Oh yes they did, well I did manage to persuade Russ to try it and it worked.-
How do you know it worked?
Bruce__H
Member
- Member since Jul 22nd 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by Bruce__H
-
-
What about placing a reversible hydride upstream in the gas feedline? It could be externally heated and controlled automatically, and possibly not affect too much reactor calorimetry in the current (magicsound's) configuration.
Like a hydrogen thyratron. Good idea!
-
Regarding internal vs external heat, advice from both Mizuno and me356 is that the reaction is much more likely with internal heating. It's possible that IR irradiation is an important trigger, as well as a thermal gradient and the resulting gas flux through the mesh.
This is somewhat at odds with Daniel_G's reports of working with Mizuno meshes over the past year. He claims better, more reliable results with what he calls an incubator heater ... basically a big highly insulated convection oven with the heating coil sitting beside the reactor rather than wrapped around it. This would appear to exclude IR irradiation, magnetic fields, steep thermal gradients, etc. as necessary for ignition.
-
I've given some thought to the points raised by me356, and what was learned from MR5.1. Specifically, running the cell at the recommended lower pressure, with the observed fast and deep absorption of D2 makes the thermal calibration of the system far more complex, as convective heat transfer through the gas goes to zero. So I'll be spending some time exploring what is now a three-parameter calibration space, before attempting further tests with the remaining two prepared meshes.
I would have thought that thermal calibration would have become slightly simpler, not more complex. From viewing your videos I believe that the rolled up mesh is pressed up against the metal wall of the reactor, thus forming a conductive pathway for thermal energy from the reactor exterior into the mesh. Other heat-transfer pathways from the exterior into active locations in the mesh would include radiative transfer, heat conduction through the gas, and convection. Given low internal pressures, I would have thought that gas conduction and convection would become almost negligible in comparison with conduction through the mesh and radiative transfer. And (although I don't have a really solid feel for this) my first guess is that radiative transfer would be weak in comparison with mesh conduction at the temperatures you are working with. So I would expect a simpler approach to thermal equilibrium (because fewer important pathways for transfer) and therefore an easier calibration. Perhaps I'm wrong.
One other thought ... if low pressure is really an obstacle, is it reasonable to dilute the D2 in some other gas so that you have a total pressure that allows for an appropriate level of heat conduction but still sustains a low partial pressure of D2?
-
In the meantime we are preparing scaled up reactor that will have an active compensation for load.
This will allow it to be in thermal contact with almost any fluid and mitigate the issue of variable COP.
In other words allowing to reach the highest COP during different load. This will be achieved by balancing temperature of the inner core and external surface independently and automatically.
I am trying to understand what you mean here. Does it mean that you circulate cooling fluids through the core and over the surface in order to withdraw heat?
-
The real-time broadcast of experiments like these is extremely valuable. Thanks to everyone involved!
I'm hoping that the numeric displays of power, temperature, pressure etc., shown during streaming can be improved a bit.
-
This is a reminder that when your work pressure slackened off you were intending to post some of the nonproprietary data you have been collecting over the past year. I'm sure many people here would find them of great interest.
-
The SO(4) physics model would destroy the live of several 100'000 physicists in most areas of today's interest.
...
So far, what I have understood is that when you submitted a manuscript on your SO(4) theory to a peer reviewed journal, it did not move forward as you hoped.
Setting aside your reasoning as to motivations ... you must have received some communication from some editor at the journal as to why your manuscript was returned to you without review. What did the editors say?
-
If you accept that gravity is an easy derived EM force then you ultimately can stop all research on GR and many other fields like string theory or CERN.
So do you really think they will allow to kill themselves??
Yes. I think a paper deriving gravity from EM force would be published if it was well written and well reasoned.
What did the editor offer as an explanation for not sending your manuscript out for review.
-
Many argue that half of the success in publishing is picking the right journal and in my experience I tend to agree.
I agree too.
Since Wyttenbach's SO(4) theory does not, at its base, involve LENR, a manuscript should not face any extra hurdle on that score.
-
... expected a price for a nonsensical model...
I don't understand what you are trying to convey here. What do you mean?
-
Display More
In reality particle physics is nowhere: 80 years of nonsensical claims have passed and the culmination was a fake claim that assigned the 4 rotation proton to the Higgs particle...
The culmination of the above nonsense video is the claim that new particles live in the phase space...The phase space is accessed over symmetries and per definition something you find as being a symmetry is nothing new just a projection of something known.
But even such simple things did never work out in the standard model as so called projected particles just follow the most simple logic e.g. spin,charge or some fake features called charm or color. But these projections always have unknown rules for predicting their mass or related the live time etc..
So SM is crap and will end (as a potential contamination...) on the dungheap of history.
Have you tried to submit an article describing your SO(4) theory to a peer-reviewed journal?
-
Norman Cook died in 2019. Perhaps this paper was published posthumously.
The paper was posted in January 2019. Cook died 5 months later, in June of that year, after a long battle with cancer. I have no knowledge of whether Cook ever knew that this paper had been posted.
-
I find it dubious that Rossi even wrote most of the ResearchGate paper. He undoubtedly did write section 7 of the paper which describes, in his usual slightly fractured English, how the ecat is supposedly heating a room in Tennessee. However the other parts of the paper are on another level entirely ... both in terms of stylish English prose as well as in sophistication of ideas.
In my opinion, most of the paper sounds like the work of Rossi's sometime collaborator Norman Cook.
-
-
JedRothwell has there ever been any effort in documenting the preexisting bias of the members, and/or their conflict of interest by being associated with hot fusion research?
Regarding conflict of interest by being associated with hot fusion research ... why not just ask? Or see if the moderators would agree to run a poll.
I have no such associations.
-
@THH - I just quoted what you said. Seems a clear enough statement to me - are you disavowing it now? Did you say one thing and mean something else?
He said that it is a fact that you need data to construct a theory. Did you misunderstand that?
-
I disagree, he clearly thinks nothing outside known theories can exist.
Ask him.
-
@THH - I just quoted what you said. Seems a clear enough statement to me - are you disavowing it now? Did you say one thing and mean something else?
It seemed clear to me too. He said it is a fact that you need data to construct a theory. What did you read?
-
I disagree, he clearly thinks nothing outside known theories can exist.
I don't think that is true about THH in general. But, more specifically, do you not see that as a matter of logic what he said does not entail what you have concluded about him?
