Posts by Hermes

Quote from JedRothwell

yet they do see helium commensurate with the heat.

This is extremely weak evidence. There are thousands of conceivable nuclear reactions which could produce helium. But proponents of d-d fusion never consider any alternatives to their preconceived hopes. There are major reasons for supposing that the so called heat / helium ratio as measured is exagerated. Firstly it is NOT clear that there are no other nuclear reactions taking place simultaneously. Secondly it is not clear that all the helium is detected. All we can conclude is that helium is correlated with heat but we have little hint to suppose that any deuterium is involved.

Quote

you are correct. I had it wrong.

Thanks Jed. You have restored your credibility. A major source of misinformation is the continual confusion of conjecture with fact. If we are to escape from this error we need the humility to accept we may be wrong. Well done!

Quote from Alan Smith

It is from private correspondence. Focardi was certainly a great original thinker, and one of the real pioneers of Ni/H LENR, along of course with Piantelli. But since Piantelli outlives him still, Focardi is somewhat overlooke

Alan, where did you get this private correspondence in Italian from? I agree that "Focardi was certainly a great original thinker, and one of the real pioneers of Ni/H LENR", nevertheless according to Piantelli he NEVER succeeded in his own lkab of observing excess heat. It is my understanding that ALL Rossi's IP is actually based on secrets discovered by Piantelli and passed on by Focardi. If anyone thinks that Rossi has ever discovered something novel I would like to know what it is?

The so called Rossi technology is simply a scale-up of what Piantelli discovered more than 20 years ago. I expect to be contradicted here, but I do not expect any evidence to supporet such a claim.

Alan, I certainly look forward to the victory of common sense. But I suspect that self appointed pundits will regret the loss of gossip. The bloggers thrive on controversy, drama and provocation. The moderate majority should deny them such satisfaction.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

they forbid nuclear reactions without a license (at least in Sweden, and probably in most countries). Didn't somebody have legal problems when he claimed to produce tritium?

As you must know, tritium (unlike deuterium) is beta radioctive and therefore poisonous. So is potassium which is an essential element in our diet. We don't need a licence to eat naturally radio-active vegetables?

Nevertheless you raise a very imortant point. The state must license any nuclear technology. And no authority would risk doing so unless the underlying nuclear science were solid. It follows that all the would be engineers attempting to create ever greater COPs without attempting to understand the science are on the wrong path. And we may also suppose, that those who eventually elucidate the science will have much more success than those who limit themselves to unsubstantiated conjecture. (These very points were made in 2007 at ICCF13 panel discussion).

Whatever explanation is found for LENR a fundamental requirement is that no penetrating radiation should be predicted (in most situations). It is not clear to me how conjectured proton decay meets this requirement. In fact the vast majority of theories and models fail at this hurdle.

Quote from axil

alpha particle impacts into the plastic having a energy of about 2 MeV.

I haven't read Fisher's paper. Do you have a reference?

One remark I would make is that there are very few nuclear reactions which produce alphas at 2 MeV. This is rather good news as it means we may be able to identify their origin so much better. (For example all known alpha decays are ruled out). I recall that Piantelli also measured low energy alphas in his Wilson Cloud Chamber experiments using a nickel rod which had previously produced anomalous heat in a hydrogen atmosphere. Axil did Fisher propose any explanation for 2 MeV alphas?

Quote from JedRothwell

The cells produce helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does.

I thought plasma fusion produced 50% 3He, 50% 3H and only 0.00001% 4He. The heat to 4He ratio is about 37000 GeV. The major reason for this disparity of rate is that strong nuclear interactions are much faster than electromagnetic ones.

Quote from JedRothwell

Previous experiments with Pd-D cold fusion show that it converts deuterium to helium

Many people say this but there is no evidence that deuterium is a fuel. Rather it is a historical conjecture. Given that natural hydrogen contains only 150 ppm deuterium, it is probable that in the Ni/H system deuterium is not the (only) fuel. It follows that the heat helium correlation can tell us very little.

There are many such "historical conjectures" made by pioneers in this field. They are being slowly debunked by experiment. We need to keep an open mind and rely on evidence and not just on the authority of experts. Every argument stands on its own merits, not on the stature of is proponents.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

And if the gadget used something nuclear in producing power it would be illegal also under radiation protection laws. But, if course, it isn't since it doesn't work.

