... I don’t “believe” in things, I research and study them.
RIght. And THH's aim is the same ... which is exactly why he uses the term "non-believer". Do you not see that?
Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?
-
-
but I think no one here is a “believer”,
Science is about facts. Experiments are about facts and clowns here are a fact too.
We see gammas = facts. But may this is due to an eye sickness
... -
RIght. And THH's aim is the same ... which is exactly why he uses the term "non-believer". Do you not see that?
This is again being derailed to the old issue, anyway I will clarify: non believer, in my book, is a believer with a minus sign, is like an atheist, the people that believes that god doesn’t exist. A negative belief is still a belief.
And back to the topic of the thread: all the possible sources of error that THH identifies are addressed by the researchers, either explicitly or tacitly. The only thing missing from my point of view is independent replication, and that’s why I have asked gio06 if they are seeking partnerships for dealing with that aspect of their work.
-
Display More
When you consider possible artifacts there are two types:
(1) the radiation tests are not tritium(2) there is tritium, but it is environmental, rather than generated in the experiment.
(2) splits into two versions:
(2a) the electrolyte used is variable, some contains tritium, some does not(2b) some of the component of the cells contains tritium which leaches into the electrolyte during the electrolysis (since Ni absorbs H as well, the point here is the same https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1821841
(2c) there is environmental contamination by tritium (well - maybe TH) in the air from some other (man-made) source at some point - or possibly throughout the experiment. The electrolysis folds this into the electrolyte.
(2d) added this thanks to Jed. The electrolyte contains tritium which is concentrated by the experiment
Do you not understand that every single researcher who has looked for tritium knows these things, and they have always checked for them?!? The papers all describe the steps they take to ensure these problems do not exist. The person who confirmed the tritium at Los Alamos is Roland A. Jalbert. Here is his CV, from the EPRI NSF conference proceedings (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf)
* 25 years working with tritium and tritium detection
* involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years
* for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ).
* Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton)
Do you really, seriously, honestly think that people like this would make the kind amateur mistakes you listed? Maybe you never read the papers so you did not know who these people are or what steps they took. If you have not read the papers you should not pontificate about them.
Get real! If you seriously think "the radiation tests are not tritium" or that these people did not check for environmental tritium, or they measured it wrong, then you don't know a damn thing about the papers. You don't know a damn thing about tritium, for that matter. As Storms pointed out, if the tritium in the cell came from the environment, the environment in the lab would have to have such a high concentration of tritium, the alarms would go off and the building would be permanently abandoned. The people at BARC pointed out that if they could not detect tritium correctly, they would be dead. They are working with the largest fission power reactor in India.
Why are you claiming there may be problems that anyone can see are ruled out? What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish?
Let me guess what you are trying to accomplish. You are trying to raise false doubts about the experiments to fool people who are too lazy to read the papers. Or too stupid. You are hoping they will assume you are right, without bothering to check. You are trying to introduce doubts where no doubts can exist.
-
And back to the topic of the thread: all the possible sources of error that THH identifies are addressed by the researchers, either explicitly or tacitly. The only thing missing from my point of view is independent replication, and that’s why I have asked gio06 if they are seeking partnerships for dealing with that aspect of their work.
Independent replication is particularly important in this case because the method is unlike previous electrolysis experiments such as Storms, Bockris or Will. Different because, it:
Involves pulsing.
Happens quickly.
Uses light water.
Works every time.
We have to make sure this new technique really works. I think the bar is a little lower for a replication of an experiment that has already been widely replicated.
non believer, in my book, is a believer with a minus sign, is like an atheist, the people that believes that god doesn’t exist.
Yes. Theology is beyond the scope of the discussion, but a person who says he does not know is called an agnostic. An atheist has a definite opinion, that God does not exist. People who know nothing about religion and never thought about it should probably have another designation. Call them "ignorant," I guess.
People who have not read the cold fusion literature and who do not realize that the issues raised by THH have all been addressed are not believers, atheists, or agnostics. They are ignorant. They have no basis for any opinion, positive or negative. They have no business discussing this, any more than I would have discussing grammar of the Navaho language, a subject I know nothing about. I do know about linguistics, but linguistic knowledge is specific to one language. Knowing English or Japanese grammar does not give you any insight into Navaho. THH knows a thing or two about physics, but evidently he never read about the tritium experiments, because everything he says about them is wrong. If you have not read the papers, do not talk about them. Do not hold any opinion. You know nothing.
-
There are still some great presentations left that would qualify. Don't wait for us to do your homework...start watching! There were some game changers in there other than the 3 posted already...trust me. If you are holding back from submitting your favorite because you only have one pick, and do not want to hurt the feelings of your 2nd/3rd/4th place picks, then throw them all in.
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.from a 27 years old patent:
"In other preferred embodiments, the host lattice comprises a superlattice of first and second submaterials alternately layered in layers of between 10 and 100 nanometers in thickness. Preferably, the host lattice submaterials are nickel and copper, or nickel and palladium, or copper and palladium."
---------
"Tra i brevetti piu' simili, troviamo ad esempio il brevetto del professor Piantelli: «Method for producing energy and apparatus therefor» W02010058288A1, il brevetto del professor Ahem del MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) «Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys» US5411654 e il brevetto del professor Arata dell'universita' di Osaka «Hydrogen condensate and method of generating heath therewith» W02004034406;"
-
I think you do a great job pointing at the obvious sources of error that the work presented by Guido Parchi could have incurred into, but a very poor job at realizing every single one of them has been identified and weeded out by the researchers. In case you haven’t realized, gio06 is one of the team members that is performing this research.
Now, By acknowledging you are a “non-believer” you are putting yourself in a delicate position because you are admitting that you have a faith issue that is not going to be swayed by data.Two things: gi06 will no doubt be able to clarify what has been done, and I fully written up paper would be very helpful in doing that. It is quite a bit of work to dot is and cross ts in written form, but worth doing in this case. Less formally, gi06 could answer 1, 2a,2b,2c above (he has answered some of them I think).
A non-believer is somone who has no faith. As my namesake I am agnostic. I have been watching LENR for quite a long time, and I'd love there to be some useful (nuclear) effect. Especially a type 1 effect. I am swayed by evidence more than my belief in my competence. Thus - you may be sure you can predict LENR because of an inability to find errors. I will never be so sure, because my experience has been that errors surprise us.
What will convince me is positive evidence - specifically some set of LENR measurements which is replicable and can be characterised, or some effect clearly beyond all error of the type that might be commercialised, price permitting (any of Rossi's claims, if true, would have been this - and my skepticism in that case was fully justified).
This set of measurements shows promise in both of those things - though proper characterisation will require closed cells and recombiners - not sure how easy that is to implement.
Mainly - I can't see why you worry about this yes/no is LENR real thing?
We have experiments - when, as this one, they are interesting, surely everyone, whatever their initial view, will want to investigate and may therefore change views.
I can't help thinking that those who accuse me of being closed minded are themselves closed minded, not wanting to allow for surprises.
THH
-
THH knows a thing or two about physics, but evidently he never read about the tritium experiments, because everything he says about them is wrong. If you have not read the papers, do not talk about them. Do not hold any opinion. You know nothing.
I admit to not having read papers about tritium experiments. If you can direct me to suitable written links (not too many please, it takes time) I would be able to educate myself.
Also, it would greatly help others who like me are perhaps ignorant if people instead of juts saying I am wrong could give precise reasons, in detail, with if possible references where what they say is not obvious. I have (in my limited way) been doing this e.g. about the 100Bq/l tritium in rivers issue.
There is merit in going through everything from first principles when extraordinary effects are observed - sometimes received wisdom is just wrong, making assumptions which are normally true but not in specific cases and not mentioned because they have never before been false.
THH
-
So: the main thing I have said that strikes me is this.
If 50Bq/l tritium is generated in the electrolyte, then that 100cc (?) of electrolyte must have nuclear reactions generating that number of T nuclei.
T has a half-life of 12 years. For a 3 day experiment that is a factor of roughly 1000 difference in rate. Therefore if there is any high energy product from said T producing reactions we would expect it to be very easily detected (unless alphas - but even alphas could be detected relatively easily in an open cell?)
Without not understood fractionating of nuclear energy into heat, that is tough unless you can find a reaction very exactly balanced in energy (seems unlikely).
Worth crunching the numbers on this thing.
THH
-
A non-believer is somone who has no faith. As my namesake I am agnostic. I have been watching LENR for quite a long time, and I'd love there to be some useful (nuclear) effect. Especially a type 1 effect. I am swayed by evidence more than my belief in my competence. Thus - you may be sure you can predict LENR because of an inability to find errors. I will never be so sure, because my experience has been that errors surprise us.
We are not done with you yet. Plenty more video presentations left to go.
-
Do you not understand that every single researcher who has looked for tritium knows these things, and they have always checked for them?!? The papers all describe the steps they take to ensure these problems do not exist. The person who confirmed the tritium at Los Alamos is Roland A. Jalbert.
Confirming tritium in a sample was not on my list of things to check. I realised it had been properly confirmed. None of 1, 2a,2b,2c are relevant to Jalbert.
