Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

  • Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power. If the device runs at 100W for 10 days (240 hours), the energy it would output would be 86.4 Mega Joules or 8.64 * 107J. Although this sort of output can (just barely) be spoofed by chemical or electrical sources, the simplest inspection and weighing of the device could rule it out (see note below). One or a few credible examples of experiments involving a device with the above performance would go a long ways to proving that the device was generating anomalous heat. I think finding this device if it exists is worth a discussion string of its own.


    I've been looking for good evidence for the existence of this sort of performance for five years. Jed has suggested a number of papers. I always at least browse his suggestions and I've read quite a few and even understood some, LOL. Most were very forgettable for me but one was not. I managed to misplace it but I remember power output was high (>100W) for a long period with low power in (it wasn't zero). I don't recall the author (maybe Japanese?) or the technology so that is not very helpful. I do remember that the paper seemed incomplete as to materials and methods. If someone can help me find that again, I'd appreciate it. I never saw any paper jed suggested which described a device making 100W out for days with no power input.


    I would appreciate it if anyone can help me find either the paper I misplaced or a paper or report which describes a device that purports to do what Jed claims. For some inexplicable reason, Jed so far hasn't been willing or able to provide a simple link or even an old fashioned reference to a paper journal. If he can't, maybe he can explain why not.


    Jed mentioned that we didn't reject Dolly the Sheep, transistors or other low yield technologies. But a single sheep can be examined and studied, a single transistor that works can be tested for its properties and demonstrated in amplifiers and oscillators, and so on. Similarly, a single LENR or cold fusion reactor which made 100W for days without any input power would go a long way towards convincing investors and even many if not most main line scientists that there was something there that badly needed exploration.



    Note: 8.64 * 107J seems like a lot but by comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains a bit over 108J. The best battery has an energy density of about 500 Watt-hr per kg or about 1.8 * 107J for 10 kg of very good batteries. I only mention it to point out that it is still necessary to be sure the information comes from honest people because it is somewhat feasible to spoof that level of power generation with chemical or electrical means. It isn't easy or likely but it is remotely possible. If someone can come up with evidence for the claim, we can discuss whether it was made by real scientists in real labs or came from scammers. I will go on record to say that those I have called derisively the "usual suspects" (McKubre, Hagelstein, Swartz, anad Storms for example) seem to be very honest in my estimation. I would be more skeptical of some Russian and Indian research but again, we can sort all that out if someone comes up with the evidence and data.


    Finally, it does strike me as strange that Jed, for whose good intentions and work ethic I have considerable respect, makes this claim and won't tell us where it came from.


    (sorry if typos, it's late and I am using a small tablet)

  • Summary of research results of experiments on anomalous heat generation in nickel-hydrogen systems from Songsheng Jiang, a researcher at the Chinese Institute of Atomic Energy. This paper summarizes some of successful experiments by which excess heats were produced in nickel-hydrogen systems. The experiments were carried out at different laboratories by using different experimental devices and techniques in Italy, USA, Russian and China. In the most of the experiments the fuel was mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride. Hydrogen is formed after decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride. The COP factors (ratio of sum of excess heat and input power to input power) are 1.2-2.7 normally, however,COP factors were estimated to be about 3.2-3.6 in the E-Cat test in 2014. The temperature in the reactors was about 1100-1400 °C.

  • I've been looking for good evidence for the existence of this sort of performance for five years.... Most were very forgettable for me but one was not. I managed to misplace it but I remember power output was high (>100W) for a long period with low power in (it wasn't zero). I don't recall the author (maybe Japanese?) or the technology so that is not very helpful.


    So you spent five years searching for your holy grail... found it... lost it, and now can't remember anything about it? Disingenuous, toi?


    Perhaps you refer to this? http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf Who knows?


    ...I must warn you however, it's 22 pages of smallish type, but at least on this occasion there is no 'notes' section at the end to trip up someone scanning quickly through the paper, so you should be an expert in no time.

  • This is not going to be a thread where someone waves their hands wildly and presents papers that don't show what Jed says are simple and absolute facts. At least I for one won't respond to miscellaneous crap. There is nothing vague or conditional about 100W, no power in, and days of running. I looked at what Zeus provided and none of it is 100W, no power in and days.



    Quote

    For example Cravens spheres generated more than 100 watts on their own.


