you that if any of these claims were true, the researchers would be killed by gamma rays.
Yep this is happening right now at the physics forum that nickec linked to.
stefan
Verified User
- Member since Aug 31st 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by stefan
-
-
googling you get maybe 120-140MJ / kg energy content of hydrogene. Excess Energy was about 250*24*3600J so thats about 150g hydrogene equivalents.
That is the figure that essentially need to have been loaded to explain the results, (actually its more like maybe 500g if the run was for three days).
This sounds quite a lot but i'm pretty ignorant.
-
I've been terrorized by R. Mills opponents the way like this picking, and I would like that the side i identify
myself with does not use the same tactics. Else I like Roberts non picking posts here.
-
Stefan - this argument is logical and I agree. Where I disagree is I think some weird stimulation as you suggest is less likely than some calculation error that explains the results. Jed will say he has looked at this for a year and found none such. However, finding such an error post-facto is always difficult which is why I'd suggest more detailed documentation of the results and all of the raw data, with no assumptions and no "it is the same as I did before" omission of work.
Well I would say that the fact that if this result is for real you must probably have a nuclear reaction going on e.g. cold fusion is the weird thing.
If so stimulation would be less strange. Where we differ is that I would like to see more results, and we will, from replicators and new experiments
by M himself before stating the negative. I find it weird that academics has to maintain that it is an artefact and clearly probably an error in
calculation and setup (to not loose their face). Why just discuss fact, ask for new information. Say that It's strange and I don't understand, and
wait and see. Else I agree with some of your approaches to test for sensitivity regarding magnetic stimulation. But I find that a flow of D2 gas
simulated by the heater inside is not weird, and I would probably try to stir it with some other means and heat it from the outside to test that
hypothesis. But these discussions are a bit premature now when we wait to see if we can acknowledge the effect.
-
You can't heat a room with 300W, which needs 2-3kW heater to yield comfortable levels. That is quite strong evidences and the winter
is long so it most probably a nuclear effect if one load is enough. Hard to see any alternative explanation here.
-
If you put 100w in and it generates another 100w (cop of 2) there is a total of 200w being dissipated in the reactor. How is that different to putting in 200w? You _must_ get thermal runaway unless you increase cooling to extract the extra 100w. In short cooling must be thermostatically controlled or you will get thermal runaway... Or something else is wrong.
Depending on the heat loss properties of the experiment you can get a stable steady state and no run away. The system cools more as temperature goes up. Also the experiment
with the higher powers might push the system up so that radiation is important and due to the T^4 law another steady state is reached. Again I would expect no need for
a heater in the end due to the high gain.
But the heater is important it seams and therefore it stimulates the system in other ways. This is most evident that when putting the heater inside the core, it worked much better.
A guess is that putting it in the core creates a circulation of the little hydrogene that's inside the cyllinder and this flow enables the high gain. Another guess is that this is due
to magnetic effects from the heater.
-
When thinking about the results I find it hard to understand. I would expect some kind of equilibrium to appear and a self sustaining mode
if the process was only dependent on temperature. Therefore it looks like the heater is really important for the process, and stimulates the
reaction in some other way than just trough the heat. Still a mystery of exactly how. The experiment seams well executed and the next logical
step is to verify that the effect is real by validation.
One speculation is that the core heater is hotter than the surrounding gas and it cools at the cylinder wall and hence creates a circulation that
perhaps is absent if the heater is off e.g a gradient effect. An expert in simulating fluid flows and heat transfer and could try to simulate a few
examples with OpenFoam, which is the tool that hobbyist can afford. I might be able to help here as I used Open Foam 7 years ago.
Another speculation, that people here has mensioned is that the magnetic field produced by the DC somehow stimulates the reaction.
-
Not much say. Hot for a short time. But i want to see that full container boiling an data of enery in energy out, and consumed hydrogene and an estimate of how much electron volt that hydrogene generated, like after less power but longer time. They seam to search for very high power.
-
Another idea. When calibrating why not do an effort to vary setups slightly to get a feeling how robust the calibration is and how exact the setup must
be in order to use the calibration. Of cause the actual experiment should be done in the exact setup.
-
Mizuno tried that, years ago. It did not work well. I wouldn't want to try it with these reactors because you must have a way to cool them off quickly.
Looking at the data, I have a sense that heat flow through the reactor and temperature gradients are important. I cannot quite put my finger on why. (If I could have, I would have put it in the paper.) It is just a feeling.
Thanks! This gave me an idea. Assume that we can control the degree of insulation, from very insulated to basically conduction in an insulation layer around the
cylinder and place it in a water bath. Then if temperature is only what trigger the reaction you could essentially just manage temperature without any heating at
all and the only electricity would go to the controller. This sounds that i'm after something similar to control rods in nuclear reactors.
