QuoteLOLs. You missed where it says "research the physics of LENR". That is what happens when you look at the title, and read no further.
You linked macb.com. I brought it up and searched the web page for LENR and LEMR (your original spelling) and nothing. Have you been into 'shrooms?
LOLs. You missed where it says "research the physics of LENR". That is what happens when you look at the title, and read no further.
LOLS. What was it you were saying last week Shane?...
I know you are not one to actually read everything before commenting,
^ This is what happens after too many spoon feedings!
__mm___O Ö
Would a line number help? - Might speed things up a bit.
Assuming the lessons of the Celani-footnote debacle have been well integrated...
You linked macb.com.
Where, surprisingly enough, a prominently-placed link to the same press release was found, entitled: "MacB Wins $12M Plasma Physics Contract with the Naval Research Lab".
Where, surprisingly enough, a prominently-placed link to the same press release was found, entitled: "MacB Wins $12M Plasma Physics Contract with the Naval Research Lab".
Zeus,
I was not going to mention that. Good you did. Notice too that earlier he mentioned the headline. So funny.
This is a technical discussion forum, and Interested Observer is not playing by the rules. Let me summarize the two points of view:
Me: I have written a book spelling out the technical reasons why cold fusion might be made practical. I can cite many distinguished experts in relevant fields who believe this, and who have published supporting information, such as the chief designer of France's power reactors, the people who designed the Indian atomic bomb, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, and most of the world's leading electrochemists who designed countless practical applications in many industries.
Wow! This is the most impressive demonstration that CF/LENR is not a real physical phenomenon capable of producing excess heat.
JR, the author of a book spelling out the technical reasons why cold fusion might be made practical, has also contributed to prepare the calorimetric report on the January 14, 2011 test on the Ecat, a technical document in which was stated that an electric boiler was capable to multiply by 12 an electric power input of 1 kW. He also vehemently defended those outcomes for many years, before admitting he was wrong. I wonder how he can reliably judge the reality of previous CF results that were much lower.
But even more impressive is his reference to the role played by "the chief designer of France's power reactors". This last certainly was Georges Lonchampt, a French engineer who is considered the most scrupulous replicator of the Pons and Fleischmann original experiment.
The results of his replications were reported in a paper presented in 1996 at ICCF6. Here is a short and meaningful summary of the related lecture:
| From http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/6thiccf.pdf Review of the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion ICCF6 by Jed Rothwell Sept.-October 1996 … O-055 G. Lonchampt, “Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiment” This paper was presented by Biberian because Lonchampt does not speak English well. It describes a marvelous series of experiments performed by French Atomic Energy Commission (CEREM), in association with the ENSEEG (Ecole Nationale Superieure d’Electrochimie et d’Electrometallurgie de Grenoble). Biberian also worked on the project, although he is not listed as an author. Lonchampt is a CEREM commissioner, and an engineer not a scientist, (thank goodness). These experiments are exact replications of the 1993 boil-off experiments reported by Pons and Fleischmann in Physics Letters A176. This is exactly what cold fusion cries out for: careful, step by step replications done by people who follow directions. Biberian said that he and the other scientists in the project wanted to incorporate various “creative improvements” but Lonchampt insisted on doing a precise replication with assistance from Pons and Fleischmann. That is why it worked, as Biberian cheer fully admits. It takes an engineer to do these things right.
Everything about this work is superb, even the Abstract. Let me quote it extensively: “Experiments have been performed in calorimeters identical to the ones used by Fleischmann and Pons . . . [T]hese experiments can be analyzed in three temperature domains: - At low temperatures, below 70 deg C, excess enthalpy is the difference between the heat radiated to the water bath, and the enthalpy input due to electrolysis. - At intermediate temperatures, between 70 deg C and 99 deg C, excess enthalpy is the difference between the heat radiated towards the water bath plus the enthalpy contents of the gas stream, plus the variation of enthalpy of the contents of the calorimeter . . . - In the boiling regime (without condensation), excess enthalpy is calculated from the difference between the total amount of water contained in the calorimeter evaporated and the theoretical quantity of water that should be evaporated by the energy introduced in the calorimeter . . . Six calibration runs with platinum cathodes and 17 runs with different palladium type cathodes have been performed. At low temperature, 8 experiments have produced an excess energy rate between 1 and 5%. In the intermediate regime the water vapor carried away by the gases of the electrolysis are large, and cannot be evaluated precisely . . . At boiling, three positive experiments have been successful, giving excess enthalpies rates of 80% to 150% . . . In conclusion, we confirm the results published by Fleischmann and Pons more particularly in the boiling regime.” [...] |
Basically, Lonchampt reported that the excess heat at low temperature, i.e. far from the boiling conditions, is quite low, and hence it can be easily attributed to a residual error after the calibration procedure. At intermediate level the calorimetric results are affected by a too large error. Therefore, the only meaningful level of excess heat, up to 150%, was calculated at boiling conditions. These results clearly show that Lonchampt mistakenly assumed that all the water evaporated as dry steam.
So, Lonchampt based his apparently positive results on the same misrepresentation of the steam condition, which, 15 years later, determined the false excess heat proclaimed after the Ecat test held in Bologna on January 2011.
Furthermore, his insistence "on doing a precise replication with assistance from Pons and Fleischmann" gives us the certainty that even F&P made the same calorimetric error.
Therefore, Lonchampt's replication of the F&P experiment is indeed a "superb" work that demonstrates in the most irrefutable way how wrong they have been all the main protagonists of the CF history, from F&P up to all the LENR experts who supported the Ecat results.
Take for example, the slides by Hideki Yoshino, Eijiro Igari, Tadahiko Mizuno which propose high power, high COP devices. Why not get people together and concentrate on making one of these work?
Mizuno is no longer working with them. I don't know about others, but I can tell you why I would not get together with them. I wrote a critique of their MIT presentation. I translated it into Japanese and circulated both versions at an ICCF conference. In response, their lawyer sent me a starchy letter * saying my paper is a copyright violation and I should cease and desist from discussing their work. So I don't care for their attitude.
* No language is starchier than officious Japanese. **
** Or sexier than the Kyoto female dialect of Japanese. Did you know Japanese grammar is different for men and women? An old-school Kyoto woman can make me walk into a telephone pole in a daze just by asking the time.
Notice too that earlier he mentioned the headline. So funny.
Ha I missed that, I was too busy laughing at his proclivity to discuss things related to "poop", before posting a very suggestive picture, inappropriately shoe-horned into the discussion, for reasons known only to himself...
By the way about lost inventions and discoveries, I've read report of Germanium parasitic PN junction measurement put into the drawer in the 1920s (not the 30s with the famous first dubious transistor). I cannot find back the reports (often history is polished in wikipedia/sciAm, like on Shechtmann/quasi-scientists - reality from the witness disappears slowly).
There are many similarities between LENR and semiconductors, especially materialScience/metallurgy/nanotech/pseudoparticlesQM hellish problems. For someone trained in microelectronics, and aware of 1930 science (my kid science books were 1930 updated 1960)
""Additional work will include electromagnetic-launcher technology, the physics of low-energy nuclear reactions and advanced energetics, production of high-power microwave sources, and the development of new techniques to diagnose and advance those experiments.""
seven_of_twenty: Let us know, so we all might avoid whatever kind of 'shrooms' meet your fancy, dude.
Wow! This is the most impressive demonstration that CF/LENR is not a real physical phenomenon capable of producing excess heat.
Ascoli65: May be you should make it more clear is:
a) LENR is not a real physical phenomenon?
b) LENR is not a physical phenomenon capable of producing excess heat?
Depending on the answer we can figure out your intellectual background of reasoning...
IO,
Do you think the Naval Research Lab made a mistake, by awarding https://www.macb.com/ a contract to, in part, "research the physics of LENR"? Good timing too IMO -maybe not a coincidence, with this months (Navy) Proceedings Magazine printing of their 2nd place winners essay, on why the Navy should get back into LENR.
Shane, why would you ask this? Nowhere do I say, imply or believe that doing research on LENR is a mistake.
