Irrelevant?
I would debate this point, but I get the impression that it would be useless to do so.
Personally, I am very much looking forward to learning the results of these real scientific investigations.
It sure would be nice if more investigators were inclined to at least discuss their in-progress work, even if they decide to reserve disclosure of results until final analysis completion.
I am quite happy to be able to follow the progress of Bob Higgins here - best of luck to you, Bob!
So was he charlatan or had he real technology in hands? Apparently many people get confused with it.
It appears that he was a charlatan who also had real technology.
From what I gather, this is similar to Rossi's story: a kernel of truth is wrapped in voluminous bullshit, effectively confusing enough people who presume an either/or storyline.
Papp was clearly a charlatan, and according to all accounts the submarine escapade was an absurdly-executed fraud.
However, there was ample evidence that he was producing some kind of gainful reaction with his motor, and managed to exploit the phenomenon sufficiently to harvest enough speculative investment to keep him going. He was apparently unable or unwilling to bring the technology to market. Some people suspect the presence of an alpha-emitter within the combustion area that rendered the engine commercially nonviable. In any case, the published information is clearly full of red herrings, and the specific details of his claims are mostly useless, to follow or debate. Russ Gries found some interesting effects with his "Popper" replication apparatus, and I suspect much more could be learned from further replication research.
Here is a link to the Aremco Ceramacast 586 product page:
http://www.aremco.com/potting-casting-materials/
- speaking of conferences, here is the list of Abstracts for the Satellite Symposium of
20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science September 28-30, 2016 Xiamen, China:
<a href="http://ssiccf-20.xmu.edu.cn/files/SSICCF20_Abstracts.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ssiccf-20.xmu.edu.cn/files/SSICCF20_Abstracts.pdf</a>…
Interesting indeed! What do folks make of the article 7-page abstract "Observation of Anomalous Production of Si and Fe in an Arc Furnace Driven Ferro Silicon Smelting Plant at levels of Tons per day" by Narayanaswamy?
These claims are astonishing, if true.
I was a bit disinclined to attend this event already, because it appears to be more geared towards business than science, and the distance and travel costs are high for me.
Now that I know Rossi will be there, the decision has become much simpler, as I've had more than enough "Rossi Says" for one lifetime.
I also suspect I would develop a strong urge to heckle during his interview, which would be terribly rude to Mats.
Hopefully there will be good online coverage of any new technical information disclosed during the various events.
Barty: I think you are underestimating the role the APS has played in the 'scientific infanticide' of LENR. In particular, Bob Park was a director of public information at the APS who made it his personal mission and badge of honor to debunk 'voodoo science' topics like cold fusion and the Strategic Defense Initiative. He apparently took particular glee in getting people fired for letting any mention of cold fusion stand without challenge. There is no way that he would have tolerated this type of nonsense if he were in charge today.
The mere fact of the APS letting this talk proceed, with such a bold statement of non-ridicule for cold fusion published right in the abstract, in itself is a major milestone for the history of LENR. Unto itself, it may not have great singular significance, but it is one more tangible indicator that the tide has turned.
TheGomp: Personally, I like your idea, but Rossi clearly doesn't. Here is an exchange I had with him on the subject in April 2011, in which he quotes Jesus to imply that the people who ask such things are pigs.
https://docs.google.com/docume…omcNbYkI/edit?usp=sharing
I suspect that official titles may have shifted around as part of the efforts to establish the Center for Study of the Anomalous Heat Effect at Texas Tech University with Dr. Robert Duncan. My guess is that perhaps Dr. McKubre has moved into some kind of adjunct position at SRI while the work at TTU is starting up, which would explain shifting job titles. Without question though, he has worked at SRI for many years, and I highly doubt that his title as Director was fabricated, even if it may not be entirely accurate at this particular point in time. For reasons beyond my understanding, secrecy and discretion rules over much of the ongoing work in LENR, and this may well prove to be yet another example of a discrete move that nobody involved felt a need to publicize.
Here is an abstract of a poster from ICCF19 which describes the new research center:
http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf
Thank you, Ugo! That drawing is very helpful.
