Posts by oystla

    The figure 20 and figure 26 are rather convincing that something interesting is going on.


    Excess temperature of 4,5 degC for 14 continous hrs with the same input power compared to no excess event is Significant.


    26% higher outlet temp in excess event for same input temp as in a null event is Significant.

    ".... IH were, as stated by Murray under oath, going the extra mile to try and get positive validation of Mizuno's reactors. Hence their negative result tells us more than any analysis of the report."


    "The lack of such replication therefore is additional evidence that IH's failure to replicate is because the result is non-replicable and therefore most likely some error in the experiment. "

    Someone trying to replicate once or twice is not a good definition of "going the extra mile".


    If IH where serious they should done the experiment ten times over and cooperated with Mizuno to avoid all possible mistakes.


    Fleischman and Pons only achieved excess heat in some one of eight cells in their experiment in the eighties, therefore they had many cells going. In France in tye early nineties they reported achieving a higher frequency of excess heat cells.

    Next comment, again on page 12 and the most critical formula of them all


    The formula (3) is missing one term,


    The report states energy out as


    (3). Hout= ∑oT dV * p * S * Hc * dt


    "Where dT𝛥𝑇 is the average temperature difference between the air inlet and outlet, Tout , Tin. during the time interval d𝛥t, and where V is the fan wind velocity (m/s); S is the area of the air outlet, 4.4 × 10−3 m2; ρ is the air density, 1.293 kg/m3 at 273.2 K, and Cp the average heat capacity of air. "


    First it is a little confusing to use T both for time and temperature, but T on top of the summation sign must be the total time of the test. So it is a sum of the energy multiplications of each time step of 24,5 seconds during the test of total time T.


    I believe the correct formula should read

    (3). Hout= ∑t=ot=T dT * V * p * S * Hc * dt


    By this we We would the get the correct notation = Kelvin * m/s * kg/m3 * m2 * KJ/kgK * s = KJ i.e. Energy


    Now then, I doubt that Mizuno has used wrong formula in the calculations and presentations, it is just a typing error in the report.


    Regards

    Øystein Lande

    Hello everyone, long time since I've been here, but had to take a look into the interesting Mizuno report.


    Regarding page 12, last paragraph "Figure 17 shows the relationship between the blower input and the air flow rate obtained from the air volume calibration results "


    He states using a anemometer for calibration. If only by air velocity measurement it may no be adequate, since velocity profile is not uniform over a pipe area.


    It would be interesting to rather see a calibration curve of input power vs. Actual volumetric flow in liters pr.second instead. It would be easy to connect a plastic bag of known volume on the air outlet of the insulated box to verify the volumetric flow and rather calculate a related velocity vs power curve.


    May be someone could Ask Mizuno to do such a test?


    Regards

    Øystein Lande

    Pierre:


    When new discoveries contradicts the ruling Paradigm, it takes a Looong time to convince science of new realities.


    LENR is considered Broadly in same category as UFOlogy. Therefore Scientists don't want to have their name tainted by seriously read or evaluate potential proof of LENR.


    Mostly scientists just comment why LENR can't be true based on the "laws of nature". And they move on to less controversial stuff.


    A similar story to this may be the story of the Hessdalen lights in Norway.


    Since the 1950's moving lights where observed in the Valley "Hessdalen" in Norway, with a top during the mid 80's.


    The usual answer from scientists where that these lights where car lights, airplanes or Venus.


    And no Scientists where willing to seriously study these lights, since the mystery where named Hessdalen UFO's during the 80's. Not because the UFO naming where incorrect, but because UFO where too closely related to aliens visitors. And no serious scientists would like their name be connected to UFO observations.


    But the light's never went away. And guess what: Finally, in 2010 French and Italian scientists together with a Norwegian University set up instruments to observe the lights.


    They have measured the light spectrum and know something about the components that a involved, but the light's origin and energy source is still a mystery.


    Something that are not explained by present theories of Physics....yet...and a phenomenon that does not appear every day or when you would like it to.........because we don't understand all the required conditions .......just like LENR


    May be we are observing atmospheric LENR in action? :crazy:

    Food for thoughts:


    Here is a recent discovery for everyone (including the sceptics) to think about.


    The physists in 1989 where Quick to laugh and dismiss the Fleischmann and Pons thought that anything interesting could be happening when Deuterium atoms where under extreme confinement inside Palladium.


    And now a new surprising fact of water when locked into Berryllium crystal, at "extreme confinement"....


    And WOW, what an interesting phrase "This is in complete disagreement with accepted models......."


    Disagreement? Really? You mean like Cold Fusion? :D


    http://www.iflscience.com/phys…m-state-water-discovered/


    Prediction: There is probably some clues here for a working LENR theory.


    “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
    ― Albert Einstein

    So we know CAM knows of the words Cold Fusion, LENR, IAEA, BNL, EXFOR, GANS, NEA, OECD, ...


    BUT: He is yet to tell us If he actually KNOWS something.


    Like something about cold fusion science, CF papers, CF experiments, CF experimental results and possible consequences of CF on our current knowledge of matter and physics.


    "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
    ― Richard Feynman

    CAM: "Do you maintain that some APS members are recognized and accepted cold-fusionists? This would be a real scoop. Let us know."


    Are you joking- again?


    CAM, You made a rediculus Claim saying "Don't worry, you can find the acronim lenr only in this string: lenr-canr.org. It is only a ludicrous invention by some cold fusionist. Outside this Forum nobody knows the word lenr."


    And I told you that APS have had numerous presentations of papers at their meetings.


    And if you would be less LAZY you would find these facts. So stop talking and do some homework!

    CAM: "If you are lacking official recognition for 27 years, you don't even exist."


    CAM, 27 years are no time. It may take many decades for new discoveries to be accepted. And facts of science change over time.


    The physicist Max Planck seems to have summed up the issue with this maxim: “New scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”


    From the 1930's Until late 1990's it was an undeniable fact of science that gravity slowed down the expansion of our universe. If you theorised anything different it was laughed at.


    But then several observations told us that the universe is flying apart—faster and faster. It changed everything we ever knew about the cosmos.


    and here is something for everyone to read:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373380/

    CAM,


    So your insanity continues?


    "....warning all people here about the difference between lenr-canr.org and EXFOR."


    Of course there are a difference, so what?
    Is this a competition in repetition?


    While LENR-canr.org reports on a highly interesting mystery of nature, EXFOR just reports on what is allready known.


    Not mysteries like nuclear interactions in dark energy, dark matter or LENR.


    And I will not be surprised If a connections between LENR and dark matter or dark energy is discovered.


    CAM: "Nobody should begin a scientific research without scanning all vetted data contained in reliable databases....."


    Many Scientific discoveries would have been missed If your "first study, then Experiement" recipe where followed. Like pour some wine on a superconductor and see what happens ;-) 
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/5731129…e-an-incredible-discovery


    CAM, you have a lack of understanding how science progress and new knowledge is gained


    And I will repeat : by your arguments it would go like this:
    1. We OBSERVE something mysterious in nature, like the accelerating expansion of the Universe, let's call it "dark energy", since we don't know the excact mechanism.
    2. Now you check your EXFOR database and find nothing of dark energy. But it must have some nuclear interactions if the observation is true.
    3. Therefore you conclude the observation must be wrong, or Else it should be listed in EXFOR.
    4. So your final conclusion is that dark energy is junk science, junk observation. "GANS does not Believe in dark matter and dark energy, since EXFOR don't has it"

    CAM,


    Wrt "I prove that GANS doesn't believe in cold fusion. The database EXFOR is GANS.
    Let me joke: outside exfor there is no salvation."


    Don't you see the insanity in your statement?


    It does not "prove" a belief in any direction.


    It only reports objectively What is known. And what is yet not understood, therefore not reported. GANS don't take an opinion on science.


    But by your arguments it would go like this:
    1. We OBSERVE something mysterious in nature, like the accelerating expansion of the Universe, let's call it "dark energy", since we don't know the excact mechanism.
    2. Now you check your EXFOR database and find nothing of dark energy. But it must have some nuclear interactions if the observation is true.
    3. Therefore you conclude the observation must be wrong, or Else it should be listed in EXFOR.
    4. So your final conclusion is that dark energy is junk science, junk observation. "GANS does not Believe in dark matter and dark energy, since EXFOR don't has it"

    GinoB,"Nuclear" is also used for the N, since there must be some nuclear mechanism yet to be identified.
    And the LE have also meant Lattice Enabled.


    Personally I liked the name LANR= Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, since this phenomenon is connected to condensed matter lattice, as opposed to high temperature plasma for ordinary fusion processes.


    Since the mechanism is not identified, the new nickname is may be the better one:
    AHE=Anomalous Heat Effect
    Or The origin of it all FPHE= Fleischmann and Pons Heat Effect.
    They Even patented the use of Nickel, but they never investigated Nickel experimentally AFAIK.


    May be CMAHE should be used, which indicates it is connected to condensed matter only(?)
    CMAHE= Condensed Matter Anomalous Heat Effect.


    When CF us finally understood, the final name will also rise, based on the excact mechanism.

    CAM,


    It's 23 years since my days at the University, so I may have forgotten the excact definition. But I was not far off when saying radioactivity. This is the definition from ACS:
    "
    Nuclear chemists work with various isotopic forms of elements to study fission and fusion processes, or they delve into the effects of ionizing radiation on materials, living organisms (including people), and the environment."

    CAM, "CF mystery was solved in 1-4 May 1989 in Baltimore. It wasn't a mystery, but an episode of incompetence and delusion."


    You evidently have not studied the story of 1989. Let me remind you of What went on back in 1989:


    In 1989 Dr. Steven E. Koonin of CALTECH (where he was then an employee) called the F&P claim a result of "incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann". And the physcists at the APS meeting 3.May 1989 bursted into applause.


    So one of the greatest scientists of calorimetry in the 20th century, Martin Fleischmann, was incompetent when it came to measure.....excess heat by calorimetry. What an irony.


    The debunking of cold fusion by the physics community was a Shame of science, and the biggest mistake in science of the 20th century. CF was actually a new discovery, that could have solved much of the global warming problem. But physicists turned their back on Fleischmann and Pons way too early. The physisists used some 40 days and 40 nights (!) to conclude and place CF into the Category of pseudoscience, or as "pathological" science as they named it. And the deciding institutes where CALTECH and MIT.


    F&P had been doing these experiments since 1983. And physisists concluded in 40 days. What an irony.


    But F&P where right in their excess heat measurements, energies far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But physicists are just like people in general: don't like changes, especially from "outsiders".


    The problem in 1989 and which possibly still exists, is that physicists thinks there are no possibilities of "mysterious" nuclear reactions that would not produce expected gamma rays. The complete herecy of 1989 was that two chemists dared to claim some new unthinkable discovery within the area of physics. Like some outsiders trying to learn the dear physicists something completely new. Well, It took only 40 days for the physicists to shoot them down. Would not help If they had a new theory to explain it. Actually, It would make it only worse, since it would be inconcievable that some non physicists where to both discover a new phenomenon and have the theory to explain it. All physicists knew and still know that with nuclear reactions and fusion follows gamma radiation, and none where measured. So it had to be a pure chemical effect or measurement errors. But nature is full of surprises , and we have not reached the end of science..yet..


    After this event Cold Fusion was put in same category as Ufology, so only the boldest scientists would touch the subject, on the risk of their career.


    Anyhow: there are dusins of LENR theories, but lack of funding and interest in the Scientific community holds back the progress of the field. And no theory will initially be able to explain all phenomena, enough with one testable that can predict some outcome as a start.

    CAM: "As a chemist who opposes cold fusion I am only interested in nuclear reactions."


    A really strange strategy you have chosen for your battle.


    As a chemist you should rather be highly interested in the Fleischmann and Pons type experiments, and let physisists take the nuclear battle. It's not your field of expertice.


    You should rather Focus your fight against CF within your field of expertice. Say, Why not publish some critical papers on experiments related to F&P type electrochemistry?


    Too much work you say ? You mean you are better at talk,talk, talk? Because talk is actually your expertice, not chemistry?


    CAM: "The title reads: IAEA Nuclear Data Services. Maybe somebody can offer you information about databases on dark matter. I know nothing about that item, so please don't ask me, ask rather physicists."


    AND you misunderstood my point completely. Which is that dark matter is not in nuclear data banks, since it still is a mystery. So far that is. Just as LENR is a mystery yet to be finally Solved.


    AND when dark matter is identified you will find experiments and data in your precious databanks related to dark matter and dark energy. Just as you will when CF mystery is Solved.


    So please, stop your stupid comments and get a life. Like work, work, work, instead of talk, talk, talk ;-)

    CAM:Wrt your "You can rely on nuclear experiments only if they are reported in Exfor (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data), managed by IAEA and BNL."


    And again and again you confuse scientific experimental discoveries of anomalies in nature with normal mundane nuclear laboratory experiments with known reactions.


    First experimenters stumbled on an energy anomalie. Then by careful analysis chemical sources where discarded. What's left is a nuclear reaction. But the excact mechanism is yet to be agreed upon, among the dusins of theories proposed. When science has agreed upon the theory, you will find reports in your precious nuclear databases. CLEAR? So it's time you stop your stupid repeating comments on this issue.


    CAM: "I regret, but as no articles in your collection are reported in acknowledged database, your collection should be considered scientific garbage."


    Another really stupid comment. So scientific papers on dark energy and dark matter is garbage? Or do you find nuclear reactions related to dark matter in your precious databases?

    Joshua,


    One of the i Initial problems was reproducibility. This haunted the early days of Cold Fusion, and why many scientists discarded it as measurement errors.


    So; if an effect only occur in say one out of ten experiments, it is not science? And not worth investigating, and let's move on for the easier stuff? Good reproducability depends either on a good theory, or you stumble upon an experimental reproducible setup where all the right conditions are met.


    You claim that science will show "great interest within the broader academic community rather quickly" if reproducible experiments are presented. History shows that it's not that easy. The progress of science is much harder, Especially if new discoveries goes against paradigms of its time.


    But Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory's potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred.


    Back to LENR's. What conditions needs to be made for heat bursts to occur in say deuterium loaded Palladium? which was the setup used by Fleischmann and Pons.


    F&P managed to get bursts of heat in may be one of eight electrolytic cells back in 1989. They increased the reproducability in the nineties, but the field was then no longer part of maintsream science. And the power and energy densities during the heat bursts was far out on the Ragone chart similar to this swedish report.


    Anyhow; one condition to be met was found in the early nineties; you need at least 92% loading of deuterium in Palladium to have any hope of seeing heat bursts. The trials at Caltech,MIT and other laboratories in 1989 where nowhere close to 90%. So There where no hope for them to see anything similar to Fleischman and Pons.


    More money and Scientists Are needed to Solve the mystery.

    Joshua:


    You seem to have litle knowledge of what happened in 1989 and the years following. Science evaluate LENR within the thought processes of hot fusion. But LENR is not hot fusion. So what? If nature tells us that LENR may occur with the right conditions, are we not to investigating further? When experiemental result disagree with theory we have an interesting mystery to be solved. Most scientists will leave the problem concluding flawed experiement. That's what they did with Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons in 1989.
    But when many later independently confirmed similar results, then what?


    I agree with Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, who states;
    "we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are nor considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."

    CAM,


    You misunderstand the process of Scientific discovery and progress of new knowledge.


    If experimental results does not fit present accepted theory, it should be exlained, either by identifying the error in measurements or by identifying a new theory that explains the phenomenon.


    Therefore, when mainstream science allow Publishing anomalous results from experimental research, like the Japanese, the rest of the Scientific environment should pick up the ball and investigate the phenomenon. Not, as you state, just ignore the results.


    You may ignore what nature show you, but it won't get you anywhere!


    Science have to rise to the challenge that started with Fleishmann and Pons. Enough resources must be spent to fully understand the cause of excess heat phenomenon that where discovered by F&P.

    Cam,


    You claimed "cold fusion are only present in ICCF or in Jed Rothwell's collection"


    And I showed you that you are totally wrong in your assumption.


    And now, your argument is that these papers passed Peer review because of a "heavy scientific lie".


    Are you serious, or are you making an assumption? how do you know the comptetence of the Peer reviewers? Many physists are also highly competent chemists, and your assumed "Lie" would have been discovered in the Peer review process.


    If you have problems with one of the papers, you should publish a critisism and give the authors a chance to answer your questions. You have probably misunderstood something vital. Don't worry these scientists have been doing these types of experiments for and basic research for 8 years or more. They know what they are doing.


    And here are more papers. So you see, there are dosens of CF papers in mainstream journals.


    Lipson, Andrei, Lyakhov, B.F., Roussetski, Alexei S., Akimoto, T., Mizuno, T., Asami, N., Shimada, R., Miyashita, S, Takahashi, A, "Evidence For Low-Intensity D-D Reaction As a Result Of Exothermic Deuterium Desorption From Au/Pd/PdO:D Heterostructure," Fusion Technology, Vol. 38, p. 238-252, Sept. 2000


    Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G., "Characterization of Tracks in CR-39 Detektors Obtained as a Result of Pd/D Co-deposition," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, 46, 30901, DOI: 10.1051/epjap/2009067, (17 April, 2009)


    Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G., "Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 40, p. 293–303, (Dec. 13, 2007) DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007152


    Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E., "Further Evidence Of Nuclear Reactions In The Pd/D Lattice: Emission Of Charged Particles," Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 94(6), p. 511-514, DOI 10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7 (March 2007)


    Kitamura, Akira, Nohmi, Takayoshi, Sasaki, Yu, Takahashi, Akito, Seto, Reiko and Fujita, Yushi, "Anomalous Effects in Charging of Pd Powders With High Density Hydrogen Isotopes,” Physics Letters A, Vo. 373 (35), p. 3109-3112 (24 August 2009), (Online July 3, 2009)

    CAM,


    There are many Cold Fusion papers in mainstream Science Journals. These are just a few ones:


    Iwamura, Yasuhiro, Sakano, Mitsuru, and Itoh, Takehiko (July 2002) "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics A, Vol. 41, p. 4642-4650


    Iwamura, Yasuhiro, (Presented Nov. 14, 2012) "Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Nano- structured Pd Multilayer Thin Film," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 422-425, (Nov. 2012)


    Hioki, Tatsumi, Takahashi, Naoko, Kosaka, Satoru, Nishi, Teppei, Azuma, Hirozumi, Hibi, Shogo, Higuchi, Yuki, Murase, Atsushi and Motohiro, Tomoyoshi (October 4, 2013) "Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Study on the Increase in the Amount of Pr Atoms for Cs-Ion-Implanted Pd/CaO Multilayer Complex with Deuterium Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 52(10R), p. 107301-1 - 107301-8


    Cirillo, Domenico, "Slow Neutron Generation by Plasma Excitation in Electrolytic Cell," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 418-421, (2012)


    Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G. “Detection of Energetic Particles and Neutrons Emitted during Pd:D Co-deposition,” Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, American Chemical Society, eds Marwan, J. and Krivit, S.B., p. 311-334 (2008)


    And CAM, your comments like "CF does not exist since it is not in EXFOR" is stupid, strange, naive and makes no sence.
    We have not reached the end of science, and that includes physics.

    So, If I get this right:


    Jed Rothwell have read the ERV report through some oral or written NDA....
    Or may be has not ? I'm confused..


    Jed - "That's based on a sample of Rossi's data alone -- which is all I have."


    Jed have evaluated the 1MW reactor and found obvious important errors done by the ERV? Like flowmeter type/ placement, = "faultymeter" ;-)


    As Jed has stated
    - " This is a technical question. It is about flow rates, temperatures, steam quality and so on."
    -"I say it produces no heat because the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed...."
    -"For example, it is obvious the flowmeter has to be giving the wrong answer. Knowing only the type of flowmeter and configuration, I am sure it is wrong. But I can only make a very rough estimate of how wrong it might be"
    -"The methods Rossi & Penon used to measure the heat balance do not meet code. No HVAC engineer will testify they work. The choice of instruments and configuration were preposterous, and the data is meaningless. "
    "...any licensed HVAC engineer can measure the input and output of a boiler, with high confidence" - so... An HVAC engineer can, but a nuclear engineer is incompetent in the same area?


    Jed Rothwell have a Bachelor of Arts (BA) from Cornell U. 1976 in Japanese language and literature. And He questions the measurements and conclusions made by a Nuclear engineer with claimed long experience in steam and energy measurements....


    And Jed, the librarian, thinks everyone Obviously should accept his asessments...


    Something funny with this picture, or am I missing something?