Reliably measuring such heat might be difficult or tedious and subject to the usual dismissals, but measuring the final energetic alpha flux from Li-7 + p --> Be-8 at 17.2 MeV should be "easy"; which also promptly gives Be-8 -> 2 He-4 at 2 X 46 keV should also be easy.
What do you mean by the highlighted part of the last sentence?
Your link does not work (404).
As for the theory. Pi = 4 and not 3.14... I will get into trouble with the guards if I say what I think of the theory.
With all due respect I suggest you leave out the sarcasm and stick to 'discovery'. You see how inappropriate use of innuendo can take us off at a tangent which is unwelcome for all of us.
OK, I apologize I someone was offended. I hope we get less of monopoles, strange particles and black holes. This is supposed to be a serious discussion on LENR.
By the way, the acronym LENR. Is it deliberate that Nuclear became Nanoscale?
I thought this forum was about 'discovery' not 'comedy'. You may disagree but your comment does appear to imply 'disrespect' in a funny sort of way.
Yes, but introducing magnetic monopoles (forbidden by Maxwell's Gauss law for B-fields from 1861) to LENR takes more than a statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ations#Magnetic_monopoles
Is it monopole magnetism?
You are joking?
I
am really satisfied with the current development. With this reactor
there is potential for COP 5-10. We will see soon!
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion
Apart from 'attack' (which is too strong) this is exactly what is
needed. Criticism and peer review is a very important part of the
scientific method. This criticism should of course be civil and
objective and without personal attacks. The purpose is, of course, 'to
discredit the opponents argument or opinion'. That is called discussion
and is a widely spread human pastime.
As long as the LENR community does not accepts and takes advantage from criticism it will stay a fringe science or worse, a pseudoscience. I have been to many conferences, and the physics discussions can sometimes be quite fierce without being personal.
There are, however, some problems with LENR compared to other "classical" sciences.
1 The discussion is to a large extent on the internet with anonymous
participants. This means that the personal attacks you have in political
and religious discussions creep into the scientific discussion.
2 There is potentially a lot of money in LENR. That means secrecy which
is completely foreign in the scientific method.
3 Obvious lies, fraud and statements without backing in reality will
make science-based discussion asymmetric and meaningless. I think most people in the
LENR community would admit that there are cases of fraud. The problem is
there is no consensus on which are cases of bad science and which are not.
Take Tom's criticism of the radiation calculations of the Lugano test. Ideally Levi et al should have published at document showing either that Tom is wrong or to thank Tom for caring and correcting the result. In both cases we are further forward than before.
I am not sure. You see some weird stuff- for instance a simple demo I have done for myself. Microwave some carbon grains- they become magnetic -hard to explain that one. But I do know that anybody setting up to create permanent ferromagnetism using AC coils is heading for disappointment. AC is used for de-magnetising
Why not make the simple difficult? Yes you can demagnetize with AC but then you don't switch off abruptly:
"Placing the magnet in an alternating magnetic field with intensity above the material's coercivity and then either slowly drawing the magnet out or slowly decreasing the magnetic field to zero."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…emagnetizing_ferromagnets
For a better understanding of the process I can only recommend to read through the Randell Mills stuff. He has a clear model, which elements may help to increase the outcome of LENR.
Does he have a model for LENR? I thought it as about hydrinos. Anyway Mill stuff is qualified rubbish! And his device is always ready in a year. Recognize that?
I think it unlikely that heating coil current could induce permanent magnetism into the Ni ash in a Rossi type system. Firstly because he is known to use square-wave polyphase AC to run the heater coils (see Lugano paper page 6) and secondly because of the Ni was above its Curie temperature (327C) whem a potentially magnetising coils is switched off, it will not be magnetic when cool.
Apart from the temperature. To make a permanent magnet you need a force (energy) to align the atoms. Where would that come from if not the coil current?
Do you believe that chemical catalysts are of no value in a hypothetical Rossi eCat reaction?
Yes (to a negative) so I do not think that chemical catalysts would work. Since there are more puzzles if LENR works (how to transfer energy from a nucleus to the bulk without radiation) I would think that what is needed is a theory that explains both how the Coulomb barrier is overcome and why we see no radiation. This theory does not exist - what we have seen are just vague and wild ideas. Since no radiation means that we see nothing - nut very useful because that is the same signal as no LENR reaction - we need some other clue. This clue is definitely analysis of nuclide composition before and after. But we need reliable sampling and analysis. With E-Cat the former has not been impressive! 
I see at the header of the site you interpret LENR as Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions. Is that a deliberate decision? I'm not too convinced about nanoscale (off with a factor 10^6) but for several reasons it is good to get Nuclear out of it. Like NMR becoming MRI.
By the way, do you know why there is a thunder and not a bang (except when the strike is very close)?
A bit of Déjà vu
Reminds me of the answer to a meteorology exam. Describe how a thunderstorm forms.
Young Per: "Well, the clouds get charged with plus and minus. The water in the cloud gets electrolysed into hydrogen and oxygen. Then you have oxyhydrogen, which creates the lightning and thunder."
Although wrong, I think Per should have full marks for an inventive theory. Like the ones we see here now and then...