    No. I think even Dennis only claimed 4W for his infamous balls. That sort of glib misrepresentation is another reason LENR enthusiasts get little respect from the scientific community. I think Shanahan had an explanation. I don't recall it offhand. Maybe he can point to where it was-- not write it again, just point to it. Thanks. I can also do without the "skeptopath" bullshit.


    BTW, the Chinese review paper begins with a credulous take on Rossi and the second item is MFPM's high temperature Ni-H test so I see no need to go further. Anyone who attends uncritically to those doesn't interest me in the least.


    Quote

    So you spent five years searching for your holy grail... found it... lost it, and now can't remember anything about it? Disingenuous, toi?


    Another inane mischaracterization. I found a possibly interesting article but misplaced the link. Jed has it. Maybe he can produce it again from my description so we discuss it. Your attitude is typical and is a reason most scientists don't deal with LENR enthusiast believers at all.

  • Don't ask for mysterious papers without a name, then whine about people sending you papers. Who knows what you thought you read?


    Anyway, all this talk of 'no-input for days' smacks of being one big goalpost-shifting exercise, as uncannily predicted by Rothwell here:


    If most researchers had measured 100 W, you would demand 200 W. If most had measured 200 W, you would demand 1000 W. You are moving the goalposts to give yourself a phony reason to dismiss the facts. You have moved the goalposts off the playing field, out of the stadium, and into the next county. There is no end to these absurd evasions of yours.

  • Quote

    Don't ask for mysterious papers without a name, then whine about people sending you papers. Who knows what you thought you read?

    I described it as clearly as I could. Who knows? Obviously you don't.


    Quote

    Anyway, all this talk of 'no-input for days' smacks of being one big goalpost-shifting exercise, as uncannily predicted by Rothwell here:

    So now, asking somewhat to produce what they claim is goal shifting? And you wonder why people won't even engage with you any more? Rothwell said 100W, no input, days. That's all I ask that he produce. Not the slightest shifting whatever. I asked him if he really said it and he admitted that he did. The ten days was just an arbitrary number used to show that even at that duration, some conventional energy sources of feasible size and weight could conceivably account for the heat production. That simply points out the need for caution and careful inspection of the device. That's all. But all such conjecture is premature and silly, isn't it? Because I am pretty sure Jed was just blowing smoke anyway.

  • Hey Mary, you utter pillock, on the one hand, you ask for papers that:


    I've been looking for good evidence for the existence of this sort of performance for five years. Jed has suggested a number of papers. I always at least browse his suggestions and I've read quite a few and even understood some, LOL. Most were very forgettable for me but one was not. I managed to misplace it but I remember power output was high (>100W) for a long period with low power in (it wasn't zero). I don't recall the author (maybe Japanese?)


    And then when I supply you with a paper meeting all those criteria, you then say:


    At least I for one won't respond to miscellaneous crap. There is nothing vague or conditional about 100W, no power in, and days of running. I looked at what Zeus provided and none of it is 100W, no power in and days.


    Which seems a bit odd... Although it seems more like a case of kneejerk dismissal than goal-post moving. Funnily enough though, both traits were acknowledged by Marcello Truzzi, when he coined the term pseudoskeptic.


  • Well, Zeusie, if it starts with a noncritical discussion of two obvious scams (Rossi and Parkie) and one experiment which failed (MFPM), perhaps one can see why I am not especially interested in reading further. Anyway the paper you furnished seems to be a review. The one I misplaced described the author's own experiment and was not a review.


    Quote

    Hey Mary, you utter pillock, on the one hand, you ask for papers that:


    Wow. I had to look up "pillock" -- seems to be a British colloquialism. Charming. Is it open season on insults now? Because if the admins have rescinded their discouragement of insults, I can happily teach you some new words you richly deserve but which I withheld out of consideration for our hosts.

  • Why not address the salient point (that I sent you what you asked for) rather than getting worked up by a piece inoffensive slang, which is defined as "a silly person"? ...Can the truth ever really be insulting?


    And you wonder why people won't even engage with you any more?


    Link please. Also, what a strange comment, seeing as how your own thread isn't exactly filled with helpful responses*, and indeed clearly nonsensical, as here you are engaging with me.



    * I'm basically the only one. How's that for gratitude? I'm not surprised Rothwell ignores you.

  • I'm done engaging with you because you obviously know little or nothing about LENR research. Rothwell probably ignores me because he spoke out of his posterior and the study he claimed doesn't exist. That, I suspect, explains the dearth of helpful responses. Here and in corresponding other threads. There probably is no credible work showing LENR providing 100W, Days and no power in.


    Quote

    It is not open season on insults. I just don't have the energy to deal with this stuff right now.


    That's OK. Insults from Zeus are meaningless anyway. Insults only matter if they originate with someone you respect.

  • Well, Zeusie, if it starts with a noncritical discussion of two obvious scams (Rossi and Parkie) and one experiment which failed (MFPM), perhaps one can see why I am not especially interested in reading further.


    What on earth are you talking about? You've completely lost the plot for sure.


    I'm done engaging with you because you obviously know little or nothing about LENR research.


    I knew enough to find a paper that met the exact criteria you set. If you want to spit your dummy out and not read it, that's your choice, however irrational it may be.

  • Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power. If the device runs at 100W for 10 days (240 hours), the energy it would output would be 86.4 Mega Joules or 8.64 * 107J.

    I do not recall any cells from Fleischmann and Pons that ran for 10 days without input power (heat after death -- HAD). They showed an example that ran for 3 hours in the paper I pointed you to, and other papers show a day or two. They published other experiments with over 100 W, lasting 3 months continuously, but these had input power. The best example they show produced 294 MJ of excess heat. Other people have seen HAD lasting anywhere from a few hours to 20 hours at power levels ranging from 10 to 50 W. I do not recall examples of HAD below 1 W.


    However, even 3 hours of HAD in the paper I pointed to is far beyond the limits of chemistry. This can be shown many ways, most notably:


    The cells that produced HAD also produced massive amounts of energy before heating up (phase 1), and during the boiling event (phase 2). They did not store any energy during phase 1 or 2. The calorimetry shows this clearly. Cells that do not produce heat in phases 1 and 2 never produce it in HAD (phase 3).


    Blank cells such as Pt-H driven to boiling by conventional electrolysis never show excess heat. The balance is always close to 1; output = input, minus some losses. In phase 3 they always cool down, immediately and monotonically, exactly according to Newton's law. Whereas HAD cells stay the same temperature or in some case get hotter after several hours.


    There is no chemical fuel in the cell, and no chemical changes are detected.

  • Quote

    They showed an example that ran for 3 hours in the paper I pointed you to, and other papers show a day or two.


    Could you please provide a link to those other papers for the devices that ran unpowered for a day or two? Also one of the papers (hopefully the best one) showing excess heat of >100W sustained for 3 months with input power? Thanks.

  • Don't ask for mysterious papers without a name, then whine about people sending you papers. Who knows what you thought you read?


    Anyway, all this talk of 'no-input for days' smacks of being one big goalpost-shifting exercise, as uncannily predicted by Rothwell here:

    Good point. Coming up with 100 Watts is a bit capricious just on the face of it. For instance, when Hagelstein demonstrated his NANOR for several MONTHS, it was never more than what, 50 mW or so? But the output was several dB above input power, which would be the true threshold.

  • Could you please provide a link to those other papers for the devices that ran unpowered for a day or two? Also one of the papers (hopefully the best one) showing excess heat of >100W sustained for 3 months with input power? Thanks.


    ... Which will shortly be dismissed as "miscellaneous crap", if the precedent set by the first few posts continues.

  • Could you please provide a link to those other papers for the devices that ran unpowered for a day or two?

    Dardik.


    Here is a 6-hour sample from Pons, Fig. 14:


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


    There are other longer ones from F&P but I do not think I have uploaded them.

    Also one of the papers (hopefully the best one) showing excess heat of >100W sustained for 3 months with input power?

    Roulette.

  • @ maryyugo,

    Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power. If the device runs at 100W for 10 days (240 hours), the energy it would output would be 86.4 Mega Joules or 8.64 * 107J.

    […] I would appreciate it if anyone can help me find either the paper I misplaced or a paper or report which describes a device that purports to do what Jed claims.

    […] Note: 8.64 * 107J seems like a lot but by comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains a bit over 108J.


    If you are looking for a document describing a long lasting, high power LENR test, with nearly no input power (ie in the so called self sustaining mode) the most significant, as you well know, is the one published on LENR-CANR (1) which summarizes the experimental data of the 18-hours test held in Bologna on February 10-11, 2011. That document reports that the Ecat device produced 16 kW for 18 hours, with no energy in input except a few tens of W for the control box. The resulting output energy (1,037 MJ) was equivalent to more than 9 gallons (26 liters) of gasoline. An absolute record for a CF/LENR test (except the 1 MW tests).


