Just to clarify... are you suggesting that those two sets of pictures share any features?
How do you convince a skeptic?
-
-
Yes, we used the same equations, but you used crazily high/low input values, that had no basis in reality, and contravened two laws of thermodynamics.
That's right Mary... I actually find it more useful for evaluating the lengths a 'skeptic' will go to, in order to dismiss things they don't like.
Zeus,
A very small subset of skeptics, maybe,
But the overwhelming amount here are not academia, they are engineers, scientists, physicists, experimenters etc.
It is to these people that Rossi’s lame experiments are called out as such.
When all skeptics are lumped into a single pile as you seem to do to make an argument, the intent is obvious and the argument appears to be presented by a fanatic and it naturally crumbles.
-
a subset of one, perhaps.
And what's Rossi got to do with anything?
-
There are mostly open skeptic, who have negative prejudice because of what they know of public consensus on wikipedia, of nuclear physics, and from few heuristics (too good to be true), not helped by proven mistakes (the initial neutron error by F&P have hurted much), and frauds (follow my finger). They are sincere, and very rational, like most people when there is no serious initial commitment. Anyone who accept LENR without having read much is just gullible.
As you present them evidences, they quickly catch enthusiasm, and most of the time I have to cool them down, like I had to cool me down.
They start with great ideas, then face the proeminent minority of not-at-all-skeptic-on-their-own-opinion, who first refuse to look into the telescope. Hard not-at-all-skeptics who justify anything are not so common, since starting to argument without any credible evidence with you demdn much effort, and I mostly see operational self enforced ignorant (very coherent with Roland Benabou theory of groupthink).
More importantly they also face the fearful in apparent power, but very dependent on others opinion, who in fact don't care because they have a nice job and don't want to put it at risk, and are frightened more by the not-at-all-skeptic in noisy power than interested in making fame or money with something risky that failed (because of people like they), since 30 years.
Mindguard, cowards... finally the enthusiastic either crash, or throw the towel.
If someone can make something apparently industrializable (Brillouin seems not far, and why not some lucky experimenter here may design a reliable protocol), that can be demonstrated as an autonoumous engine turning for months (this is what JF Geneste proposed, proposing to lend a thermoacoustic heat engine designed by Airbus), the engineers and then the entrepreneurs will be enthusiastic, even if there is no theory, because there will be no doubt of an industrialization horizon, and a transmissible evidence of no doubt (very important notion, transmissible evidences). Of course there will be the need to find "the explanation of LENr", but it will be easy to find few billion for that from private pockets, and even states.
The alternative is to find first "the explanation of LENR", which as I understand will ask a complex team of nanotech experts, metalurgy experts, QM theoreticians, many experimentalists, expensive nano-scale instruments, low radiation labs probably, with a huge budget of probably 25-250Mn$, and this is typically done in rational period by governments and state universities or military labs.
But we are not in rational period, and this is the problem to solve first.
-
But again, I just went a little further than you for the purpose of seeing what I could see. Then I reported what I saw, and concluded one could not conclude if there was a 'mundane' explanation for the anomaly. You however, force-fit LENR
You didn't go "a little further", you went so far outside of common sense, that it literally broke the laws of physics. Then you reported this travesty, and even still defend it as being somehow rational and proper... It's neither, and it only goes to show how much of a fruitcake you are.
Much like claiming a "crater" could be hydrogen embrittlement, before posting some photos that apparently disprove same statement. Crackers. -
You didn't go "a little further", you went so far outside of common sense,
Another example of your 'prefitting' the conclusions to the experiment. Your definition of 'common sense' is predicated on coming to the unwarranted conclusion that the Mizuno bucket anecdote 'proves' LENR.
that it literally broke the laws of physics.
Not hardly.
Lots of words with no facts Z, typical troll tactics.
Much like claiming a "crater" could be hydrogen embrittlement, before posting some photos that apparently disprove same statement.
No, the pictures I posted were to demonstrate blistering in metals from steam embrittlement. The text also discusses methane embrittlement doing similar things. Both are two things CFers never consider (even though they were well known in 1965). The third item was about what might happen when you 'overload' Pd, as has been reported in the literature for years by the Fukai group. I have noted CFers finally found this a few years ago. The real problem is that looking at a picture rarely tells you enough about how what you're looking at got that way. But for people who force fit the data to the conclusion, it's 'proof' of LENR.
-
Your struggles with the laws of thermodynamics are well documented, and its pointless rehashing it all.
And trolling? Didn't you read the thread title? This is 'how to persuade a skeptic' 101.
Is it working?
Both are two things CFers never consider
Probably because they saw the same photos.
-
Scare the hell out of a million people and deny everything, let the Y justify the means~
-
Is it working?
No, because (a) there are no good examples of reproducible systems that can be controlled (the prime way to prove a technical point), and (b) your vacuous arguments about things I write are unconvincing, such as:
Your struggles with the laws of thermodynamics are well documented,
(Said 'documentation' is really just a litany of things that I wrote that you didn't understand, even after multiple attempts to explain them to you.)
Probably because they saw the same photos.
Or not...
For the rest of LF, w.r.t. 'craters': When a near-surface bubble in a metal ruptures, it will leave a hole. People who pre-conclude a 'mini-nuclear explosion' caused the hole use the term 'crater' instead of 'hole' because it evokes the 'explosion' image, which fosters unwarranted belief in LENR. However, the formation of internal bubbles in hydrogen-treated metals has been documented to occur in at least 5 general ways that I can think of: (1) helium bubble formation from tritium decay or via helium ion implantation (technically ion implantation does not require hydrogen to have been present), (2) precipitation of dissolved hydrogen during metal solidification or cooling, (3) steam embrittlement, where hydrogen reacts with dissolved oxygen to form water, which is highly insoluble in metal and which then nucleates and grows bubbles, (4) methane embrittlement, which is like steam embrittlement except hydrogen reacts with dissolved carbon to form methane, and (5) superabundant vacancy formation, where hydrogen bubbles form in the metal due to overloading with hydrogen.
Bubble nucleation is an active area of research, but one thing that seems reasonable at this point is that impurity atoms in the metal, being 'different' from the bulk lattice, are often preferred sites for bubble nucleation and growth. So, when those bubbles pop and form a hole, one can see the impurity atoms inside the hole. LENR-crazed folks claim this as proof of transmutation. It isn't.
Further, metal atom migration under the influence of hydrogen is also well known. Many papers have been published on how loading and cycling metal hydride alloys can lead to disproportionation of said alloys (reverting to the separate elements or forming different alloys combined with elementally enriched zones). This can also occur during manufacture of the alloy, and the agglomeration of impurities into grain boundaries or other defects is well documented. So finding several impurity elements in a hole is no big surprise to metallurgists.
Metal atom migration is a worse problem in supported metal catalysts, where for highest efficiency the metal is dispersed to the single-atom level. The problem is that these atoms then try to agglomerate, which results in a decrease in catalytic activity. This is directly applicable to the original claim of heavy metal transmutation in Pd-CaO-Pd sandwich structures. There they claimed to have transmuted something into Sr. However, Sr is a hundreds of ppm contaminant in the CaO, and the 'transmutation' is nothing but the migration of the initially dispersed contaminant to a common location. What is happening is contaminant concentration, not transmutation.
{Cue 'crackpot' comments...}
-
Maybe I should have also added:
{...cue crackpot comments}
-
o blame all this on. you two are at the top
if I only had as much influence as you think...
-
Just a game of chess Kirk,
-
Your thinking is probably a wishful one only. If indeed so simple I wonder why nobody ended up with a verified (by 3rd party) working reactor with energy out > energy in...
-
I wonder why nobody ended up with a verified (by 3rd party) working reactor with energy out > energy in...
So you don't think that the verification of the Brillouin reactor by SRI really happened?
-
Not reactors, but replicated process that could be exploited if some were not more afraid for their reputation than for humanity future.
NEDO funded work by technova was reproduced by another university
https://www.researchgate.net/p…_and_Hydrogen_Isotope_Gas
Technova have replicated Iwamura
http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301
There is a line of replication from Fralick 89, Tsinghua/Inficon and Biberian around 2008, Nasa GRC 2008, reproduced by Fralick around 2012...
Of course there is a tons of electrochemistry experiments, but with only an improvement in success rate, not total control.
The problem is usability of the work replicated, I agree.
-
So you don't think that the verification of the Brillouin reactor by SRI really happened?
I did talk about replication of Rossi‘s technology (QX and SK) and Directors dreams. I will eat my hat, if mainstream science will be able to verify and confirm these phantasies Rossi is writing about on his blog...
-
Your thinking is probably a wishful one only. If indeed so simple I wonder why nobody ended up with a verified (by 3rd party) working reactor with energy out > energy in...
It's not clear at all from your post above that you were specifically talking about Rossi - so do you accept the other other replications above are genuine proof of Eout>Ein?
-
Quote
Do you think that there is any such phenomenon as LENR at all?
Personally, I think it's indeterminable from hard facts available and also from the way those data are treated -- mostly ignored by man line scientists, investors and entrepreneurs alike. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" and keeping an open mind for better and more generally persuasive experimental results. But conventional particle physics works pretty well and it says that the sort of fusion claimed by P&F, Focardi, Celani, Rossi, etc. etc. can not make useful amounts of energy. I had a long discussion with an astrophysicist about this around three years ago centering on Rossi's claims. This person specialized in the nuclear reactions that create varied elements inside stars . He did some back of the envelope math and concluded that Coulomb's Law would be extremely difficult to circumvent. He mentioned muon-catalyzed fusion as an example of a phenomenon which while undoubtedly real, explicable and reproducible, would not and with current methods, could not produce more energy than it required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
So some form of "low" temperature fusion is possible but making useful energy with it is very improbable with present methods. It's a pity that even with the time and money they had, P&F could not take their work further into a clear cut and fully credible and perhaps practically useful regime. I know others here differ, but that is the opinion of most main line (whatever that is) scientists who have looked at it. And no, I will not support that conclusion with references. I think it is pretty clear by the very low of level of support for LENR in the scientific community. If LENR were clearly demonstrable, there would be widespread interest and tons of money spent. If that's not obvious to you, just as it is obvious Rossi is a crook, well, I can't help that.
-
@hunter
Do you think that there is any such phenomenon as LENR at all?
Alan, for that question to be easy to answer you'd need a clearer definition of what is LENR.
In my case I'd answer yes, definitely, or very unlikely, according to what you asked.
-
Alan, for that question to be easy to answer you'd need a clearer definition of what is LENR.
In my case I'd answer yes, definitely, or very unlikely, according to what you asked.Okay. Do you think that palladium and heavy water electrolysis at very high loading levels maintained for weeks sometimes produce anomalous heat that far exceeds the amount of heat that chemical system of the same size could produce, when there are no chemical changes in the cell? By "far exceed" I mean they sometimes produce thousands or hundreds of thousands of times more energy than a chemical system, at power levels that are easily detected, in some cases with no input power.
That is a simple definition. It is quite clear. Do you believe it, or not? If not, do you have any rational, falsifiable reason to disbelieve it? You have never given a reason to doubt any the major experiments by Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, etc., so I doubt you have any reasons that you have been hiding all these years.
To put it another way, when hundreds of experts measure heat using calorimetry invented in 1780, 1840 and 1907 (by Lavoisier, Joule and someone whose name I forget) -- methods that have used been millions of times -- and when these experts report heat at high s/n ratios, at power levels that Lavoisier could have measured with confidence, do you believe their results? Or do you think they might all be making mistakes? What mistakes? If you cannot list the mistakes, your objection cannot be falsified, so it is not science.
This is a little more complicated --
When these cells do produce anomalous heat, and helium is measured in blind tests by three independent labs, and it correlates with the heat, do you think that is proof of a nuclear reaction, or a fantastic coincidence, or a mistake? Again, if you say it is a mistake, you must be specific, and falsifiable. "There might be a mistake somewhere" does not count because it applies equally well to every experiment in the history of science, going back to Galileo.
Do you believe tritium coming out of nowhere that cannot be from concentration effects is proof of a nuclear reaction?
How about x-rays?
