i.o. portends to psychoanalyze the "true believers" -- his presence here being a sort of social experiment of the mind. He and others are 100% certain that Rossi has nothing. Yet, the only rational position by any measure at this stage is one of uncertainty until a device is in one's possession and measured by one's own measurement tools. Dismissal out-of-hand is the bane of modern science, and the cardinal sin of hot fusion scientists and their sympathizers toward the entire LENR field.
IH Fanboy
Member
- Member since May 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by IH Fanboy
-
-
This is nothing but LENR community mantra. As far as I know, there is no one 'fighting tooth and nail' against doing LENR research.
The history of LENR is rich and well-documented. I suggest you start with: https://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
QuoteEven the two DOE reviews of the subject did not say this.
Of course they did not say "tooth and nail." Yet their actions were essentially that.
And what say ye of these other realities?
"Why is there a cross section of the scientific community who apparently doesn't support the scientific method if it has even an inkling of a connection to LENR? Why do your colleagues construct a reputation trap? Why do they condescend toward an entire field of legitimate research with such a potentially high payoff for the world? Why do they welcome with open arms those who have struggled to reproduce an experiment, but shun those who have succeeded?"
-
Replication answers all.
With this, I can wholeheartedly agree. Then why do your colleagues fight tooth and nail to prevent others from attempting replications and studying the underlying science behind the phenomena? Why is there a cross section of the scientific community who apparently doesn't support the scientific method if it has even an inkling of a connection to LENR? Why do your colleagues construct a reputation trap? Why do they condescend toward an entire field of legitimate research with such a potentially high payoff for the world? Why do they welcome with open arms those who have struggled to reproduce an experiment, but shun those who have succeeded? Why, why, why?
-
What irks me is people who fail to understand the crucial role of skepticism in scientific progress, and who therefore immediately assume a skeptical point of view is bad.
What irks me is people who fail to understand the crucial difference between skepticism in which ideas and results are challenged in a respectful, constructive manner, and pathoskepticism in which a coordinated effort is made to stifle progress, squelch any significant funding, attempt to destroy the reputations of other scientists who dare pursue an experiment, and so forth.
-
Enthusiasts may disagree but indeed the field is dying and it's not because of malice.
It was because of malice. Absent the coordinated effort by a cross section of the scientific community to squelch any significant funding of LENR, and to destroy the reputations of any scientist who dared make and pursue an experiment, we might have been where Mizuno is today at least 20 years sooner. You, no doubt, will continue to defend this atrocious behavior, but there will be others who will persistently remind the world what really happened.
-
First, homeopathy and astrology do have quantifiable results.
Not really. These are much more squishy than measuring a difference in energy_out / energy_in.
QuoteThat is how we know they don't work.
Whatever quantifiable results they might have, it is disingenuous to compare such results to an energy_out / energy_in measurement.
-
I would say that homeopathy, for instance, should not receive a government funding as a treatment, and very little funding government funding for research. Same for astrology.
And I would whole-heartedly agree. But that is a specious comparison, for at least two reasons. You are attempting to compare a phenomena (LENR) that has quantifiable and measured results by multiple independent persons and labs, to areas in which quantifiable results are not possible to obtain. Second, the two categories that you identified do not have the potential to change the world in any significant way. When the potential payback of a phenomena is so high, and there exists quantifiable evidence from multiple parties, it is beholden on our society to allocate time and funds to further the discovery of the underlying mechanisms of the phenomena.
-
Display More
studies have shown that human who have more money, take advantage of it to make more children maintly also a more affordable energy paradoxically risk to multiply problems of our planet, you should meditate well on this
Is this Lenr really the main solution ?
DF
That is not what the statistics bear out. Richer nations actually have a declining birth rate, which actually is causing a macro demographic problem in itself because not enough workers are available to pay for all of the retirees. LENR is a solution within a mix of solutions to improve the living standard of humans. There are no excuses or reasons that over three million children should die of hunger each year. None. With a significant reduction in the cost of energy, like the Mizuno reactor might achieve, this and other massive problems could be resolved. It also would open up the solar system for human exploration and settlement.
-
From a macroeconomic point of view, an unregulated introduction of such a disruptive technology would certainly not be entirely unproblematic with respect to e.g. jobs, corporate profits a.s.o.Creative destruction. Progress requires it. If you bring the cost of energy down, the long term macro effect is an increase in the standard of living globally.
-
I think many of the complaints one sees on this site about how poorly LENR has been treated are from people who have little idea about the nature of careful criticism that usually flows back and forth within the scientific community.
LENR is exceptional. Not only were the scientific establishment quick to dismiss, but they actively fought against it. They mounted campaigns to block any government funding. They sought to destroy the reputation of any scientist who dared explore further. Such behavior is a wart on the scientific community, and those of us who have followed this phenomena closely will continue to highlight this fact so that it doesn't happen again in the future for some other world-changing technology.
-
My consistent comment on R20: "It would be unfair to Mizuno to take what he states is a preliminary sample result as anything definite".
I can't let this one pass unchallenged. Mizuno/Rothwell didn't call it preliminary. And you are twisting the meaning of "sample." Mizuno/Rothwell/paper clearly states: "This section describes a typical result with the latest and most effective reactor, version R20." They are not using the word sample to mean a "one-off result." To the contrary, they are using the word sample to mean a "typical result."
QuoteI stand by it, and think events now bear this comment out.
Go ahead and stand by it, but it is a misconstruction of what was said in the paper. And the events are just getting underway. You have the "quick-to-dismiss" disorder that has so engulfed the scientific establishment since P&F.
-
dartin, I have made this suggestion a couple of times about how to check if the Mizuno Cell is producing excess heat. It is similar to what you intend to do, and I hope you find it useful. This is my suggestion:
"I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside it and the dummy does not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter."