    If you need to be assured on the significance and credibility attributed by JR to these data, you can read what Josephson posted on March 2011 (2). Did you ever see it? It seems a private email by JR, which reveals several inedited details about the 3 tests held up to then by Levi and others.


    So, from the point of view of energy output, the February 2011 test still represents the absolute record for any other test carried on along the entire CF/LENR history, and, moreover, it was documented, analyzed, recommended, and strenuously defended (for years) by JR himself.


    I really can't understand which better evidence are you looking for. The Ecat tests had been carried out in order to demonstrate the industrial exploitability of LENR, but they only demonstated the lack of reliability of many people involved for whichever reason in them.


    Quote

    Finally, it does strike me as strange that Jed, for whose good intentions and work ethic I have considerable respect, makes this claim and won't tell us where it came from.


    I does strike me, that it strikes you. His way of doing is evident since long.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=640

    (2) https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3

  • Ascoli65


    As you know, I consider, based on observation for more than five years, that Rossi has nothing. I am familiar with Lewan's writeup of the Levi experiment you cite. Had it been done properly, it would have been very persuasive. Unfortunately Levi failed to perform calibrations and worse yet, when told of this deficiency by several people over quite a period of time, he still did not revisit the experiment. It was thus never ruled out that experiment could be bogus, probably by the simple expedient of Rossi misplacing the thermocouple at the output of the ecat close to the two extremely large and powerful heaters that the original ecats contained. Note also that the configuration of these heaters is such that the outer one can only heat the cooling fluid!


    I approached Dr. Josephson a couple of years ago on his Youtube channel and asked if he would email Levi and ask him to repeat the work with proper controls (blanks, dummies) and calibration. Josephson did and later wrote that Levi did not reply to his email. When I pressed him further, he simply said "write him yourself." as if Levi wouldn't respond to Josephson but would do so to me! LOL.


    I think that the ecat experiments demonstrated a succession of poorly designed and incompetently conducted tests which only speak to Rossi's ability to fool gullible scientists and technologists. I know of no claim or admission by anyone connected by to the ecat that the technology is unreliable. It only seems to fail when it is properly observed and the experiment is calibrated, for example the tests done by the Swedish Technical Institute which Rossi apparently was unable to avoid.


    After the complete failure of Industrial Heat to confirm that the ecat makes power in the course of having the full rights to it for a year and Rossi's assistance as per contracts, what in the world leads you to think that Rossi's claims have the slightest whiff of credibility?

  • @ maryyugo,


    If you are looking for a document describing a long lasting, high power LENR test, with nearly no input power (ie in the so called self sustaining mode) the most significant, as you well know, is the one published on LENR-CANR (1) which summarizes the experimental data of the 18-hours test held in Bologna on February 10-11, 2011.


    The experiment that renewed my interest in LENR was Arata's device using Pyncodeuterium. It had no input power.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…29-8dd54geg.shtml#sputnik


    And I was the first layman to make money on cold fusion by setting up a contract at Intrade and betting that this experiment would get replicated in a peer reviewed journal.


    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts

  • Quote

    maryyugo: Could you please provide a link to those other papers for the devices that ran unpowered for a day or two?

    Jed Rothwell: Dardik.

    Seriously? THIS dude? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Dardik


    Quote

    Dardik developed a system of treating diseases using wave form technology, which he called "supersonant waveenergy".[1] His system basically involved exercise techniques that were designed to modulate the cardiac rhythms in order to amplify the bodies natural wave frequencies to fight disease... ...

    In 1995, Dardik was stripped of his license to practice medicine, following a successful lawsuit filed by a former patient, Ellen Burstein MacFarlane, a former consumer-action reporter[7] who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1985.[7] Dardik had claimed in a 1991 New York Magazine cover story that he could cure multiple sclerosis with wave energy therapy.[8]

    Dardik charged MacFarlane and her family $100,000,[9] with the promise that not only could he cure her multiple sclerosis, but also that he would personally be available for the treatment sessions.[10] After receiving his fee, Dardik treated MacFarlane in person at most 10 times during a 10-month period, sending proxies intermittently.[10] MacFarlane's disease progressed, and her condition worsened.[10] MacFarlane wrote a book with her sister, Legwork: An Inspiring Journey Through a Chronic Illness (Lisa Drew/Simon & Schuster 1994), in which she asserted that Dardik robbed her of not only money, but also of her hope for recovery.[11][12]

    In July 1995, Dardik was found guilty of defrauding a total of five patients, including MacFarlane, by the State of New York Department of Health Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct, which revoked his New York medical license and fined him $40,000.[13] MacFarlane died in 2004.[7]


    So he was a quack and a nasty and expensive fraud in his medical practice. This is not a guess. He was convicted by his peers.


