The only reason I can see for not posting details on this affair as they crop up is the possibility of legal issues arising for this forum. I really don't see that as probable.
Meanwhile, maybe this guy would like to see the details come out. Maybe a subsequent reaction from the lenr community would turn the tide. for him How do you know otherwise?
I edited out the profs name. We know who he is, and no reason to publicly shame him. What he did is not a federal offense.
I disagree. Anyone with a PhD can take care of himself. Stop coddling!
The final version is yet to come. I am editing it now, though it may take some time, W and I are working closely together on this. He is a prodigious mathematician and a long term student of nuclear physics. The essential thing for me is that it is predictive in terms of developing LENR from a theoretical and experimental base,, far more skilled than I am,, and his ideas have certainly captures the interest of one of the worlds most accomplished nuclear scientists who has realised its importance and is following up with questions and comments.
Could the questions and comments be posted in some form here?
... As for the connection between our work and wyttenbach's theories, we like the theory and it supports data we have collected in our own lab. I recommend that you read it closely.
I am trying to read Wyttenbach`s paper found on researchgate. Some parts are over my head and I struggle to understand it but in some parts this is because it is incomplete in the sense that result are brought up and used without explanation. It is described as an extract from 3 other papers so this many be why.
Since you have recommended that I read it closely, I wonder how you have managed to assess it. Do you understand it? Has Wyttembach's theory ever been put in front of someone competent to critique it? Has he ever published this in a refereed forum?
So no reason to modify the negative conclusion Magicsound mentioned earlier. Certainly nothing like the 5X larger than background signal reported by JohnyFive
I'll start the radiation measurement in about 10 minutes, to allow some background data to accumulate. Meanwhile, does anyone have a suggestion or requests for this test sequence?
I would keep it simple. I liked THH's ABABABAB approach where A is exposed paper and B is unexposed. I suppose that the window of the counter has to be wiped between changes.
So ... no gammas on Saturday then?
Hope is a verb with its sleeves rolled up and we are deep into that phase of this work. Here I am at 3am working on todays ineffable data that has woken me out of my slumber. The data stealing my sleep arrived in the afternoon, a few hours before 'beer o'clock', as one of my new fuel mixtures offered a new heresy, That one of the new 8 pack experiment array had been sitting in a cold furnace without power for some days while my attention was elsewhere but the arrays data was logging and quietly being displayed on one of my many computer screens. Suddenly like a flash of lightening an event occured, Alan can testify to my WOW exclamation at the time. Shortly thereafter RxB (reactor b) as viewed by the Geiger Array came on stage and began the gamma dance rising and sustaining at 4-5 times background for some few hours, at times in short time intervals much much higher. Now that's COLD fusion - no energy input what-so-ever , energy out, and just the right trace levels of gammas to keep everything honest. It seems some mouse ran past and the cats (the Atom-Ecology reactors and I) started chasing and examining the mouse tails in great detail. What a mouse! More on Muab'Dib as it was conveniently seen and dutifully logged by the data cat/computer later. But in these wee hours there is no more beautiful a dream than an immense data log of 36+ data categories captured every second for a couple of weeks in a proper scientific array for background. To say nothing that I was working a meter away with my trusty gamma spectrometer, provided by the via the generosity and good faith of a member of this forum some months ago ( a friend indeed). With the Gamma Spec up and running, freshly calibrated and being used by me to study a new triggering and control technique I am successfully practicing with in the Androcles Furnace that sits nearby. It is my messing about rig and I was able to quickly turn its scintillating eyes onto the new heresy of RxB's suddenly very very active state. Finally a perfectly enduring cold fusion radiation episode captured in all manner of rigorous instruments in the new array and with the independent battery powered laptop Gamma Spectrometer. When the performnace had waned the day in the lab was done upon going home the god's must have been watching and decided wehad done some worthy work. There are miles to go before we sleep, let alone make more of a public release.
Do you think that this episode was also evoked by cosmic rays? If so then why would these cosmic rays shine on your system at about 10AM in May and about 3PM now? Assuming that the position of the new reactors within your lab is about the same as the old one, I would have thought that a solar source for the rays would still result in the gammas arriving in the morning. And a source from outside the galaxy would result in the initiation of gammas being shifted by about 12 hours with respect to May.
Maybe the periodicity of these gammas won't be 24 hours. Now that would set the cat among the pigeons!
Once you have your eye in, it is easy to identify some of the posts on JONP that are definitely just Rossi writing to himself (as outlined in this post Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion).
Here is a cracker that shows off Rossi's tender side ...
I watched the whole 3 hours video of your convincing demonstration with the Ecat QX at the IVA of Stockholm on November 24th.
I notice your body language: you appear shy, humble, most of time keeping low your head, while saying things of momentous importance and giving a strong demo in front of one of the highest scientific echelons of the world: this all has been born after more than twenty years of hard work of studies and experiments that made you the undisputed number 1 of the world in this sector.
