The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

  • Ascoli65 Your unwillingness to even just read something new and your obviously greater than necessary confidence in self/mainstream will be a great hindrance to your understanding, whether people answer your questions or not. Watch the videos i posted of his colleagues and at least skim an abstract written by him before dismissing it outright. You have an attitude towards the "most mainstream documented" recent LENR researcher that is similar to an antediluvian outside the ark lol. It's never going to rain is it...? Of course that is a common conservative approach in human psychology so no one is holding it against you hopefully. Appreciate new knowledge, turn a new Lief or leaf!

  • Ascoli65 Your unwillingness to even just read something new and your obviously greater than necessary confidence in self/mainstream will be a great hindrance to your understanding, whether people answer your questions or not. Watch the videos i posted of his colleagues and at least skim an abstract written by him before dismissing it outright. You have an attitude towards the "most mainstream documented" recent LENR researcher that is similar to an antediluvian outside the ark lol. It's never going to rain is it...? Of course that is a common conservative approach in human psychology so no one is holding it against you hopefully. Appreciate new knowledge, turn a new Lief or leaf!


    Since January 2011, I've read a lot of new stuff. But I'm interested in CF/LENR, not nuclear physics. More precisely I'm interested in the claims of excess heat made by the CFers. I don't deny that nuclear physics is a wonderful subject of research, in which it's still possible to make other interesting discoveries. But CF is essentially the search for heat in excess of normal electrochemical sources. Therefore, the first step in this field is the confirmation of this excess heat. Only after having excluded any conventional cause or possible artifact for the apparent XHs or AHEs, does it make sense to speculate and investigate on a possible nuclear origin.


    As already said, I've not found till now any heat claim - from a milestone in CF research such as the F&Pìs "1992 boil-off experiment" to the recent AHE peaks claimed by Takahashi et al. at JFC20 - which could not be explained in a conventional way, including possible errors. So, I see no reason to devote some of my time studying Holmlid, who is not even mentioned in the Takahashi presentation discussed in this thread.

  • which could not be explained in a conventional way


    Which Ascoli chooses to explain in an Ascolian n=1 way

    such as alleging that Mizuno faked his temperature readings..

    This allegation has been shown to be base and baseless..

    a figment of a dystonian fantasy

  • Since January 2011, I've read a lot of new stuff. But I'm interested in CF/LENR, not nuclear physics. More precisely I'm interested in the claims of excess heat made by the CFers. I don't deny that nuclear physics is a wonderful subject of research, in which it's still possible to make other interesting discoveries. But CF is essentially the search for heat in excess of normal electrochemical sources. Therefore, the first step in this field is the confirmation of this excess heat. Only after having excluded any conventional cause or possible artifact for the apparent XHs or AHEs, does it make sense to speculate and investigate on a possible nuclear origin.


    As already said, I've not found till now any heat claim - from a milestone in CF research such as the F&Pìs "1992 boil-off experiment" to the recent AHE peaks claimed by Takahashi et al. at JFC20 - which could not be explained in a conventional way, including possible errors. So, I see no reason to devote some of my time studying Holmlid, who is not even mentioned in the Takahashi presentation discussed in this thread.


    The point I'm trying to share is that there are no defined boundaries in the study of matter, it's all the same story. We need to understand nuclear physics, photonics, chemistry, and dense matter physics in order to understand these excess heat/light/electricity claims. I may be pushing a few buttons but this is a lot more than Fleischmann and Pons. Holmid may just have a more productive way of accomplishing the same ends that sporadic excess heat experimenters want and he has a university lab in the western world. And people getting PhD in his work funded by Nurront.


    He isn't the only one, the LENR community needs to stop alienating the groups that have possibly the best results, because it isn't what they expect, or they don't have the funds to replicate it. As long as output =mc^2 is respected I will consider it. God forbid, if Mills comes through after all it will be amazing as well to me! It is bigger than stereotypical LENR, this is possibly a turned page in the physics of hydrogen, a New Fire producing light, pushing out useful states of matter and annihilating matter to mesons. I may be reaching in my hope and enthusiasm, but I wouldn't be me if the possibility didn't excite me.

  • Well, if Holmlid's ultra dense H/D work is all 100% correct, then F. Winterberg's assertion that this represents the greatest discovery (as far as fusion is concerned) since nuclear fission. So why can't ITER and other tokomak-based fusion projects be abandoned in favor of using a laser-driven inertial confinement fusion reactor using UDD/H as the fuel? Maybe a top nuclear scientist like Winterberg might at least encourage some experimental work at the National Ignition Facility which has a laser capable of applying 3-4 M J to a UDD/H sample. Would a whole eg mg sample of already-compressed UDD/H release all its possible energy content in one microsec?

