Posts by oystla

Quote from rubycarat

Hi oystia, you make a lot of points that I cannot respond to at this time. However, the gist is this: For twenty-thirty years of service, we are dump;ing huge amounts of energy and destroying pristine environments. Looking at what is left after the "renewable" plant goes dead is a dead landscape. How do you measure that loss?

Also, the fact remains that the energy density just isn't there to power what we have now. We have systems that depend on an energy density given by hydrocarbons. Solar, wind, or biomass do not provide that energy density, period. So right there, it is shown to be band-aid for a short duration. (And as the movie shows, it can't even power a band!!)

I understand the shocking truth that this movie shows, but we have to be honest about the reality. Energy density is the key to swapping out away from fossil fuels. And it's just not there with "renewables", and as for the environmental damage, I am soooo glad that our small community nixed the TerraGen wind farm to be built on the mountain ridge sacred to local tribes of Native Americans. It would have been a travesty to have power for thirty years, and a dead zone forever.

We both agree - LENR is our solution. We've got to make people realize this and make it happen.

Display More

Hi Ruby,

On the issue of energy density, it really depends on the definition.

Yes - a traditional Nuclear Reactor has a very high energy density.

BUT if we start doing calculations on actual net land area requirements we get the following numbers:

In the US the official number from Nuclear industry is an average of 1,3 Square miles pr. 1000 MW power for the US plants. If we use SI units we get 3328 M2 pr. MW for a nuclear plant.

I assume this is the total fenced of area for the nuclear plants, where no man or animals can roam around.

Now then: A modern 4,2 MW land based wind turbine may have a base of 7m in diameter, which means we get ONLY some 9 M2 pr. MW for a wind turbine. And there is no further fencing of the turbine. On a farmland the animals may go straight up to the turbine base.

Yes, I know; The wind does not always blow. BUT in a large interconnected grid, the wind ALWAYS blows somewhere, which solve that problem of intermittency. AND with a capacity factor of 30%, we still get 18 m2/MW - far far better energy density than Nuclear.

So, the Nuclear industry loves to talk about energy density, but Wind turbines is far far more energy dens, when compared to the fenced off land area requirement,

Actually also solar power plants is not extremely less power dense than a Nuclear Plant: Rule of thumb 9300 M2 pr. MW solar power. And for the new Bifacial panels we can reduce the number to 7400 M2 pr. MW. And the efficiency will improve further.

But again, as I said before the latest technology is solar power combined with farmland, either as raised up in the air, or panels place Vertical as fences with farmland in between.

So in principle Solar power can be the most power dense energy source if designed accordingly.

This is WHY I am optimistic that Solar Power especially and Wind power AND energy storage will absolutely win the future (IF not LENR happens that is )

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Only with massive subsidizes. The belief of yours doesn't explain, why for example wind plants in Germany won't generate enough of money for their scrapping even after decades of run..

Richard Feynman(?): "Shut up and calculate!"

Zephir, I will be happy to answer all your questions. And there are a lot of myths roaming around on the internet unfortunately….

1. First of all, when I said "energy pay back time" it has nothing to do with cost or subsidies.

This is the amount of time a wind turbine or a solar panel has to produce energy to pay back all the energy that went into making the turbine or solar power, from mining the minerals to constructing the plant.

And today we talk months rather than years for renewables.

2. Regarding dismantling old power plants, this is the same issue as with any power plants, coal fired or nuclear.

Politics has to be in place to demand the owners to set aside a yearly amount of money to secure that dismantling is covered at the end of life time.

I think we have seen numerous of examples where old decommissioned nuclear plants have had to be covered by tax payers because the owners did not have that requirement in place from day one.

Outside Norway where I live we have a number of old oil producing platforms. Should any of the oil companies go bancrupt these days of low oil price, it will probably be up to the state and tax payers to remove the platforms at the end, if no other private companies where to buy them…

3. On the issue of subsidies, you should note the present popular method of issuing contracts to renewables. This is done the last 5 years as PPA = Power Purchase Agreement, and when a governnment buys, the PPA is often oficial numbers.

