Posts by THHuxleynew

    Axil - but of course. I've been forwarded docs from two different sources that ensure that the R'ster is no longer able to "engineer" from Florida (as in Cease and Desist). Hilariously - he had to claim that he never "engineered" on an unlicensed basis while in Florida which is the truth with the exception of an ongoing fiction.


    There must be a lot of folks still after some accountability.


    I wonder sometimes whether Rossi specifically chose Florida as his base of operations since it has legal arrangements more than usually friendly towards his brand of activities, when compared with other US states.

    IMHO, Rossi's partner came up with the idea for the SK reactor and may have built it. It does not make sense for Rossi to make the QX reactor redundant. My sense is that the new partner is taking over a major part of the engineering that is going on in Rossi's shop. Rossi seems to be working at the partner's facility where SK development is occurring.


    If you clear your mind of the "Rossi has working product" meme that currently infects it, then it makes every sense for Rossi to abandon the QX, just as he has abandoned the e-cat, the hot-cat, etc, etc. The old technologies have no value since they do not, as IH found to their cost, work.


    And as any new partner will eventually discover, the new technologies do not work either if Rossi runs to form, and I would be very very surprised if he did not.

    Why didn't you go on with the trial then?

    Everything was in your favor wasn't it?


    Gruber - it has been said before, but I guess from your comment you are not very familiar with how the US legal system works in civil cases?


    Litigating parties never have "everything in their favour" - for example litigation costs are not in their favour and even if IH won Florida (where, surprise surprise, Rossi has ended up) is a great state to be in if you want to avoid paying what is legally owed. I defer to others with better knowledge of Floridian law how easy it would be to extract money from Rossi's wife and maze of shell companies etc in this case.


    For this reason IH never wanted the Trial. Rossi started it, and then chickened out just before he was due to give evidence under oath.

    Thanks THH,


    Will investigate this further.


    If you have more info how to calculate n, then I would be gratefull to receive it


    You can do a numerical integration of the Planck curve spectral power over the camera frequency passband, and note how that changes with T. Specifically Accuracy would require knowing the Optris spectral response which may be difficult to find data on. Or you could get an approximate answer by evaluating the Planck function at just one frequency - say the mid-point of the stated response band. A good compromise would be to integrate uniformly over the stated band. Clarke used integration over a typical IR bolometer response graph found by Higgins (referenced in link). The results are not VERY dependent on what you use for this.


    Her eis how you do the (reasonably good) uniform rectangular passband response calculation. For the more complex version you multiply by the bolometer response inside the integration. The idea is that B(T) is the total power received by the detector. there is also a constant (independent of T or nu) factor but this does not matter, it drops out when you calculate n.


    ql_a08e6a95e58eca3de6d6ad9df1338b18_l3.png EDIT multiply by T to get n


    Here nu1 - nu2 are the bounds of the bolometer quoted response (converted to frequency nu2 > nu1).


    n for a given value of T can be found by (numerically) integrating to get a function B(T). Then numerically differentiating B to get its polynomial in T approximation at any given T, note that n, dB/dT, and B are all functions of T (I've omitted the explicit dependence as in normal).


    EDIT - sorry I've lost the latex source, but n should be T(dB/dT)/B (multiply by T). Sorry for the typo.



    LDM - the basic physics means that the value of n is highly temperature dependent. MFMP verified this n ~ 3 at just one temperature (where indeed numerically n ~ 3), and if you talk to them they will say they did not validate at other temperatures because they broke the camera. That is why their high temperature results were wrong (though much less wrong than the Lugano authors).


    Remember the key equation here (T=temp, Pb = power in a given passband) is the Planck curve, and this changes as Pb ~ T^1 (in extreme low frequency approx) to Pb ~ T^n where n -> infinity as frequency increases for the high frequency (above hump) case.


    The LF case, n=1, is well studied as the Rayleigh - Jeans approximation.


    the high frequency case (n -> infinity) is also studied as the Wien approximation. That shows:


    Pb ~ exp(-C/(kT)).


    that goes up faster than an exponential in T where C >> kT (the high frequency case). Unfortunately it is not a nice expression to deal with algebraically.


