-
-
Is it just me or do some of the "rotators" in his patent application seem related to EVOs or spheromaks in that they are rotating toroidal swirls of protons and electrons?
Could "rotating toroidal swirls of protons and electrons" also be called Exctons?
-
By the way, for what it's worth, the crackling sound which I attributed to hydrogen embrittlement earlier on could only be reproduced with the "coarse" (or grainy) film produced at higher voltages. With the smooth one produced at lower voltage the effect is either not there or it's too faint to be normally heard.
So, if in the strange contraption I've previously brought up I'm performing some sort of non-conventional electroplating process, the one that might be possibly producing more stresses in the material (with sporadic sound emission) is the "bad" one, which I think should be sort of expected.
-
The past week has been refreshing and exciting: what we're learning about strange radiation should help push LENR in the correct direction. But I sure do hope that instead of going for seven month long tests, there will be Ni-H replicators that incorporate methods of boosting the output to allow for ultra high COP and self sustain without requiring crazy temperatures that require specialized materials.
I can't say for certain which optimization will work the best. To know that, we would need to know more about strange radiation. But there are so much low hanging fruit it boggles my mind. For example, I really wish that Parkhomov would coat his nickel powder with layers of palladium or even smaller nano-nickel particles as a spillover catalyst and run the test again to see if the excess heat begins at a lower temperature. Focardi was quoted in one book as saying that Rossi's earliest E-Cats started producing excess heat at 70C! Then, of course, there is the idea of not wasting the strange radiation since it seems to be capable of inducing transmutations and nuclear reactions. I'd suggest surrounding the innermost Ni-H reactor with additional layers of fuel: there are several candidates to choose from! Of course, we could also talk about adding a percentage of lithium to such a powder based reactor -- either surrounding the SR generator or in the fuel mix of the SR generator. The problem with lithium, especially at very high temperatures, is that it seems to be very chemically reactive and eats through many materials. However, for a reactor that doesn't have to continue operating for weeks or months, this may not be an insummountable problem. Yet another possibility is to pre-treat the fuel in Parkhomov's reactor in ways that would load hydrogen energetically into the lattice or even grow diamond-like materials on the surface of the material that could ideal spots for EVO ejection. A good method might be to produce a corona discharge in a mix of hydrogen and argon and allow the ion flux to bombard the nickel. The addition of a small amount of carbon (for example methane) would actually start growing nano-diamonds. What I really want to learn more about is the reactor that Parkhomov showed Bob during a virtual tour of his lab. It was a transparent sphere that contained nickel electrodes and produced a glow discharge. According to Parkhomov, it produced a COP of 3 to 4. I really think such a device would be a great way to start building a Quark. My guess is that by adding lithium (yes, it has problems), a percentage of noble gases, and an external magnetic field that the output could be increased dramatically.
We need devices that can produce such outrageous levels of excess energy that even the most ardent skeptics can easily see that the output is either enormously larger than the input or the output is infinity compared to the input. There are many paths to achieve this.
-
We need devices that can produce such outrageous levels of excess energy that even the most ardent skeptics can easily see that the output is either enormously larger than the input or the output is infinity compared to the input. There are many paths to achieve this.
No we don't. We need devices that produce clear (say > 30%) excess power (and >> chemical excess energy) replicably and when independently tested using good calorimetry.
Regards, ardent skeptic
-
We need devices that can produce such outrageous levels of excess energy that even the most ardent skeptics can easily see that the output is either enormously larger than the input or the output is infinity compared to the input. There are many paths to achieve this.
No we don't. We need devices that produce clear (say > 30%) excess power (and >> chemical excess energy) replicably and when independently tested using good calorimetry.
Regards, ardent skeptic
That is not true THH and you know it. You need an "international academy of science" to officially acknowledge LENR as a real and official science. Before that you would say that the experimen)t (no matter how good it was) was not independently tested (original experiment and replication were on the same continent -> not indepent; the researchers sat at the same table at the last conference -> not indepent; ...--> infinity) and you would say it was not "good calorimetry" (solar activity was not taken into account and the sun heated up the experiment --> no good calorimetry; there is no 24 hour video stream of the experiment - a cat could have slept on the experiment heating it up --> no good calorimetry;...--> infinity).
