Posts by stefan

Dewey,

Swedish radio have done a quite serious stunt on Rossi. I didn't like it because they equalized all Cold Fusion results
with trying to develop a perpetum mobile - and equate rossi with the whole field. In all it was a bit like the people of the
street should decide what an academic should work on. Anyway I'm sure he would get a warm welcome by some
investigating journalists. I think it would be a good idea to try getting them being more balanced in their judgements and
don't equate everybody in the field with charlatans.

I've come late to this party but I like how me356 is approach the quest. Simply by making as much as possible controllable.
And then explore the parameter space by working hard. That in itself can explain why he claim a result where others are lost.
That's how someone in the Vanguard at the front line should work. Of cause it's all words atm but I supprt the approch. In
optimizing settings in industrial equipment there is a math field known as design of experiments. Employing those techniques
means that you try to vary as much things as possible and with quite few tests and optimize quickly. I like those ideas but find
that practically few researchers employ the techniques. Also I would try to decouple the EM stimulation from heating is possible
e.g. have one heating wire of high resistance and a stimulation wire of low resistance in order to decouple heating with EM stimulation.

stephenrenz,

Yeah, that is what I mean. There has been a trend since many years to remove the control of what can be researched on from the academic person
to controlled institutes, the main official reason is of cause to improve the yield of the research money. I realized when I took my phd that there is
no future in that environment for someone like me who likes to explore many things and not know what the result would be at the start of the journey.
I like to ponder frantically at everything. But would I get a grant doing that - no it had to be a strong purpose e.g. this improves the understanding of
radio communication etc. E.g. it had to be an obvious yield - did the research I see improve the yield. No not what I saw, it basically restricted the
outcome too much and was too stringent to allow creative results of higher level. Also I often seen people spit on CF research stating the poor methods that's
been used cause I like to read what the strong critics say. And my analysis is of cause that this guy get's what's his paying for, and that he uses that fact
as an argument in his case - is, well, stupid.

At the start of IH entering this affair there was some hope that there was something in Rossis claims - they should have known if it worked by doing proper
due diligence from the beginning. But after the Lugano I thought that other paths needs to be taken.

Yeah it's a bit pity you can't have 100:s of good laboratories around the world poundering for the unknown and need to wait for a some technical entities working in
this on a shoe string. There are a few entities that stand out though in this regard and that's Mills BrLP and Brillouin, they have good equipment and skills
- there we have a nice duality, either a massive scam involving many people or a real miracle.

I'm following this with great interest. It's fun because I have some technical background and can follow some of the technical discussions. But the main reason I follow
this is due to my fear of an environmental breakdown. I think that we do need to try explore the cold fusion indications and spend much more on trying the impossible.
than we do today. Why should we be fools to believe in the impossible you may ask? Well I can read equations like no one else and QM seams to be a temporarily theory
which models the world quite nicely but in an overly complex way with some really strange features. There is room for miracles. My hypothesis is that Randell Mills is on
to something. I can't follow him when he change reference systems, but not all calculations needs that trick and you can get the ionization energies of one electron ions to
3 digits accuracy without the trick. Knowing this and that I really like the modelling approach, that is to base everything on electromagnetism and have an explicit explanation
what spin is, I have some hopes that we will get a lot of knew knowledge in the next decades and perhaps help solve out environmental problems. What I note though is that
the whole science system is stuck and maintained in a very conservative way and science is not moving as fast as I would like it to be in order to address my fear. To move
fast you need free thinkers and tinkerers, some will be insane and some will use the system in not intended ways, but history tells us that some will actually bring revolutions
to our way of thinking. It's time to get out of maintenance mode of science and let creativity loose and stop being afraid of our reputation and what our peers thinks.
Professionally today I'm programming both at day work and also on some open source projects, a doer you may say but in logic and not science. I have no fear of my reputation
and feel very free to think what I like and speak what I like, more people should enjoy that. I read in the posts here that IH, Rossis partner was not allowed to see the customer setup,
that's crazy. I also read what IH have spoken in public and of cause I'm sympathetic to what they are promoting. And I do understand that one that is close to them can get into
a quite vigalantic mode and start spinning here and elsewhere to speak for their sake. It is understandable.

LOL, Dewey, talk about overkill to win an argument. If the world revolved around sanity you would just need to
have an expert testify that measuring for certainty is crucial due to this unbelievable result, show that there might
be some fishy things and that you clearly want to control more things in the test. Ask the judge to agree with you wanting
to address those questions through a rerun of the test and be done with it. That's a fair request from you and if not Rossi
comply he loose. You are certain that he is cheating so the end result is that he loose. What's the difficulty? You need to
ask yourself and your experts how this test would best be done. To me it really look like you are focusing on the wrong thing.
Of cause I have not all info about this as you do, but you can correct my ignorance.

If I would be a judge I would order the parties to agree on a test that basically prove or disprove the issue. It would be much
cheaper than spending time to win by argument and a cost effective way to rule. If there is weaknesses one rerun until all holes
in this mess is fixed. That's what a good judge would do. If IH has good argument do the blody test addressing it or give them
right and vice versa. Rossi can't say it's expensive or difficult, it's peanuts compared to what's at stake. And IH wouldn't dissagree
with water tight proof of cause. It's all that simple. Or is it, what am I missing?

Well If we want to take steps in a constructive direction. And try to do some science it is very smart to base your engagement on evidence and proof.

me365:

I think that radiation is a technical issue - Although I'm not an expert. But from what I understand a COP of 10 with kW of energy through ordinary fusion would result in much higher radiation.
So there are great reason to think that one can engineer away this issue. So actually the claimed results are fantastic. Note that probably publishing an experiment that result in a sure moderate
radiation would probably result in a Nobel Prize . We are speaking of 1 Million dollar or more. It would be a hard proof that there is something nuclear going on that should not be there. You don't need to
measure COP or temperature very well - just measure the radiation that should not be there. It's true that you should not do this in your garage. That's not fun. But there are labs and people that can
handle this and with a published result, that can be reproduced, researcher would have a good bite to chew on and we would surely see an end product utilizing the findings and make products for the
better good of people. But there is no evidences so people can't invest. The only thing I myself can do and probably the only thing I'm capable to do here is to cheer you on your quest. You do what you wan't -
it's your life, but the messages we get here is although entertaining in some way lost without data and hard evidences. Be careful and have fun.

Lol, Rakitsa calls out us as ignorant and uneducated. He argue for example that the Coloumb potential is impenetratable. And probably thinks that
the audience here are ignorant of the difficulty to overcome it. FIrst of all, in order to penetrate the coloumb potential you need energy to overcome
the potential and also energy not to deflect from the target. Now Having a proton approach a target atom means that at some point a combined electron
cloud around the two nuclei has to form that are cigarr formed and this process may actually aim the incoming proton against the nuclei effectively result in
1) A much increased hit rate with lower energies (still high though)
2) At the hit both nuclei is at typically at much lover speed relative each other than what typically is the case when we study hot fusion e.g. the physics
in the hit at these low energies hits is typically not well studied and it is an extrapolation to take our understanding to this low energy case hence it is prudent to expect some
new physics needs to be developed. To rant as he does is premature in my book, especially since there are well established results indicating that
the electron cloud increases the hit rate many orders of magnitudes at moderate speeds (still very high to prove cold fusion though). To call Me365 a lier is a bit
uggly. He clearly works his ass out doing his garage research and anybody that work hard needs respect in my book. Is he right? That's another question. And the
answer to that is simply wait and see and anybody calling bad things is nothing but an ignorant troll - especially as me365 does not try to milk money from anyone,
On the other hand It is good to point out that there is nothing proved and no science here and remind people that it all probably is a pipe dream.

One thing is true though: old farts that think that everything
is known and nothing new and revolutionary can ever happen has been proven wrong over and over again. So be polite and wait and see, and for gods sake, have fun.

To throw out question marks,
* Chemical energy?
* Released energy in a phase change?
* inductive heating?

It sure does look like generated heat in the core.

Regards
Stefan

I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to explain an increase in cross-sections that I've not seen mentioned when discussing the recent notes from
Louis DeChiaro.

The short story is that one of the factors that demand such high energies in standard theory
is that any small deflection from a perfect hit will deflect the trajectory if the incoming nucleus is
at small energies, so you you not only need to overcome the energy barrier to hit the target, you must also have such high momentum so that the repulsion have less impact on the deflection.
An aiming effect for small energies then makes solid state fusion at collisions at low relative speed compered to usual fusion aka hot fusion.

What I can argue from reading Randell Mills GUTCP and perhaps one can copy the idea over
to QM is that essentially the electron field and an interplay with angular momentum enable a focusing effect of the incoming nucleus at lower energies meaning that cross-section increases many orders of magnitude. If you then consider a condensed matter you could realize that this aiming is aligning the movements more and more for each oscillation and resulting in a nucleus
hit at high rate. Also note that for high energy hits are at large relative speeds. But if we have
an aiming effect in condensed matter we tend to have much lower relative speeds at an hit. Could this low relative hit mean that we have a more spherical symmetric interaction and much more balance essentially enabling other kinds of radiation phenomena then what is expected from high energy fusion experiments. Remember most of our experience is at high energy collisions.

