To repeat it on more time: My heat-pump delivers delivers 5 fold output from input = 1 and about 3.8 for heating water.
Nobody will by a COP 2 heater....except it is dirt cheap...
that works well only when the environmental conditions help, in more adverse conditions the COP of heat pumps can also be closer to 2 than to 5
To repeat it on more time: My heat-pump delivers delivers 5 fold output from input = 1 and about 3.8 for heating water.
Nobody will by a COP 2 heater....except it is dirt cheap...
This COP of 2 is not aiming for an end-product.
The important point they make is a new (replicated) technology that can be further investigated and developed.
Regarding a comparison with heat pumps: COP of 4 - 5 is not a fair claim. There is (thermal) energy taken from surrounding air which is not included in the COP calculations.
Alan Smith, is this the Hokkaido development based on Mizuno’s work prior to his R20 results, or is this based in their recent replication?
I'm not sure- I found the link while checking out Ahlfors excellent find - the rest is down to Google translate - which is getting much better at Japanese.
that works well only when the environmental conditions help, in more adverse conditions the COP of heat pumps can also be closer to 2 than to 5
Switzerland is a good median place. Ground water heat pups deliver a COP of 6. The problem are air/water heat pumps that work well down to -15C air T with still above COP 2. In warmer places you get even more than a COP of 6. In more sunny regions hot water can me made free all year with the latest solar converters that heat well above 200C.
Regarding a comparison with heat pumps: COP of 4 - 5 is not a fair claim. There is (thermal) energy taken from surrounding air which is not included in the COP calculations.
COP simply paid energy input versus input/paid + free energy!
Nobody is interested in LENR below a COP of at least 4-5.
Nobody is interested in LENR below a COP of at least 4-5.
Nobody wants that 300 % efficient junk.
This COP of 2 is not aiming for an end-product.
COP 2 can't happen according to the DOE circa 1995.. anecdotally
but we are beyond this now ,, beyond anecdotes
the problem is " the quantum nanosize effect"
using a valid theory plus engineering to get up to COP 6
Brillouin and Mizuno have the same problem
This COP of 2 is not aiming for an end-product.
The important point they make is a new (replicated) technology that can be further investigated and developed.
The point I wanted to make is that this is shown at an (internal?) university exibition.
This is commonly a way to draw attention to get (increased) funding for further (fundamental) research.
Nobody is interested in LENR below a COP of at least 4-5.
The "COP" (output to input ratio) of today's LENR experiments is meaningless. It can easily be changed. The ratio has no scientific meaning, and no technological significance. This is not a "gain" in the technical sense. That word implies the input power is somehow converting into output, or modulating it, the way a transistor does. The input power in electrolysis experiments produces and sustains the necessary conditions. You can decrease input power by putting more salts in the electrolyte, or putting the anode and cathode closer together. With gas loading, the input power raises the temperature to go high enough to begin loading the material and starting the reaction. So, you can decrease input power by improving the insulation. Researchers do not do these things because they are both a pain in the butt. They make it harder to do the experiment, and they prove nothing.
If researchers learn to control the reaction, it will be a trivial matter to make the ratio any convenient number. We know this because in some cases the ratio has been infinite, with no input power. An infinite ratio after triggering may turn out to the most convenient form of energy. This is how combustion works. Or, it may turn out that some level of input power is useful to control the power.
Worrying about the COP -- or even discussing it -- at this stage is ridiculous. It is like debating how to optimize an electric motor a few months after Oersted discovered electromagnetism in 1820. People did, in fact, quickly realize that the electromagnetic effect could both generate electricity and run an electric motor. They soon devised primitive motors, to show the proof of principle. But these motors were not practical. Practical electric generators and motors did not emerge until Edison developed them in 1880, 60 years later. We hope that cold fusion will not take that long, but in any case, it is still at the stage of an impractical laboratory phonomenon, hundreds of times smaller and less controlled that it needs to be for a technology. Attempts to optimize it are doomed to failure, because no one understands how it works. It can be controlled crudely at best, with the McKubre equation parameters. Companies and researchers who claim they can control it with precision seem to be fooling themselves, as far as I can tell.
Some researchers, and some companies say they not make their devices available for confirmation or replication until they reach a certain COP level. They will try to attract venture capital to reach the necessary COP in secret. I think this strategy is doomed to failure. I think it reflects ignorance of the history of science and technology, and the impractical nature of the initial implementations of things like electric generators, electric motors, incandescent lights, Diesel engines, airplanes, transistors, and many other devices at the time they were first revealed. Incandescent lights were made public and discussed widely 20 years before Edison made them practical, by Moses Farmer and others. If they had been kept secret, Edison would have had that much more trouble. There was never any possibility that Farmer and the others would make a practical incandescent light. They were far away from accomplishing that. Only Edison made progress towards useful technology.
Mizuno is closer to a practical technology than the original bulk Pd electrochemical approach. But the difference is not significant. It is probably not meaningful from the point of view of a venture capitalist, although you never know. We are probably not closer to a practical device. This is a thousand-kilometer journey. Fleischmann, McKubre and the others went 100 m from the starting point. Mizuno has gone 200 m. Twice as far! He has 9,999.8 km to go. It will take billions of dollars to make cold fusion into a practical source of energy. Fortunately, if it ever becomes apparent to the general public that cold fusion is real, every industrial company on earth will invest in it, and hundreds of billions will be spent. More progress will be make every month than we have made in the last 30 years.