Pons and Fleishmann could have fixed the "humiliation" very easily: get together their harshest critics and replicate the excess heat. They had a quarter century to do it. Why didn't they?
And 10 years in the South of France with lots of yens. Nice!
I think it unlikely that heating coil current could induce permanent magnetism into the Ni ash in a Rossi type system. Firstly because he is known to use square-wave polyphase AC to run the heater coils (see Lugano paper page 6) and secondly because of the Ni was above its Curie temperature (327C) whem a potentially magnetising coils is switched off, it will not be magnetic when cool.
It is not true that the fuel necessarily reached Curie temperature. Remember that my samples are from the classical E-Cat which was water cooled.
The ash is marked 12-1-'10--2-15-'11. I do not think we know what shape Rossi used for that run.
When you say that the Li in the ash is in clumps and is magnetized, could it be that the Li is in the FexOy particles as the alkali metal dopant for a catalyst? Or, have you specifically isolated the Li to coincidence with the Cu particles?
In case it hasn't been said, thank you for joining the discussions!
Why make it more complicated than it is? Ni is ferromagnetic and if you switch off the heating coil with a switch, the hysteresis will leave some magnetization. I think that all you can deduce from the magnetization is that we haven't swapped the samples.
I also object against the term catalyst - it sounds like alchemy to me. Catalyst is not a defined process by itself. Catalyst is a physical process (chemical binding, nuclear reaction) that enhances a reaction. What I mean is that it is not enough to say "add a catalyst", but you have to describe the process that is catalysing. I realize that it sometimes can be difficult if the chemical reactions are complicated, but in LENR there is something more than ordinary chemical reaction. The distances and energies of chemistry and nuclear physics do not match.
There are some interesting threads and technically LENR-forum is way superior to Mats's. ECW is too imbalanced and I would be banned within a few minutes.
If you are measuring the same ash sample, and just to test my understanding, are you saying that you believe the 9.6% Cu to be a particulate contamination and the Li to be a contamination in the Cu?
Possibly, yes. No Li in fuel and some in the ash. That is consistent with Anderssons 0, 0.4. Our method is very sensitive to 7Li because p+7Li --> 2 alpha has a very high Q-value. The Li structure in the ash has a size of approximately 100 microns, which is roughly the size of Edströms Cu particles.
So my safe conclusion is:
fuel: no Li, not magnetized
ash: some Li in clumps, magnetized
Well, they've come to that position lately, but they are excited by neutrons you can count on one hand. THat's at least a trillion times too low to produce measurable excess heat. It means that whatever they're seeing, has virtually no chance of being associated with the claims of excess heat, and without the excess heat claims, this would not be a topic.
Yes, I agree. The radiation has to compatible with the excess energy. 10 kW is a lot of radiation. If the detected radiation is not compatible one has to explain why and how the energy is transported from the transforming nucleus.
Yes, there are some neutrons around all the time. Mostly from cosmic radiation.
Joshua,
I agree with most of what you say about E-Cat. I think, however, that you are too pessimistic. Yes, there is a lot of bad science and fraud out there in the LENR world. But there may be a gem among the pebbles.
Also with the proliferation of LENR activities there is lots of space for fraudsters to hide. Maybe IH could help cleaning up the dirty pond.
I think, however, that the chances for a working LENR energy system are slim, but just a small effect would be interesting from a scientific point of view. In order to make progress the emphasis should be less on COP and more on radiation and isotope shifts. The latter is really the fundamental parameter: without changes in the nuclide composition there are no nuclear reactions and no excess energy. Of course with a complete knowledge of nuclide changes the released energy can be calculated. I think I remember that MFMP had ideas in that direction. It is not only important to determine the excess energy, but knowledge of the process is important for safety and for optimization of the process.
Let me try to figure that out. I'm pretty new to using LENR forum myself, although I've read it for a long time.
Try using this link:
lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/ConversationList/
I don't think the conversation system works, or I cannot find and create conversations.
Anyway, prefer to communicate with people, not avatars.
As I understand it, the samples you currently have are the samples the late Sven Kullander had.
Why do you think that the Li is probably in the Cu?
I'll do a Rossi, and then it's bedtime:
Yes
Because the spatial distribution is the same. If we had an x-ray detector we would be sure one way or the other. Unfortunately it was not available.
Peter Ekstrom
I am well aware of the Rossi quote. I felt it meant that the Catalyst had been left out. (I am not sure how well one would take things way from a sample in any meaningful way without making it useless).
The main reason I am interested is that more samples means more reliable data. I do XRF stuff, and know how much things can wander from the ideal. But with enough samples, and the mean becomes meaningful, and the uncertainty can be judged
Sorry, I'm not with you there. I have one set of samples from spring 2011. You cannot average my sample with the results from another sample.
Since Li give such a unique signal I can safely say that the fuel contains no Li and the ash (magnetic since it has been near a heating coil) contain some Li in mixed-in particles (probably the Cu particles).
I think Rossi's admission cam later when the separate Cu particles were known. It was then not possible that they came from a Ni reaction.
So the question is still: if there was excess heat, which reaction did it come from?
