This thread was started by Eric Walker. A balanced, logical and intelligent poster and moderator.
I have not seen him post in a very long while. Did he tire of the constant futile bickering and leave or is there some other situation?
Dealing with you trolls is a huge waste of time.
Thomas Edison said it best in many ways.
Sounds like hero worship to me.
It is interesting how time washes clean the reputation of some really unsavory characters. Thomas Edison makes Rossi look like Mother Teresa. Edison was a shrewd cheap cut-throat businessman, who's true allegiance was to the "almighty buck." On the other hand, Tesla was the "Industrial Heat" of the turn of the 20th century, a hapless genius who was screwed over by unscrupulous bisiness partners including Edison and eventually died in poverty. By the way, Tesla was the first to produce a working LENR device.
As the next century rolls by, Rossi will be regarded in the highest esteem much like Edison is regarded today. Sometimes history is so unfair.
TOTAL nonsense... this is an afterglow of heated pallets, simply like charcoal or even pallets are behaving since their daily usage...
what was the gas emission (Co2, etc ) ? Did anyone measure that ?
I think this is such a silly comment if yours that in a few hours time it will end up in clearance. As I have said before, you lack sufficient technical expertise to criticise or even understand basic science. Go learn about cooling curves, it might help your understanding a little.
... ou, some "studied" garage guys want to teach me about "cooling curves"... SOMETHING, NEW ? What exactly ?
I asked a respectable language expert about the vernacular use of 'pill' to mean someone is rather unpleasant. He is of the opinion it is a contraction from 'A bitter pill to swallow' - meaning something - news or company -unpleasant that you are obliged to tolerate.
No answer to Bobs question yet... and I wanted to ask the same one...is Eric still around as moderator?
QuoteThe biggest current problems for LENR are patent issues and marginal products.
No, the biggest problem for LENR is that there is no demonstration convincing enough to interest the general science community, especially physicists. And there is insufficient evidence even for adventurous large entrepreneurs as well. If it were otherwise, people like Musk and Bezos who don't give a damn about "conventional wisdom" would be all over it.
It is interesting how time washes clean the reputation of some really unsavory characters. Thomas Edison makes Rossi look like Mother Teresa. Edison was a shrewd cheap cut-throat businessman, who's true allegiance was to the "almighty buck."
This is comic-book history. Edison was brilliant. He made tremendous contributions to both technology and basic science. As a businessman, he was somewhat unsavory by modern standards, but he was typical of the 19th century. His reputation was never "washed." Any biography describes his unsavory behavior in detail.
No answer to Bobs question yet... and I wanted to ask the same one...is Eric still around as moderator?
Zorud,
Eric is still a Moderator. It is up to him to explain why he does not participate anymore. I can tell you there was no effort on our part to force him to leave, or anything like that.
Shane, thx!
It is useful to think of what is expected from a reactor that exhibits a temperature-dependent heat generation (possibly due to lenr effects) and, simultaneously, newtonian cooling. I am assuming here that the rate of anomalous heat generation increases with temperature such that at room temperature the rate is essentially zero and that at higher temperatures the rate increases. Physically, the heat-generation rate will probably approach a maximum as temperatures get really high but that doesn`t really affect what I am going to say.
Given the properties I am positing, it is apparent that a positive feedback loop will develop to affect the temperature of the reactor. In particular, if the temperature of the reactor is raised (possibly by an outside stimulus) this will stimulate an increased rate of internal heat generation which, in turn, will increase the temperature which will, again, increase the rate of heat generation ... and so on. Left to itself this cycle will increase and increase the temperature of the reactor either until its components melt or until a temperature is reached at which maximal heat generation is achieved.
But we also have to suppose that there are heat losses in this system, as there are in all physical systems. The simplest assumption is newtonian cooling which means that the rate of heat loss is proportional to the difference between the system temperature and some ambient temperature. Newtonian cooling is completely consistent with the exponential decay of temperature shown by the the unfueled reactor (i.e., the green line) in the data that was posted here yesterday.