What a contrast between what you are and what you are doing and the shy attitude you show.
Good luck to you and your team for your important job.
Then Rossi answers himself ... sweetly, humbly ...
I am always aware of all the difficulties of this work and of how thin is the space between success and failure in this field at this stage. Our job is very, very, very difficult. Sometime I have the sensation that the more I study, the less I know. At the IVA of Stockholm I was terrorized by the possibility that something could go wrong.
... funny I was trying to count how many time 'convincing' was used and then compare it to synonyms with respect to the ranking of most frequently used words.
Definitely 'convincing' is most often used on jonp but on the other hand what would be a good synonym to use instead?
I can see that "convincing" or "convinced" would tend to come up in such conversations but not "IVA" or "Godspeed". These are unusual. terms and yet they frequently occur with mention of being convinced.
The "IVA" is the conference centre at which the November 2017 demo was held (https://ivakonferens.se/en/). I'm not sure how someone who casually stumbles on a video of the demo would know this. It isn't mentioned on any of the sites where the video is available.
I do not know if you are interested anymore, but Gale thinks the Stockholm video was convincing. By her name, I would guess she is American, who flunked English class. :
October 11, 2018 at 4:10 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I found on “youtube Ecat QX demonstration in Stockholm” the demo you made with the Ecat QX, which is very well done and convincing. Did that Ecat QX we can see in the video have an evolution? If yes, can you explain?
There have been a series of posts much like this which have the following factors in common
- they are in slightly fractured English
- the correspondent almost always goes by a single first name and this is their only post
- the correspondent reports that they are "convinced" about the Stockholm demo or find it "convincing"
- the correspondent doesn't just refer to the "Stockholm" demo, they often call it the "IVA" Stockholm demo
- the correspondents often wish Rossi "Godspeed" at the end
If you go to JNOP or the Rossi Blog Reader and search by the keywords quoted in any of these last 3 points you will be able to see a whole collection of these posts stretching back over almost a year. There are about 7-8 of them per month.
Most entertainingly, by analyzing the times at which posts are timestamped on JNOP I have found that when Rossi's sleep/wake pattern changes (as, for instance, when he travels to Europe) the sleep/wake cycles of the "convinced" change in the same way!
I have been assembling evidence for all this. It is not finished yet but I will post it when I am done.
- Gale October 11, 2018 at 4:10 AM
Indeed. Do you suppose those wall-to-ceiling pipes are the ones in the bottom of the third photo (Photo 4) below?
From Smith's Supplemental Report:
The bottom photo is of the serpentine pipes inside the black shipping container at the Doral site. It think that these pipes are smaller in diameter than wall-to-ceiling ones. So not the same.
- Don't bother with moving the detector. Just use it in a single orientation even if that means not measuring counts early on when the paper is still on top of the electrolysis chamber.
- I like THH's ABBA approach ... although I would do ABAB. I assume that B is the piece of paper that has been left exposed on top of the electrolysis unit and A is a similar sheet of unexposed paper (which perhaps is changed with every new measurement). From what I gather from JohnyFive, the electolysis-exposed paper can be put back on the electolysis chamber to get recharged. So you could do ABABABAB... and so on by shuffling the exposed paper on and then off the detector with unexposed sheets (and fluid cleaning?) between them.
In the plot that Can put up, the anomaly beginning at 2300h CEST seems to me the sort of thing that you see in experimental rigs when you start moving things around and wriggling the wires. Such adjustments are almost inevitable on a firs run through.
I don't think we have seen a J5 replication yet. Without being sure, I think that J5 used exclusively LiOD and so far Magicsound's experiment has used LiOH. I think that Magicsound intends to run LiOD in the very near future.
Maybe I am wrong. If someone can clear this up it would be great.
A good first bash at this system!
Everything I see right now is compatible with there being either no lenr effect or one of very small amplitude. But I understand that all data so far have been generated using LiOH rather than LiOD. Is that right?
Self sustaining mode is a slam dunk but it's not so easy as it may sound, it will take an integrated array of reactors that are feeding the array control program.
I don't understand. It seems to me that both you and Alan have already reported self-sustained operation for the single Androcles reactor that you originally started up in late April / early May.
I am using "self-sustained mode" to mean excess heat generation when external heating is turned off.
