Clearance Items

  • 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

  • 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...


    Yes, "exorbitant self-esteem" seems an appropriate way to define the "ITER goal" and Krivit has provided a much more realistic power balance (the energy one is even worse), which turns out to be negative (1):

    ITER-85.png


    However, I'd remind everyone that this thread is dedicated to the F&P experiments and I would ask the mods to possibly move all the above comments, including this one, somewhere more appropriate, as anticipated (2).


    (1) http://news.newenergytimes.net…t-and-iter-fusion-claims/

    (2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Another helpful glimpse into the mind of KM and how he sees things.

    I really am sad for this guy.

    Another helpful glimpse into the mind of KM and how he sees things.

    ***I suppose there's some truth to that. I like to steer folks to LENR-CANR.org, I like to nail down things like how many times the PFAHE has been replicated in peer reviewed journals, that kind of thing. We'll just let lurkers see for themselves.


    I really am sad for this guy.

    ***That seems to speak volumes for where you're coming from. You've gotten so deeply wound up in your adam henry-ness that you can't see past it. My advice to your employers at IH (which you admit is the case) is that they simply fire your azz for cause, since you cost them $15M worth of losses. Nothing you can do for them moving forward can make up for that mistake , so they might as well give your job to the next in line upstart. He or she couldn't do any WORSE than you have.

  • Another helpful glimpse into the mind of KM and how he sees things.

    I really am sad for this guy.


    Note that this exchange above was pulled from a straightforward LENR thread. If anyone else around here wants to question my mental health for trying to steer newbies to LENR-CANR.org or to a thread where replications are nailed down, I'm all ears.





    LENR Reviewed - Science or not??


    [email protected]

    Member

    Likes Received743

    4 hours ago

    #7


    JedRothwell wrote:

    I am pleased to see the author looked at a wide selection of papers.


    Did he give you a nod?




    I noticed that he solicited advice from ECW before writing the article, and I actually sent him to one of the threads here (all about those 153 peer reviewed replications).




    https://e-catworld.com/2019/02…eaders-about-lenr-papers/




    But no one sent him to LENR-CANR.org and if he hasn't given newbies the nod to go over there, he has done a disservice.




    He seems surprised that LENR papers are not allowed past the peer review process in the major journals.