Posts by Curbina

    All that is needed is one replicable experiment that proves LENR...

    To the best extent of my current knowledge no one has even attempted to replicate Cardone, Stringham and Claytor, or Ohmasa. Cardone et al, however, have stated that their work started as replication or confirmation of Russian experimental works that found of anomalies in cavitation experiments.


    I myself am, in this very moment (admittedly very slowly given my personal constraints of time and resources as owner and main engineer of a small irrigation engineering and contracting company, in a small city of a wannabe developed but still third world country), gearing to replicate work based on cavitation, with the aim of partially replicating or at least creating an analogue to Ohmasa’s transmutations, but with a first stepping stone of replication of Lu et al transmutation of K into Ca in the presence of hydrides with ultrasonic stirring.


    This based on my pure curiosity and pursue of the truth. Why would a company that created a whole industry out of previously inexistant services not dare explore this new area? For them the cost is peanuts, and they stand to win the world if they find this to be truth.

    I don’t think that I can add anything else so I will insist in the importance of looking at anomalies beyond excess heat:


    Transmutations induced by cavitation: this is something comparatively simpler to reproduce and test than excess heat. Experiments reporting significant anomalies in solid metals, liquid metals, plain water, and metallic salt solutions have been performed by Cardone et al since 2004, Stringham and Clayton (one of recently published papers from the ICCF 21 is from them with an interesting experimental set up), and Ryushin Ohmasa in his currently rejected patent application (rejected not for lack of proof but by lack or theoretical support and because he already got a patent for a similar vibrating apparatus for his electrolyzer set up).


    Perhaps I can add something: by looking at the classics and with a cautious attitude one can achieve great things. But by looking at the outliers and renegades, and having a bold attitude, one can truly change the world.

    I think the playground is more for “out there” ideas than for fake information. However, deciding what is fake and what not is sometimes a thing of criteria. In the case of the post from Zephir_AWT that prompted PhysicsForDummies to post this thread I think is less fake than misinterpretation or simply over statement. Not long ago I read some news about iron oxide thin fims in salt water that were being touted as the next energy revolution and when I read the news in detail I found it was interesting but not a revolutionary technology, at best could serve as an alternative to solar panels in coastal areas. Some people get high in positive sounding news and forget to read the details, but they are not intentional fake, just clueless.


    Here is the iron oxide thin film in salt water news I was referring to, some people got really worked out concluding this was the end of oil dependence. I chuckled. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2019/07/190730092630.htm

    I don't recall Byrnes saying anything about not pursuing something. Got a quote on that?


    I think the whole point is that when you have a mundane explanation of an anomaly, it is bad science to ignore and/or denigrate that explanation without serious, rational, and reasonable consideration. That has not happened at all regarding (a) CCS/ATER, (b) contaminant concentration, and (c) mechanical damage as the source of CR39 pits (with possibly more that can be added to the list).

    I’m going to repeat myself on this, but I think there’s an obnoxious double standard for accepting or rejecting evidence. This applies to mainstream accepted predictions that have taken years and billions to produce a result that is attributed to the prediction but there’s no way to be sure if it is or not what was predicted, specially because it was expected and voices against are simply not heard. Conversely, any result not expected is subject to impossible to fulfill tests for being accepted, and a “rational explanation” is preferred. If this is not a double standard, I don’t know what it is.

    Who could not agree with the absolute need of error analysis and control?!?!?, but what I detest is not the “rational or mundane explanation” per se but the preference of it instead of continuing pursuing the anomaly to see if it exists or not.

    I think Dr. Mizuno is dealing with a high standard metalworks shop so they have high rates. Perhaps is not easy for him to find a more economic shop to get the nuts drilled, if that is the problem really. Is hard to imagine what else could be the problem to open it.

    Well, I spent some minutes reading and my impression is that the confusion with hot fusion as Storms has pointed out, reigns.


    Every scientist or engineer doing research has to analyze the experimental design thoroughly for potential sources of error and either weed out or control them. This is basic of experimental design. No surprises there and no one would disagree.


    But blanket dismissing the whole body of LENR research because of a perceived “rational explanation” is preferred as plausible (but not demonstrated), is a show of bias.

    Unfortunately, that will be delayed. It turns out the mesh is still in the R20 cell, and the cell has broken and cannot be opened. It will cost $1,500 to open it and repair it without damaging the mesh. It may be a while before we come up with the money.


    I reported earlier that the mesh was already replaced. That was a mistake. (Mizuno's mistake, not mine, for once.) He labeled a graph "R20 new mesh." He meant the latest cell, R21. R21 is very similar to R20.


    It may also be delayed because we are looking for: A top notch lab, that will do a detailed analysis, with state of the art instruments, for free. That's a rare combination of attributes. Probably nonexistent. Seven_of_twenty has assured me that top-notch labs will line up to evaluate something like this. I wish he would produce a few of them.

    I know this will sound like a blinding flash of the obvious but couldn’t McKubre move some influences at SRI to do the much needed in depth analysis of that unique palladium rubbed mesh?

