Posts by Alan Smith

    Longview


    My own view (and both system size and experimental data) coincide with that reported by magicsound , above. Since at least part of the hydrogenation process is carried out outside the reactor (fuel pre-processing) no energy accounting is carried out for this. When the experiments begin, the heat flow from dissociation of LiAlH4 etc and (perhaps) the oxidation of aluminium is generally visible as distinct but short-lived peaks, repeatable and predictable as to the temperature bands they occur in, their intensity and duration.


    The 'zone of interest' in my own Ni/Li/H experiments is at temperatures around 650-700C +, and 3 or 4 hours in, (or longer -or never), long after the hydride dissociation/oxidation heat pulses are over.


    You may not know that both MFMP and my own 'Lookingforheat' tests mostly use comparitive temperature measurement as a criterion of XSH, comparisons being based on closely matched and calibrated 'dummy fuel' control systems running at the same time and on the same electrical circuit as the test system. This makes life a little easier and obviates some of the need for complex calorimetry when used as a lab-rat device for fuel-testing.

    My experience with overunity forums is, only first few pages are really contributory, the rest of threads is merely just a reiteration of their beginning.


    Rather like democracy, the forum discussion process is not perfect, but right now - like democracy- it's the best bad model we have. The good things about forums is that they are (within the bounds of civility) inhibitory, in that they encourage a broad range of viewpoints . Another factor which is not to be overlooked is that everyone knows how they work - a forum is a smorgasbord - consume what you like, leave what you don't.

    Of course Eric, it would depend on a whole heap of unknowns -I was just trying to diminish them a little - there will be quibbles (not from me) you know. :( BTW, Durapot 819 was a typo for 810 - dam phones.!

    Dewey Weaver


    As MFMP are about to do another emissitivity test re a re-check of their earlier 'Lugano' test, it would be very useful if you were to either provide some details of the coating you believe Rossi painted onto the reactor surface. This will help them achieve a proper test. At the moment they are about to do the run using neither Durapot 819 or your paint..so itr will be far less than perfect.


    Sorry Dewey, I don't keep an exhaustive log of this stuff and neither do I have the patience to track through JoNP - but I do remember AR saying that he had technical problems causing a shotdown related to corrosion. I remembered it being said because TBH I had been expected it - building steam boilers and hot water systems of any kind to be reliable in service requires quite a lot of experience and specialist know,ledge - which AFAIK nobody involved in the build had got. Try asking on ECW if no-one else here knows exactly when.

    On a related note, when you are just doing experimentation, the type of valve would not make any difference because your taking apart and putting things together constantly. Does this show that Rossi is not getting any help from practical mechanical engineers in trying to transition from laboratory to small and mid scale testing?


    I am sure that this was the case- there was mention of shutting down reactors (at around the 5 month mark) because of internal corrosion. I said at the time they needed an old-school boiler engineer to look at the design and choice of materials.

    Email from Akito Takahashi (reproduced with permission and edited for grammar & word-order, very gently) from a group discussion on the ED Storms theories. Also a link to his recent paper, it all seems very relevant to this thread.


    "In my QM understanding of molecular physics/chemistry, the idea of linear p-e-p-e-p-e-p-e like system cannot stably exist in free space. The reason is (because of) the QM nature of electron de Broglie wave length that is much larger than proton wave length. Electron density function (square of QM wave function) cannot be populated at mid-point between p and p which have much shorter QM wave lengths. The p-e-p-e-p-e-p-e like system should break up to two H2 molecules, with consequently lower energy ground states. An H2 molecule cannot have the DDL state as observed ground state, but the established 1S orbit coupled state with 74 pm p-p distance. The femto atom/H2 molecule cannot exist so far in free space.


    (You may apply DFT, density functional theory, simulation there.)


    So, to imagine a linear stable, or quasi-stable state system as proposed by Ed Storms Hydroton, there would need to exist a strong constraint chemical (Electro magnetic force field) potential to keep the linear p-e-p-e-p-e-p-e like configuration. Such a strong constraint potential by condensed matter environment should be formed surrounding the linear p-e-p-e-p-e-p-e like configuration.
    Therefore the imagined and complete system should be in a three dimensional space consisting of many particles (atoms and electrons) of condensed matter, holding the linear p-e-p-e-p-e-p-e like configuration.


    So we need to treat and solve such so many body QM system, three dimensionally.


    Even if the linear p-e-p-e-p-e-p-e-like configuration could be confined by this strong constraint potential, condensation/collapse of a Hydroton-like object into a nuclear strong/weak interaction range would not be happen easily. We need to show the good case of simulation by QM calculation, to show feasibility so far. If you will find cases of condensation/collapse states (not necessarily steady, but time dependent short life is OK) within nuclear force range - less than a few fm - relativistic motion of electrons would have a significant effect.
    The DDL electron potential should be applicable there in the so many body linear system.
     
    BTW, in the case of my 4H/TSC system that is three dimensionally symmetrical, it can exhibit condensation/collapse in (approximated) free space, and can reach the range of nuclear strong/weak interaction accompanying the relativistic electron motion effect. I have made some simulation studies of this in my latest paper:
    http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0418v3.pdf. "

    I could tell you a little off-topic tale about big magnets. A lab I used to visit was using big big neos building prototype magnetic separators. When the technicians were working on the pilot machines one of them got into the habit of dropping the odd big magnet into his trouser pocket to stop it collecting up too much metal dust and screws etc on the bench. One day he forgot he had one in a pocket already, and put one in the other pocket too. With predictable results. His boss said he was laughing too much to help him....


    Apologies - back to topic.

    Since we are, to a large extent speculating, I have been pondering a different view of what might be happening inside a nucleus which is part of (or influenced by) one of Ed Storms NAE's. Rather than a tightly bound group of particles making up each proton the various quarks and gluons actually start to 'move around' so that instead of being a single (if quantum) object the particles behave more like a flock of starlings, swirling around before returning to the roost. Under such conditions there would be no billiard ball collisions, but the momentary merging of two flocks which then re-organises into a new paired configuration. 'When marshmallows collide, there is no bang, but only sweetness'.

    The latest edition.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedu.pdf


    'This Volume 22 marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of the first volume of the Journal of Condensed
    Matter Nuclear Science. This journal was created to fill a void in the scientific world. Since the beginning, in 1989,
    the subject of Cold Fusion, discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, has been, and is still, rejected by the
    scientific community. There was a need to go beyond the International Conferences on Cold Fusion proceedings to
    publish papers. It was necessary to have an internal way of communicating between scientists working together, just
    like in any other field of science. From the very start, it was decided that the journal would be peer reviewed. Also,
    since ICCF16, the Journal publishes the proceedings of the conferences and workshops dedicated to Condensed Matter
    Nuclear Science. A total of 312 papers have been published, 93 of them being conference proceedings.
    I would like to thank all the anonymous referees those who have spent lot of time and effort to make the papers of
    high quality. I have been pleasantly surprised to find that some of them do such a great job in improving the papers,
    they almost deserve to be listed as co-authors! I would like to thank Jed Rothwell for the great work which he is doing
    to improve the quality of the English of papers written by non-English speaking authors. It is also a pleasure to thank
    our Indian colleague Dr. Kumar who is doing an excellent job in the typesetting of the papers.
    Please enjoy in reading this new volume.'
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian