Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet
Vodka: 60% water, 40% ethyl alcohol, 0% science
Perhaps Ascoli's wet comment suits a different thread
Takahashi: Enhancement of Excess Thermal Power in Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas
-
-
Trace moisture from the air?
No way. They keep the material clean in airtight containers. There is a lot of contamination in air. Anyway, trace moisture would not cause a measurable effect.
Ascoli said "very wet." There is no mention of water or any other fluid in any of the papers. He made that up.
-
At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet, so the heating rate is slower. As temperature rises above the boiling point, the water evaporates starting from the bottom of the RC, where the cartridge heater is located. Subsequently, the dry powder heats at a higher rate.
You have to do better than this. Speculating that a fuel sample is wet, without proof of that in the report, is reckless and very unfair to the authors.
Perhaps you should reconsider whether you are being useful, or purposely annoying? I could make a good argument that originally you served some positive purpose here, but lately you have decided that annoying suits you better.
-
Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet? Wet with what?!?
Sapporo?
-
or purposely annoying
annoying is too kind ,,vexatious is more apppropriate IMHO
This kind of behavior cannot be observed with Mizuno's air flow calorimeter,
Mizuno's calorimeter is sufficient for calorific output but
for thermal kinetics the Kobe and Tohoku calorimeters are much better..
however measurements of gamma output in the 200 and below KeV range
will be necessary for analysing reaction kinetics..
hopefully some progress on this gamma front will be reported in the next writeup from Tohoku
-
I asked the team about their future plans, they said 'We are going forward to starting next step experiments with an improved apparatus/system.... happy to show newer results in forthcoming meetings.'
-
Ascoli's claim that the powder is wet is wrong for the following reasons:
1. There are several papers about the powder gas loading technique, by Takahashi, Arata and others. None of them says there is water in the powder.
2. The powder is calcined for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg C. (p. 2) "Calcined" means "to heat (something, such as inorganic materials) to a high temperature but without fusing in order to drive off volatile matter or to effect changes (such as oxidation or pulverization)." The whole point is to eliminate any water or other volatile material.
3. The powder is then baked at 450 deg C under vacuum "to meet the final RC pressure of less than 1 Pa." (p. 2) If there were liquid left in it, it would not fall to such low pressure.
4. The cells are sealed, and run at high temperatures. If there were water in them, it would vaporize and probably fracture the cell. The pressure is measured in this and other experiments, in order to estimate the extent of gas loading. It falls slightly as gas is absorbed. It does not rise, as it would if water in the cell were vaporized.
-
Do they have a theoretical model for the observer fusion? e.g. electron screening/H* formation increasing fusion probability?
-
Do they have a theoretical model for the observer fusion?
Takahashi has a theory. This is mentioned on p. 2 and p. 14. References to papers about the theory are listed.
-
No way. They keep the material clean in airtight containers. There is a lot of contamination in air. Anyway, trace moisture would not cause a measurable effect.
Ascoli said "very wet." There is no mention of water or any other fluid in any of the papers. He made that up.
Obvious misquoting and blatant lying about the paper. Those who haven't read it in detail like me would be temporarily fooled. Things like this hold back mainstream acceptance of radical new observations and analysis.
-
You have to do better than this. Speculating that a fuel sample is wet, without proof of that in the report, is reckless and very unfair to the authors.
Perhaps you should reconsider whether you are being useful, or purposely annoying? I could make a good argument that originally you served some positive purpose here, but lately you have decided that annoying suits you better.
Shane, you are completely off base here. As a moderator, what you have written sounds to me like a threat.
Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results. It is the sort of thing that can be addressed by counterarguments rather than threats. Contributions like that should be welcomed here.
-
I also think it is unlikely that Google or NASA would publish a positive result, because of academic politics.
The field of LENR could do without more of this sort of conspiricist babble. Jed has little experience with the world of academic research world and as a result he thinks in cartoons.
-
The calorimeter in this paper shows variations in the start-up of the reaction. Figure 1 top left shows the heat increasing as the temperature reaches 300 deg C. This kind of behavior cannot be observed with Mizuno's air flow calorimeter, because the reactor has a large thermal mass and there is a long delay before the heat reaches the temperature sensors.
