ICCF21 Thread

  • Louis,


    We will have to agree to disagree in that case. We have been over this time and again, yet neither of us have changed our stance. I still believe you guys were mean, petty and politically motivated, while you believe you were just doing your duty after having concluded within 3 weeks, that CF was a pseudoscience.


    I don't necessarily disagree that there was some meanness and political motivation. After all, no one wants to see money spent on something they regard as futile. So that represents a political motivation. I think if the government considered funding flying pigs, then meanness and political motivation would be justified.


    My objection is claiming they were dishonest and corrupt, and their entire motivation was selfish. If we can agree that they really believed that the possibility that cold fusion was real was vanishingly small, then our only disagreement is on how forcefully they were entitled to express that view.

  • You may be satisfied with output at some fraction of the input, but as I said, I'm not.

    Ah, but you have no technical reason not to be satisfied. You cannot point to any weakness or reason to doubt the results because there is input power. Your "satisfaction" is mere emotion, without any rational justification. So it has no place in a technical discussion. You might as well say you reject the results because you don't like the color of the calorimeter cover.


    Your statement is also ignorant, like Garwin's objection which is impossible but if it were real, it would reduce the estimate of excess heat, not increase it.

  • [I wouldn't say the best . . .]


    Well you said "one of the best reports in the history of cold fusion"

    Ah, you bring out the English instructor in me (ESOL teacher). There is a difference between "the best" and "one of the best." The first refers to a set with only one member, as in "the president" or "the 20th century." The second refers to two or more things. In this case, it means there are other experiments as good as this.


    If you are a native speaker of English I am a little surprised you did not know that. Perhaps you did know this, but you are a troll, digging up silly reasons to argue and be disagreeable?


    Could you provide a link to your first denial that the ecat works?

    I don't recall. As I said, in one of my first reports -- and in many subsequent ones -- I said that Rossi refused to let me measure input and output, so I do not trust him. I often said that any businessman should run from the room upon encountering him. That turned out to be true! And, as I said, I described how he almost blew up the people from NASA. That seems like a pretty damning record to me, but apparently you think I was engaged in high praise. It makes me wonder what I would have to say about someone before you would say I am being critical.

  • Shane, here is what I said. You seem to think I accused Beiting of cheating or lying when I did the exact opposite.


    Quote

    Shane, it's an error, not a trick in the traditional sense of trying to deceive. Nobody is accusing Beiting of that.



    Shane wrote:
    Quote

    Really, I do not know where to start. But here goes, Louis claimed Beiting was tricking, or making stuff up, "to deceive", not me. You, I and THH know who Louis is, and his skeptical anti-LENR history. Right?

    No. Louis specifically did not say that. Nobody said that. There is no evidence whatever that Beiting is in any way dishonest. I am not clairvoyant. I don't know and I don't care who Louis is or who you are. Unless someone makes a claim by virtue of their training or experience, the facts are what matter, not who one thinks the person writing the post is.


    Quote

    And you have been saying that same thing about Celani for at least 3 years. You obviously missed it, but he responded to you long ago about your criticisms. Others here have pointed that out to you over time, but for some reason it has not registered with you.


    It has been said by several people in several places. Dr. Celani was kind enough to proffer some responses here and to describe his new research which is somewhat better. IIRC, he only went from one wire to four but he increased the twists in the wires. That's insufficient. Also, how the results of power out/power in for that experiment were not clear, again IIRC. I brought up Celani because his experiment is also one which could be made self-running if his results are valid.

  • Quote

    The output (power, that is) from burning wood or coal does not scale with the fuel.


    Sure it does. If I put more wood on a stove, it gets hotter. Of course, within limits until it uses more than the available oxygen or melts or whatever, and the scaling up is not linear in a real world stove. But of course it scales.


    Quote

    The energy of a modern variable yield nuclear bomb does not scale with the fuel. It varies from 0.3 to 80 kilotons (Wikipedia) with the same amount of fuel.


    That is a very strange example because a nuclear explosion is hardly designed to test whether or not nuclear fuel consumption scales. But it does. What happens in a variable yield thermonuclear bomb is that the amount of deuterium/tritium gas injected at detonation time can be varied. The number of neutrons produced by the primary is proportional to the amount of D and T. With more neutrons, more of the "fuel" is "consumed" (more matter is converted to energy). This device does scale.

    (I am no expert on this so if someone with an appropriate specialty is around, I'd appreciate corrections if needed)


    Are you suggesting that you don't/shouldn't expect more power output from a Celani reactor with twenty or a hundred wires than you would from one with a single wire? This particular scaling issue was raised quite a while ago. My memory may be faulty but I thought MFMP had said they would address it.


    Jed Rothwell wrote:

    Quote

    Not me. I stopped paying attention to him long before 5 years elapsed. I never trusted his input or output measurements because he refused to let me come and measure them, and he refused advice given by me and many others. I reported that soon after I first heard of him, and on every subsequent occasion when he refused advice, such as the time he almost blew up the people from NASA.


    Did you let the Swedish professors know of your concerns? How about Tom Darden before he signed up to give $11+ million to Rossi?


    (If this is straying too much, I'd be happy to move that last question to another thread as per admins)


    Finally, if a reactor was built that could make 100W for months without input power, it would be spectacular. It would resolve all doubts about some sort of nuclear process going on. How come such a thing has not been produced and provided for independent testing since 1993?

  • Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118. Granted, those were hours or days, not six months.


    So, no. This was ~100 W claimed for hours in 1993 using inferior calorimetry. But in 1994, McKubre's "replication" with better calorimetry got a watt or less with 10 W input. And in 2001 you lamented that researchers had not made the results stand out, and that Storms was planning a gala "One What / Watt? " party if he succeeded in getting one watt consistently. This almost 10 years after P&F claimed 100W.

  • Ah, but you have no technical reason not to be satisfied.


    Rothwell wrote:

    "Ah, but you have no technical reason not to be satisfied."


    If what he claims were true, it would be *technically* possible to prove it in a much simpler and more direct way. That's a technical argument. It is implausible that he wouldn't do so if he could. That is a human argument, but compelling anyway.


    After seeing the better part of the cold fusion community (including you) fooled to the tune of a factor of 6 by Rossi's claimed output power in a simpler experiment, it is a little rich to claim that Beiting couldn't possibly be making an error in power measurement of a few per cent.


    Beiting's claims are similar to McKubre's more than 20 years ago, except that he doesn't have an excuse not to close the loop. The world is not going to pay attention to repeated claims that never get better. When an isolated system produces heat more or less indefinitely, it will get attention.


    I don't know how magicians bend keys or spoons in contrived situations, and I don't really care, but I know that if they could really bend steel with their mind, they could easily prove it beyond any doubt, and would make practical use of it off the stage.


    I don't need to understand how every new claim of perpetual motion goes wrong to be skeptical, because if it really worked, unequivocal proof would be easy.


    It's ok if you want to spend the next 30 years like the last, every year hyping yet another claim of 1 watt out with 10 watts in, but if you want to get the attention of mainstream science, it's gonna take some progress -- preferably in the form of a self sustaining system. A new source of energy should not require an old source of energy to work.

  • Louis Reed wrote:

    "If his fuel were producing a watt of power from nuclear reactions, then 20 times that amount of fuel at the same temperature would produce 20 watts."


    That is certainly not a foregone conclusion! If only it were that simple. Some of the Japanese researchers are using 100 times more of this ZrO2NiPd fuel, made as closely as possible to the Beiting's fuel, yet they are getting zero output. Or less output than he is getting, for various reasons that are becoming clear.


    That does not contradict the conclusion. It indicates that the hypothetical (that the fuel is producing one watt from nuclear reactions) is probably wrong.

  • There is a difference between "the best" and "one of the best."


    Ah, so Beiting's work is still not as good as you once though Rossi's work was since you thought Rossi had "given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher" .


    Quote

    Louis Reed wrote:

    "Could you provide a link to your first denial that the ecat works?"


    I don't recall. As I said, in one of my first reports -- and in many subsequent ones -- I said that Rossi refused to let me measure input and output, so I do not trust him. I often said that any businessman should run from the room upon encountering him. That turned out to be true! And, as I said, I described how he almost blew up the people from NASA. That seems like a pretty damning record to me, but apparently you think I was engaged in high praise. It makes me wonder what I would have to say about someone before you would say I am being critical.


    I know you were often critical of Rossi, but you often defended him anyway, and argued for the reality of the ecat in spite of his foibles.


    Consider this from June 20, 2015:


    "I think it is a good idea to give him the benefit of the doubt. We all know he is controversial and he sometimes contradicts himself. He says odd things. Yet I think he is worth paying close attention to.


    "Many people blame him for the poor quality of the Lugano experiment. I doubt that he shares the blame. Both Levi et al. and Rossi insist that he had nothing to do with the design of the experiment, and no influence over how it was done after he assisted setting it up. I think that must be true, because the first set of experiments were done in his lab, where I assume he did have some influence, and those experiments were better than Lugano. His influence was beneficial. If they had done an improved version of those first experiments, it might have been a triumph."


    Sounds pretty supportive of Rossi.


    Or this from Aug 2015:


    "Yes, I have been critical of Lugano too, and so has Mike McKubre. But as far as I know Rossi had no say in the design or execution of that test. That is what the researchers who conducted the test said, and what Rossi said. I think it is unlikely they are lying. I regard the notion that he magically masterminded it as yet another unfounded conspiracy theory. Rossi can be annoying. He riles people, including me. I think that triggers these unfounded attacks, weird conspiracy theories, and web sites such as "shutdownrossi.com" He brings out the worst in people."


    So, critical of Rossi, and yet defending him at the same time.


    And as for whether the ecat works, as late as 27 Dec 2015, nearly 5 years from his first public demo, you were more or less convinced the ecat worked. Maybe a little less than in 2011/12, but still (emphasis, mine):


    "The only thing I know for sure about Rossi is that over the years several experts have tested his systems in his absence, and they have confirmed that the machines sometimes produce kilowatt levels of excess heat. They do not want to publish these findings, but I have seen them. They are based on conventional HVAC techniques, and at power levels easy to confirm, so I expect they are right. It seems to me that fact is more significant than Rossi's odd pronouncements on his blog. I do not know what to make of those pronouncements, but I do know what to make of flowing water, conventional flow meters, and thermocouples."

  • Here's hoping the lovely gammas that Norront Fusion (aka Olaffson and Holmlid) has offered a glimpse of are to put on a bit more of a show. Norront has a signal almost as lovely as atom-ecology lovely gammas though their hardware demands are considerably more onerous. Norront is being coy as they show but one of the many gamma peaks that are dancing daily here in Essex.

    So, no. This was ~100 W claimed for hours in 1993 using inferior calorimetry. But in 1994, McKubre's "replication" with better calorimetry got a watt or less with 10 W input. And in 2001 you lamented that researchers had not made the results stand out, and that Storms was planning a gala "One What / Watt? " party if he succeeded in getting one watt consistently. This almost 10 years after P&F claimed 100W.

    So what does this experimental data say, either Fleischmann was a master and McKubre sophomoric, or the titles were reversed. McKubre was always a man who could sell ice to Eskimos, I choose to believe in the old master.

  • Sure it does. If I put more wood on a stove, it gets hotter. Of course, within limits until it uses more than the available oxygen or melts . . .

    That's what I meant. You can regulate the power. The same is true of a cold fusion reaction. We do not know how to regulate it (control it) but from a given mass of fuel, it sometimes produces a lot of power, sometimes none at all, and sometimes it varies. It is like burning wet greenwood. It is hard to ignite and the fire flares up and dies down uncontrollably.


    I did not mean that the total available energy varies.


    Anyway, the metal (ZrO2NiPd in this case) is not the fuel. It is the catalyst. The power will depend on how much of the catalyst is active, and that is complicated. It may not be directly proportional to the mass of metal.

  • So, no. This was ~100 W claimed for hours in 1993 using inferior calorimetry.

    That was superb calorimetery.

    But in 1994, McKubre's "replication" with better calorimetry got a watt or less with 10 W input.

    It was not better, but that is irrelevant. The output of the reaction is not dependent on the quality of calorimetry. Also, that is a different technique. McKubre has also seen heat after death with zero input.

  • "Many people blame him for the poor quality of the Lugano experiment. I doubt that he shares the blame. Both Levi et al. and Rossi insist that he had nothing to do with the design of the experiment,

    Levi and Rossi still say that. There may be something about that in the lawsuit testimony, but I did not read those portions. Only the technical parts, which were depressing enough.


    "Yes, I have been critical of Lugano too, and so has Mike McKubre. But as far as I know Rossi had no say in the design or execution of that test. That is what the researchers who conducted the test said, and what Rossi said. I think it is unlikely they are lying.

    They still say that. Maybe they were lying. I don't know enough about them or the events to judge.


    The only thing I know for sure about Rossi is that over the years several experts have tested his systems in his absence, and they have confirmed that the machines sometimes produce kilowatt levels of excess heat. They do not want to publish these findings, but I have seen them.