Anyone who invests in cold fusion as it stands today with the goal of making money is ignorant. This is a lot like investing in electric motor futures a month after Orsted found out that magnetism produces electricity and vice versa.
QuoteIt will take billions of dollars to make cold fusion into a practical source of energy.
I don't see any reasons for it, until Mizuno's reactor works and it can be manufactured as easily as announced. What we need is to start to sell some kits on KickStarter.com. Can Mizuno warrantee, that he can construct working reactor from prefabricated components?
I don't see any reasons for it, until Mizuno's reactor works and it can be manufactured as easily as announced.
Today (as part of the day job) I enquired how much it would cost to get a single new chemical EU approved as part of a wood preservation compound. The chemical in question is disodium borate (borax). The asnwer? Between 2.5 and 5 million Euros. Science is not cheap.
Borate is toxic for most plants above a very low concentratin threshold, so it is not easy to get approval for anything that contains it and can leak to to the environment.
QuoteI often say the debate in cold fusion is conducted on one side by professors from recognized institutions who state their full names, and on the other side by anonymous trolls at Wikipedia who name themselves after comic-book characters. Which side do you think has more credibility?
Appeal to authority? Who you are is important but it is a modest portion of credibility of scientific claims. The large portion is clear, clean experiments with impressive results which can be replicated by others. As for skeptics, it's the quality of the argument that matters. Perfect illustrations of these points are Steorn and Rossi. High tech scams, delusions and errors are unfortunately not uncommon.
QuoteThe people at Hokkaido U. of Science are witnessing it right now, as shown in the photo here:
Not on that web page as translated by Google. Unless it's in the PDF file available whose name is in Japanese.
It is disconcerting how often stuff which is obvious to JedRothwell is not evident on simple examination. So OK,what am I missing this time?
QuoteNobody wants that 300 % efficient junk.
Right. Nobody wants a device that pumps out kilowatts of heat from an input of hundreds of Watts of electricity, regardless of ambient conditions and with a wiff of "fuel" per year, and no pollution. Yah shoore. And make it "self-running?" Nah, nobody would care. %$#@&*#!!!!!
(just to be clear, this is in agreement with Paradigmnoia 's sarcasm)
High tech scams, delusions and errors are unfortunately not uncommon.
Fortunately SOT's noisy devotion to them is uncommon.
Even when there is solid data MaryYugo was also rather vociferous... so I recall
Appeal to authority?
Nope. Because these are Bona Fide actual authorities. Fleischmann and Bockris wrote the book on 20th century electrochemistry. It would only be an appeal to authority if they were not authorities. Which is why the fallacy is properly called "appeal to doubtful authority." When the authority is real, citing them is a valid argument.
It is quite clear that the Wikipedia authors are not authorities. They don't know the first thing about cold fusion.
The large portion is clear, clean experiments with impressive results which can be replicated by others.
Sure. Like ITER, the top quark, gravity wave detection, open heart surgery, self-driving cars, or cloning. Anyone can replicate those things! If they couldn't be replicated easily, you wouldn't believe them, would you?
Sur
Sure. Like ITER
The burden of proof for ITER( the way) is always on a receding horizon
The burden of proof is about the expectation. In conversation with my patent examiner, he told me not to focus on energy production, because fusion can't be proven. He meant it in the sense that everyone expects that when a fusion system is proven, it will produces enormous amounts of heat (energy). I told him fusion can be proven but energy production in that sense can't. An equation of state for a fusion reaction was data derived and is well out of the error range. The calculations based on estimated inputs and output and the equation of state for reaction would put the energy at 95.6 million BTU but the heat output was 7404 BTU with an input of 4533 BTU. So the problem isn't fusion (fusion is proven by measured inputs and outputs) rather the problem is why does the energy seems to vanish. My argument is if we dismiss fusion because of the high energy expectation, we put people at an unknown risk: because something serious is obviously happening. If we accept fusion, that 95.6 million BTU per the equation of state is something we maybe able to recover. Everyone proposing research makes that step from what we know to proposing there is something to be gained by further research. No one will get proof of what we will gain without research and someone must fund it or we will never get that carrot which is dangled in front of us.
My argument is if we dismiss fusion because of the high energy expectation
High energy... as in 12 million electron voltsper deuterium atom..12MeV/D ?
Cold fusion was dismissed for a number of reasons. including
1. it was too cold.. sufficient collisions could not happen at temperature less than 100 million K... according to theory
2. There was no ash... not enough neutrons/not enough gamma radiation commensurate with the anomalous heat produced..
not because there was no anomalous heat... the anomalous heat is always way above the heat produced by chemical reaction
which is only 5 eV / hydrogen or deuterium atom for combustion... D2 + O ---> D20 + ~10eV
...which was why it was called anomalous heat..
3, There was no helium.. (but Miles and others showed there was)
However the current NEDO research continues despite an energy output of much less than 12 Mev /D
=100,000 eV per deuterium transfer.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas
Reason,, 100,000 Ev /D is much higher than 5 Ev/D
Takahashi infers .. nuclear origin.. what else is there in the atom except nucleus.
... the patent office may conclude not enough burden of proof..
Some people don't want help and other welcome it. Funny thing good science starts with belief. Much of the belief we needs comes from our interaction with others. I saw this post this morning and I though it would help. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/202…ercome-impostor-syndrome/.
