Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?
-
It's is OK to debunk Rossi, who simply has no clue about the physics, that is underplayed to his experiments.
But unluckily for you, soon people will call today standard model physics being pseudo science. Hot fusion, the offspring of a military lie, will be named the most unsuccessful project ever, burning megatons of money, we would need to educate, e.g. 90% of the undereducated US population.
The sect of standard model physicists is worse than the catholic church, but the successful explanation of LENR physics will "push them over the cliff".
Wyttenbach,
You have drunk deeply from the Rossi
KoolAid machine, to the point of using his favorite descriptor, “Soon”
Maybe you have the cajones to actually define “soon”.
Give me any realistic date and I will
take the over
-
You have drunk deeply from the Rossi
KoolAid machine, to the point of using his favorite descriptor, “Soon”
Definitely not "Rossi soon"... Certainly after the first open clearly explainable LENR experiment.
Thus ask, or better support the experimenters!
-
Display More
Wyttenbach,
You have drunk deeply from the Rossi
KoolAid machine, to the point of using his favorite descriptor, “Soon”
Maybe you have the cajones to actually define “soon”.
Give me any realistic date and I will
take the over
Delivering a useful nuclear based energy production commercial product is not an easy job to do. Ask ITER. if their product is going to be available shortly...soon.
-
And if the calorimeter had a hole in the bottom that would give an equally misleading result. If 'ifs and ands were pots and pans' we could go into the catering business. The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize for producing a body of work based on thousands of experiments. Having seen XSH in electrolytic loading of metals myself at levels well above the noise and at temperatures way below 60C I have zero doubts about the effect. PdD is a door-opener to a whole new kind of physics. I'm not sure that of itself it is particularly useful method of creating useable amounts of energy, but it is an excellent system for use when creating a theoretical model that is accord with the measured effects.
Nor have I doubts about XSH in metals. I do however have doubts about the same in qtys clearly above possible chemical mechanisms.
If your personal results remove those doubts then writing them up properly would be worthwhile.
Till that is done, and the whole subjected to critique, no skeptic would or should be swayed by anecdotes.
THH
-
Display More
https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/
As Alan pointed out on another thread, Ruby's (thank you) latest podcast features Dennis Craven. Craven works with IH's Dennis Letts now, and has worked with many of the old guard going back many years. He and Letts made a presentation at ICCF21. Some interesting comments from the interview:
The Pd-D gas "LT LENR Tubes" are pretty reliable. They generally run 5-7 Ws XH for days, but some have peaked at 10-20Ws for an hour.
When they run SEMs on them , they have the pits like Stringhams pictures, which he attributes to vacancies.
The use of dual lasers is tricky to coordinate, but when they were successful, they matched Hagelstein's theory, which made Hagelstein happy.
Has no theory, but Letts has workable mathematical model.
He can get a self sustaining/self powered (infinite COP) at very low mW's. (reminds me of Swartz), but the COP goes down, as the power levels go up. Looking to get 50W/gram Pd to make it viable.Talked about Jim Patterson, the beads, and that story...which is interesting.
-
Shane, I like to look at all these claims, and Craven has provided interesting material in the past (alas invalid due to a clear TC contamination mechanism - validated by data from specific Tc used).
However I'd need a journal or conference style paper writeup to check the details. Without that, in this area, I'm just not interested. Too many variables not tied down. Do you know title + web link?
-
"PdD is a door-opener to a whole new kind of physics."
The ease in the production of ultra dense material may be proportional to the atomic weight of the material being compressed. Protium is the hardest to compress, then deuterium is a little easier, next is lithium. Maybe lithium 7 is easier that lithium 6 to compress. And water could be the easiest compound to compress since it is a very heavy compound atomic weight wise compared to protium. Noble gases like xenon might be very easy to compress, possibly only using a shock wave from a spark discharge.
-
If your personal results remove those doubts then writing them up properly would be worthwhile
Worthwhile to who exactly? Those inclined to believe them would do so, the rest would ignore or scorn them. Those who choose to deny the work of a Nobel prize-winner are hardly likely to be swayed by anything I write.
-
As said and many times repeated in this forum: The best documented and radiation measured LENR experiment is Lipinski's Lithium H* fusion.
Sorry, but you have not been the official librarian of CF/LENR for nearly 3 decades. JR is a much more representative and informed figure in the field and has decided that Icarus 9 from F&P is the best experiment on record. Lipinski&Lipinski have to wait their turn.
Quotesearch for: WO 2014/189799 A9 or US 2016/0118144 A1 Patents!! 100eV is the input energy with the highest COP (>1000). We would be very pleased if you can refute these claims...
I have no time nor desire to review a patent application of 100+ page. Have you asked Jacques Ruer, the LENR expert you cited me earlier, what does he think about that patent?
-
I have no time nor desire to review a patent application of 100+ page.
It is easy reading once you get beyond the theory pages (1 through 20 or so). The most informative material is in the form of tables that are very easy and incisive reading which becomes ever more impressive toward the end of the application. Even though the Lipinskis insist their results are not cold fusion, it is very clear to me that their results are likely largely indistinguishable from CF/LENR.
-
This is why a self sustaining system is so important: if you can turn off the input completely and sit and watch water boiling away for an extended period of time there can be no doubt that something truly anomalous is taking place -- regardless of the exact theory. From what I've learned, if someone is providing input power in any form other than straight non-changing DC (no wild waveforms) there will be arguments about the measurement. On the other side, if phase change takes place nothing will convince skeptics that the steam is 100% dry and free of liquid water; likewise, if flow calorimetry is utilized there will be endless arguments about thermocouple placement, the type of flow meter used, the true rate of flow, etc. If we are simply trying to prove that LENR is an irrefutable reality, the harsh truth is that an incredibly robust system is required that can self sustain (eliminating input issues) and produce a quantity of output that is clearly discernible with ordinary human senses -- primarily sight and touch. In a system using flow calorimetry, this would mean allowing someone to feel icy cold water running into a cell and allowing them to feel scalding water coming out while no electricity is going into the system: long after a control reactor that was fed the same quantity of start up power had cooled down to ambient.
I sure wish Mizuno, if he there are no strings whatsoever attached to his work which could prohibit him from immediately disclosing all details of such an experiment, could implement multiple possible ways of boosting his excess heat with the goal of eventually performing such a test.
-
Sorry, but you have not been the official librarian of CF/LENR for nearly 3 decades. JR is a much more representative and informed figure in the field and has decided that Icarus 9 from F&P is the best experiment on record. Lipinski&Lipinski have to wait their turn
Seems like all your problems with LENR have to do with Rothwell? Early years first, now LENR in general. There is a difference between a skeptic, and being on a personal vendetta. So?
-
No, he didn't. He told me he was "within shouting distance" of a Nobel. He was an FRS, he got the palladium medal and was president of the electrochemical society, but he never got the Nobel. Which, in my opinion, speaks poorly of the Nobel committee and tells us nothing about Fleischmann.
The Nobel Prize lost it reputation when they give Obama the Peace Prize since Nobel’s will specified: “which shall be annually awarded as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind” yet they gave it to Obama for the year even before he took office. It is now a purely political award.
For science it was to be for “the most important discovery or invention” (from Nobel’s will). It is now more about the internal politics of science than it is the “greatest discovery or invention” of a field.
-
I do not understand what this means: "if the entrained water is distilled." Do you mean that water is first boiled and distilled inside the test tube separating from the salt, then it condenses, and then without mixing in with the electrolyte it leaves the cell? How would that work? The only way it can leave is as vapor. Also, the top is a narrow long tube that will not allow any liquid out.
The salt left in the cell was exactly the same amount that was added with the electrolyte, as closely as can be measured with modern instruments. That includes salt left free in the bottom of the test tube, and salt embedded in the walls. Both are measured. Since all of the salt added as electrolyte is found, none of it leaves the cell during the test. Therefore, the water was boiled away; it did not leave as droplets. Droplets would remove some of the salt.
(1) Water vapour comes off the electrolyte (first boiled)
(2) At some point in the air it then condenses
(3) the condensate is evacuated from the vessel with the outgoing vapours.
Long narrow tubes do not prevent the passage of liquid.
It is quite simple...
-
Worthwhile to who exactly? Those inclined to believe them would do so, the rest would ignore or scorn them. Those who choose to deny the work of a Nobel prize-winner are hardly likely to be swayed by anything I write.
Alan, you are, I know, a very cynical person, and no doubt have life experiences that properly inform your stance.
Scientists however pay attention to replicable experiments with clear results, which you hinted (but did not state) you have. You still have not stated you have this...
The F&P results are anything but clear! Replications of them achieving much lower results which equally are not (replicably) clear.
-
Seems like all your problems with LENR have to do with Rothwell? Early years first, now LENR in general. There is a difference between a skeptic, and being on a personal vendetta. So?
A personal vendetta? For what reason?
I'm here to discuss about LENR, and JR is a kind of official spokesman of the field, so that it is impossible to tackle any LENR subject without citing him and his role. He collected almost all the CF/LENR documents and organized them in a library, he spoke with almost every main protagonist of the field, he wrote books and overviews on the subject, he also has some personal skill on calorimetry, and finally, he posted tens of thousands of comments (almost 5 thousand here on L-F) for defending the reality of LENR.
So, in order to identify the most representative and skilful LENR researchers, and their best experiments and reports, who would you refer to?
PS:
Btw, JR still considers an almost 30 years old experiment of F&P as the best on record (and his record is the most complete in CF/LENR field), but the calorimetric results claimed by F&P have been "de facto" disproved by Lonchampt, a nuclear expert also well praised by JR. How do you explain this contradiction?
-
Scientists however pay attention to replicable experiments with clear results, which you hinted (but did not state) you have. You still have not stated you have this...
I am not as cynical as you imagine - however, the usual routes of replication and peer-review have done little to help move LENR from the fringe to the center, so they are little useit seems. I am looking for other paths. The observation of XSH during electrolysis was not even an experiment to find it, but seen during fuel preparation. It just so happened that the same metal mix (devised by Russ) was being electrolysed with both heavy and light water, using a very similar cell structure, The LW cell was pulling twice the current of the HW cell, even so the HW cell was stubbornly a few degrees warmer over many hours.
-
Sorry, but you have not been the official librarian of CF/LENR for nearly 3 decades. JR is a much more representative and informed figure in the field and has decided that Icarus 9 from F&P is the best experiment on record. Lipinski&Lipinski have to wait their turn.
Ascoli65 : You just jumped over the troll barrier. In one thread you fight JED and here JED serves as your shield to avoid a loosing discussion.
It is too late to find errors in old experiments, as it is to late to stop LENR.
Your attitude is very close to ABD's. Just trying to produce noise to distract people by referencing "low value" old experiments.
All well informed people (reading this forum) doing experiments know about the Lipinski findings, thus it's up to you be informed too.
-
Ascoli65: You just jumped over the troll barrier. In one thread you fight JED and here JED serves as your shield to avoid a loosing discussion.
In English vernacular it's called 'flogging a dead horse'.
