High repeatability rate in the history of LENR

  • ... noise?

    Old noise


    What might be useful is their new 1-40 kev detector..

    "

    but it did allow for extremely close
    placement of an X-ray detector, with a detection
    range of ~ 1 to 40 keV, at the backside of the chip
    (Fig 3),
    "

    the problem is ....how this can view the inside of a low prssure ...500 Pa.. vacuum chamber..

    with any kind of sensitivity..



    perhaps Japan CF Research Society 20 proceedings will give some info..


    it should be ready some time soon..

  • five years of effort
    have demonstrated that there are mundane
    experimental explanations for most, if not all, of the
    claims of LENR/cold fusion research to date."


    is a big call..


    Where do they say that? I don't see it in the paper you linked to.


    If they did say it . . . I'll bet they cannot list a single mundane explanation for any of the major experiments by Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles, Storms or the other leading researchers. They are making a statement without evidence. Just because they do not know how to do electrochemistry, that does not mean nobody else knows how to do it.

  • Not the major, and not the best. 😉


    It's the major:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf - Page 14

    The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity.”

    (emphasies added)


    It was the only F&P experiment described in the 8 documents selected by the LENR people in 2004 (12 years later!) to be submitted to DOE:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/g…ent/DOE2004/7Papers.shtml

    Scientific Papers Selected for the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy LENR Review


    M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O System; from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176, (1993)

    (emphasies added)


    And its video is considered the best documented proof that cold fusion is real:

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect.

    (emphasies added)

    FP's experiments discussion

    However, more to the point, you don't need papers. You don't need Fleischmann, Miles or anyone else. You can see for yourself. I mean that literally. Look a good copy of the boil off experiment video and you will see, …

    You can confirm much of this just by looking at the video, …

    (emphasies added)

    FP's experiments discussion

    You can see the proof yourself, right there in the video. You can also see that 30 W of electrolysis does not even boil the water. You can see a great deal, but you refuse to look. There are none so blind . . .


    FP's experiments discussion

    while it produces no electrolysis bubbles from either electrode. You doubt that was the case? LOOK AT THE VIDEO.


    So, LOOK AT THE VIDEO ! You will see bubbles, and a lot of FOAM !


    Therefore, the 1992 boil-off experiment is the major and best documented evidence that F&P were wrong.

    :)

  • how about that for repeatabilty


    1992 boil-off experiment has been one of the most repeated CF experiment.

    Its behavior and outcome are easily reproducible. You can easily boil off all the liquid, while generating a lot of foam.

    However, the energy balance depends on the correct interpretation of the experimental data. If you confuse liquid water with foam, as done by F&P and others, you can get a lot of apparent but inexistent excess heat.

    But JR keeps repeating that F&P experiments and calculations were irreproachably correct.

  • Brillouin Energy of Berkeley, CA, USA has achieved repeatable , consistent results of over unity energy production.

    Results have been verified by SRI in Stanford, CA, USA

    https://brillouinenergy.com/ne…s_Report_News_Release.pdf


    That is not quite correct. Their setup was devised by SRI, who then took the equipment into their own premises and independently confirmed the results.


    No-one doubts the results.


    The conclusion of beyond chemical over-unity rests on a set of assumptions relating to experiment accuracy, and particularly, to the certainty that Q-pulse related EMI does not create spurious results. This is not clear (to me). the experiment methodology and assumptions have not been peer reviewed by others, nor has the setup been independently (and differently) tested.


    What you need to say this has been replicated if for the at question bit - they way that calorimetry and Q-pulse measurement issues interact - to be redone by a different group and with different apparatus.


    That is expensive, but not very expensive. It would be well worth while.


    Best wishes, Tom

  • Therefore, the 1992 boil-off experiment is the major and best documented evidence

    No it is not major and not best documented.


    If anyone want to repeat F&P experiments they want to start with their major and SEMINAL paper on the issue, referred to below.


    And then specifically look for heat bursts during the experiement.