    That is still the case. They confirmed. They do not wish to publish. I still have the summary report. It makes no sense that Rossi may have had something but he later committed fraud in Florida, but that seems to be the case. The Penon report is a crude attempt at fraud.



    Did you let the Swedish professors know of your concerns


    Yes, I did. Also Levi. And Rossi, many times. None of them responded to me.


    How about Tom Darden before he signed up to give $11+ million to Rossi?


    I am not sure when he gave the $11 million but I do not think I ever heard of him or I.H. until after that happened. He has never asked me about investments.

  • Jean Paul Biberian have published the Day 2 report of ICCF21

    here is the google translation


    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogde-jeanpaulbiberian.blogspot.com%2F2018%2F06%2Fmardi-5-juin-2eme-journee-iccf21-fort.html&sandbox=1


    This second day was dedicated to heat measurements, transmutations, ion beams and theories.

    Tanzella from SRI, "Nanosecond Pulses in the Ni-H2 system". He studied the system developed by Brillouin society. The theory explaining excess heat is to assume a controlled electronic capture. The cell consists of a ceramic tube with a copper deposit on one side and a nickel deposit on the other. They send between these two layers of electrical impulses of high voltage and very short. Excess heat occurs from 350 volts. An excess of heat of 5 watts was measured for 3 hours under a pressure of 8 to 10 atmospheres.

    Swartz , "Aqueous and Nanostructured of Main Parameters for AHE Generation in Sub-Microscopic Materials Measurements by Isoperibolic and Air Flow Calorimetry". He reminded that at ICCF10, he had given a recipe to reproduce excess heat in electrolyses with heavy water. For him, for a reaction to occur, there must be no bubbles. They obtained an excess of 70Watts with a COP of 3 to 4. He also explained that by Raman spectroscopy, heat occurs when anti-stokes are present. That is, when the energy of incident light receives that of a phonon.

    Celani , "" Steps to Identification of Main Parameters for AHE Generation in Sub-Microscopic Materials Measurements by Isoperbolic and Air-Flow Calorimetry. "He used constantan wires (Cu, Ni, Mo). It adds nodes with the same wire to create temperature gradients, and the chemical composition of the wire changes along the wire because of the knots.

    Staker . "Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium Isotopic Hydrogen System". For him, hydrogen induces gaps in many metals and alloys of the type: Pd3Vac1H4. He showed that in addition to the alpha and beta phases of hydrogen in palladium there existed the gamma phase Pd7Vac1H8 and delta Pd3Vac1H4 which are constituted with regular gaps. It got a 1.2Watt excess of heat with 1.2Watt of input, a COP of 2.

    Beiting . "Investigation of the Nickel-Hydrogen Anomalous Heat Effect". He works for an aerospace association. She recalled that NASA has developed a Sterling engine to turn heat from radioactive sources into electricity. It would be enough to replace this source by a Cold Fusion generator. He made a Ni-Pd-ZrO2 powder similar to that of the Japanese, and obtained excellent results. It got heat equivalent to it from the Japanese, although its calorimetry is actually thermometry. He is making a real calorimeter.

    Biberian . "Anomalous Isotopic Composition of Silver in a Palladium Electrode". I explained how by dynamic SIMS I got a concentration profile of money showing that mass 107 is probably the only one present on a depth of 1um.

    Fomatcheh-Zamilov . "Synthesis of lanthanides on Nickel Anode". A 20keV electron beam is sent to a target of different materials in a hydrogen atmosphere. The goal is to make neutrons as Sternglass had pretended to do. For this, the authors have developed a very sensitive neutron detector. Despite their efforts, they did not find any neutrons above background noise. A detailed study of Sternglass's measurements showed that his measurements were not statistically significant. They analyzed the nickel anode and found lanthanides, but it turned out that it was due to impurities.

    Vysotskii. "Biological Transmutations". He recalled the work of Kervran who holds a primary place in this area because of the amount of work he has done. He recalled that for Kervran, some of the reactions like K + p -> Ca is reversible, indicating that some are exo and some endothermic. He recalled his work on the production of iron by the reaction: Mn-55 + d -> Fe-57 which he analyzed by the Mossbauer technique and also by mass spectrometry. Since he works on radioactive products with Cs-137 -> Ba-138. The best results are obtained with a culture medium containing CaCO3.



    Nikitin . "Impact of Effective Microorganisms on the Activity of Cs-137 in Soil from the Exclusion Zone of Chernobyl". In Belarus, since 1996, collaboration has begun with Japan to clean Chernobyl radioactivity with microorganisms. They were used in liquid and solid form placed in the soil. Cs-137 and Sr-90 have dropped. Laboratory experiments were done to ensure that the decline in radioactivity was not simply due to the diffusion of products deeper into the soil. Laboratory measurements confirmed previous measurements.

    Olafson . "What is Rydberg and Ultra Dense Hydrogen?". Bose-Einstein condensation was made with rubidium and potassium atoms on one surface to form Rydberg states. The distance between the ultra-dense atoms is 2 to 3 μm. The electrical resistance is quantized and falls to 1ohm.

    Zeiner-Gunderson . "Hydrogen Reactor for Matte Rydberg and Ultra Dense Hydrogen A Replication of Leif Holmid". The previous experience in Iceland was reproduced in Norway in a vacuum chamber equipped with a laser and a time-of-flight detector with an arm of 1 meter and 2.36 meters. He measured the presence of pi mesons and neutrons when the laser beam is sent to the surface containing the Rydberg atoms.



    Czerski . "Influence of Crystal Lattice Defects and the Threshold Resonance on the Deuteron-Deuteron Reaction Rates at Room Temperature".A deuterium ion beam is sent on metal targets: Al, Zr, Ta. A screening effect occurs which amplifies the reaction measurements up to 2 times more than predicted by the theory without introducing screening.

    Li . "Resonant Surface Capture Model". With this resonance model, the cross sectional curve of the reaction p + Li-6 -> He-3 + He-4 and d + Li-6 -> 2 He-4 was calculated with a single adjustable parameter .

    Paillet-Meulenbberg . "On Highly Relastivitic Electrons". When the electron falls to a deep level, because of the relativistic effects, its probability of doing so is of the order of 2x10 ^ -9. The femtometric atom is similar to a neutron that can react with other atoms. At these levels, the energy is of the order of 100 MeV. The presented model solves the problem of Heisenberg uncertainty applied to the kernel.

    Stevenson . "Isotope Effects Beyond the Electromagnetic Force H-1 and H-2 in Palladium Exhibiting LENR". This is the first participation of this researcher. She developed a model assuming that a deuterium atom is transformed into a di-neutron.

    Blake . "Understanding LENR Using QST". A model has been developed assuming that the nucleus is composed of neutrons and protons having a form of buckyball. The binding between two buckyballs is done either by hexagons or pentagons. The loss of mass corresponding to the lost part corresponds to the binding energy.

  • It's ok if you want to spend the next 30 years like the last, every year hyping yet another claim of 1 watt out with 10 watts in, but if you want to get the attention of mainstream science, it's gonna take some progress -- preferably in the form of a self sustaining system. A new source of energy should not require an old source of energy to work.


    Bang on! The social history of LENR seems to consist of people being unable to make progress and then claiming it is because they are victims of a conspiracy.

  • What I see is people making progress despite oppositions from some, and those progress being ignored, often even by peers.

    Sincerely for a thousand time less important results, you get published in Nature, Science, NyT, SciAm...

  • My objection is claiming they were dishonest and corrupt, and their entire motivation was selfish. If we can agree that they really believed that the possibility that cold fusion was real was vanishingly small, then our only disagreement is on how forcefully they were entitled to express that view.


    LR,


    You are talking about your colleagues behavior in the immediate aftermath of FPs announcement. All I will say is that from my reading, the whole episode reflected poorly on mainstream science. It showed me even the smartest can misbehave. I won't call it "dishonest and corrupt", but I can understand how those on the brunt end, have, and probably will continue to describe their treatment from the science community in those terms.


    Had they given CF more time to sort itself out before burying it, we would by now either have a new energy source, or know for certain there was nothing to it. And I do not see how their believing the odds of it being real as "vanishingly small", should have any bearing on their desire to study it, and for how long. As it is, the few weeks they granted it a hearing, was what in reality was vanishingly small.

  • Bang on! The social history of LENR seems to consist of people being unable to make progress and then claiming it is because they are victims of a conspiracy.


    Bruce,


    "They", as in those doing legitimate LENR science (not the Rossi's) do not say there is a conspiracy against them. What they do complain about is the stigma surrounding the field, and in many cases, being treated harshly by their colleagues for pursuing LENR. Skeptics take their legitimate complaints, and spin it into their being conspiracy theory types. Makes them sound paranoid, and plays back into the stigma thing. Your post actually is a good example of what these researchers have had to endure, simply because they pursue something they are curious, and passionate about.


