LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)

I just recalled that Mats Lewan in his book about “il dottore” (an impossible invention) wrote a very good entry level chapter to explain chemical and atomic reactions and how LENR differed from both. Regardless of what happened with that story years later, that chapter of the book could help a lot on getting ideas for what to tell newcomers interested in LENR.

Fleischmann said the people at Harwell were cooperative and gave him all the data he asked for. Melich and Hansen analyzed this data and concluded that the Harwell experiment probably produced excess heat. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MelichMEsomelesson.pdf

David Williams liked Fleischmann and admired him, but in my opinion his obituary of Fleischmann as a travesty. It was published in Chemistry World, 5 September 2012. It begins:

A colleague recalls the achievements and personality of the electrochemist at the centre of the cold fusion debacle

Martin Fleischmann was one of the giants of 20th century electrochemistry. He was always stimulating, challenging, creative, iconoclastic and great fun. . . .

Martin Fleischmann (1927–2012)

A colleague recalls the achievements and personality of the electrochemist at the centre of the cold fusion debacle

www.chemistryworld.com

Curbina

Now you've done it. Subtitle the thread "Lenr brainwashing for newcomers". My experience with backyard windpower some years ago taught me that it's not the questions that matter, but the answers. Those answers become encased in concrete even if wrong.

Take the Betz Limit as an example. The first time I encountered his treatment it didn't sit well. Later I found out why. Betz treated a column of incoming air as all passing through the windmill. It doesn't work that way. Some of the air is deflected, so he was wrong from the 'git go'. Once people become brainwashed it's impossible to change their minds.

Anything you put up into the airflow acts as an obstruction and deflects some of the flow.

Quote from GRMattson

Curbina

Now you've done it. Subtitle the thread "Lenr brainwashing for newcomers". My experience with backyard windpower some years ago taught me that it's not the questions that matter, but the answers. Those answers become encased in concrete even if wrong.

Take the Betz Limit as an example. The first time I encountered his treatment it didn't sit well. Later I found out why. Betz treated a column of incoming air as all passing through the windmill. It doesn't work that way. Some of the air is deflected, so he was wrong from the 'git go'. Once people become brainwashed it's impossible to change their minds.

Anything you put up into the airflow acts as an obstruction and deflects some of the flow.

Display More

I had an interesting version of the latter once, while attempting to calibrate the outlet air flow of a older style Mizuno type calorimeter. After mucking about with a few dozen hot wire anemometer traverses, I thought why not just stick a vane anemometer on the outlet pipe? Well, after that did not at all go as expected, and consulting with several vane anemometer manufacturers I finally found one that admitted that there is a ‘Q factor’ for vane resistance. In open atmosphere conditions, the Q factor of typical vane anemometers is quite low, since the diameter of the vane orifice is minuscule compared to the moving atmosphere. However, when attached directly to the outlet pipe of the same inside diameter, the Q factor is very high, about 0.5, meaning that the impeller vanes substantially block the airflow at that air velocity, causing it to spin and read out a velocity that is twice as fast as it ‘should’ be when all outlet air is forced through the anemometer (at about 4 m/s in this case). In order for the vane anemometer to read the ‘correct’ air velocity at the outlet (determined by the many hot wire anemometer traverses) it had to be moved ahead toward the air outlet until the reported air speed began to rapidly increase, then move it away about 1 cm.

Not at all the simple independent measurement I was hoping to take.

Quote from GRMattson

Curbina

Now you've done it. Subtitle the thread "Lenr brainwashing for newcomers". My experience with backyard windpower some years ago taught me that it's not the questions that matter, but the answers. Those answers become encased in concrete even if wrong.

Take the Betz Limit as an example. The first time I encountered his treatment it didn't sit well. Later I found out why. Betz treated a column of incoming air as all passing through the windmill. It doesn't work that way. Some of the air is deflected, so he was wrong from the 'git go'. Once people become brainwashed it's impossible to change their minds.

Anything you put up into the airflow acts as an obstruction and deflects some of the flow.

Display More

I am trying to make sense of what you wrote. I am fully aware that from theory to reality there's a steep learning curve. But why call brainwashing to put together a basic package of ideas for anyone that is new to the field? If you want to shock newcomers with the many uncertainties the field still has, and send them away scared, then this thread is not for you.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I had an interesting version of the latter once, while attempting to calibrate the outlet air flow of a older style Mizuno type calorimeter. After mucking about with a few dozen hot wire anemometer traverses, I thought why not just stick a vane anemometer on the outlet pipe? Well, after that did not at all go as expected, and consulting with several vane anemometer manufacturers I finally found one that admitted that there is a ‘Q factor’ for vane resistance. In open atmosphere conditions, the Q factor of typical vane anemometers is quite low, since the diameter of the vane orifice is minuscule compared to the moving atmosphere. However, when attached directly to the outlet pipe of the same inside diameter, the Q factor is very high, about 0.5, meaning that the impeller vanes substantially block the airflow at that air velocity, causing it to spin and read out a velocity that is twice as fast as it ‘should’ be when all outlet air is forced through the anemometer (at about 4 m/s in this case). In order for the vane anemometer to read the ‘correct’ air velocity at the outlet (determined by the many hot wire anemometer traverses) it had to be moved ahead toward the air outlet until the reported air speed began to rapidly increase, then move it away about 1 cm.

Not at all the simple independent measurement I was hoping to take.

Why you don't move to mass flow meters and be done with it: There are plenty of options with 1.5% accuracy and you can get 0.5% if you are willing to pay a bit more for it: https://uimbkk.com/en/measurem…er-for-air-and-gas/ee772/

No Q factor, or fudge factor necessary.

Quote from Daniel_G

Why you don't move to mass flow meters and be done with it: There are plenty of options with 1.5% accuracy and you can get 0.5% if you are willing to pay a bit more for it: https://uimbkk.com/en/measurem…er-for-air-and-gas/ee772/

These are for compressed gas measurement. A mass-flow meter for high-volume -low pressure air would probably look like a vane or hot-wire anemomenter.

Quote from Rob

Purchased. Thanks for the recommendation. If you got any others, please send them my way.

You probably have seen it already, the comic book "discover cold fusion" by rubycarat and Matt Howarth.

Quote from Daniel_G

Why you don't move to mass flow meters and be done with it: There are plenty of options with 1.5% accuracy and you can get 0.5% if you are willing to pay a bit more for it: https://uimbkk.com/en/measurem…er-for-air-and-gas/ee772/

No Q factor, or fudge factor necessary.

I was testing explicitly the Mizuno type calorimeter at that time. I had air speed by Pitot tubes and was instrumenting up a mass air flow sensor that uses the pitot ports. What I wanted was a more independent measurement method of air flow, but all of them are more dependent on adjustment to the specific circumstances than I was hoping for. Each system is calibrated to the experiment design. Anyways, as long as nothing changes, the airflow should be a constant once measured well, so any simple monitoring method that is dependent on airflow can be used to verify the steadiness. The rpm sensor built into the blower fan is ideal, and connects the fan law to rpm for cross checking results.

Paradigmnoia

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I had an interesting version of the latter once, while attempting to calibrate the outlet air flow of a older style Mizuno type calorimeter. After mucking about with a few dozen hot wire anemometer traverses, I thought why not just stick a vane anemometer on the outlet pipe? Well, after that did not at all go as expected, and consulting with several vane anemometer manufacturers I finally found one that admitted that there is a ‘Q factor’ for vane resistance. In open atmosphere conditions, the Q factor of typical vane anemometers is quite low, since the diameter of the vane orifice is minuscule compared to the moving atmosphere. However, when attached directly to the outlet pipe of the same inside diameter, the Q factor is very high, about 0.5, meaning that the impeller vanes substantially block the airflow at that air velocity, causing it to spin and read out a velocity that is twice as fast as it ‘should’ be when all outlet air is forced through the anemometer (at about 4 m/s in this case). In order for the vane anemometer to read the ‘correct’ air velocity at the outlet (determined by the many hot wire anemometer traverses) it had to be moved ahead toward the air outlet until the reported air speed began to rapidly increase, then move it away about 1 cm.