    So I would set up 30 parallell cells, and hope one of them showed heat bursts during 3 weeks of 24/7 electrolysis.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml

  • Mechanism of thermal runaway as a cause of Fleischmann-Pons effect


    Starting from papers by Fleischmann and Pons, many investigators have found the excess power effect during a heavywater electrolysis. They connected this effect with the deuterons“cold fusion”. A significantly larger number of investigators did not have found this effect, so they do not agree with the proposed explanation and consider the results of Fleischmann and Pons being a mistake or an instrumental artifact. In this paper experimentally proved that the Fleischmann-Pons effect (of burst type) is caused by an exothermic reaction of a recombination of the atomic deuterium accumulated in electrodes during electrolysis of the electrolyte. This reaction is similar to the reaction of thermal runaway in electrochemical batteries with aqueous electrolyte. Thus experimentally proved that the Fleischmann-Pons effect is not associated with cold fusion of deuterium nuclei. While the Fleischmann-Pons effect (of the weak type) is due to a partial recombination of the deuterium and the oxygen, i.e. in this case the excess power is apparent or imaginary. It is shown that the established mechanism of Fleischmann-Pons effect explains all the currently known experimental facts. The recommendations are given allowing a reproduction of this effect without a failure.


    Received 12 March 2020

    Accepted 5 May 2020

    Available online 22 May 2020

  • While the Fleischmann-Pons effect (of the weak type) is due to a partial recombination of the deuterium and the oxygen, i.e. in this case the excess power is apparent or imaginary. It is shown that the established mechanism of Fleischmann-Pons effect explains all the currently known experimental facts.


    You can prove any nonsense if you try long enough. The analysis of the P&F cathode undoubtfully shows LENR reaction products.


    May be the posters should first learn how do calorimetry as such an investigation without it is absoluetly meaningless.


    I would say a typical corona paper...

  • Something more energetic than D2O recombination, with stranger reaction results, definately seems to have happened.

  • Mechanism of thermal runaway as a cause of Fleischmann-Pons effect


    This paper is nonsense. The energy release from cold fusion has often exceeded the limits of recombination and other chemical effects by factors ranging from 1,000 to 10,000. The authors claim these results are mistakes, but their reasons are nonsense. Even if they were right, their hypothesis would not apply to many experiments with other types of calorimeters, such as mass flow and Seebeck.


    I will give them credit for trying. There are only a few papers in which the authors try to find a technical error in cold fusion that will explain away the results. These people tried to do that. Most other papers either ignore the issue or simply say the results violate theory so they must be wrong.


    They tried to explain away the excess heat. They ignored the tritium and helium, so we shouldn't give them too much credit. (I determined this the easy way, by converting the text image paper to text, and searching for "tritium.")

  • Did they mention foam?


    Intense foaming and foam build-up in the F&P cells happen at high temperature, around boiling point, as I already explained here: FP's experiments discussion .


    However, Galushkin et al. investigated the experiments described in the F&P 1990 paper "Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterion heavy water system" JEC-287 (ref. [13] of their paper). Ref. [13] is the famous "seminal paper" often mentioned by oystla, who invoked many times its replication, so now he was finally satisfied. These experiments have been run by F&P carefully avoiding the onset of a boiling regime. In fact, in ref. [13] they wrote: "we discontinuing the experiments (or, at least, of reducing the current density) when the boiling point is reached." Therefore the phenomena experimentally investigated by Galushkin et al. doesn't involve boiling, so they cannot be explained by foam.


    Nevertheless, near the end of their paper, at point 3.5, Galushkin et al. speak about the cell voltage changes during bursts. They observe: "When a cell temperature is high enough (especially close to the boiling point), a powerful steam formation takes place. In this case always, the cell voltage during the F-P effect is much higher than the voltage before the F-P effect [39] start." The cited ref.[39] is the 1993 F&P paper "Calorimetry of the Pd-D system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity" PLA-176, which reports the results of the 1992 boil-off experiment. The "powerful steam formation" "close to the boiling point" mentioned by Galushkin et al. is what caused the foam build-up during the few hours that preceded the complete dryness of the four cells. Galushkin et al. didn't experimented this boiling condition.


    Anyway, considering they have already done a nice work in repeating the F&P experiments described in their 1990 "seminal" paper, it would be good if they complete their investigation going further in replicating the 1992 boil-off experiment. Maybe they can attract the interest of Team Google, which is also interested in solving the "CF cold case".

  • Intense foaming and foam build-up in the F&P cells happen at high temperature, around boiling point, as I already explained here: FP's experiments discussion .


    And for the record, as F&P explained, and I explained, we know this did not happen with their cells because all of the lithium salt they put into the cell was still there after the boil-off.


    I thought I should say that because there may be new readers unfamiliar with this discussion.