I haven't yet worked my way through much of this paper, but right off the bat I note that Fig 1, top left, shows the sort of inflection point in the reactor heating curve that I have been saying should be associated with heat-activated heat production. I still think that something of the same sort should have been visible in Mizuno's results. Any way of estimating the relative differences in thermal mass in the two systems?
-
I wish Takahashi would publish in a peer-reviewed journal which he does not also edit.
-
Shane, you are completely off base here. As a moderator, what you have written sounds to me like a threat.
Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results. It is the sort of thing that can be addressed by counterarguments rather than threats. Contributions like that should be welcomed here.
Reasonable and founded alternative explanations are not only welcome here, but also encouraged. Telling the lie that the powder is wet and that explains the observed behavior is not reasonable nor founded. The experiment preparation is specially concerned with removing all impurities, including water.
-
Shane, you are completely off base here. As a moderator, what you have written sounds to me like a threat.
Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results. It is the sort of thing that can be addressed by counterarguments rather than threats. Contributions like that should be welcomed here.
My impression was that the wet theory was implausible, and thrown out there to be disruptive. Was I wrong? The forum acts as an informal peer review system. It heavily depends on trusting those such as yourself to be honest in their assessments, with the good intent of finding legitimate errors that would appreciably affect the results. When someone betrays that trust -even one time, his motives thereafter always have to be suspect.
Do you trust Ascoli65 's intent? If you do, then you will feel protective of him, and assume everything he says is a legitimate critique as you are doing now. If not, like most of us, you will be very suspicious, and IMO it is his job to change our impressions of him. It is not our responsibility to carte blanche accept he is here for good purpose. He has to prove his opinion, and intent, is worthy of our considerations. If not, well then he is not going to get a good reception, and if it continues, he will not be here much longer.
In this particular case...the Takahashi report, the authors have spent literally 1000's of hours over the years working in the lab, communicating with each other, meetings, conferences, thinking in bed at night, living these experiments. And along comes ascoli, who with a few sentences about wet powders being the culprit, negates all their hard work. What an insult! At the least, if someone is going to act as a peer reviewer, they owe it to the authors to be a little more circumspect, do their homework, and be respectful of their abilities. Not just throw a grenade into the discussion, and walk away.
The forum also has a responsibility to the various teams whose reports we review here, to ensure they are treated respectfully.
-
I wish Takahashi would publish in a peer-reviewed journal which he does not also edit.
I assure you he wishes the same. The main original reason of the existence of the International Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and the Japan Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is because they answer the need to provide a peer reviewed communication channel for authors that for years tried to get published in already existing journals and kept being rejected without review, for the palpably forbidden nature of their research subject, so these journals had to be created out of necessity, not out of will.
-
Whatever ts disruptive value, it is true that if there is absorbed water in the powder then this would be a factor in interpreting the results of Takahashi et al. And the difficulty would be in exactly the direction Ascoli65 says. If there is reason to think that the fuel isn't wet then fine, that is the answer. The answer is not threats.
Do you trust Ascoli65 's intent? If you do, then you will feel protective of him, and assume everything he says is a legitimate critique as you are doing now.
I haven't really kept track of Ascoli65 so I have no particular opinion of his intent. But even if I trusted his intent it is not true that I would "assume everything he says is legitimate critique". I trust Jed's intent but I just gave him a blast for a foolishly uninformed comment he made.
It is up to the moderators to avoid actually promoting groupthink here.
-
Reasonable and founded alternative explanations are not only welcome here, but also encouraged. Telling the lie that the powder is wet and that explains the observed behavior is not reasonable nor founded. The experiment preparation is specially concerned with removing all impurities, including water.
Entertaining a hypothesis is not lying. You guys need to grow up.
-
Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results. It is the sort of thing that can be addressed by counterarguments rather than threats. Contributions like that should be welcomed here.
It is not a rational point for anybody who has read the Takahashi papers properly.
