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.

Quote from Shane D.

LINR,

17 authors from 4 universities, and 2 industries alone is some form of independent verification. In addition, this is from their report:

"Reproducibility at different laboratories: Providing two divided sample powders of PNZ-type from

same-batch fabricated powder, independent parallel test runs were carried out at Kobe University and Tohoku University. Results of excess heat generation data from both laboratories were very reproducible for room-temperature and elevated-temperature conditions. Thus, the existence and reproducibility of new exothermic phenomenon by interaction of nano-metal composite samples and H(D)-gas have been confirmed."

P.S. This is my response to LINR's post moved to Clearance.

Display More

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.

Quote from Shane D.

LINR,

17 authors from 4 universities, and 2 industries alone is some form of independent verification. In addition, this is from their report:

"Reproducibility at different laboratories: Providing two divided sample powders of PNZ-type from

same-batch fabricated powder, independent parallel test runs were carried out at Kobe University and Tohoku University. Results of excess heat generation data from both laboratories were very reproducible for room-temperature and elevated-temperature conditions. Thus, the existence and reproducibility of new exothermic phenomenon by interaction of nano-metal composite samples and H(D)-gas have been confirmed."

P.S. This is my response to LINR's post moved to Clearance.

Display More

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

There are two problems with this:

1. The experimental literature on cold fusion is already convincing. Anyone who is not convinced by it will not be convinced by additional experiments.

2. The so-called COP is is not a valid metric. It tells us nothing about the reaction. It can easily be adjusted, and it is often infinite.

Lenrisnotreal is suggesting that this funding decision should be made by people who have no knowledge of the field or the literature, and who mistakenly believe that the COP is meaningful, or that it tells us something about the reaction or the prospects for making cold fusion into a practical source of energy. In other words, he is saying we should abandon conventional scientific standards and instead let ignorant, biased, unqualified people decide whether to fund this research or not. People like him. That has what has been done for 30 years. It has failed drastically. Millions of dollars have been wasted on cold fusion projects that had no chance of success, while valid programs were never funded.

Display More

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from gio06

Sergio Orlandi (ITER project leader) opinions on "cold fusion", gse Magazine "Elementi" N. 37:

E: Qual è la sua opinione sulla contestata fusione fredda?

SO: Un approccio ridicolizzato fin dai tempi di Fleischmann

e Pons. Il brevetto dell’E-Cat di Andrea Rossi, sta però

modificando le cose. Personalmente tendo a dare fiducia a chi

lavora e produce ricerca. A patto che si sia sempre trasparenti,

nei risultati e nelle sperimentazioni. Forse in tale ambito,

queste, non sono sempre state cristalline. Ma è una strada da

tenere in grande considerazione.

E: What is your opinion on controversial "cold fusion" ?

SO: A ridiculized approach since the time of Fleischmann and Pons.

However, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat patent is changing things.

Personally I tend to trust who works and produces research.

Provided that you are always transparent, in results and experiments.

Perhaps in this context, these have not always been crystal clear.

But it's an approach to keep in high regard.

Elementi_37FF.pdf

Display More

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.

Yes, GF and some of the others are making advances. With the computing power and machining precision available now, its only a matter of time before fusion is ready as an energy source.

Quote from Dan21

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

And a more scientific look at it.

https://www.cambridge.org/core…C1BC9E0A588FB3ABAA993078C

Ok... Thanks for the information, sir.

This is still in the early experimental stages. But, this simple design could leap ahead of the other confinement techniques if (a big if) it can be scaled up.

https://futurism.com/calculations-fusion-energy-reality/

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/n…contender%E2%80%99-energy

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Here's a link that shows antimatter creation techniques. Compare the size of these, especially the decelerator, to the volume of the Ecat QX to gain an idea of how ridiculous that claim is. This machine needs a circumference of 30 meters to produce so called "low energy" antimatter.

https://home.cern/topics/antimatter

https://home.cern/about/accelerators/antiproton-decelerator

Quote from Alan Smith

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?

Quote from Alan Smith

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?