I'm looking forward to hearing about your results, and wish you the best of luck!
-Bob Ellefson
Ugo, Congratulations on what looks to be a fantastic experiment setup, and I wish you all the best of luck with your progress!
Thank you very much for the considerable extent of documentation, including so many photos and videos. I find them very interesting.
However, I still am having much trouble understanding various details of the apparatus design. A simple schematic diagram showing the relations between apparatus elements would go a long way in helping people to interpret this experiment. I suspect that the video explanations offer much of this information, but unfortunately I cannot understand the audio.
I think a hand-drawn diagram, perhaps using pencil and paper and then photographed, would be a quick way to add significant information.
Since I am planning what I think is a similar heat-exchange process as you appear to be using, I would also be interested in learning more about your design process for that subsystem. Was the system heat-exchange capacity and performance determined entirely empirically, or did you find adequate performance documentation for the components in order to design your system for a particular operational specification?
Best wishes to you and the Open Power Lab!
Some replicators are working hard on advanced apparatus design elements that take more money and time than anybody would like...
Many thanks once again to Bob Higgins for your generous contributions of time in providing these translations. Your efforts are noted and greatly appreciated.
Congratulations to Ozernoi, et al, on what looks to be a spark of real LENR, and many thanks for publishing your results openly.
I wish you the best of luck and continuing success with your experiments.
This has been posted elsewhere by Greenwin and others, but I haven't seen it brought up in this thread, so here it is.
This is a presentation made at ICCF17 in 2012 about this research by DeChiaro, multiple NRL researchers including Kidwell, Hubler, and Knies, Violante of ENEA, and others. It contains specific experimental data pertinent to these most recent claims.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DominguezDanomalousr.pdf
Note the conclusion on the title page:
Bottom Line:
• Large excess power (≥ 1kJ) events generated in 5% of Pd90Rh10 cathodes
• Failed to disprove these results -> excess heat results observed at NRL are real!
Thanks to you, Bob Higgins, for providing a great translation of this paper - your effort here is very important and greatly appreciated!
And many thanks to the authors of the paper for sharing their important results - I wish you folks the best of luck in continuing your work.
yes it seems...
In a way it is tragic for all I prepare currently.. It was my best reference
It seems to be accessible right now.
I wonder what happened?
I attempted to purchase LAH from Sigma Alrdich, but was not able to do so as a private individual.
As best as I was able to determine, the criteria that they require in order to purchase it is that you need to be a corporation that is listed at a commercial address. Even then, it sounds like if you are not a recognized research institution or corporation with clear-cut 'legitimate' need of some sort, they are inclined to deny the sale rather than risk running afoul of the DEA.
There are a number of other suppliers of this common reagent, but I struck out with several of them, likely for the same reasons cited. They are afraid for their businesses, I suppose, and such a small sale is not worth the risk.
If you do have a corporation at a business address, then you will likely find a supplier, but as an individual it's quite difficult. For Sigma-Aldrich, the sale had to be made in the name of the business, they would not allow me to ship it to a commercial address under my name.
This is a wonderful initiative! I very much appreciate the efforts of the volunteers, and am certain that these types of initiative-driven translation efforts for important but under-funded topics will prove to be very productive and useful in the years to come.
Thank you!
Would it be possible to perform additional SIMS analysis on the fuel specimens? Have you retained these? If so, and you can select a different ion source, without Ga-69 present, then we may be able to determine if the mass 69 peaks represent an intermediate species of the main reaction. I believe the the spectra in the SIMS report displays evidence for in-situ evolution of a mass-69 species during sputter-cleaning. See this post for further details:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg98596.html
If an additional analysis can be arranged, then perhaps an analysis that includes isotope fractions as a function of depth from the surface will reveal further information about the nature of the reactions.
Thank you!
-Bob Ellefson
Would you please explain the significance of the variability of a mass 69 signal in the ToF-SIMS results? Is this certain to be entirely instrumentation artifact, or could there also be a mass 69 species from the samples present in some of these spectra?