When you put the positive lenr feedback mechanism and newtonian cooling together, they balance off in a characteristic way to determine the time course for the temperature of a reactor following an external stimulus. I have diagrammed some possibilities below where the vertical line shows a sudden increase in temperature due to external heating which is then cut off. The numbers in the text here correspond to the numbers in the figure. (1) If the overall lenr effect is weak, then you should get almost pure newtonian cooling which is recognized by an exponential decline in temperature after the external heating cutoff. (2) If the lenr effect is stronger, but not strong enough to completely counteract the cooling, then you should get a hump or plateau in the falling phase of the temperature followed by cliff-like crash to some baseline. The cliff arises because the activity of the temperature-dependent lenr heat generation plays out in reverse -- as the reactor temperature falls (due to newtonian cooling) the rate of heat generation goes down which then causes the temperature to decrease even further ...and so on. (3) If lenr heat generation is sufficiently strong such that the heat generation and cooling are initially almost balanced then the plateau can be extensive and this is what I think people would refer to as heat after death. Finally, (4) if the lenr effect is so strong as to overcome cooling, then the system will develop a threshold temperature beyond which it will escape to a maximum temperature. From all of this you can see that for an any appreciable strength of lenr activity the decline of temperature is definitely not exponential. This is one of the things that puzzles me about the data published yesterday because it definitely shows exponential cooling suggesting no anomalous heating.
All of this is a simple consequence of assuming anomalous heat generation that increases with temperature. From what I can make out Alan Smith says that temperature dependence has actually been measured (although perhaps not .. I really can`t tell). A point that I would like to raise now is that if the temperature dependence of heat generation is even roughly known, then all the behaviours I have been outlining can be validated using the control reactor in the actual experimental setup. Simply arrange to give the ohmic resistor in the unfueled reactor a temperature dependence by controlling its input current. This could be accomplished by Labview or even by hand.
This is called either 'meltdown' or death by overheat. Nothing new there.
My point was that meltdown (= death by overheat) on the one hand, and heat after death on the other, are two different behaviours that are to be expected from the same temperature-dependent anomalous heat mechanism. The only difference is that you would expect heat after death when the overall lenr mechanism isn`t very strong and meltdown when it is strong. The maximal strength of anomalous heat generation is like the gain around the feedback loop I was mentioning and determines what sort of behaviour you will get. It puzzles me greatly that the relaxation of the androcles reactor temperature after external heating cutoff looks nothing like any of the the expected behaviours.
A good double check is to feed a matched pair of fuelled and control reactors precisely the same number of watts, but have the temperature of the fuelled reactor limited by thermostat - which also meters out identical amounts of power to both reactors. If you have anomalous heat contributing to the system temperature in the 'master reactor', then the control reactor temperature will diverge since it is being starved of electrical heat, and from the extent of the drop you can work out exactly how much anomalous heat you are getting. This maybe something similar to what you are thinking of, not really sure, but this particular experiment is 'on the (long) list.'
This is an elegant way to assess anomalous heat generation but it is not what I am suggesting right now. I am suggesting that you first measure the relationship between temperature and anomalous heat generation over a temperature range of your choice. It might look like this (where dQ/dt is the rate of heat generation) ...
Now put the fueled reactor away for the time being and turn your attention to the control reactor. Use the empirical relation you have measured to determine the current input to the ohmic heater in the control reactor. This has to be done moment-by-moment so that the heat generation tracks the temperature of the control reactor. In this way the internal heater in the control reactor will be endowed with some of the same properties as the lenr heat generator in the fueled reactor. You can now play with different stimulation protocols to see how the artificially lenr-equipped control reactor works (the fuelled reactor plays no role in any of this). I predict that giving this system a temperature pulse and then shutting off the external heater will lead to the sorts of plateau-and-cliff scenarios I diagrammed before and not the sort of exponential relaxation seen in the data from yesterday (the red trace).
This is comic-book history. Edison was brilliant. He made tremendous contributions to both technology and basic science. As a businessman, he was somewhat unsavory by modern standards, but he was typical of the 19th century. His reputation was never "washed." Any biography describes his unsavory behavior in detail.
