Quote from RobertBryant

So... no flaw in Mizuno's airflow measurement?? there were so many tantalising posts...on the Mizuno thread..

but never a big reveal..

It should be more than big enough to hold my pre-embryonic borozircon Pluton 101 reactor... needs to run at 535C...just a gleam in my mindseye... tantalizing??

The main result of that exercise what that Mizuno's record-keeping and methodology was so poor as to make his results not reliable: replication was required.

I was hoping that would be pretty easy but it seems not - and negative on replication is what damns that possibility.

Quote from Drgenek

As you state the heart of the problem is that LENR proceeds without the high energy products produced by radioactive decay or a nuclear reaction stimulated by a high energy collision.

Since heart of the problem is true, the detection methods you mention will always show far less unstable products and high energy particles than predicted given that only a high energy collisions can cause nuclear reaction. But, nuclear reactions can occur without a high energy collision. That leaves one to prove or disprove reaction based on transmutation. Basically, one must prove or disprove the reaction like one should any reactions: by mass balance and stoichiometry.

You can prove cold fusion to yourself with a little math, just check the null hypothesis using the reference I provided above. If there is no reaction there is no transmutation and no stoichiometry. The data provided by Santilli is mass spectroscopy in gas which is accurate to 3 ppm. The result of the math is 29876 ppm of Deuterium and 4805 ppm of Oxygen is disappear while 9061 ppm of Nitrogen and 9793 ppm of hydrogen appear. There are no unaccounted changes. You can check the precision of the reaction by dividing each coefficient by 9061, the amount of nitrogen. The coefficients are slightly off because there is a secondary reaction. Once the secondary reaction is solved, the accountability is very close to the 3 ppm expected by the accuracy of mass spectrometry.

The reaction is not a single elementary reaction or based on collision of two atoms. Rather, there is a nuclear active cluster where a cascade of elementary reactions occurs. The sum of reactions produces the overall reaction equation above. The fact that "the heart of the problem" is true does not prove the reaction did not happen. Rather the Gibbs equation indicates the energy produced by reaction comes in two forms heat and entropy as a function of temperature. The simple explanation here is that the more fragmented the quanta of energy produced by reaction becomes the more entropy is present rather than heat. Further entropy is not disorder but rather energy to mass conversion, hence the connection between relative mass(velocity) and temperature.

There are many examples of this type of cold fusion which have been reproduced many times. Gas produced by cold fusion is commercially available.

I have tried to show how wrong your views are and to show you where we need you to focus to realize cold fusion as an energy source. If the next step were easy, I would have done it already.

Display More

I should have replied to this.

The null hypothesis you suggest is clear enough I agree - for the hypothesis that there is some (by definition nuclear) reaction that turns hydrogen nuclei into deuterium. in a given system. I am very happy with it, and agree it is a possible definition of LENR.

Not science yet - but more than enough - if the hypothesis is proven everyone can jump onto explaining why and investigating further.

My concern with this is why is such an experiment is not accepted by all in LENR community as completely replicable can't be explained any other way experiment? Or is it? In which case I'd expect the google guys to replicate - they have enough money and were asking for ideas?

If such an experiment is not replicable - then while your LENR hypothesis is good science it is good science that fails experimental validation.

By replicable, as I'm sure you know, I mean the same anomaly being detected and remaining robust against different ways of measurement and checking for artifacts. I do not mean a complex system which when put together in different ways by different people has (different) anomalous behaviour each time.

So: is it that the proof of LENR exists but a few $1,000,000 has not been put in the right place? Or not?

THH

I have proposed an alternative hypothesis that the centre of galaxies is not a black hole which the stars revolve around but rather is simply an area of space-time held at absolute zero on the Kelvin scale. It has been demonstrated by a Nature paper recently that very close to absolute 0 photons stop!!! Neutron stars yes when matter condenses down and when a critical density is achieved a new supernova results. Lots and Lots of big bangs repeating themselves eternally. All we have to do now is modify Einstein's special theory of Relativity to tap into LENR because the energy is universally everywhere.

Coincidences, coincidences.

Amusingly I live in Morley, at one corner of the "rhubarb triangle" but I rarely eat rhubarb.

Also the Santander bank is the the one that I have my account with.

Sadly none of the $176 million appeared in my bank account.

On the plus side Santander announced they are closing my local branch in Morley to save some money, I see why they need to save the money now.

Back to cold fusion soon!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of those 3 highlighted in red neutron waves the rightmost two do not exist (eyeballing).

Why do you say the first peak at line 80 does not exist? It seems far above the other fluctuations.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So: is it that the proof of LENR exists but a few $1,000,000 has not been put in the right place? Or not?

Evidence exists that Google spent/put their money in the right place. They publicly present wet cell experiments failure and have yet to disclose the advanced dry cell/multi layer nano tech experiments which are the basis of their three patents. The quest for a wet cell 'lab rat' hides their quest for a viable CMNS energy technology advanced state of the art reactor for market entry.

To understand the current state of LENR as Google sees it, requires a discussion of the patents they hold, not what has been presented in the press. The latest patent they developed with the Department of Energy is a fine example of the current state of LENR/CMNS energy technology.

This is not, my friend, because you will cross the Dumbarton bridge that you will be in Google's good books.. As far as possible...

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Evidence exists that Google spent put their money in the right place. They publicly present wet cell experiments failure and have yet to disclose the advanced dry cell/multi layer nano tech experiments which are the basis of their three patents. The quest for a wet cell 'lab rat' hides their quest for a viable CMNS energy technology advanced state of the art reactor for market entry.

To understand the current state of LENR as Google sees it, requires a discussion of the patents they hold, not what has been presented in the press. The latest patent they developed with the Department of Energy is a fine example of the current state if LENR.

LENR can be something of a disappointment for new players..

This Russian LLC ran out of finance after 2 years

Nice graphs though.

. Around 50 experiments
with fuel were conducted with various additional ingredients, different forms of Ni, pure hydrogen and
hydrogen-deuterium mixtures according to the experiments cited above. No statistically significant levels of
the heat production were found in any of the experiments,with less than 1.5% accuracy in terms of heaterhttps://iopscience.iop.org/art…1088/2399-6528/ac29ee/pdf

"Most recently Dr. Grimshaw assisted Jed Rothwell, author of the LENR-CANR website (one of the foremost online LENR resources), in converting a book that was published in hard copy into electronic form." http://lenrgy.net/experience/

Integrated Policymaking for Realizing Benefits and Mitigating Secondary Impacts of Cold Fusion

By Thomas W. Grimshaw

Published: November 5th 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.78323

Integrated Policymaking for Realizing Benefits and Mitigating Secondary Impacts of Cold Fusion

The potential benefits of LENR as an energy source have been well understood since its announcement in 1989. Improved prospects of LENR in recent years are…

www.intechopen.com

Quote from JedRothwell

I think the idea is correct, but the mechanism is not foolproof. Sometimes the self-correcting processes fail drastically. This is true of every other institution, so it is no surprise it is also true of science. Consider the industry with the most rigorous, most essential self-correction mechanisms of all: aviation. No industry makes more effort to prevent accidents than the people in aviation, from the airplane designers, to the pilots, mechanics, the people who load freight, the air traffic controllers, and everyone else. Their overall record of safety is astounding. An airplane at 30,000 feet is inherently the most dangerous environment people routinely go to. The slightest problem with the engines or controls can result in an explosion or crash. The engines run at temperatures higher than the melting point of metals in them, which is only possible with a thin layer of air between the burning fuel and the metal. All in all, it is an astounding accomplishment. Airplanes are so safe, you are safer in one than you would be at home taking a bath or walking down a flight of stairs.

HOWEVER, as we all know, airplanes sometimes fail catastrophically. There are crashes. There are poor designs that somehow elude detection. Boeing committed fraud, which crashed several airplanes.

Boeing Charged with 737 Max Fraud Conspiracy and Agrees to Pay over $2.5 Billion

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr…grees-pay-over-25-billion

No matter how rigorous the institution is, it is run by people, and people can always make mistakes or deliberately commit crimes. Academic science is far less rigorous than aviation. It is much less foolproof. It has to be, because you need a lot of leeway to make mistakes. As Stan Pons says, being half right in this business is a good batting average. In academic science some number of people will cheat, and publish fake data. Peer review and other mechanisms will reduce this, but not eliminate it. Mistakes will be made. Large numbers of scientists will misjudge the situation, as they have with cold fusion.

Many other institutions have rigorous self correction, error detection, and mechanisms to prevent crime. Examples include semiconductor manufacturing, surgery, and banking. Most of the time these institutions work. Occasionally, they fail. Semiconductors sometimes do not work right; surgeons accidentally amputate the wrong leg; banks sometimes accidentally hand out large sums of money. We know that these institutions work most of the time, because catastrophic failures are rare, and newsworthy. Airplanes do not routinely fall from the sky. When surgeons amputate the wrong leg, it is reported in the news. When a bank accidentally gave people $176 million on Christmas day, the news was reported prominently in the mass media. It did not go unnoticed. If such things happened routinely, banks would all go bankrupt.

