Posts by oystla

Eric, This is what he says of himself at physics stackexchange:

"I am a PhD physical chemist (U. Cal-Berkeley, 1984) currently working for the Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, SC. Since 1995, I have and currently work in a group supporting our hydrogen isotope separation and purification process in the Tritium Facility of the SRS. SRNL is a DOE-lab and part of the Savannah River Site (SRS), which is a DOE-owned, contractor-operated facility built over 50 years ago as a major part of the nuclear weapons complex. In the past we made plutonium and tritium. As such I work for a contractor company but my salary is traceable to the US DOE.

Prior work/school experience includes dynamic chemical process modeling, with a brief spin-off into industrial engineering modeling, with a brief spin-off into industrial engineering modeling, analytical laboratory quality control method support (i.e. fixing broken analytical methods - lots of applied statistics), polymer chemistry (esp. DACRON), titanium dioxide chemistry, surface chemistry (school), explosives chemistry, 1H-NMR (undergrad), inelastic electron tunneling spectroscopy (school)."

Thomas,

If you have issues with the paper of Higgins, you should challenge him, not me. He is frequently on this forum.

And Nice to hear you think your own paper is well written, good for you

Anyhow, I find the paper of Higgins a litle more convincing. It's just the way he builds his case to prove his point

Yes, he estimated 1130 degC, and the figure 8 was carefully deduced.

And, yes Stephan Boltzmann law will apply ( T^4), but of course if a single emissivity Value is used it must be based on a weighted average of the whole band of the emitted spectrum.

Another indication of temperature actually being at least 1100 degC, is the Ash sintering indicated from Axil. And It's likely that an important part of the energy have been emitted from the core in the spectrum of high alumina transmittance, meaning the temperature could be 1400 degC or higher in the core.

Anyhow, my conclusion is that IR was a terrible choice of deducing energy released, as long a LENR energy spectrum is unkown.

I notice Kirk Shanahan has listed his CF critique papers in a post on this thread (A software programmer for Westinghouse Savannah River Company).

And in his critisism,

- Shanahan chooses to ignore the preponderance of reliable scientific evidence for nuclear effects in LENR that has accumulated since 1989.

- Shanahan applies highly selective criteria to cherry-pick certain experimental data with potential deficiencies which are vulnerable to attack. He uses these as distractions to cast doubt on the entire large body of credible LENR data that lies outside the very limited subset on which he focuses his narrow lens.

Anyhow, scientists in LENR community has answerred his critique, proven his mistakes and his misunderstandings. This paper was issued in 2010. Part of conclusion:

"Indeed, peer-reviewed published papers and conference presentations have long disproved Shanahan’s chemical/mechanical suppositions regarding LENR observations. Furthermore, contrary to Shanahan’s assertions, the observed effects are often several orders of magnitude larger than the measurement errors. For example, in a variety of2experiments, the solid-state nuclear track detector background was less than1track/mm whereas the signal exceeded 10,000 tracks/mm2!

"Excess heat production in Szpak and Mosier-Boss’ electrolytic Pd/D co-deposition system was first measured by Miles and then replicated by Letts. Kitimura and Ahern have both replicated excess heat from Arata and Zhang’s gas-loaded Pd/ZrO2 nanostructures."

Ref.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71632

Mary, it was a 0,2 weight% Ash sample that may have had100% 62Ni. Surely it was very likely not representative of total Ash.

Axil, may be you are right, in which case a large important part of core LENR energy must have been radiated through the alumina without heating it, i.e in the part of spectrum of high alumina transmittance and outside the IR camera spectral range.

".......compatible with the known surface temperature of the alumina (780C)."

780 degC??

And what would be wrong with the analysis of Bob Higgins, which concluded 1100 degC?

https://drive.google.com/file/…4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view

The only thing we can be certain of wrt the Lugano test is that the alumina surface temperature was not as high as 1400 degC.

But that does not mean that COP was lower than stated in the Lugano report. It could be even higher. Too many unkown parameters. Like energy spectrum of LENR and related alumina transmittance.

Use of IR thermal measurments is not suitable to evaluate energy released from LENR.

Majorana, nuclear transmutations have been the focus of Japenese scientists for many many years, rather than excess heat.

But also Brullioun is using pure Ni/H system?

I wrote the following in another thread, which may be a point....or not :

"
There is a common feature of both Brullouin, Piantelli and Rossi. They all use Nickel/hydrogen system and a stimulus system.

So either they all got it or none of them has it.

Triggering and stimulus is a vital ingredient. I think there's the failure of many or all replication attempts.

To sum up what I've stated earlier on triggering;

1. Brilliouin is using electrical stimulation on their reactor.

Ref. Mckubre stated on Brillouin: "The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”

2. Swartz have discovered something interesting:
"Astonishingly, it has now been discovered that high intensity, dynamic, repeatedly fraction- ated, magnetic fields have an incremental major, significant and unique, complex, metachronous amplification effect on the preloaded NANOR⃝R -type LANR device"

"H-field pulse sequence was delivered (dH/dt ∼1.5 T with 0.1 ms rise time × 1000–5000 pulse"

Ref.

iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol15.pdf#page=73

3. Rossi is using some kind of electromagnetic stimulation....

I have tried to Ask him several times on stinulation, but he allways says "no comment" or "confidential"

A reason why Rossi will not comment on stimulation of the core may be because Piantelli allready have patented such mechanisms, as I referred to Below.

So Rossi is using stimulation, but don't want to talk about it, since he may "get Piantelli on his back"?

The only thing I find in the Rossi patent claims are "reinvigorating" reaction by "varying" a voltage source.

Which could mean varying AC voltage with some high frequency (at what Herz?), and thereby creating some extra stimulating magnetic fields....for "reinvigorating" the core.....

But he can not state it in his patent, since it is allready protected by Piantelli.

4. More on stimulation, this time from Piantelli patents:

"........impulsive trigger action consists of supplying an energy pulse"

".....trigger means (61 ,62,67) for creating an impulsive action (140) on said active core (18), said impulsively action (140) suitable for causing......"

worldwide.espacenet.com/public…05&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

".........an impulsive application of a package of electromagnetic fields, in particular said fields selected from the group comprised of: a radiofrequency pulse whose frequency is larger than 1 kHz; X rays; v rays; an electrostriction impulse that is generated by an impulsive electric current that flows through an electrostrictive portion of said active core...."

"- an electric voltage impulse that is applied between two points of a piezoelectric portion of said active core; an impulsive magnetostriction that is generated by a magnetic field pulse along said active core which has a magnetostrictive portion."

"Such impulsive triggering action generates lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons..."

worldwide.espacenet.com/public…spacenet.com&locale=en_EP

5. Bockris: "It is interesting that the excess heat, caused by RF stimulation, reaches a maximum value and, after a certain time, falls to zero. A possible explanation is that the RF stimulates only the deuterium nucleus at the near surface of Pd. It is well known that, due to the 'skin effect,' high frequency alternating currents are felt only up to a certain depth (called 'skin depth') "

Ref. Bockris et.al:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf

6. Mckubre et. al paper:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheneedfor.pdf
"

Well Thomas, as with your many other opinions, also these where rather inaccurate.

"There is no experimental evidence to link the small claimed excess heat anomalies in LENR to nuclear reactions. " - wrong

"And as Hagelstein has pointed out, excess heat is the only consistent phenomena associated with LENR." - wrong

"So - LENR...........is a theoretical construct with the experimental evidence all profoundly negative." - wrong

Well, well.

For Hagelstein, he actually states,

" Experiments show 4He in amounts commensurate with energy"
And the reason for Hagelsteins claims is, Ref.
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…gelstein-Talk-09-2015.pdf

And you don't get 4He without some kind of nuclear reaction.

And it's not a matter of small excess heat measurments, but rather energy densities and power densities.

We know maximum densities of chemical reactions and we know the measured and verified energy
densities of F&P cells and other LENR systems.

Which is Far beyond chemical, which means it must be some kind of nuclear Events.

Or as Dr. Peter Hagelstein said of excess heat if F&P type experiments:"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 not 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."

I do not believe the Lugano testers where so incompetent not to note 'OL' on the PCE 830 screen as shown in the figure 5 in Lugano.

This was said on ECW of the picture:

"The photo ......... has been made on purpose from the Professors............the photo has been taken during the set up of the measurement stuff and they were controlling that the PCE830 was surely able to read perfectly the waves also in extreme conditions: for this reason......the photo shows the wave also when the system has been put in overload; you can understand it from the acronym “OL” that you can read on the display, while the wave is perfectly described by the instrument."

Antoine,

according to the information I've read there was no steel container inside the Alumina sylinder. Reactor core was found "encrusted" on the inside alumina wall, I read somewhere.

So my comment / question is valid.

There is a common feature of both Brullouin, Piantelli and Rossi. They all use Nickel/hydrogen system and a stimulus system.

So either they all got it or none of them has it.

Triggering and stimulus is a vital ingredient. I think there's the failure of many or all replication attempts.

To sum up what I've stated earlier on triggering;

1. Brilliouin is using electrical stimulation on their reactor.

Ref. Mckubre stated on Brillouin: "The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”

2. Swartz have discovered something interesting:
"Astonishingly, it has now been discovered that high intensity, dynamic, repeatedly fraction- ated, magnetic fields have an incremental major, significant and unique, complex, metachronous amplification effect on the preloaded NANOR⃝R -type LANR device"

"H-field pulse sequence was delivered (dH/dt ∼1.5 T with 0.1 ms rise time × 1000–5000 pulse"

Ref.

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol15.pdf#page=73

3. Rossi is using some kind of electromagnetic stimulation....

I have tried to Ask him several times on stinulation, but he allways says "no comment" or "confidential"

A reason why Rossi will not comment on stimulation of the core may be because Piantelli allready have patented such mechanisms, as I referred to Below.

So Rossi is using stimulation, but don't want to talk about it, since he may "get Piantelli on his back"?

The only thing I find in the Rossi patent claims are "reinvigorating" reaction by "varying" a voltage source.

Which could mean varying AC voltage with some high frequency (at what Herz?), and thereby creating some extra stimulating magnetic fields....for "reinvigorating" the core.....

But he can not state it in his patent, since it is allready protected by Piantelli.

4. More on stimulation, this time from Piantelli patents:

"........impulsive trigger action consists of supplying an energy pulse"

".....trigger means (61 ,62,67) for creating an impulsive action (140) on said active core (18), said impulsively action (140) suitable for causing......"

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=EP&NR=2702593A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20140305&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

".........an impulsive application of a package of electromagnetic fields, in particular said fields selected from the group comprised of: a radiofrequency pulse whose frequency is larger than 1 kHz; X rays; v rays; an electrostriction impulse that is generated by an impulsive electric current that flows through an electrostrictive portion of said active core...."

"- an electric voltage impulse that is applied between two points of a piezoelectric portion of said active core; an impulsive magnetostriction that is generated by a magnetic field pulse along said active core which has a magnetostrictive portion."

"Such impulsive triggering action generates lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons..."

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2010058288A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20100527&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP

5. Bockris: "It is interesting that the excess heat, caused by RF stimulation, reaches a maximum value and, after a certain time, falls to zero. A possible explanation is that the RF stimulates only the deuterium nucleus at the near surface of Pd. It is well known that, due to the 'skin effect,' high frequency alternating currents are felt only up to a certain depth (called 'skin depth') "

Ref. Bockris et.al:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf

6. Mckubre et. al paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheneedfor.pdf

Has this been discussed, or anyone with thoughts on the matter?

One would Expect that LENR have a different energy emission spectrum than electrical heated alumina.

Alumina transmittance and LENR energy spectrum is unkown parameters in the Lugano test.

The alumina is transparent for certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which will not be absorbed by alumina and next the IR camera.

The IR camera was detecting in the 7-13 um spectrum, and the assumption would be that the energy spectrum from El.heating, and LENR are somewhat equal...

We don't know the LENR energy emission spectrum, since it has not been quantified.

If there are high energy emission in a part of the spectrum of high alumina transmittance, then this would not be picked up as heat signal, and energy production may actually be underestimated by the Lugano report.

"In this communication, the use of CR-39 to detect charged particles in the Pd/D co-deposition experiment is demonstrated. In these experiments, pits are observed in a CR-39 detector that has been in contact with a cathodi- cally polarized Pd/D substrate. Evidence is presented that show that these pits are tracks caused by the emission of charged particles and that these tracks are not due to either radioactive contamination; or from the electrolysis of heavy water; or from or Cl2. chemical reaction with D2 , O2 or Cl2"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossuseofcrinp.pdf

Did you not note that in the paper?

"b Department of Physics, University of Siena, Siena, Italy"

Have no idea If he's still working at the University.....

correction: Piantelli is now 82 years old, and retired from the University in 2006.

me356 are right.

And They would not become Professors at their Universities without Publishing a number of papers. Which probably only are available today at libraries.

Here's one more "recent" from Piantelli ;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S1043661897901894

Frank,

This paper Below discussed and evaluated background noise (like Radon) in every detail. He proved that background noise could not explain the results of the actual experiments.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAreproducib.pdf

- 43 different control Runs showed a mean track densities varying from 6 to 16 tracks / cm2. The highest recorded number was 24.

- in 25 actual experiments 15 experiments had average more than 100 tracks/cm2. One had track number so great that counting was impractical.

- typically tracks where also found in groups with much higher density than the average indicated above.

Thomas,

"a polemic view"? , "rather than showing interest in details" ??

So you don't think your lack of understanding the details of calorimetry and heat exchange are an interesting detail and rather clarifying for everyone?

Now then, to your interesting paper on transition metals;

Yes, interesting anomaly and a litle more of the paper here;

http://static-content.springer…s10450-012-9445-8/000.png

10 eV pr. Oxygen atom is some three times the energy of water formation from hydrogen and Oxygen.

And some relevant criticism from me;

This paper you say " really stands out" as criticism of Focardi have really nothing to do with the Focardi et. al experiment.

There are no oxygen in the Focardi cell that would add to the excess energy over the year the experiment lasted.

Focardi used a vacuum and turbomolecular pump to evacuate all air from the chamber before H2 where loaded into the Nickel rods and chamber several times.

So the paper is of no relevance.

And for the forth time:

What happens inside the chamber is of no relevance to the measurment of heat exchange.

A certain amount of energy generated inside the cell MUST escape through the outer border to the surroundings. Really !!!

So If you measure the border conditions, you don't needed to care about internals.

The energy transfer from a box of any shape and to the surroundings does NOT depend on what occurs inside the box or how many chambers and walls there are inside, OR If pressure is varying, yes!

It depends on the exterior surface geometry, outside wall parameters and surface temperature only. So your repetetive criticism of possible internal complications are of NO Value.

Again: It does not matter how the internals look like, number of walls, chambers, heaters , pressure etc.

An even outer wall temperature will therefore have a certain heat flow to the surroundings by conduction,convection and radiation. Therefore a calibration curve will work.

And therefore it does not matter If the heat arrives to outer wall from the electrical heater or from the inner core as LENR heat.

The evidence of this is the formulas for convection, conduction, radiation. It's the border conditions that matter in the formulas.

Thomas and Eric,

Just to clarify: I never used the Word "refuted" wrt the Focardi paper. That's a strong Word, that would not be used by serious scientists. I used the Word "criticism", which is the Word one would use when per reviewed papers are published that discusses other scientists papers and results..

this is what I said:

"
I have not found any criticism (Peer reviewed or not) of this paper. The authors also made a paper in 1994, which was critizied by physcists at CERN. CERN was not able to trigger any excess heat, they saw only excess heat during loading of hydrogen. I've read their paper and it's clear they did not try any trigger mechanism to "turn on" the Ni-H LENR, so they concluded no excess heat other than during Hydrogen absorption in lattice.
"

Frank, one thing is certain in my mind

The human kind will use LENR commercially long before LENR is generally accepeted science and long before we understand the core of LENR.

just as we did with fire.....

but "should I deny myself a good dinner, just because I don't understand the science of digestion?"