How to make LENR technology a reality

  • Jed, and many others are missing a very important point about replication.


    “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.


    Nothing is ever that simple in LENR Roseland! :) Did you read McKubre's article I linked to? He and Jed make some very good points. In LENR, things do change, and there are so many unknowns. There are replications BTW, by every meaning of the definition. Read on.

  • Nothing is ever that simple in LENR Roseland! :) Did you read McKubre's article I linked to? He and Jed make some very good points. In LENR, things do change, and there are so many unknowns. There are replications BTW, by every meaning of the definition. Read on.

    Shane,


    Sorry to say amigo, for LENR to go anywhere, I believe it’s going to have to be.


    Tedious, relentless experimenting.


    (Eliminate the unknowns 1 by 1, until there are none and every experiment gets the same results, that is replication).


    I also believe it will,

    and hopefully in my lifetime

  • “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.

    Obviously. But just because there is variation in output, that does not mean it is not science. That means it is new science. Science in the making.


    As I said, the failure rate for transistors in the 1950s was 50% for some devices, and over 90% for others. Yet semiconductor science was science. It was new science. To clone Dolly the sheep, over a thousand attempts had to be made. Reproducibility was less than 0.1%. But no one would say that wasn't science. (Okay, maybe you would say that, if you apply the same standard you do in cold fusion.)


    The failure rate for U.S. rockets in the late 1950s was very high. Vanguard rockets often exploded or failed in other ways. Even today, after hundreds of billions have been invested in rocket technology, rockets often explode or go out of control. Two of the Space Shuttles were lost to accidents. This is highly unreliable, unpredictable technology. A great deal about it is not known. Yet I do not think you would say that rocket science is not science, or that rockets do not exist.


    Reproducibility has improved a great deal in cold fusion. It will improve tremendously if the $250 million robotic project is funded and it works. Cold fusion will not improve unless it is funded and unless academic freedom is restored and people who study it are not fired or threatened with deportation.


  • You are probably right Rose. Unfortunately, that takes money, acceptance, and mainstream participation to accomplish quickly. Neither of which the field has had, so guess we will continue on the slow road.

  • “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.

    Perhaps Jed is suggesting a new theorem explaining Lenr experiment nonrepeatability, RUP (Rothwell Uncertainty Principle). But i would admit not every test has to have the same result. Just statistically significant differences not explainable by chance.

  • Just statistically significant differences not explainable by chance.

    The control factors for cold fusion are well understood. They are shown in the McKubre equation. There is no chance the heat can be explained by chance. It is difficult to achieve exactly the same level of loading and other control factors, but when you do achieve them, you get the same level of heat, in different labs, with different calorimeter types. That cannot be a coincidence.

  • Jed why are you so stuck on Pascal? I used it a long time ago but it really hasn't been used much in thirty years. Are you programming on a vintage 386 using Borland Turbo Pascal under DOS?

    I am stuck on it because I know it well, and the latest version is full featured and free. I don't program professionally any more. The latest version works well with Windows, mac OS, iOS, and Android. It has hundreds of features that I don't need, along with everything I do need. There is a functionally equivalent C++ version, with the same library. See:


    https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools


    It is actually descended from Borland Turbo Pascal. It has about 3 million users, according to the company.

  • I am stuck on it because I know it well, and the latest version is full featured and free. I don't program professionally any more. The latest version works well with Windows, mac OS, iOS, and Android. It has hundreds of features that I don't need, along with everything I do need. There is a functionally equivalent C++ version, with the same library. See:


    https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools


    It is actually descended from Borland Turbo Pascal. It has about 3 million users, according to the company.


    We use Pascal at work too and no plan to leave that platform. We also code in C++, Java so we know alternatives but find the Pascal quite good for it's task.

  • The Japanese Technova project is forging ahead, excellent paper here.