Bank accidentally deposits $176 million into people’s accounts on Christmas Day

https://www.wfla.com/news/vira…ccounts-on-christmas-day/

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

Scientists often boast that science is self-correcting. They should realize this nothing to boast about, because everything else is self correcting, including:

Paperclip manufacturing.

Rhubarb growing in Rothwell, England, which is at one corner of the UK's Rhubarb Triangle. *

In my experience, science is only so-so in self-correcting. Nowhere near as good as programming, accounting, grocery store product scanning, or placing telephone calls.

* This resembles the Bermuda triangle, only with rhubarb.

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

By the way, there really is a rhubarb triangle. I did not make that up. It is between Wakefield, Morley and Rothwell. There is a sculpture of rhubarb in Wakefield. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhubarb_Triangle

Academically speaking...

This is when I say something to Jed Rothwell that offends him and gets me banned from LENR Forum once again.

Quote from JedRothwell

Why do you say the first peak at line 80 does not exist? It seems far above the other fluctuations.

I was not. I was saying the rightmost two do not exist. The first peak is a clear peak I agree. But one peak... It depends how many fudge factors there are in the theory that predicts precisely the energy of the "neutron waves", and also whether the theoretical justification was done post hoc looking at the experimental results. In that case even if there is no obvious fudge factor trying out different ideas can fit one peak fairly easily.

Anyway, my point was that the data does not show 3 peaks.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Evidence exists that Google spent/put their money in the right place. They publicly present wet cell experiments failure and have yet to disclose the advanced dry cell/multi layer nano tech experiments which are the basis of their three patents. The quest for a wet cell 'lab rat' hides their quest for a viable CMNS energy technology advanced state of the art reactor for market entry.

To understand the current state of LENR as Google sees it, requires a discussion of the patents they hold, not what has been presented in the press. The latest patent they developed with the Department of Energy is a fine example of the current state of LENR/CMNS energy technology.

That is one reading.

Another reading is that patents - especially in this area - are done speculatively based on a hypothesised mechanism or class of mechanisms which has not yet been validated.

I think if they had found something we would have heard about it.

THH

THHuxleynew

One reading?

I am continuing to study the three patents. I hope that others are too.

Quote from THHuxleynew

speculatively based on a hypothesised mechanism or class of mechanisms which has not yet been validated.

The google/doe patent? I strongly disagree.

Quote from THHuxleynew

we would have heard about it.

Why do you think this?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Why do you think this?

The google effort was basically academic. A validation of LENR would (academically) be a very big deal. It would be published.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I should have replied to this.

The null hypothesis you suggest is clear enough I agree - for the hypothesis that there is some (by definition nuclear) reaction that turns hydrogen nuclei into deuterium. in a given system. I am very happy with it, and agree it is a possible definition of LENR.

Because the cold fusion process I propose does not produce a significant amount of high energy products, fusion/fission was proposed based on balance of elements into reaction compared to elements out of reaction. The first proposed reaction is 7D₂ +O₂ = 2H₂ +2N₂. It comes from data you quoted above. There is no hydrogen to deuterium proposed here.

However, take two carbon rods place them in water at high voltage-current such that an arc occurs under water and one produces AquaFuel. Since NASA has provided us a composition analysis of AquaFuel and we know the first proposed reaction one can do mass balance on Aquafuel based on the assumptions: 2H2 = 2D2, water as source of oxygen and hydrogen, 7D₂ +O₂ = 2H₂ +2N₂ and any produced gas may have contamination with atmospheric gas but nothing else. The overall nuclear reaction is 12H₂O = 2N₂ +5O₂. This is the second proposed reaction. The question is what is the origin of nitrogen in sample NASA analyzed? The mass balance provides the answer. The sample contained 3.818 ppm nitrogen. The mass balance indicates 1.688 ppm from atmospheric gas and 2.130 ppm from nuclear reaction.

There are other analysis from various sources which support the proposed second nuclear reaction. Are you happy with hydrogen converted to deuterium but the deuterium is used up in reaction?

Quote from THHuxleynew

The google effort was basically academic.

The page family (aka Google) and Microsoft recently joined the field of LENR after IH failing blatantly. These two today dark empires give you NDA's for 5 years even just for talking to you...

Of course you can and must expect they report "failures only" in fields that are of no interest for them.

The patents are not geared towards academia. More monies are dedicated towards these patents than the research that was presented in the three initial Nature articles. The patents research and publication establish that more efforts are being given to developing CMNS energy technology for market entry than in efforts to establish a wet cell "lab rat". Also that "replicable proof" is not really a problem in regards to the current state of LENR.