No neutron for cold fusion because no 4He excited states.
This is very important feature of cold fusion unless the temperature is low.
Temperature is high as is FPE emission of neutron was observed. So if your reactor emits neutron the cooling is not sufficient.
I've read there info etc and not seen any statement that it works. Which I would expect if it works.
Why would you expect that? It is being developed with Miura Corp. private money. I would not expect them to say one word about it until gadgets are available for sale.
My Q for skeptics is:
Does it work?
How the hell can anyone know? In their ICCF24 slide they said only, "May 2021, Started Testing 1 kW prototypes." That could mean something or it could mean nothing. "Started testing" does not actually mean the prototypes work. If they wanted to show some evidence the prototypes work, they would have shown a graph or at least a photo of the device.
I was surprised & pleased they said that much. I'll bet the Miura people were annoyed that they said anything.
How the hell can anyone know? In their ICCF24 slide they said only, "May 2021, Started Testing 1 kW prototypes." That could mean something or it could mean nothing. "Started testing" does not actually mean the prototypes work. If they wanted to show some evidence the prototypes work, they would have shown a graph or at least a photo of the device.
Exactly - which is why I expect it does not work.
Moved two posts from other thread that are best suited for this one as they were veering off topic there.
Exactly - which is why I expect it does not work.
If you just watched a presentation from Iwamura at the IWHALM, stating they are producing Excess Heat from their system, and even found a method to enhance the excess heat produced by transient variations in the heating input, that increase even more the excess heat, why would you expect it to not work?
Perhaps is an engineering challenge that will take longer than hoped for, and perhaps the excess heat is still not attractive from a commercial point of view, but a 1 KW prototype is something achievable.
If you just watched a presentation from Iwamura at the IWHALM, stating they are producing Excess Heat from their system, and even found a method to enhance the excess heat produced by transient variations in the heating input, that increase even more the excess heat, why would you expect it to not work?
Because I looked at the way they measured excess heat and:
(1) the amount was underwhelming
(2) the amount was well within errors given their setup (have you looked at it?)
(3) They have not done anything directly (in 2nd round of experiments) to address the obvious deficiencies in 1st round calorimetry. They could have.
All companies wanting funding (almost every small company wants funding) will put positive spin on research. You need to allow for that.
even found a method to enhance the excess heat produced by transient variations in the heating input, that increase even more the excess heat
I'll just note that:
Calorimetry errors are quite often enhanced when there are transient variations in heat input.
I'll just note that:
Calorimetry errors are quite often enhanced when there are transient variations in heat input.
If you won't ever accept the fact that calibrations have been run as controls with a non active material as valid, then you will remain in perpetuous denial.
If you won't ever accept the fact that calibrations have been run as controls with a non active material as valid, then you will remain in perpetuous denial.
Curbina - what do you mean by "valid"?
It is a very unscientific word in this context when the issue for all controlled calorimetry is how to bound the errors introduced by differences between the control and active systems. I'd welcome us starting a thread to do that with those experiments. They are quite well described.
We could get an agreed error bound and then see whether the results are within that.
The paper does not do that.
THH
The paper does not do that.
This has been discussed ad nauseam for years.
And we know Pseudo Skeptics will never accept a report of excess heat as real, and will nit pick anything to cling to the idea that is impossible.
The errors are closely to the same for the control run and the active runs. The excess heat is real.
We won't start over the same issue once again.
Posting here the interview of Alan Smith with Iwamura at the IWHALM, as is totally relevant to this thread.
Display MoreThis has been discussed ad nauseam for years.
And we know Pseudo Skeptics will never accept a report of excess heat as real, and will nit pick anything to cling to the idea that is impossible.
The errors are closely to the same for the control run and the active runs. The excess heat is real.
We won't start over the same issue once again.
Thanks - could you direct me to the relevant thread (it would be discussing the 1st & 2nd Iwamura papers as published, and whether the 2nd experiment closes the holes they implicitly admit from the 1st).
It may have been something I was not following. I do have a life outside of LF...
PS - insults (pseudo-skeptics - in the sentence above - is an insult, even if generalised) do not help understanding. By setting up this straw enemy of people who will never accept anything you can prevent yourself from processing genuine criticism and the possibility of alternate solutions from what you have previously thought.
THHuxleynew , in this paper you can see the problems they are having are the inability to capture excess heat, not the contrary. This is a paper from the NEDO project updates by Akihito Takahashi, but they work in collaboration with Iwamura.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363696764_New_MHE_Experiments_by_D-System
And please don't feel insulted by the use of the term "pseudo skeptics", I don't mean in with ill intention, is just a trait as being stubborn or resilient. Not an insult.
QuoteOne drawback of the C-system was due to the problem that calorimetry inaccuracy became very large (underestimation) when coolant oil temperature reached at boiling point (ca. 350°C).
That's exactly what I meant, they were having trouble to capture the excess heat, and redesigned the system to be able to avoid that under estimation.