My point has been that research and development of nascent technologies does not have guaranteed results. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. It just means you can’t count on what the results will be. Jed keeps yakking that I don’t know didly about LENR but that I thnk that I know more than the experts. Nonsense. What I wrote about LENR is exactly the same thing I would say about dye sublimation solar cells, electrolysis for hydrogen production, high-temperature superconducting wire, and a host of other promising technologies that have been the subject of R&D for decades. Nobody knows when, how or even if they will be successfully commercialized. Does that mean we shouldn’t try? Hell no. You LENR people have a severe persecution complex. Not everyone is out to get you.
My point has been that research and development of nascent technologies does not have guaranteed results.
NO ONE ever said it has guaranteed results. NO ONE SAID THAT. Experts have said that they think it can be developed fairly quickly, given a few hundred million dollars. They show there are fewer problems and roadblocks than alternatives such as plasma fusion and advanced fission. They show that the power density and temperatures already demonstrated prove that the reaction can be useful if it can be controlled. They show several promising ways it might be controlled.
That is not a guarantee. It is an informed extrapolation made by experts in technology who have made many successful previous extrapolations and plans, such as powering 80% of France.
In response, you say these people are "blowing smoke," they know nothing, and no one can make any predictions or extrapolations at all. Your reason? None. That's your opinion, and you say you don't know the technical details.
Do you also have a track record of implementing 80% of the electricity in France? Or something like that? Because if you do not, who do you think you are? You have a colossal ego claiming that you know better than these people.
Nobody knows when, how or even if they will be successfully commercialized.
So you say, but you are wrong. The experts say they know. You say they don't. Why should we believe you? When have you ever developed anything? Did you design the French nuclear reactors, or nuclear weapons?
Why do you have such confidence in your own opinion, when you cannot cite a single fact to back it up, or any experts, and when it conflicts with science established 200 years ago?
You LENR people have a severe persecution complex. Not everyone is out to get you.
What do you think happens to professional scientists when Nature, the Washington Post and the rest of the mass media publishes thousands of lurid accusations that they are liars, criminals, lunatics and frauds, without allowing a single rebuttal? If that isn't persecution, what would be? Do you think a scientist at a DoE lab can be funded when the head of the DoE and others denounce the project as criminal fraud?
QuoteShane D. wrote:
Notice too that earlier he mentioned the headline. So funny.
Ha, that's hilarious. The mention of LENR in the project page is so trivial, I read right past it. The work is about plasma physics. Since when is LENR plasma physics? They just put that in to please someone. I doubt very much that they will do anything or find anything with reference to LENR.
QuoteWhat do you think happens to professional scientists when Nature, the Washington Post and the rest of the mass media publishes thousands of lurid accusations that they are liars, criminals, lunatics and frauds, without allowing a single rebuttal?
But that didn't happen initially. The opposite did. How do you explain the interest and acclaim for the F&P announcement? And all the attempts to replicate it? And all the corporate and government funding which the field received and which didn't pan out (other than in the opinion of a few enthusiasts). We could go round and round about this.
Anyway, this isn't 1990. Anyone can write on the internet. Anyone can start a crowd-funding page.
My purpose in posting Yoshino et. al. was to illustrate the sort of project LENR enthusiasts should promote -- projects purported to be able to produce kilowatts, presumably self sustaining after an initial start. Instead of a dozen or so, small and poorly funded projects, LENR proponents should assemble their forces and go for one spectacular demonstration. Tiny results will not be accepted by science at large, even if suggestive of real effects. Look, there are just three possibilities -- LENR is real and can produce seriously useful energy or LENR is like muon-catalyzed fusion, real but too inefficient and small to be useful or it's just a pipe dream. A single, cooperative large effort would resolve this issue. Of course, you first have to admit the issue is real perhaps in lieu of insulting critics and skeptics with inane labels like "pseudoskeptic" and pathological skeptic. How about pathological believers? Would that be fair and useful?
Ha, that's hilarious. The mention of LENR in the project page is so trivial, I read right past it. The work is about plasma physics. Since when is LENR plasma physics? They just put that in to please someone. I doubt very much that they will do anything or find anything with reference to LENR.
...
..
.
for axil lenr is all about plasma...