    Quote

    In 2004, Dardik put his waveenergy theory to use attempting to produce cold fusion.[14] Working with Israeli company Energetics Technologies, his group claimed "startling results."[14] Energetics Technologies is currently set up at the Business Incubator of the University of Missouri .


    A search of Google scholar shows only medical papers. He does not seem to have any peer reviewed journal articles in LENR. There is this from 2003 in Jed's files: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIintensific.pdf -- he does claim this:



    The "later experiment" referred to above is never further described or referenced. That's about the level of quality of this paper. Although this was in 2003, there is nothing to suggest replication by anyone else or improvement or duplication even by Dardik... in 14 years during which Dardik burned plenty of Sidney Kimmel's money. In fact he or his group is still doing that. This may impress some people. I don't know why it would.


    Finally, I saw no unpowered runs by Dardik. Instead, he refers to a power out/power in ratio. Maybe I just missed it.

  • For example Cravens spheres generated more than 100 watts on their own. There are many similar examples (Patterson, Piantelli, Cellani, etc cells).



    Jed Rothwell regularly links his sources. But you won't read them, because you're a pathoskeptical troll.


    (1) If these spheres actually did this they could be black box tested by anyone and Craven would be instantly (OK, within 6 months or so) very very famous.

    (2) Craven's data is unconvincing because he relies on TC's buried in the spheres. These (I looked up the type number a while ago - but sorry don't have the link to my post here then) are not robust to industrial conditions and known to be sensitive to reducing atmospheres. therefore the chance of diffusion of H2 or D2 into these TCs altering calibration is high, and this mechanism fits all the observations Cravens has made and is nowhere checked (of if checked not written up). Since for those knowledgeable about TCs the issue of long-term drift due to contamination is well known I find the lack of this from Cravens to be salient. Either he is not knowledgeable in the calorimetry he uses, or he cannot for some reason provide evidence that contamination is not the issue here.

    (3) As always differential behaviour D and H is no control, because these have very different physical propertiues - particularly when it comes to diffusion which would be an obvious issue here. The initial high temperature conditioning period used looks to fit the mechanism of TC drift due to long-term contamination very well - you'd get higher diffusion rates at this elevated temperature, and once contaminated the TC's would stay indicating this spurious extra temperature indefinitely.

    (4) This issue - TC contamination - is relevant for quite a number of the other examples in this area - though no ways all and there are other known mechanisms (as for example MFMP found out in their early days when as amateurs with no preconceptions they did some excellent work, learning as they went on).

    (5) if I'm wrong Craven has a demo worth billions and IH and many others would be interested!


    @Zephir. I refuse to go over this again but I can assure you that Craven's experiments fascinated me - I read the original write-up and a slightly more complete write-up someone posted here more recently, from which the diffusion/contamination mechanism emerged as an obvious unchecked candidate when i checked the TC part numbers.

  • However, even 3 hours of HAD in the paper I pointed to is far beyond the limits of chemistry.

    The cells that produced HAD also produced massive amounts of energy before heating up (phase 1), and during the boiling event (phase 2).


    No it is not beyond the limits of chemistry as I have explained many times. As well, I have explained that Fleischmann made a big boo-boo in the paper you refer to. It is detailed in my whitepaper. Turns out he missed *completely* a second cell showing an identical HAD...or maybe, he claimed a cell behaving normally was showing a HAD. See my whitepaper for details.



    Blank cells such as Pt-H driven to boiling by conventional electrolysis never show excess heat



    Of course Pt-D does show excess heat signals (see Storms ICCF8 (I think) paper). Since H is chemically significantly different from D, to be able to see an apparent excess heat with Pt-H would require some modifications to the protocol. But we do know Ni-H cells show apparent excess heat.

  • Quote

    ... A distinct possibility, [that I missed something] based on your ignominious Celani 'single wire' episode (and similarly, on your reply to Ascoli).


    If I missed something about Dardik, what was it? It doesn't help to make an unsupported claim about it.


    @THH: It would be so easy to use an envelope (Seebeck effect) or a mass flow calorimeter with Dennis's infamous balls. I always wondered why he didn't do it. I was not aware of the argument about thermocouple errors so I am glad you brought it up. That could be easily solved by substituting thermistors or other types of temperature sensors. I wonder if anyone has pointed this out to Dennis.