Posts by Wyttenbach

    I think the article you linked to earlier was from JCMNS vol. 15 — is that right?

    Eric : There are many:

    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015) 55–65 - newest summary more or less complete.
    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 14 (2014) 79–86 - is a summary of the latest experiments.
    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 505–515 - is more theory, experimental details.

    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 6 (2012) 1–12 - old summary.

    First complete summary (2009)
    Stringham, R. When Bubble Cavitation Becomes Sonofusion. in 237rd ACS National Meeting. 2009. Salt Lake City.

    Right on, Gameover! - I spent 72 hours in the lab last week testing the crap out of this very patent. Works like a charm.

    So the MFMP now only needs indications from you on how to proceed to replicate the replication. Looking forward to seeing data and information from these 72 hours of testing.

    Sorry guys: Why not doing the simplest LENR test available?

    Stringham tested his machine also with Titanium, which works too, with a somewhat lesser COP. Because there is also He3 produced in LENR DD Fusion, you also get the neutrons. Neutrons in the S* setup get buffered by the liquid OD2, which in a gas phase of Ti-D2 is not case...
    I propose You ask him in Sendai, whether he will allow You an independent test.

    Think about it, and you see there is only one place in the circuit where that is physically possible. So that tells you where the flow meter is. Peter was correct to say that a half-empty pipe is absurd if the water is under pressure, from the pumps or from steam pressure.

    @JED: As a matter of caution I wouldn't trust anybody in this case. We know that at some time two E-cat containers were active. If such a dilettante as Murray must be, looked up the wrong one, then this explains his intention.

    To my view both side present only stinking fishes...

    @Alain: As I mentioned it earlier in an e-mail:
    1) Don't allow newbies to post for the first day. Then allow them to post one item the next day! And so on.

    2) Write a filter for the typical keywords like: Passport, diploma, ... If count is higher than e.g. 2, then ring a bell... and so on.

    Until you can explain electron capture there, please let us stay away from this theory here.

    Jarek : You didn't get the input of my post: Gryzinski claims that his calculations where somehow correct. In reality they are way off.

    Before I discuss a theory I make simple sanity checks, like I did e.g. with the SARG theory (failed too).

    Here my conclusion: Gryzinski's idea might be OK, but his model is inadequate because it fails the sanity check: He simply has to improve it.

    That's the way we all must take, if we finally want to reach the goal.

    One needs to be careful of the conditions created during the experiment before calling it LENR. Edmund Storms would call the proposed MFMP LENR LIVE experiment an example of hot fusion.

    Here is the obvious point where the old Storm definition of LENR fails!

    There is hot-fusion like LENR because only the results and not the initial condition defines whether its LENR or hot fusion.

    If DD fusion mainly leads to He4 and not to a mix of He3/He4 +N, then its LENR!

    The DD sono-fusion (Stringham) is hot fusion ignition, but produces He4/He3 with a ratio of 1011:1! --> LENR

    Thus the following must be clarified:

    Behavior initiated by hot fusion needs to be identified and not used to explain LENR. Because both hot fusion and LENR can occur in the same materials and sometimes at the same time, the results of these two independent reactions need to be separated.

    He selected and installed other instruments incorrectly to inflate the flow rates and temperatures. He pulled out still other instruments to hide the facts, in violation of his agreements with I.H., as they pointed out in the Motion to Dismiss. He changed the pressure numbers to 0.0 bar, which is ridiculous. This was an inept attempt to make it look as if there was 1 MW of heat, when it was only 20 kW.

    Empire IH always strikes back with the stick of a blind.

    According to the contract the ERV was responsible for any measurement. Rossi figures are NOP's. IH always had access to the Rossi area and only after a strange event .. they started to complain about things, that were accepted from the beginning...

    Answer carefully, and you believe their version of events, I.H. offered their own space to perform the GPT.

    What a desperate sentence of a once clear minded person! They main reason for Rossi to move to Doral was the inability of IH to provide a test location...

    If already the promoters of IH suffer of amnesia, how then will the whole story end? If a fraudster cheates a crock...

    From time to time it's simply fun to read all this nonsense...

    If you want LENR to be treated seriously, please stay away from magical explanations.

    Jarek : I posted the Helium calculations. This has nothing to do with Hydrinos...

    I read many different "so called theories" (there are hundreds out there) but Mills ideas are easy to understand and are no way off like others, which claim to have something, which fits around 10% off the table...

    Regarding electron "moving on a spherical 2D (!!!) membrane around the nucleus", it sounds terrible.

    May be You remember Bor, He too was talking about a 2D sphere orbit for the electron... You should blame him!

    In Mills model the electron Orbit itself is undergoing precision, what is mandatory if You look up the reason for the Thomas precision.

    I did some recalculation of a simple Mill's formula, but without a quadruple precision (128 bit) calculator I was off some %%. Mills himself provides mathematica code. May be I should buy a license...

    About cheating: There is an other well known theory in LENR, which is propagated with cheated calculations...

    - there is Coulomb repulsion between electrons, affecting spatial distribution of orbitals,
    - everything is happening in a field, electron finds resonance with - suggesting some synchronization between electrons from different orbitals.
    Very good test of Gryzinski's picture seem these screening constants (outer shell electrons screening charge of nucleus for inner electrons) - he claims better agreement than for quantum calculation (I plan to test it):

    For a cross check I just read Mill's compendium (new PDF version p. 286 theory p. 253, chapt 7)

    The Helium ionization energy is calculated very exactly (error << 1%), also based on a semi classical formula, which is way more exact than Gryzinski does. For those interested in a "modern semi QM approach" I can only recommend to dig a little bit in Mills GUT .…T-CP-2016-Ed-Book-Web.pdf

    It will some become apparent that installing a LENR power unit inside the home or car will not be possible.

    axil : "LENR" is a physical process possibly known and used by nature since ever...

    Why do You draw any conclusion for a future use?

    Do You remember the beginning of the "train age" where British physicists warned people to use them at speeds above 16km/h?

    Of course every experimenter should be aware how deadly any radioactivity can be...

    How about this scenario? A component of the detector was bought second-hand and had previously been present during a calibration by its previous owner with a strontium check source (or another beta emitter with a similar activity), at which point a small amount of contamination from the check source (which was not the kind that is encased in plastic) was left somewhere on/in the component.

    You answered this (joke) yourself...

    If the contamination was not in view of the detector for the integration periods that were analyzed by Ecco and Mark "Justa Guy", it would have been missed. Why would the contamination appear in some integration periods and not others? At this point I don't really know. But to get here we have already successfully weakened several previous objections to contamination:

    But contamination due to (muonic??) activation is a real concern in any experiment mfp should address in future tests. Even small pbb contents may be activated for a short time.
    But Eric as I say in the sentence above: Activated for a short time. Not for a few minutes only!!!

    In the version GL 5.3 experiment the same spectrum reoccurred many times, for a very short period. Thus it must be a very short living B-emitter!

    To enhance the reliabilility of the experiment, I would add a second scintillator, at a different angle!
    Why do we always assume that the radiation is isotrophic? I personally think there are good reasons against this. Thus we should move one of the two scintillators from time to time.

    This is the sort of thing I am thinking of, like perhaps if the power to the detector body gets interrupted for a brief moment, right at the start of a new file.

    This sort of statement is of no help, as it clearly shows no understanding of how a computer works...

    I recommend to the LENR sceptics to point to events with a far greater likelihood:

    - A black bird flying over the laboratory just before an new file opens...
    - RMF from a pacemaker
    - Refrigerator always starts at the wrong moment...
    - magicsound did cut and paste an angry bird...

    The noise on the photodetector lines creates the "normal" background - in conjunction with the spectrometer software and any residual real scintillation.

    @THH: This comment is more constructive. In the Holmlid thread secondary radiation caused my muons was discussed. There might be even more particles, we don't know yet, to be there.

    I went through hundreds of mfp spectra and the picture was sometimes complex, with different signal overlays/time constants. The most interesting spectra were obtained during the pressure decrease (H sweating phase) where the creation of inverse Rydberg matter was strongly supported. I asked them to focus on this effect and to add other measurement equipment for X-UV/soft X and higher gamma energies.
    It's not about COP, its about the physics happening on the surface!

    I'm going to take the discussion here as a proxy for the old thread on this site that it seems TC did not look at.

    The question is whether these interesting one-off (at the time) results come from so-called "inner" Bremsstrahlung (IB) generated by the cell or Something Else.

    Sorry THH alias TC. We extensively discussed this spectrum months ago. Your answer below is a bad joke. The same signal was seen later again in an overlay with one or two other signals. You are simply late...

    The data we do have shows a remarkably smooth curve. I'd therefore hypothesise that this might be a software response to an electrical noise signal on the scintillator photo-detector lines. The software generating the spectrum identifies isolated peaks and counts the area underneath them as indicative of the number of photons received coincidentally, and generates a count at an energy proportional to the peak area. All such counts are summed to generate the spectrum.

    Let's call this spectrum the TC noise curve.

    It is my opinion that the Signal was caused by the power glitch. I do not expect this to be tested, however. Interrupting the power supply is likely dangerous to the equipment, so testing this idea may be rather expensive, whether this was the cause or not.

    @P: The signal reoccurred many times and what you see is an integral of different spectras not a glitch.

    I see absolutely no need to discuss this again, because some (low/high) bands were not measured and neutrons ignored...
    Let's wait for more data!

    I'm afraid they have their heads in the sand. The money is still flowing to the power elite and that is all that matters another 30 years and they will all be crying why did no one care. I prefer my fathers take on man and his stupidity, something better will come along!

    US government usually only finances research with military use or with no business plan in sight.

    Or the other way round: Give it to the rich, if they smell the money...

    Now perform measurements, separately on each photon - sometimes you will get higher energy, sometimes lower.
    Is energy conserved here? In other words: is the energy of superposition before measurement always the same as after measurement?

    All measurements involve an exchange of energy and need a finite time frame to complete. Thus the result of a single measurement is always of statistical nature. Reasoning about one photon makes no sense!
    There is one small exception regarding the information of the spin, which, in entangled systems, can be determined without disturbing the system.
    Thus if the system - feature you intend to measure, is decoupled from the measurement, then you can reason about a single photon.