Ascoli65: May be you should make it more clear is:
a) LENR is not a real physical phenomenon?
b) LENR is not a physical phenomenon capable of producing excess heat?
a) CF/LENR is a practically impossible physical phenomenon subject to the well-known reaction rate limitation explained, for example, in the Rossi-Focardi paper (1): "The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P=4.7x10-1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible. …"
b) CF/LENR is not capable of producing any excess heat, even if the theoretical limits mentioned above are ignored and, as reported in the aforementioned paper, only the alleged experimental evidences are considered: "… Nevertheless we have an experimental evidence of a large energy that can only arise from nuclear reactions between Nickel and Hydrogen, the only two elements existing in our apparatus."
Such a nonsense was believed by almost every people involved in the CF/LENR field, thanks to the involvement of scientists of a well known scientific institution. Now, after 8 years, nearly all of them would not bet a dime on the reality of those energy claims. But, nevertheless, they continue to argue that "anyway, LENR is a real phenomenon" (2). This faith is largely based on the myths of the reliability of F&P and of their replicators, especially Lonchampt.
Here are some excerpts that provide you a good picture of these myths [bold added]
| From https://theierecosmique.com/20…e-ou-arnaque/#comment-610 7 septembre 2016 à 21 h 41 min votre approche est saine, et je la partage, mais vos information fausses. Si vous cherchez bien, F&P ont répliqué et été réplique, de plus avec des méthodes calorimétrique plus simples (car Fleischmann étant a des plus grands experts du monde à ce sujet avait, comme l’a bien démontré George Lonchampt utilisé des astuces d’experts loin devant les autres notamment Caltech et MIT). Oui F&P ont été répliqués, largement, de façon variée. […] |
| From https://theierecosmique.com/20…e-ou-arnaque/#comment-613 8 septembre 2016 à 12 h 25 min J’ai évité de transmettre des liens de peur de me faire modérer. […] Un papier à relire sur F&P est celui de George Lonchampt, un maniaque reconnu, le seul a avoir répliqué non pas seulement le phénomène, mais la calorimétrie, et donc compris sa sensibilité et sa subtilité. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf […] Beaudette rappelle ainsi que pour les chimistes expérimentés il a fallu un an pour avoir des résultats publiable, et pour le seule physicien, élève du grand électrochimiste Heinz Gerischer, il a fallu 2 ans. On ne demande pas au directeur commercial de faire la comptabilité, et on ne demande pas à un théoricien de faire une calorimétrie à 0.1% dans une cellule électrochimique ouverte. […] |
So, you see, it's AlainCo, one of the most active LENR promoter, who claims that Lonchampt, a recognized maniac (in the good sense of a very careful and scrupulous replicator), was the only one to have replicated not only the phenomenon but also the calorimetry of the F&P. But what did he find? Let's see.
In 1993, Lonchampt started his work for replicating the F&P results, and reported his own results in only 2 papers in 1996 (at ICCF6) and 1998 (at ICCF7).
The conclusions of the first report were already reported in my previous comment, in the excerpt from the JR's review of the ICCF6. But more interesting details are contained in the central part of Lonchampt's paper. This is the most revealing:
| From http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf Lonchampt et al., Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons experiments, 1996 […] 3.2 Excess heat calculation at boiling temperature When temperature reaches a value close to boiling, i.e. typically 99 to 101°C, we stop adding water to the cell, and we measure the total enthalpy necessary to evaporate the contents of the cell. The excess enthalpy is therefore given by the formula: Excess heat = A + L – D (6) Where “A”, “D” and “L” have the same definition as above. It is difficult to follow accurately the level of water during this period because of the formation of foam, so it is only at the end of the experiment, when the cell is dry that the excess heat can be calculated with precision. […] |
In effect, despite the maniacal precision of the author, "A", "D" and "L" are not explicitly defined in the paper. We can only deduce that "A" and "D" are given by formulas (2) and (5) respectively. The definition of "L" as the "enthalpy of vaporization of the water (41,000 J.mol-1)" doesn't apply to the "L" used in (6), but we can infer that Lonchampt calculated the "total enthalpy necessary to evaporate the contents of the cell", by assuming that all the missing water escaped the cell as dry steam. This is a huge and incredible mistake on the part of someone who has been presented as a expert in calorimetry, especially after he recognized by himself the "difficult to follow accurately the level of water during this [boiling] period because of the formation of foam". How is it possible to assume a dry conditions with such an open cell operated at boiling conditions, with a foam on the water surface, so thick that prevents to determine the water level?