What is this aiming. Well, as the nucleus approach the target the most energy efficient electron distribution for the combined cluster is that of a cigar or ellipsoid with the angular momentum axis along the long axis of the ellipsoid. If the in-coming nucleus is missing the target we would essentially get an angular momentum that is varying if we assumed the minimal energy distribution if the electron field for each radial distance, but the system preserve the angular momentum. So a less energetically electron distribution must be the reality. In an oscillation the best energetically period is
one that does a perfect hit e.g. there is a force that aims the nucleus to align perfectly. At least that
is how I picture it myself the reality is more complex, but you get the principle from my argument.

Quote from Mary Yugo

@Stephan

I am not a mathematician and have no idea about the consequences of Mill's math. But Mills, for twenty years, has been making claims about hard physical evidence of large amounts of power and energy drawn from his reactions. He says that he showed this with his experiments and those at Rowan University. But the experiments at Rowan never closed the loop. They never said how their (small) power producing reagents were made. They certainly never proved an overunity power gain. And Mills demonstrations using a large welding power supply are laughable -- way more comical and idiotic than they are convincing.

Don't keep authority claims as a reason to not speak out. If you noticed, in principle every buisness taking the path of new science makes good use of optimistic projections. I don't like it, but that's the name of the game. Trying to tame the hydrino was never a simple path to success from the beginning or else it would already have been utilized. Yes the welder is unreal. But if it produces most of the energy in the form of light it will look like that. You can't change physics because it looks ridiculus. Our experience simply does not match the physics here so be careful here.

Quote

So if, as you say, hydrinos rarely show up (vanishingly rarely), why does Mills claim huge power outputs from the hydrino reaction (whatever that is)? Is he lying about that? Is he mistaken? If hydrinos are so shy they can't EVER be demonstrated, how does Mills use them to provide a flow of electricity even a power company would envy? That's what he claims, you know?

First of all, don't take the upper limit of what he claims as real values, be realistic and go down 2 orders of magnitude to c:a: 100kW which is the target for the first prototypes. He does demonstrate hydrinos via secondary effects
like a spectral pattern that should not be there. And burst of energy that indicates over unity. He does not yet demonstrate over unity devices for us with more than showing examples of bomb calormetry that argue for that case. No proof
but I just can't believe that he is doing blatant fraud here and with his skill and resources that is the only option. You see developing his theory means that he in the end would becomes a noble loriate and If he spend all his effort just
moving his theory forward and making talks showing it's greatness and addressing all the critiques he would be very well off as famous and respected. Why on earth spend time on fraud than. That's crazy. No he believes his theory so much that after each debacle he gather new ideas and continue and as most successful leaders in buisness after a lot of fails he could very well have found gold here well see. His demonstration does increase in power and noise. Well see where they are the next time.

Quote

And remember, even neutrinos can be detected given enough effort of sufficient quality. Why not hydrinos? Shouldn't Mills be working on how to show hydrinos instead of making bright light with a welding generator? That's what he does these days, you know?

Hydrinos does not show up in high energy physics, it's a low energy phenomena. You need to be more specific here and show an example of where it should show up.

Quote

ETA:

Sure and maybe Neptune's moons are made of green cheese. Mills has been at it for several decades (30 years by now, isn't it? Certainly 20). And his demos get sillier with the passage of time while his claims stay grandiose. Not exactly awe inspiring to this non-mathematician.

You miss my point. If you search hard enough you may find unexplained physics that are yet not explained but explainable with normal physics. You need to take a skeptic side and try to shoot down your hypothesis I think that
for the case of the EUV spectra there have not been enough effort to do this and this is also the view of one of Mills coauthors, he still don't rule out an unknown plasma effect - plasma physics are not easy.

Quote

Apologies for misspelling your name.

n.p. I don't take my person seriously anyway and love to be wrong.

Quote

As to Mills, the problem isn't so much the theory, bonkers though it may be. It's that he's been promising dozens of kilowatts and associations with power companies for DECADES. And the piece of trash he produced lately is powered from the main through a giant welding power supply. And one wonders why it makes bright arcs? Really? Let me know when the guy actually does something.

Yes a welder produces light. That's true. But EUV spectra is more energetic photons than what you typically get from welders with low voltages and high current. For high voltages you get EUV spectra that's true.
Also if you leave out the water then you will not see this spectra. (the high conducting substrate is still there) It's a kind of plasma mystery why the spectra show up. Maybe the high current can accelerate electrons
to produce the light but the direct understanding is missing. Maybe Mills have searched and hit an unexplained part of physics and prematurely assumes hydrinos. Let's wait and see. I believe that it is hydrinos there
are other analytics as well that proves the point and Mills is not doing bad regarding physics, he does do mistakes, but listen to the critiques and adapts. Previously his instrumentation was wrong doing conclusions
from results outside the spec of the instrument. It turns out that with better instruments he was right.

/Stefan

Quote

Mills' Hydrino theory does not stack up. For experimentalists because it is not credible that such an obviously different state of matter could exist and not leave fingerprints elsewhere in science.

Hydrino formation is not expected to show up unless in very tiny fractions on earth and when so it does not give away any spectral hints which basically makes it invisible. Any hydrinos surfacing the earh will move up in the atmosphere
and be ventilated out into space. This process has been ongoing since the earth birth and would only again leave extreamly tiny fractions of it naturally. To me it looks like you really need to know what to look for
to find it. Also getting normal hydrogen into a hydrino form is not easy else Mills would be ready by know. Again only tiny quantities of spectrally black matter. There really aren't much of fingerprints to see regarding hydrinos
that's why it is claimed to be forming the black matter of the universe which is logical.

Quote

Mills' own "proofs" are very unconvincing. For theorists because it does not cohere mathematically.

I think that the mathematical proofs are ok. You need to add something unknown to the equation to prove it's existance or not with math as far as I know. Hydrinos are a solution to a search
of a nonradiating charge distributions which really is not a distribution of point charges. But something unknown that manifest itself as source terms in Maxwells equations. The true physics of these
source terms, which is not described yet as far as I can tell must be used to claim what you say. That means that the theory is an indication that hydrinos exist and Mills resent plasma experiments with
high current yields EUV spectra that I have not found an explanation for with more than hydrinos exists. Here we should try harder to exclude an explanation whithin normal physical domains to claim proof.
but it's interesting.

Quote

QED is very beautiful and validated experimentally to very high precision.

Theories can have a perfect match sometimes and not sometimes. To me it looks like the QED theory is targeted a certain geometrical setup of the Electromagnetic fields found in Mills theory. But if the fields
have a topologically different form I would expect that you need to change the QED formulation to match the electormagnetic fields. Also QED seam to be a trick that although have a nice form is really clumsy
compared to what you do with a direct Electromagnetic modelling. You typically can't take on multi body interactions like for example oxygen with more than approximations. Mills seam to do this with paper and
pen like theory and no supercomputers.

Quote

Mills' ideas contain internal inconsistencies and make no predictions subsequently confirmed (I know he claims this - but look at the details!).

I followed Mills derivation of the Landau g-factor and it's correct. He is almost as accurate as QED on this, but QED is probably too exact due to the complex nature of
calculating a divergent expansion (you need to leave out terms) and risk overoptimistic selection bias. I've seen a lot of claims of inconsistance, none which I found compelling
what's your take on that, I'm curious.

Quote

I realise this is not easy for a non-expert to detect, and that if as is traditional you distrust all experts you may take a different view.

I'm am an expert in math. You cannot calculate the landau g-factor with that many decimals correctly and be a bogus theory. It's impossible. It's all a straight line from a simple assumption
of non radiation Maxwells theory and known electrodynamics. I do have seen a lot of experts falling into various traps out on the internet and claim way to fast their finding to be an inconsistancy.
I would really like to see a true inconsistancy but have just found hot air and badmouthing.

Take care and keep up the good work!

Hi,

I have always been quite miffed that the hot Cat could work at such high temperatures. As far as I understand the Lugano test seam to have too much uncertainties to actually take as proof that it works. On the other hand I would expect that the normal ECAT at lower temperatures is way easier to evaluate and by know I just cannot fathom that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Rossi would not know if it works or not. So for me it is out of the question that Rossi is doing a huge misstake with the ECAT. The hot cat perhaps, but not the ordinary ECAT. I don't put our current theoretical understanding especially high when it comes to QM and Atom, nuclear and particle physics. We do have a good understanding of what we know though e.g. that we have a good fit with our models. Usually our modelling leave out parameters that we can statistically match and hence as an afterthought of our experimentaiton makes upp the good fit. Don't get me wrong QM does have predictable power in many areas. But it is overly clumsy and a bit inaccurate like not able to predict hydrinos, which I beleive exists after reading about Mills theory, which really is what we shoul use to try understand cold fusion. Knowing that we have such a bad theretical tool just screams for on paper unbelievable phenomena like the ECAT and cold fusion in general to actually be real. That's why I am optimistic that we can have a real effect here( but my bet is on BLP to outperform any of the current traditional cold fusion endavours).

I'm on Thomas boat in this discussion though. Nothing is proved and we as outside bystanders should be careful until good proofs really appears and I am a bit skeptic that the hot cat really works well. The ash analysis is interesting if it's not a fake though.

But why is everybody concentrating on replicating Rossi's hot cat? Why not try to get en effect at lower temperatures? He does claim good performance there as well and the lower temperatures are easier to handle.