Posts by oystla

I don't care, since I'm more interested in Scientific papers where the scientists is in full control of the object in question, not third party tests of potential commercial products, where NDA secrets still remains.

if the "factory acceptance test" is success, both Rossi's Company and Industial Heat will have to be more forthcoming with information If their intentions is to sell these on a commercial basis.

and "Rossi's theory"? - please. He has been as much out in the dark as the rest of LENR community wrt a correct theory for LENR. His original hypothesis of Cu transmutations was wrong.

Rossi based his work on Professors Piantelli, Focardi , Celani, etc. Andr their Ni-H excess heat discovery.

and presumably found a better recipe for more excess heat, by trial and error, not by guidance by theory.

Thomas,

if the temperature really was down in around 700 degC, the Lugano test was a failure. But If it where up at 1200 degC, the alumina resistivity is down in the 100 ohm-m range, and will matter over the length of the coil, which is unkown....

but it does not matter, And I don't care . Rossi is saying the "factory acceptance test" will be finished in March, so we will know more of commercial realities in a few Months.

Anyhow, as I stated in my last comment above, I've found some interesting Ni-H dry cell research I'm reading now. I'm starting to see where Rossi got his ideas from.

Thomas,

Actually F&P included Deuterated Nickel in their "CF" patent from1989.

So they had an idea that CF would work in other materials than Pd. Materials that have the ability for high Hydrogen loading. May be F&P Focused on the wrong material, and got hung up in Palladium, when Nickel was a better choice?

Anyway. Excess heat in Dry Ni-H was not discovered by Rossi, but inside University research in the early 90's.

I've found some very interesting papers, with dry Ni-H cells and more powerfull than F&P cells (it seems).

That's probably where Rossi got his idea from.

I'll come back with more info when I've read the papers.

Thomas, I found this comment over at MFMP,

"Jamie Sibley : The electrical conductivity of high temperature Alumina has been very problematic in my experiments. In some runs, I have had over 50 VAC conducted over to my thermocouple leads once the core temperature gets close to 1000*C. This voltage is partially removed by the common-mode-rejection of the thermocouple amplifier, but even with 100db of CMRR, the leakage voltage will still push the thermocouple inputs past the rails voltage and give completely bogus temperature readings. I believe this effect is the cause of many experiments by others, showing large and rapid temperature oscillations at high core temperatures. It is very unfortunate that our ceramic insulator of choice, becomes a conducctor at the desired operating temperatures. This makes using thermocouples exceedingly difficult."

seems Alumina conductivity at elevated temperatures may be an issue to consider more seriously...

the question for Lugano would then be:
-what was the spacing between the inconel wires in the alumina?
- what was the inconel wire size used?
- how many wounds was used for the reactor?

With this info we could calculate what temperature would be needed to achieve the conductivity to Explain the 3* mystery

Yes, If your analysis is right and temperature was rather around 700 degC. But If temp was above 1100 degC some short curcuit could play a role

As I remember there was a resistance descripancy of some factor 3+ between the dummy and active tests.

Partial shorting of wires through alumina in active tests (which ran at 1200-1400 degC) would explain this?

Thomas,

Did anyone ever calculate the consequence of alumina electrical conductivity at high temperatures on the heating wire discussion?

Alumina have 1e+11 ohm*m in resistivity at room temperature and drops to 20 000 ohm*m at 1000 degC and further down to 100 ohm*m or lower at 1500 degC

Thomas, of the 1000+ papers at ISCMNS, I have only so far read a tiny fraction. So any papers I give you may or may not be the killer you look for (likely not). But The work done at SPAWAR I've looked at lately seems both convincing and competent. Difficult to choose papers, since papers often build upon previous research, but on the subject of CR39, I've listed a few Below.

Please also note: The scientists at SPAWAR invented co-deposition, which lead to fast and repeatable F&P type excess heat Events in addition to more heat than the F&P solid Pd cathodes. They Proved hotter cathode than the electrolyte (should be reverse), ten times increase of the tritium in the solution was noticed, identified x-rays, confirmed the high D/Pd ratio requirement, they identified hot spots on the cathodes producing the heat and that the heat is not continuous on the electrode surface, but is condensed on hot spots that erupt and then diminish, they also identified transmutations (as in The Japanese research),

CR39 research started around 2006. Papers - and note - Peer review in "real real journals" ;-):
2007:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/…e-Naturwissenschaften.pdf

From 2007 (European physical journal in Applied physics):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossuseofcrinp.pdf

2009 -" naturwissenschaften"
http://www.newenergytimes.com/…/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

From 2009 (European physical journal in Applied physics):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf

Unfortunately, In 2011, SPAWAR was ordered to cease all activity related to cold fusion. The order came from Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, who in 2010 replaced the retired Rear Admiral Michael C. Bachmann, a supportive, open minded and scientific defender of the cold fusion. The LENR research team was instructed to immediately cease all research activity, return all remaining funds for cold fusion research, cancel any pending requests for research and stop publishing any cold fusion related papers.

And Thomas,

Regarding your need of a single "killer paper". I think it is a misconception.

Scientific papers are normally based on previous work ( haha, you know - to make some progress ! ;-)... )

That means you may end critizising elements in a paper (and discarding the paper), that have allready been Checked, tested and documented in previous papers.

And Thomas, here you see LENR scientists Capable of critical thinking.

if CR39 is used in air, Radon is of course a factor to consider. I prefer the tests where CR39 have been strapped directly to the electrodes in the electrolyte.

Thomas;

" Whereas the progress that is needed is on proving that a definite anomaly exists. That has not happened."

Yes it has, so I disagree. And the positive confirmation using CR39 is alone enough to convince me.
CR 39 has been used by the Industry since late 1970's as particle detector and is well understood.

But What you proved of knowledge of CR39, indicates to me that you have not studied enough of the evidence within LENR science.

Axil, thank's for the link.

And now I understand wha Fisher wanted to check: effect of convection on background measurement on CR39 detector. That is: If CR39 detector where placed in air above F&P cells.

By using a fan the background Count went up considerably. So; the fan was not supposed to blow energetic particles fra the active cell towards CR39, as my impression was from your comment.

Ref.
"Although the current of air from the fan exceeds that from various currents of room air and of convection currents from the warm cell in a closed ice chest, it is necessary to consider the influences of these smaller currents. They may be sufficiently large that if unrecognized and uncontrolled they could mask the experimental signals being sought. "

Thomas,

and what paper described using fans?

i'm still laughing

Thomas;

Wrt. "Inevitably, for a real phenomena with physical basis, with continued attention and collection of evidence, the phenomena will become, sharper, more reproducible, more understood. By far the best evidence will be recent. Which is why I see the historical bent of much LENR community discussion as profoundly negative."

And by what evidence do you base your conclusion that no progress have been made since 1989?

If you are basing this on discussions in this LENR forum, you are Absolutely at the wrong place. You need to go to the site for International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to find what the real progress have been.
http://www.iscmns.org

Your certainty in the present knowledge and situation of LENR science is a claim of Yours - not a fact.

My impression is the contrary. The science has developped and replication of F&P effect has improved considerably. Like when Co-deposition was introduced by SPAWAR.

But you have continued asking for old F&P papers, although better papers on F&P effect have been produced by others after F&P.

Now then: The lack of funding have resulted in slow progress of the field. But not NO progress. Many scientists have funded their own research, or have recieved funding from interested philanthropists, since most of mainstream considers the field pathological and of no Value.

Edmund Storms have a Nice summary of status from 2012, where he also includes Ni-H LENR.
http://700902909.r.lightningba…12/06/Explaining-LENR.pdf

And the francesco Celani summary at the Colloqium in CERN in 2012 is also a good summary of the status of LENR.
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1…24018/CERN220212_2203.pdf

I would also suggest reading Read Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. LENR will most likely be a good example of a Paradigm shift as detailed by Thomas Kuhn.

My conclusion:
It's time that the mainstream science community gets onboard and some real funding is put in place to find out what is going on...

And LENR science is in desperate need of testing the various proposed theories. Present lack of acceptance and progress is caused by lack of effective guidance by theory

An interesting story on the use of CR39 in LENR:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSextraordin.pdf

"Gary W. Phillips, a nuclear physicist and expert in CR-39 detectors is similarly surprised by what he saw in SPAWAR’s detectors. Phillips has used the detectors to record nuclear events for two decades.

"The evidence recorded in SPAWAR Systems Center’s CR-39 detectors are “at least one order of magnitude greater” in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he’s seen in his 20 years of related experience."

And it is much harder to dismiss CR39 than calorimetry or electronic equipment...

“I've never seen such a high density of tracks before,” Phillips noted. “It would have to be from a very intense source – a nuclear source. You cannot get this from any kind of chemical reaction.”

On Phillips:
Dr. Phillips conducts research in nuclear radiation detection and neutron dosimetry and teaches courses at Georgetown University. "His recent research interests include the development of neutron spectrometers using CR39 track etch detectors and of optical radiation detectors for nuclear non-proliferation applications."

A fan "Blowing" energetic particles two meters to a detector????

Haha, the joke of the day

"CR-39 detectors are ideal for detecting particles in LENR experiments because we can put them right inside the cell where the placement of electronics would otherwise be highly impractical,”

"In one notable test, University of Minnesota physicist Richard Oriani and his partner, John Fisher, suspended CR-39 detectors 1.5 cm above and below nickel and palladium cathodes. [11] Although their cell design and experimental method differed sharply from those of the SPAWAR group's, the detectors caught particles that Oriani and Fisher calculated to be traveling at energies of two mega-electron volts, a force liberated only through nuclear reactions.

A five-MeV particle will travel less than half a millimeter in the liquid environment of a LENR cell. The 1.5-cm distance “was the closest that Oriani and Fisher could place the detectors [to the palladium cathode] without impeding the uniform loading” of deuterons, Mosier-Boss explained.

She said that was not close enough to record most of the nuclear particles flying from the cathode.

“In our experiments, the co-deposition reaction was performed with the cathode wire wrapped around the CR-39 detector,“ she added.

“Oriani and Fisher reported charged particle track densities between 1.5 and 38 tracks per square millimeter; their controls yielded densities of 0.5 to 5.4 tracks per square millimeter," Mosier-Boss said. [12]"

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

Thomas,

Regarding your coins, Pools and biases, and LENR reports of negative results:

"These are not much reported, because of no interest. Also, the types of coin that lead to them are not often selected"

The "no interest" is your claim, not a fact. And your "types of coin" leading to negative results are non-logical, since the LENR researchers did not know which coins or test setups would show positive or negative results in the first place.

My experience from the literature is the opposite. Negative results are of highest interest, since the negative results must be explained, and may lead to explaining why positive test where positive. One problem is of course that papers may not have adequate amount of data to be fully analysed later. Therefore the scientists should keep all the raw data available for later research.

Example:
One critical condition in F&P type cells has been proven to be the D/Pd ratio. Re-analysing the early negative papers have shown that all of them had lower than 90% D/Pd loading, which guaranteed a negative result.

Thomas,

"There is also, here, a clear financial incentive for biassed results."

Well, normally research scientists are more driven by fame (especially having their names in "real" science journals) than fortune. Actually proven by psychological tests......but I understand your point. a third party test should be performed on the NANOR.

Also for the 40 days after the 1989 press conference, there was a clear incentive for biased results from MIT , CALTECH and other institutes, since the US government was considdering redirecting 20 MUSD from the hot fusion programme to cold fusion research during the same period.

But the "Not very Scientific replication efforts" from MIT et. al effectively stopped all such redirections.....

Abd: very good summary!

Haha,

h, the heat transfer coefficient, is normally considered a constant based upon what fluid is convecting the heat, gas,fluid,liquid metal, what conditions (laminary or turbulent flow) , forced convection etc.

Values of h have been measured and tabulated for the commonly encountered fluids and flow situations occurring during heat transfer by convection.

If we had very varying conditions and varying flow conditions (laminary / turbulent ) flow we may have had to consider varying the h (constant), but not in this test

and I think you would have to have much higher dT than 50 degrees to experience variations in the h constant...