Two years later, at ICCF7, Lonchampt presented new results obtained with the same methodology. As usually happens when positive results are due to some artifacts, the measured excess heat was much lower than the previous ones. Here are some excerpts from this second paper [bold added]:
| From http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2046.pdf Lonchampt et al., EXCESS HEAT MEASUREMENT WITH P&F TYPE CELLS , 1998 […] The details of the experiment are described in 1-3, and will not be detailed here. Let us simply emphasize that we use an open cell calorimetry. In the boiling experiments excess heat is deduced by the measurement of the difference between the energy necessary to evaporate the total water contained in the cell, and the energy input minus the radiated enthalpy. […] 4– Conclusion We have shown in this work that at boiling we observe excess heat of up to 29 %, in qualitative agreement with Fleischmann and Pons. However the magnitude of the excess heat measured is less important than what they observe. Their analysis of the boiling off in two periods, assuming that the vast majority of the excess heat is produced at the end of the experiment is difficult to evaluate. In our previous work , this has been done, and has shown more dramatic numbers for the excess heat. In the present work we have not tried to evaluate the data this way. The boiling experiment deserves more attention, as shown by Roulette et al. who demonstrated that more excess heat could be obtained that way. We have in progress a similar experiment, but with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors. […] |
As you can see, by his own admission, the F&P calorimetry - that he meticulously reproduced - was so critical and difficult to evaluate that they (at CEA?) had already in progress a similar experiment performed by using another method: mass flow calorimetry.
Results from this last experiment? None. After ICCF7, Lonchampt apparently disappeared from the CF/LENR scene. He just appeared for a while in 2002, after withdrawing from CEA, as co-author of a Biberian paper (3) presented to the ICCF9. In this last work, without any connection with the F&P experiments, they used a "calorimetry [which] has a sensitivity of 1 mW, and therefore is capable of measuring even small excess heat production." Results? "So far we have not observed any excess heat."!
In conclusion, if you look carefully at his papers, Lonchampt - praised as the more reliable replicator of F&P - has been on the contrary the more authoritative debunker of the F&P pretense to have produced any excess heat. His papers show that in the whole CF/LENR history, from F&P to the Ecat, "l’erreur (assez typique) est là": the misrepresentation of the calorimetric experimental data.
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf
(2) http://www.zpenergy.com/module…ews&file=article&sid=3789
a) CF/LENR is a practically impossible physical phenomenon subject to the well-known reaction rate limitation explained, for example, in the Rossi-Focardi paper (1): "The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P=4.7x10-1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible. …"
Ascoli65 : It is well known that there exists no formula in nuclear physics to calculate any reaction rate of any possible reaction. Physical engineering allows it to extrapolate some reaction rates from a given base. That's all.
Current nuclear physics theory is completely outdated and not even able to calculate the correct ionization energy of Hydrogen, because they do not understand how to handle magnetism!
Thus any comment of an old guard standard model physicist is not worth more than gossip.
Thus we now understand that you are an adept of a passed physics world, that once believed they know how it works. Unlucky for you we just now know how LENR works. All rules are base on magnetism almost no potentials, just "the contrary" of the standard model.
Why dose magma stay hot,and why would it hitting the air above ground allow another reaction from cooling and fracturing. Building a model and keep dropping crap in until it go's nuts~Sooner or later.....just try not to forget what was put in it.
Ha, that's hilarious. The mention of LENR in the project page is so trivial, I read right past it.
And what else of considerable importance might you have "read right past?
They just put that in to please someone. I doubt very much that they will do anything or find anything with reference to LENR.
Quite the contrary, they likely took some risk putting it in there.
Since when is LENR plasma physics?
You express doubts that LENR could involve plasmas. I suggest you look at the
Lipinski's WIPO patent application.
Now your expressed doubts seem to come from a standpoint suggesting qualifications, except no plausible scientific evidence is adduced? So let's have a brief resume, don't be shy, let us know why we should care a whit for your 'doubts'.
