Thanks to the indefatigable Jed Rothwell, . the proceedings (or most of them) have been uploaded to LENR--CANR. There are 31 papers in this collection.
Biberian, J.P., ed. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. Vol. 24. 2017: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Sendai, Japan, October 02–07, 2016
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ BiberianJPjcondensedw.pdf
ICCF-20 Papers Uploaded.
-
Thanks to the indefatigable Jed Rothwell,
Well, I just did the copy editing. Although with this many papers I made hundreds of corrections! Mostly it is thanks to Jean-Paul, the peer-reviewers and the authors.
It is a lot of work putting out a journal.
If anyone here finds a format or spelling error, please point it out to me via e-mail, [email protected]
-
If readers can highlight their most interesting papers, it would make a great technical thread !
-
So , to "built" a great technical thread, i suggest this paper should be the most impressive.
Observation of Anomalous Production of Si and Fe in an Arc Furnace Driven Ferro Silicon
Smelting Plant at levels of Tons per day
244
C.R. Narayanaswamy
The author talks about matter 's creation !! it would call into question real stars's role.
Would this be the most revolutionary aspect of lenr ?
-
Yeah, that is a great one. Unfortunatly it is so enormuous that most readers will see this as a typical "must be a measurment error - can not happen - replication is not possible - hearsay -> junk".
-
Szumski explains that both exothermic and endothermic reactions should occur.
May be it's necessary that these reactions take place together to see XH.
-
Well, I just did the copy editing. Although with this many papers I made hundreds of corrections! Mostly it is thanks to Jean-Paul, the peer-reviewers and the authors.
It is a lot of work putting out a journal.Mitchell Swartz quoted this message and had a hissy fit, imagining that I might have edited one of his papers. For the record, I would not touch his papers with the fag end of a barge poll. But anyway, let me point out to authors:
When I make a change to a paper it shows up in RED with my name on it. So you can tell it's me.
Changes are submitted to the author for approval. Authors should use the Microsoft Word Review feature "Accept" and "Reject" buttons to accept or reject my changes.
Authors should learn to use Microsoft Word features. You will save a lot of time and make fewer mistakes, such as spelling errors and two periods at the end a sentence.
These papers go through many steps, done by many people, including conversion to LaTex. Errors can creep in at any stage, so you should review the final version carefully.
(If you write in LaTex, I will submit a list of errors to you and you will have to make them yourself. I could edit a LaTex file but I don't wanna. It is too much like Assembly Language programming, of which I have had enough. Besides, you probably don't know how to do a LaTex file compare, do you?)
-
Quote
Thanks to the indefatigable Jed Rothwell, . the proceedings (or most of them) have been uploaded to LENR--CANR. There are 31 papers in this collection.
I may disagree with Jed on a LOT of things but it is certainly easy to acknowledge his hard work, dedication, and contributions to documenting efforts in LENR. Without his work, it would be vastly more difficult to discuss the field... and perhaps make progress.
-
Observation of Anomalous Production of Si and Fe in an Arc Furnace Driven Ferro Silicon
Smelting Plant at levels of Tons per day
See my calculations and the related discussion in this Vortex thread:
Energy balance considerations alone call Narayanaswamy's interpretation into doubt:Quote2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J. By comparison, the bomb that fell on Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2]. That means that if Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023 "Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute. All in a smelting facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent profit.
-
See my calculations and the related discussion in this Vortex thread:
Energy balance considerations alone call Narayanaswamy's interpretation into doubt:I have tried to inform discussion on this type issue in the past by pointing out that the heat produced by the LENR reaction is minimus. Most of the output energy format is in the form of sub atomic particle production. These particles might consist mostly of electrons and some muons, but one must also consider the possibility of large scale axion production.
Axions are the quanta of the theta parameter which controls the activity of the color gluons. They are one of the leading candidates for dark matter and interact weakly with other matter. A large amount of LENR reaction derived energy might be converted to axions without much effect or notice.
-
The Brillouin Energy paper is pretty disappointing. It could be that the results are right, but the fact that the apparent excess heating is so small in comparison to true input power casts doubt on past results from BE. Why are they messing around with this really weak effect (if real at all) when he supposedly achieved much better results previously with an electrolytic solution?
-
Well done, a small COP can be significant (as science define significant).
Having control is very important progress for engineering.
Jacques Ruer have reminded us that even a low COP, provided heat improve reaction, can be improved at will.
