# Atom-Ecology

• I hadn`t considered radiative cooling (the stefan-botlzman law!). What is your feeling for the relative contributions of convetive and radiative cooling in the Androcles reactor? I get the impression that radiative cooling must be only a small correction to convective cooling and so the knee would not be too visible.

if the reactor is free in the air, for air (convective) you have coefficients of the order 10-100 Power / Area / Kelvin probably 10.

for radiation you have W = sigma (T^4 - T0^4) = sigma (T^3+T^2T0+TT0^2+T0^3) (T - T0) => T=400K -> 10, T=500K 15, T=600K 23 Power/Area/Kelvin

So very well after 100 degrees celcius it can be the order of the convective cooling

• Based on the simplistic assumption of sigmoidal temperature-dependent lenr activation (such as I diagrammed earlier in this thread), the fueled reactor need not decline asymptotically to room temperature. Instead, once activated the lenr heating can be self supporting because locally it is always producing enough heat to keep the reactor at a temperature where the lenr mechanism is fully engaged. This would mean that the temperature would asymptote out at some temperature above room temperature.

Thanks that makes some sense.

• Im a bit rusty but I think knowing the excess power produced and the approx surface area should allows us to ball park how much insulation would be required for it to self sustain?

• What does Russ George' talking about making the thing available in months not years, mean to you? Does that imply commercialization, as I doubt just selling the recipe would be of any benefit to those in need?

All that is between rapid availability (at some lower level of output) and where we are now is a few million dollars and a fair wind.

• ... I think knowing the excess power produced and the approx surface area should allows us to ball park how much insulation would be required for it to self sustain..

Yes. Possible. But I think that one should also be able to figure this out if one knows the exponential cooling time constant of the Looking-For-Heat reactor chamber. We might be able to get this from published data. It is not possible for to do this using Russ George's "golden area" figure because there is no time scale on the plot. But I believe that the reactor chamber, its housing, and the insulation used for the current investigations is the basically the same as the setup Alan Smith and crew used for examining the LION reactor, and I seem to recall that the time course of cooling was shown, complete with time scale, for that. Or perhaps Alan can tell us directly the exponential time constant for cooling of the nonfueled reactor in his experiments.

• The Lion work was done with a 'naked reactor. Current work is being done with the insulated reactors. I don't have the thermal data to hand- that lives in the lab, but I can tell you that the these reactors are within 1% of each other in terms of average energy demand, which is 121W/300C.

ETA- you would be wrong btw to try to determine much from any single given cooling curve - we have taken many, and they often display very different characteristics even though they have not been disturbed (except thermally) in the meantime. - the one we showed here was smooth, but others display 'step-down' behaviours, where the system sustains one temperature for a few moments, abruptly cools a few degrees and then plateaus again, steps down again and so on. And then that behaviour changes again. All very intriguing, an deeply heretical. Russ and I have a saying 'here comes the daily heresy', and sometimes it does.

• we have taken many, and they often display very different characteristics even though they have not been disturbed (except thermally) in the meantime. - the one we showed here was smooth, but others display 'step-down' behaviours, where the system sustains one temperature for a few moments, abruptly cools a few degrees and then plateaus again, steps down again and so on.

Are they all monotonic, or do you see increases?

• All that is between rapid availability (at some lower level of output) and where we are now is a few million dollars and a fair wind.

Oh, well. I figured that was too optimistic to believe in. Hope all goes well otherwise.

• Are they all monotonic, or do you see increases?

That too.

• Oh, well. I figured that was too optimistic to believe in.

To build a system producing MW would be a huge engineering challenge that might take \$500M and a decade- and would make little difference to what might be described as 'the balance of power. To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

• To build a system producing MW would be a huge engineering challenge that might take \$500M and a decade- and would make little difference to what might be described as 'the balance of power. To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

Got it. So, it seems that you will be out of funding for this goal, as most people don't care to save the poor. I was hoping you might be able to create a home sized device for water heating or general heating for a residence of 2-4 people. Electric production is far off in the horizon, yes?

• Well, we can only make within a near timeframe what the technology allows us to make, which (like Baldrick) we can also (probably) finance by the cunning plan of telling bedtime stories to sailors. However, in all seriousness the Paris/Kyoto clomate change accords step up a gear in 2020 and carbon credits will loom large in rich nations and poor ones. There will be new CO2 reduction/mitigation incentives that we hope will make wonderful things possible.

• However, in all seriousness the Paris/Kyoto clomate change accords step up a gear in 2020 and carbon credits will loom large in rich nations and poor ones. There will be new CO2 reduction/mitigation incentives that we hope will make wonderful things possible.

Sounds wondrous. I hope you the best of luck.

• To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

10 W would be just as good. It would transform the lives of people because it would convince many scientists and engineers that the effect is real, and they would take it from there. They can produce a practical device much more easily than you can. So there is no need for you to make it reach a semi-practical level of ~100 W.

A small device that produces milliwatt levels of heat would be enormously useful and valuable. Combined with a thermoelectric device it would be a good battery for a pacemaker, cell phone or other small device.

• They can produce a practical device much more easily than you can.

Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.

• Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.

This might sounds preposterous, Alan. But, have you considered pitching your idea to a philanthropic individual like Gates or Musk? I know it sounds kind of absurd but what do you think, given that your goal isn't fame, money, or status, although all or that might as well come with divulging all the details to said individual.

What do you think?

• We have discussed this of course, but we are attracting some interest already. My motto is never to chase money, it can run faster than I can. Just be patient, do the right thing and the money will come on its own. And generally with less strings than if you go 'cap in hand' to ask for it.

• Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.

That is because no one has shown really compelling evidence of lenr before. I know that saying this will get people's backs up but really ... it hasn't. And the lack of widespread interest is the proof.

A distinction should be drawn here between pure science and engineering. On the pure science front, an undeniable demonstration that lenr is real could involve the evolution of heat and associated radiation that works reliably not just in your hands but also in the hands of independent groups. The size of the effect isn't the core issue.

My question is, do you plan to link the pure science and engineering aspects of your work or do you see them as independent? For instance, would you delay releasing basic science information about your system (or sending it to independent labs) until you have engineered it into something you consider practically useful? Or do you intend to publish the basic science as fast as possible without regard to utility?

• That is because no one has shown really compelling evidence of lenr before. I know that saying this will get people's backs up but really ... it hasn't. And the lack of widespread interest is the proof.

A distinction should be drawn here between pure science and engineering. On the pure science front, an undeniable demonstration that lenr is real could involve the evolution of heat and associated radiation that works reliably not just in your hands but also in the hands of independent groups. The size of the effect isn't the core issue.

My question is, do you plan to link the pure science and engineering aspects of your work or do you see them as independent? For instance, would you delay releasing basic science information about your system (or sending it to independent labs) until you have engineered it into something you consider practically useful? Or do you intend to publish the basic science as fast as possible without regard to utility?

We are not yet at a point where this discussion -even internally - would be meaningful.

• We are not yet at a point where this discussion -even internally - would be meaningful.

To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

These two statements are a bit at odds.

Let me sophisticate my previous question a bit. If you are able to satisfy yourself that your present results are beyond artefact, would you then seek to publish them in a way that allows replication even before 1) understanding the mechanism or 2) engineering a useful system producing a few hundred watts?

I think you are at a stage where this question is at least meaningful, even if you haven't arrived at a decision yet.

• I think you are at a stage where this question is at least meaningful, even if you haven't arrived at a decision yet.

The question is meaningful, as you intended, but the discussion is not yet at that stage. We haven't arrived at a decision yet. As for replication, that would not necessarily require publication, but might be achieved in other ways. We haven't decided that yet either- frankly we are a bit too busy at the moment. I am 'on duty' with a colleague straight after after Sunday lunch today, I don't expect to be home in a hurry either, but that is not a complaint, merely an illustration of what I mean by 'busy'. And btw, I refute your suggestion that my two statements are 'at odds'. You can have goals even without following an orthodox route- we are not a big business run by plans and committees, but an agile if elderly group of individuals, working out how to do the never-before achieved and able to pivot at a moments notice if we want to. Beholden to nobody but ourselves and the planet..

• Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.

Of course not. They do not realize cold fusion exists. If they knew it was real, large corporations and well equipped universities would be studying and making great progress. Many of them did in the early 1990s, before the researchers grew old and retired.

Experts have demonstrated they have the talent, the skills and the tools to do this research and to make rapid progress. If you can convince them the effect is real, they will quickly catch up with you and then overtake you. That would not diminish your contribution.

• The question is meaningful, as you intended, but the discussion is not yet at that stage. We haven't arrived at a decision yet. As for replication, that would not necessarily require publication, but might be achieved in other ways. We haven't decided that yet either- frankly we are a bit too busy at the moment. I am 'on duty' with a colleague straight after after Sunday lunch today, I don't expect to be home in a hurry either, but that is not a complaint, merely an illustration of what I mean by 'busy'. And btw, I refute your suggestion that my two statements are 'at odds'. You can have goals even without following an orthodox route- we are not a big business run by plans and committees, but an agile if elderly group of individuals, working out how to do the never-before achieved and able to pivot at a moments notice if we want to. Beholden to nobody but ourselves and the planet..

Fair enough. However to the extent that the disclosure of basic science results is delayed by engineering aspirations, this all begins to sound like a familiar scenario from the lenr world. A scenario that so far has resulted in nothing of substance.

I am a basic scientist and have always published as soon as I thought I had a story that would hold up under scrutiny. That strategy produces results and generates innovation. But then I have always had the luxury of spending someone else's money (i.e., grants from public institutions). I've never had the nerve to do what you are doing and put personal finances on the line. I think that is admirable.

• Fair enough. However to the extent that the disclosure of basic science results is delayed by engineering aspirations, this all begins to sound like a familiar scenario from the lenr world. A scenario that so far has resulted in nothing of substance.

