Posts by lenrisnotreal

    The field of cold fusion/LENR is rapidly devolving into a pseudo-scientific cult (if it's not already there) where all positive claims are deemed gospel and become front page news, while all negative claims are ignored, excused, or hidden. If these effects were real (which I don't believe they are) they would be ubiquitous. However, only LENR friendly labs seem to be able to produce heat, light, electricity, gold, diamonds, antimatter, and anything else they want from these effects without radiation while everyone else fails. Wonder why this is?


    Please permanently delete my account as I'm too busy to follow or participate in this any longer. Good luck to those who believe in this in your pursuit of free energy. Perhaps you will be right with mainstream scientists' missing this effect somehow in all their experiments. I seriously doubt that, though.

    To show confidence in their results, I ask that they send their device to at least two Ivy League, Caltech, or MIT laboratories for pass/fail tests with full disclosure of the results but not of any IP. If it passes all of those tests without any involvement or intervention by LENR proponents, then I will believe that particular device has a real effect which requires further study.

    The CF/LENR field has had the same results for the past 29 years: A few carefully selected scientists at a few carefully selected labs were able to duplicate the results. Then, it stops at that point without any more progress. My theory for why this happens is that as individuals outside of LENR (with expensive, accurate, and contamination free equipment) try to reproduce the results, they fail.

    Hohum. Another day another LENR research team claims groundbreaking results. And another day where the results are not sent to an independent research lab for verification before the announcement. Move along, nothing to see here.

    I've read or reviewed dozens of papers on LENR. None of them were persuasive. I felt this way mostly because the effects were too small but also because very few had multiple independent replications. If these effects were so convincing, why hasn't there been massive investment in them? Why haven't they been scaled up to the level of a power plant?


    Since a substantial percentage of those with PhDs are hired to work for gov'ts, they have plenty of qualified individuals to make decisions concerning LENR.

    I think you have only a flimsy idea of what the wotd 'logic' means'. As for 'calling you names' not at all. You are hopefully not dumb, but your ideas are.

    No offense taken. I understand the debate on topics like these can become heated at times. Given my degree and my current job, I have enough understanding of technical topics to analyze them.

    This post is incredibly dumb. In fact it is the dumbest thing I have read since the last dumb thing you wrote. You accuse me of circular reasoning while indulging in it yourself. And as you have already decided that the end result will be failure I am tempted to ask what would be the point of the exercise in the first place? However it is very creditable of you to want the taxpayers to provide lavish funding in order to save (presumably) money they are not spending anyway.


    As for the ECat, NASA aren't interested, perhaps because they have a LENR system of their own under development....oh noes! Taxpayer dollars are being wasted again.

    My reasoning is completely logical. NASA was interested in the Ecat enough to develop a test plan for it. They also sent people to test it. Show me where NASA has invested a significant amount of money in LENR. I mean more than just to pay someone to write a study on it. As a gov't agency, their threshold for investing in science is higher than that for investors.


    I understand LENR proponents might be frustrated over the lack of progress in their field for 29 years. But, refrain from calling me names. Once LENR has been independently verified by credible researchers with access to the very latest equipment and an expensive, clean laboratory, I will admit I was wrong. I highly doubt that will happen, though.

    Many notable scientists have tried to get serious government funding for LENR projects. What on earth makes you think they have not? However, government science advisors in their infinite wisdom (some even have a relevant degree or two, but not all) have never been persuaded to fund anything that doesn't cost at least $10Bn since small projects don't provide sufficient rake-off opportunities for their political allies and donors.

    This is circular reasoning to an extent. NASA was probably willing to invest a significant sum in the ECAT if it passed a simple up/down test performed by NASA experts using NASA measuring equipment. The test never happened.


    What I'm proposing is to skip the pass/fail test any gov't employee who wants to keep their job will require to be performed before investing a large sum in LENR. Have the pass/fail test after investing a significant sum of tax dollars into a claimed working LENR device. This way, when the failure is revealed due to full public disclosure, there will be such an uproar over wasted tax dollars that perhaps a law will be passed to restrict or ban research into LENR.

    This is funny. Quite a few "high ranking" or "esteemed" individuals have come out of the woodwork lately to say they might believe in the Ecat or LENR. I say put your money where your mouth is. Talk your government into investing $5-10 million in LENR in a pass/fail, up/down experiment with a set goal of say a COP of 1.5 in terms of electricity to heat energy. This test would have full public disclosure. There would not be any NDA's to hide the failure. Nor would they be allowed to go silent to cover up the loss of tax dollars. In order to ensure maximum success and cut off any possible excuses, the inventors would be required to make the device run in overunity mode with their own equipment. Then, the testing agency would connect their tools in parallel to make the same measurements.


    This would be a "no excuses" test. If the claimants fail to make the device run at the established COP per their measurements or the test agency fails to measure the agreed upon COP or any COP>1, the test will be deemed a complete failure with no caveats and reported as such.


    The above scenario is very unlikely to happen, of course. If a gov't today publicly invested millions in LENR and the effort failed it would be a disaster. Newenergytimes and every other skeptics blog would raise such a fuss and complain so much that I wouldn't be surprised if a gov't banned all work on LENR. Look at how gov't funded ITER responded to the criticism from Newenergytimes. Investors can throw away millions on LENR whenever they want. If a gov't wastes money to that extent on an unproven science without a theory, it can cause quite a stir.

    To me, it's a question of where the budgeted government money goes. On one hand, we have ITER and NIF, both with huge amounts of government funding, and both always 20 years in the future. When I was graduating from college in 1974, the career advice was "The science of fusion plants is done, it's all engineering now" That may be true, but insurmountable engineering is just as bad as insurmountable science.


    On the other hand, we have many underfunded small fusion projects, both "hot" fusion, and "cold" fusion. They are all struggling and we only get to sit on this forum and cheer them on.

    There were proof of concepts before large sums of money were dedicated to both ITER and NIF. They did not produce net energy gain, but they were airtight from a scientific standpoint. The W7X proof of concept should also lead to massive funding once they maintain an ion plasma at ~100Million C for 30 minutes. Many of these other projects you speak of, including 100% of the LENR items, have not had a proof of concept that can survive the highest levels of scientific rigor. Thus, they can't receive a large amount of gov't funding.

    I'm starting to think these H boron announcements are meant for investors and not for researchers. How many times have you heard people in LENR/CF say they will have a working product in x years and never deliver? A lot starting with P&F. So, I think the purpose of their 10 year promise is to attract funds, even though this is real fusion. They have a theory and data from a few experiments. But they do not have a proof of concept or a test reactor. So, I will put the chance of a working overunity HB rector in 10 years at 0%. I will keep Wendelstein ahead of the pack in terms of developing a >1 COP reactor because they have a working proof of concept. They are also honest about the goals of their work.

    Coolescense was in real terms a minnow, they spent relatively modest amounts of cash over a long period. I am uncertain as to why they weren't luckier. IH are still working and still spending money, they have not withdrawn, neither have Toyota, in fact Toyota have stepped up their resource allocation twice over the last 18 months.


    So your score is 0 out of 3 so far. got any more?

    My score is 3 out of 3. Toyota was working with P&F shortly after their announcement in a lab in Europe. That ended with no breakthroughs reported. Researchers paid Mitsubishi, upon whose work Toyota's recent research is based on, funds to try their transmutation experiment. Not only did the experiment fail, they found traces of the supposed transmutation products in the laboratory. The researchers who paid money concluded that the positive results were due to contamination. IH has to date only reported failures. You can spin these facts positively if you like. But, no breakthroughs which anyone outside of the LENR can replicate have been reported by these entities.

    You have yet to tell us who these entities are. Also I admire your 'almost'. Sounds as if you are hedging your bets.

    Toyota, IH, Coolescense(sp), for starters. As per my research, they have yet to announce any breakthroughs. Many companies choose to go silent. Might be possible to add DGT to the list.

    What's happening is a classic case of the chickens coming home to roost. CF/LENR proponents have been for decades making these claims of excess heat without radiation and without the quantity of measured reaction byproducts matching the claimed quantity of excess energy. But what happens when companies and entities not actively involved in CF/LENR spend huge amounts of resources and money to verify these claims? They fail almost 100% of the time.


    CF/LENR people now are proposing these exotic, fundamental, reaction pathways to explain this. The problem here is that accurate mainstream physics research has been performed to the subatomic level without any signs of these pathways (see CERN, LHC, etc...). It defies belief, except on certain websites apparently, that none of the proposed LENR pathways were detected previously by particle physics experiments.