    There are a whole load of simple approximations of which S ~ T^A is the least accurate:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…%E2%80%93Hattori_equation


    You can easily validate how n changes with T yourself numerically from the Planck curve.

    I see a logical fallacy here: you can't infer from the fact that both signs come from a different nuclear reaction that they are necessarily independent. For example a nuclear reaction may be secondary to a primary nuclear reaction. It is actually the route that I privilege in LENR.

    No. Because heat and gammas, the two effects, can have a single cause, namely a primary nuclear reaction.

    Yes the likelihood of artifacts would go down, not for the reason you mention, but simply because the prior probability of one artifact leading to both effects, or to the prior probability of two independent artifacts occuring at the same time leading to one effect each, is low.


    No subtelty here.



    There is a common mechanism: where excess heat is from nuclear reactions and >99.99% or reaction energy gets thermalised without any detectable high energy particles. That is pretty well needed for LENR as hypothesised over the years because high energy particles are not detected. The problem then is why high energy particles (often tested) are not seen more often correlated with heat.


    What we have here (and more generally in LENR work) is some work that indicates marginal high energy particles, some work that indicates marginal excess heat, but both happen arbitrarily in a non-correlated way and the chances of this having a common mechanism are small. Then, we need two novel and independent nuclear mechanisms, both strange enough not to be easily isolatable as testable physics.


    Therefore this is a coincidence of two independent highly unexpected things and means that they do not support each other.

    sure ain't so ... unless you regard both as impossible.


    You need to consider both unlikely, in which case the two together have (roughly) the product of the likelihood - much less likely. you don't need to consider them impossible.


    Whereas when considering artifacts, the more potential anomalies you monitor, the more chances to artifactually hit one of them, if in LENR work there is no requirement for coherence between different anomalous observations.


    None of this proves LENR does not exist. Personally I'm fascinated by many of the various anomalies, both the well-conducted historical ones, notably those from McKubre, and the new ones. Say this hinted at daily gamma signal (which from the limited information disclosed here does not look much like an LENR sign, because of the chronological periodicity). I would dearly love some subset of these to come from nuclear reactions since it is not absolutely impossible and would if true open lots of possible technology. It is disappointing that the anomalies that seem clearest tend to get squashed (as the Letts double laser one I linked above).


    THH

    It will be difficult to stick yo your argument that the the output power is not measured properly when a client is paying for it.


    LOL - you mean like Doral?


    Tell me how you would validate a Rossi client as real? That is assuming any Rossi clients ever materialise, which seems unlikely...


    Don't you think Adrian you are a bit ahead of yourself here? It would be good to have just one known working prototype of any Rossi device, let alone a client using it...

    Edit added.

    Q. "In the direct streaming you will made for the presentation of the SK will it be possible to see an Ecat SK in operation?."


    Andrea Rossi: Yes.


    AA; on this topic. It is difficult to see how any Rossi-controlled video of a demo could prove anything at all. Still - AFTER this has happened, if iyt does, I'll be happy to give you my views on it.

    Shane - I'd like to remind you that much of the R'ster's efforts in discovery were invested in trying to find if IH shared his "IP' with others. They scoured the emails and focused on that topic in depositions with all deposed IH people. Because that didn't happen, there was no evidence that the R'ster's attorneys could have found or used to make this point in the trial. There was not a hint of evidence to support this lie of R and his disciples. All IH folks told the truth and guess what - you can tell the truth the same way every time!


    Just to point out to AA and Sam. This point is not a DeweySays. If they had such evidence it would have been all over the discovery extracts and Summary judgement essays made public in the court process. So there was no such evidence.

    A rough estimate is gammas contribution is way below 10-6!



    In our case gammas are just the information of failures and do contribute virtually nothing to the LENR energy. Energy is transported by magnetism otherwise the fuel would melt.


    Right, but then for that to cohere you need "transported by magnetism" to work for nearly all gammas, and nearly all of any other high energy reaction products, nearly all of the time...

    I remember you suggesting the the output power from te QX came from the power pack. Am I mistaken?


    No, there was strong circumstantial evidence for that, so we agree.