The latest Offshore Wind power Projects outside UK is going at an long term PPA at close to market price of electrical power (Around 40 UK Pounds/MWhr).

The ongoing UK Nuclear Power project Hinkley Point has a long term PPA of now above 100 UK Pounds/MWhr and inflation adjusted for 30 years.

The reason for the fast decline in Wind power costs has been the growth of the turbines. The largest one now under testing in Netherlands 12 MW size offshore turbine, while for 20 years ago the largest was some 2 MW size…

And in a few years we will get 20 MW turbines that bring the cost down further.

So you see, subsidies for solar and wind is mostly something of the past, the cost have now come down to subsidy free power….

Quote from rubycarat

I just watched this whole movie, and I'm too devastated to say anything. It's a negative portrait alright, one that matches what is at stake. The sad part is, we're out of time, the damage is already piled up exponentially. I can only hope cold fusion comes through soon.

I have also watched the movie, but most of it is incorrect.

I do agree on biofuel and biomass, which I consider is not an environmental sustainable solution. So I'm optimistic of a future of solar and wind, if not LENR arrives on the stage.

1. Energy payback time for wind and solar is now months, i.e. Wind and solar is VERY environmental friendly. After a few months they are CO2 negative rest of lifetime.

We know wind turbines kills birds, but this is less of a problem in offshore turbines. Cats is a bigger threat against birds.

2. There will always be crooks in the world that wants to exploit the globe for money and dont care about nature, also within renewable businesses. But that does not mean the technology is bad.

3. Denmark is now developing a 20 MW offshore wind turbine which do not use rare earths in the generator. So the technology is getting even more environmental friendly.

4. Solar power technology is improving, so 20 year old panels cannot be compared to todays technology.

5. Everyone can agree that cutting down forest to install solar panels is stupid. Solar panels should be installed also in deserts in an environmental friendly way, i.e. plants and solar plants can live side by side.

6. Installing solar panels on building roofs and office facades should be a win win both for owners and the globe as solar is getting REALLY cheap.

7. Electric cars are 80-90% efficient, while a gasoline car only use 20 to 25% of the gasoline for propulsion, rest is heat losses. Even with a grid based on natural gas or coal it is better with electric cars, especially for local smog and NOX pollution.

8. Traditional nuclear power is way too expensive, ref UK Hinkley Point project, and the absolutely INSANE electricity price to be offered.

9. The newest ideas for solar now is Bifacial solar panels lifted up of the ground, so it can be installed on farms so you can both do farming and have solar plants side by side. Panels should also be able to lifted above ground in deserts, so you avoid removing plants beneath.

To conclude: The movie mostly shows how crooks can take advantage of renewable business, but this is not the renewable future that is being built now.

what should be noted is

- there are several flu virus versions around. The vaccines may or may not cover all virus versions. Therefore you may still get the flu Even after vaccination.

- flu virus versions evolves and changes from year to year. That is why your protection weakens from year to year after you have had the flu.

- vaccines changes from year to year to keep up with changes in the flu viruses.

And that is why a yearly shot of flu vaccine is a way of reducing the risk getting the flu. But there is no guarantee.

any live-streaming plans for the iccf?

Quote from THHuxleynew

I have to say I am confused. Whatever ascoli's motives (and this site seems obsessed with motives in an unhealthy way, they are not important) I detect mixed messages about the classic LENR experiments.

Jed (and others?) are now saying that only skeptics don't agree that the boil-off experiment demonstrated very large amounts of excess energy. It was exceptionally well documented, and is relatively easy to do.

So: why not do it? The fact that ascoli believes it will not work is surely irrelevant if other people here think it will. Some honesty and clarity on this matter would be helpful. I remember when i ask for specific published evidence of LENR the classic experiments are most often quoted.

THH

Display More

I am also confused.

Confused why Ascoli and Huxley cannot understand that to do boil off, you would have to know FIRST If the Palladium Cathode is LENR active or not.

And to find which Palladium cathodes are LENR active, you would NOT just jump to boil off, but OF COURSE do more controlled calorimetry experiments.

So, boil off is NOT used to prove LENR, but an EXTENSION of LENR at higher temperatures in wet Pd/D cells.

That is what Fleischmann and P. did. First electrolysis at low temepratures identified the active palladium cathodes. Then they extended the experiments to other territories.

And that is what google could do, but then they should use dusins of parallell Runs at low temps and ensures the loading is good, and the other identified requirements, like current density etc....

Now then, when they find the Active ones, they could drive them to boil off and check If excess heat increase further, as hypothesized and claimed in experiment by F&P.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Coming back to the thread topic, we have:

SPAWAR - a failed replication with suggestion of what were the artifacts seen and misinterpreted.

Takahashi - can't replicate because no info.

I come back to my suggestion - do a more complete job of understanding the artifacts and/or real excess heat from D/Pd systems. I'm neutral on whether vanilla or co-deposition variant.

THH

Display More

The Coolescence test was a possible comfirmation that LENR do not cause or produce energetic particles, just as other tests from other researchers have indicated. So that part of SPAWAR, the CR39 results was in conflict with other LENR research.

What Cooloescence did NOT test was excess heat (with co-dep), which is the most important issue in LENR.

Quote from Dr Richard

Well that's a bummer! Check out the Coolescence website showing a variety of failed replications including SPAWAR's C39 work being artifacts. Thanks to Ed Storms for pointing this out - maybe this just leaves the Takahashi group's work then, assuming they are willing to supply the complex nano structured Pd/Ni/ZrO or Cu/NI/ZrO catalytic materials. Coolescence ran for a few years with an expert team investigating LENR but achieved absolutely no positive results.

http://www.Coolescence.com

The coolescence website only refer to replication of the CR39 tracks, not excess heat measurments. So I think exces heat in co-dep is more important than to conclude if charged particles or not occurs in LENR as supposed by SPAWAR in CR39.

Quote from Shane D.

There appears to be a consensus forming around the Takahashi, SPAWAR experiments...does everyone agree? Note: I did not add Mizuno, because Trevithick asked us not to consider. He will get the info he needs on that at Assisi next month.

If you agree we are approaching a consensus, then maybe it will be more productive from now on to hold those two up as the gold standard for contending experiments to be measured against? If someone thinks there is a stronger candidate, then present your argument to the forum. Go category by category and explain the; type, quality, replication history, publications, availability of research data, accessibility to the author/s, and how each compare to, or exceeds the gold standards?

In the end, if Takahashi/SPAWAR survives against all challengers, TG will have our final choices (we get 3, so we can add another) for what we believe will give them the best chance to prove LENR. If not, we have 3 better choices. Win-win.

On Takahashi, is it this we talk about?

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…CF21AkitoTakahashippt.pdf

It reminds me of the Mitchell Schwartz Nanor device, both seems to be composites of ZrO2,Ni, Pd loaded with Deturerium.....

So why not also include Schwartz here...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bulk Pd/D has multiple successful (according to most here) replications by independent groups. Therefore:

(1) It cannot be too difficult

(2) Whatever it is appears to exist.

Huxley, you should read a litle more what F&P themselves stated .

During the 80's they had to run many parallell cells, in the hope that one of them indicated burst of heat after weeks of electrolysis.

In their later work I believe it was 1 of 8 cells that showed exces heat Events.

So, no, bulk Pd/D is not straight forward tests.

And You you would NEVER go straight to boil off experiment before identifying cathodes that had proven excess heat allready at lower temps.

Also, SPAWAR cells can go wrong. Researchers that fx started off with too high current got codeposition that flaked and falled off the electrode. So If they started very carefully, low current for a period, the co-dep had improved success rate compared to F&P cells.

Quote from RobertBryant

Later Cr39 detectors (Mosier-Boss)

apparently showed localised soft xray emission

https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail

Most other LENR was electrolytic at that time .. gas phase is probably simpler

Display More

Performing Gas phase research may be easier (I'm not fully convinced), but is the excess heat conditions easily reproducible? We will see on the success rate of the Mizuno recipe.

I just think Szpak and Mosier-Boss did som wonderful creative work on CF at SPAWAR and deserves more attention on replication attempts.

Quote from Dr Richard

I agree with @oystia, the SPAWAR research is probably the most likely to yield positive results if replicated by TG - and I would suggest TG repeat not just one of their experiments but every experiment they have ever published. With further experiments to chase down interesting leads/anomalies etc. Such a comprehensive study would firmly establish LENR as the energy source to be developed for future generations!

and it is OYSTLA for Øystein Lande 🤓

Interesting to note that Stan Szpak and Pamela Boss did actually try Nickel Mesh and Palladium at SPAWAR.

This was a test of using an IR Camera to observe thermal events on the mesh in their co-deposition research where Pd and D was deposited on Nickel Mesh.

And Lo & behold! , there where thermal spots indicating excess heat events taking place in various spots on the mesh.

So again I would suggest Google to look into the SPAWAR research. It was more reproducible than most of the other LENR research.

ref.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Perhaps the LENR community could decide, precisely, which F&P style experiments are replicable and how they can be replicated? There does seem common agreement that positive LENR effects are genuinely replicable.

The variability here will not help the google guys.

For example: if an electrolysis experiment needs 10 cells to be tested of which on average 1 or 2 actually show excess heat, that must be understood by those replicating but it is fine.

Ascoli is right to warn that low success rates leave open the possibility of some error that induces the apparent success. But that is not a problem in a replication with good methodology where this is expected. For example, pre-screening could be done for active cells, followed by rigorous tests.

If however the situation is that the best LENR experiments, when replicated, may not generate anomalous results, even after best efforts to get this and multiple cells tested with best material selection and preparation, that is a problem.

I think it would be helpful to give google an explanation of why (perhaps) their tests so far have failed and a proscription for what needs to be done. Also helpful to find whether they have tested enough cells to deal with the 1 in 10 issue.

If high D loading is the key issue (I note that this is not universally agreed, though many think it) they should be told what methodology attains high loading. If they follow this to the letter and do not get it can i suggest that it may be that those who have claimed high D loading have in fcat suffered from the same mistakes that google identify in their paper? Perhaps google's attempts are as good as the best in the field so far. Anyway, this is one question that surely can be answered and should be answered for the google work to have significance for the LENR community.

THH

Display More

There are many criterias to be fulfilled for F&P type LENR, many identified, and some criterias not yet fully identified and understood. That is why the sucessrate was low.

But again, to my knowledge the SPAWAR co-deposition studies gave better LENR reproducibility than F&P style and if google havent tried this allready, they absolutely should.

Quote from Ascoli65

Yes, I know. But "excess heat" is not the phenomenon I'm talking about and which I'm suggesting to replicate. I'm suggesting to replicate the "positive feedback" phenomena, which is documented by the diagrams and videos of the "1992 boil-off experiment" carried out by F&P, as well as in all the graphs and data contained in the 1996 Lonchampt paper.

In particular, the Lonchampt paper shows that the temperature and voltage curves in Figs. 3a/b (Calibration experiment with platinum cathode) are comparable with those in Figs. 4a/b and 5a/b (with palladium cathode). It means that Lonchampt reproduced the same "positive feedback" phenomenon in all of these 3 experiments, independently from the material of the cathode. On the contrary, the claimed "excess heat" comes from the author's interpretation of the experimental results, it is not necessarily an intrinsic feature of the phenomena that he produced in his cells.