  • The point I'm trying to share is that there are no defined boundaries in the study of matter,


    I agree. People can study this important topic as they like, crossing any established boundary, if they are able to, just staying within the limit of the resources provided by public and private funding.


    Quote

    We need to understand nuclear physics, photonics, chemistry, and dense matter physics in order to understand these excess heat/light/electricity claims. I may be pushing a few buttons but this is a lot more than Fleischmann and Pons.


    I disagree on this specific point. Before resorting to sophisticate knowledges, such as nuclear physics, photonic, etc., to explain the claims of excess heat (or any other quantity) you need to be sure that this excess is real by considering all the simplest possible hypothesis, including errors and artifacts. It's just common sense. No bazooka is needed to kill a mosquito.


    Quote

    Holmid may just have a more productive way of accomplishing the same ends that sporadic excess heat experimenters want and he has a university lab in the western world. And people getting PhD in his work funded by Nurront.


    The reasons for Holmlid research are evaluated by his university and his funders. I can't contest them.


    However, some abstracts of his vast literature end with sentences like this: "If spontaneous nuclear fusion or other nuclear processes take place in D(0), it may give rise to the high-energy particle signal. Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and so called cold fusion may also give rise to such particles."


    I find this reference to controversial (to say the least) phenomena quite hazardous and harmful to his studies. I wonder who can be encouraged to go through the main text after having read this kind of premise.


    Anyway, this thread is not dedicated to Holmlid but to the latest results presented by Takahashi and his team at JCF20. Their presentation includes 8 graphs in which the downward peaks aligned along ordinary temperature curves are interpreted as "Chaotic oscillation of TC4 by Gas-turbulence by AHE". Well IMO these oscillations are neither chaotic, nor anomalous and not even due to heating events. So, I've asked the other L-F members, if they could propose a simpler explanation, not a more complex one. Any suggestion?

    • Official Post

    Ascoli65


    Although I disagree with your premise that LENR is illegitimate because it was founded on FP's -who were wrong in your opinion, I have to admit that you are sounding very reasonable lately. Must be the holiday spirit kicking in. Whatever...hopefully it does not last long. The forum needs at least one protagonist with a temperament, and after Kirk mellowed out...you are it.

  • Simplest (but probably unlikely) answer is a dysfunctional thermocouple, possibly damaged by H/D absorption?


    Simple but impossible. A dysfunctional thermocouple doesn't show those oscillations, featuring a constant pace for long periods. Moreover, it's not in contact with the H/D gas. It's glued to the outside of the upper flange (or the connected pipe).


    A clue. It seems to me that TC4 is the only thermocouple measuring the temperature of a metal component, the upper flange, which is soldered to a metal and not thermally insulated tube coming out of the reactor cell.

  • I was referring to "Input power", not "temperature


    Ascoli65 , was not referring ... it was alleging...it was miscontstruing

    Ascoli was alleging that input power was pasted by Mizuno...for weeks

    unti it was shown that its spreadsheet analysis was either

    foolish or intentionally biased.


    "The allegations of pasting/deception etc had been going on since Aug 7.

    Far too long.

    Apparently Ascoli 'considered' rounding but never considered truncation

    And never bothered to check with the blower VxI as well as the heater VxI.

    THHNew ,supposedly the math expert, never checked Ascoli’s stuff

    preferring to believe Ascoli was convincing.


    Here there is HUGE evidence of confirmation bias,by A+T

    Ascoli confirmed his theory of deception

    THHnew confirms his theory of ineptness and error,


    When I finally got on to analysing the blower VxI data on September 12 it

    revealed that truncation error had happened

    A+T were told by Jed that Jed’s translation error involved numeric formulation change

    a week before this and two years before this in 2017


    On and after September 12 both A+T

    ignore and attempted to rubbish the BLOWER/HEATER data analysis

    which confirmed truncation error.


    (The truncation error could never affect the input power by more than 0.002%

    and yet Ascoli used it to allege deception and THHnew to allege incompetence


    As late as Saturday 14 September Ascoli was still asserting that Jed deleted data..


    Jed repeatedly told the truth

    But Ascoli and THH alleged it was not the truth..

    That’s getting on to the 40 days of trial… that’s almost Biblical!

    Curbina knows he warned these guys some time ago

    I warned them on 13 September with silencio.

    .

