I follow both fusion( called hot fusion here) and these claims of CF/LENR which I find inconclusive at best. The next hot fusion reactor up is the Wendelstein 7 thing. This thing doesn't gain as much attention as ITER, EAST, NIF, etc because they are not trying to go for the homerun of overunity. Instead, they are apparently only trying to verify heating power, containment, and plasma generation. As these are the three most difficult items for hot fusion, this babystep approach makes sense.
I read the Etiam reports LINR provided, and did not notice "another null result" from them? Their results looked good, and as you say they are capable people. They did just sell their European patent (USPTO pending) to the "highest bidder", after failing to attract enough investment to continue on as a going concern.
It did not clearly say in the report if the results were replicated or not. Until those results were replicated or tested by someone else, I would put a "question mark" next to them them.
Well, apparently, the MFMP has received pledges of over $1million if their latest international trip results in a successful test. I am not 100% certain about the details, but that is a fairly high sum from a community such as this. My prediction is that one of three things will happen: 1) the test won't happen. (See NASA and Ecat) 2) the test will happen but fail (see hydrofusion and Ecat) 3) this initial test will pass but later, stricter, more exact testing and replication attempts will find issues that were missed and nothing will come of it (see many examples). This is my opinion which I am entitled to. I have an extremely high threshold for believing something that violates the laws of physics and lacks a proven theory.
Yes ShaneD, MY, Ahlfors, I'm putting together a collection of items to make my point. I haven't posted links yet because I want to do more than show items individually. I want to be able to post a conclusion from a body of work.
Here is a brief summary of Etiam's history in 2016-2017 from the below link:
March 2016 : Etiam released an in house report claiming they had achieved CF/LENR in
the range of a few dozen watts excess energy. It doesn't seem that there is
a 3rd party independent verification of results although I might have missed
April 2016: Etiam announces a new share issue to fund their LENR work.
July 2016: Etiam announces the new share issue failed
August 2017: Etiam announces they have been terminated as a company
Yes, I read it, discussed it with them, and with Miles. I disagree with their conclusions.
I have negative views of many CF/LENR claims, but not including those of Miles.
Ok, sir. As long as you read it, as I have read a great number of the pro-CF documents, then we can agree to disagree with each other's opinion.
Where on earth did you get that estimate of hundreds of millions of dollars?!?
A great deal of progress has been made in cold fusion. The tritium results from the National Cold Fusion Institute alone (Will et al.) are worth all the money invested so far. In a sane world, they would have convinced all scientists that the effect is real, and it is nuclear.
Did you even read the report from Coolescense(sp)? They had negative views of many CF/LENR claims including those of Miles. Not pointing specifically at any scientist but they do make errors from time to time. By adding up the total $ spent adjusted for inflation where I can find it and adding it up, I came up with at least $100million-$200million+ over the years. I believe IH alone claimed to have spent 10's of millions of dollars on this.
Have you ever thought that may exist laws of Physics that are still unknown ?
Which laws of Physics you are refer ?
Did you know any ?
You cite a company like the bible......
so why other companies in so many countries are still studying LENR ?
The burden of proof is on you, ele. Please show a theory and replications of that theory by reputable, independent organizations to make your point. I also have papers I haven't posted links to yet which further prove my point.
These are my views . I do not comment on Rossi .
"If you use rusty pipes, plumber tools, cheap and out of spec measuring instruments, lousy test protocols, gullible supporters "
You will be an unsuccessful plumber in Australia.
But plumbers are so expensive here. Had to clean the shit /tree rootsout of my sewer pipe last week.
Took me 3 hours with the electric eel and14 metres of 'pipes'.$103 hire. Cost for a plumber...$400
Heh. When I first saw this image, I thought it was a new LENR reactor.
Do you really want everyone to just stop looking into LENR? Coolescence shutting down is discouraging, and I sometimes wonder myself if everyone is not chasing lab artifacts. But I take IH's position that even if there is a 1% chance, it is worth pursuing. Just too important to walk away IMO.
And really, the world of research is huge, and the relative few resources going into LENR are just a drop in the bucket. Not everything studied pans out, and maybe LNR won't, but sometimes you learn something new going down dead ends.
I would ask the same question of KS, or any skeptic for that matter: do you want the research to continue?
I understand your point. However, given that the hundreds of millions of dollars already invested in CF/LENR have turned up nothing that is marketable or perhaps even believable, what more do you want? This company used advanced equipment like mass spectrometers and came up empty. And, I think 1% is being generous. There have probably been hundreds or even thousands of claims in the past 28.5 years. So, it's more like 0.01% There is not even a viable theory for this that I can find. Asking people to invest in this without an established theory as a starting point is not proper.
Here is a link to their analysis of another claim of CF where they attribute the excess heat claim to an incorrect calibration item.
I applaud them for the great work they did in revealing the truth about CF/LENR. Hopefully, individuals who were thinking about investing in CF/LENR will look at their work and IH's work and decide against it. This will save these investors millions of dollars that could be invested in real fusion. It will also save them from potential lawsuits.
Coolescence is closing down, all their equipment is to be auctioned. So,e cool stuff there!
After 12 years of cold fusion research Coolescence has determined it is time to bring its efforts to a close. Our lab equipment will be liquidated at an on-line auction on October 18. Auction details may be found here:
Best regards, Matt McConnell Rick Cantwell.
Here is the official statement from their website which I thought I would post before it is removed
Surface Science. Hydrogen Energy R&D.
Coolescence LLC is a privately funded research company located in Boulder, Colorado. The company was originally formed to rigorously examine repeated experimental reports of so-called 'cold fusion' from a number of scientists around the world. Over the past 10 years the Coolescence team has replicated the most celebrated of these experiments, with no positive results that have not been attributable to measurement artifacts or chemical effects.
As always, when top scientists with advanced equipment test LENR/CF claims, they meet failure. The laws of physics are indeed hard to violate.
Good digging AhiAhi - we had one heck of a team before we had to break up due to legal expenses. A PhD astrophysicist IP attorney was a pretty good
asset for the company at the time.
Is this from a press release? Or is IH about to put out a press release?
As vortex and ECW relayed, Tahakashi Mizuno published astounding results :
It is a preprint for JCMNS25
E-cat world published a quick summary to discuss on that paper
To be confirmed but it seems a breakthrough.
I noticed that Mizuno explained that the deposition of Pd on Ni electrode through plasma process, prepare the reaction.
It remind me the Cathodic Sputtering that Didier grass&al realized on their electrodes, leading after an electrolysisi to a brutal excess heat production possibly of LENR source.
The paper is very detailed on the process, and may help replicators (even if I imagine getting help from Mizuno to replicate will be essential).
What's the highest temperature for their calibration run vs the highest temperature for their claim of excess heat? If the highest temperature for their calibration run does not match the highest temperature for their claim of excess heat, I consider the result to be inconclusive at best.
Claytor testing metal alloys for IH
(from DW's "Trollolololollalololol" follows obviously that the last table is incomplete)
Hi Ahlfors. Can you give a link to the IH paper? I've found the 1998 one.
Did you notice that the lead author of that report on how to avoid calorimetry errors is Melvin Miles? He was one of the first to replicate FPs, and an LENR proponent to this day. So you cite an LENR calorimetry expert's paper, to make your point about the many ways to err in LENR experiments. Funny. Like McKubre said: We know what we are doing!
KS is not going to like this BTW! MIles does not believe his CCS/ATER theory.
Of course I'm aware of that. Not all experiments are done the same. This work seems to eliminate the results of many experiments. And, since it's from a respected LENR person, I feel it gives more weight to my argument: LENR researchers are acknowledging possible errors in the work of other LENR researchers.
As I said, I have more papers which deal with errors that I'll post as I have a chance to look over them in detail.
Here's a link to one key paper about calorimetry error:
I have a few more. I'm not saying this paper applies to every experiment. Each has to be looked at individually as always. I have a few more papers that show calorimetry error.
The Wendelstein hot fusion device is scheduled to start running in early September.
Between Iter, this thing, and many other designs, hot fusion is entering a very active phase. Either hot fusion or CF/LENR (if it works as people continue to claim) will be the tech for the first working fusion power plant. My money, if there were bets, is of course on hot fusion. One of the limiting factors for hot fusion was computing power. Since you can now buy computing devices that can process over 100 terabits of data per second for $500 dollars or less, this is no longer an obstacle.
The link to the SRI paper someone asked about is
Ah, I see your point. Yes, there wasn't much energy production in this paper, although it far exceeded the limits of chemistry, as the authors pointed out. So, let's pretend the rest of the literature does not exist! Let's pretend this was the only replication of the effect, and thousands of other tests that produced far more energy just never happened.
If you narrow your vision down enough and refuse to look at more than one fact at a time, you can prove just about anything, or deny anything. When evaluating case A, pretend that cases B through Z do not exist.
Sir - I am attempting to focus on one item at a time in detail. I've pointed out the possible issues that, in my opinion, require additional review in the 1989 document. Unless these issues were addressed in a later published document, this document is inconclusive at best to me. I've also stated the two issues I have with the recent Dec. 2016 SRI document: 1) using analysis and not direct measurement to determine the input power, 2) stating in the conclusions that they are still trying to improve the calorimetry. So, the SRI document is also inconclusive at best to me. If the publishers of these two documents had waited until these issues were resolved either positively or negatively before making the decision to publish, then perhaps I could draw a conclusion from them.
Lack of expected reaction products
Conventional deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[text 6] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:
Experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate follows a particular pathway.[text 6] The products formed via these decay pathways are:
Only about one in one million of the intermediaries decay along the third pathway, making its products comparatively rare when compared to the other paths. This result is consistent with the predictions of the Bohr model.[text 8] If one watt (1 eV = 1.602 x 10−19 joule) of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured. Some researchers reported detecting 4He but without the expected neutron or tritium production; such a result would require branching ratios strongly favouring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from other experiments, directly contradicting both theoretically predicted and observed branching probabilities.[text 6] Those reports of 4He production did not include detection of gamma rays, which would require the third pathway to have been changed somehow so that gamma rays are no longer emitted.[text 6]
The known rate of the decay process together with the inter-atomic spacing in a metallic crystal makes heat transfer of the 24 MeV excess energy into the host metal lattice prior to the intermediary's decay inexplicable in terms of conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer, and even then there would be measurable levels of radiation. Also, experiments indicate that the ratios of deuterium fusion remain constant at different energies. In general, pressure and chemical environment only cause small changes to fusion ratios. An early explanation invoked the Oppenheimer–Phillips process at low energies, but its magnitude was too small to explain the altered ratios.
No, it cannot. You made that up. There is no basis for that statement in any paper on cold fusion or any textbook on calorimetry.
You are wrong by many orders of magnitude. The excess heat ranges from 1 MJ to 294 MJ. That is 239 to 70,268 food calories, or the equivalent of 12 kg of potato chips, coming from a device weighing ~1 g. That's roughly 12,000 times more energy than any chemical device can produce.
Sir, you seem to be mistaken. Here is a quote from your earlier post:
"The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over
the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction
would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis
shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form
of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment."
You may not believe it is a nuclear effects, but you should not project your belief onto the researchers. I do not think you can find a single paper by anyone who replicated who claims it is not a nuclear effect.
I checked the paper. The timeframe was roughly two months for 50Kjoules of excess energy. I focused on this paper since you chose it as an example. I have papers which talk about the possible 30% error in calorimetry measurements and I will post them shortly. Also, please stop applying my statements to everything with broad strokes. I DID NOT say that 100% of all calorimetry experiments have ~30% error. The errors in some may be around that or higher. If some LENR experiments have much lower calorimetry error than this, then other error mechanisms and sources need to be investigated to determine if they provided the "claimed" excess energy.
Here is a link to recent CF results posted this year and dated December 2016.
They claim the typical few watts of output power at a claimed COP of the typical 1.2 to 1.4. Note that they don't use the total energy that goes to the heating resistor as input energy. They try to determine the total energy from the heating element that actually makes it to the heating core as input energy. I don't necessarily agree with this method because in the real world there is always imperfect transfer of heat from one source to another. That lost energy still counts as input.
Also, in the conclusions section, they make the following statement :
Better calorimetry is regularly being optimized and implemented.
These are their words and not mine. So, even in results of less than one year ago, the authors acknowledge that they are still improving the calorimetry used to measure the CF results. I respect their honesty. I'll let people draw their own conclusions about that statement without mentioning my own.
You are losing credibility.