    The fact is that almost everyone doing the research has encountered push back in one way or another from the science community. The early days were well documented, with books, and news articles written, about careers destroyed, and warnings of "career suicide" to those wanting to enter the field.


    You want a recent example?...how about Beiting at this ICCF 21. His higher ups were at Utah during the FPs period, and have a negative view of CF. They did not want him to do this experiment, but after persisting, they granted him "one shot". These guys have had a tough time of it; that is all. No conspiracies. For that go on over to JONP.

  • Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118. Granted, those were hours or days, not six months.


    Error in the above pointed out in:


    SRNL-STI-2012-00678. K. L. Shanahan, "A Realistic Examination of Cold Fusion Claims 24 Years Later" - not peer reviewed, but I'm open to any questions or technical criticisms. http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf or https://www.osti.gov/biblio/10…fusion-claims-years-later

  • Quote

    "We also observed that the excess power generation was sustainable with power level of 10-24 W for more than one month period, using PNZ6 (Pd1Ni10/ZrO2) sample of 120g at around 300℃. "

    If the heat is of nuclear origin, what stopped it? Certainly not complete consumption of fuel! Also, what was P(out)/P(in) for those tests?


    Shane D.

    Even if academia is making it difficult by threats and intimidation to conduct LENR research, don't forget the immense financial incentive. Entrepreneurs don't give a sh*t what academics do within universities if they can see a potential financial gain. Nothing has ever stopped LENR researchers from entrepreneurial support. The case that academia as a whole suppresses LENR research is both mainly wrong and a complete red herring. Perfect example: http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/kimmel.html

    involves an entrepreneur and a university and I don't recall anyone complaining about it from any source.


    Quote
    • Had they given CF more time to sort itself out before burying it, we would by now either have a new energy source, or know for certain there was nothing to it. And I do not see how their believing the odds of it being real as "vanishingly small", should have any bearing on their desire to study it, and for how long. As it is, the few weeks they granted it a hearing, was what in reality was vanishingly small


    But even if academia decided early on that cold fusion did not work, the same is not true of large companies. Several funded the work at reasonably high levels (millions) for two decades and then they gave up because they could not see much possibility that it would eventually be proven to work. But even now, a few continue to fund it.


    Proponents of cold fusion and LENR seem to make three errors again and again. The first is underestimating the huge value, social and especially financial, of even a modest LENR heater that worked. That value means that highly promising results would never be given up yet most research in the field has been given up, strongly suggesting that the work doesn't convince many people. Second, nobody seems to be able to focus on the need for just one or a few demonstrations which will impress the scientific community and the public and can be independently and credibly replicated and measured by those not directly involved in the field. And finally is the third error, the claim that research is somehow being suppressed because of prejudice and ill will. Nothing stops anyone from getting money for this work. Look how easily a rank and obvious phony like Rossi, with his history of nothing but crimes and failures, managed to get millions. And the Associated Press sent someone to cover Rossi's first megawatt demo but no article was ever written, not because of prejudice but because that demo was crap. After that, why would they bother to cover Rossi again?

  • This was marvelous:


    E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,” Aerospace Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo CA, USA, May 15, 2017.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…8/05/Beiting-Edward-1.pdf

    Quoting from the paper: "

    Time-integrating the excess power to obtain an excess energy and normalizing to the 20 gram mass of the ZrO2 NiPd sample yields a specific energy of 173 MJ/kg. Assuming that the active material is the 5.44g of Ni+Pd yields a specific energy of 635 MJ/kg. For comparison, the highest specific energy of a hydrocarbon fuel (methane) is 55.5 MJ/kg. The highest chemical specific energy listed [see Energy Density in Wikipedia] is 142 MJ/kg for hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. Based on these results, it is unlikely that the source of heat energy was chemical in origin."


    The ratio above chemical processes is much larger than this, as the heat of combustion of the fuels does not include the mass of the oxidizing part of the reaction. Fuel cannot give up its energy without combustion, which includes the mass of the oxidizer.
    uoting

  • There he is folks, warts and all. Big defender, and apologist for the hot fusion community, which he is now, and has long been, a part of. He goes by many names, except his real one. Picked the perfect time to crash the ICCF 21 party, so as to most effectively dampen expectations.

    You put "to deceive" in quotes, but I did not use those words. I called it a trick because many people are tricked by it, including the scientists themselves. Many CF experiments use small amounts of the active material, and then claim high energy or power density, but those words (energy per unit volume (or mass)) suggest more energy with more volume or mass. But as McKubre laments in his abstract for ICCF, nothing scales in this field. So, I submit the entire cold fusion cast has been tricked by this kind of bumbling in the lab. McKubre is right. Until someone can show the sort of scaling that made Marie Curie and Lavoisier famous, the world will continue to ignore cold fusion.


    Shane:not sure who you are referring to here. But your post is an ad hom not addressing substance.


    Louis Reed: the scaling (or rather lack of it) issue in CF excess heat results is indeed troubling for anyone wanting to claim that these results are caused by some otherwise unrecognised exothermic reaction with high energy density. The results scale exactly as you would expect calorimetry errors on two axes:


    • Scaling with reactant size
    • Scaling with reactor insulation


    If they are due to a reaction you would expect results independent of insulation (which should cause input power to scale down for given temperature but have no affect on output power). I've seen no such scaling. Jed will correct me if I've missed something. Of course the much desired (because clear) limit of this is a very high specific energy reaction with heat output higher than (natural) losses and temperature stabilised by temperature-dependent passive cooling, sustained for a long enough period to eliminate all chemical causes. Every reason to expect this possible if LENR is a nuclear exothermic reaction.


    In fact I remember MFMP taking on board this issue and designing a calorimeter with 1/3 the thermal conductance of previous efforts and other parameters the same hoping to show some excess heat results scaled properly. I applauded that only I have heard nothing of the results, from which I expect they were negative or for some reason these experiments were not conducted?


    If they are due to a reaction you would expect output to scale with reactant volume or surface area (similar of powder) independent of power input.


    All skeptics would need is a replicable system that obeyed this sort of scaling. Equally, if it is not seen on replication that is a sign that the original results are not an exothermic reaction.


    For the LENR community to react to negative comments such as this observation by LR with anything other than engagement and acceptance of the general argument (while perhaps finding specific excuses I'm not aware of that would reduce its force) is regrettable. Too much like Rossi for my taste (but perhaps, as I'd hope, there is no such reaction). For example, those with info could highlight from the ICCF21 reports the experimental data that remains valid independently of this powerful, but specific, criticism.


    THH

  • Quoting from the paper: "

    Time-integrating the excess power to obtain an excess energy and normalizing to the 20 gram mass of the ZrO2 NiPd sample yields a specific energy of 173 MJ/kg. Assuming that the active material is the 5.44g of Ni+Pd yields a specific energy of 635 MJ/kg. For comparison, the highest specific energy of a hydrocarbon fuel (methane) is 55.5 MJ/kg. The highest chemical specific energy listed [see Energy Density in Wikipedia] is 142 MJ/kg for hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. Based on these results, it is unlikely that the source of heat energy was chemical in origin."


    The ratio above chemical processes is much larger than this, as the heat of combustion of the fuels does not include the mass of the oxidizing part of the reaction. Fuel cannot give up its energy without combustion, which includes the mass of the oxidizer.
    uoting


    Dan, the first thing I'd want to check with those Beiting results is whether all the calorimetry errors had been fully nailed. The excess heat is only 7.5%, and could be generated artifactually by that order of change in total thermal resistance etc (this might have radiative and convective components, both of which could change). Controls rely on assumptions that all relevant conditions remain the same, and those can be challenged. So the details there are important ad I'd await their publication in detail before drawing any conclusions.

  • The fact is that almost everyone doing the research has encountered push back in one way or another from the science community. The early days were well documented, with books, and news articles written, about careers destroyed, and warnings of "career suicide" to those wanting to enter the field.


    What would you suggest to someone who wishes to push forward in studying homeopathy or the effects of star alignment at birth on personality? I would hope you would say that there is little reason to think these things are real and that one could put a career at risk trying to prove them.


    So the mere fact that someone is discouraged from further research on a topic or advised to stay away from a field for the sake of their career is not mainstream science misbehaving. It is just being reasonable ... based on the evidence.


    LENR needs to come up with the goods. Then people will no longer be discouraged from entering the field.