Anyway in the PR world and to face those who prefer show business to 5 sigma results, it is a loss.
It seems they have better results, linked to better nanostructure, but this is hearsay, so not convincing.
-
https://cloud.mail.ru/home/ICC…%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9.pdf Collection of reports ICCF-20
-
Disappointing is a mild description of Brillouin after all the years they have been claiming to have operating LENR "boilers:" supposedly tested and confirmed by SRI/McKubre. In my opinion, they are shaping up to be very Rossiesque.
-
The Brillouin Energy paper is pretty disappointing. It could be that the results are right, but the fact that the apparent excess heating is so small in comparison to true input power casts doubt on past results from BE. Why are they messing around with this really weak effect (if real at all) when he supposedly achieved much better results previously with an electrolytic solution?
Jack,
You can not tell from SRI's report which of BEC's systems (wet/hot) they tested. Or at least I could not. They mention doing testing on both, but then go on to only describe in detail the reactors core. On BEC's website, they have changed some things, and it now appears to me that they describe the core as common to both systems:
"Hydrogen is loaded, in the form of either a wet electrolyte, or as a gas, into highly engineered metallic cores constructed from nickel inside of a pressure vessel – either a WET™ or HYDROGEN HOT TUBE™ boiler system – and catalyzed with electrical charges from Brillouin Energy’s proprietary Q-Pulse™ electronic pulse generator. The process produces a CECR, which is extremely efficient, generating industrially useful process heat, and no (zero) pollutants of any kind."
So what I am saying, is that I am not sure they have the wet system anymore. It is almost as if now they have morphed the two into one and now there is only a core reactor.
Other than that, I agree in that it is disappointing this SRI reported COP is lackluster compared to Godes earlier claims of COP4 (wet system). Unfortunately, these exaggerations seem the norm in LENR+, so I think I will drop the + now...sorry Peter.
Nonetheless, as Alain said, even though the COP's are low, they appear solid. Maybe BEC should be looking more to sell a (lab rat) kit, rather than going commercial as Godes claimed he was ready for 3 years ago?
-
Quote
Nonetheless, as Alain said, even though the COP's are low, they appear solid.
In your dreams, Shane. They more Rossi-ish than ever. Classical free energy con: after years, the results are worse than claimed when they started. And no proper testing that we know of. I don't count Godes as "proper" and it isn't clear, at least to me what, if anything, McKubre has done with these clowns that would validate their claims. Anyway, he sponsors Brillouin's work so far as am I concerned, he is part of them.
QuoteMaybe BEC should be looking more to sell a (lab rat) kit, rather than going commercial as Godes claimed he was ready for 3 years
Seriously? They claim their"technology" is worth billions and now they are going to sell you the lab rat version for what? $100 a pop? Shane, you are such a dreamer!
-
And no proper testing that we know of.
Mary,
SRI is "proper testing". They were hired by the NRL to vet LENR claims a number of years ago.
-
... it isn't clear, at least to me what, if anything, McKubre has done with these clowns that would validate their claims. Anyway, he sponsors Brillouin's work so far as am I concerned, he is part of them.
Mike McKubre has been retired for some months now, and Francis Tanzella is the one at SRI working with Brillouin. Is there a further connection between McKubre and the Brillouin testing?
-
Mike McKubre has been retired for some months now, and Francis Tanzella is the one at SRI working with Brillouin. Is there a further connection between McKubre and the Brillouin testing?
Eric,
Not sure that matters, but SRI is more than McKubre. It is a team of many effort. Tanzella most of all, has been there from the beginning right alongside McKubre. The two of them, and others, faced down Garwin and Lewis in 1993, and won. Garwin had to admit SRI knew what they were doing.
Nonetheless, if it helps, Tanzella put this in his acknowledgement:
"I would like to acknowledge Dr. Michael McKubre (SRI Emeritus) for his work on the calorimeter design and thank
Brillouin Energy scientists Jin Liu, Roger Tong and Mark Garnett for their aid in the calorimetric analysis." -
Just to clarify my question: I was asking MY why she was referring to McKubre sponsoring Brillouin, and to other things he's done with them to validate their claims. I'm guessing that in fact he hasn't been involved all that much, and that it's mostly been Tanzella and others. (I didn't mean to suggest anything about McKubre in relation to the larger LENR effort at SRI.)
The note about calorimeter design is interesting.
