QuoteLook at the work of Nanospire. They have produced nuclear reactions and a broad array of anomalies.
No. They have claimed to have done so. Far as I know, they have accomplished nothing worthwhile in LENR at all. Claims are not accomplishments else Rossi would be very accomplished in something other than conning people.
QuoteI have been doing some digging for the past few days, specifically, I begun to look for research that supports the idea that cavitation can cause nuclear reactions.
This is OT but you should look up the Nanospire people. I have "deprecated" them on forums before and my opinion has not been changed by their 7 year lack of producing anything relative to LENR. Nonetheless, that is their area so check with them.
QuoteWhatever happened to Adrian Ashfield?
IIRC, he had some health issues so we can hope he is well, even if disappointed, and health problems are not why he is remaining absent.
QuoteI know you are not much of a reader,
You know no such thing. While I often leave remarks about the issue go unchallenged and even joke about it sometimes, I am an avid reader. I have also written numerous technical reports, internal reports, and have authored or co-authored more than a dozen contributions to the scientific literature. However, I have little patience for overly complicated, obscure, unclear, convoluted papers intended more to fulfill requirements for internal documentation and less to inform anyone not already familiar with the field and with the specific topic. When I have contributed to technical papers, I made sure that there was enough simple and clear material in them that the intent and results could be grasped by virtually anyone with some ability in science and technology who had an interest in the specific topic. It is rarely if ever necessary to aim papers just at top specialists in the field. If you want to see examples of how complex topics can be written about understandably, yet be useful to "pro's" read Richard Feynman or Edward Teller or many others.
Anyway, thanks for the link.
QuoteWhat I'm saying is truth and what you are doing is nothing but flat out trolling, either voluntarily or paid like the son of perdition, Mary Yugo.
If you really believe someone or an organization is paying to have Rossi disparaged, please, I beg you, send me their contact information. I will gladly pay you any reasonable finder or agent fee from any proceeds I receive. And I am only too happy to disparage Rossi!
Have you discussed this with Axil?
Pardon my ignorance but Piantelli and Focardi used deuterium and palladium / nickel heated in a vacuum?
Inappropriate move in my opinion. Someone posted some BS from Godes and I responded in the same string. Why that needs to be in clearance is not clear. The guy is not responsible for the crap he posted? Or what? If admins find the need to move the response, fine but then move the original with it. Ah... never mind.
Godes' message states he believes Rossi ("Lugano test"). I could not find a date on it. Here it is from LinkedIn. If it's current, ouch!
QuoteAbout In 1992 I constructed a self-consistent theory of the physics behind the phenomenon “Cold Fusion”. This theory has had a successful first principal test performed by Tom Claytor, before he retired from LANL. A key aspect was successfully simulated in a TAP at PNNL. I personally have constructed multiple control systems that allow the reaction to run in a controlled fashion. With my team at Brillouin Energy we have designed and built progressively more advanced systems to do the same and run several successful tests demonstrating 4X more energy out than in. The theory explains the results of the “Lugano test”. It also explains the results of John Bockris at Texas A&M and why he was exonerated multiple times of fraud or scientific misconduct. Brillouin Energy is a multidisciplinary group of engineers now solving the materials manufacturing and system design issue need to turn this phenomenon into a real technology. We have two design pathways with enough synergy that we are pushing forward on both systems. The HHT™ system is targeting high quality industrial heat up to 700Cᵒ. The WET™ system will provide lower quality heat possibly up to 200Cᵒ but will likely be lower maintenance. For more information and to contact us visit the Brillouin Energy website.
QuoteAlso: Mass flow is much easier for people to understand and this has been one of our biggest issues to bring a new investors on bored [sic].
No sh*t Sherlock?
And how about reliable independent (of both Brillouin and SRI) testing before bringing suckers investors "on board?"
And just to be snippy, constant misspellings don't contribute to class or confidence. A drawing released four or so years ago from Godes, had "hyrogen" and "pluse" instead of ... you know. That remained uncorrected more than a year and is probably still there on Sterling Alan's former web site.
ETA: Yikes, it's still there! From a related source: http://energycatalyzer3.com/fi…n_Hot-Tube_Boiler_600.jpg
from: http://energycatalyzer3.com/ne…as-money-to-complete-work
QuoteI would say that as long as the seals held, Mizuno's current experiment is not too fundamentally different than Rossi's early experiments. The one big difference is that he is using mesh and Rossi used powder.
If Mizuno's current experiment is really like Rossi's, Mizuno will be in big trouble as soon as replications begin to be tested. Assuming, of course, that they are properly tested. BTW, another difference you may want to note is that Mizuno uses precision made and instrumented equipment while Rossi used deceptive junk. And Rossi lied about essentially everything. I am sure we don't need Rossi's huge catalog of lies rewritten here. Everyone should know them well by now. Far as we know, Mizuno does not lie. Just another minor difference for @Director to consider.
QuoteThe good news is that it doesn't matter that Rossi will never commercialize any of his technologies - we know how they all worked.
Because of Darden's and Woodford's lack of diligence in testing Rossi, they all worked fine for the guy, who ended up with >$10M (-legal costs) of undeserved cash.
Remember that Rossi's early devices were made of rusty junk with crude large tools by a 90 old plumber. Considering that level of sophistication, if you, @Director, or anyone else knows how to make a working version, why are you not a billionaire by now? Rossi's original ecats were thrown together in 2011!
Oh wow! Rossi is an obvious con man who defrauded poor Focardi when Focardi was old, weak and ailing. He never had anything other than tricks. He never did the same trick twice. He has never accomplished anything provable during his life other than lies. He is a despicable human being and deservedly, a convicted felon. Lewan never required Rossi to do a few simple and obvious tests (such as calibration and blanks) which could have revealed the scam except that Rossi would not have done them. Several "Swedish scientists" were equally inept in making Rossi test his deceptive devices correctly. That is the entire story of Rossi and Lewan. There is no Rossi effect. There never was and there isn't now. The idea that competition would be inhibiting Rossi is hogwash because Rossi could have patented any discovery and allied himself with large companies to protect the patent. I can't believe we are still arguing about this crook after all these years of identical stories from him, all without anything whatever delivered. Rossi should be a study in how easily some scientists and technologists can be fooled.
QuoteProblem with Brillouin is that their "Q Pulse" system is proprietary/secret. Without it, the reaction does not work. They are not going to divulge it either. They need to protect their IP to make themselves attractive to investors. No IP, no money. I would think all the researchers now tied up (except Mizuno) with IH/CP/LENRInvest, or going it alone are holding something back for the same reason
They never heard about patents?
QuoteI can't blame anyone doing a smear piece on Rossi, he has done everything to deserve being smeared. But from there to cast doubts in the LENR field altogether, It makes me furious with Rossi and with the author of this hit piece that paints LENR in general as a nutjob space with Rossi as a central figure.
"Smear" is defined as: " to damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander." -- Calling Rossi a crook and a convicted criminal is fact. Calling the ecat and all its variants frauds and con jobs are facts. The truth is never a smear, it is never slander and truth is absolute defense to slander and libel accusations in a court of law (in the US anyway). If Rossi sued someone for calling him a criminal fraud, he'd have to prove in court that he has never been those things. You know very well he can't do that and would never dare to argue it against any individual or organization with resources to defend. I don't think Rossi would ever risk a do-over of his case vs IH and that wasn't even about defamation.
QuoteMatts Lewan is also mocked harshly, and unnecesarily IMO.
I can't say what I want to about Matts Lewan on this forum so I will just say I agree completely with the article and I would have much more to say about it if I could do so without risking a ban.
QuoteDuring a 50 W input excess heat run it is ~350 deg C. That's a big difference. That cannot be a mistake.
Have to agree with that. Of course, I wonder what the temperature difference between control and active is on the large reactor.
QuoteThat definitely indicates excess heat.
Yes. If the control run is really a valid blank. And if everything except the activity of the reactor is identical, comparing the two runs. For example, no situation where there are spikey waveforms present on heaters during the active run but not during the control. I doubt that Mizuno has that situation but IIRC, some other claimants to LENR did or possibly still do.
QuoteBut you cannot use that number to estimate how much heat there is, except within a broad range. It gives a large overestimate
If it's difficult to calculate, why not calibrate? Unless it's wildly unstable. And even then, you could average. I'm sure that wouldn't be hard in LabVIEW.
QuoteIt is not a matter of refusing so much as not wishing to do an experiment that we think might be dangerous without proper equipment.
You asserted that the "whomper" reactor is running quietly, heating Mizuno's living room and it is pictured, supposedly running inside the fireplace. Was that a lie? If not, how is it dangerous to stick a thin film sensor on the outside? The reactor won't even know it is there or in more scientific terms, the sensor has good thermal conductivity and is very thin and it is also small compared to the casing of the reactor so it will have no significant effect on the thermal parameters - ie. cooling. How could that possibly be dangerous?
QuoteAlso, we disagree with your view that this would be more convincing. The people who need to be convinced also disagree with you.
Forgive me but that is simply ignorant. If you understand what it is, apart from third party, first rate full blown calorimetry, nothing could be more convincing than a direct heat flux measurement from the reactor. Exactly why not?
JedRothwell I must admit I did not consider the language issue. Still, there are translators. What is the obsession with sucking eggs? I'm pretty sure it's not a Japanese thing. To clarify what I meant (probably for the last time, you will be pleased to know), I do not understand why more people in this community did not comment to say that using a simple heat meter/heat flux transducer placed on the exterior of the large powerful reactor was a good idea. To me, this can only mean that people either don't understand how such a thing works (extremely well, quickly, cheaply and reliably) or that they don't get why some rapid if slightly sketchy verification of the immense claim made for the larger device is important.
By analogy, it should have never been a priority for Rossi to make better, more efficient or hotter ecat reactors. All he had to do to become world famous and an instant billionaire was to prove that the original, small, supposedly steam making ecat actually worked. All the supposedly famous people who worked on it missed this and allowed Rossi to continue to make unfounded claims and to studiously avoid definitive testing. Again, I am not saying you and Mizuno are remotely like Rossi. But coincidentally perhaps, like Rossi, you refused a simple rapid test which would solidify the claim that the large reactor makes a comparatively immense amount of power. If you did not expect for people to ask for verification of that, you should not have shown it.
Right. Thanks. But I think you are addressing another issue. Anyway I took down my gross oversimplification which you cited. Heat meters measure the temperature difference between two surfaces across a "gradient layer" of known and stable thermal conductivity and geometry.
Better stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_heat_flow
and
https://study.com/academy/less…on-equation-examples.html
As to heat meters aka heat flux transducers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
https://www.gpsil.co.uk/our-pr…ters/measuring-principle/
The argument that point temperature measurements are a lousy way to estimate heat flow still remains for many reasons. This has always been my objection to isoperibolic calorimeters which in a sense are not calorimeters at all. Here comes Jed ... yes, I know they've been around since Archimedes.
I agree that for the initial replication, everything should be kept as identical as possible, without exception, to the Mizuno recipe. BTW, I am doubtful that many backyard experimenters will do this but I hope I'm wrong.
I would agree it would be Mizuno but it would be on firmer ground if someone capable, for example a scientist from IH or a university had visited Mizuno and had been taken through all the measurement steps (never mind the construction and preparation steps) live. This person should also have the right to "take a screwdriver" to it. That really needs to be done, regardless of how much we may trust Dr. Mizuno, before huge efforts and expenditures are spent based on the existing reports. And to anticipate Jed, I have found no major flaws in the reports. It still should be done. A report is paper, not real life.
It tells me something that there is little or no appreciation of this issue and of the simple heat meter test for the larger reactor in this community.
