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

  • @ maryyugo,

    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?

    Where did I say such a nonsense? In my previous comment, I wasn't talking about my credence. I was just referring to the credibility which JR did attribute to the results of the February 2011 test, as expressed in the letter he sent to Josephson and which was posted on physicsforum (1).


    Did you read it? In this letter to Josephson, JR excluded the possibility that the Ecat tests could have been magic shows carried out by Rossi, because Levi and his colleagues would have been capable of unmasking whichever trick. But we know that in reality the magician apprentice was Levi, not Rossi. Did JR ignore this hobby of Levi?


    On the basis of the above JR's letter, the Ecat testimonials can be subdivided in these 3 levels:


    1) The main protagonist, who, however, is considered unreliable: "People have said that Rossi might be a sleight of hand stage magician who fools people.";


    2) The academicians, who, on the contrary, are considered indisputably reliable: "No stage magician in history has ever fooled a thermocouple or flowmeter. Instruments are totally immune to the kinds of tricks they use. If Rossi has supplied the instruments we might imagine he changed them, but Levi brought them from the university.";


    3) The opinion makers, who suggest to the public how to interpret the claims made by the academicians, as well as their silences, and propose the final conclusions: "What stage magician would do such a thing? Why?!? It makes absolutely no sense. I think we can decisively rule out the chemical fuel hypothesis."


    Now, nearly all agree that the chemical fuel hypothesis, along with the batteries one, was wrong, but many of us know that there are other much more reasonable and mundane explanations for those Ecat test results. We could deduce that what has been described in the JR letter is typical of magic shows, in which (n) possible explanations are proposed to the public, and then (n-1) of them are shown to be false, in order to let the people believe in the validity of the last remaining possible explanation, which in reality is even more impossible than the others. The base trick consists in not including the right explanation among the proposed ones.


    In conclusion, whoever is interesting in understanding the Ecat events should first reflect upon the roles and reliability of people included in the lowest two supporting levels, avoiding to be too much focused on the main protagonist.


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

  • Ascoli65

    Sorry but, as usual, I am not sure what you're getting at. Are we rehashing all the possible methods Rossi could have cheated? He probably used a lot of different ones at different times. Unless he eventually confesses the details, we are never going to know exactly how he made the ecat appear to produce power. Best we can do is educated guesses and those have been rehashed again and again. Are you asking if Levi was a perpetrator or a victim of Rossi's scams? I don't know. He could tell us but he probably won't.


    Edited to add: thanks for the link... https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3 If I saw it before, I don't remember it. What is amazing about it is that, from the part I browsed, nobody commented on the lack of blank runs or calibration. Nobody complained that the result might be bogus because of mismeasurement. They did raise the issue of hidden fuel or power but that was appropriately dismissed. The ecat was small and delivered 10 - 15kW for 18 hours (with a peak output of 135kW which apparently "scared" the experimenters). No fuel or battery could do that with the small uninspected volume involved. But a simple deliberate misplacement of a thermocouple -- that they never thought of. I didn't read the whole thing so if someone read that they did, I'd appreciate being pointed to it. I don't have time to read it all.

  • It's pretty funny to be accused of insulting people above. Yes, I called you a name, but really (a) you are one, and (b) it's barely an insult.


    Compare that to what's come out of your filthy mouth in the last four weeks:


    you are too lazy or too dumb... so feeble minded... an unspeakable asshole... a cowardly piece of subhuman slime... human excrement... infantile moron... individual ayhole... A worse piece of human excrement I can not imagine... low life sewer-dwelling asswipe... a subhuman piece of crap below the level of trailer trash.


    Which is truly fascinating, if only because seeing it all at once gives a great insight into your character. Freud would no doubt consider you to have been too harshly punished during your potty training, leading to a lifelong anal fixation, but then, Freud was a weirdo: I reckon you just have a scat fetish?


    And what's with you calling people 'subhuman' all the time, you know that word has a pretty terrible history, right?

  • @ maryyugo,

    Sorry but, as usual, I am not sure what you're getting at. Are we rehashing all the possible methods Rossi could have cheated? He probably used a lot of different ones at different times. Unless he eventually confesses the details, we are never going to know exactly how he made the ecat appear to produce power.

    [Emphasis added]

    My point is that it's impossible to attribute all the responsibility to only one "HE".


    The method used to try to convince the public about the reality of the excess heat generated by the Ecat has not been some material tricks (hidden wires, stored fuel, etc.), but the bold misrepresentation of experimental data. The public confidence on these data relied exclusively on the credibility of the academicians who participated in the tests. These academicians chose some direct, and non orthodox, channels (usually by internet) to release their reports and/or declarations, where they stated and confirmed the production of huge quantities of excess heat. However, they always avoided the direct confrontation with the common people, because at this point they claimed to be questioned only by their peers. The task of providing the blogosphere with the interpretation of their astonishngly results has been carried on by some opinion makers, that obstinately defended the absolute reliability of the academicians involved in the Ecat tests, and the credibility of their statements. Can all this be caused by only one HE?


    For example, consider, please, the incongruity between the nominal output of the yellow pump in the January 2011 demo (max output: 12 L/h, effective output: no more than 7.2 L/h) and the value declared in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h), which was used for calculating the excess heat. Do you really think it's possible, that the only person who was aware of this incongruity was Rossi (1)?


    (1) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • 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.

    Saint Mary of Unbelievers, you are imposing a Dogma. Many systems need to have a stimulus in order to work.

    All the system illustrated here are impressive because of their positive COP for long times and because they are quite light !

    So be sure that LENR exist !

    Want 100W no power in for days ?

    Just charge one of these batteries and you can run 100W for 4 days no power in:

    https://www.alma-solarshop.de/…giespeicher-batterie.html

  • 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.


    I take that back. Sort of. The text in Dardik says they saw 4 days of HAD at 0.6 W. The graph looks to me more like 3 W. See Fig. 6:


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


    Another paper by this group shows HAD at 20 to 50 W, fluctuating, for about 20 hours.


    As far as I know, the world record for HAD was Mizuno, 10 days starting at about 100 W:


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


    I think this was the longest because the cathode was 100 g of Pd, which is much more than most cathodes.


    There is no technological advantage to HAD. It is not desirable from an engineering point of view, any more than burning coal that you cannot extinguish.


  • There is no technological advantage to HAD. It is not desirable from an engineering point of view, any more than burning coal that you cannot extinguish.

    There is tactical advantage to HAD from a scientific point of view due to the implied high COP. I don't understand how burning coal that you cannot extinguish wouldn't be desirable or advantageous.

  • There is tactical advantage to HAD from a scientific point of view due to the implied high COP.

    Not really. A person who does not believe conventional calorimetry with a reasonable input to output ratio will probably not believe HAD either. I am sure Mary Yugo would not believe it, for example. You have to be skeptical blockhead who understands nothing about calorimetry to reject results such as McKubre's, for example. Anyone that stupid will also reject all reports of HAD. (Including McKubre's report of HAD.)


    I don't understand how burning coal that you cannot extinguish wouldn't be desirable or advantageous.


    In modern coal fired generating plants, the coal is ground into dust and injected into the fire. It burns quickly. It is somewhat like pumping oil into a fire. As soon as you cut off the supply, the fire begins to die down. It does not resemble the large piles of coal that people used to shovel under boilers in railroad locomotives, ships, and generators, which would sometimes burn for hours. You could not turn them off, or modulate the heat much. That was awkward when you did not need the steam. A heat source that responds quickly to controls, and that can be turned on or off quickly is easier to engineer.


    Nuclear fission plants cannot be turned off quickly for other reasons. That is one of the reasons they are only useful for 24-hour baseline generation. Gas turbines can be controlled better than any other kind of large generator, I believe.

  • I am pretty sure that the encouraging paper I saw and was asking about was from Mizuno and was present in Jed's collection. I have very limited time at the moment but I want to relook some of Mizuno's papers. I will do it when I can and report back. And IIRC, Mizuno claimed to be working on a kilowatt reactor and a 5kW version that had been mocked up already. I recall seeing photos and they had been given cutsey girl names. Do I have the right guy? That would have been 2 - 3 years ago. Any progress on those?

  • Do I have the right guy? That would have been 2 - 3 years ago. Any progress on those?

    Mizuno is preparing a new paper for the JCMNS. I suggest you wait a few weeks and read that to get a handle on his work. Contact me by e-mail and I will let you know when it comes out. (I will forget to do that if it is not in my e-mail queue.)

  • Mizuno is preparing a new paper for the JCMNS. I suggest you wait a few weeks and read that to get a handle on his work. Contact me by e-mail and I will let you know when it comes out. (I will forget to do that if it is not in my e-mail queue.)



    I often think you are rather irascible Jed, but the quote above demonstrates that (just now and then) you have the patience of a saint.

  • Quote

    Mizuno is preparing a new paper for the JCMNS. I suggest you wait a few weeks and read that to get a handle on his work. Contact me by e-mail and I will let you know when it comes out. (I will forget to do that if it is not in my e-mail queue.)

    Sure. Any idea how he is doing with the kilowatt and 5 kilowatt devices? If those run without input power, I imagine he won't get much argument and instead will receive many offers. Or (hopefully) is that what the paper is about?

  • If those run without input power, I imagine he won't get much argument and instead will receive many offers. Or (hopefully) is that what the paper is about?

    I cannot discuss specifics about unpublished papers. (I normally do not mention them at all, but I think we are close to publication so I guess it is okay. Mind you, publishing takes months or years so "close" is a relative thing.)


    Anyway, note that in recent years he has reported mainly gas loading, which has no input power. That is also what Kitamura and some others in Japan have been doing, as you see in recent publications. Such as:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedn.pdf#page=238


  • Anyway, note that in recent years he has reported mainly gas loading, which has no input power. That is also what Kitamura and some others in Japan have been doing, as you see in recent publications. Such as:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedn.pdf#page=238

    And also the Arata experiment I noted upthread and was ignored. I don't mind being ignored because it put money in my pocket.

  • Quote

    And also the Arata experiment I noted upthread and was ignored. I don't mind being ignored because it put money in my pocket.


    How exactly does it do that? I bet we all want to know. How much did you make off LENR investments so far?

  • Not really. A person who does not believe conventional calorimetry with a reasonable input to output ratio will probably not believe HAD either.

    It is one of these watershed threshold developments that will cause LENR to break out. Like when Jones Beene couldn't believe all the transmutations from Rossi's device so he started saying that Rossi spiked the ash. It's either spiked ash or Rossi's got the goods. And it's either HAD with a pretty damned high COP (since there's no input energy) or the entire field is filled with frauds. Either MFMP detects gamma rays in an ordinary LENR experiment that cheaply can be repeated or the world has gone Mad.


    Eventually what happens is that we get someone like Mary Yugo to fire up some pycnodeuterium or something like that and then all his friends call him a fraud, so we move to the next skeptopath on down the line until no one is willing to call it fraud. But those days are probably well into the future and the best efforts are in the MFMP camp.

  • Quote

    Not really. A person who does not believe conventional calorimetry with a reasonable input to output ratio will probably not believe HAD either.

    It's not about "belief" -- it's about really good evidence. If the source is reliable, if the effect is large and sustained for substantial time, if the measurement method is straightforward and well calibrated, and if the presentation is clear, why would someone not consider it? It would be replicated by formally by an independent lab to nail it down. But why would anyone reasonable not believe it if the criteria are met?

  • OK, so this is directed mainly at Jed Rothwell but of course, anyone who has information can respond. In November 2014, Mizuno presented these photos:


    deleteme.jpg


    deleteme2.jpg


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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB_MRUX4mo0


    Interestingly, in the Youtube video, there was a question and answer segment and nobody asked about these! Yet to me, they are BY FAR the most important aspect of the work. If indeed, Mizumo can extract 1 kW from a low or no input power with his "Scarlett" device, then we are nearing or have definitive proof of LENR heat generation. But this was 2014! And the device looks hooked up and ready to go. WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? Why aren't we concentrating on and talking about that?

  • 'Clean Planet' is a part government/part private company formed to pursue research into LENR. As of around 18 months ago LENR research was put under the control of the Japanese Nuclear Energy Authority since then the flow of published information is much reduced.

  • If the source is reliable, if the effect is large and sustained for substantial time, if the measurement method is straightforward and well calibrated, and if the presentation is clear, why would someone not consider it?

    What source could be more reliable than peer-reviewed papers in major journals reporting research at Toyota? If 140 W is not large, how big does it have to be? If reactions lasting hours or days, following a week of heat that produces hundreds of times more than any chemical source is not substantial, what would be?


    The results meet all of your criteria. They exceed them by orders of magnitude in some ways. Yet you yourself do not believe them. Heck, you don't even understand them, although this is 18th century physics.


    So: You tell us. What is it about your psychological makeup that causes you & others to reject experimental results that in any other field, in any other context, every scientist on earth would instantly accept? This is your problem, not ours. If these experimental results do not convince you, no results will. You will not believe it until you have permission from Nature or the DoE, or until it is commercialized.


    Unfortunately, in the modern era, many people are like you. They reject science and embrace a weird form of religion in which misinterpreted textbook theory overrules facts. Huizenga was the best example. Or they invent crackpot theories to explain away anything they do not want to believe. Such people have always been common, but I think we are at a low ebb in which they dominate science.

  • You will not believe it until you have permission from Nature or the DoE, or until it is commercialized.


    I dislike the dialog being put into characterizations of belief. But this aspect of not accepting perfectly good scientific data until it is commercialized is another threshold to consider about skeptopaths. Basically, they're the peanut gallery and will continue to throw their bullshit around until LENR is commercialized, so they offer no value in the discourse. They can be replaced by a bobblehead doll that nods its head to scientific "consensus" until they are proven wrong and when you look back on their contributions, the bobblehead doll would have been more useful. Your advice to me was to ignore them but that's like ignoring seagulls when you're sitting outside trying to eat lunch at a picnic table.