Posts by Wyttenbach

    I was noting the FIRST PARAGRAPH (and Appendix A)


    Jed wrote:
    Retraction


    Some calibrations performed after this paper was written cast doubt upon the results. I now believe that most if not all of the apparent excess heat was caused by changes in ambient temperature. This is described in Appendix A.


    During initial & final tests (see jccf 15 paper for details) for the Mizuno experiment the input energy of the circulation pump was measured and taken into account. The pump was always hotter than the environment. (Ambient) In fact it looks like the pump itself heated the environment.


    For me two questions remain. How can Rothwell be sure that the pump he has seen months later behaved as before?
    Why did Mizuno not test the PdZrNi powder which reacts 10 times stronger?


    My only guess: Mizuno sole wanted to aquire knowlege - the so called Rossi-Enterpreneur-Effect.

    On second thoughts. Perhaps you will accept this report from Jed Rothwell which explains why the Mizuno '13 results are wrong:


    Jed Rothwell wrote:

    There is no likelihood of an instrument error. Only an error in the methodology can disprove
    these results. Absent the discovery of such an error, I am confident that this system is producing
    massive amounts of anomalous heat for very long periods, such as 8 hours a day for months from
    a 1-gram palladium sample in a single charge of deuterium gas, in a closed system. The net
    energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry.


    The same system (Rothwell helped to improove) is used in the jccf15 paper.


    (Are You shure You wanted to post this reference??)

    So LENR as documented in iccf is clearly a phenomena - but whether it is down to nuclear reactions, or some interesting chemical anomalies about H+ entahlpies in metal lattices + a whole load of loose experimental practice is another matter. When you look at the totality of evidence there is no coherence.



    JCF14-1. Study on Anomalous Heat Evolution from H-Ni Nanoparticle System at Elevated Temperature with Mass-Flow Calorimetry
    A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, R. Seto, Y. Fujita, A. Taniike and Y. Furuyama


    JCF15-3. Analysis of heat generation by adiabatic calorimeter and matrix calculation for the reaction of fine metal in deuterium gas T. Mizuno, H. Yoshino


    They describe in about 80% of their papers how they calibrate their experiments.
    This would be a place where Your expertise could show up!

    We must disagree about LENR. I'm sure you realise that there are even more scientists around the world who are not convinced by the same evidence you view as clear results, so its not just me.


    You sound like a holy priest! - looking for lost sheeps.

    Why are You defending the right thinking Physician which mostly live on our tax money which, by example, is thrown away for silly (but technically interesting) research in hot Deuterium/tritium fusion?


    Thomas as long as You did not read at least trough the latest jccf 13-15 proceeding ( as I urged You since weeks) You should stop talking about LENR not beeing a real phenomena.


    They proceeding can be found here: http://jcfrs.org/proc_jcf.html

    You can't beat him on the history - it is clear that everyone was massively enthusiastic and this turned sour quite quickly, although there was a lot of continuing checking for six months and then also many people working with real money, including P&F, for many years.


    As I already mentioned days before, at that time (1991) it was law, that all physics publication had to be DARPA approved. In 1991 1/3 of all physics papers were hold back indefinitely. In the semiconductor field it was far more than 50%. US president Reagan ordered a shut mouth for the whole US science in behalf of the so called star-wars initiative (which was designed & screwed up by a few foolish people..)


    Conclusion: The Fleischman&Pons-publication was more than high treason at least in the eyes of the above mentioned fools. I personally (in 1989) was astonished and questioned how they (Fleischman & Pons) managed it to make the story public. They fooled the whole administration!! Which immediatly faught back. Point End!


    Now I'M waiting until Cude&Thomas fill the page to make these sentences disappear...

    @axil



    See restframe.com/. See the work of a true scientist: :Keith Fredericks


    The object (causing the traces) in the above mentionned paper behaves like Mills (p. 1566) proposed hyperbolic (polarised) electron, which per definition acts on negativ gravitational acceleration.
    But this theory is even more hated than LENR...

    There is a general point here. LENR researchers obey the Wyttenbach "look at everything till you find a positive" stricture.


    I'm 'very critical' with my judgment about LENR experiments, remember my comments about Lugano.
    On the other side You seem to have a LENR perception problem. Even if some COP are lower than one (1) LENR may happen, but such experiments will have no commercial impact besides, that also such experiments will change the theory of Physics and ← . Under this respect even Lugano confirmed LENR (if we assume that nobody faked the surface MS output).
    The Holmlid study is also paper-published behind a paywall. May be its worth to discuss the paper. A slide show is always commercial & the words are missing. May be He means measured Alpha, which would make the story water proof.
    The question about the Holmlid presentation is not if 'Helium' is measured correctly. The main contribution is the MeV spectrum which contains some signals one has to explain. Producing a MeV spectra with mJ Laser Pulses sound interesting. Even more because its also possible to tune it by means of puls- frequency and puls-energy.
    Some ten years ago this would have been a 'high energy physics' publication...

    Now let's go to the He/energy evidence. As has been noted here before this has a strong known error mechanism: gas seepage from high external lab He concentration. This mechanism will generate He proportional to experiment time. Since excess heat is also proportional to experiment time you would expect correlation.


    I do a decent job of trying to understand an important (because highlighted by Alain) side. You ignore the effort, and criticise me for not looking at all the other slides trying to find one I could be positive about. Why not look for the positives in my posts?


    If I read the slides right, then the experiments are performed (contained) in a vacuum Tube under a Ag atmosphere. Could You enlight us how You think that during an experiment He can be accumulated inside the vacuum tube?

    No. I'm saying that one specific slide from those guys contains an obviously dishonest argument. And justifying that. There is no generalisation, nor ad hom.


    Compare that with your criticism of me here which is general and has no justification. Also, although you don't like my one specific point you don't say what in it is wrong.


