Hermes Member
  • Male
  • from Europe
  • Member since Jun 23rd 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Hermes

    evidence on the copper cathode tip .Lithium to beryllium.

    I have never been very impressed with the Widon Larsen theory but no doubt there are not many nuclear physicists reviewing papers in "Engineering Fracture Mechanics". If there had been they would sure have noticed that the proposed "electro-weak lithium cycle cycle of neutrons" to produce 4He is not a cycle at all! And its proposed first step is impossible because 6Li fissions to form fast tritons when interacting with neutrons! And fast tritons in a deuterated system will produce fast penetrating neutrons. Oops!

    Happy Grappa! That's close for me...

    Ha ha. I hate grappa myself, but I see it is on the menu!!


    And I counted 15 dishes to eat! And this is not even the banquet!! These Italians certainly know how to eat and drink!

    For the more technically inclined, an initial detailed program with titles and abstracts can be found at

    Once Rossi found out that IH was funding a bunch of other LENR outfits, and had no obligations to keep his secrets confidential (as per the contract), Rossi was probably shocked and outraged.

    Why should IH not fund other "outfits"?

    What confidential secrets did IH reveal?

    All the IP was supposed to have been transferred exclusively to IH who could do what they liked with it in the designated territories. If Rossi was maintaining technical secrets, then he probably invalidates the patents.

    Krivit is not a scientist and maybe he doesn't understand that temperature is a measure of energy whereas voltage determines power. He's comparing apples with oranges. If you heat something more slowly (by reducing the heater voltage) then the temperature can still continue to increase. A further complexity is loading , if you reduce the voltage, the rate of loading will decrease and indeed may become negative. As loading can be endothermic, this may appear as unexpected heat.

    Whether or not any of this was the case in the F & P experiment is another matter. :)

    No wonder readers are having difficulty understanding this paper! Lots of wild conjecture and little experimental evidence in support.

    But let's look at the details. Under the heading "Experiment" they write, "most stable nucleon have a ground state of 0+and all seen receiver nucleons are of this state"!? Evidently they are unaware that even/even nuclei are more stable than their neighbours and ALL have a spin of zero.

    6He is proposed to be a product. If this is so, why has its intense beta radio-activity not been observed? Why not design experiments to test conjectures and actually look for predicted effects?

    The proposal that neutron transfers might explain CMNS is hardly new, but the authors make no reference to the previous work Hagelstein's neutron hopping, Bazhutov's Erzions, and Fisher's Poly-neutrons, Collis' Exotic Neutral Particles. Fisher in particular, identified 64Ni as a neutron pair donor. This would neatly side-step the problem of why no radio-active 59Ni is observed.

    It is all very well proposing that bound protons are somehow transmuting 27Al to stable 28Si. But why don't we see radio-active 28Al from neutron transfers? What about all the other reactor components including the resistor, container etc.? Why are they not transmuted too?

    And missing from all the proposed reactions is any role for hydrogen. What then is its role? At least some discussion of the issues might be in order!

    But try selling a water heater with Nickel powder and Lithium inside it, and there's a good chance you're infringing the patent...

    The idea of using lithium came from Focardi who in turn got it from Piantelli. Piantelli was the inventor. Anyone else claiming to patent technology knowing that it was someone else's IP may find himself in trouble.

    Perhaps you misunderstand. As Fleischmann said, heat is the principal signature of the reaction. If there is no heat, then the cold fusion reaction did not occur

    Fleischmann was not a nuclear scientist and he never identified the reaction, so to claim that the principal signature is heat is mere conjecture. The fact is, and I think this is quite undisputed, that nuclear measurements can be up to a trillion times more sensitive than crude calorimetry. So it is a fallacy to claim that "the cold fusion reaction didn't occur" merely because you weren't using the appropriate instruments.

    which particular scientific questions do you think we should be answering- there is a huge choice?

    I answered this already:-

    Experimental measurements will identify the mass, charge, energy, intensities, decay rates of LENR products.

    Once we know fuels and products it should be easy enough to identify reactions. Once we identify reactions, we can design reactors.

    And what kind of armchair would you be sitting in while you did that?

    A lab stool. It never ceases to amaze me that non scientists, who have never published a LENR paper in their lives, think they know what the scientific method is, and that trying out random changes counts as exploration. One professor used the analogy of a drunkard trying to turn on the light switch by hitting his head on the wall. Rarely he finds the approximate spot but the light just flickers on briefly.

    Obsessive monitoring so called excess heat is an example of this pathological attitude to science. If you seriously want to investigate what you believe to be a nuclear phenomenon then you need nuclear measurements. A lot of garage researchers can't afford that or they don't have the expertise. Fine. But I was commenting on what to do with millions in research funding.

    Alan you seem to confuse theories galore, with scientific experiment. Yes of course there are far too many crack pot theories. It will be experiment that will root them out. Experimental measurements will identify the mass, charge, energy, intensities, decay rates of LENR products. Ask yourself why so few have done this? How is it possible that the principle fuels have NEVER been identified experimentally? My answer is that researchers have been far too busy chasing the red herring of personal glory and excess heat. This is why after 28 years

    we are stuck with an unknown and unexplored continent, LENR Land

    More of the same failed policies are not going to work. Leave obsession with excess heat to the LENR advocates and other non scientists. Real scientific exploration is not the result of interminable and inconclusive replications, but by implementing novel experiments to answer novel scientific questions.

    if I had the 10 million that Rossi was given, I wouldspread about 8M around to about 4 researchers allocated over about 4 years with thepurpose of developing something that can be engineered to levels above 100 W oror better to 1k

    If there's one lesson we have learned over the last 28 years, it is that developing excess heat producing reactors without any attempt to understand the underlying processes producing that heat, is hugely unproductive and time wasting. Science proceeds by devising experiments to test hypotheses. Little progress has been made, or will be made by randomly changing parameters or scaling up a device. The top priority should be elucidating the basic science not blindly racing towards an improbable commercial reactor. Once we understand the basic science (e.g. the reactions responsible) it will be obvious how to engineer safe reliable working devices.

    Many LENR mechanisms may not indeed involve the strong interaction or even fusion - but just the experiment above linked is the pure fusion by its products Li6 + D —> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV.

    If D can approach Li, then why not 2 Ds which have a lower mutual Coulomb barrier and lower reduced mass? The above reaction IS a strong interaction (as there is no electromagnetic transition, and isospin is conserved).

    Here we go again, confusing science with invention. AR is not a scientist, he is an inventor looking to cash in on his time and effort inventing something remarkable.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. AR has invented almost nothing original - he has merely taken Piantelli's technology via Focardi and applied it (with scale up). Because he doesn't understand the science, he is unable to apply it effectively and reliably. AR is looking to "cash in" on the work of others without creating any new IP himself which others can use. The remarkable things about AR's technology were the absurd claims made and the extraordinary delays before people realized!

    My point, which you have ignored, was to show why people believe in the Ni/H system without having coinfidence in Rossi. Any distinction between science and invention is irrelevant.