Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

  • Good to know you care about how Darden spends a small part of his fortune. Even with his initial $10 million "out of pocket" gamble, he will leave tens on millions in inheritance. Certainly, it will be put to better use there.

  • Quote

    Rossi is an example... it is SOT's life thesis LENR =Rossi


    Rossi is a prime example of how easy it is to scam desirous enthusiasts about a fictitious high tech claim. And how high quality testing could have prevented the scam. There are many other examples of similar scams involving such things as magnetic motors, explosive detectors, super high mileage engines, long distance rapid transmission of broadband signals through "ordinary" wires or narrow band radios, paranormal phenomena, etc. etc. It should make you curious about how many other claims for LENR and related observations are wrong, either from faking or from unappreciated errors.


    If you want to know what my life thesis is about, whatever that means, you can contact me privately. Helping to expose scams is a spare time hobby. And it's been fun and fruitful.

  • Quote

    Good to know you care about how Darden spends a small part of his fortune. Even with his initial $10 million "out of pocket" gamble, he will leave tens on millions in inheritance. Certainly, it will be put to better use there.

    Darden can spend his claimed fortune on Vegas gambling or sex for hire for all I care. I do hate to see a criminal benefit from a profitable scam while fooling legitimate workers in a difficult field and taking away money that they could have used in a much better way for real research. Don't you hate that too Shane D. ?

  • . I do hate to see a criminal benefit from a profitable scam while fooling legitimate workers in a difficult field and taking away money that they could have used in a much better way for real research.


    If by "real research" you mean they use enough thermocouples, and place them properly, run calibrations, bring in true independent validators, do authentic due diligence, and a thorough background check, submit their findings to respected journals, and pass a snifex test...yes, I agree with you. :)

  • @Ascoli: IF you would read the papers and not just watch them (like a child does) , then you could start to understand your nonsensical arguments.


    I did read the F&P papers quite carefully, but every explanation of alleged excess heats is based on the temperature measured in A SINGLE point inside each cell. See for example the "seminal paper" of 1990 (1) and the ICCF3 paper of 1992 (2).


    Could you cite a F&P paper where the calculation of the alleged excess heat is based on the temperature curves provided by multiple measurement points inside a cell?


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • based on the temperature curves provided by multiple measurement points inside a cell?

    "" the calorimeters can be considered to be well stirred tanks. In view of the high degree of mixing and the axially uniform injection of heat, the maximum variation in temperature within the calorimeters at any

    given time was found to be 0.005 K except for the region in contact with the bottom Kel-F spacers where the variation reached 0.01 K. These temperature distributions were determined using cells which contained 5 thermistors which could be displaced in the radial and axial directions. Statements which have been made about the non-uniform temperature distributions in such cells [20,21] are incorrect.""

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf


    for those who have difficulty reading


    These temperature distributions were determined using cells which contained 5 thermistors.

    These thermistors could be displaced in the radial and axial direction"


    In Italian for those who understand English poorly


    Queste distribuzioni di temperatura sono state determinate utilizzando celle che contenevano 5 termistori


    Perhaps the problem is one of understanding CONTEXT , not of understanding language.

    The reason that one rather than five thermistors for temperature curves was used was because the temperature

    in the small cells was uniform



  • seven_of_twenty
    Member

    • New
    Quote Good to know you care about how Darden spends a small part of his fortune. Even with his initial $10 million "out of pocket" gamble, he will leave tens on millions in inheritance. Certainly, it will be put to better use there.

    Darden can spend his claimed fortune on Vegas gambling or sex for hire for all I care. I do hate to see a criminal benefit from a profitable scam while fooling legitimate workers in a difficult field and taking away money that they could have used in a much better way for real research. Don't you hate that too Shane D. ?


    Google spent 10 million on real research and got nothing.

    Darden spent 10 million out of

    pocket and got nothing but Rossi

    was able to use the money to keep

    doing research.

    Rossi might still be succesful with

    the E-Cat SK because of the 10 million that kept him going.

  • Would Dr Michael Staker's research classify as real research?

    Yes or no.?

    Have you read his paper yet?

    Yes or No.?

