. So the playbook now is even if Rossi has it, he deserves none of the credit for his world-changing device. Talk about a whiny defeat.

Music to IH ears I'd wager. This is what they've wanted all along, Rossi discredited so they can steal his technology. The problem with Scientists is that they understand little about the cut-throat nature of big business. Apparently Rossi does.

Not good at these legal things, but it sounds like the court denied Rossi's request for IH info, but granted IH's requests for Rossi to produce his bank records.

Did I get that right? or what the denial for every item?