The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.
-
-
I am no expert in possible unexpected CR-39 track counts effects that could result in the phenomena this paper says are due to curved spacetime, localised to a specific lab experiment.
GR is pretty definite over what is needed to curve spacetime and while there are various alternate theories none change that. To curve spacetime on a small scale you need a lot of mass.
Micro-black holes are not impossible, but their existence is somewhat constrained on the one hand by the fact that we are alive, and on the other hand by non-observation of Hawking radiation.
I think it adds a lot of unnecessary problems to any theory trying to explain unusual CR-39 tracks.
-
Display More
I am no expert in possible unexpected CR-39 track counts effects that could result in the phenomena this paper says are due to curved spacetime, localised to a specific lab experiment.
GR is pretty definite over what is needed to curve spacetime and while there are various alternate theories none change that. To curve spacetime on a small scale you need a lot of mass.
Micro-black holes are not impossible, but their existence is somewhat constrained on the one hand by the fact that we are alive, and on the other hand by non-observation of Hawking radiation.
I think it adds a lot of unnecessary problems to any theory trying to explain unusual CR-39 tracks.
CR-39 tracks can be explained by magnetic reconnection
Look at the theory of solar flares.
-
Micro-black holes are not impossible, but their existence is somewhat constrained on the one hand by the fact that we are alive, and on the other hand by non-observation of Hawking radiation.
There are two kinds of particle/field interactions that lead to blackholes. The one THHuxleynew should be familiar with and the one that creates Matsumoto's Blackholes. Since, neutrons are on the femto scale, Matsumoto's blackholes are femto-black holes. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…oto-s-diy-blackholes-pdf/
Since THHuxleynew has previously given up on solid science in favor of his foundationless speculation of others wrong doings, I apologize in advance for thinking he might read this pdf. However. for those who will read that pdf, and wonder if that foundation could be true, then the proof of concept is in this link RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.
-
Just to answer THHuxleynew ’s request about good Ni-H data, did you ever read Piantelli’s and Focardi’s papers? Did you ever read any of the series of papers on Ni-H on the 1990’s in Fusion Technology?
-
-
I think chatbot is a bit too skeptical
LOLs. A little reprograming can fix that!
-
I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any specific papers from Piantelli with high-quality excess heat results in my available knowledge. However, there are several papers available on the topic of excess heat in the field of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. If you're interested, I can provide you with some general information about excess heat and related research. Just let me know!
Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems - Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)Evidence of a large heat excess produced in Ni-H systems and details of the calorimetric measurements are reported in this paper. Two cells which ran for long…link.springer.comhttps://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789812774354_0005
Neutron emission in Ni-H systems - Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)In this paper evidence is reported for neutron emission during energy production in Ni-H systems at about 700 kelvin. Neutrons were detected directly by He3…link.springer.comAnomalous heat production in Ni-H systems - Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)Evidence for a 50 W anomalous heat production in a hydrogen-loaded nickel rod is reported.link.springer.comhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST91-A29644
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST94-A30341
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST96-A30737
I am an old fashioned Google Scholar user.
-
For free...
-
Now what distinguing the NIH "fusion " or the neutron releasing is only the level of excitation energy to trigger the reaction.
"Décapage des neutrons ": bientôt des progrès considérables en physique nucléaire ?Le décapage d’un neutron pourrait produire une énergie comparable, voire supérieure, à celle générée par…www.geo.fr -
OK, well these show why the Piantelli work is not as safe as the D-Pd work. The calorimetry rests on a set of assumptions about the behaviour of the reaction chamber - but this is not fully characterised. The temperatures, used as proxy for powers, depend in some unknown way on conduction and possibly convection through a varying pressure gas, and radiative transfer from surfaces which are (control) Pt, (2nd control (unloaded Ni) active (H loaded Ni). There is no evidence to show that both these transfer methods stay the same between active and control runs, and reasonable suspicion that they chnage, byy and amount that cannot be determined because of lack of characteristsation.
Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems - Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)Evidence for a 50 W anomalous heat production in a hydrogen-loaded nickel rod is reported.link.springer.comClaims an Ni rod surrounded by a heater in a reactor chamber filled with H at some (not clearly specified but varying) atmospheric pressure and temperature cycles from 150C to 450C emits 50W or heat.
The paper says:
(1) on cycling temperature up and then down (Fig 5) the rod has very slightly lower temperature cycling up, and slightly higher temperature cycling down, than the surrounding heater.
(2) therefore the temperature decrease phase shows evidence of heat emitted from rod not heater.