You are going to learn that real science is to a large extend a social/emotional thing and not the highly idealized science from the textbook. When you are converted from a skeptic to a believer by national TV in the (hopefully not so far away) future you will see many of the here presented experiments in a different light. You would not admit it and you would defend your past view as the "correct" scientific method, but this would not change the fact that you were flat out wrong. (I know that good science needs sceptics (to a certain degree) to design better experiments)
-
I wonder what would happen if Parkhomov's molten nickel (saturated with hydrogen) had been zapped directly with electricity? In this case, I can imagine a tungsten electrode being placed on each side and occasionally fired with a short burst of high voltage.
-
You need an "international academy of science" to officially acknowledge LENR as a real and official science. Before that you would say that the experimen)t (no matter how good it was) was not independently tested (original experiment and replication were on the same continent -> not indepent; the researchers sat at the same table at the last conference -> not indepent; ...--> infinity) and you would say it was not "good calorimetry" (solar activity was not taken into account and the sun heated up the experiment --> no good calorimetry; there is no 24 hour video stream of the experiment - a cat could have slept on the experiment heating it up --> no good calorimetry;...--> infinity).
That is your prejudgement of me. None of these things, nor anything remotely like, have happened. And you know I was right over Rossi's calorimetry being no good.
The difference is that you view complex experiments with marginal anomalous results as being strong evidence (of what I'm not sure) and label it LENR.
I don't. I reckon marginal anomalies in such experiments are par for the course.
Where we depart is that I look for better evidence on retesting or better instrumentation. That would make me excited that there was something real. I don't see this in the LENR corpus, where better instrumentation invariably leads to worse evidence. That is, to date, damning. I'm hoping something will change this.
-
That is not true THH and you know it. You need an "international academy of science" to officially acknowledge LENR as a real and official science. Before that you would say that the experimen)t (no matter how good it was) was not independently tested (original experiment and replication were on the same continent -> not indepent; the researchers sat at the same table at the last conference -> not indepent; ...--> infinity) and you would say it was not "good calorimetry" (solar activity was not taken into account and the sun heated up the experiment --> no good calorimetry; there is no 24 hour video stream of the experiment - a cat could have slept on the experiment heating it up --> no good calorimetry;...--> infinity).
You are going to learn that real science is to a large extend a social/emotional thing and not the highly idealized science from the textbook. When you are converted from a skeptic to a believer by national TV in the (hopefully not so far away) future you will see many of the here presented experiments in a different light. You would not admit it and you would defend your past view as the "correct" scientific method, but this would not change the fact that you were flat out wrong. (I know that good science needs sceptics (to a certain degree) to design better experiments)
Epimethus,
That is also not true and you know it.
You need bulletproof replication by trusted sources, (this should include academia),
Showing consistently that
Energy Out > Energy In.
“Come In professors, Industrialists & media members, welcome to our lab.
Here is our Bill of Materials,
build instructions, testing methodology
and test results.
If you follow same, you will see results so consistently extraordinary that you will find it impossible to explain using known chemical and physical sciences.
We urge you to try these tests in your own labs, using your own measuring equipment and personnel ASAP, we will be happy to assist if asked.
We believe this to be a prolific paradigm shift in cheap, clean, renewable energy.
This is truly world changing”.
Broadcast to internet with documentation for global replication.
Screw the sceptics, they’re opinions mean less than 2 dead flies.
Only replication matters.
End of story
-
Display More
Epimethus,
That is also not true and you know it.
You need bulletproof replication by trusted sources, (this should include academia),
Showing consistently that
Energy Out > Energy In.
“Come In professors, Industrialists & media members, welcome to our lab.
Here is our Bill of Materials,
build instructions, testing methodology
and test results.
If you follow same, you will see results so consistently extraordinary that you will find it impossible to explain using known chemical and physical sciences.
We urge you to try these tests in your own labs, using your own measuring equipment and personnel ASAP, we will be happy to assist if asked.
We believe this to be a prolific paradigm shift in cheap, clean, renewable energy.
This is truly world changing”.
Broadcast to internet with documentation for global replication.
Screw the sceptics, they’re opinions mean less than 2 dead flies.
Only replication matters.
End of story
Forget science, LENR needs to make money...lots of money...money is über alles
-
Forget science, LENR needs to make money...lots of money...money is über alles
Axil,
Again,
How long after LENR is figured out do you think nonit will take every global energy company and Nation State to hijCk and duplicate?
An invention of this kind, of real, is simply
Not protectable.
Replication über alles
-
No, those who make the initial cash will be the first to market and they might have a couple of years. After that, unless they build a brand like Ford did, it will be a free-for- all (except the people who need 'free' the most.(- and even Henry Ford's monopoly didn't last long.
-
No, those who make the initial cash will be the first to market and they might have a couple of years. After that, unless they build a brand like Ford did, it will be a free-for- all (except the people who need 'free' the most.(- and even Henry Ford's monopoly didn't last long.
Alan,
If it as simple as suggested,
People will make Ecats in their garages
If it is
-
Who suggested it was simple? There is a lot of technique involved in getting it right. While I think solo builders would be few and far between (like solo bicycle builders for example - and I don't mean just assemblers of factory supplied parts) there could be a spot for small companies offering 'local solutions for local problems'.
-
Who suggested it was simple? There is a lot of technique involved in getting it right. While I think solo builders would be few and far between (like solo bicycle builders for example - and I don't mean just assemblers of factory supplied parts) there could be a spot for small companies offering 'local solutions for local problems'.
Alan,
I said it’s simple, “IF” it works.
Think about it for 1 minute.
If Rossi is to be believed, LENR can be accomplished with $100 of plumbing and electrical parts and maybe another $200 of specially prepared grams of specific isotopes.
If it works as Rossi and ME, and Mizuno etc suggest then it is mindless simple.
As soon as it is figured out what is needed how to assemble and how to initialize the reaction people can do it in their basements.
Again “IF”, it works it will be duplicated by every energy intensive industry and Nation State on the planet with no one paying anyone royalty’s.
-
Again “IF”, it works it will be duplicated by every energy intensive industry and Nation State on the planet with no one paying anyone royalty’s.
I do hope so.
-
"Mizuno etc suggest then it is mindless simple."
Roselands .
Would you mind to tell Mizuno how he is supposed to have suggested it works?
I can relay your mindful opinion to him.
This may be helpful..because Mizuno is still trying to figure out how it works.
-
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but Wyttenburg's patent describes a brilliant idea-a spontaneously-occurring particle accelerator underlying LENR. The protons or D ions are accelerated by rotatory magnetic fields to sufficiently high energies to enable fusion with a proton or Li ion in a central well (on collapse of the coupled field). This all requires engineering on the molecular level, with the wells of specific geometry and Li ions located in their centres. That LENR has ever been observed at all would only correspond with random spheromaks/proton toroids having the ability to react favourably within randomly dispersed pits or cracks on the Ni lattice surface, consistent with eg Ed Storms' previous observations. An appropriately engineered Ni-Li-H lattice, at the nanoscale level according to W's hypothesis, should greatly enhance the probability of LENR occurring repeatably, allowing functional LENR reactors at long last!
-
PS- I'm a mad scientist and proud of it!
-
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but Wyttenburg's patent describes a brilliant idea-a spontaneously-occurring particle accelerator underlying LENR. The protons or D ions are accelerated by rotatory magnetic fields to sufficiently high energies to enable fusion with a proton or Li ion in a central well (on collapse of the coupled field). This all requires engineering on the molecular level, with the wells of specific geometry and Li ions located in their centres. That LENR has ever been observed at all would only correspond with random spheromaks/proton toroids having the ability to react favourably within randomly dispersed pits or cracks on the Ni lattice surface, consistent with eg Ed Storms' previous observations. An appropriately engineered Ni-Li-H lattice, at the nanoscale level according to W's hypothesis, should greatly enhance the probability of LENR occurring repeatably, allowing functional LENR reactors at long last!
You are oversimplifying things. the exception does not make up the rule. lithium is not required in LENR. Cracks are not required in LENR. Magnetic acceleration is not required to action the LENR reaction. Sparks are not required to activate the LENR reaction.
LENR occurs in the SAFIRE experiment. In SAFIRE, there is no lithium, no cracks, no magnetic acceleration, no sparks, just an electric current and 174 watts of power. You should watch the video about the SAFIRE experiment to inform your opinion about the theories that abound in the LENR field. Also, bacterial produce LENR inside their bodies. Riddle me that batman.