    This was such a huge waste of time…and yet Ascoli65 still continues its bluster on this forum

  • Well, if Holmlid's ultra dense H/D work is all 100% correct, then F. Winterberg's assertion that this represents the greatest discovery (as far as fusion is concerned) since nuclear fission. So why can't ITER and other tokomak-based fusion projects be abandoned in favor of using a laser-driven inertial confinement fusion reactor using UDD/H as the fuel? Maybe a top nuclear scientist like Winterberg might at least encourage some experimental work at the National Ignition Facility which has a laser capable of applying 3-4 M J to a UDD/H sample. Would a whole eg mg sample of already-compressed UDD/H release all its possible energy content in one microsec?


    As many have implied prior to this "fusion", as we see it, may not even be the the best mechanism using UDH/D to produce or unleash electricity or thermal energy from resonant electro/nuclear interactions. We would have no need for fast neutron shielding or turbines, just let it produce it's product flowing through wires wherever appropriate. Don't forget energy release from making the UDH. Almost too good to be true, but that's why I speak not in absolutes but in passionate reasoned educated guesses. If that doesn't work out fission MSRs are also awesome!


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Maybe a top nuclear scientist like Winterberg might at least encourage some experimental work at the National Ignition Facility which has a laser capable of applying 3-4 M J to a UDD/H sample.


    This is the best path to follow if you want to see failure!


    The amount of H*/D* on the surface is tiny compared to the volume and needs only a few watts equivalent pulses. Even the lab-light could start the reaction...

  • Conversely, a positive result backed up by WInterberg's vortex theory might find wider acceptance of Holmlid's work also Holmlid himself has no qualms about pursuing a hot fusion approach. But as you suggest maybe such a trial met with failure so was never published.:)

  • "Winterberg is known for the idea of impact fusion and the concept of the magnetically insulated diode for the generation of multi-megampere megavolt ion beams

    for the purpose of heating plasmas to thermonuclear fusion temperatures"


    Winterberg was born in 1929 in Berlin

    but maybe his ancestors come from Neanderthal


    this is the big stone axe approach but with megavolts...


    a long way form the NEDO approach with PNZ (Pd1Ni10/zirconia) and CNZ(Cu1Ni7/zirconia alloy)

    where the only input is low thermal




    I

  • Jedrepeatedly told the truth


    JedRothwell was asked to provide an explanation for the differences in the data of the two spreadsheets in the same post where I noticed this difference:

    From Mizuno reports increased excess heat , dated August 7, 2019


    […]


    Well, as you understand, this situation raises a very critical question: why are the wattmeter readings reported only on the control test spreadsheet and the active test spreadsheet contains the results of the product V/DC*I/DC?


    Can you please provide an explanation or maybe ask Mizuno?


    JR was the one who published the two spreadsheet in September 2017. He has the original spreadsheets and could have easily answered my question, by saying that he had posted the two spreadsheet with a different number format, but he didn't provide this explanation. On the contrary, he only insisted that 3 or 4 different instruments had provided nearly the same value of the power. This response left the substitution of the input power in just one of the spreadsheets as the only plausible explanation for the difference in their data.


    A plausible (not necessarily the real one) explanation was provided only on September 16 by LENR Calender, who pointed out the difference in the numerical format between the two spreadsheet.


    This same explanation could and should have been provided by JR after my first request. On the contrary, he provided contradictory versions about the use of the Yokogawa wattmeter (*), the only instrument suitable for rapidly changing input power, and this fact fed the suspicious about the information contained in the spreadsheets. This suspicious has not been solved by LC finding, because if it is confirmed that the "Input power" values reported in both the spreadsheets derive from the product V*I, it means that both the original records of the Yokogawa wattmeter were lost, or not even recorded, contrary to what is reported in the Mizuno paper.


    Can you understand? In this case the situation would be even worse!


    (*) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry


    This was such a huge waste oftime…and yet Ascoli65 still continues its bluster on this forum


    This thread is devoted to discuss the Takahashi results, not Mizuno's. Any idea about the TC4 oscillations?

  • This thread is devoted to discuss the Takahashi results, not Mizuno's. Any idea about the TC4 oscillations?

    Any thread with Ascoli65 is in danger of descending into dystopia.

    Ascoli has neither the nouse nor the subtlety nor the inclination to identify

    a truncation error

    which Jed talked about in 2017 in that spreadsheet and


    it alleges vexatiously that it is due to pasting..

  • .....but maybe the nuclear Neanderthal approach is sometimes necessary? Generate larger UDH fuel samples and raise the laser power in steps then to find optimum fusion conditions might be the answer rather than clubbing small amounts of surface fuel with the max laser power available. This may work. Let's face it nothing much else hot or cold fusion is going anywhere fast.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.