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    Robert - it is as always a pleasure for me to read and try to make sense of these detailed reports. I had not paid attention to that one before (or if I had do not remember this). I've found that often it takes me many hours of work to do this - mainly because I have good background knowledge - enough to review expert work - but only with a lot of interspersed background reading. I think that is quite a good position, because I'm less likely to make "we don't question this because no-one ever has" type assumptions but it also leaves me vulnerable to mistake, so I welcome your perhaps expert critique. Our approaches are also quite usefully complementary - it seems that you ask the experimenters for clarification - whereas i try to look at what they have written


    Just one thing: moderators: please could you ask Robert to refrain from personal comments. The comment below seems like some (unsuccessful) attempt to doxx me.

    How shall I refer you,,, Dr THHuxleynew? MS?



    Staker's 2018 report


    A calibration curve of 𝚫T versus power-in was run for cells with 1, 2, 3 and 4 nested tubes in an effort
    to assess sensitivity by adding tubes. This was motivated by the small volume of Pd electrode, anticipated
    power density releases (watts/cc), and a desire to distinguish between chemical energy (a few eV/atom) and
    nuclear energy (between keV/atom to MeV/atom, depending on fraction of atoms participating, see Results
    section below). The sensitivity increased with each nesting Pyrex tube and its associated dead air space.


    This curve (tested before and after the experiment) stops at 2.6W in (37C above ambient). Supposing ambient = 25C, that is still only calibration up to 62C measured.


    "runaway" behaviour is shown as (figure 23) starting at 74C. Well outside the calibration range.


    I have no doubt that this behaviour exists, but suggest it could be because of some nonlinear difference in thermal conductivity between the nested tubes, for example caused by the development of bubbles, or some other effect. To accept these results we would need high temperature calibration data with the setup run for a long period of time (enough for bubbles etc to form).


    Bubble formation might of course be different between D2 & H2 systems, because the physical properties are different.


    There remains the non-runaway behaviour difference between H and D cells. That is 1C at 66C, or 2.5% power difference between the cells. The real physical difference between the H and D, and the fact that what is measured here is not (precisely) power, but temperature, make this essentially a null result.


    So to summarise:


    "runaw-away" behaviour significant but outside of calibration range, and has possible causes in this complex multi-tube system.

    "normal" behaviour a small difference in temperature between the two cells, easily realisable from physical differences between D and H.


    Context


    the context on this thread - forgotten it seems - is the claim that LENR results are as obviously clear as the Curie results showing power emitted from Radium samples. The three characteristics of the Curie measurements that make their acceptance so easy are:


    • No power in
    • Controllable power out as shown from temp rise by moving the (small) sample
    • Easily replicable by anyone.

    The complexity and number of assumptions needed to translate the Staker runaway temperature into a genuine runaway power make it so very unclear, compared with this. In fact it is that lack of clarity from the LENR results (like this one) that do seem replicable that makes the interpretation of these experiments as LENR so contentious for science.


    THH

  • Google spent 10 million for the quest if there is any substance in claims of “excess heat” - and they got an answer (although not the one you like to hear)


    Darden spent 10 million out of pocket to find out if the e-cat works or not - and he got the answer (although not the one he liked to hear... and I could have given him the answer for a much cheaper price)


    ... and Rossi was able to use the money for buying condos at Miami Beach.

  • "" the calorimeters can be considered to be well stirred tanks. In view of the high degree of mixing and the axially uniform injection of heat, the maximum variation in temperature within the calorimeters at any

    given time was found to be 0.005 K except for the region in contact with the bottom Kel-F spacers where the variation reached 0.01 K. These temperature distributions were determined using cells which contained 5 thermistors which could be displaced in the radial and axial directions. Statements which have been made about the non-uniform temperature distributions in such cells [20,21] are incorrect.""

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf


    [...]
    Perhaps the problem is one of understanding CONTEXT , not of understanding language.


    I knew your excerpt above, but you probably missed the CONTEXT in which I rose my objection to JR about the number of T measurements. I did refer (*) to the SoT observation that a single T measurement is "error prone", i.e. it is more subject to provide false readings for any reason, for example a failure or deterioration of the probe or an experimental setup different from those checked with multiple probes.


    It's well known that, far from the boiling conditions, the presumed excess heat was estimated by F&P on the basis of a SINGLE temperature value, so this estimation is prone to errors as observed by SoT and implicitly confirmed by JR.


