MFMP would create the buzz that piques the interest of that national lab or two. Right now they're not interested at all.
Well the big problem with LENR/CF is there is 100% buzz and 0% substance. If you had fewer individuals trying to appeal to investors and donors and more people trying to appeal to University physic's departments so they can correct the measurement errors in their tests, maybe this field would go somewhere.
So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.
Sometimes it's interesting how people pick and choose their facts. What about how companies spent over $100 million in 2017 dollars trying to replicate the P&F effect with a 100% failure rate. In some of these experiments you deem positive, there were dozens, if not hundreds of failures for every success. This means the success was likely noise or some other error. Also, how do you explain IH's not announcing any success so far? Also, no reputable University or national has ever officially given it's stamp of approval to any LENR or CF reslts although many have tried to prove it..
Well, here's my calculation of the actual resistance of the Qx given different COPs. Anyway, the Qx has a resistance of 10 ohms with the given numbers in the paper if the COP is 200 and a resistance of 1 ohm if the COP is 2000. This is not close to 0. This means, with the numbers given, the Qx is using anywhere from 50% to 90% of the supply power. Since my assumption is the real COP of the Ecat is <1 due to the failed tests with Hydrofusion's investors and IH, The inactive COP of the Ecat, the COP with the test running with an empty reactor might be very high. Real COP = COPactive/COPinactive.
data given units
case1 case2
cop 200 2000 none
Iin 0.1 0.1 amps
Pout 20 20 watts
Rseries 1 1 Ohms
calculated units
Pin 0.1 0.01 watts Pin=Pout/COP
Rqx 10 1 Ohms R=P/I^2
percent of supply to qx
%Qx 91 50 none %=100*Rqx/(Rqx+Rseries)
I thought MFMP had rejected 4 claims out of 4 so far. When they come up with their outbreak, it will be something along the lines of the Celani wire and a Geiger counter measuring Gamma rays, 2 things you'll be able to order yourself and do the test yourself. And naturally when you come up with your own positive results, you can skip all the hoohaw and simply call yourself a fraud to save all your friends all that trouble.
You didn't understand my post. I'm talking about bias even before considering a claim. Hundreds of millions of 2017 inflation adjusted dollars have been spent on LENR claims with nothing to show for it. MFMP seems to be positive about these claims some before they take measurements.
In other news, it has been mentioned that the Ecat qx has zero resistance. Violating the laws of physics wasn't enough I guess. They had to totally obliterate them. This statement is intended to be tongue in cheek and sarcastic, but IH might have discovered the Ecat had "zero" resistance before rejecting it.
Hagelstein had his NANOR/FUSOR running for months. And in fact someone came in off the street to visit him, made a video of it. That's where the f'n sheep was at that time. There have been other opportunities to visit other LENR devices operating. Eventually MFMP will fill that market need for a while.
Well, one thing is for certain, in my opinion, and that is that MFMP will never find any working LENR devices. They have already cried wolf numerous times. MFMP seems to have almost 0 rejection bias. I'm the opposite as I have close to a 100% rejection bias unless extremely airtight evidence is presented. For example, before I would waste any time considering a LENR claim, I would hire a local technician or student to use 2 simple measuring devices to make 3 measurements. I would not bother to go there myself to save on international travel costs. If there was even the slightest hesitation, resistance, interference, or delay with the taking of those measurements while the device was running in a state of claimed excess heat, I would immediately reject the claims permanently and move on to the next one. Out of every 1000 times this was done for claims of excess heat, I'd expect about 1 or 2 to not be due to obvious delusions or measurement error, and might require a followup visit with better measuring equipment. Out of 100 of these followups, I'd expect probably 1 to warrant serious investigation with more than a trivial amount of time or money invested.
High percentage? That's a new claim. I call bullshit.
I have read extensively on this subject. The wiki article was about how P&F completely failed despite being gifted 10's of millions of dollars. I stand by my assertion that all LENR/CF claims, if subjected to the very highest, most exacting standards, will fail just as the top ones are doing under IH's scrutiny. People are overlooking the dozens of different failure modes that could be responsible for each of these claims. Also, as the P&F debacle showed, it is very expensive to refute these claims. Why would people continue to spend millions of dollars of scarce research money to continue to refute these claims which always fail when under expert review? Just because people don't waste resources to analyze these claims anymore doesn't make them real. Assuming it does is faulty logic.
That makes no sense, for two reasons:
1. Over 180 highly reputable universities and government labs replicated, as shown in Storms Table 2. They all had zero involvement before 1989, when no one knew about cold fusion. No one anywhere was associated with cold fusion except Paneth and Peters in 1927, and Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. What you are saying is that as soon as someone at Los Alamos, China Lake or BARC replicates, that makes the institution tainted and we can no longer trust them. So, no institution will ever be able to replicate to your satisfaction.