Just because a reaction is nuclear, does not necessarily imply penetrating radiation. Having said that I do agree that the majority of possible nuclear reactions do indeed poduce radiation. Neveretheless there are plausible CMNS models which predict heat without. Obviously, if these models are correct then there is probably no conflict wih radiation protection laws. Clearly a major obstacle which disqualifies the vast majority of models is the observation that little or no penetrating radiation is observed. But this does NOT imply "it doesn't work".

Quote from sifferkoll

IH did not expect to be sued

Of course not! Nobody expects to get sued when there is no cause. Abd has explained in detail why.

But I dare say when IH were unhappy about the IP not being transferred, Rossi threw one of his all too frequent tantrums so they were forwarned that trouble lay ahead. Consequently they started collected evidence including, as Dewey says, by arriving unexpectedly to find Rossi tampering with the flow meter. What a coincidence! Not surprisingly, nobody from planet Rossi comments on this. Fantasy is so much more comforting than facts.

Quote from sifferkoll

We don't know about that, do we?

Just because you may not have knowledge does not mean that the rest of the world is entirely ignorant. You seem to be claiming, "not to know" if IH will make counterclaims. But you DO know that IH has not paid the $89M. Don't you think there might be a legitimate reason for this? Or do you believe that IH never intended to pay Rossi at all? If so, do you have any evidence? I note from the legal action that Rossi has presented no evidence. But maybe you know better.

Quote from sifferkoll

IH came along and funded some of his close friends (the angry LENR entities being ex; Brilloiun, Lenuco, Letts, Biberian, etc etc.) with peanut cash and a lot of toilet paper IH stock on the promise that IH would supply them with Rossi IP thru the back door, so thay could make leaps in R&D.

Sifferkol, whether or not this conjecture is true, it seems you stil haven't understood that IH bought exclusive rights to Rossi's IP including the right to sub-license it to whomever they chose.

Quote from sifferkoll

Rossi did not "behave" as planned ...

Exactly! Rossi did not transfer the IP as he was contractually bound to do. Maybe IH will make some counterclaims ....

Quote from Keieueue

You seem to hate Rossi with a passion.

Wouldn't you hate someone who is destroying a major source of CMNS funding?

Quote from axil

You have shamed me into doing some more leg work for you, I hope that you are proud of yourself.

Thank you Axil. As I suspected, your reference gives no support to your assertion. If I am mistaken perhaps you should do a little more leg work to demonstrate your point.

Quote from axil

Yes, IH is very stupid and their investors would be well advised to take them to court to ascertain if any improprieties existed in this unfortunate episode in their dealing all around with all parties.

How were they stupid? Are you saying they were stupid to beieve in a convicted felon? You cannot have in both ways Axil. Either Rossi is a liar and IH believed him or Rossi was a liar and IH discovered the fact. What are the alternatives? And as for your insinuations that IH investors might not be happy, do you have any evidence, besides fantasy that this might be the case?

Quote from axil

I will do your legwork for you just this one time

I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right

Axil perhaps you still have not understood that Abd nor any other poster / blogger is the original source of truth. Once again you seem to be confusing claims with fact. (And I am not the first person to say this). I conclude you have no evidence to support your claim. Duly noted.

Quote from axil

t is the investor that IH got 50 million from.

Axil you are evading the questions. I repeat, "Can you give a reference to what the IH investor said? Can you show that the IH investor invested in IH? ".

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Rumor has it the Jury of peers will be selected from a randomly selected group of boiler makers, HVAC specialists, thermodynamic specialists and salty old steam engine/turbine Captains... and maybe a magician.

Instead of relying on unsubstantiated rumors, would it be too much trouble to ask you to supply your sources?

Quote from axil

I know because the IH investor said they did their due diligence before they invested in the E-Cat.

That is completely illogical. Can you give a reference to what the IH investor said? Can you show that the IH investor invested in IH?

Quote from axil

I thought that you were a PDP-11 assembly language expert and not a lawyer.

Someone who can write in PDP-11 assembly language probably has the ability to read the Law. This looks like an attempt at astroturfing. The usual ad hominem attack.

Quote from axil

I cannot beleive that IH would let the test proceed in silence for an entire year and also use it to secure additional R&D funding claiming

Ah! The fallacy of arguing from personal incredulity! How do you know that additional funding was secured by this test? Is it not equally possible that IH, demonstrated a failed test and obtained funding for other programs in recognition of their scrupulous honesty? And how do you know that IH obtained any funding at all? What is your evidence?