    Did You also find a slide You liked? Was there something new/important in Holmlid's presentation?


    Professional critics always sheds light on the up's & downs.


    Up to now You must be called the master of the downs! Try to improve!

    Does Mills have evidence this effect exists? In which case he would be up for a Nobel Prize. In fact there are a lot of Nobel's clearly just awaiting someone who can follow these experiment descriptions and correctly measure the effects....


    I would be glad for a refutation. Then we can put one more book on the shelve.


    But what, if You, by mistake, measure the effect??


    I only trust experiments - this has nothing to do with people. It's a matter of success and at the and of making money...

    I do not have sufficient enthusiasm to read the book by Mills. But I'm interested in the "anti-gravity" experiment; could you describe it?


    You don't have to read entire book. But after studying some of Mills theorie for me it looks like the classical endpoint of QM. If You read actual LENR papers some formulas and explanation sound very similar. But as You know only experiments can falsify all his stuff.


    The electron/Helium scattering experiment is well described starting at page 1568.

    I'm open to the EM drive producing thrust. But if there's thrust, I don't think there is reactionless thrust.


    There is a good explanation of the antigravity effect in R. Mills works in the section 35 about the fith force. May be there are others. Mills also describes an experiment about how to produce the effect.

    We are talking about kind of dual Lorentz force: for magnetic dipole (electron) traveling in electric field (of nucleus) - classical analogue of spin-orbit interaction.


    The Lorenz force acts perpendicular to the E x B field and drives the masses apart. An electron at rest is a very rare species and not a suitable model.
    The complete Lagrangian for a p-e system includes all energies that work. Both kinetic energies (Even an electron at rest will accelerate immediately) the combined and changing potential E and, as we have not stable orbit, we also have a changing B field (electron is a current) which leads to a change of the overall stored magnetic energy.


    There are papers about H2+ (2 protons one electron) which interpret the protons moving around the electron. There is also a good classical & semi classical description of of the electron field in the work of R. Mills.


    Can You explain what effect You try to comunicate?

    Here is example of electron's trajectory for single proton (in (0,0)) from Mathematica notebook attached in the first post - electron performs nearly (angular momentum is nonzero) free-fall on the nucleus and Lorentz force (electron's magnetic dipole moment - proton's charge) bends its trajectory to nearly backscattering:


    There is no free fall of an electron on to a proton. The magnetic field of the proton is not a gravity like field and always induces a counter force. Further on the energy of the e field is to small to allow fusion between an electron and a proton.

    But in comparison to fission power, it's clean as a whistle, and fission power is cleaner than coal by orders of magnitude. So, in spite of the neutrons and gammas, fusion, it is still the holy grail of energy sources, from the point of view of fuel abundance, and cleanliness. Economics is the bigger question.


    Cude cited Fusion without the prefix hot!!


    Lets guess whether it's a missed spelling or a matter of thought.


    I would prefer the two (add Thomas) page-fillers would realy read & discuss the suggested paper...


    May be the next LENR story is a little bit more dirty - e.g. few neutrons, healthy gammas - then they possibly can live with it.

    If you look, historically, at the LENR "positives" you do not find stronger evidence as times goes on. I agree, JCCF is full of papers that claim evidence, all of which is fragmentary, unreplicable or inconclusive. It is extraordinary. If there were a real scientific phenomena you would expect that over 25 years the conditions under which it can be observed clearly would be found and recent evidence would be much more substantial than the original evidence. Instead "best evidence" papers come from 10, 20 or more years ago.


    Did You read the jccf15 proceedings? As an example, the Kitamure paper:


    Comparison of some Ni-based nano-composite samples with
    respect to excess heat evolution under exposure to hydrogen
    isotope gases?


    In Your advanced rhetoric terminology: How do You define a hot fusion researcher? Believer, hard core research saint, or money waste expert?


    At least try to be funny!

    And now it's not 40 days or 6 months, but 27 years later, and still the evidence has not improved.


    Mr. Cude seems immune to positive LENR papers. I guess he doesn't read any of them. I recommend him all the jccf papers of the last 25 years. There he will find the answers he is fighting against. But may be Japan is too far away for persons like him.


    In contrast to proven LENR & other alternative fusion models, he admires useless attempts like the hot DD/TR hot fusion.


    1) The feasibility of hot DD/TR fusion has been refuted already more than 20 years ago. The ongoing research is mainly a military/basic research toy ground.
    The roots of Cude & other persons sick dreams seem to be religious believe in a theory that soon will disappear.
    Hot (DD/TR-) Fusion is the most unsuitable process to be implemented from the view of waste products. Each single DD-TR reaction leaves a neutron which is not easy containable and a source of lost energy. Even worse: A hot fusion reactor produces a high soft gamma load which must be shielded by a special wall.
    And now comes the “no go” story: This gamma-wall must sit relatively close to the plasma. Though it gets activated by the neutrons... The work around presented would have been a mono-isotopic material which should be inert to neutron bombardments.
    The costs of such a e.g. mono-isotopic materials are exorbitant, if we assume that it must be highly pure such as 99.9999%.
    But as said: This is a sick dream, then there exists no feasible mono isotopic material, which will not undergo transmutation. First guessed live time of such a wall was 8 years.


    2) Pro hot Fusion fans/believers momentarily pass through a heavy stress inducing field, because they very well know that all the DD/TR projects will be stopped soon. (Even Livermoore will move its targets to more adequate fuel). DD/TR Fusion is far away of reaching a COP even close to one. Comparing hot Fusion with the LENR (& other alternatives, e.g. HB-Fusion) experiments these guys are light years behind in producing an impact on industry!


    So for me Cude endeless words represent the after glow of a white dwarf that just is vanishing. Its soon over!