    In their multi million projects aimed at finding a solution to the most urgent problem of humankind, I don't see any valid reason why F&P didn't use more than one T probe in everyone of their tests.


    Quote

    The reason that one rather than five thermistors for temperature curves was used was because the temperature in the small cells was uniform


    Not for all setups, nor for all conditions.


    The "axially uniform injection of heat" cited in your quote could be invoked only for the cell setup shown on Fig.1 (1), where both electrodes spanned along nearly the entire height of the filled portion of the test tube. I wonder if these uniformity tests were done also with the shortest cathodes (1.25 cm), which were placed at the bottom of the cell.


    Moreover, F&P didn't specified up to which level they checked the uniformity of temperature. For sure, their uniformity hypothesis doesn't hold anymore after the onset of nucleate boiling, which starts when the bulk temperature is still well below the boiling point, as happened in the "1992 boil-off experiment" (2).


    (*) Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • Moreover, F&P didn't specified up to which level they checked the uniformity of temperature. For sure, their uniformity hypothesis doesn't hold anymore after the onset of nucleate boiling, which starts when the bulk temperature is still well below the boiling point, as happened in the "1992 boil-off experiment" (2).


    The temperature of a vessel containing boiling water is much more uniform than the temperature of a vessel containing hot water. As anybody who does calorimetry knows very well.

  • The temperature of a vessel containing boiling water is much more uniform than the temperature of a vessel containing hot water. As anybody who does calorimetry knows very well.


    Wiki on nucleate boiling:

    Two different regimes may be distinguished in the nucleate boiling range. When the temperature difference is between approximately 4 °C (7.2 °F) to 10 °C (18 °F) above TS, isolated bubbles form at nucleation sites and separate from the surface. This separation induces considerable fluid mixing near the surface, substantially increasing the convective heat transfer coefficient and the heat flux. In this regime, most of the heat transfer is through direct transfer from the surface to the liquid in motion at the surface and not through the vapor bubbles rising from the surface.

    Between 10 °C (18 °F) and 30 °C (54 °F) above TS, a second flow regime may be observed. As more nucleation sites become active, increased bubble formation causes bubble interference and coalescence. In this region the vapor escapes as jets or columns which subsequently merge into slugs of vapor.

    Interference between the densely populated bubbles inhibits the motion of liquid near the surface. This is observed on the graph as a change in the direction of the gradient of the curve or an inflection in the boiling curve. After this point, the heat transfer coefficient starts to reduce as the surface temperature is further increased although the product of the heat transfer coefficient and the temperature difference (the heat flux) is still increasing.

    When the relative increase in the temperature difference is balanced by the relative reduction in the heat transfer coefficient, a maximum heat flux is achieved as observed by the peak in the graph. This is the critical heat flux. At this point in the maximum, considerable vapor is being formed, making it difficult for the liquid to continuously wet the surface to receive heat from the surface. This causes the heat flux to reduce after this point. At extremes, film boiling commonly known as the Leidenfrost effect is observed.

    450px-Boiling_Curve.jpg
    Boiling curve for water at 1atm

    The process of forming steam bubbles within liquid in micro cavities adjacent to the wall if the wall temperature at the heat transfer surface rises above the saturation temperature while the bulk of the liquid (heat exchanger) is subcooled. The bubbles grow until they reach some critical size, at which point they separate from the wall and are carried into the main fluid stream. There the bubbles collapse because the temperature of bulk fluid is not as high as at the heat transfer surface, where the bubbles were created. This collapsing is also responsible for the sound a water kettle produces during heat up but before the temperature at which bulk boiling is reached.

    Heat transfer and mass transfer during nucleate boiling has a significant effect on the heat transfer rate. This heat transfer process helps quickly and efficiently to carry away the energy created at the heat transfer surface and is therefore sometimes desirable—for example in nuclear power plants, where liquid is used as a coolant.

    The effects of nucleate boiling take place at two locations:

    • the liquid-wall interface
    • the bubble-liquid interface

    The nucleate boiling process has a complex nature. A limited number of experimental studies provided valuable insights into the boiling phenomena, however these studies provided often contradictory data due to internal recalculation (state of chaos in the fluid not applying to classical thermodynamic methods of calculation, therefore giving wrong return values) and have not provided conclusive findings yet to develop models and correlations. Nucleate boiling phenomenon still requires more understanding




    So: fully boiling pure water is well mixed. But water with bubbles (foam) will have very different thermal conductivity in foam and water. Boiling water can also lead to different thermal conductivity with container according to what fraction of the container wall in different places is covered by bubbles. And boiling at lower rates is very complex with perhaps only partial mixing in liquid, none in foam.


    I don't agree that astoli has proven a point with foamgate but equally given the acknowledged existence of foam in these systems, or even without it, what you say about fully boiling water where turbulence mixes everything and surface bubbles are rapidly scrubbed may not apply in the F&P cells under all operating conditions.


    And although ascolfi is repetitive, so are those who argue the other side of this here.


    Unless you have some additional argument for this?


    Frankly, until reading arguments here I thought the boil-off evidence from F&P was generally accepted as weak. Just as I similarly view the quite large amount of other uncontrolled "runaway" evidence, unless it can by tied down in absolute terms.


    THH

  • robert bryant This is the first I heard of Staker and I have not read anything by him. I read the post by THHuxleynew and he is way more qualified to evaluate and comment on this sort of paper than I am. Nonetheless, I will read the material when I have time.


    SOT - I'd welcome many people here taking an interest in Staker's results, as I said I do not have much expertise here and in this case (Staker) I have not spent much time. All these replicable (?) modern excess heat experiments are interesting. We should know enough about how to trigger it and how to instrument well to obtain v solid results for FPHE. So I find recent papers like this with v flaky results underwhelming.

  • I'd welcome many people here taking an interest in Staker's results, as I said I do not have much expertise here

    and in this case (Staker) I have not spent much time.


    This is the first I heard of Staker and I have not read anything by him.


    For both SOT and THHuxleynew. Reading is only a click away.

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf

    You both find plenty time to read&comment on much else..

    in particular, THHuxleynew has wide ranging expertise

    from nucleate boiling to QED/QCD nuclear modeliing.

    Why not try your penetrating analytical skills on Dr Michael Staker's work?..especially since Nature classifies MS in fringe groups.


    Btw , THHuxleynew I asked you . how shall I refer to you to the Chinese who may not know you,

    since you suggest their work is completely artefactual


    Is DrTHHuxleynew too honorific?

    or would a mere THH suffice?

    I shall tell them that you are very intensely interested in their work which you have read closely

    and that this intense interest extends to the whole LENR field.:)


    I was amazed how THH established that

    MS had "v flaky results" without reading the paper closely. Such penetrating analysis!!!!

    I do not have much expertise here ....

    recent papers like this with v flaky results

  • Foam? Don't you start.


    Why not?


    Why in a thread dedicated to the Google's replication of the F&P effect, RB is allowed to post 4 times the same image about a minor finding of a minor CF researcher (1-2-3-4), but it is forbidden to mention a well known phenomenon which has affected the original experiments of the two CF pioneers and all the many attempts to replicate their results (*)?


    (1) Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

    (2) Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

    (3) Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

    (4) Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

    (*) Clearance Items

  • I'd welcome many people here taking an interest in Staker's results,


    Actually Dr Michael Staker's publication of his results is less than one year old.

    Nature appears to be ignorant of them because Dr Michael Staker is not a 'Fringe' scientist.

    Nature says that current non Google-X financed scientists are a fringe group..

    Dr Staker has published since 1972 in scientific journals

    https://www.loyola.edu/-/media…0%20dec%202018.ashx?la=en

    Dr Michael Staker has demonstrated the importance of considering the material science aspects of LENR

    such as the existence of novel phases, gamma, delta and epsilon ,when there is high fugacity( high concentrations of

    deuterium) relative to palladium. He contends that these contribute to the formation of (SAV)

    imperfections in the PdD lattice structure which contribute to the nuclear active site formation.


    His calorimetry work replicates successfully the results of

    Fleischmann and Pons thirty years ago in an accurate and painstaking manner.

    It is a pity that UBC(et al) researchers did not consult with Michael Staker in their calorimetry investigations

    and hopefully some of them can take an interest in his findings and his publication.

    The prior learning curve of Staker plus the novel phases.. gamma,delta and epsilon may be helpful.

    The UBC group are using an old alpha beta phase diagram from a Brodowsky,1978 text..

    Perhaps the UBC et al group can acknowledge the prior Staker work in their report on calorimetry.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf