Clearance Items

  • Since Eric left, we adopted a more tolerant policy, where banning would be used only as a last resort. It is a graduated, and polite process whereby we try to nudge and prod them back on a more acceptable path. All done with a soft touch, so as not to offend, and embarrass in front of their fellow members. Most respond and adjust accordingly, a few do not. If Zeus is correct, Bob has brought up the two topics (Stockholm reporting/AE data) over 30 times, with several more posts added yesterday. That is excessive, and indicates more a personal vendetta, than carrying on a conversation.


    Both Alan and I have tried in every way possible to get him to stop, and refocus his talents elsewhere. He refused every step of the way, so after exhausting all other means at our disposal, we had no choice left really. The suspension is lifted in 2 weeks. He is more than welcome to rejoin the forum then.

  • Shane:

    Your process makes more sense than it used to. It is a little weird to see a thread where you KNOW you responded to something and wonder why it was deleted. It's not like there used to be a notification that the post was moved elsewhere, it was just expected to be "understood".


    This thread is mislabelled. It should be called "Shunted Discussions" or "Rejected Posts" or something like that.


    Maybe it's time to consider shutting down this thread and opening up a new "Reject" thread with the new set of rules prominently posted so that expectations are properly set...

  • Shane, it is quite obvious that personal vendettas are entirely acceptable as long as they are not directed at certain people. So don’t pretend to have laudable principles.


    We could ask for opinions on how to better Moderate this forum, and get 50 different answers. The best feedback we get is from the growing membership ranks, the number of active threads open, and the inside information fed to us from various sources. By all those measures, LF is doing very well, so we must be doing something right. We are the go to place where anyone interested, or involved in LENR, comes to catch up on the latest news, and discuss issues.


    Our members have played a huge role in that success. We have a wide range of personalities represented, and it is almost impossible to intervene and referee every little dispute that arises from mixing so many styles, but we do the best we can.

  • The calorimeter model described at Page 3 of their major paper (1) is not adequate to describe the energy balance when the cell is near or at boiling conditions,


    One more try to troll us? As said the boil off was always an extrapolation or and estimate. The proof for LENR is the whole phase before. The boil off only shows the potential of LENR and


    Of course P&F in 1990 produced more energy by LENR as HOT-FUSION did up to date.

  • Not sure if this is fully correct if we look at the "produced" amount of fusion energy only...of course there is a loooong way to go (if possible at all in the end after billions or trillions wasted) to reach the proposed 10x COP.


    This seems to be a reportet fact:

    "The current record for fusion power gain in a tokamak is Q = 0.67 held by the European JET facility located in Culham, UK, which produced 16 MW of thermal fusion power for 24 MW of injected heating power in the 1990s."


    I doubt that F&P were able to produce a total of 16MW in their lab experiments. But I may be wrong.

  • The COP figure seems to be an "ITER goal" and part of their exorbitant self-esteem, not sure ...this is common stuff to google from the ITER page, and you can find the JET data in other places as well...



    https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines


    1) Produce 500 MW of fusion power

    The world record for fusion power is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW (Q=0.67). ITER is designed to produce a ten-fold return on energy (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not capture the energy it produces as electricity, but—as first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain—it will prepare the way for the machine that can.

  • Of course P&F in 1990 produced more energy by LENR as HOT-FUSION did up to date.


    Probably. They certainly did in the boil-off and reflex cell experiments.



    This seems to be a reportet fact:

    "The current record for fusion power gain in a tokamak is Q = 0.67 held by the European JET facility located in Culham, UK, which produced 16 MW of thermal fusion power for 24 MW of injected heating power in the 1990s."


    I doubt that F&P were able to produce a total of 16MW in their lab experiments. But I may be wrong.


    Do not confuse power and energy. The record power output for the PPPL tokamak was around 6 MW. Obviously, that is much more power than any cold fusion experiment. However, the reaction only lasted ~10 seconds as I recall. So that's ~60 MJ. Many cold fusion experiments have produced more energy than that.


    I do not know how long the European JET tokamak ran at 16 MW.



    CORRECTION: It was 10.7 MW for about 0.6 seconds, not 10 seconds. 6 MJ total. I think. Pretty sure. I wish I could find the graph. Okay, here is what Gene Mallove and I wrote:


    The largest plasma fusion reaction in history produced 10.7 megawatts, which is much more power than any cold fusion reaction has produced so far, but it only lasted for a fraction of a second, so it generated roughly 6 megajoules of energy. * Dozens of cold fusion experiments have done better.


    * J. D. Strachan et al., Fusion Power Production From TFTR Plasma Fueled with Deuterium and Tritium, PPPL-2978, March 1994