Posts by Curbina

Cydonia wrote:

Shane D. you said:

In doing the basic research, their expectation is to expand beyond the parameters already established the past 30 years.

if that's their real goal, he should be interested in people who, too, have seen that kind of thing too,

I will advise to him to take into account old Kervran's work (a presentation of ICCF refers to it 70 years later !!).

Again, the work from Japanese Oshawa, mentioned at next ICCF too but not taken into account by your LF/Google group.

To end the big event mentioned by the French Didier Grass.

He should also collaborate only with the 5 maximum,10 truly visionary and enough gifted people in the world.

Last advice, to finish, he should be wary of those who sell their beautiful stark truth in their books.

He should also be interested in models referring to dimensional anisotropy of space as referred to, I believe by Curbina

Display More

The observed anisotropic emission of neutrons from cavitated stainless steel bar was a surprise to me. The interpretation that Cardone and team do about this observation (the Deformed Time Space theory) is debatable but the observation is still as puzzling.

Max Nozin wrote:

This is good approach. If you start research with a clear goal you will reach it. This way Higgs boson and gravitational waves were proved. So say if you task your team with proving or disproving lenr they will certainly prove or disprove it.

I think you are being sarcastic and if so I share your point of view.

THHuxleynew please acknowledge that I never used the word “belief” and I expressed that they did not thought LENR is real from the beginning, but I also said that it was my personal opinion.

I consider myself a true skeptic, not a pseudo skeptic. I have an unquenchable curiosity, and I am skeptic of currently mainstream accepted “knowledge” as much as of potential new knowledge, but in the case of what is “known” is worse because it fails to account for plenty of observed phenomena but most people working with those models prefer to keep using them because they have been “good enough” and fail to realize this is science stagnation rather than advance. In that sense, if you start a new research thinking there is nothing new and that you can explain everything away with the little we think we know, chances are you are not going to find anything new for sure.

I reviewed Coolesence claims of lack of replication a couple of days ago. I think they attempted several approaches and claimed not so much as failure to replicate as they did claim conventional explanations for what they found to be small effects at best. In many ways they started their work with the same ideas and focus that Team Google. They claim that the CR39 marks in the acrylic are a chemical reaction and that a millimeter air gap prevents the marks to happen.

In hindsight, and this is just a personal opinion by looking at what they claim today through the website of what Coolesence was (it was closed in 2017) they never really seemed to think LENR is real, and to their satisfaction they proved that to be the case for themselves.

JedRothwell wrote:

I do not know his affiliation. His first name is Hang.

张 Zhang (surname)

航 Hang

I believe Zhang is a common name in China.

Display More

You can bet is a common name. Many scientists carry the name.

I kept googling with both names and the only Zhang, H. that came up related to LENR was an engineer working with Shongsheng Jiang at LENR China. Could this be the same Zhang ?

Storms wrote:

The work at Lawrence Lab is exploring the hot fusion reaction at low applied energy. The goal is to determine whether a new variation in the hot fusion reaction might occur when applied energy is low. They are not addressing the role of the NAE or the unique nature of the LENR nuclear process.

This approached has been explored and published in dozens of papers. Apparently, the electrons present in the material can help overcome the Coulomb barrier when applied energy is low but the hot fusion process occurs never the less. The paper published in Nature clearly reveals the confusion between cold fusion and hot fusion on which their approach is based.

This is true and very unfortunate. After reading about from all sources all these years, I have recently arrived to a similar realization: The belief that LENR is a shortcut of conventional fusion using the same ideas of hot fusion thinking that the conditions can be changed when applied to condensed matter, has been a constant source both problems of design of the experiments, wrong focus on the experiments and misunderstandings on interpretation of the results. LENR is a “new” kind of phenomena, it can’t be analyzed with the same optic than conventional nuclear phenomena that studies fusion of light elements or fission of heavy elements.

Cardone keeps calling it a “Nuovo fenomeno” in their approach using cavitation but they realized years ago that the input of energy can’t explain what happens from the point of view of the “force” applied when the bubble collapses. But more importantly, I think, wether you like the deformed time space theory or not, Is that they have got different results using the same energy input but different angles and spatial orientations, which is impressive per se. I have been reading their work in detail and sequence, and still don’t grasp well how they say that can control the reactions, but they have found ways to consistently create neutrons and transmutation (up and down the atomic number) without gamma radiation. This, being completely impossible with current mainstream theory, implies this is completely “new” and demands a new approach.

JedRothwell , do you know who H. Zhang is ? I have been doing some googling and there is plenty of H. Zhang researchers, so far the only one I have not found a picture of to know if matches the face in the paper you posted is a Haifeng Zhang who has done some Pd and phonon work and belongs to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, something that should impress some because currently the Chinese Academy of Sciences is the highest ranking research institution by the Scimago index. Is this Haifeng Zhang the same H. Zhang that made the analogue experiment we are discussing here?

https://www.mendeley.com/authors/56957750000/

Shane D. wrote:

That is all scattered around in the references at the bottom of the Nature article page. I did not know that until today, so no one should be embarrassed about not noticing. Trevithick will eventually put it all together in one, more digestible, and publishable format.

As to the rest of your post, I will say please read my very first post. Not the title of the thread. It has always been a 2 part question, the 2nd only answerable after the first was.

The second part is probably the part that everyone thought: “that at least an anomaly is observed repeatably” but no one dared to say it.

whocares wrote:

Calorimeter is garbage, his paper reads like a first year high school student. Just saying.

Whose’s calorimeter? Which paper? Care to elaborate or you simply are a hit and run mud flinger?

Max Nozin wrote:

Curbina what is the warranty on solar panels? Do they have performance guarantee and for how long? Not sure about your locale but in Canada I do not see how I am going to recover full price of the panels during my relatively short life.

Well I often forget that I live in a privileged area from the solar energy point of view, so forgive me my enthusiasm. However I have read online of successful solar off grid users as far as Alaska, they have to be very energy budget conscious and have a small windmill too.

Max Nozin wrote:

Curbina it is not surprising that 80% subsidy makes everything very attractive. When Ontario they subsidised electric cars by 14k we had waiting lists.

Luckily not all countries have that so manufactures have to improve PV to make them competitive against fossils.

Well, asking for the subsidy is a bureaucratic nightmare so many people do this with their own money, it just helped many more people realize that Solar was very practical and you can kiss the grid good bye for ever with a well designed project and never look back.

Solar energy has gotten to the point that having it or not is a matter of how much you want to keep your cash in hand. Since 3 years ago I have begun to design all the irrigation projects I am asked by my clients with photovoltaic energy. We here have an incentive for irrigation projects (requires application and a rather lengthy period of review and approval) that reimburses up to 80% of investments in irrigation, including the photovoltaic array for providing the energy required for pumping. I started a project design and contract building of irrigation company in 2013, and have been doing this since. But when I started including PV arrays the business started booming. I use large battery Banks and a sort of inverter that’s protects the batteries from a quick aging. I usually include the farms house consumption in the design of the PV array (Is allowed) and my clients are very happy. So, from a individual perspective, PV arrays with a properly sized battery bank, is all one needs for becoming energetically Self sufficient.

I am so far almost dissapointed that neither THHuxleynew nor kirkshanahan have started the dissection of Zhang’s calorimetry to prove he is “just another moron seeing excess heat where there’s none”.

Alan Smith wrote:

Simon is a supporter for sure. I'll answer some of the questions raised on his blog tomorrow.

User Asterix is a piece of work, anyway. I already commented there but he surely knows better.

Zhang already addressed the chemical heat possibility by stating “The added deuterium gas is 1.5 ml 0.3 MPa, about 0.0002 mole, and the chemical energy is about 60 joules. The measured excess heat is much larger than the chemical energy.”

Good thing that Zhang provided the spreadsheet of data. Also good thing he used a calorimeter that is much less likely to be shredded apart by pathoskeptics than Mizuno’s.

We see now, putting together with Mastromatteo ICCF 22 abstract, that the deuterium is what plays a main role in the excess heat. This is very interesting to see.

Link to Zhang’s spreadsheet data.

https://docviewer.yandex.ru/vi…xNTY2NDY1NTAzNzkwfQ%3D%3D

I consider this to be not a replication per se but a similar or analogue approach than Mizuno’s. The difference is the way Nickel is covered with Pd, but in essence it goes to show that deuterium is the stimulus rather than the presence of heat, as in this case the heating was simply observed when loading deuterium and not by applying heat.

Cydonia wrote:

In the same spirit an important work will be shared at next ICCF .

i leave you to make your technical conclusions.

So it seems Mastromateo had already replicated Mizuno even before of Mizuno’s publication.

What irks me is the instantaneous disbelief. “It is impossible so the calorimetry has to be wrong” is nothing but a belief.

kirkshanahan wrote:

Does this invalidate the calorimetry? I don’t know. It is a red flag is all.

Replication will answer all

At the levels reported, of course it does not invalidate the calorimetry, and your “red flag” is simply taken care of by the error margins reported in the papers.

Mizuno is already replicating it’s own work with a 30W excess heat, which is properly measured with the same kind of calorimetry, and still completely valid.

Your incredulity of the reality of the excess drives you to a level of overanalysis that makes you look ridiculous.

Have you realized that this calorimeter is calibrated every time before and after experiments and it’s margin of error is measured and reported to a level that would be satisfactory for many practical purposes?

The only thing that prevents you of accepting these results as valid is your belief in their impossibility.