Not at all the simple independent measurement I was hoping to take.

Which leads to the question of how do you properly evaluate the performance of the windmill when in a wind tunnel? The air deflected around the windmill has effects that extends out quite a distance. In fact, that's what drives the thing. Squeezing down on that flow changes the performance.😎

Curbina

Quote from Curbina

I am trying to make sense of what you wrote. I am fully aware that from theory to reality there's a steep learning curve. But why call brainwashing to put together a basic package of ideas for anyone that is new to the field? If you want to shock newcomers with the many uncertainties the field still has, and send them away scared, then this thread is not for you.

I guess you will have to experience it. The answers don't change. Any ambiguity or uncertainty disappears. It becomes like a religion. "This is how it is". It's all unintended, but there it is. The people following the windpower site were handed a lot of BS starting with the Betz Limit. Air foils, three blades always, tip speed ratio of 7, and so on. All bogus requirements. The history of windpower says otherwise, but no one cared.

Quote from GRMattson

Which leads to the question of how do you properly evaluate the performance of the windmill when in a wind tunnel?

There has been plenty of work done on this problem, over the last century or so. And yes, all fluid flow measurement methods either affect the system you are trying to measure, in some way, or they are affected by proximity geometric issues (turbulence, stagnation, Bernoulli effects, etc).

Measuring fluid flow is never easy. Everyone will sell you a meter that they say is accurate and perfect for your task, but then blame you for using it incorrectly when it gives a bogus result.

Quote from Alan Smith

These are for compressed gas measurement. A mass-flow meter for high-volume -low pressure air would probably look like a vane or hot-wire anemomenter.

Hi Alan they are more accurate at lower pressure. Accuracy decreases with pressure. If you want state of the art mass flow you can use something like the Quadratherm 780i.

Frogfall

Quote from Frogfall

There has been plenty of work done on this problem, over the last century or so. And yes, all fluid flow measurement methods either affect the system you are trying to measure, in some way, or they are affected by proximity geometric issues (turbulence, stagnation, Bernoulli effects, etc).

Measuring fluid flow is never easy. Everyone will sell you a meter that they say is accurate and perfect for your task, but then blame you for using it incorrectly when it gives a bogus result.

Lots of work, no answers. The form of Bernouli's Equation normally used is quite restrictive. It applies to laminar flow. That is, the flow is, or acts as though it is, incompressible. Fortunately in most cases the air flow cooperates. A 6 or 8 inch wide windmill blade might have laminar flow over its width, a three foot wide airplane wing typically does not. The flow starts out laminar but turns turbulent. There are no Bernouli Effects. The equation, which embodies the conservation of energy, either applies or not.

Diadon Acs made me aware of a free pdf of the Matsumoto collected papers. A large file, 300 Mb+

Diadon Acs in LENR Forum Chat

t.me

Quote from Alan Smith

Diadon Acs made me aware of a free pdf of the Matsumoto collected papers. A large file, 300 Mb+

https://t.me/LENRForum/3604

It has been linked before, is the pdf version that Bon Greenyer made available upon completion of composing the remastered version for creating the paper version.

Post

RE: The outstanding work of Takaaki Matsumoto

Here is the link to where one can go and download the pdf.

https://remoteview.substack.co…ollected-papers-1989-1999

Curbina

Apr 12th 2022

The direct download link is this one:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jGK6FrqlcUip8RKJqPYA36h-CDn9YhP/view?usp=sharing

Don't thank me. Thank Bob Greenyer for making it available to download for free.
If you enjoy the research I still recommend purchasing a copy on Amazon as it supports both Bob and Takaaki Matsumoto.
https://www.amazon.com/Steps-D…sumoto%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-1

Hi Rob.

And here's another influential sceptic suggesting nobody could repeat F&P's work...reposted from the sceptics thread. such things are common. The video should start at the right part btw - the rest is only moderately interesting.