I am a basic scientist and have always published as soon as I thought I had a story that would hold up under scrutiny. That strategy produces results and generates innovation. But then I have always had the luxury of spending someone else's money (i.e., grants from public institutions). I've never had the nerve to do what you are doing and put personal finances on the line. I think that is admirable.

Bruce,

I hear you. I am also worried this may not play out as hoped. If that happens, it will be a real blow to morale. What encourages me is that Alan and Russ are very experienced at this, and that they are not going it alone. Many eyes are watching, some helping, so if there is some glaring error, it will be caught quickly, which would hopefully minimize some of the damage.

Crossing my fingers though. Alan did not start getting excited about what he was seeing until he had checked, and double checked everything. If he missed something obvious, that would be a surprise, considering his experience level. Same goes for Russ, and Martin, along with some of the visitors they have had. At this point, if they are excited...which they are, then so am I.

• I hope that Alan and Russ will decide very quickly and that decision will be for open science. If you really want to help humanity there is no other way you can do so.

I am very sorry but this story reminds me Mr. Rossi more and more. And heck everybody in the LENR field. He was quite open at the beginning but then become less while now he can't provide any detail.

Actually I think he provided more details than Alan and Russ. But result is same, there is basically nobody able to replicate it.

I pry for a miracle that will happen in this case. There is absolutely NO REASON to hold the details other than you want to earn \$\$\$.

I am just extremely happy because I found out similar stuff. I was able to replicate it for several times now. And I will provide all possible details for anyone that is interested right now. In the meantime I am preparing replication protocol.

I hope that money greed issue in LENR field will be solved once for all. Because with this attitude we can say RIP for LENR. Let's dig for oil!

There was wish for patience but for what reason? If you would like to share anything you would already did it. Very same is said by Mr. Rossi. Sadly for over 10 years, right?

• Thank you JohnyFive . Actually, I (and several others) don't think you are a genuine researcher at all, no pictures of your lab, nothing of substance at all has been produced. You have shown us less than 10% of the information I have shared. If you have information you want to share, share it here and now.

• RECIPE written just in 2 minutes:

1. Cathode: Get approx. 10x5x5 mm flake of Titanium sponge, preferably 99,9% purity - Sigma Aldrich or Alfa Aeasar will be fine for sure

2. Anode: Get Nickel Wire around 26AWG. 99% purity

3. Get D2O, preferably 99,9% purity

4. Get Lithium metal

5. Use nickel wire for attaching Titanium sponge at the top, so that nickel wire will be not immersed in D2O mixture.

6. Get LiOD from Li + D2O reaction, 100mg Li in 5ml D2O.

7. Use stabilized DC power supply (Cathode -, Anode +) and power it, let it run at around 0.5W for over 3 days.

8. Get a paper and put it above the cell so that vapor is trapped by it.

9. Get Pancake GM detector (I think Russian detectors are the best and cheap) and measure radiation of the paper after 3 days.

Almost guaranteed to work. This is just the beginning so that if you really want, you can replicate it now. No hesitation, no tricks.

Alan: Do you really think, that by showing lab you can really change the world? Just few lines like these are enough. If one can't believe, not mine problem. But for everybody else that really want LENR to materialize, this is good beginning.

• Quote

I hope that Alan and Russ will decide very quickly and that decision will be for open science. If you really want to help humanity there is no other way you can do so.

I am very sorry but this story reminds me Mr. Rossi more and more

I've been watching Rossi with increasing disgust since 2011 and I can guarantee you that, so far, there is no similarity whatsoever between what Alan is doing and what Rossi did. I'll be happy to let you know if a similarity develops. I have no idea whether Alan and Russ will end up contributing anything positive and worthwhile but for sure, they are nothing like Rossi thus far.

As for JohnyFive , these days, anyone with a phone can take and post razor sharp images. So please, pictures in detail or it didn't happen (just blur out small areas that might be the most proprietary). The software for that has also been available for decades.

• Fair enough. However to the extent that the disclosure of basic science results is delayed by engineering aspirations, this all begins to sound like a familiar scenario from the lenr world. A scenario that so far has resulted in nothing of substance.

I have no idea whether Alan and Russ will end up contributing anything positive and worthwhile but for sure, they are nothing like Rossi thus far.

In October there is the traditional Italian ISCMNS conference in Termi north-east of Roma.

May I ask all the impatient posters to wait for the regular communication and to accept/respect common traditions of science? There is absolutely no reason to exclusively satisfy some anonymous Forum posters with presenting them gold+ new knowledge.

If Russ's work shall be accepted as outstanding, we should allow him to repeat his experiments as often as needed, until he can throughly exclude, that any side-effects are spoiling his measurements.

From my point of view, even more important is the fact, that Russ's measurements confirm important parts of the new physical model for dense matter. As we all know theory is only as good as it is conform with experiments or can predict certain measurements, what happened.