    If that were the case presumably the power from the Sks would also come from the power pack.


    Sorry, you have lost me. What output power? I've no info about a demonstration of the SK (nor even that it exists) therefore it would be premature to have any theory about it. Also it would be ignoring history to assume the same artifacts in all Rossi's tests, we have certain evidence that different artifacts have been used in different historic demos, so if there were an SK demo i'd expect it to be faked some different way - for technical reasons. At high claimed output power it is easier to spoof the output measurement than the input power. Though I would not a priori rule out either. You will remember some of Rossi's earlier high power tests which have had unexpectedly large input power capacity, and scaled down the claimed (tested) output so that it was no more than the possible input.


    Shane,


    You will note in my posts here that I very rarely say disrespectful things about people. Any lack of respect you have noted in my posts on this topic relate to the information provided on this thread, and the way that I find it unhelpful in evaluating these exciting sounding experiments.


    I also, and this is my personal view and I think a proper one, don't like teasers. Thus, if they have something serious that they wish for (many possible) understandable reasons not to be open about, they should not post gamma counts vs time teasers on here and claim that these indicate something extraordinary, inciting speculation. If they wish to be open they should be open, and as in MFMP open science (which once was) setups, methodology, data could all be discussed crowd sourcing ideas. Or a preliminary paper could be published revealing evidence that they want public in a way that makes sense but preserves whatever must be secret. I don't take a view on whether they would be better off with an open model or a closed model - just that the "semi-open" model as here is non-optimal.


    Now, this is a criticism of the PR (on this public thread) from this group of able researchers, not of the researchers, nor in fact of their work. I know nothing of the work, nor of the ability of the people doing it, so would not dream of criticising either.


    But I feel fully justified in pointing out when public engagement is in my view unhelpful.


    Now, as for a "well they must have done something wrong" that is an entirely misperceived view of things, experimental artifacts are arbitrarily complex and having these is not "doing something wrong". Rather, considering all possibilities and directing future experiments to eliminate hypothetical artifacts is doing something right. Anyone with this type of data doing LENR must spend most of their time under the working assumption that there is an artifact, because till they have something publishable and convincing that is the best way to make their data publishable and convincing. Not because "mainstream scientists" are biassed, but because extraordinary results require that type of investigation, whether they are FTL neutrinos or LENR. LENR gets a tougher ride on this than - say - some non-standard gravitational theory - because the LENR hypothesis as usually put forward is non-falsifiable and non-coherent. That means it requires a higher level of positive evidence to be interesting. Just a little bit of coherence and that would change.


    So - if you think you are helping Alan et al by criticising an approach to their work, like mine, which assumes it is artifact until proven otherwise you are I believe mistaken (in this I follow Abd's views).


    THH

    The usual assumption is that LENR doesn't produce gammas., Jed will tell you all about that. Actually if all the heat we see was caused by thermalised gammas we would be dead. As I have stated before in this (Atom-Ecology) thread they are an indicator of nuclear activity, but not directly related to the heat we see.



    That is all understood Alan. Just for others reading:


    My point is a subtler one, which is that unexpected excess heat is one thing, unexpected gammas is another. Both might be signs of unexpected nuclear reactions but they not likely signs of the same unexpected nuclear reactions. Therefore this is a coincidence of two independent highly unexpected things and means that they do not support each other. We can be pretty sure that either the heat or the gammas has a non-nuclear (experimental artifact) type explanation.


    It is subtle, because the natural assumption when excess heat (could be artifact) and gammas (could be artifact) are observed together you would expect likelihood of artifacts to go down, because a single nuclear reaction cause would generate both observations.


    It is this type of coherence between different observations, or observations and theory, that I always look for to see whether my spider sense indicates something that looks interesting. Alas I've not yet found much of it.

    Is the assumption that LENR "excess heat" is only generated by the thermalization of gammas?


    Thanks,


    No, obviously there are other high energy particles, and not all reactions generate gammas.


    But, if gammas are generated (as is the hypothesis for the RG experiment) then they will normally contain significant amounts of the released energy. I build into the above a factor of 100 - e.g. 1% of released energy going into the gammas. In fact if gammas are generated they are likely not to be thermalised within a lightweight calorimetric enclosure, so this is in addition to the thermal output. To get very low ratios of gamma energy to other (thermalised) energy you need branching ratios that just happen mostly to give reaction products thermalised, and only very occasionally gammas. That is possible, but not likely. You can always make any data fit a hypothesis as vague as LENR by choosing unlikely options, and maybe they happen, but I'm skeptical when they do.

    Any chance of putting a rough lower limit on the level of gamma radiation expected for the rate of excess heat generation claimed (~ 25 Watts)?


    v rough: 10MeV = 1.6E-9J so we need 1E9 reactions each emitting a 10MeV gamma, to take a very simplified example, for 1W. Divide by 100 for safety and because heat comes from things other than high energy gammas. So we have 1E7 reactions/s for 1W. You then have to multiply by the GC efficieny (what fraction of gammas it picks up).


    That is depends largely on the experiment geometry (what solid angle the GC window takes up). For example 1 1cm^2 window situated 10cm away from the source would catch a fraction equal to 1cm^2 / surface area of 10cm radius sphere = 400pi cm2.


    In this case the geometric factor is 1E-3.


    In addition there is the GC efficiency but that is usually quite high, and possible shielding from material between source and GC (like reactor casing). Probably for high energy gammas that will not absorb much.


    If we use 10E-3 as Gc detection efficiency we get 10E4 cps of 600000 cpm.


    The noted level here was I think around 1000cpm? I also suspect a higher efficiency than assumed above (if trying to pick up gammas close to background you put GC as close to reactor as possible). Having said that, if they have a oven-style reactor that maybe limits GC position and could have lower efficiency than above. Why I find "hint-like" reveals as here so frustrating is that you have a lot of unknowns to go into these approx calculations.


    Anyway, ignoring that we have a factor of 500 or so difference between the just detectable (10X background) count here and a similar just detectable 1W heat. The GC is thus 500X more sensitive than any calorimetric measurement from this type of system, and 10,0000X more sensitive than the count expected from normal nuclear reactions generating 25W.


    Which fact, and v few LENR experiments showing any radioactivity, means a viable LENR mechanism that generates detectable heat is normally expected to down convert high energy products to many low energy phonons at very high efficiency leaving almost no high energy products. Alternatively to operate via nuclear reactions that do not have any high energy products not immediately absorbed with 99.99% efficiency, but that is difficult for various reasons. Getting high cross-sections for such one to very many particle interactions is one of the key challenges in LENR that Hagelstein in particular has pointed out and tried to find theoretical solutions for.

    You should take a memory test. Have you already forgotten your reply of June 2nd to my PM about a 'show and tell' 60 miles from London with an open date. quoted below in part.


    "Dear Alan,


    I am remiss in not replying to this. It came at the wrong time .... I must decline the invite, though honoured to have been asked...... "


    Ok, I understand that. It was not billed as a show and tell (or i misunderstood), and it more importantly it was not open in date! If you are interested in getting a wider range of experimental critiques I still think that private internet communication might be more effective than physical demos. You will understand why I'm not a fan of physical demos, except as "the icing on the cake" after methodology and equipment have all been discussed? I would make a very bad attendee for any of Rossi's circus acts.


    Anyway, if you go on hinting at results that your best efforts can't explain other than as new physics I will become progressively more interested in the specifics, on the understanding that as a skeptic my view of marginal results is that they are probably nothing. I'd think you would yourselves have the resources to obtain results that can be written up, and if you want to do that I'll offer to help, since I like trying to be clear about things, and I'm good at presenting technical stuff. In the process I might help understand what is going on, though I don't expect my insights to be better than others, especially since I'm not that skilled in experimental physics.


    I think my PR on what I understand you have (if no writeup) would be: "hey we've got an experiment here where we cannot understand the results, but it is not yet coherent and repeatable enough to make writing up possible", or something. In that case I'd say you need different methodology or instrumentation.


    THH

    I would have to say I detect a bit of mainstream arrogance in THH's comment. A first for him IMO, and he and I go back a few years. Surprisingly so, when taking into account he is only a bus fare away from seeing it first hand, and has an open invite.


