Posts by Wyttenbach

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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...

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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

Quote from Jarek

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?

Quote from Jarek

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.

Here a simple link to the Japanese LENR Facts/ Truths site:

http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq9…/FactTruth/FactTruth.html

The page contains two documents- refs, luckily in English...

Quote from joshua cude

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.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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!

Quote from joshua cude

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!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The problem happens because Rossi refused professional independent testing from e.g. NASA. The profs are limited in equipment, resources, and they are mostly working as amateurs. None are calorimetry experts. None are thermography experts.

As You well know NASA is neither independent nor interested to help a person that is not following the rules of the US establishment. If they would verify Rossi then they would fall them self into the (other) reputation trap.
Obviously NASA has their own officially denied projects. Ask the other (Mills) closed out person, which they have no chance to blame, because otherwise they would end up as fools.

Everybody who passed an examen knows how tough it is to wait 10 days until the results are published. Thus I suggest the following:

For LENR deniers or skeptics: Fetch some six packs an calm down Your brain.

For LENR believers: Also fetch some six packs in case You need them later...

But all please, stop making pink/purple (rainbow-) press small talk. (((color is country dependent)))

Quote from joshua cude

Right, and what do you supposed happened in those 40 days? Do you think that scientists suddenly realized that "oops, I'm supposed to oppose new knowledge that is contrary to the status quo" or "Oh yeah, I forgot .. I'm supposed to hate clean and abundant energy"? Do you think that all these political and greedy scientists forgot about their self-interest for 40 days, and then suddenly remembered it? That's totally ridiculous.

As I mentioned above, 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 Pons-publication was more than high treason at least in the eyes of the above mentioned fools. I personally (1989) was astonished and questioned how they (Fleischman & Pons) managed it to make the story public. They fooled the whole administration!!

What we may learn: US Military & dark state services repeatedly managed to deprive the US of the most needed future technologies. Do they really believe that the rest of the world consists of no brainers? I personally did not publish many things until they were embedded in products. I guess its the same with Rossi & Arrata/Mizuno. They only plan to make money with the fools.

Quote from joshua cude

Promoting evidence-based science over pseudoscience has a strong legacy and helps to prevent funding and effort from being squandered on useless pursuits. Who knows what Pons might have accomplished if he hadn't destroyed his career by getting suckered in to cold fusion by his former mentor.

Mr. Cude might have missed some of the last years... Already in 1994 Arata (Japan) could replicate the Pons experiment. In the following years he published diverse papers which unmistakingly proved huge excess heat. Thus LENR is real since more than 20 years.
Unluckily some few US-based person (who understands the US politics knows about who I talk) decided to follow their own agenda. It is also common DARPA law, that no knew breakthrough science/technology should be public available. (This law was again enforced under pres. Reagen.)
The only “remaining fools” on earth were the Japanese & the Italian researchers. Both countries have a very good understanding how the mafia culture works...
One thing the Japanese published in 2014 (jccf15) was a dynamic hydrogen loadable reactor which already behaved very well.
JCCF16 happened last December. Contrary to other years the proceeding were hold back. This is a clear sign that they decided no longer to play an open game and possibly plan to market their own products.

To sum it up: I think Mr. Cude should stop his “Troll Mission” to black-Write the whole LENR field. LENR is already a thousand times more real that hot D-D D-T fusion ever will be on earth. Therefor the reputation trap will soon snap all the “blue sky dreamers” of hot fusion & fission. I see a lot of work for therapists.

Quote from joshua cude

Again, that is not the judgement of most experts and peer reviewers enlisted by funding agencies and journals. Cold fusion results in general, fit nothing as well as they fit the classical pattern of pathological science. Whether it's claims of excess heat from Pd-D or Ni-H, or claims of tritium or neutrons or any other kind of emission or transmutation -- phenomena with sensitivities varying by factors of a million or a billion -- the results (if they have suitable transparency) are always well within the range of artifacts, background, noise, or chemistry. And invariably, when the experiments improve, the effects get smaller. Sometimes they disappear altogether, although more often, the researchers change their approach entirely, embarking on new -- again preliminary -- approaches, where confirmation bias has a freer reign. Garwin called it the "quit while you're ahead trait of cold fusion research".

Mr. Cude might have missed some of the last years... Already in 1994 Arata (Japan) could replicate the Pons experiment. In the following years he published diverse papers which unmistakingly proved huge excess heat. Thus LENR is real since more than 20 years.
Unluckily some few US-based person (who understands the US politics knows about who I talk) decided to follow their own agenda. It is also common DARPA law, that no knew breakthrough science/technology should be public available. (This law was again enforced under pres. Reagen.)
The only “remaining fools” on earth were the Japanese & the Italian researchers. Both countries have a very good understanding how the mafia culture works...
One thing the Japanese published in 2014 (jccf15) was a dynamic hydrogen loadable reactor which already behaved very well.
JCCF16 happened last December. Contrary to other years the proceeding were hold back. This is a clear sign that they decided no longer to play an open game and possibly plan to market their own products.

To sum it up: I think Mr. Cude should stop his “Troll Mission” to black-Write the whole LENR field. LENR is already a thousand times more real that hot D-D D-T fusion ever will be on earth. Therefor the reputation trap will soon snap all the “blue sky dreamers” of hot fusion & fission. I see a lot of work for therapists.

Theoretical impact??

Practical output:: :hi: :nuke:

"Conclusion" of the paper: If You use all currently available electricity of the entire world than, even with a laser, You are able to transmute 1! Mol of Waste...

Quote from Thomas Clarke

And re electric output if you check my calculations you will say I was pessimistically taking 18/30 = 60% of net output as required feedback. Since the system is very power dense the issue there is cooling, as I stated, and the capital and space cost of the generator. COP = 6 is just about possible for electricity output. For area heating the addition of a genrator would mean you had COP = infinity.

With that a can agree.

You will be able to "kick the nuclear reactors" (sense figure) out of the building and replace them with E-cats. The monopole stays in place...
Of course this works with all thermic power plants which have adequate cooling.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I think here you have no idea what you are talking about. A device that can (for free) generate heat from electricity with 6X gain and at a temperature of 300C+?

Heat pumps require large coolers, give only X3 gain, and work at low temperature (with gain decreasing at higher temp). And they are much larger for given claimed power out than Rossi's reactors.

Its time to refresh Your knowledge! My "tiny" heat-pump in my home has a (over the year) COP of 5.1. a little bit less that Rossi guarantees.

But this it not the clou: With a COP of 6 You probably need 1/2 of the net output (thanks to Carnot) to produce Your electric current which is needed by the "mouse heater..". So the net "standalone/off grid COP" of Rossi is 4!

Even this assumption is only true if the Rossi heater produces steam at a reasonably high temperature well above 600C. The higher T steam the 'better' the theoretical efficiency is.

Conclusion: The Rossi process can only be used on grid for bulk heating!!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

You and I might think that this is from the COP of the entire system. But that is not clear. How much of the mouse power goes into the cat? And why is the cat on (and thereby by definition in SSM) when the mouse is off?

I'd give 80% probability that I've worked this one out. Rossi gets his COP=100 from the claim that only 1% or less of the input power goes into the cat. He simply looks at electrical input and divides the energy into "mouse power" for when the mouse is on and "cat power" for when the cat is on. That would mean:
(1) the mouse looks like a low COP
(2) the cat looks like an almost infinite COP

Dear Thomas, sometimes its worth reading Rossis homepage.

http://ecat.com/ecat-products/…w/ecat-1mw-technical-data

All the clumsy details are there (at least were, some minutes ago). Rossi claims (guarantees) an overall COP of 6. Which is not much and possibly only usefull for heat production.

As I stated already months ago: With a dumb heater and a COP of 6 Rossi will not change the world. Remember Carnots law is the hurdle to the infinite world of electricity and low cost. A COP of 20 is mandatory to reduce interal obverhead. But things will changes. I'm shure.