  • THH,


    I would think that if you presented that argument to those at the ICCF, they would not have a problem with it. I think there is this impression that those in the field reject criticisms, and have withdrawn into their own little world where they rubber stamp each others work without question. From what I have read going back to the earliest conferences, it is just the opposite. They have begged mainstream to look at what they do, and critique it. Only a few have taken them up on their offer....


    A good early example of that is when McKubre/Tanzella at SRI, invited Garwin and Lewis in 1993 to their lab to find fault. They found none. Coincidentally, the latest example of that was when the very same Garwin, was asked by Beiting's employer, The Aerospace Corporation, to check his results. He found none. There was also the recent BEC replication by SRI where they brought in a 3rd party to check everything, yet it still created excess heat.


    Another point is that many of these positive results are coming from teams. The Japanese NEDO experiment is a classic example of that, the SRI/BEC another. They want to be cross-checked, and double checked, and since the mainstream rejects them, they turn a critical eye on each other using these teams. They want someone to find fault if one exists. They are not trying to hide from peer review...they seek it.


    I think it time you skeptics give the field some credit for their openness, and quality of science being produced, even though they are still roundly stigmatized as whack jobs, and "bad scientists".

  • They are not trying to hide from peer review...they seek it.


    The problem is they are looking for peer review.... what they often receive is innuendo and accusations flung at them! There is a difference between positive critique and animosity.


    What would you suggest to someone who wishes to push forward in studying homeopathy or the effects of star alignment at birth on personality?


    This is kind of what I am talking about. No one has EVER shown ANY scientific data indicating star alignment affects personality. MANY have shown scientific data showing some type of heat reaction. This is not critique, it is "shaming" and ridiculing.


    Shanahan has a theory. He has presented it. This is good. Several have countered his theory. He states LENR crowd REFUSES to accept his theory, yet he REFUSES to accept theirs. It has now become a pissing contest.


    One suggestion I would give him is this... first recognize that he is simply critiquing experiments he has NEVER performed himself. Come to the table with a little humble pie. When a LENR researchers does not agree with him, he should provide a specific and testable method to prove his theory with THIER setup.


    The researcher should also take Shanahan's theory seriously and consider it. I believe some have. McKubre recently responded in a civil and intelligent manner. If Shanahan does not agree, he should design a specific experiment to prove it.


    In my opinion "arm chair" theorist do NOT trump legitimate research experiments, with published data, published results and most importantly repeated and/or replicated experiments.


    Now, LENR in general is weak in replications. Very weak. Stronger in repeated experiments by the same researcher. Fairly impressive in the number of legitimate groups reporting success. We still do not have a "lab rat" reactor however.


    What we need is for critics and researchers to stop bashing each other. They CAN work together if they are open and unbiased.

    (Some simply cannot give up their bias though! )


    THH generally has a very good attitude. He questions, but politely and with specifics. I have not seen him be accusatory in an improper manner. I believe he strives to understand the situation and pass on his understanding more than "win the argument".


    However, it is much easier to criticize than to develop a workable proof! It is easy for me to state that "I am not confident in a particular set of test results because of "X" reason". It is more difficult to then state, "to avoid "X" reason, modify your specific test by implementing these specific changes." That will then fix the problem.


    You want someone to believe you? Tell them how to do an experiment to prove your point and counter theirs. If the experiment can be carried out, then that should settle the argument.


    I.E. I do not want to read another argument about a *(&^$%#^ bucket of water evaporating! Tell them to simply put a lid on the bucket! 8|;)   

  • @ShaneD


    ROFLSHIH


    Kirk,


    Your situation is a little different from what I was talking about, so do not take my post as a rejection of what you felt you were subjected to. You view the LENR field through your own bitter experience, so think it is outrageous I praise their openness to outside peer review. Understandable.


    But on the whole, I stand by what I said about the field. They do welcome, and encourage outside critique.

  • This is kind of what I am talking about. No one has EVER shown ANY scientific data indicating star alignment affects personality. MANY have shown scientific data showing some type of heat reaction. This is not critique, it is "shaming" and ridiculing.


    This is not the picture you will get from people in the homeopathic or astrology community. They would highly resent your saying that no one has ever shown data indicating that star alignment affects personality and would lead you to cherry picked studies showing just that. The same (only more so) for homeopathy. Every community is certain it has evidence and are mightily insulted if you are sceptical. And of course the same communities will have tales of the arrogance of mainstream science and how they ignore the evidence etc.


    I have a very difficult time separating these obviously dubious fields from LENR. In the end only solid replicated results will suffice.