2. If you insist on "no failures" you will never accept the reality of any physical effect or experiment. Experiments always fail. Even industrial production fails at times. Up until the mid-1950s, with many transistor types, nearly every device in a batch failed. Rockets have been in intense development since 1945, and they often carry payloads worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, yet they still often explode.
from wikipedia:
In 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[54] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.[56] The IMRA laboratory stopped cold fusion research in 1998 after spending £12 million.[1] Pons has made no public declarations since, and only Fleischmann continued giving talks and publishing papers.[56]
You can't pick and choose. A quick search will show there have been likely thousands of failed CF/LENR attempts. Also, a high percentage of the positive claims were retracted once experts used their advanced techniques to study the data.
Well, as I predicted in an earlier post, the Ecat people are intentionally refusing to properly measure the inactive COP of the system. They are doing this by excluding measurements of the controller power. Since every other power/energy system measures controller power as part of the input , I feel they should do so here too.
LINR (that is pretty funny in and of itself) - with one exception, we have found math errors, some unintentional self-deception, some see what you want to see
and / or orders of magnitude measurement issues in the projects we have parked. The remaining projects have survived that level of scrutiny and we have brought in world class outside expertise to help us sort through balance of the portfolio. We don't plan to continue with any project that doesn't pass the muster of an external qualified 3rd party verification. For the record, the 3rd party standard is very high.
Heh, what does LINR stand for? Laugh Inducing (non) Nuclear Reactions?
Display MoreThey were replicated by several others. However some skeptics feel anyone who replicates must be a true believer and not a reputable 3rd party, so the skeptics keep demanding that someone else replicate it, and then someone else, and then someone else. Anyone who replicates cold fusion loses his reputation and is no longer a 3rd party. It is a Catch 22.
It is a little difficult to imagine how a "calibration error" could give the illusion that water is boiling away or that a cell remains too hot to touch for hours. Those are first principle manifestations of heat. You have a vivid imagination, but I doubt you can offer a rigorous description of this supposed error.
Without specifics you have nothing. "There may be a calibration error" is not falsifiable. You have to show specifically what calibration error may have occurred, and you have to show that the methods and data do not rule out that error. Waving your hands and saying "there might be an error" is meaningless because, as I said, that applies equally well to every experiment going back to Newton. There might be a way to hold a prism such that it shows white light is NOT actually composed other colors. That experiment has been done millions of times, but it is possible there is an error in it that has not been discovered yet. But if that is your hypothesis you have to be specific and show us how to hold the prism. Or, in the case of the Fleischmann experiment, you have to show that the heat of vaporization that was established in the 18th century by Joseph Black has been wrong all along, and you are the first to realize this. You will win a Nobel for this revelation, so do not hide your light under a bushel. Tell Us What You Know.
Note that Shanahan points to a specific error -- a moving heat source. Anyone can see this is ruled out by the data. The calibration constant does not change when the source of the heat is deliberately moved. In that respect, that aspect of his claim is falsifiable.
Well, my criteria for believing this has always been the same: if at least two or three highly reputable universities or government agencies replicate any of these effects with zero involvement by anyone associated with the LENR/CF field and with no failures, then I will believe it is real, too. When you look at how quickly IH disproved so many of the claims that people on boards like this point to as "real scientific evidence", it's clear that expert independent testing is the only way to verify this.
I'll add that although I question the decision to invest in any LENR/CF by IH, I must applaud them for the work they did once they had full access to all the top LENR technology. Their team of experts rigorously tested these technologies against the tough standards of real science. They discovered that maybe around 75% of them, including the Ecat, did not work. Out of the few remaining, they haven't announced success on any yet. Although IH will likely lose the 10's of millions+ they invested in this, their work served a greater purpose. By thoroughly disproving all of the top LENR claims, IH has likely prevented 100's of millions more from being wasted as investment in this field. Hopefully, any potential investor in this field will think: "IH had full access to everything and their experts failed to replicate any of the effects. Why would I think we could do better?".
Display MoreIt is not miraculous. It is just a fact of nature. It is definitely LENR because there is no chemical fuel in the cell.
You don't see it because you refuse to look. Fleischmann and Pons performed this test hundreds of times. They did 16 cells at a time, repeated hundreds of times. The heat after death lasted for hours in some cases and days in others. I know you do not believe this, but you don't believe any other results for that matter, so your state of belief is no indication of what is true.
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
A video of a boil-off event:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.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.
Mizuno and others also saw 20 to 100 W of output with no input, lasting from 1 to several days. Others saw high output with minimal input power.
Were any of these effects replicated by reputable 3rd parties? Otherwise, they may be calorimetric calibration error.
“There are a couple of them that we’re pretty definitive about not pursuing anymore and that was one of them,” Darden adds. “But we still have at least half a dozen we’re still pretty seriously interested in.” Tom Darden.
Candidates reduced by 50% already.
It might likely be down to 0 with IH out of business in the not to distant future, I predict. It's possible they did not do proper due diligence before throwing money into this. Given the rate at which they have abandoned so many of the initial projects after their experts tested them, including Ecat, you have to ask what the initial criteria was for selecting one anyway.
Real science doesn't carve out reputation traps for areas of research involving intriguing results, particularly when the potential upside to humanity far outweighs any potential negatives that might come about by devoting some resources to further clarify those results.
There have been 0 intriguing results in LENR/CF. An "intriguing" result in real science would be one that has been replicated by at least two independent, reputable sources without any failures. A failed experiment which results in an unexpected exothermal chemical event does not count as a success in real science. Since LENR experiments are only successful when the person claiming the excess heat has involvement in them, the results are uninteresting.
No need to be a twit. These are human beings taking time away from their families in the pursuit of knowledge, which is shared openly with all. They have never suggested to "take my word for it." They just happened to share some safety concerns about neutron emission emphasized by Piantelli. They have some more open live science experiments lined up for later this year.
Well, my definition of science and your definition of science are different. Real science is very strict and unforgiving, unlike LENR believers. And that's how it should be.
Also, it looks like MFMP is once again posting unverified, non-replicated, "take my word for it" results as actual science. I guess they need more donations for their international vacations.
One reference will do. Show a reference that claims that all results have been tiny. Would that be Wikipedia? Or the Scientific American? I have those.
That is incorrect.
Nope. Equipment error has nothing to do with it. The effect cannot be commercialized because it cannot be controlled sufficiently. Because the reaction cannot be controlled well, if you were to build a large Pd-D reactor, it might produce 1 kW, or it might momentarily produce ~100 kW and explode. Several reactors have exploded. See:
Where are the replications performed by 3rd party experts? I've searched the CF/LENR literature and found close to 0 replications for any of it. And, in one of the explosive cases, one explosive event out of many runs doesn't prove anything. Quoting one the papers you posted:
Unexplained Explosion During an Electrolysis Experiment in an Open Cell Mass Flow Calorimeter
by Jean-Paul Biberian
"
It seems that there are two regimes in Cold Fusion, one is steady at low level of excess heat, and the other one is fast and energetic.
"
This proves my point that CF/LENR results are normally very low energy at steady state. The only "high power" LENR events are explosions which are likely chemical in nature.
Display MoreI don't know about "leaks." All the projects I heard about over the last 30 years were real. Only a few were secret. For the rest, there was nothing to leak. You can find out all about them easily. Just read the papers they published in journals or proceedings. Most of them are at LENR-CANR.org.
Many of these projects failed. On the other hand, many of them amounted to a lot. They proved the effect is real; they proved the tritium is real and the helium is commensurate with the heat; and they showed methods of improving materials and controlling the reaction.
I do not know where you are getting your information. Wikipedia, perhaps? Or you are making stuff up and posting it here. I suspect you have not actually read anything about cold fusion.
Nothing violates the laws of physics. No scientist has ever claimed that cold fusion does. If it did, it would not exist, obviously.
Well. sir, I have read and reviewed virtually every document and analysis about CF/LENR, including many you have not. I'll start posting references from now on as that might help. All positive LENR results I have seen have been tiny and near the range of equipment error, if equipment error were calculated properly. If they were clearly outside the range of equipment error, they would have been commercialized. That's the CF/LENR catch 22: all positive results are within or near the measurement error range so they can't be reliably replicated or commercialized.
Shane - I believe that the good news is coming. I've seen a snapshot of a related reaction - its encouraging and is being conducted by accountable grown-ups. The small reactor works well enough for next steps.
Expecting broader progress in the coming months.
Heh. There have been plenty of "leaks" and innuendo concerning CF/LENR over the past ~30 years. None of it amounted to anything. Keep in mind that making a reactor work functionally so it generates a reaction of some sort is one thing. Making it work so that it generates excess heat and violates the laws of physics is another thing. Also, many of these research groups will never admit failure. They will say things like: we are making progress, work is ongoing, the issues are being addressed, etc... Even after failing repeatedly at everything they have tried ,they have to give the impression that success with LENR/CF is possible until the last moment. This is so the maximum funding and donations flow in. There is an obvious example of this besides the Ecat going on now which I won't mention by name.