Jed,
If you read Empire of light the. You know Edison was no angel, he absolutely screwed Nikola Tesla
If you read Empire of light the. You know Edison was no angel, he absolutely screwed Nikola Tesla
Yes, he did. He was brilliant, innovative, and also a nasty person. Just because you are a creative genius, that does not mean you are a good person, or kind to others, or fair. There is no correlation between intelligence and goodness.
You and Axil seem to think that because he treated people badly, that must mean he was a fifth-rate scientist or a fake and he did not really make all those contributions, and somehow they were unfairly ascribed to him. There is no logic to that. There is no reason why he could not be both creative and mean. Many other famous scientists such as Galileo were nasty, money grubbing political animals, always ready to betray people for political advantage.
This is comic-book history. Edison was brilliant. He made tremendous contributions to both technology and basic science. As a businessman, he was somewhat unsavory by modern standards, but he was typical of the 19th century. His reputation was never "washed." Any biography describes his unsavory behavior in detail.
The point was that Rossi will be given absolution for his "somewhat unsavory by modern standards" bisiness practices. Rossi will eventually be recognized to have made tremendous contributions to both technology and basic science. That is just the way things roll.
Hi Jed, knowing that you have a passing interest in early flight, I thought you might like this 1912 instructional book on 'how to build yourself a full size aeroplane' - free to read on 'gutenberg'. Jolly entertaining in places.
Title: Flying Machines: Construction and Operation Authors: W.J. Jackman and Thos. H. Russell
Yes, he did. He was brilliant, innovative, and also a nasty person. Just because you are a creative genius, that does not mean you are a good person, or kind to others, or fair. There is no correlation between intelligence and goodness.
You and Axil seem to think that because he treated people badly, that must mean he was a fifth-rate scientist or a fake and he did not really make all those contributions, and somehow they were unfairly ascribed to him. There is no logic to that. There is no reason why he could not be both creative and mean. Many other famous scientists such as Galileo were nasty, money grubbing political animals, always ready to betray people for political advantage.
No,
Just that he was not above putting the screws to someone for profit, and apparently outright lying if it suited his purposes.
A creative genius, dogged experimenter,
Relentless, inquisitive Engineer, absolutely,
But as I said, apparently he was no angel
The point was that Rossi will be given absolution for his "somewhat unsavory by modern standards" bisiness practices. Rossi will eventually be recognized to have made tremendous contributions to both technology and basic science. That is just the way things roll.
Axil,
Recognized by whom and for what?
Just that he was not above putting the screws to someone for profit, and apparently outright lying if it suited his purposes.
I have read several biographies, and many of his papers and letters. I do not recall any examples of outright lying. Bullying, exploitation and unfair business practices, yes. (Unfair by modern standards, that is. Back then it was called "sharp dealing" and it was legal.)
But as I said, apparently he was no angel
No one said he was. No biography portrays him as some sort of angel. It is true that his public image toward the end of his life was somewhat angelic, and 1930s movies about him made him look a lot nicer than he was. But there are no serious articles, biographies or documentaries made in the last 50 years that fail to show his dark side.
He himself never hid his emotions or contempt for people. He was basically a geek. He started off as a telegraph operator. In those days, telegraph operators were similar to computer programmers in 1975. They were raucous, dirty, high living, prone to practical jokes, capable of operating or fixing the highest of high technology, well educated, literate, know-it-alls, mostly from poor families with no formal education. (Those telegraph machines, batteries and stock market ticker tape machines were a lot more complicated than you might think.)
I saw an interview with him, and he talked mainly about chemistry. The interviewer wanted some humanizing story about his family or something, but he kept shifting the discussion back to chemistry and other technical subjects. From the video and from people's memories of him, you can see that the depth and breadth of his knowledge was astounding. He often pretended to be an aw shucks ignorant country bumpkin, because that image was popular in the late 19th century, but he was nothing like that. He couldn't stand the countryside. He liked New York City, vaudeville shows, off-color humor, french pastry, and Shakespeare.