MFMP has done these kinds of tests before. The problem is that cross-talk can affect the results. You would need to try to thermally insulate the reactors from one another so that heat from one isn't being transferred to the other, and vice versa. This is harder to do when you have shared plumbing, shared wire leads, etc.
-
No IH FB -- I am looking at steady state so that the speed or rate of transfer is not significant once it finally reaches equilibrium.
Oh okay, thanks for clarifying.
QuoteNone of this matters for R20 with its "uncorrected" power output of 225 watts for 50 watts in, and at least some of our friends around the world will make their own replications using identical emissivity so that this will not be a factor.
Agreed.
-
Every joule of heat coming out of the reactor must end up heating the air. It is not possible for any heat to leave the reactor and not heat the air, because the chamber is well insulated with reflective insulation (see the ICCF21 paper).
Jed, while I agree with your statement, I think what anon is contending (he can confirm my interpretation of his position) is that radiative heat causes the air circulating within the calorimeter to be heated more slowly than convective heat, and therefore the difference in the kind of heat transfer matters for air flow calorimetry. Can you comment to this specific critique?
I suppose my response would be that the inside of the calorimeter soon reaches a steady-state temperature, and therefore any difference in the rate of heating of air between radiative/convective would be insignificant to the calorimeter measurements. And of course for R20, the COP is so large, such a difference wouldn't matter anyway.
-
Some will perhaps think that the extra difficulty making the results stronger is unnecessary because these results are strong enough anyway. All that is needed is similar level, replicated independently. That would have some value, but IMHO not much. And the extra difficulty is not that large, so why not strive to do it?
This is nonsense. The likes of THH will not be satisfied with a cold fusion experimental setup--ever. It would be a game of never-ending moving goal posts. The replications need to be done, and will be done, and those without conflicts of interest will then move the ball forward. Those whose interests conflict with a world filled with low-cost LENR devices will hop from one false trope to the next, and from one disingenuous attack to the next. I don't know whether THH has such conflicts, but I do know that he behaves as one who might.
I'd contrast this with anonymous' critiques, which seem more genuine to me. Running the calibration with the same shiny cylinder as used for the test runs seems like a good suggestion. Anonymous is also careful to point out that the COP would still be 4.5x even taking the difference of emissivity into account. This is constructive. We need more of this kind of "skeptical" input and less of the "hand waiving pseudo-skeptical" flavor. I've been around long enough to spot the difference.
-
Display More
I forgot to address this issue raised by TTH:
(a) The R20 COP is too high for this system to be stable. sure, it could be stable, but not with claimed power out vs temperature. Chances of instability are very high and this would have been noted by M.
This is incorrect. There is no sign of instability.
First, you can see this is anomalous heat. Look at the first 10 minutes of Fig. 6, and the stray points in Fig. 8. Resistance heating does not act that way.
Now look at the increase in Fig. 6 from minute 10 to hour 1:40. It is sedate. When resistance heating is turned up, the reactor heats about as quickly as a toaster oven. It takes a while for that increase to reach the flow calorimetry, but it does not take an hour and 30 minutes. This gradual increase is from anomalous heat. The anomalous heat increases exponentially in response to temperature, but "exponential" does not mean rapid, or out of control, or unstable. It just means the heat goes to a proportionally higher level in response to higher temperatures.
The reaction must be self-heating to some extent. 50 W of resistance heating alone would never begin to reach these temperatures. In Fig. 6, around 1:40 the heat leaving the reactor balances the heat being produced in the reactor, so the reaction stops going to higher levels. It stabilizes. Again, self-heating does not mean going out of control. Burning wood must self heat or the reaction stops, but that does not mean a wood fire goes out of control, or that it never reaches a terminal temperature and a stable, terminal heat production level.
Let me address THH's other points. I think these are all of them --
The fan might be running slower. This is impossible. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously. It does not change. THH claims the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20% or 50%. Both numbers are impossible. The input electric power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat.
THH claims the actual air speed might be much slower than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. This is incorrect because the Reynolds number is 18,000, and any number above 2,300 will ensure the wind speed is constant across the face of the outlet, as shown in Fig. 4. It is also incorrect because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we think, but there would still be some.
THH claims that the hydrogen in the cell might be burning, and this could produce the anomalous heat. This is incorrect because there is no oxygen in the cell, and because the fuel would only last a few seconds, whereas the reaction has continued for more than 100 days.
Jed, you are as lucid as ever. Look forward to getting results of replications.
-
And contrary to the usual suspects' opinions, skeptics will be quite convinced if these results are reliably and credibly duplicated.
And when the histories are written, those same "skeptics" will claim that they gave Cold Fusion a fair shake all along. That there was no reputation trap. That MIT never fudged data to protect their hot fusion interests. That government funding was always available for basic research in this area. That scientists who dedicated their entire careers to this research were always revered as mavericks. And so forth.
-
It seems to me that the differences are much more evident than these:
Nonsense. The fudging done by MIT is in-your-face. There is not even the slightest of similarities.
-
Display More
The 3 curves on the left chart of Fig.4 in the ICCF21 paper (1) seem to refer to the same calibration tests reported on Fig.27 of the 2017 paper (2), but they show important differences between corresponding curves.
Any explanation?
They look to me to be substantially the same, except that the one if paper (2) has been cleaned up a bit so that you can see the lines better.
-
Cooperation, not division, is the way.
We're getting a lot of good nuggets on this thread. Most of which I agree with. Unfortunately, it is not those in the CF space who have sought to divide. To the contrary, the gatekeepers of the broader scientific community have eschewed cooperation and not only divided, but obliterated those who dared to differ.