"pseudo skeptics"
Surely that means a believer who's pretending to be a skeptic.
Calling THH a believer is probably even a bigger insult!
THHuxleynew , in this paper you can see the problems they are having are the inability to capture excess heat, not the contrary. This is a paper from the NEDO project updates by Akihito Takahashi, but they work in collaboration with Iwamura.
Thanks Curbina.
Are you sure that is the correct paper? Look at the abstract in italics at end of this post. Nowhere there do they mention problems disposing of excess heat. Rather, they say that they noted problems in their calorimetry of a low temperature system, and have therefore developed a system which will work at high temperatures (not - please note - larger amounts of excess heat).
Specifically they say low temperature work became inaccurate due to coolant boiling. But taht is only because they want to explore characteristics at higher temperatures.
It is understandable that therefore they move to a radiation-based heat transfer system.
Two TC sensors were added in the D-system, for monitoring gas temperature directly and RC center temperature. Variation of RC temperature distribution along the axial direction of RC cylinder in D-system became ca. 30 °C, which is less than 200 °C in the C-system runs 4-6). However, there remains considerable variation of temperature distribution in MHE sample zone for using three points average of sample TC temperatures to estimate excess power. We conceive that estimation of excess power by increment of H-gas temperature from calibration runs is most appropriate at the moment.
(PDF) New MHE Experiments by D-System. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…E_Experiments_by_D-System [accessed Oct 01 2022].
So they have problems with varying temperature over the radiating surface and therefore can't do first principle calculation of enthalpy out. Instead they use comparison with a control.
My problem with that is that if the temperature distribution over the radiating surface is so uneven then it may differ between control and active, resulting in errors.
Time response of oil outlet temperature for removing heat by radiation transfer is found to be so slow (as more than 1 hour delay) that we cannot use for estimating time evolution of excess power generation. However, integral heat amount by oil mass flow is correctly estimated for very long time interval as several days. As a consequence, we decided to use excess power estimation by the H-gas temperature in RC for analysis of time evolution of excess power generation pattern, in correlation with dynamic evolution of H/Ni loading ratio1). We found that evolution of temperature at the mid-point of RC is most sensitive to the evolution of excess power generation. We can see rapid and clear AHE indication by this temperature evolution, but accurate estimation for excess power is difficult due to very local variation of AHE status.
(PDF) New MHE Experiments by D-System. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…E_Experiments_by_D-System [accessed Oct 01 2022].
As I understand this they are not looking for integrated power out (for overall enthalpy) so all they get from the new system is the radiative info - which is inaccurate.
Since they say this I do not think we can take the system here as providing any evidence for excess heat in their system.
We have studied the so-called AHE (anomalous heat effect) by calorimetry of our C-system. The C-system was designed to make accurate detection of excess thermal power larger than several W/kg-sample. By our latest data with significant increase of excess thermal power of the MHE (nano-metal hydrogen energy) experiment, we have met to needs for improving the system. Especially in cases of observing 200W/kg-sample level excess power evolution using re-calcined PNZ-and CNZ-type MHE powder-samples, we have found some drawbacks in calorimetry with the C-system. We have therefore developed a new system, called D-system. In our new system (D-system), we have made the following improvements: a) Heat recovery system to cover higher temperature conditions as over 500°C of hydrogen gas condition of reaction chamber b) Increase detection points of heat sensors c) Reaction chamber assembly with high temperature-tight performance One drawback of the C-system was due to the problem that calorimetry inaccuracy became very large (underestimation) when coolant oil temperature reached at boiling point (ca. 350°C). In the D-system, we use the heat recovery by radiation heat transfer from the surface of reaction chamber settled in outer vacuum chamber. As a result, we can operate H-gas feeding runs with MHE sample powder to extend for much higher temperature conditions. We can take characteristic AHE data of excess thermal power with additional key data as evolution of H/Ni loading ratio. Characteristic feature of latest AHE data will be shown by another paper in this JCF22 meeting.
To summarise the interesting paper curbina linked:
the new system is designed:
(1) to allow characterisation at higher temperatures
(2) to investigate dynamics of power evolution
It is however inaccurate, due to varying temperatures vertically over the radiating surface.
They say they deal with this by looking at estimated power out relative to a control. That is sensible. However, they give no information about whether the temperature variations across radiating surface that even 3 TCs cannot pin down enough to make total power out accurate are known identical for sample and control. Obviously what they need here is an error bound looking at this.
I have not seen them do this - and it is what they need to use the new setup as any proof that they actually have excess heat at all.
They have probably decided that they know they have excess heat, and want to understand it.
It leaves my statement that I know of no good evidence for excess heat from them unchanged.
And please don't feel insulted by the use of the term "pseudo skeptics", I don't mean in with ill intention, is just a trait as being stubborn or resilient. Not an insult.
I will be happy to accept that: if the trait could be characterised in a positive way?
It leaves open, then, the question of whether I or anyone else is a pseudo-skeptic - don't think I can answer that till I know what the term means.