You can have a better confirmation of this fact, by looking at Table 2 and comparing each others the respective numbers for the first two experiments: an active run and a calibration test. Aside those reported on the last 3 columns, which were obtained by difference, all the other pairs of numbers are almost the same. In particular the two experiments have the same amount of "Enthalpy used for total vaporization". It means that also the second experiment (with a Pt cathode) led to the complete dryness of the cell. It's also worth to compare the "Enthalpy losses (to bath water)". Their very similar values indicate that the durations of the respective boil-off phases were nearly the same. Actually, the boil-off phase of the calibration test was even slightly faster than the active run!

What I'm suggesting to the Team Google is to replicate the visible manifestations of the "positive feedback" phenomenon produced in the "1992 boil-off experiment" and to provide their own interpretation of the energy balance, on the basis of a better set of measurements obtained by equipping the same identical experimental set-up with supplementary instrumentation. In particular, they should add a device which measures the cell mass, so that they can exactly and continuously deduce the evaporation rate during the boil-off phase.

As I've better explained in a previous comment (*), each experiment can be subdivided in 3 steps: setting-up, running and interpretation. The Team Google should comply with the first two, only. They should accurately reproduce the experimental set-up, carefully replicate the test running, but they are not required to repeat the same interpretation of the data, including the finding of any heat in excess with respect to the amount of the input power, otherwise they risk to repeat the same possible errors. This last step of the experiment should be carried out by the Google experts independently from the conclusions of the authors of the original test. At the end, they should publish their own interpretation of the experimental findings.

(*) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

Display More

Wrong.

"Positive feedback" would only be relevant for the cells that have been first identified as having active LENR, in accordance with my procedure above.

Quote from Ascoli65

I found nothing of what you are saying, neither in the "F&P Seminal paper of 1990" cited in your previous comment, nor in the 1992 paper reporting the boil-off experiment.

The available documentation shows instead that it was not so difficult to onset a "positive feedback" regime, that is the major factor which drove the F&P cells to boil dry.

On April 11, 1992, just a few weeks after the starting of the IMRA lab in France, the test apparatus for the boil-off experiment was ready to be switched on and the 4 electrolytic cells were driven to boil dry in a perfect sequence one after another: a 4 over 4 score. It was a mythical success, whose fame lasted for decades in the LENR community. A 2009 article described this historic event in this way (1): "By 1993, Fleischmann and Pons had developed such control of their experiments, particularly the cathode material, that they had the confidence and ability to set up a row of four cells side by side and initiate anomalous-heat reactions on all four at will." (bold added, here and below)

The phenomenon that F&P achieved in their cells was called "positive feedback", since the publication of their ICCF3 paper (2). They said: "The fact that (Q_f)₂ > (Q_f)₄ as well as other features of the experiments, shows that there is an element of "positive feedback" between the increase of temperature and the rate of generation of excess enthalpy. […] this feedback has been a major factor in the choice of our calorimetric method and especially in the choice of our experimental protocols. […] we take advantage of the "positive feedback" between the temperature and the rate of excess enthalpy generation to drive the cells to the boiling point, Fig 6."

F&P were even more explicit in pointing out the crucial importance of this phenomenon in their answer to the Morrison's criticisms the next year (3): "(vii) We observe here that if we had followed the advice to use isothermal calorimetry for the main part of our work, then we would have been unable to take advantage of the "positive feedback" to drive the system into regions of high excess enthalpy generation (perhaps, stated more exactly, we would not have found that there is such positive feedback). The fact that there is such feedback was pointed out by Michael McKubre at the Third Annual Conference of Cold Fusion and strongly endorsed by one of us (M.F.). As this issue had then been raised in public, we have felt free to comment on this point in our papers (although we have previously drawn attention to this fact in private discussions) "

So, this "positive feedback" is the real phenomenon which characterizes the F&P effect and that is worth to be replicated by Team Google.