I do not understand what you say - and would happily read references showing this standard methodology in experiments eliminating 1, 2a,2b, 2c.
I am not actually expecting these things are not known - they are obvious. I am questioning whether all checks have been done and what are the results of the checks (where they are not fully reported). As anyone would.
For example the Clean Energy papers make a very obvious assumption (not explicitly stated) that total emissivity is constant between plain samples and layered samples. which if not true would explain their results. That is obvious from their own power balance equation, and yet nowhere in their first paper do they explicitly address it, in the second paper they mention it, but still do not address it directly. This is a check much more obviously needed than what I have listed for tritium, and if I adopted your approach of assuming everything is always done I would think (as many here seem to) that Clean Energy had published evidence of LENR.
-
For example the Clean Energy papers make a very obvious assumption (not explicitly stated) that total emissivity is constant between plain samples and layered samples. which if not true would explain their results. That is obvious from their own power balance equation, and yet nowhere in their first paper do they explicitly address it, in the second paper they mention it, but still do not address it directly. This is a check much more obviously needed than what I have listed for tritium, and if I adopted your approach of assuming everything is always done I would think (as many here seem to) that Clean Energy had published evidence of LENR.
The name of the company is Clean Planet. You’ve repeatedly called them ‘Clean Energy’ throughout this thread.
-
The name of the company is Clean Planet. You’ve repeatedly called them ‘Clean Energy’ throughout this thread.
Thanks Orsova.
-
I admit to not having read papers about tritium experiments.
Then why did you comment on it??? I cannot imagine doing this. It is mind boggling.
If you can direct me to suitable written links (not too many please, it takes time)
Go to the Library: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081
Enter Storms, Bockris or Will, F. under All Authors, because the First Author is often a grad student. Try entering "tritium" in the Search All field.
-
I would recommend this paper, by Claytor et al. Tom Claytor is regarded by his peers as being the ultimate expert on the measurement of tritium - for various confidential reasons his day job for many years was travelling around military establishments measuring tritium levels in storage areas.
TRITIUM GENERATION AND NEUTRON MEASUREMENTS IN
Pd-Si UNDER HIGH DEUTERIUM GAS PRESSURE
T. N. Claytor, D. G. Tuggle, and H. O. Menlove
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM -
I would reccomend this paper, by Claytor et al.
Yes, I should have mentioned Claytor. The technique is different from Storms, Bockris and Will. There was yet another technique at BARC.
-
I have so far watched some other presentations like the ones of Forsley and Benyo, the closing one by Dave Nagel, and the one by Zuppero. Haven’t watched any of the Japanese ones yet but mostly because I follow their work closely through ResearchGate and I know they are getting remarkably good results with excess heat and 100% reproducibility but all of their nanoparticle material is propietary so it’s a bit of a downer for me that they have been able to reproduce their work between different labs but no one outside their loop has the chance to independent replication. However their results and methods are really outstanding.
-
Thus - you may be sure you can predict LENR because of an inability to find errors. I will never be so sure, because my experience has been that errors surprise us.
You have not found any errors. You have no experience. The errors you list would not surprise anyone because:
1. Most of them do not exist. They are figments of your imagination, such as heavy water and light water affecting the performance of a calorimeter outside the cell.
2. No one ever makes the errors you cite with tritium or calorimetry, because the experts who do these experiments know about these errors and they take steps to rule them out.
The experts have been doing these experiments for decades. In the case of tritium, if they did it wrong, and made the kinds of mistakes you list, they would be dead. Some of these people, such as Bockris, literally wrote the textbooks. Hundreds of pages describing every error you came up with, plus hundreds of other errors you wouldn't even dream of. There is no chance you will discover some error they overlooked. You have not done that yet, and neither has any other skeptic. Not ever. Morrison and a few others tried, but they failed.
-
I know they are getting remarkably good results with excess heat and 100% reproducibility but all of their nanoparticle material is propietary so it’s a bit of a downer for me that they have been able to reproduce their work between different labs but no one outside their loop has the chance to independent replication.
It sure is a downer!
I would not say, "I know they are getting remarkably good results." I would say, "they report remarkably good results, but until they are independently replicated we cannot be sure the results are correct."
It is likely the results are correct. These people are professionals. They are careful. Within their group, more than one lab has replicated the nanoparticle results. So, I am optimistic. But you can never be 100% sure of an experimental result until it is independently replicated at some number of labs. The number of labs needed is a judgment call. I would say 3 to 5 top notch replications is enough. The LEC is approaching that. The Japanese nanoparticle results are not yet approaching that, as far as I know. Perhaps there are secret replications going on. I hope so.