    Yup. And those are negative joules. Corrections made.


    It seems to have recovered from that.


    You would have to ask Zhang about restarting.

    I see, so you think the two below zero zones are caused by the activation of the vacuum pump but have nothing to do with the above zero zones. At some moment I got the idea that you were thinking the entire behavior after the argon purge was chemical (of which I was puzzled) but now I see you were only referring to the endothermic portions, and your idea of the pump down makes sense, only that I thought that could not happen, unless the control of the pump is not in the same room.

    I think you meant endothermic, but I get the idea. Any chances of starting with a new mesh not poisoned with argon?

    A.) Not mistakes, detection limits

    B.) They've always been that way, you just fail to realize it apparently. Look here for ex. to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(chemical_analysis)

    The papers of Cardone et al about mercury transmutation have a very clear description of the detection limits of each technique for each element. They also bound the error of the analysis of each element. Your answer implies they are working without knowledge of that, which is wrong.

    So now analytical techniques become full of mistakes and intereferences, when they report results that "are not possible"?

    The follow up paper to the one I posted here (not open access) describes the limits of detection and the accreditation of the llaboratories that performed the analysis.

    But in anyway, the finding of a "de novo" concentration of 7000 ppm of Ti and 72000 ppm of Br (I am already substracting the error margin reported in the papers) is waaaaay over anything that an initial limit of detection could account for, if you are claiming that the elements were initially present and somehow magically ended up concentrated above detection threshold after the cavitation treatment.

    ROFL

    Please tell me where the elements measured by different techniques and that were completely absent in the original materials, experimental setup, and any contacting surface can come from, in the paper I am attaching (open access).

    Files

    • 92-Full.pdf

      (3.37 MB, downloaded 9 times, last: )

    And while we can keep arguing about excess heat for millennia to come, I will insist once again:


    TRANSMUTATION evidence is undeniable.


    Experiments have started with a pure palladium rod and end with palladium and other elements present that were not anywhere in the experimental setup before.


    Mercury has been transformed by cavitation in a granulated material with significant concentration of other elements and isotopes of other elements appearing in those grains (elements absolutely absent from any component or part of the experiment or its immediate environment).


    So focusing only in excess heat to prove the existence of LENR is a mistake, one has always to check for transmutation.

    I see this circular argument has been going for long time. And keeps going strong. Replacing the electrodes with joule heaters would simply be a different configuration hence it could not be extrapolated to the running cell. As Has been said, the calorimetry is a part of the experiment so any modifications change the behavior.


    For small excess heat this could never be settled, and ultimately becomes a matter of personal bias unless one can put that small excess heat to work. But in the more recent case of Zhang analogue of Mizuno, which has 9 watts of excess heat with Seebeck effect calorimetry, your effect does not apply. So, you agree that Zhang is measuring More energy out than energy in or is still impossible and you will never accept the possibility?

    Yes, but all competent engineers know that mastery of maths is an essential tool without which you are just a technician. And Shanahan's points are the maths relevant to CF electrolysis calorimetry, which no joke can gainsay.

    All competent engineers master math and are aware math is a tool, but a good mathematical model (conceptual tool) cant never be mistake by reality.

    The thing is that would not help. His theory is just maths - self-proven. Whether the change in conditions needed for his error to explain CF findings is experiment-specific. If you had an electrolysis experiment showing excess heat based on control / active it would be very helpful for you to test that and I'd have a few ideas, although even then it is not simple to distinguish between CCS error and some real excess power in the cell.


    However, whatevr its magnitude in one experiment says nothing about its magnitude in another. His point was that all those claiming anomalous CF excess heat from electrolysis should check this matter and bound any possible error.

    We engineers have a large battery of jokes about how mathematicians become self absorbed and believers of the capacity of maths of transforming the reality, and not the other way around.


    My favorite is the one of the fire in the hotel that traps a mathematician and an engineer in the third floor. The engineer sees a tree that he calculates he can jump to from the window and survive the fall, but in the rush of the moment forgets to consider the wind against and falls to the floor to his death.


    The mathematician simply says “let be a ladder”....

    I asked Kirk repeatedly - in this place - to give me a clear description of an experiment that could prove his hypothesis, with the intention of performing it (I had more spare time then) but I never got a proper answer.

    I would have been surprised if he could. He is simply rejecting the possibility of a new unexpected phenomena. It can’t be real, therefore it must be “the possibility of something” but he does not know what.


    And that’s why I bring the reverse side of the coin up, when something is expected from the theory, and is never found, billions are spent to find it, and it miraculously appears. (But does it really?)

    The reverse problem is conversely seen with other much heralded “successes” from mainstream science. Gravitational waves were expected by theory, never seen, “but they have to exist” then billions were spent in LIGO and “voilá” we “found what we were looking for”. Many have risen objections to LIGO findings but no one hears them because you know, theory says “ gravitational waves have to exist, and we found them”. Same with the Higgs Bosson.


    And we will keep spending billions in Hot fusion because theory says it’s possible, and if we can’t achieve it is because we are not doing something well but not because the cherished theory has some problem.