(2S) It seems more plausible that this small difference is due to the time constant of the rod. Furthermore the fact that the rod and heater temperatures are almost identical makes 50W excess heat from the rod look implausible.
The paper says:
(1) The rod temperature changes over multiple load cycles and ends up higher (for a given power) than an unloaded nickel rod or a Pt rod (Fig 4)
(2) Therefore, comparing the temperature difference with controls, because the temperature rise is equivalent to a large (20W etc) heater power difference in the control graphs, this is evidence of the rod emitting heat.
(2A) There is an extraordinary lack of information here.
(1) For the anomalous temperature increase they show (Fig 3) the H2 pressure - which increases in the same way. They do not show the coil temperature which one would expect would be significantly less since they claim excess heat of 50W and the heater power is only 150W.
(2) They provide two control graphs of temperature vs H2 pressure at essentially vacuum and 570mBar. These are very different. They then say:
(2B) they perform the experiment at lower than atmospheric pressure and do not consider the effect of atmospheric leakage into the chamber. (I have no idea what this will do given free H2 and a Pd hydride surface).
So they assume that conduction (and possibly convection) stays the same. But the do not quantify this or parametrise it. I'd expect it to be true for the (not much varying) pressure they show over a loading step (Fig 2).
Their evidence shows something that they obviously think is anomalous - I do too. They say it is highly replicable. However the level of cross-checking is insufficient, and the crucial extra instrumentation - difference between rod and coil temperature throughput these tests, is not given. Furthermore it is somewhat surprising that if this exciting and extraordinary (and replicable) behaviour was real they did not do additional characterisation and tests.
My guess is that it was replicable - when they discovered it. But then further replication failed. And there are any number of one-off anomalies (atmospheric leaks at high temperatures etc) that could vary cell conditions in difficult to analyse ways and confuse them. We will never know.
It is not, in this case, that I know what the anomaly is, or why it happens. Merely that they provide such fragmentary information that no-one can tell: a shame when they had available significant undisclosed information (the rod vs heater temperatures throughout).
-
Neutron emission in Ni-H systems - Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)In this paper evidence is reported for neutron emission during energy production in Ni-H systems at about 700 kelvin. Neutrons were detected directly by He3…link.springer.com
I do not know enough about the experiment here to critique it. Except the obvious:
(1) if this is clear evidence of neutron emission then this could be replicated
(2) they note that their data is incomplete - and that they do not have correlated measurements from the two different ways of detecting neutrons, and have only as small amount of data due to a power cut. That is clearly needed to improve the quality of the evidence. It seems a great shame that they did not repeat the experiment when their lab had no power cut.
I expect they did repeat it - and further investigation found no more anomalies.
Now that does not rule out LENR. This is (we suppose) fickle and requires exact correct conditions to occur. But it matches very well some unanalysed anomaly which we can never now explore because it (as is often they way of experimental errors) was a one-off.
-
Display More
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03035901
I do not know enough about the experiment here to critique it. Except the obvious:
(1) if this is clear evidence of neutron emission then this could be replicated
(2) they note that their data is incomplete - and that they do not have correlated measurements from the two different ways of detecting neutrons, and have only as small amount of data due to a power cut. That is clearly needed to improve the quality of the evidence. It seems a great shame that they did not repeat the experiment when their lab had no power cut.
I expect they did repeat it - and further investigation found no more anomalies.
Now that does not rule out LENR. This is (we suppose) fickle and requires exact correct conditions to occur. But it matches very well some unanalysed anomaly which we can never now explore because it (as is often they way of experimental errors) was a one-off.
How many times have we told the world:
→ ῡ + 63Ni28 +1H→ 63Cu29 +e - + ῡ +1H + Q=E…
-
Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems - Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)Evidence of a large heat excess produced in Ni-H systems and details of the calorimetric measurements are reported in this paper. Two cells which ran for long…link.springer.com
This is a follow-up to the (accidentally discovered) excess 50W experiment above.
Good: they have more thermocouples
Good: this is a replication with more data
Bad: again they claim temperature difference between T2 & T3 is evidence of power emitted by the rod. But T3 is on the outside of the heater and therefore will be lower temperature than the heater - T2 on the rod is surrounded by the heater and will be the same as it. That is an alternative reason for the observed difference
Bad: the calorimetry is the same as before - and very uncontrolled relative to a "real" calorimeter. Thus it rests on the assumption that the thermal conduction between heater and cell wall does not change in the "activated" cell. When a reasonable hypothesis would be radiation and possibly convection or conduction change due to heavily hydrided Ni surfaces being different, or the gas composition being different, or some artifact like an expanded hydrided surface touching an outer wall..