    As the explanations for LENR start to crossover with mainstream physics in order to gain credibility, this in fact makes them less credible.

    This was definitely my big laugh for the day. It's not that the Ecat people said this as nothing they say surprises me since I know the Ecat has never worked. What was funny is that some people seem to actually believe this. What's next? That there is a mini black hole in the Ecat?

    I am pretty sure that this work of Mizuno's will be replicated in 2018 btw, negotiations (nothing to do with me) are underway. That will be very helpful.

    If the replication attempt is performed by a group not currently involved in LENR it might be worth review.
    I see in this experiment where they "preheated" the reactant with 50W for 10 hours. I need more information on that. Why is that energy not added as input energy or am I missing something?

    I'm looking at the pdf as presented. I do not see a line at 100W. The line at 50W is clearly darker than the other horizontal lines. As an end user, it is not my job to correct graphs or determine what was actually meant by presented data. There are some other questions I have with this paper such as the pre-heating of reactants.

    lenrisnotreal : Before the next piss please read the text:


    Figure 25 shows three position of temperature changes for outside body of reactor center and reverse side of the center, and 100 mm from the center of the reactor at 100 W of input power during excess heat generation treatment.

    The text clearly states that Fig. 24 should show 100W while the actual Fig. 24 shows 50W. Therefore, there are possibly errors in this paper. This possibly invalidates it. I'm not focused on Fig 25. Only Fig. 24.

    Also, there might be an error in figure 24 of this document. According to the text, this figure should show an input power of 100W. Figure 24 appears to show an input power of 50W. If this is indeed an error, this entire paper, and all prior research by this organization, is , in my opinion only, possibly invalid due to errors in record keeping, measurements, and presentation. I'll finish my review of this document for more errors when I have more time.

    Have any of these results been replicated by an independent body not actively involved in CF/LENR research? If not, I would question them.

    I'd be way more concerned about the compression and containment part than the plasma injector part. Creating a plasma is relatively simple. Confining it and maintaining it at high T is the hard part.

    Well, at least you have managed to break away from believing in so called "high power" LENR. A lot of people are still clinging to that despite the long list of well documented failures.


    The reason these low power results fail to be reproduced outside of "LENR friendly" laboratories is that many of the errors and artifacts which produce these effects are actually known in the scientific community. That's why these low power results you believe in disappear when companies make their first attempt to characterize them at a high accuracy level: they already have an idea what the error might be. High accuracy characterization measurements are a precondition for commercialization. I hate to break it to everybody but LENR fails at this step 100% of the time.


    Also, does anyone know why MFMP has gone silent?

    I still cannot receive an answer to my question: with all of these claimed positive results, why has every effort to every effort to scale this up and verify these claims outside of the sphere of the claimant lead to failure? From what I can tell, 100% of the times companies have spent millions of dollars to scale these claims up and verify them, they have not been able to. There is really only one explanation for this disconnect.

    The first Storms book includes a list of 180 national laboratories, university and corporate laboratories that published peer reviewed papers in mainstream journals with positive cold fusion results. None have retracted. There is no better way for them to "put their name on the line." This is how it is done in experimental science. So, what you are asking for was published 30 years ago. You refuse to look at it, but that does not make it go away.


    No skeptic has ever shown an error in any of these papers. You have not even read them, so obviously you cannot point to an error. The only way to disprove a widely replicated experimental finding is to show an error in all of the replications.

    Sir, you keep mentioning these 180 or so experiments (some of which were done over 10 years ago) without addressing the most important issue: where is the followup? If these were so successful, why isn't this the main effort at all top universities and major research companies? Why weren't these efforts scaled up? Why has every company that has attempted to followup on these claims with expensive test equipment met with failure as far as I can tell? There is a huge disconnect between lab results and real world practical results here.

    (Wikipedia)

    Can someone explain why this won't work? It's pretty obvious that nobody "bothered" to figure out radioactive waste disposal for fission reactors when they were popular and constructed in numbers. And now we are awash in the extremely dangerous stuff that nobody wants to deal with Is something similar going on with hot fusion?

    Yes, this is an interesting topic. It seems tailor made for fusion energy. I'll look it up once there is some free time.