Posts by Curbina

    you can’t seriously be proposing that the excess heat is caused by the Air conditioning system, are you?

    again an hypothetical scenario that in no way can be applied to the configuration reported.

    1) "No H2 will Escape". H2 is not "escaping" like a high pressure leak, it would be diffusing from an area of higher H2 density thru the steel to an area of lower h2 density in the surrounding air. But with a sealed volume at 0.1 Torr (my recollection of the reactor pressure when it is valved off, i.e. 1e-4 ATM), we are talking about next to nothing in fuel available. But because the valve is shut with a total volume of say 2 liters and a energy density of 140 MJ/kg and mass density of 0.09 g/L, total energy is around 1e-4*2*.09*0.001*140 MJ = 2.5 joules. The fact that it is valved off means even if the H2 slowly diffused over 1e4 seconds, then its 2.4e-4 watts, i.e. 1/4 mW, i.e. nothing.

    2) "We can ignore gat thermal conductivity because..." I agree we can almost certainly ignore it, because it hardly would effect the calibration. The only thing that could effect the calorimetry is if there is another path for heat that has less thermal resistance in the active run vs the control. In this case, the path could be the loading tube if it still has H2 in it which is an excellent conductor. However, the loading tube inner diameter is only around 5 mm judging by the photos, so there is not much of a path for heat conduction thru the H2. I can't quickly compute that but I think it is next to nothing. Thus, unless someone can prove otherwise analytically, I think an identical rig loaded with 0.1 Torr of H2 instead of air or a vacuum has essentially the same calibration.

    As I said, nit picking. There is no evident way in which such a large difference in temperature with the same electric energy input can be explained by anything conventional. You could explain a fraction of a Watt difference this way, but not a tens of Watts difference.

    I notice he mentions (towards the end) the danger of carcinogenic hexavalent chromium leached from stainless steel electrodes. Easy to spot in a clean electrolyte solution, it is bright goldenyellow- the colour of kager beer. Avoid this by using mild steel, or (my preference) lead electrodes.

    Ok Alan, in this case Bob is talking specifically of the BG2000 machine he was able to get after an attendee to the Global BEM conference offered it to him. It’s one of the original China made by Norinco Brown’s Gas welder HHO producing units that seems to have used chromium steel in the sets of electrolytic fins, hence the worry about the potential for dangerous amounts of hexavalent chromium in the HHO to be generated.

    I am reading Parkhomov’s book. Bob does a great effort to relate many seemingly unrelated aspects of LENR experiments and finding the common thread between, and also adding the missing cold neutrinos piece proposed by Parkhomov to understand this common thread.

    He also warns about the risk of the experimental work related to this awareness and how it has potentially taken many lives with cancer.

    Well, Paradigmnoia , we will be all ears. In the mean time, and for avoiding you unnecessary toil, can we ask JedRothwell , to request the replicators more information about the comparation between the calibration and active runs? Specially if is the same reactor/heater/internal gas and pressure, and if a mesh is present in the calibration run or not.

    That would help a lot.

    The support is that the power curve looks just like a resistance heater.

    If charcoal was burning inside (your earlier example) it would not self ignite at room temperature, and then scale its heat output to an electrical heater input, and it would continue to burn if the heater was turned off.

    I refer to support of the alegation of measuremente error/cheating. The interpretation of the results is open to debate, but this is questioning of the data and the intentions of the data.

    An insinuation of incorrect interpretation of the data is completely different than an insinuation of measuring error/cheating. Measuring error would be that when 100°C is reported the actual temperature is not 100°C, Cheating would be that the entire data set is either fabricated or performed with intention to deceive.

    A valid criticism would be debating if the methodology employed by the replicators can really detect excess heat.

    One can argue that the calibration is performed in a way that invalidates the comparation with the active run. I see no evidence of that, besides nit picking at irrelevant minutia as if the calibration runs with a mesh inside or not (which I dont know but think is irrelevant in terms of explaining the different output of calibration vs active runs), assuming the gases and pressures inside the chamber are the same in both runs as is reported.

    Can you explain to me how the same electric energy, applied to the same resistance can produce that much different temperature output in the same reactor, with the only difference of the addition of a few miligrams of Pd rubbed in a few grams of nickel mesh inside the reactor, comparing the calibration vs the experimental run? Do you think that somehow magically the heater becomes more efficient just by having the mesh inside?

    If you can explain that without telling thet the experiment is fake, then I am all ears.

    To avoid these discussions about thermal inertia, it would have been better to log only end temperatures where the temperature is stabilized in time at a given input power. The same can be done with the active run. Calculate a curve through the calibrated points (temp. Vs power) and use this equation to calculate the power at the logged active points temperatures and subtract that from the input power in the active points. The result are excess power points that can be plotted against input power or temperature. It is a bit more work, but a lot more clear to show.

    Anyway I think this whole debate is spurious as is only supported by the denial of the possibility of LENR being real.

    Would we present this as the results of burning charcoal inside the same reactor no one would doubt the calibration vs active excess heat that would come from the charcoal.

    If the only difference between the calibration run and the active run is the presence of the treated mesh inside, even if considering that the calibration run has not any mesh inside (I really don't know, but I say that even if that´s the case), any conventional explanation for that amount of excess heat can be safely ruled out. That leaves only unconventional possibilities.

    I think the last live chat performed by Bob Greenyer addressed many cautions need to take when doing this kind of experiments. It covers a lot of ground but is all related and this paper of Parkhomov is commented on its implicances.

    He also talks and drives a parallel between EVOs and Matsumoto’s Itonic matter as a sort of “frozen hydrogen” which is also interpreted as ultradense hydrogen.

    I think this live chat has a lot of good tidbits.

    I think Edo Kaal is a member of LENR Forum, albeit I can't recall his user name ( Edo perhaps?), If I am not mistaken. I became aware of his model rather recently but it has several years of development, and as anything alternative to mainstream, it has met resistance in spite of it being very well laid and very intuitive.

    Still dishonest.

    I think that is more desperate and humiliating than dishonest, but I don’t like it one bit.

    Reporting of experimental observations without a supporting theoretical frame, or at least an hypothesis, seems to be anathema nowadays and its a dreaded thing. A few days ago I posted in another thread a 1927 letter to “Nature” that was a mere experimental report of transmutation, a true genuine report of an unexpected observation, that you could see the author was struggling to be sure he was not fooling himself and trying to reproduce and also to understand. This kind of publications, it seems, is no longer possible.

    Holmlid has been able to keep publishing because he had a good reputation and also has been able to produce an hypothesis for explaining his work, even if few accept that hypothesis. Only one of his papers has been retracted by the publisher.

    Cardone et al also have been able to publish for a long time because they started analyzing cosmic phenomena and from there they developed a theoretical frame from Einstein’s relativity that, in their own words, allowed them to predict a series of phenomena that should express under certain conditions being one of those conditions the cavitation bubbles. I think they have only been able to publish their controversial experiments due to their theoretical framework derived from mainstream ideas.

    Chemical release of energy when burning H is 286 KJ per mole. The patent abstract says “greater than about 300 KJ” so the improvement over chemical ain’t that impressive, perhaps this was on purpose?

    Have to admit that I am not a big fan of the so called "Yule Tide", but I am a big fan of great people even, if and when we are not on the same page. So I take the Season Greetings as an opportunity of saluting great people in my sphere of life. Therefor a big hug goes for you Alan Smith, my favorite Londoneer, and to all the great users of this forum, even those we often disagree, which make this a very comfortable, and lets admit it, very fun, corner of the web.

    And just because I send this to most of my friends almost every year, allow me this transgresion :evil: