But you assume it doesn’t because no theory predicts it. Ain’t that a bit blind?
Based on what he has said, THH has made no such assumption.
Bruce__H
Member
- Member since Jul 22nd 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by Bruce__H
-
-
I'd like to ask about the properties of the incubator-style reactor system you have been using over the past year or so. Can you share data characterizing the relationship between input power and steady-state temperature that you see in the absence of any source of LENR heating? I would hope for something across the entire range of temperatures you have been working at.
Also you have previously described the temperature-dependence of excess heat activation as exponential ... is this still your opinion and, if so, how have you investigated this issue?
-
I can tell you I am working on publishing some work in a major high impact journal and the referees would not bother to return my emails if I followed this level of writing. Real science is hard. Really hard. Rewards come to those willing to put in the hard work and doing things right.
Sounds like a good initiative!
I have lots of questions to ask about your work. Since late August I have been holding off asking them because I know that putting together something like this takes a lot of bandwidth.
Please signal when you feel that you have enough free time and energy can answer specific questions. Maybe put something up on one of the Mizuno replication threads indicating you are ready.
-
The science is mostly statistics (based on empirical experiments) which shows that almost every reaction that can be envisioned actually can and does at some point actually occur, but the rates are also so vanishingly small for most reactions that getting anything out of them worth the effort put into it is the hill that most new fusion ideas die on.
This is exactly what occurs to me when I read Rob's question. There is no orthodoxy saying that fusion can only happen by way of high-energy plasma. It's just that the probability for such things is small.
Laser-stimulated lattice confinement fusion is an interesting case. There is no plasma, but high energies are still needed. The concepts explaining the events leading to fusion are orthodox as far as I know.
-
With all due respect, I would not put Ascoli in that party.
I would. You impute motives I don't think he has. In particular, I don't think that he has particularly set out find whatever weakness he can to shame and discredit the entire field. I think that he has, indeed, found what he regards as a weakness. And having done so I think he wants to set straight a record that that he sees as both flawed and held to be a core claim. That is certainly what he says. And that is how he acts. I think that what you are seeing is intellectual integrity, not some dark scheme to destroy a field come what may.
-
I must point out that nobody but you has mentioned banning anybody.
You brought it up. Didn't you? What else did it mean when you said that Ascoli and THH "would already be history" if they were petty or dismissive?
Just tell us all who you think they are privately or publicly. ... We would like to know who you consider to be 'petty and mean' so we can investigate.
Well ... Wyttenbach, of course. See a recent post of his just above this one. Or see a selection of his posts on almost any day You know this is true. But I am not arguing that he should be banned.
-
If you would care to make an official complaint about anyone using the ban-hammer in every post box I and the team will consider the matter. Beyond broad agreement that LENR is real we try to be non-partisan and fair as well as always civil. BUT you must recognise that in an Agora like this there will always be a few drunks up the back of the crowd heckling.
I do not want anyone banned. I am pointing out the partisan and unfair nature of what you are saying. You said that if Ascoli and THH were petty and vindictive "They would already be history". But when others are petty and vindictive you are tolerant and understanding. That is a different standard. That is unfair. Why the difference?
The difference is that you perceive A and THH as belonging to the wrong party, the 'never LENR' party.
But that is a crock, the party they belong to is the 'I sincerely want to get at the truth' party.
-
I know that and did not mean to imply they were as you well know.
No. I sincerely thought that you were implying this.
They would already be history if that was the case.
But there are many people posting here who are petty and vindictive on a regular basis. And yet they remain.
-
Thank you for your comment Bruce. I am familiar with academic discourse, which is often of a petty and dismissive nature. This is a forum, not the SCR at Magdalen college, and we apply different codes of behaviour precisely because of that.
I meant formal academic discourse ... receiving referee's comments and so on.
Neither THH nor Ascoli are petty or dismissive, as you well know.
-
Ascoli is quite rational. This is obvious.
It is hard to overstate how much the intellectual and argumentative style Ascoli and THH display in their posts is typical of normal discourse in everyday professional academic science. This style is not respected here and that is a shame.
People are free to respectfully disagree with these two. That happens here to some extent but too often they are belittled and threatened for their sincere and clearly reasoned beliefs. If either of them ends up leaving this site it will say much more about the blinkered nature of the LENR community than about them.
-
LOL
Mods - do something to this person!
I agree. This sort of talk does absolutely nothing good for this site.
And I think that the "Haha" and "Sad" icons should be eliminated from the reactions list because Wyttenbach has changed them into tools of derision.
-
As far as the ionizing radiation that is supposed to underlie the LEC effect is concerned, the LEC acts like a gas-filled ionization chamber. The problem is that in this ionization chamber, one of its charged plates is also the sample under study. This means, 1) you aren't using a commercial detector of known characteristics and engineering pedigree but instead are using a lab-made device, and 2) you have to take the detector apart and reconfigure it each time you want to measure a new sample. In contrast, if you took the working electrode out of the LEC and just laid it on the bench and treated it as a sample, you could use a freestanding detector. Presumably, the working electrode is still radiating away even as it sits on the bench ... at least that is what the experiments with the fogging of X-ray film would suggest.
-
If you don’t like that fact and think “those guys are all morons for believing such an impossible thing”, then, why you waste your time here?
Please make it clear that the quotation marks you use here are not meant to indicate that I ever said such a thing.
-
The LEC configuration -- with the emitter of hypothesized radiation actually forming part of the measurement instrument -- introduces complications that will eventually need to be done away with. It is problematic that each time you create a new sample to study you also create a new measurement instrument. It has been my opinion all along that if the "working electrode" were designed out of the measurement apparatus, the whole situation would be conceptually simpler at least as far as supposed emissions are concerned.
And, having removed the working electrode from the LEC, if it still ionizes molecules in its neighbourhood does it not need a different name? It seems odd to call the disks of hydrogen-loaded palladium that Rout et al say fog X-ray films, "working electrodes". It is odder still for those disks that were loaded with hydrogen by methods other than electrolysis.
-
Lattice Energy Converter, this consists of a working electrode (hydrogen loaded) a counter electrode (passive) and the gas space in between them. Many configurations of these are possible.
It is useful to find a name for the piece of hydrogen-treated metal that functions as the working electrode when it is assembled into an LEC. A separate name. I wonder what would be a good name.
-
I see that there is a problem, here, with terminology.
What is the "LEC"? Is it the piece of hydrogen-treated metal that appears as the "working electrode" in Gordon and Whitehouse's original presentation? Or is it the entire assembly of working electrode and counter electrode held in a specific configuration?
If the "LEC" is the entire assembly, then what does one call the piece of treated metal that is supposedly causing ionization?
-
No one has ever said that!!! You need the counter electrode to conduce and use/measure the voltage/current that the ionization creates.
The ionization is there permanently, the LEC is only a device that is implemented to make use of that ionization for practical purposes.
There is no counter electrode in the film-fogging experiments.
-
Where can I find a description of the attempt to measurement LEC radiation carried out at the Los Alamos National Lab?
-
But I am still unsure what you expect to learn from using such an instrument. THe LEC is an ionisation chamber itself.
If you have a well-characterized radiation detector that does not detect any radiation when a hydrogen-loaded sample is exposed to it, then you might learn that there is no radiation after all.
Supposedly you don't need the counter electrode to produce radiation. You just need a sample metal object that is loaded with hydrogen. And this is supposed to be enough to produce radiation capable of ionizing molecules of gas in its neighbourhood. Why don't we hear of other systems being able to detect the ions so produced?
-
I don't suppose the dumb clucks who work on the weapons program at LANL would think of doing it though. You got them there!
Where can I find a description of what they did?
