Atom-Ecology

  • Aww, c'mon Axil. Leave them alone until they have data and conclusions or make tangible claims at least!


    How can correct conclusions be derived when the possibility of LENR reactions at a distance from the fuel is rejected out of hand, when that possibility is not ever considered, when tests that will prove or disprove the posit are not undertaken?

  • Aww, c'mon Axil. Leave them alone until they have data and conclusions or make tangible claims at least!


    How can correct conclusions be derived when the possibility of LENR reactions at a distance from the fuel is rejected out of hand, when that possibility is not ever considered, when tests that will prove or disprove the posit are not undertaken?

  • I have some disagreements with Jed Rothwell centering on issues. But you are accusing him of pomposity with about the most pompous, not to mention inappropriate and gratuitously insulting post I've seen here so far.


    There may be some pompous people in LENR (I have my own list) but I seriously doubt that Jed is one of them. Not only has Jed been a superb librarian, archivist, translator and preserver of knowledge for the entire LENR community and, as important, its critics, but he has done it mostly on his own personal funds and from a desire to see the field succeed. Jed doesn't simply file papers, he reads them and from extensive and long lasting personal communications with the authors, he understands them.


    Scientific discussions take place between all sorts of people. Some are peers for one reason or another, some are informed critics or proponents, some are investors, and so on. You, certainly, have no monopoly on scientific discussions. Nor, does it seem, sadly, that you have the ability to conduct a civil discourse with someone who has criticized your views. That is not a fruitful way for scientists to behave. Jed is definitely a peer when it comes to LENR work. I don't know enough about you to decide whether you are or not but based on recent posts and some reading, I have my doubts.

  • Russ George, ever the same, wrote:


    Quote

    When you demonstrate you are contributing anything more than your life long pomposity and add a dust mote of original observation or thought you might become part of a scientific discussion on this topic but up to now you have never demonstrated an original or useful idea.

    Well, I never claimed to have original ideas. On the other hand, I did pay for some of your experiments. And this is how you thank me, and how you treated others who have helped you in the past. When people offer the slightest criticism of your work, no matter how politely phrased, it sets off this kind of reaction. At your age, you should have learned to be little a more diplomatic, I think. You make enemies for no reason.

  • How can correct conclusions be derived when the possibility of LENR reactions at a distance from the fuel is rejected out of hand, when that possibility is not ever considered, when tests that will prove or disprove the posit are not undertaken?


    axil . No way am I showing you mine right now, because it is very hot. In all seriousness, the experiment is still running and may be running for some time yet. When it's cold you can come look at it personally.

  • Aww, c'mon Axil. Leave them alone until they have data and conclusions or make tangible claims at least!

    Seriously, they should take all the time they need. Experiments should not be rushed. Read the Beiting paper to see how long good research takes and how carefully the results should be assessed. It is one of the most honest papers I have seen. The author lists every source of error and doubt he can think of.


    Smith has not confirmed the heat yet, but his plan for doing so seems pretty good to me. Maybe when they try it, it won't work, and they'll have to come up with another method. It doesn't matter how long it takes; what matters is doing it right. (On the other hand, some people say they will do X or Y and then they vanish. That's bad. I think you should at least report back, 'I never got it to work.')

  • Russ George's highly provocative post has been deleted, and all references to it also. There simply will be no more of that tolerated here. If you want to take it further Russ, I suggest you do so elsewhere. IMO, LF would be better off without. Your choice.

  • How can correct conclusions be derived when the possibility of LENR reactions at a distance from the fuel is rejected out of hand, when that possibility is not ever considered, when tests that will prove or disprove the posit are not undertaken?


    Weren't you previously particularly attached to the muon emission idea? That's a possible way according to which a "reaction at a distance" could occur. Do you now find this surprising?


    By the way, I've added a little bit of 24Na from the previously linked NaI spectra catalog, suggested in http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.035504 to be one of the possible outcomes from muon capture reactions in 27Al (see table attached), and it made the calculated spectrum slightly closer to Russ George's.


    Of course, this could still be coincidental since the range of the original spectrum has been inferred, then got scaled and had some offset applied, but since this has basically become a guessing game, it's a challenge I will gladly accept.

  • Did you ever read N&P standard physics papers ?? Mostly unsubstantiated stuff. Theory in average never matching experiment better that 98..99% or as much as a standard woodworker needs...


    If you like to get better information, then start to work and present your ideas on a level where it will be taken as serious. Nobody will disclose something for people just writing tons of forums legends.

    I for one find Wyttenbach's ideas not only fascinating but they are bearing up pretty well to testing against my unique set of real cold fusion gamma spectra. On top of that Wyttenbach is a true gentleman and a scholar who offers positive and constructive ideas backed by tangible assistance. He does not hide in the dark behind some fake name, that means he can be trusted. Thanks to this forum I now count him as a true friend.

  • How is the quintet of new reactors performing? Are these reactors producing the same surprises as the original one?


    They (actually a quartet) are currently undergoing very extended calibration, checking for such things as temperature drift over 24 hours. These have voltage control rather than thermostatic control, so we have to be sure that each of the 4 dedicated psu's are behaving. Calibration like this takes a little longer as you can imagine. Every reactor behaves in a unique manner, despite my taking great pains to make them identical. We suspect it must be due to density variations in the foamed alumina bricks themselves, which affects both thermal mass and R-value. But the good news is that we have 2 pairs of twins, each of these pairs cross-match to around 1% or better. At sub 500C temperatures we see around 8-9 C per watt of input, and above that it reduces to around 6.- 7C/watt. So they are pretty sensitive to unexpected events.

  • We suspect it must be due to density variations in the foamed alumina bricks themselves, which affects both thermal mass and R-value. But the good news is that we have 2 pairs of twins, each of these pairs cross-match to around 1% or better. At sub 500C temperatures we see around 8-9 C per watt of input, and above that it reduces to around 6.- 7C/watt.

    Okay, so if I understand --


    The foamed alumna bricks are the white blocks shown in the photo, with the tubes inserted into them. It takes ~50 W of input to drive the temperature of the tubes up to ~500°C. If there is, let's say, ~2 W of excess heat, the temperature will be 12°C to 14°C higher than the calibration. Is that about as much heat as you expect?


    That sort of response should be clear. It should have a good s/n ratio.


    The equipment layout looks tidy. That's a good sign.

  • Well, I am reluctant to put any numbers to it, since like all numeric forecasts they have a way of biting you in the ass. But I am quite sure we will be way out of the noise. Up till now we have been running at a constant temperature (PID controlled) and comparing the energy required by test and control systems to maintain the temperature. It looks very positive but awaits data analysis (4.5M points to sort out!).


    We are just starting a new experiment with constant heat input where we will compare the two system temperatures which will be allowed to run free. Same horse, but running in the opposite direction.