If you were right, engineers woudl sure know it
It can be very precise
My credibility is 100% intact. Many of these papers presented as "evidence" are dated from 1989 and 1990. Their techniques are likely not as accurate as now. In fact, some of the papers themselves allude to the high errors associated with calorimetry. For example, the tip of your index finger can put out as much heat in 2 or 3 hours as that one experiment claimed to generate in almost 2 months. You should try reading some of the papers critically before questioning my posts.
The nuclear guys regularly spend their time on effects where you're talking about 10^-16 to 10^-20, so saying that something on the order of 10^-9 "shouldn't be allowed here" is pure skeptopathy.
We are talking about claims of excess heat here and not normal exploratory science. The hot fusion scientists are being honest about the fact that they haven't generated controlled excess heat except perhaps briefly in one NIF experiment. I respect that.
I agree with the rest of your post but this doesn't make sense to me. If someone designs an experiment for which a clear cut positive result is defined, the probability of error in measurement is extremely low (including good calibration methods, best measurement methods and devices, reliable labs doing the measurement, accounting for or ruling out Shanahan's calibration constant drift, and so on)... if that can be accomplished even once out of many tries, I would be pretty sure there is an accounted phenomenon present, some sort of anomaly. If there is a low yield, I would certainly try to account for it, but it would not rule out concluding that *occasionally* known and unknown parameters of the experiment "lined up right" and something strange was indeed happening. Might even be LENR.
LENR advocates think they have reached that criterion but I am not convinced I have seen it demonstrated. And I resent the defensiveness with which it is all discussed. Asking for easy to read graphs and papers is "spoonfeeding" and asking for high level level results in which error would be extremely unlikely is "shifting the goal posts." Requesting high level results together with good calibration and calorimetry, long duration, and high signal to noise ratio is being overly fussy. Then, it follows, according to believers, I/we wouldn't believe it anyway unless the device was for sale (ridiculous!) Those are the problems. Not reaching 100% consistent results. In my estimation.
Well, you can't compromise on science. Given that calorimetry can have an error rate of 30% or more, most low level CF excess energy results should be considered inconclusive or failures unless backed up by other evidence. The excess energy from this experiment is equal to about 12 food calories or about 2 potato chips over a timespan of ~ 2 months, so this is certainly low level. And, since these are claimed atomic reactions, you also expect to see byproducts the same as other experiments. This theory that you and others might be advocating, that LENR/CF has a lower standard of proof than other fields of science is unacceptable. Only accounting for 1 part in 200,000,000 of a"claimed" event in a published paper isn't normally allowed in real science and it shouldn't be allowed here.
You acknowledged that "1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear". So for you to be clear, you need to back off from that claim and it would make sense for you to explain why you thought at one time it was "proven".
Then you acknowledge there is a nuclear effect.
Heh. Let's not get into semantics here. I acknowledge their "claim" that it is nuclear to make another point. I will never acknowledge the existence of LENR/CF unless there is an experiment that is repeatable 100% of the time by reputable entities with 100% (and not just 1 part out of 200,000,000) of the energy clearly accounted for by quantities measured during the experiment. Atom reactions at this level have by-products that are measurable. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not giving the CF/LENR people a pass on having independent 3rd parties independently collect, measure, and analyze by-products from these experiments to verify them.
The competing process must also be nuclear. There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed. They did not know what this other process could be, but later research indicated it is probably some form of D+D => helium-4.
You may not agree with the authors that this competing process must be nuclear, but I am 100% sure that is what the authors meant. I know this because I spent a lot of time with them and discussed this in detail.
Did they design their experiment to control for and, possibly, measure any excess helium 4 production?
An excerpt from the paper you posted
10^17 such reactions would have been required to produce 50 Κjoules of
energy. Our measurement of tritium shows an excess of 5 × 10^8 atoms. In other words, tritium production would only account for about 5 × 10^-9 of the observed excess energy. The main point of the tritium in this experiment is then that there are some nuclear processes involved. Some competing process must be highly favored.
They acknowledge that, per their own measurements, only one part in 200,000,000 of the energy is nuclear. The rest is from "some competing process". Since nothing seems to have become of this result, my opinion is that this "competing process" was most likely measurement error. If this is the best example there is for CF/LENR, where only 1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear, while the rest is some unknown "competing process" with no followup publication as to what the "competing process" is, then say my name.