most shocking part is that it was a company, not a crazy inventor type individual, which was unable to perform power input measurement while making a serious x2 over-unity claim. What are the odds that their mistake is behind most of the claims of excess heat? Zatelepin from Russia mentioned that they only saw anomalous heat in experiments heated by electricity all attempt to sue chemical heat source were null.
LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.
-
-
Getting back to the theme of this thread, see:
Solar and wind energy provide almost 10 percent of total generation in the US in 2019
https://www.renewableenergywor…ration-in-the-us-in-2019/
Sources:
https://www.eia.gov/electricit…e_grapher.php?t=epmt_es1a
-
US has some catching up to do. Figures for the UK..
https://www.theguardian.com/bu…uels-in-uk-for-first-time
Wind 20%
Nuclear 20%
Biomass 12%
Solar 6%
Massive push for offshore wind power going on. Bids for some new offshore wind farms are coming in at close to the current wholesale price of electricity making them essentially subsidy free.
-
US has some catching up to do. Figures for the UK..
I read somewhere that the UK went for an entire day without burning any coal. For the first time in hundreds of years.
Only about 5% of U.K. electricity is from coal. It is around 30% in the U.S. It was 60% not long ago. It is surprising how quickly it has changed. Power company execs say that power plants are a long term investment and they have to plan out 50 years . . . but the trends with coal make me think that is somewhat exaggerated.
-
Anyone done the numbers comparing dense hydrogen chemistry (Hydrino) estimates, advanced 4th gen fission and realistic LENR estimates? Using numbers found online of course.
-
most shocking part is that it was a company, not a crazy inventor type individual, which was unable to perform power input measurement while making a serious x2 over-unity claim. What are the odds that their mistake is behind most of the claims of excess heat? Zatelepin from Russia mentioned that they only saw anomalous heat in experiments heated by electricity all attempt to sue chemical heat source were null.
Companies can be sloppy in evaluating tech stuff, just as individuals can. After all, companies rely on the opinions of individuals to do this.
The point here is that 200% over unity is a red flag that should have led to careful and skeptical investigation of claims before they are accepted.
LENR is the one field where (often) this does not happen because everyone involved has convinced themselves that over-unity heat production is already scientifically proven, in spite of it not being replicable by well-funded and well disposed groups like TG.
I'll put out a firm prediction. Brillouin - with SRI validated apparent strong excess heat from a system that however is complex and easily to mis-measure due to transient and EMI issues - will discover on proper total energy in/out testing that their q pulse system is not actually over-unity.
My beef; most people seeing over unity results bust a gut to tighten up and validate measurements.
LENR people seeing over unity results rest on whatever measurements have generated them without significant investigation or cross-checks, instead putting all efforts into making arbitrary changes to optimise the results.
-
And an even firmer prediction: That whatever results Brillouin or their independent assessors put out, THH will making claims of mismeasurement in long form.
-
LENR people seeing over unity results rest on whatever measurements have generated them without significant investigation or cross-checks, instead putting all efforts into making arbitrary changes to optimise the results.
That is a broad and sweeping generalisation without foundation. The use of control samples is normal for all science, LENR included.
-
Or maybe BEC need to increase their low probability of producing ultra dense hydrogen in their hot tube reactor systems in the light of Holmlid/Norront Fusion's recent work - without dense hydrogen cluster formation it now seems the probability of LENR or excess heat production is very low.
-
The point here is that 200% over unity is a red flag that should have led to careful and skeptical investigation of claims before they are accepted.
LENR is the one field where (often) this does not happen because everyone involved has convinced themselves that over-unity heat production is already scientifically proven, in spite of it not being replicable by well-funded and well disposed groups like TG.
One could easily counter argue that the exact opposite happens with people that have already convinced themselves that no over unity heat production has ever been scientifically proven and that its impossible.
That leads to blanket rejection without further enquiry, yet we have overunity claims that have not been able to be denied and have been dismissed even without experimental proof (because the belief in impossibility prevents even the attempt of replication).
Unless you are prepared to replicate and disproof the work of people as Dr. Huang who has so far very conclusive findings of overunity in cavitation systems, you can’t say that overunity is impossible.
-
The point here is that 200% over unity
THH seems not to understand physics. There is no over unity it is just expect fusion energy.
E.g. Parkhomovs peak COP with a Rossi like reactor was 4. No over unity just, as expected, 2MeV per Nickel atom used.
But I agree that also LENR trolls are allowed to use the FUD slang the SM church teaches. Even more understandable as our SM church evangelist THH believes that "ultra thin vacuum potentials only based" physics explains dense matter...
-
THH seems not to understand physics. There is no over unity it is just expect fusion energy.
I think the term "over unity" is usually used to describe things like magnetic motors, that are claimed to draw energy out of nowhere, without any mechanical, chemical or nuclear source of energy. It does not apply to cold fusion. Or to a burning match, for that matter.
All known sources of energy (mechanical, chemical, nuclear) always convert matter into energy, according to special relativity. Some people think that only nuclear sources do, but that is incorrect. I suppose an over unity device would not do that. I do not think such devices exist, or can exist, but I suppose if they did they would circumvent relativity.
Anyway, no one claims cold fusion is "over unity" in this sense. It produces the same amount of energy per unit of mass as D-D fusion, 24 MeV. It is the same reaction by a different path, similar to the way metabolism is the same reaction as combustion, both producing the same amount of heat from C + O => CO2.
-
All known sources of energy (mechanical, chemical, nuclear) always convert matter into energy, according to special relativity. Some people think that only nuclear sources do, but that is incorrect. I suppose an over unity device would not do that. I do not think such devices exist, or can exist, but I suppose if they did they would circumvent relativity.
Rather than an over unity device, such a device is likely using a undetected form of fuel. Take for example AquaFuel. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9805031 I presented this analysis. See https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf
The analysis of the chemical composition by NASA combined with a knowledge of thermodynamics can give a precise prediction of the fuel value of AquaFuel. The electrical arc via carbon electrodes in water causes a catalyzed nuclear reaction. The stoichiometry of that reaction can be projected basis on the stoichiometry of the nuclear reaction caused by an electrical arc in deuterium contaminated with atmospheric air. Therefore, a mass balance can be use to predict the origins of the gas composition as reported by NASA. That mass balance indicates that 2.13% of the nitrogen originated from the catalyzed nuclear reaction.
Based on the chemical analysis, the kj/gm yield of AquaFuel is 13.24. However, when the torque and power yield is compared to gasoline, AquaFuel provide 90% kj/gm yield of gasoline (44.54). So an overunity yield of (44.5- 13.23)= 31.27 kj/gm.
There is nothing circumventing relativity because 2.13% of the nitrogen originated from the catalyzed nuclear reaction. So although we can't chemically identify the fuel, there is a signature of a nuclear reaction (de novo nitrogen). So, it is reasonable to suppose that some the mass product of the nuclear reaction (fuel) is converted to energy.
One very likely overunity device is a Papp engine. But does is use an ambient source of the fuel from a catalyzed nuclear reaction or does it produce its own fuel by a catalyzed nuclear reaction. As you see, I prefer to believe that there is a back ground fuel that creates the appearance of zero point energy rather than believe in ZPE.
So if not ZPE then what? I would refer you to the thread "Dark matter’s shadowy effect on Earth: possible link of dark matter, LENR and global warming?"
-
I think the term "over unity" is usually used to describe things like magnetic motors, that are claimed to draw energy out of nowhere, without any mechanical, chemical or nuclear source of energy. It does not apply to cold fusion. Or to a burning match, for that matter.
All known sources of energy (mechanical, chemical, nuclear) always convert matter into energy, according to special relativity. Some people think that only nuclear sources do, but that is incorrect. I suppose an over unity device would not do that. I do not think such devices exist, or can exist, but I suppose if they did they would circumvent relativity.
Anyway, no one claims cold fusion is "over unity" in this sense. It produces the same amount of energy per unit of mass as D-D fusion, 24 MeV. It is the same reaction by a different path, similar to the way metabolism is the same reaction as combustion, both producing the same amount of heat from C + O => CO2.
A hundred times this!
-
And an even firmer prediction: That whatever results Brillouin or their independent assessors put out, THH will making claims of mismeasurement in long form.
It would depend on who are the independent assessors. SRI designed the calorimetry setup they "independently" assess.
-
THH seems not to understand physics. There is no over unity it is just expect fusion energy.
E.g. Parkhomovs peak COP with a Rossi like reactor was 4. No over unity just, as expected, 2MeV per Nickel atom used.
But I agree that also LENR trolls are allowed to use the FUD slang the SM church teaches. Even more understandable as our SM church evangelist THH believes that "ultra thin vacuum potentials only based" physics explains dense matter...
W. Stop splitting hairs.
You know full well that for "mystery excess heat mechanism X" over-unity means over unity based on understood mechanisms. Mechanism X would explain this excess heat. In the case of LENR mechanism X is unclear. Jed and mnay see it as D+D fusion. Others see it as something different (neutron capture?). Mills, not LENR but often referenced here, sees it as electrons dropping to tightly bound energy levels.
LENR - even of the D+D sort, is not understood because we have no handle on when/why/how it happens. If we did, experiments would quickly provide good data for hypotheses.
-
similar to the way metabolism is the same reaction as combustion
You know full well that for "mystery excess heat mechanism X" over-unity means over unity based on understood mechanisms
Loose terminology both..
Metabolism : biochemically metabolism is both catabolism -breaking down - and anabolism - synthesis
the specific term for glucose +O2 --> CO2+H2O is aerobic respiration.
Over-unity : OU is most commonly used to describe a machine that is somehow able to output more energy than the amount of energy that is put into it.
Over-unity says nothing about the mechanism of the machine.
No LENR researcher asserts that cold fusion is overunity. The output xs energy comes from fusion of light atoms.
As with the Sun...fusion has been inferred from the calculated mass defect of a measured product... Helium. relative to hydrogen.
A hundred times this!
24Mev of fusion, whether cold or hot, is over ~ 6000000 times the 4 eV of aerobic respiration/combustion per carbon atom...
-
,',,,,,,,,,,,,He may be a good economist, but evidently he does not know much about technology, or even commerce. I could have told you back in 1990 that if present trends continued, and subsidies were maintained, wind would soon be competitive in the middle of the North American continent.
The capital costs of wind power, availability, losses in collection and power factor, high maintenance costs , backup requirements and land leases make any claim of being “competitive” highly suspect. A trip down I 80 in Iowa is a testament to the so called “wind farm” being an assault on the environment, wild life and serenity of the outdoors. I guarantee that my electrical utility bills have only increased during the last 10 years. Wind energy is a total farce as a national energy policy, a scam on the ratepayer and taxpayer alike, and all predicated on a lie.
-
from Mike Wryley The capital costs of wind power, availability, losses in collection and power factor, high maintenance costs , backup requirements and land leases make any claim of being “competitive” highly suspect. A trip down I 80 in Iowa is a testament to the so called “wind farm” being an assault on the environment, wild life and serenity of the outdoors. I guarantee that my electrical utility bills have only increased during the last 10 years. Wind energy is a total farce as a national energy policy, a scam on the ratepayer and taxpayer alike, and all predicated on a lie.
Seems you are very knowledgeable in carbon burning propaganda!
The lowest price tag for energy is e.g. solar in southern deserts with installation costs of 2-3cents/kwh. Wind in Europe is around 6cents/kwh. Both technologies have moderate follow up costs.
Carbon burning comes at the price of destruction of ocean live, health destruction of man due to micro particle emission and nitrogen gases. Further the nitrogen gas emission leads to unwanted fertilization of e.g. forest ground that leads to a destruction of the symbiotic live between trees and soil fungus.
Wind turbines sometimes kill a bird, fracking kills a whole landscape and an unknown number of living species. The same holds for oil exploration in the ocean. To compensate deep water horizon, we have to build 100'000's of wind turbines to reach the same level of destruction...
-
Rather than an over unity device, such a device is likely using a undetected form of fuel. Take for example AquaFuel. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9805031 I presented this analysis. See https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf
I agree that if the AquaFuel device is real, it is probably using some sort of fuel. That is, the Aqua has more energy in it than people think. However, if magnetic motors are real, I do not see what source of fuel they might be tapping. I think they would violate the conservation of energy. Perhaps by tapping zero point energy? Or something? I don't know. I doubt they even exist. But anyway, I have seen the term "over unity" used to describe such devices. I guess it means "violates the conservation of energy." Cold fusion definitely does not fall into this category. (It may violate the Coulomb barrier, but that is a different story.)