-
I'm wondering if by adding an insulation layer to the reactor one could model the heat exchange coefficient such that it resambles air flow cooling although water
is cooling at the outside.
-
Wow, This indicates that my investment by giving Mizuno some small fund after the earthquake, is the best investment of my life
(yes I value open science high ). Thanks!! I read through the report. Great work and it looks like the results are really solid from
my naive pow. Shall be interesting to see what comes out of this both in terms of other researchers try to replicate and what
critique there might be. If this succeeds and goes mainstream, we will have a lot of theoreticians scratching their hairs in the coming
years.
-
Ohmasa gas is what you get according to the inventor if you stir the water in a special way and then do an eloctrolysis of it. And get that
thing that should be oxy someting but is different. They claim that it is compressible to a large degree and also liquifies at high temperatures.
which the oxy thing does not. These facts is what teases my imagination and if I was in Japan I would make sure to verify those facts.
Currently BG and friends is torching tungsten and claim that that cold thing of a torch can melt tungsten. But before jumping to conclusion
one need to note that the torch is think filled with oxygene and oxidation of metal might as well explain the effect. Also the flash at the tungsten
is white hot it looks not 200-300 degrees or whatever the torch is. Again the most probably explanation is some kind of oxidation. A bit too quick to
conclusion for my taste and Iam wondering what Ohmasa thinks of BG laughing around in his Keanu Reeves sun glasses.
-
The claims of Ohmasa gas being safe needs serious science to explain exactly why it is safe
and also rigid tests to show what parameters one should have not to get brown gas behavior,
then one need safety equipment to make sure with high confidentiality that the parameters is
well in their bound and the gas is made up as it should. All captured in regulatory documents.
Still that this gas is compressible and can be liquified is something that is hard to get wrong and
should turn the right knobs on a scientist who would like to answer "WTF is this". If this gas has
the benefits they claim it will take many many years until it get's into infrastructure. Even hydrogen
that is safer than brown gas has it's problems (Explosion in norway). Anyway I can't see any claims
on over unity when it comes to Ohmasa gas, just that it is cheap, with good properties, and ideal as
a energy storage used to store energy in windmills and solar cells. But it teases my imagination because
the claim is that there is some water molecules mixed into it in some way and according to Mills water
is a hydrino catalyst. I simply wonder what would happen if Randell Mills took this invention and ran
with it.
Oh when I see that they store a lot of quantity of that Ohmasa gas in house e.g. some unknown
brown gas like thingie compressed in tubes but assumed safe I get night mares.
Regarding the transmutation they claim, I guess a few ppm of Iron from a transmutation would not need
to much heat If produced to counter the claim that the temperature of the bottle was, was it 40 degrees?
Anyhow a calculation is needed to show that things are coherent. Also they don't see any nickel, which is
assumed to show that the iron is not from the fins. But isn't nickel concentrations a 10th of Iron in those fins
so If iron is 1ppm you should expect 0.1ppm Nikel and is the equipment sensitive enough to find that?
Finally I would have liked to see the same experiment with no deuterium to compare. I guess that MFMP will
run proper tests later with good controls later.
The same with the fins. A proper inspection and documentation before and after the tests. Anyhow the long
track of strange radiation emanating from a blistering cavitation implosion indicates that it's not mechanical
tracks that was there before the tests, this story really catches my interests.
-
regarding Ohmasa gas, revolution green post and discussion . Why isn't scientists all over that Ohmasa gas. It has not much
footprint on the net and it's been out for 10 years. It's either interesting science or a scam. I mostly see some company from
Bulgaria pitching this on the net (wasn't he brown gas guy from Bulgaria). Anyhow this is dangerous science it seams and people
has lost their lives tinkering with brown gas stuff.
-
Another interesting comment on reddit by someone who attended the shareholder meeting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Brill…ce=share&utm_medium=web2x
Running for an hour would be great, compared to what they had in october (if it is with a relevant energy output). But this part "..., after which some sort of undisclosed processing step was required" shows that it is a long way towards a working product.
So running the device in a water bath for one hour would probably yield pretty good understanding about the performance of the device. They keep that information without disclosing it. I would be a bit frustrated as a shareholder (maybe they do get that info in secret) not getting this info. Anyhow they seam open to disclose problems so a fake bet that they now know the COP and it is high enough to continue and at this moment they probably i trying to optimize it.
-
Display More
Stefan - I don't think anyone has said anything contrary to that.
However - it does not quite get at the nub of the matter - which is the spooky way that non-locality surfaces. True, it (provably) can't be used for FTL signalling. But equally, it does exist.
The way to think of this is that two entangled photons - even if 1000s of light-years apart - behave as a single object when measured. Complementarity then means that the apparently random results from measurements at far distant locations can be correlated.
This spookiness is subtle and emerges directly from the maths of QM. It shows something deep about the structure of the universe - that non-local things are everywhere. It is consistent with the modern (Raamsdorf et al) ideas that the structure of spacetime (and the speed of light as an information propagation limit) emerge from entanglement as a fundamental process.
So we have here a 70 years old issue that tantalisingly hints at something new.
How you interpret the spookiness is up for grabs: the different interpretations cannot be experimentally resolved (there might be some possibles, with some interpretations, but none to my knowledge that have panned out).
There is a meta-observation - which many don't like - that might push you towards a many-world type answer. That is if it turns out vanishingly unlikely that the universe could evolve to generate complex structures and life then the anthropic principle makes that quite OK as long as we have many worlds.
On the issue of wavefunction collapse: it is non-measurable, because decoherence produces the same results. The fact that measured microscopic systems can be processed coherently in a way that restored the "multiple results" speaks against any form of waveform collapse, because there is in principle noting to stop complex processing that restores coherence after a measurement. Thus I don't like anything that requires collapse. But pilot wave etc ideas can be compatible with a many worlds no collapse interpretation.
It is a mark against Mills that he seems not to have engaged with this whole issue: the physical world certainly does engage with it!
It's spooky if you interpret it as such. Read the quote again, you can have an interpretation, and it is an acceptable one, of QM, where it is no effect at all, no spookiness with more that there is a correlation that you get from initiating the photons at the source in a certain way. You don't need some kind of communication between the photons at the measurements. Kind of strange that you dismiss LENR and Mills, but still prefer a spooky version of QM before an acceptable interpretation where there is no spooky action at distance. You don't need a many world interpretation. In a probabilitic interpretation, something that is natural you will find that you need non locality to explain what you see due to Bell. But again if you view QM as something unique of it's own e.g. just another way of generating the expectations than taking a probabilistic mean, you can satisfy Bell and have a locality view. What's interesting is that Mills shows another system that is not a probabilistic one
which is not a local hidden variable theory.
-
From: entanglement
"
According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.
"
what I've tried to say all along,
-
It is interesting to note that Mills device of modelling a entangled system results in a solution that can't be
solved with probability theory and hidden variables due to Bells Inequality. This is expected because he
does not use any probability theory and hidden variables.
-
Display More
Yes - if that were all there was to entanglement then it would not be non-local.
The issue is quite subtle, and to do with how the two measurements (of the two entangled photons) relate to each other.
First - here is a really good "anyone can understand it" detailed backgrounder on entanglement:
https://www.quantamagazine.org…ent-made-simple-20160428/
Key concept: To get the (non-local => non-classical) weirdness you need entanglement AND complementarity.
Now - having read that - why does Mills's idea not work.
The problem is this. Suppose you have two complementary properties: color (read or blue) and shape (round or square). (In diphoton experiments these correspond to measurement of spin in two directions at right angle to each other).
QM makes sure that if you measure one property the other will be random and vice versa.
But, if you have two entangled photons P1 and P2, and measure one property (eg color) at P1, and the same property at P2 the measurements must agree. Classically that is fine, you can say that two photons start in the same state, read or blue.
However the same is always true if you measure the other property on P1 and P2 (shape). Again that is fine, you can prepare a system with either two square or two round photons.
The nonclassical issue is this. You can decide which measurement you are doing independently of preparing the photons. Whichever measurement you do (color or shape) you always get agreement if the two measurements are the same. And, if you measure the two opposite properties (color and shape) for P1 and P2 you get random results (no correlation).
Because those statistics are always true, and you can choose the measurements you want to do independently of the photon generation source, there is no way that a local description of the system can generate the observed probabilities.
The 2018 experiment used light originating 8 billion years ago to determine which experiment was domne and still got these non-local statistic correlations. Pretty difficult to see how that can be any classical method.
Now, I've skipped over things a bit but you can see the argument in more detail following the proof of Bell's Theorem - which has been validated many many times by different experiments.
Here is a description of that - and teh loophole which has now, courtesy quasar light, been effectively closed:
What you explain can be easilly solved in a hidden variable theory If you have a uniform distribution on
((1,1),(1,1))
((1,0),(1,0)),
((0,1),(0,1)),
((0,0),(0,0)).
you will get what you explained you say with a hidden variable e.g. probability theory. But the crux is that quantum theory mixes the wave function in
such a way that you can use Bell theorem to say that a probability theory cannot produce a quantum mechanical one. QM is _not_ probability theory but
another system of combining the fields to values.
See wikipedia for Bells theorem derivation. Here one deduces the seen correlation through a simple QM calculation from the wave functions. I don't see
how this derivation adds new things to Schrödinger with initial conditions the derivation uses the wave function at time t. So you are saying that there now
is new measurments more complex measurements that adds to this so that schrödinger is not enough. That would be remarkable.
