The LION experiment

  • You could include the energy budget also for solar cells for mining and melting the silicon when calculating the energy efficiency......

    Actually, that does make sense when you are talking about the economics of commercial energy production. Analysts do include the energy needed to fabricate solar cells when they look at the overall efficiency of solar cells compared to other sources such as wind turbines or natural gas. This is used to estimate the energy payback time. See:


    http://sinovoltaics.com/learni…k-time-for-solar-systems/


    "The energy payback time (EPBT) of a power generating system is the time required to generate as much energy as is consumed during production and lifetime operation of the system. The past decade the energy payback time for solar PV systems has been reduced drastically."


    This is also called "embodied energy." See:


    http://www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/embodied-energy


    Suppose it took a tremendous amount of energy to fabricate a cold fusion cell, for some reason. I do not mean energy that is stored up the way it is in a dry cell battery. You get that back. I mean embodied energy. That would be a nagging problem for the future. It would not be an issue for a laboratory experiment. Measuring it would confuse the issue.


    Fortunately, we know this is not a problem. It takes very little energy to make a cathode or a cell. Not only is the energy payback time short, but so much energy is produced per gram of reactant that the overall balance is orders of magnitude better than any conventional system. This is what is known as energy overhead, which resembles payback time. The overhead for oil is large. It is 10% to 20% depending on where the oil comes from and who is making the estimate. This means it takes ~10% of oil we extract to drill, transport and refine the oil into fuel. Oil tankers, for example, run on oil. For coal, the overhead is about 8%. For wind turbines lasting 20 years, it is 2%. For cold fusion, assuming deuterium is the consumable, using today's heavy water separation techniques, it would be ~0.05%. Better techniques have been invented already, so it would lower than this. See my book, p. 46.

  • As I explained above, you do not do an EROEI analysis in a physics experiment. You do this analysis in an overview comparing the economics of energy generating systems. And, when you apply it to cold fusion you find cold fusion is orders of magnitude better than any alternative, including uranium fission.

  • This is what is known as energy overhead, which resembles payback time. . . . For wind turbines lasting 20 years, it is 2%

    That is assuming the wind turbine blades and generator wear out after ~20 years, but the tower can still be used. That is a reasonable assumption. I have seen estimates that today's towers may last 100 years or more. Then again, today's towers may be too short for use 100 years from now, because blades may be longer.


    If you have to replace the tower, I think overhead increases to some number higher than 2%, but I do not know what it would be. The tower has the most material by far.


    My point is, these estimates are complicated, and they are only approximate. Be careful when evaluating them. There may be complicated issues left unsaid.

  • Alan,


    If your preparation includes any energy use (heat, evacuation, size reduction etc),

    are you keeping a log?

    It should probably be included in any Grand Total Heat calculations.


    Should I also include fuel used driving to the lab and back again, and weigh my bowel motions? Of course not! We are interested in justone thing at the moment, does a LION fuel tube produce anomalous heat and/or radiation when compared to a control tube. All else is window dressing.

  • I broadly agree but what about heat input that is stored in the cell in chemical form and could be emitted later?' I'm no chemist so the following might be wrong but....


    Perhaps heating during construction causes some metal in the cell to become oxidised abdorbing some of that heat, and then later during the test it's reduced back to the original metal liberating heat. It would be a mistake to think you started with metal and finished with metal when in fact you accidentally started with a mix of metal and metal oxide created by heating during construction. I can't remember my chemistry so this might be nonsense but do you get what I'm saying?


    I suppose it's sufficient to show that the excess heat is too large to have a chemical origin.

  • Should I also include fuel used driving to the lab and back again, and weigh my bowel motions? Of course not! We are interested in justone thing at the moment, does a LION fuel tube produce anomalous heat and/or radiation when compared to a control tube. All else is window dressing.

    No,

    You should not include your fuel used for driving or your bowel movements.

    IF, the anamalous heat is very low, as many have shown, is it possible that the energy used to prepare the tube was somehow stored in the tube and is now simply being released?

    IF, the anamolous heat effect only lasts a short period at low output, it must be considered.

  • Somehow stored in the tube...