The exterior manifestations of this phenomenon are very clear and evident. In 1995, at ICCF5, MF presented a paper (4) specifically devoted to discuss this phenomenon, in which we can read: "the rapid increases in temperature towards the boiling point are only achieved following the detection of "positive feedback" […] the cells are "driven to dryness" in relatively short periods of time".

The second footnote of this ICCF5 paper reveals also the early and crucial importance of this phenomenon in the F&P research activity on CF: "² We obtained the first evidence for the presence of "positive feedback" during 1986, a phenomenon which we later described under the euphemistic heading "uncontrolled releases of thermal energy". Our subsequent work has been carried out under narrowly and tightly controlled conditions to limit the consequences of these effects."

The conclusion of the above paper provides the following hypothesis as a possible primary cause which lead to the onset of positive feedback: "Prolonged polarization of cells containing Pd-based cathodes leads to "positive feedback", which can be attributed (at least in part) to a change from exothermic to endothermic absorption with increasing charging ratio. Increase of the cell temperature then leads to marked increases in the rates of excess enthalpy generation and enthalpy generation at the boiling point can be achieved."

The next year, at ICCF6, Lonchampt presented the results of his triennial activity aimed at replicating the F&P boil-off experiment (5). He was successful in replicating the exterior manifestations of the "positive feedback", i.e. the rapid increase of cell overvoltage - that he called "voltage burst" - coupled with a rapid increase of cell temperature toward the boiling point, which drove the cells to dryness in a relatively short period of time. He was so successful, that the exteriors manifestations of this phenomenon is documented also on Figs. 3a and 3b, which refer to a calibration run with a platinum cathode!

Lonchampt also discussed the primary causes of this behavior. In section 4 ("Basic phenomena occurring during electrolysis") he tied the "overvoltage at the cathode" with the "Increase of D loading in Pd" and finally with the "Excess heat generation". However on page 7, he provides another possible explanation of the phenomenon: "In all of our experiments showing excess heat at boiling, we have observed a sudden jump in power input towards the end of the experiment indicating a sudden change in the overvoltage. This might be due to the formation of a water gas film at the surface of the cathode when large quantities of heat are produced, either by electrical heating or possibly by the excess enthalpy itself."

This last mechanism, which is much more conventional than those involving the D loading in the Pd cathode, seems to better explain the behavior of the curves shown in the already cited Figs. 3a and 3b, in which the cells were rapidly driven to boil condition and to dryness, even when there was no Pd in the cathode.

So, a further very important reason for Team Google to replicate this crucial experiment is to better understand the real causes which triggered the "positive feedback" phenomenon documented in the many transient curves published by F&P and Lonchampt.

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf

(2) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

(3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

(4) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ds/2018/08/140__ICCF5.pdf

(5) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

Display More

you still dont get it ?

If F&P effect was easy to replicate it would no longer be a mystery.

To my memory the best they achieved was 1 of 8 cells indicating LENR. But you will find info on this if you bother to investigate a litle are stop being lazy.

So again: Many parallell F&P Runs must be set up for any hope of one or a few to show excess heat Events. And you would of course start with the easy tests of electrolysis Below Boiling to identify these.

That is why I suggested the SPAWAR co deposition tests a better option for google , which had a higer rate of success.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Fleischmann-_Pons_Effect

Quote from Ascoli65

I didn't find such requirements in the F&P Seminal paper of 1990 (1).

In the abstract, the authors say: "It is also shown that prolonged polarization of palladium cathodes in heavy water leads to bursts in the rate of enthalpy generation." (all the highlights, here and below, have been added)

Furthermore, introducing the results listed on Table 3, the authors explain: "Data are given for the three electrolytes used and the batch numbers of the particular electrodes are indicated. The measurements were made, as far as possible, when a steady state of excess enthalpy generation had been reached. However, this was not possible for some electrodes at the highest current densities used since the cells were frequently driven to the boiling point. The values given for these cases apply to the times just prior to the rapid increases in cell temperature (see section on Enthalpy Bursts)."

So it would seem that these phenomena were quite common for those electrodes which were run "at the highest current density" and after a "prolonged polarization".

In the section devoted to discuss the "Time dependence of the phenomena:“bursts” in enthalpy", the authors of the seminal paper wrote: "… we have found that cells are frequently driven to the boiling point, e.g. see Fig. 11. The rate of enthalpy production must become extremely large under these conditions since the dominant mode of heat transfer is now the latent heat of evaporation (see Appendix 3). It is not possible, however, at this stage to make a quantitative estimate of the heat output since the cells and instrumentation are unsuitable for making estimates under these conditions. It should also be noted that, although the cell potential initially decreases (in common to the situation for the bursts) there is usually a change to an increase of the potential with time when cells are driven to the boiling point probably due to the loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells."

Anyway, at that time, F&P chose to avoid the onset of the boiling condition by discontinuing or reducing the current: "It is also not possible to decide at this stage whether the attainment of boiling is due to a burst in enthalpy production or to an increase in the baseline output since we have adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or, at least, of reducing the current density) when the boiling point is reached."

Two years later, in 1992, F&P equipped their calorimeter with what they deemed a simple instrumentation suitable to make a reasonably accurate quantitative estimate of enthalpy lost by the system through the latent heat of evaporation. So, they began to run boil-off experiments where the cells were intentionally driven to the boiling condition.

In the abstract of their 1992 paper to ICCF3 (2), they described this instrumentation in this way: "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1 kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings."

In the section "A Further Simple Method of Investigating the Thermal Balances for the Cells Operating in the Region of the Boiling Point" of their ICCF3 paper, the two authors specified:

"It will be apparent that for cells operating close to the boiling point, the derived values of Q_f and of (k'_R)₁₁ become sensitive to the values of the atmospheric pressure (broadly for θ_cell > 97.5°C e.g., see Fig 9B.) It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data.

[…]

As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point."

So, provided that the same shape, dimensions and materials of the F&P cells are reproduced quite accurately, it's not at all difficult to replicate the same boil-off phenomena reported in their ICCF3 paper.

Let the Google's people decide which experiment is more suitable for their scope. Anyway, aside many other merits, the 1992 boil-off experiment is the only one which, thanks to the availability of the videos, they can indisputably demonstrate to have correctly replicated.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

(2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

Display More

That is beceause you have not read or understood the whole story.

F&P managed to get at best "only" one of 8 electrolytic cells to show active LENR.

So you do NEED to find what cells are active and which is not active before you try more advanced tests like the boil off.

And the way of finding active cells is to test many parallell cells like 20 off for weeks at temperatures below boiling and identify by excess heat or bursts of heat.

Quote from Ascoli65

No, he didn't replicate the F&P's boil-off experiment. FWIK, this experiment was properly and successfully replicated in the 90ies only by Lonchampt in France and by the NHE people in Japan.

Team Google will decide on the experiment(s) they want to replicate. Here, we were only invited to present our suggestions and provide the relevant reasons.

I don't know how much simple it is to replicate R20. Certainly, it is not simpler than the F&P boil-off experiment and, most importantly, it doesn't offer the same possibility of indisputably ascertaining the exact achievement of the same identical behavior of the original test, which is a unique feature of the 1992 boil-off experiment, thanks to the complete transparency of its configuration and the availability of the original videos.

In fact, the main problem for a replicator is not to replicate a CF experiment, but to demonstrate that it was indeed able to replicate it. This is necessary to refute all the objections that inevitably will be raised after the publications of results, as happened to Team Google after having published on Nature last May.

We should consider that a CF/LENR experiment can be subdivided in 3 main steps:

1st – the setting-up of the experimental apparatus, including the specimen and the instrumentation;

2nd – the running of the experiment, including the acquisition of all the experimental information: measuring data, videos, etc.;

3rd – the interpretation of the experimental evidences, including the energy balance and the conclusive claims

Any attempt to replicate a CF experiment is subjected to be criticized in anyone of the above steps. The criticisms could come from the CF believers in the case of attempts which failed to demonstrate the production of excess heat, or from the opposite field in the case the production of excess heat is claimed. For example, the lack of excess heat reported in the recent Google's articles on Nature was attributed by many CF supporters to an insufficient level of H loading, a feature concerning the 2nd step. (BTW, it's strange to see that many of these people suggest to replicate R20, despite the paper reporting its results states (1): "The results in Table 1 suggest that high permeability is necessary for excess heat, but high loading is not. On the contrary, high loading apparently reduces excess heat.")

Therefore, any experiment that prevents Team Google to demonstrate w/o any doubt that they have succeeded in reproducing the exact behavior of the replicated test will leave the CF issue unresolved. It will be a waste of time and resources. The only experiment that will allow them to demonstrate - at least for the first 2 steps - the success of their attempt is the "1992 boil-off experiment". If they will decide to replicate this experiment, only the 3^rd and final step (the interpretation of the experimental data) will be subject to possible diatribes, since any other objection concerning the first 2 steps will be easily rejected by comparing Google's experimental evidence with those originally documented by F&P, in particular by comparing the respective video recordings.

So, in conclusion, the F&P's boil-off experiment is the only one which allow to wipe out two thirds of the possible sources of conflict between supporters and critics of LENR and to greatly simplify the debate between the CF researchers and the mainstream scientists.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

Display More

same BS again.

Anyone trying F&P Pd/D system MUST set up 10 or 20 parallell cells and hope one or more of them show signs of heat bursts according to the F&P Seminal paper of 1990.

The cells that prove signs of active LENR i.e. heat burst, may the used to test their 1992 hypothesis of larger excess heat at higher temepratures.

But hey, they do not need to because their first test according to 1990 proved the LENR phenomenon.

Quote from Shane D.

We are getting bogged down in squabbles, and boil offs. We will never get down to a few experiments this way.

But I do have an idea that may help get the job done: Let this thread go on for a while, as it is serving it's purpose of whittling down the list, while also generating some very helpful background. At some point, we convene a thread for a few of the most prominent, and active players in the field, and let them *alone* decide the best experiment to recommend to Google. Or the "committee" could go private, using the Conversation feature. In essence, this thread would serve as a reference, or guide for the committee to use in it's decision making process.

I already have candidates in mind from Australia, U.S., England, Austria, France, Italy, and last but not least Russia.

What do you think? I am open to any other suggestions. Somehow we need to get on some path, where in the end we know there will be 1-3 experiments to present to the Google Program Manager. If this is this tough for us, you can imagine how the Google Team feels when they try to pick and chose what to do next. It really is an issue when you think about it, and accentuated by the many opinions on this thread. But if we can iron this out here, we will have at the least, made their task a little easier.

Display More

The recent Mizuno experiment is an obvious one.

And I think the SPAWAR rsearch was good and should be tried.

For other I would suggest google should discuss the matter with Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein, which would have some very good suggestions I believe.

Quote from Ascoli65

This is not the place for continuing our debate on this subject. We already had a plenty of opportunities to do that (1).

This thread is aimed to propose to the Team Google a single test which should solve the multi-decadal controversy about the CF. Many other people here have already proposed to replicate a F&P experiment. My suggestion is to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment", because IMO it is the most representative and best documented F&P's experiment.

You can propose whatever other experiment you like. The final choice depends on the Team Google.

(1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Display More

And you did not get my point.

No one should do boil off test before they know for sure they have a Pd/D cell that actually produce excess heat.

So they would have to first test according to F&P 1990 paper.

And f they acihieve positive result by F&P original experiment, they have allready proven LENR and do not need boil off, since that was only an extension to prove increased excess at elevated temperatures.