    Shane, I beg to disagree. First because I'm not a "mainstream" person, whatever that is. Second because my view above that special pleading helps no-one and (when replicated across most of a field) harms it, is a valid point, not arrogance.


    I was not aware of an open invite, nor of any such convenient bus (but then geography has never been my strong point and I guess the UK must seem a tiny place from a US perspective). Anyway, should Alan wish to invite me to look at this stuff I'd consider it. He could PM me. Personally I think what is needed is to write things up clearly. From that it is easier to see the strengths and weaknesses of the work, and how to proceed. Being on the spot and asking questions can help with that, but I'm a slow person. When I first encounter a new problem I don't usually understand it properly, and it takes at least a few weeks of persistent reflection (often longer) to get as far with it as (I) can. Which makes a day long or whatever visit a bit unsatisfactory because the visitor does not work things out enough in that timescale to ask the right questions. So in the interests of efficiency for everyone there might be better methods of initial engagement than physical visits: rather as committee meetings without decent preparatory documents are pretty bad at dealing with complex problems.

    What a good idea. why didn't we think of that?



    Alan. Sarky "we know it all" comments are all good fun, but you are playing to criticism that you deliberately provoke.


    (1) Data as revealed here of gammas is interesting but in the realm of "some weird error we don't understand" rather than "we have an LENR on-demand gamma generator".

    (2) Russ George talks about his work in a way that does not inspire confidence, describing a demo in which he brings his own test instruments to take to other labs


    Personally, I'm very open to the possibility that detected gammas from an experiment indicate some real unusual physics - low level nuclear reactions from unexpected high shielding of hydrogen nuclei within a lattice or whatever. Or, that the results noted are explained by some really difficult to identify experimental error source (and you well know that such things are common). Against that I'd note that such low level nuclear reactions do not cohere with observed excess heat (because the sensitivity is so much higher, for measurable excess you'd need much higher gamma counts). Additional hypotheses that conveniently dispose of most expected high energy products via one to very many coupling mechanisms are as you know one of the more difficult theoretical problems for a viable LENR theory, so there is no strong expected correlation between low level gamma evidence and excess heat evidence, and a concern about the coincidence that physics conspires to make real LENR indistinguishable from experimental error.


    I have less patience here with the "special pleading" excuse of LENR experimenters for hinting at results without writing them up in a way that would allow critique and replication. In my view that is a strong encouragement for people with delusions to keep them for longer than is needed.


    Whenever there are LENR results that look interesting they are replicated. Take for example the Letts dual-laser replication http://coldfusioncommunity.net…2018/08/1_JCMNS-Vol20.pdf


    I'm almost tempted to start a thread on that since it describes in detail a careful experimental methodology not usually written up in LENR experiment writeups.

    You really think Bob answered any of my points?


    He didn't know what IH had achieved and so made up a story.


    Here is how arguments work.


    Q: What did IH do that was better than Rossi


    Bob: lists a number of IH achievements well documented, and validated in the real world as worthwhile (slightly) by SP upgrade due to equity offering and 3.5X the original valuation. That means a serious guy with real money bought in reckoning their non-Rossi portfolio now was worth more than what Woodford had originally paid for it + Rossi. Perhaps that says something about how much Woodford valued Rossi?


    AA: Bob did not know what IH achieved and so made up a story.


    Really? You think that is an adequate reply to a detailed resume of info some of which is public, some of which has been discussed here in a semi-public way, none of which is surprising to those who have paid attention?


    THH

    What about your claim all the power output from the QX was from the power pack? Aren't you interested in a power pack that could output 1 MW? Or are yo backing off your theory?


    What theory Adrian? I've advanced no theory as to how Rossi would fake a device outputing 1MW because he has never demonstrated 1MW (except Doral where the fakery was revealed for all to see).


    If this demo has gammas as a clear anomalous positive (clearer, and more diagnostic, than excess heat) then taking the device to another lab and letting THEM measure gammas with their own equipment would indeed be useful, and provide enormous credibility if results are positive.