    How?

    When you know all the ingrediences in the tube you can take a look for which element/compound chemical reactions are actually possible. Redox Reactions would be the most obvious candidate for me.

    And you would see that something has changed chemically when you look at the products of your experiment.

    From my point of view it is unnecessary to include the energy you invest in treating the reactants.

    By the way, if there would really be a way to "store" this energy in the reactants chemically it would be quite an astonishing feat by itself and a lot of people would be very interested I bet ;)

  • Light can be stored for later release. I will write a post on how it works shortly.

  • The LION 1 and LION 2 experiments hare been replicated in the experiments found in this paper:


    https://disq.us/url?url=https%…Q1G-ElZw0xpw&cuid=2168707


    21tt1.JPG


    The double dot flux tube marks are produced by the dipole flux tube that extends from the falaco soliton as seen here. There are some rabbit tracks here on the left side of the picture that are produced by the monopole soliton(see post below).


    FalacoSolitons.gif


    and in this MFMP video



    21tt7.JPG


    The classic rabbit track produced by a monopole magnetic soliton flux tube


    as seen here from the LION experimental results:


  • The LION 1 and LION 2 experiments hare been replicated in the experiments found in this paper:


    https://disq.us/url?url=https%…Q1G-ElZw0xpw&cuid=2168707


    This experiment is not a LION replication Axil. It has nothing to do with LION at all. If you mean 'the images of radiation tracks shown in this paper bear similarities to images from the LION experiment' that would be correct. But it is not and never should be described as a replication.

  • But it is not and never should be described as a replication.

    Why Not.


    If two different LENR experiments produced excess heat over an extended timeframe with no energy input applied, is not LENR said to be replicated?


    For example, Parkhomiv was said to have replicated Rossi with his experiment.


    https://animpossibleinvention.com/tag/parkhomov/



    Replication attempts are heating up cold fusion


    The small reactor used by Alexander Parkhomov, glowing from heat.

    Quote

    The small reactor used by Alexander Parkhomov, glowing from heat.

    In just a few weeks, the whole landscape of cold fusion and LENR has changed significantly and, as many have noted, 2015 might bring a breakthrough for LENR in general, with increased public awareness, scientific acceptance and maybe even commercial applications. This is great news.

    For those who haven’t followed the latest events, let me summarize.

    Most important is the apparent replication of the E-Cat phenomenon by the Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov. On December 25, 2014, Parkhomov, a respected and experienced physicist, published a short report on an experiment where he had used a reactor similar to the one used by the Swedish-Italian group in the Lugano experiment with Rossi’s E-Cat, and with similar materials in the fuel.



    https://animpossibleinvention.com/tag/parkhomov/


    Quote

    The ‘open science’ group, Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, MFMP, that I mention at the end of my book An Impossible Invention, has announced that they have performed a true replication of the effect in Rossi’s energy device, the E-Cat. The group has also published a complete recipe of how to replicate the effect, adding a clear method for detecting a successful replication.


    Replication lies in duplicating the substance and not the form.

  • In your head maybe. But that is not a scientific approach or a correct description. A cheque for £1 is not a replication of a £1 coin.


    Absolutely not in my head, the contradictions lies in your head. As my references show, your opinion is contrary to the general thinking that currently exists in the LENR community. You definitely hold an outlier view.

  • If two different LENR experiments produced excess heat over an extended timeframe with no energy input applied, is not LENR said to be replicated?


    Until uncontestable proof that nuclear reactions are occurring in a so called LENR experiment it is just an experiment.


    While we wait for this to happen it should be named a PLENR experiment, a Putative Low Energy Nuclear Reaction experiment.


    This will decrease the chances of selling the fur before the bear is shot.

  • Until uncontestable proof that nuclear reactions are occurring in a so called LENR experiment it is just an experiment.


    While we wait for this to happen it should be named a PLENR experiment, a Putative Low Energy Nuclear Reaction experiment.


    This will decrease the chances of selling the fur before the bear is shot.


    Particle tracks on photographic emulsions are incontestable proof that nuclear reactions are occurring, uninformed opinion notwithstanding.