Replication of LENR experiments

  • Since the Rossi fans seem quite concerned about my contributions to this site, I thought I would clarify my positions for the others who have seen the light about Il Douche.


    Since I have not studied the requisite hundreds of papers required to have an informed opinion about LENR, I am quite willing to admit that I don't have one, at least with regard to the existence of the phenomenon per se. I don't know if it exists or not. I have been exposed to enough material to feel safe in saying that there have been no reliable, reproducible and well-defined manifestations of LENR. As far as I can tell, nobody can make it happen on demand, or if they can, they are keeping it secret. Therefore, the people claiming to be commercializing LENR are either scam artists, seriously deluded, or simply are putting the cart before the horse. It is not ready for commercialization. But does LENR exist? I don't know. I am skeptical, but that is not a dirty word.


    When it comes to Rossi, on the other hand, I am not in any way agnostic. I am fully convinced that he is a con artist and I frankly can't fathom how anyone wIth half a brain can conclude otherwise. My critic AA has a bunch of degrees to his name. He must want Rossi to be real so fervently that he has mothballed all his education in favor of blind faith. If doing experiments trying to find plausibility in Rossi's blatent lies is his idea of a valuable use of time and resources, he will be busy for years to come. There are so many lies to investigate...


    So as far as I'm concerned, Rossi fans can rant and rave all they want about what I have to say. I have zero respect for any of them, frankly. On the other hand, I have no quarrel with the other regulars here who see Rossi for what he is even if I don't accept their conclusions about other matters. Perhaps they know far more than I do.

  • Quote

    There are quite a few highly qualified and experienced scientists quietly lining up behind Rossi


    If they are lining up behind him, maybe they feel behind (waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind) is a safe place not to be cheated.

    BTW, I doubt that very many scientists, especially qualified and experienced, will line up much behind Rossi. Have they spoken to Aldo Proia perhaps? Maybe to Hydrofusion, DOD/CERL, or the provinces that had to pay to clean up Petroldragon?


    Oh, and most important of all, did they talk to Darden about his Rossi experience? Maybe not. But yes, even now Rossi can probably bamboozle some otherwise bright people. My suspicion is that Brian Josephson, for one, may still think Rossi has/had something.

  • Since I have not studied the requisite hundreds of papers required to have an informed opinion about LENR, I am quite willing to admit that I don't have one


    My position also. Perhaps IO and I are twins, separated at birth.


    :D:D:D:D


    Your position is more like, "I didn't read it at all, despite you telling me the page numbers, now here's my dumb opinion... What page number was it again? This graph's too hard for me to understand. No it says the opposite of what you think. Wait a minute, what page number again... and what section?... The 'Notes' section at the end? I don't care anyway".


    link ...for those who are incredulous that a person can be that ridiculous.

  • WHat Zeus links to proves the opposite of what he claims. What happened here is that Zeus claimed Celani used 4 wires. He didn't. He used 4x as many knots whatever the hell THAT means. Zeus and others also pointed to the wrong place in the documentation. Zeus claims are specious and this individual is not worth addressing, much less arguing with. I have trouble imagining anyone caring about his or her opinion about anything.

  • WHat Zeus links to proves the opposite of what he claims. What happened here is that Zeus claimed Celani used 4 wires. He didn't. He used 4x as many knots whatever the hell THAT means.


    LOL. Still not read it properly then Yugo? Still stuck looking in the 'notes' section? Ha!


    Zeus and others also pointed to the wrong place in the documentation


    Aha! ...Apparently you are.


    Zeus claims are specious and this individual is not worth addressing


    How do you know this? ...as you obviously still haven't read the article. PDF here. ...Slide 27, for the non-retarded.

  • Your position is more like, "I didn't read it at all, despite you telling me the page numbers, now here's my dumb opinion... What page number was it again? This graph's too hard for me to understand. No it says the opposite of what you think. Wait a minute, what page number again... and what section?... The 'Notes' section at the end? I don't care anyway".

    Exactly! It is like spoon feeding a 1-year old baby who is not hungry. She mainly wants to spit and throw creamed bananas everywhere. As an experience parent let me suggest you take the kid off the highchair when that starts. Take her outside and let her play with the water hose. She'll be cleaned up in no time!


    As an experienced librarian at LENR-CANR let me suggest that you should dismiss people such as Yugo. I know the type. Again and again they demand to be spoon-fed the data, but they never read what you suggest. They never do their homework. They are not serious. They say nothing has been published, so I point out there are THOUSANDS of papers. They whine and kvetch that thousands are too many, how can I be expected to read so many, why can't you narrow it down and point to a few?? So I point to a few, which are featured on the front page at LENR-CANR.org, for crying out loud. How hard was that? Too hard, I guess. They don't read them and then they whine and kvetch because I only gave them four titles and why aren't there more papers!??


    Very similar to a tired baby.

  • I have been exposed to enough material to feel safe in saying that there have been no reliable, reproducible and well-defined manifestations of LENR.

    You are incorrect. Recipes for reproducible, well defined manifestations of cold fusion were published long ago. I described them here, starting on p. 5:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    If you want to replicate by these methods, it takes about as much skill as surgery, and it takes about $100,000 and a few years of difficult work. If you happen to have ~$50 million burning a hole in your pocket, you could hire experts and build machines that could automate the process and do it in a few hours, instead of two years. They could produce effects hundreds of times larger than the ones demonstrated so far. Toyota did something like that. But the methods described in these papers call for slow, painstaking, manual labor.

  • Ok Jed, once again you argue that cold fusion is well-understood and reproducible and the only problem is that nobody is allowed to do it, or at least nobody is interested.


    So suppose they put you in charge of the planet. What would you have done, how long would it take to do, and what results would you expect?

  • ETA: Quote from Zeus46:


    Quote

    How do you know this? ...as you obviously still haven't read the article. PDF here. ...Slide 27, for the non-retarded.



    ETA: OK, SO SEE BELOW WHERE THE SLIDE NUMBER IS ON THE GRAPHIC ITSELF?! (if you're non retarded of course)


    efo5d4.jpg



    For the second time now, this is the slide in question. Does ANYONE see where it mentions four wires? Not that it would matter because four isn't enough and the method use to measure the heat (isoperibolic calorimetry) is done with a single point temperature measurement and that is heavily error prone as several of us have noted before. I don't know what Celani has or doesn't have. He doesn't test his stuff by any credible method. Maybe some day he will discover the mass flow calorimeter -- like the MFMP tried with great difficulty to provide.

  • :D


    For the seventh time: YOU ARE STILL LOOKING IN THE 'NOTES' SECTION. YOU UTTER PILLOCK. LOOK AT SLIDE 27.


    This whole situation is the most prolonged bout of idiocy I have ever witnessed... Must have been three weeks now?


    Why not just read the whole damn paper*? ...it's only 30 pages or so, and the text is very big. It would save you from looking so silly.



    * instead of repeatedly proving my point that 'you never read the papers you comment on'.

  • That is consistent with the evidence. The first hundred or so replications of Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event was done by electochemists, who regularly use calorimeters. The first null results were from physicists who do not regularly use calorimeters. This set up a science-political turf war.


    Well if you want to talk about calorimeters then the person to talk to is Mary. Mary knows more about calorimeters than many have forgotten.


    In particular Mary has intimate knowledge of the calorimeter you can see in my avatar.

  • I expect most professional academic electrochemists reported their results. Electrochemistry is a small world and every professional knew Fleischmann and Bockris, and communicated with them.

    This is what I was told by Martin Fleischmann, Stan Pons, Bockris, Fritz Will, Mizuno, Robert Huggins and other prominent electrochemists. Fritz Will was in charge of the NCFI and had his ear to the ground. He is the one who compiled the list of replications I linked to above.

  • This is what I was told by Martin Fleischmann, Stan Pons, Bockris, Fritz Will, Mizuno, Robert Huggins and other prominent electrochemists. Fritz Will was in charge of the NCFI and had his ear to the ground. He is the one who compiled the list of replications I linked to above.


    So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis? Are you telling all their caliormetery methods were flawed?

  • Well if you want to talk about calorimeters then the person to talk to is Mary. Mary knows more about calorimeters than many have forgotten.


    In particular Mary has intimate knowledge of the calorimeter you can see in my avatar.

    Like Jed has said, the first 100 or so replications of Pons-Fleischmann came from a veritable who's who of electrochemistry. Mary may know a calorimeter but he is not among the top notch of electrochemistry.

  • So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis?

    They did validate Fleischmann Pons on a regular basis. Roughly 17,000 times according to a grad student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, at 180 labs according to Ed Storms. (Not me. I didn't count 'em.)


    They are not replicating on a regular basis now because they are dead. Of old age.

    Are you telling all their caliormetery methods were flawed?

    Nope. No skeptic has ever found any problem with the calorimetry in any mainstream study. They have looked, but they found nothing. I am sure you would not find anything if you were to read the literature, which I am equally sure you will not do.

  • 17,000 times?! That would mean we should all be powering our homes with palladium based fusion reactors in our basements. We know this is not happening so someone got something wrong here.

    You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.


    ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.


    The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That's HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.

    I'm not a calorimeter expert. Mary Yugo is though [identifying suppositions omitted ...].

    No, she is not an expert. She does not even understand McKubre's paper, which is one the easier ones. She has not identified anything as far as I know, and she has not published any papers pointing out errors. No one has, except Morrison (linked to above), and Shanahan.

    Mary has identified numerous shortcomings of the calorimetry methods used by P&F and Rossi as well. IIRC Mary has raised concerns about the probe locations and insertion methodology.

    No, she has not. Her only comments have been: "I have not read it." "I read it but I don't understand it." And, "The results are too small for me to think about" where "small" is defined as whatever power level the researchers achieved.


  • Firstly Jed, I can assure you I am no troll. No more than Mary is. Yes, I get under Mary's skin because I have given her the HARD questions, just like you have, and Mary has no response. However credit where credit is due and Mary is an EXPERT on calorimetry. This I have established based on the countless posts she has made and the many sessions we've had together.


    Now back on topic. My point still stands about the so called "thousands of successful tests" of the P&F effect. If we've had so many successful tests then surely one would have created a working reactor a long time ago.

  • However credit where credit is due and Mary is an EXPERT on calorimetry.

    No, she isn't. She says she does not understand McKubre's papers. Anyone who does not understand those papers does not understand calorimetry, because McKubre's calorimetry is relatively simple and easy to understand, by design, as McKubre himself explains in his papers.

    My point still stands about the so called "thousands of successful tests" of the P&F effect. If we've had so many successful tests then surely one would have created a working reactor a long time ago.

    Yes, there were hundreds of working reactors. They were run thousands of times, as the paper from He shows. They were all small laboratory bench-top devices. Larger reactors cannot be constructed. No one knows how to effectively control the reaction so it cannot be scaled up. Some progress in control and reproducibility has been made, as you see in the papers by McKubre and the ENEA.


    There are not now, today, hundreds of reactors because -- as I said before -- the researchers are dead from old age. Dead people do not conduct experiments.


    (Note that when I say "as you see" I mean you have to actually read the papers. You have not read the papers, and I doubt you will. If you had read anything, you wouldn't need me to spoon-feed you the above information. Anyone familiar with the research knows what I just wrote.)