    From this I'm not quite sure that is what Russ has in mind? Nor do I think that he has lab rat proof gamma generation going on. Hope I'm wrong.


    THH

    THH, you never answered my comment to you on the previous page.


    Bob gave a good answer, and I saw no need to repeat things


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    Perhaps you did not read it? - I note no reply from you.


    LOL. When have you written a comment that didn't include an insult to Rossi or anyone that seems to be supporting him?


    Many of my comments do not insult anyone. Saying that Rossi is a liar and cheat is fact, not insult, as you know.

    Yes, sometime I have suspected that "IH representatives" were posting here, but with the exception of Dewey Weaver the posters on this thread to the best of my knowledge have not acknowledged any connection, either business or personal with IH.


    The posters on this tread fell free to express their unvarnished opinions about Rossi's flaws (that I basically agree with) so that frank criticism of the main players in LENR development is not out of bounds.


    I am just hoping that someone moron, fraud, or whatever produce a commercial product to get the LENR development train moving.



    Personally, I am slow to accuse others of deliberate bad faith of any kind. I do this with Rossi (and it is allowed here) because every statement I make is backed up with pubicly available, and known here, fact. He is a liar, cheat, and has behaved with exceptionally bad faith towards those who have funded him. His blog comments were and continue to be blatant propaganda, they are self-contradictory, old promises and statements (over a period of 7 years) are known untrue.


    Similar dark statements about IH, or hot fusion researchers, are not so backed. Were anyone engaged in real work to behave like that it would be a very serious matter. In business and science trust is important, and wholesale disregard for truth in ones dealings with others is not a good idea.


    THH


    PS - I can assure you that I am not an IH representative. Were I so they would never have made the egregious errors with Rossi that they did. My relatively friendly statements about them is because I admire their appetite for risk and the fact that they support research, even if it is into lost causes. Occasionally lost causes pan out. If I had any inkling that IH lied and cheated I would say so here (though not make a direct accusation unless certain).

    It is probably a heating surface area vs area exposed to the atmosphere thing, along with surface tension (related to the atmosphere “window” size). I read something about a long time ago.

    I’ll see if I can find a reference. I probably have a water boiling point folder someplace, on a drive. Apparently the experiments with “superheating” water can be quite dangerous. Spontaneous giant vapour bubbles (can throw all the other hot water out of, or break the container) and instant vaporization of all the water at once are potential hazards.


    Simpler than that. At low boiling rates the shape of the vessel will determine how much mixing of atmosphere there is with vapour and hence partial water vapour pressure at surface. At high boiling rates the shape of the vessel will determine the total pressure increment at the surface due to dynamic effect of throttling the outgoing vapour.


    There is also, when turbulent boiling, as P says, total surface exposed but maybe this is not so much vessel shape dependent.


    Caveat - this is off the top of my head so maybe I've missed something?

    How long have we been waiting for ITER to deliver? There has been lies, deceit and fraud coming from the hot fusion crew than have ever come from LENR developers. Such rude behavior has been roundly referenced throughout LENR as retarding process in LENR for nearly three decades. By the way, do you work or have worked in the nuclear energy industry?


    Axil. I don't mind your flights of fancy here, which I admire for invention though they are not always to my tatse.


    I do wish to correct the record when you label tens of thousands of hard working engineers and plasma physicists, making real advances in many technical fields (though very slow progress to possible commercial fusion), as liars and frauds without one iota of evidence. If one of the Hot Fusion 2.0 ideas pans out, using much better superconducting magnets, it will rely on all that research effort.


    It is unconscionable, and you should be ashamed.

    Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know anything at all about this latest and most wonderful e-cat? The previous most wonderful e-cat was a glowing tube hooked up to some sprinkler parts and clearly required an hour or two to build. What is the new one like (I mean apart from the spheromaks and hobgoblins hidden inside)?


    Just a wild guess.


    It maybe is gas driven. Rossi can break even (wrt fuel) on his proposed pricing for contracts if he uses gas as the heat source, rather than, as previously, electricity. he has such long history getting away with claiming COP=1 electric heaters are LENR devices that he would I'm sure have the chutzpah to do this.