    Excess heat evolution from nanocomposite samples under exposure to
    hydrogen isotope gases

    Abstract Anomalous heat effect by interaction of hydrogen isotope gas and metal nanocomposites
    supported by zirconia or by silica has been examined. Observed absorption and heat evolution at RT
    were not too large to be explained by some chemical processes. At elevated temperatures of 200 ~ 300
    °C, most samples with binary metal nanocomposites produced excess power of 3 ~ 24 W lasting for up
    to several weeks. The excess power was observed not only in the D-Pd⋅Ni system but also in the H-Pd⋅Ni
    system and H-Cu⋅Ni system, while single-element nanoparticle samples produced no excess power. The
    Pd/Ni ratio is one of the keys to increase the excess power. The maximum phase-averaged excess heat
    energy exceeded 270 keV/D, and the integrated excess heat energy reached 100 MJ/mol-M or 90
    MJ/mol-H. It is impossible to attribute the excess heat energy to any chemical reaction; it is possibly due
    to radiation-free nuclear process.
    Index Terms − D2-gas, H2–gas, palladium-nickel, nanocomposite, excess, heat



    InternationalJHydrogenEnergy LENR Akuto.pdf

  • I, for one, hate to see criminals enriched by their crimes and even respected for them. Rossi has bamboozled many people peripheral to LENR with detrimental results. For example, there is this paper linked below which prominently includes his work (pp 29-31) and thereby places all the rest of the content in doubt. Rossi was originally cited by name in that paper. Several U of I alumni objected and the author edited out Rossi's name. But he still left in the drivel about "energy catalyzer" and ecat and Rossi's lame photos of his early ecats, complete with their chintzy insulation and huge electrical heaters.


    http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%…%20condensed%20matter.pdf


    SOT,


    The author (Ragheb), did not display Rossi's early energy catalyzer "prominently". It was one of the last of the experiments he reviewed, and seems to write it off as a HO fuel cell. If anything, he downplays it. Maybe because of the peer pressure from UI alumni, as you claim...I would not know.


    Besides that, it was a good read. It is a new paper (dated 8/1/2018), but reads mostly like the majority was written years ago. Ragheb has been on the LENR for a long time, so that would not be surprising. He writes mostly about the older experiments/theories, of Patterson/SPAWAR/BEC/Widom. He does include Safire however, which happened last year, so maybe this triggered an update.

  • Quote

    The author (Ragheb), did not display Rossi's early energy catalyzer "prominently". It was one of the last of the experiments he reviewed, and seems to write it off as a HO fuel cell. If anything, he downplays it. Maybe because of the peer pressure from UI alumni, as you claim...I would not know.


    The article had Rossi in a much more prominent place and his name was in several places. So, BTW, were Brillouin and dare I say it, Defkalion or defecalion or whatever it was. Only because of several letter written by someone I know and others did the author change Rossi's prominence but he did not delete that silliness altogether. It has no place in his paper! Including it that way makes him a (deleted-by-author-to-please-admins_). Rossi also was prominently featured in a class syllabus, not sure if it still is, I don't follow it that closely unless people email me stuff.


    Actually, several more letters about this paper and the guy's class outline are being prepared for the Provost of the university and the head of the department of physics. One of those letters is by an alum and the other by a former assistant dean of the school. And I am sure there are more I don't know about. It's also being pursued with licensing organizations and attorneys general. Some people take Rossi's miscreant statements and claims to be a much more severe thing than is usual around here. Rossi has violated law and usual practice and continues to do so. Maybe someone will nick him for it. I wish Darden had the intestinal fortitude to do it. Or perhaps Dewey.

  • SOT,


    Thank you for the behind the scenes account. Interesting, and good to know, but the reason I put your post under this thread, was more so for the content of Ragheb's article...not the politics. But then again, LENR is equal parts politics, science, so maybe this is a good place for it.


    My main concern is for the author. Understandably some alumni, and your *friend* would take exception with adding the passage on Rossi's Ecat. I would also in their shoes. Maybe not forcefully, but fill him in on what the Doral court documents revealed about Rossi's integrity, then leave it up to him to edit out what he wanted. Without knowing the politics behind however, the average reader would not make much of what he put in his report about the Ecat. They would glance over it, see he dismissed it, and that would be the end of it. The authors integrity intact. I would hope those now informed of the "rest of the story" would not prejudice him , after having read your inside scoop.


    On to Brillouin (BEC); I think it unfair to lump them in with in with the likes of Rossi, and Defkalion. Totally different creatures. Robert Godes has twice now, had one of the finest research institutions in the country (SRI) do an independent validation of his Q-Pulse system. Both times they succeeded not only in replicating, but in doing so in their own lab, and multiple times. That to me puts them in their own category. That does not mean they are perfect as you will no doubt point out, but they have at least checked some blocks Rossi never has, nor ever will check.


    Taking that into account, Ragheb would have been negligent by not including them in his article. Same goes for the others. Someone needs to brave the critics, and sometime the alumni, and talk about all those doing the research.


    If there are other developments, please keep us informed.