Clearance Items

Quote from axil

The point was that Rossi will be given absolution for his "somewhat unsavory by modern standards" bisiness practices. Rossi will eventually be recognized to have made tremendous contributions to both technology and basic science. That is just the way things roll.

No one is given absolution for unsavory practices. No serious biography excuses or glosses over Edison's behavior, or Oppenheimer's for that matter, or anyone else's.

Rossi will not be recognized because he has not made any contributions. His claims are lies and frauds. You believe him because you refuse to read his reports, look at his data, or look at the photos showing the heat exchanger did not exist.

Rossi has never made a single contribution to science or technology that can be shown from any literature except his and that of his friends. None whatever. He will be known for a minor high tech fraud scheme. If he is remembered for anything at all which is unlikely. Anyone remember Howard Johnson and his magnetic motor? Anyone remember Dennis Lee and his various schemes? Probably very few do. Papp is somewhat better known because he was colorful and managed to kill someone during one of his demonstrations and no, Feynman did not cause the infamous explosion: "Feynman's conclusion was that Papp was a fraudster and the explosion an attempt by Papp to avoid discovery." And I think I'd believe Feynman over Papp but I am sure someone here will disagree.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Papp

"LINE!"

Quote from seven_of_twenty

"Feynman's conclusion was that Papp was a fraudster and the explosion an attempt by Papp to avoid discovery."

He had no other choice to save his reputation.

But keep in mind that many different noble gases directly support LENR. I would not exclude that it silently happened in Papps perpetuum mobile ...

Quote from Roseland67

Axil,

Recognized by whom and for what?

He will be recognized over the eons of future history as the last best hope of the earth for his world changing accomplishments. He will guild us in the fiery trial through which we now pass, will light us down, to the latest generation.

Quote from axil

He will be recognized over the eons of future history as the last best hope of the earth for his world changing accomplishments. He will guild us in the fiery trial through which we now pass, will light us down, to the latest generation.

Hmmmm?

OR,

He will be a historical footnote, relegated to obscurity as he produced nothing of consequence that remotely corroborated his myriad claims of over unity energy devices.

Quote from axil

He will be recognized over the eons of future history as the last best hope of the earth for his world changing accomplishments. He will guild us in the fiery trial through which we now pass, will light us down, to the latest generation.

Perhaps then his masterpiece thesis will be mandatory reading in schools, instead of lost in a dusty box somewhere in Italy.

Quote from Roseland67

Hmmmm?

OR,

He will be a historical footnote, relegated to obscurity as he produced nothing of consequence that remotely corroborated his myriad claims of over unity energy devices.

Yes, the judgement of history will be driven by his success or failure in the marketplace. We will know that in not to long a time frame.

Quote from Bruce__H

I have to admit that Figure 2 on page 16 is one of the most persuasive plots I have ever seen in the lenr field ...

Quote from JedRothwell

Martin thought so. I think others did not see his point.

I think that I find this figure of Fleischmann`s compelling because of my experience with excitable systems (e.g. neuronal and cardiac tissues). From the standpoint of myself and my colleagues Fleischmann's plot is immediately informative, but I now realize that this may not be so for those in the lenr community. So here is a description of the possible basis of lenr "heat after death". It uses standard tools of nonlinear dynamical systems theory.

First, suppose that whatever the lenr mechanism is, it is temperature-dependent. Assume that the dependence is something generic like this ....

Figure 1/

The precise relationship doesn't matter because this will be a qualitative argument. The point is that as the temperature increases, lenr heating turns on.

Now think about cooling. On the same temperature axis, the essence of effect of Newtonian cooling is that its effect grows linearly as temperature increases beyond ambient levels. Something like this ...

Figure 2/

Putting these two things together by taking lenr heating minus Newtonian cooling gives, at any temperature, whether it is heating or cooling that predominates -- or whether the two are balanced.

Figure 3/

In plot 3, when the curve is above the horizontal axis heating predominates, and so the temperature of the system will increase. When the curve is below the axis, cooling predominates and the system temperature will decrease. Points A, B,and C are so called `steady states` where heating and cooling are perfectly balanced such that the system temperature will not move either up or down.

Now here is the point of the analysis. The arrows on the horizontal axis in Figure 3 show the direction that the temperature of the system will move at any given temperature. You can see that points A and C are stable steady states in the sense that if you displace the system temperature a little bit from them it will come right back back (these are so-called `attractors`). Point A is a low-temperature attractor where there is no lenr activity and point C is a high-temperature attractor where the lenr mechanism is essentially fully activated. In contrast to these two points, B shows an unstable steady state. This means that if the system temperature is right at B it will remain steady but that the smallest displacement of temperature will cause the system to move away from point B and end up at either A or C. In technical language point B is called a `separatrix'. It separates two basins of attraction or two areas of very different behaviour. Such a situation, having multiple areas of behaviour, is impossible in a linear system.

So the import of Figure 3/ , above, is that point B is a threshold beyond which lenr activity will switch on in a sgtble fashion and will be resistant to turning off. At temperatures below the threshold at point B, cooling predominates and eventually lenr will shut off.

Here is how this all relates to the figure that Fleischmann was so keen on. All the plots so far show relationships between temperature and overall heating/cooling. It is also possible to use these relationships to numerically simulate the time course of temperatures in a system like this. So here is what you get if you have a system with these nonlinear properties and start out near point A, and then push the temperature upwards using eternal heating.

Figure 4/

The square curve at the bottom shows how external heating is pulsed on and then off. The curve above it shows how the system temperature changes in response. Beginning at point A (which is meant to be the same point as point A in Figure 3/ above), the system temperature rises more or less exponentially in response to the external heating. If there was no active lenr heating at work here the system would continue along the dotted line. But if there is lenr heating, then a threshold is present (at point B) and once you cross this threshold the system temperature quickly shoots up seeking a new attractor as a consequence. Now, even if external heating is removed as shown here, you are still stuck at the attractor at point C where lenr heating is still engaged. This is what I take to be called heat after death. The combination of an inflection point when the threshold is crossed and then, later on, a continuing elevated temperature is a dead giveaway that I instantly recognized as characteristic of the nonlinear mechanism I have outlined here. I'm not sure whether of not Fleischmann himself recognized the importance of the inflection point in the plot.

Although my argument here is qualitative, I stress that all components are measurable and so, in theory, all parts of Figures 1-3 could be quantified. I think in practice, however, that Alan Smith cannot measure the lenr temperature-activation curve in Figure 1/ because of the way his measurement system is presently constituted. The empirical quantification of the Figure 1/ activation curve would require that the system temperature be held at a series of temperatures that span the activation region f the lenr heating and I think that Alan's PID controller would not be able to stabilize the system temperature over this range because it does not have active cooling.

If they are not completely forgotten, this will be the place for Rossi for sure, and most probably for Mills as well, based on recent developments and a twenty plus year of failures to produce any device that works.

The Museum of Unworkable Devices

ETA, exercise: See how many of the important criteria from this article Rossi and Mills and their claims meet: http://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/quack.htm

(related redundant post removed)

Quote from seven_of_twenty

ETA, exercise: See how many of the important criteria from this article Rossi and Mills...

Your mind looks flat as the earth... How come you to compare Mills & Rossi??

May be it satisfies your feeling to piss at monuments...

Quote

How come you to compare Mills & Rossi??

In brief, because both have a completely consistent history of promising useful energy production from their devices and for nearly a decade for Rossi and nearly three decades for Mills, neither has produced squat. (squat=nothing for nonUSA readers)

Quote from stefan

my point is that if Wreaction is k1T and Wcooling = k2T and k2 > k1 (assuming a = 0), then you will not get an increase as you suggest because it will cool just like with

newtonian cooling, but with a slope with longer time constant, just what we see in the drawing.

Let me plot out your suggested relationship between lenr heating power and temperature.

This involves negative power below some temperature. I don`t know what that means physically and I don`t think it is really what you mean to suggest, but it is a consequence of your model. Another problem with your models is that you need a=0 which corresponds to the supposition that the most important temperature along the activation curve -- the point where lenr power goes from positive to negative -- is exactly at laboratory ambient temperature (which is where newtonian cooling goes from positive to negative). I don`t get that.

In contrast here is what I see as the simplest proposal that avoids a nonphysical negative power ...

The lenr activation curve is now nonlinear. I have shown it as two straight lines in order to match your requirement of a linear relationship above some temperature. Nonetheless, everything I said previously about the establishment of a threshold still applies. The cooling curve you will get from this is not exponential. Exponential relaxations are for purely linear systems and this is not linear.

One of my complaints about the Androcles results is that some of the behaviours from that system are very nonlinear (e.g., the bursting) and yet the cooling in Russ George`s golden-area figure cooling seems to be exponential, i.e., linear.

If RG doesn’t like anonymous persons picking his graphs apart, then he should avoid attaching them to the clichéd “end of the carbon age is nigh” tropes that stir the under-the-bridge dwellers into action. The knuckle-dragging, slobbering, and spiteful beasts of the night have been trolled and cajoled with the promise of the most energy-wasteful period in history being about to begin far too many times by the sunlight dwelling trolls with names on their lab coats, a golden tongue, but pockets full of empty promises.

OK. With Wreact = 0 for T less than some activation temperature (which for moderate temperatures qualitatively matches my model), and for k_cooling (k1) greater than k_heating (k2), I see that T should exponentially decline from some high temperature down to the activation temperature and then more quickly but still exponentially decline towards T1.

How do you match all this with the red trace in Russ George`s figure.

Where do you think T2 is?

Quote from Alan Smith

That's because the PID thermostat had been set to 200C. Or maybe 230- I don't have the figures to hand.

This would clarify things a bit for me. But the label on the figure says that the fueled reactor has "ZERO power input". This conflicts with your information doesn't it? Or am I completely misunderstanding what input power is in your system?

Edit: Wait. Aha!! I get it! So for the last half of the figure the fueled reactor is unpowered but the control reactor is externally heated. This means that lenr heating is much more prominent than it appears from the figure and is actually pretty much fully in play right down to at least 270 degrees C or so. If the control reactor had been left to cool naturally you might would have had something like this ...

This would be much more what Jed Rothwell expected to see for heat after death. And one reason Russ George`s plot is not showing the threshold effects I expected is because the entirety of the plot is way above the activation range.

@IobseRvable

Quote

LSD ogre awakening...

Sorry if I am dense but what does that mean?