- Continuing to develop the qualitative theory of temperature-activated heating (i.e., possibly lenr) in the presence of passive cooling -
I have already shown that using external heat as a control variable leads to hysteresis in the sense that there are external heat inputs for which the reactor can stably exist at either a high- or low-temperature state. Which state you are actually in depends on the recent history of the reactor. The image below, from a previous post and technically called a bifurcation diagram, shows how starting at a low external heat input (1), the temperature of the system is at first relatively low. As the input heating power is increased, the temperature creeps upward only to suddenly shoot upwards (2) when the input goes above a threshold. The threshold happens because once the temperature-dependent heating mechanism engages a positive feedback loop is created which ensures that the mechanism turns on fully. You can`t just turn it on a bit ... it turns on all the way. And now, once in this high-heat state, the mechanism is stuck in the on position. Even decreasing the external heater power (3) does not decrease it (hence the hysteresis) unless you go below another threshold where the excess heating completely turns off and the reactor temperature plummets (4).
A big takeaway from this is that the excess heat is fully on over a range of external-heating input powers. Since this power is the bottom of the ratio by which COP is usually calculated this means that one has the opportunity to increase COP by decreasing external heating as long as you don`t fall go past the lower threshold and cause temperatures to plummet.
So much for summarizing what has already been posted. I now extend the analysis somewhat to take into consideration remarks made by both Russ George and Alan Smith that elevated temperatures and excess heating can be seen even if the external heating is completely turned off. If this is so then the COP is infinite (because the denominator is zero) and the behaviour is what I think people call self-sustained mode Making room for this does not require making any new assumptions. Such behaviour is already part of the theory ... it just relies on being in part of the parameter range that I have not explicity descrbed before. So here goes ...
On the figure above you see the straight-line cooling curve as well as two possible activation curves for temperature-dependent excess heating. The change in temperature of the reactor for any temperature state will be found from subtracting the cooling curve from a heating curve. Excess heating curve (1) is compatible with the threshold behaviour in the diagram at the top of this post. Excess heating curve (2) in the image just above, however, has a different (although related) behaviour. This heating curve has a greater maximal heat production rate than for curve (1). It is so powerful that there is a range of temperatures where the heating curve pokes out above the cooling curve. Over this range of temperatures, excess heating beats cooling even if there is no external heat. In contrast, for heating curve (1), heating will only beat cooling over some range.if you add external heat (on this diagram, adding external heat is portrayed by a vertical upward translation of the whole heating curve).
Below, you see a bifurcation diagram for scenario (2). From this you can see that if the maximal activation for excess heat is high enough, the lower threshold disappears. Thus, once you have turned on the excess heat mechanism by using an external heater, the hysteresis is so strong that sending the input power for external heating back to zero still leaves the entire system stuck in a high-temperature state with the excess heating mechanism pretty much full engaged (shown as a black square).
Whether of not the maximal activation of excess heating si large enough to create a possibility for self-sustained mode like this is a matter of the makeup and concentration of the fuel but also depends on the cooling. If the efficiency of cooling is decreased (for instance by adding insulation to the reactor system) then this would act like a clockwise pivoting of the cooling curve in the second figure above. You can see that this would encourage the possibility for appearance of self-sustained heating.
Would you predict that if you walked outside on a sunny day with a reactor in your hand it would start giving off gamma bursts?
Do try to keep up Jed. We had spontaneous gamma emissions every day at the same time for a while. We could also provoke gammas in the same reactor by the use of a heating/cooling cycle. The daily spontaneous gammas (which we called the Gamma Girls) faded away and have yet to reappear in any definitive manner, but we have never entirely lost the ability to provoke some gammas out of that 6 month old reactor/fuel combo with application of a bit of heat.
What about the gamma bursts that appeared at night?
Russ George seems to think they are associated with a source considerably outside the solar system. If this is true then their time of appearance should occur according to siderial time and not solar time. Hence they should have appeared earlier and earlier each evening.
Neutrinos can be excluded as it is unlikely that the LENR reaction has a daytime changing cross-section. Further: Shield could block the particle!
Next time, may be next years same time, some very interesting experiments could be done with different shielding, that would allow to calculate the energy of the particle. This then would be the first low cost, significant contribution to particle physics, enabled by LENR!
I'm having some trouble putting together everything that has been said. In an earlier post you said ...
"The source of the stimulation was the sun. The particle could not be shielded/no shield effect --> no muon."
But your more recent statement and what Alan Smith is now saying seems to indicate that the influence of the sun on the gamma bursts can be shielded by a slate roof or even even by clouds. Is there an inconsistency here or a mistake?
OK. I will try again.
Can the influence of the sun on the gamma bursts be blocked by shielding the reactor?
Of course you are not. But never mind.
The reason I'm not sure is that little has been explained and what has been explained, for instance Russ George's claim that the gamma bursts dwindled because of the earth's progress along its orbit, doesn't make sense.
Stop treating me as stupid.
The second large class of daily phenomena comes from people opening doors, switching stuff on, central heating switching on, etc. There is a wide range of stuff tied to the clock, both human and automatic.
This would seem most likely to me. I have been trying to go along with the claims of a celestial origin put forward by the Smith group. I wanted to see where they lead. But things refuse to hang together. I'm not sure if they have thought all this stuff through.