It is equally unclear what causes this temperature difference:
- pressure or gas composition change
- difference in hydrided surface emissivity relative to non-hydrided
- difference in hydrided surface microgeometry relative to non-hydrided
- some other non-LENR artifact
- LENR (as suggested in the paper)
It is also worth noting the large number of replication failures of this type of experiment (notably MFMP - who spent a long time trying).
Bottom line - for the other thread.
- I have not seen excess heat evidence for H-Ni from experiments anything like as convincing as the best of the D-Pd calorimetry,
- The neutron evidence here i am not qualified to understand. But I do note its incomplete nature.
-
How many times have we told the world:
→ ῡ + 63Ni28 +1H→ 63Cu29 +e - + ῡ +1H + Q=E…
So you are agreeing with me about the Piantelli neutron detection paper?
-
After reading your analyses, I think finally you're right... Piantelli's pseudo xsh probably never existed... Moreover, as your analysis pointed out, the calorimetry was highly dubious. Thanks again for your help.
Display MoreOK, well these show why the Piantelli work is not as safe as the D-Pd work. The calorimetry rests on a set of assumptions about the behaviour of the reaction chamber - but this is not fully characterised. The temperatures, used as proxy for powers, depend in some unknown way on conduction and possibly convection through a varying pressure gas, and radiative transfer from surfaces which are (control) Pt, (2nd control (unloaded Ni) active (H loaded Ni). There is no evidence to show that both these transfer methods stay the same between active and control runs, and reasonable suspicion that they chnage, byy and amount that cannot be determined because of lack of characteristsation.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02813080
Claims an Ni rod surrounded by a heater in a reactor chamber filled with H at some (not clearly specified but varying) atmospheric pressure and temperature cycles from 150C to 450C emits 50W or heat.
The paper says:
(1) on cycling temperature up and then down (Fig 5) the rod has very slightly lower temperature cycling up, and slightly higher temperature cycling down, than the surrounding heater.
(2) therefore the temperature decrease phase shows evidence of heat emitted from rod not heater.
(2S) It seems more plausible that this small difference is due to the time constant of the rod. Furthermore the fact that the rod and heater temperatures are almost identical makes 50W excess heat from the rod look implausible.
The paper says:
(1) The rod temperature changes over multiple load cycles and ends up higher (for a given power) than an unloaded nickel rod or a Pt rod (Fig 4)
(2) Therefore, comparing the temperature difference with controls, because the temperature rise is equivalent to a large (20W etc) heater power difference in the control graphs, this is evidence of the rod emitting heat.
(2A) There is an extraordinary lack of information here.
(1) For the anomalous temperature increase they show (Fig 3) the H2 pressure - which increases in the same way. They do not show the coil temperature which one would expect would be significantly less since they claim excess heat of 50W and the heater power is only 150W.
(2) They provide two control graphs of temperature vs H2 pressure at essentially vacuum and 570mBar. These are very different. They then say:
(2B) they perform the experiment at lower than atmospheric pressure and do not consider the effect of atmospheric leakage into the chamber. (I have no idea what this will do given free H2 and a Pd hydride surface).
So they assume that conduction (and possibly convection) stays the same. But the do not quantify this or parametrise it. I'd expect it to be true for the (not much varying) pressure they show over a loading step (Fig 2).
Their evidence shows something that they obviously think is anomalous - I do too. They say it is highly replicable. However the level of cross-checking is insufficient, and the crucial extra instrumentation - difference between rod and coil temperature throughput these tests, is not given. Furthermore it is somewhat surprising that if this exciting and extraordinary (and replicable) behaviour was real they did not do additional characterisation and tests.
My guess is that it was replicable - when they discovered it. But then further replication failed. And there are any number of one-off anomalies (atmospheric leaks at high temperatures etc) that could vary cell conditions in difficult to analyse ways and confuse them. We will never know.
It is not, in this case, that I know what the anomaly is, or why it happens. Merely that they provide such fragmentary information that no-one can tell: a shame when they had available significant undisclosed information (the rod vs heater temperatures throughout).
-
After reading your analyses, I think finally you're right... Piantelli's pseudo xsh probably never existed... Moreover, as your analysis pointed out, the calorimetry was highly dubious. Thanks again for your help.
Just to keep my skeptic credentials. No-one can say that these experiments did not in fact find excess heat. Just that they provide relatively low quality of evidence for that hypothesis.
I guess some here will know what MFMP thinks about their claims? They should have some weight since they tried hard to replicate - although i think the process, at least at the start, was more MFMP finding out about calorimetry errors than the actual data they generated.
CLICK HERE to contact us.