Posts by lenrisnotreal

Quote from JedRothwell

That statement is incorrect. Cold fusion has been scaled up, from a fraction of a watt in many cases to 50 to 100 W. This is done mainly by increasing the size of the cathode and by raising the temperature.

See "Peak heat from 124 tests:"

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

Have each of these experiments been replicated multiple times by authorities completely independent of the original claimants? I would think that if 100W was easy to obtain with a high COP, major universities would have published many papers about it. I just don't see it. If it only works in the claimants laboratory, the claims are inconclusive at best.

Each time someone claims a small LENR/CF effect, observers ask: why not simply chain many of the small effects together to make a larger effect with a similar COP? This is similar to chaining batteries together to increase voltage or current. The reason is because, in my opinion the claimed over-unity is due to a small measurement error which will not scale up as more devices are added. For example, assume someone measures that they put 50J of energy into a device and claim they measure 99J out by a more difficult, indirect manner. However, the actual output was 49J with measurement error of 50J. Now, they attempt to scale it up, as the observers ask. They put 500J into 10 reactors or a reaction mass that is 10 times larger. Instead of seeing 990J as expected, they see 540J. In other words, they are seeing the same COP<1 + measurement error they saw before but with a false COP of ~ 1.1 instead of ~2.

This might be one of the reasons why, after all these decades, the output of claimed LENR/CF successes never increases above certain levels: As they attempt to scale it up, the relatively fixed measurement error which caused the effect does not scale linearly with the output causing the COP to decrease towards 1 and eventually below 1.

Quote from Alan Smith

Possibly. One of my contacts works on blanket materials and he thinks maybe it can be done by the time he retires from work. But a COP if 2 is of no use- to go from electrical input to thermal input and back again to electrical input you need a COP of 6 before it gets to be economically worthwhile.

I should have been more specific. A full system COP includes conversion to electricity. That would be a starting point just like the model T was a starting point for automobiles. This system COP should improve over time as more funds are invested in this.

The important item is to confine the plasma at high T long enough to gain a positive COP. It seems that 3 or more projects are close to demonstrating that. The other issues should be much less difficult to solve for optimal performance.

Max, bang, Thh - one of the keys is that people have historically said that confining plasma at 100M C for long enough to make excess energy was the difficult problem. Now that some of the new generation of fusion devices seem to be able to confine, people are saying that all of these side issues will hold it back. I don't think so. Yes, the first version of the blanket, for example, might not have 100% conversion. But, it should have enough to give overall system COP> 2 or so.

Instead of having my posts about real fusion dumped into "clearance items", I'll try posting here. Here is a link to the fusion device currently running. This plasma looks really accurate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…r-jar-fusion-reactor.html

Quote from Alan Smith

They will be devastated to hear that. Who are you again?

The people who believed various LENR/CF claims over the years and lost hundreds of millions of dollars are devastated too I guess.

Quote from Epimetheus

You understand the difference between a table top device for single shot analysis (research) and a product meant for continuous energy production?

Sometimes it is better not to comment at al

I have a very high threshold for belief. It's a known fact that as the quantity being measured decreases, the more likely said quantity is due to measurement error or misinterpretation. If these measurements were made by reputable individuals completely independent of the claimants, I might find them more believable. I shall never believe any claim about CF/LENR made by the claimant or anyone associated with CF/LENR.

I also like how you term this big bang for these small amounts of energy.

Quote from can

In the report energy in/out figures in J are provided, like for example in Table 1:

In principle these experiments shouldn't be much different from the exploding wire experiments sometimes presented in the LENR field, but the main difference, besides that pellets instead of wires are used, is that hydrogen is present as a water impurity, e.g. adsorbed in these pellets.

This often made me wonder is instead of trying to vaporize 1.5mm "spherical shots" with 10 kA and a spot welder one couldn't simply have a slurry of fine particles in water and attempt to blow much smaller amounts with more modest currents. This wouldn't even be a novel idea in the LENR field, but usually HV discharges are used in the acqueous medium (for example, as in Brian Ahern's patent application).

If what matters is the current density, here the current would be concentrated on a much smaller amount of material and thus the density might end up being on the same order of magnitude if not higher.

With this admittedly naïve idea in mind, lately I tried some related home-made experiments with improvised zero-cost equipment, but with inconclusive results so far. Sometimes I noticed odd/unexpected reactions, but it's hard to say whether they were really anomalous. Subjective impressions only as I don't have zero-cost monitoring equipment at disposal.

Display More

As I've mentioned before, a food calorie is 4184 joules. So, this amount of claimed net energy is less than 1/20th of a food calorie. Or, for comparison, about 1/200 of the amount of chemical energy in a potato chip. Not bad for decades of work and perhaps $10's of millions of dollars, eh?

Wow! This is incredible. The breakthroughs in real fusion are starting to happen, just like I've been predicting. Check this out:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…r-jar-fusion-reactor.html

It seems at least two people who attended have acknowledged that the total system output was less than total system input. This implies two items: 1) The total system input and output were possibly measured accurately. 2) After all these years, different versions of the Ecat, etc... they are still at square 1 in terms of COP. Only total system COP matters. Stating that only 1% or so of the input goes to reactor and rest is cooling to claim a higher COP doesn't matter unless an independent entity which has failed LENR tests previously makes that determination.

How long before the ECat quarkX is replaced with yet another version of the Ecat which, as with the quarkx and all prior versions of the Ecat, will never be properly tested and will never make it to market? I made a prediction before but don't have the time to go through my posts to find it.

quote from Mats Lewan"

Having said this, it seems strange that the power supply, even if it is a complex design, is such that it needs significant active cooling, resulting in a total system that has a COP of about 1 or less at this point. On the other hand, this is what Rossi explained to be one of the challenges in further development of the system.’

"

Since the total system power output was less than total power input, the test was a complete failure. This was predicted by many on this site awhile ago.

I've long wanted a simple power in vs power out measurement for the ENTIRE Ecat system. We finally have one and, as expected, the total power out is less than the total power in. Attempting to say that 99.9% or whatever of the input goes to "active cooling" is ridiculous. I've rarely heard of a power supply that needs 1000times or whatever the power it outputs as "cooling".

Quote from JedRothwell

Most working scientists have no knowledge of cold fusion, so their views don't count. Many younger ones have never heard of it.

Counting those who have knowledge of it, meaning scientist who have read papers, I think most have a positive view. I base that on the audience at LENR-CANR.org. What do you base your statements on? Have you taken a public opinion poll? How many scientists have you heard from, and how much do they know about cold fusion?

Here is a blurb from Wiki concerning how scientists feel about CF/LENR

"

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.^[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,^[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.^[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.^[10]

"

You might want to say that most scientists who attended lenr-canf have a positive view of LENR NOT most scientists in general necessarily. Your statement would be similar to surveying participants at a meeting of the ~1 to 2% of scientists who do not believe in global warming about their views on climate change. Until the LENR researchers can produce an experiment where the quantity and type of reaction byproducts match what is expected for the quantity of excess heat claimed, I'm afraid I won't believe any of those claims. The experiment also has to be replicated by a team of individuals completely independent of the original claimants. This is to break the cycle of CF/LENR experiments only working when the original claimant runs them, usually.

The LENR debate will go round and round endlessly. One side will say all failed tests were perhaps due to errors in the replication attempts. The other side will say all positive test results were due to measurement errors, artifacts, misinterpretations, etc... An individual needs to have a scientifically provable criteria to decide whether these results are real or not. My criteria is that the mass of the produced transmuted material, the quantity of produced neutrons, and, in certain chain reaction cases, the number of photons generated, all match what is expected for the amount of claimed excess energy produced.

The counter to this will be that there could be some unknown fantasy process which has gone undetected for all these years. This process generates excess heat without any byproducts and only needs low input power.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

This is the image that comes to mind for some reason...

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Quote from bocijn

"I fully believe real fusion will beat so-called cold fusion to have a working plant"

Have you seen any timeline for Wendelstein7X reaching "working plant" status??

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060034711

bocjin - W7x is still an experiment where they are performing step by step science to determine the parameters necessary for a future plant. It will be many years before it results in a plant in the normal case. What I'm counting on is that once W7x verifies their version of real fusion to exacting, rigorous, standards, a smart tech savvy billionaire will jump in and take over. If the "SpaceX" scenario (where technology languished unchanged for decades until the private sector billionaires took over and we now have cheap reusable rockets almost overnight) happens with W7x, I see a working plant within 10 years.

Quote from JedRothwell

The real thing was published by Fleischmann, Bockris, McKubre, Miles and many others. I am sure your tests for BS will find nothing in these papers. I am not aware of any papers that found experimental errors in any of this work. I know of only two published author who tried to find errors, Morrison and Shanahan. They failed. In other words, "the real thing" has stood the test of time.

Please don't ignore the multiple failed attempts to replicate any of this, which continue even today. See IH, and Coolescense. There hasn't been a single LENR/CF experiment I know of where both the mass of transmuted material and the quantity of created photons matched what was expected above background for the claimed amount of excess energy.

As I've stated before, I fully believe real fusion will beat so-called cold fusion to have a working plant. The next real fusion reactor up at the moment is Wendelstein. It successfully completed it's initial 10 week re-start phase and is now going for performance. They apparently are running plasmas at 40 MillionC. I'll have to recheck but I think the goal for this one is about 80 to 90 Million C so they are still working towards that.

https://translate.google.com/t…e20111394.html&edit-text=

I see another Ecat demo is planned. If the demo is not run independently by a reputable party that is 100% free of anyone with prior ties to LENR/CF, then the results, to me and in my opinion only, are instantly to be dismissed and ignored.