Bruce__H Member
  • Member since Jul 22nd 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Bruce__H

    Question regarding D2 gas Purity.


    Does anyone have any insight regarding the required purity of D2 for a Mizuno replication? My reason for asking is that, rather than bother with bottled D2, I'm going with a hydrogen generator. There is a minimum amount of liquid H2O or D2O required to partially fill the reservoir, and that minimum is about 1 liter.


    The 1-liter D2O I purchased is specified to be 99% pure. Is this good enough? Would it be feasible to use a 50/50 mix of D2O and H2O?

    In their Mizuno replication, Ramarao and colleagues from the Centre for Energy Research in Bangalore say that the excess heat they see is only marginally affected by switching from D2 to H2 inside the reactor.


    Here is a video describing their results. Look particularly at the discussion of slide 10 at around 11:10 in the video.


    http://ikkem.com/iccf23/speakervideo/1a-IN03-Ramarao.mp4


    P.S. You will note that, unlike Mizuno, the Ramarao group uses Samarium in their system. I have no idea if this is relevant to the question of D2 versus H2.

    I have good reason to believe that there is no problem with Holmlid's work, however, there are problems with who gets what slice of the pie.

    That is not what the statement from Nilsen and Tornberg sounds like.


    " ... fundamental doubt from Dag and Sindre Z Gundersen about the R&D work done
    by Professor Leif Holmlid. As you all know, the work of Professor Leif Holmlid was the fundament for
    NFE’s mission."


    It sounds like the Zeiner-Gundersens have fundamental doubt about Holmid's research. Fundamental doubt. A problem with Holmid's work sort of doubt. Not slicing-up-pie doubt.


    I wonder if Nilsen and Tornbeg realize that it sounds this way.

    Here is a list of possible replications attempts that I compiled several months ago by going back over this thread. Page numbers refer to this thread. I have also included what I know about outcomes although I believe that my information is sketchy at best.


    Alan Smith

    Nickec (Nicholas Cafarelli) (?) [p1]

    Ubaldo Mastromatteteo [p2]

    Gruppo scientifico per valutazione independente di tecnologie (not on LENR forum) negative

    Robert Horst (?) [p2]

    Brian Albiston (?) [4] Also on separate thread "Albiston/FluxHeat Mizuno Analogue Experiments" no XSH

    dartin [p3] Last post Aug 30 2019 neg?

    Fabrice David [p7] according to post by Shane D

    Cydonia [p8] bought 7 Ni meshes

    Jeff [p24] ended suddenly on Feb 7 2020 after much progress

    Deneum [p27] no XSH

    Arun Luthra [p27] seems to have abandoned attempt in Sept 2019 after pumps dont work

    Eros [p42] stopped Sept 21 2019

    H. Zhang


    Edit: And Magicsound!

    ... There have been two successful replications of Mizuno's work, in India and China. They have not achieved high heat, but they are improving replicability, which is more important than high heat.

    Two years on from the beginning of the this thread is a good time to survey what has been done. Not just positive replications, but also ones that did not show effects.


    Can anyone come up with a list?

    Yes, biased in favour of working to make this a more sustainable world. Biased in favour of evidence-based science, biased in favour of investigation rather than knee-jerk criticism. And proud of it.

    That's not what I meant. But you knew that.


    I expect that everyone here feels they are biased in the ways you mention. I'm sure Ascoli65 does and that is why he says what he says in his polite, evidence-based posts. Moderators should keep this in mind.


    Ascoli65's account should be unlocked forthwith together with an acknowledgment that a mistake was made when temporarily banning him.

    And Ascoli will be able to return in a few days. We can all look forward to that, I have no objection to sceptics, but I do get grumpy with obsessional monomaniacs and faux-naieve critics. A shortcoming that I hope to remedy, but please, not yet.

    Well then be grumpy with all the obsessional monomaniacs and faux-naive critics here. The charge I bring is not that you are grumpy, but that you are biased.

    Dear Ascoli. I'm banning you for a few days. This space is the 'LENR Forum, not the Ascoli's Obsession Forum. You never take notice of reasoned argument, you claim people agree with you when they patently do not...it's a long list of tiresome misdemeanours.


    Bye for now. Over and out.

    This is unjust. Of the people using this site who treat it as their own personal obsession forum, Ascoli65 is one who is unusually polite, well-informed, and rational.


    His activity on this thread is a completely appropriate response to the question that kicked it off. If he had acted in exactly the same way as here, but turned out to be strongly of the opinion that LENR is well-proven, he would not have been banned in the manner he was.

    Well, you are not considering that it only sticks to the jab spot, and not any other part of their bodies.

    There would be many ways to fool oneself so as to confirm one's expectations using this sort of procedure (look ... it sticks here but not here ... amazing!).


    It would would be much more impressive if the cellphone were to stick to the arm through a piece of paper. I predict it won't stick. What is your prediction?


    This is something we can all try when we get our second injection.

    Here the version 2.1.1 -soon 3 years ago - base line gamma ray filter output that is based on a 4D simplified Hamiltonian for the coupling ...

    I see lots of effort here but I don't understand a word of it. Nor does anyone else on this site.


    These are, apparently, calculations having to do with a complex atomic nucleus (Sn117). Naturally, everything is complicated. I was hoping for something dealing with a much much simpler situation so that people can understand the rudiments. I don't understand why you want to exhibit these sorts of complex calculations on this site where no one can understand them or check them or even appreciate them. You need to publish such things in a real journal. Not ResearchGate or Arxiv, which are just public bulletin boards with no peer review.


    As I have said, the most basic part of your theory strikes me as wrong and/or vague. You haven't reassured me at all on that score. Your Figure 1 encapsulates the problem. As a crucial move You appear to use a 4D Biot-Savart relationship ... something that is mathematically impossible. Parsley's paper, to which you constantly refer for support about this, does not do what you say. It is not about a Biot-Savart operator in 4D. Instead, It uses a Biot-Savart operator in 3D tangent spaces to the 3 sphere in R4. I understand that, but how it applies to your situation is completely unclear.

    From the Andreas Osiander foreword to Copernicus "De Revolutionibus"


    There have already been widespread reports about the novel hypotheses of this work, which declares that the earth moves whereas the sun is at rest in the center of the universe. Hence certain scholars, I have no doubt, are deeply offended and .........

    My memory of reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution" years ago is that the heliocentric theory was actually less accurate than the Ptolemaic theory for predicting the positions of the planets.

    A known mass that the predominantly accepted model fails to calculate to the same 4th significant figure.


    No. I mean a prediction made before the measurement. Suppose that over the next 2 years experimenters add 5 significant figures to the measured mass of some particle. If Wyttenbach were to publicly predict, ahead of time, what those added digits were later found to be, that would be impressive. And if Wyttenbach's theory differed from others regarding the successful prediction then all the better.

    Curbina

    When I say that I would be persuaded by a particle mass prediction that was later confirmed by new measurements, I am absolutely sincere.


    I am not talking about retrodicting a known mass. I am talking about a risky prediction that differs from the predictions of other theories. . Nailing something like that would be hugely impressive.

    @Bruce.


    I don't think this theory stands or falls upon your inability to understand it.

    What is at issue right now is not my inability to understand it. It is Wyttenbach's inability to explain what is supposed to be going on in a figure that he has placed in a prominent position in his ResearchGate paper. My lack of understanding is because of this failure of communication on Wyttenbach's part. But not just my lack of understanding ... you also have no idea what is going in that figure. Nor does RobertBryant. Nor does anyone here. And since Wyttenbach has not (to my knowledge) actually sent an account of his SO(4) theory to an expert for critical review, I think it can be said that no one in the world understands what is going on in that figure or in this part of Wyttenbach's arguments.


    And yet this all has to do with a fundamental part of Wyttenbach's theory ... how a circulating charge (or whatever it is) adopts a stable configuration so as to form the fundamental particles and forces of nature.


    The reason I keep asking a question about the direction of the induced magnetic fields in Figure 1 is because I believe that one can't define such a direction in 4 dimensions. And I note that after I have asked Wyttenbach this question many times, he has dodged giving an answer on every occasion. It now appears to me that this is on purpose. The reason is yet to be determined but certainly a candidate is that he has no answer and doesn't want to say so..


    Correspondence to experimental results? Possibly. The fundamental quantities that Wyttenbach calculates will tell the story here. But again ... this should be put before experts in the form of a focused, well-explained paper so that they can separate this from mere numerology. The readers here are not competent to judge. And instead of coming up with numbers that are already know experimentally, why not make a prediction? Choose a particle whose mass is not well known right now and publicly post a prediction for it, then wait a 2-3 years for the experiments to catch up. THHuxelyNew suggested such a program a couple of year ago. A successful prediction would be hugely persuasive for me!


    And what of Wyttenbach's predictions regarding the gamma radiation emitted by the Atom-Ecology fuel pellets? They are to be ignored until the reality of the basic observations can be confirmed. With the primary investigator having apparently abandoned the project, and no one else able to replicate the fuel or the findings the whole thing should be treated as a mirage ... and explanations of a mirage are worthless.


    Wyttenbach should get serious and submit some part of his SO(4) work to a serious journal. His present activities -- dancing around on a site full of people with no suitable background for judging this stuff -- is a fast road to obscurity.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    In spite my efforts, I have been unable to get you to provide a simple explanation of Figure 1 in your paper.


    If you don't understand basic math/physics then try it with a textbook first. You obviously are not interested as you did not notice that in the coming text no reference is made to this figure...

    I don't see how the "coming text" that you refer to addresses my questions about Figure 1. Can you not just answer some simple questions about the figure you prepared?


    In the figure there are green arrows labeled "B" which I believe are meant to represent the magnetic fields of the current loops you show. My question is about the directions in which these fields point. In particular, which direction is the field associated with the u,v loop supposed to point?


    This is a simple question that I have asked several times before. I know I am being persistent on this point but it seems to me that the answer I seek is fundamental to the other assertions in your SO(4) theory. So if there is an answer then why not state it? f you don't have an answer then why not say so?

    You obviously are not interested as you did not notice that in the coming text no reference is made to this figure...

    I am working from a ResearchGate document called "The proton, electron structure, its resonances and fusion products", dated October 2020. The text does refer to Figure 1 several times. RobertBryant even posted the figure and a region of text talking about it (as you will see by clicking here). Are you now saying you have altered the figure or your description of it?

    The last time: You can show 4 rotations in 4D but physically & mathematically for the solution you need 5D at least!


    When I started with the modelling I did hope that we can stay with 4 homogeneous dimension as this covers the 3D/4D mass. Then it became clear that the CT = 4 rotation is the inner symmetry space (4-He) and the 5th rotation is the self containment of the flux.

    Either you read on and try to understand or stop to ask questions of no real value.

    In spite my efforts, I have been unable to get you to provide a simple explanation of Figure 1 in your paper. Among the questions that remain unanswered are whether the events depicted there are supposed to play out in 4 spatial dimensions and how you determine what direction the green arrows labelled "B" are supposed to point. These are really basic questions. I think that the answers to these questions are of fundamental importance for anyone trying to access your theories. I don't understand what is going on in Figure 1 and I don't think that anyone else reading this thread understands any more than I do.


    Do you know of anyone, anywhere, who has understood the basics of your theory?