mjtrac Member
  • Member since Jul 9th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by mjtrac

    Ammonia transport networks already exist and ammonia can be used as a hydrogen carrier and converted to hydrogen on-board or possibly used as a direct input to fuel cells (or diesels). It's clunky, but not as clunky as having every car carry around a ton of batteries to provide salable range figures. We are never going to live in a world where everyone runs extension cords to their cars parked on the street, even in permit only areas.

    Electroreduction of nitrogen with almost 100% current-to-ammonia efficiency - Nature
    A high-efficiency, robust process using a high-concentration imide-based lithium-salt electrolyte enables the electroreduction of nitrogen with stabilized…

    An Efficient Direct Ammonia Fuel Cell for Affordable Carbon-Neutral Transportation
    Alternative carbon-neutral synthetic fuels are needed to decarbonize the transportation sector, bridging the gap between batteries and biofuels. Herei…

    Sorry but I am quite OCD about keeping things on topic. This thread is for skepticism on LENR's very existence, and your comments are of this tenor. That's all.

    About the collection of papers, you can spend months reading at https://www.LENR-CANR.org , and you will find some also mentioned along this thread, where we have been discussing the issue for a while.

    When fishing, it helps to put a worm on the hook, rather than fish repellent. We all have limited time. "Jed Rothwell keeps a list" is not a worm. I described a suitable worm, and am done here. Thank you for your replies, and I'll check back in a year, probably.

    I will view this, as an "informable person," not as evidence of your superior understanding but as something quite different.

    Folks at the "informable person" level simply have to rely on consensus, for we have no way to analyze things except by going on behavior of participants. The way to inform such persons is straightforward:

    "Smith, A., at the peer reviewed journal X, presented results Z. The results have been replicated by Jones, B. (see article in peer reviewed journal Y) and Johannson, C. (see article in peer reviewed journal X, Y, or Z). The experiments were identical, with the following unfortunate variation, and the results were consistent, as follows..."

    It's very straightforward, no matter how annoying it might seem, or how many times its been done in the past. It could be assigned to a single control key on a keyboard. Or you can just send disagreements off to purgatory, which is also straightforward and interpreted by the informable as revealing what they needed to come to a tentative conclusion.

    And surely you've offered this collection to every science journalist, so either all science journalists are part of the conspiracy to suppress this research or none wish to risk their reputations against the conspirators. I have no reputation to worry about and I'm f*cking bored at my job, so if I'm convinced I'll happily start on a course to learn more and if I remained satisfied I'd be happy to try to do a report on the replications. While I don't have the math or physics background to understand the theory, I'm not interested in theory but in observations far enough out of error ranges that, were I to take them to university professors, could not be explained away as experimental error.

    A writing sample, showing a willingness to disbelieve official explanations: https://truthout.org/articles/…udden-acceleration-cases/

    Alan Smith> It began not as a way of depriving the world of cheap and clean energy, but of ensuring that the available money for fusion research went to the hot fusion crowd.

    OK. Let's hypothesize that US fusion researchers collectively put their grant applications ahead of their childrens' future. Why have electrochemists not found funding? Is the electrochemist community similarly obscene?

    Google provided funds to come up with replication and asserted they could not. Are they in on the plot?

    ARPA-E is now providing funding; a credentialed name has an experiment that lays out a recipe for replication. Where is the one person on the planet with the skills to replicate the Staker experimental conditions who is publicly announcing that their lab is working on that precise thing? Perhaps it strikes the folks here as pointless.

    I am offering you a layperson's attitude -- show me the same experiment done by two or more independent groups with the same results -- results widely considered "impossible" under what we think of as current theory -- and I will wake up. Show me a wide variety of experimental results that are all intriguing and I will continue to wait for what it sounds like ARPA-E and Google have both been asking for: a single experiment that any competent lab worker can conduct in order to demonstrate the phenomenon to themselves and others.

    You can point to corruption within science and I'll agree you've found it; that will not change my mind. You can explain at a layperson's level the way in which evidence has accumulated and I will find it intriguing. What you would need to do to get me passionately involved is show me two or more independent labs doing the same experiment with the same "impossible" results. That's the way I think, and I suspect others think similarly, which is why Google and ARPA-E are asking for a reference experiment. The absence of one tells me there's no need (yet) to get particularly excited, and it's an easily remedied issue that no one seems to remedy.

    Yes, I am referring to the Staker paper. You are saying that the reality of the phenomenon is no longer in dispute. Perhaps I am just thick, but what that would mean to me is that the subject would be taught in particle physics and/or other classes, and there would be no difficulty in getting peer review.

    Perhaps you mean that those in the LENR community have collectively agreed that the phenomenon has been observed enough that there is no longer controversy as to the phenomenon's existence within the LENR community.

    As an outside but informable observer, it is quite literally impossible for me to believe simultaneously that the reality of the phenomenon is no longer in dispute in the wider scientific community, and that there is trouble obtaining funding. I can believe one or the other, but not both simultaneously. As I said, perhaps it's just that I'm thick, but this is where empathy must come into play. All I can offer is that no letter to the editor would sway me, while reports of the same experiment performed in multiple labs with similar outcomes would get my attention. Science is replicable.

    On the Useful Papers thread, within the past month, a link was provided to a paper which asserts reliable replication of Fleischmann Pons. Ignoring the paper's discussion of theoretical issues, the paper also lays out a series of steps that ought to lead to replication in any competent lab. It also indicates that such replications can be performed with a far less expensive material.

    As a lay but "informable" outside observer, I find myself examining how I would respond to a letter to the editor signed by a bunch of respected people, versus how I would respond to two or three labs achieving and reporting the same results from the same experiment. My response to a letter to the editor would be to recall Rossi, to wonder how Brillouin can claim a COP of 3 yet apparently lose SRI backup, and to recall my amazement at how many years Brilliant Light and Power has been able to suck money out of Wall Street by repeatedly creating videos proving AFAICT that molten metal can boil water. My response to replication of the Staker results would be to go to the local office of my representative in Congress to describe what I'd been shown and to ask everyone I know to do the same. I can only assume that others outside the field would react similarly.

    I often wonder how much television dramas have altered our perception of reality such that we have totally lost faith in anyone with any power or money. Do such people often behave badly? Of course they do. But do they care about the future of their own children, and perhaps even about the future of humanity? I believe they do, and it saddens me that so many people -- not just here -- have become so convinced that they or their community are the sole holders of any decency. To disagree with a consensus is absolutely not to be wrong. But when you find yourself in disagreement with the consensus, perhaps the most important skill is the empathy to understand why skeptics are skeptical of what you say, to put yourself in the shoes of others who don't know what you believe you know.

    Some in the field seem to be grounding their opinions on the idea that there is a global conspiracy, or something effectively the same, to prevent humanity from accessing an available form of energy that would be a response to the climate crisis, and that this has been successful for thirty years. Anyone who makes that sort of assertion loses me immediately. I realize I might be wrong, as I realize we might all might be living in The Matrix, but I don't really care -- I comfortably put such assertions in the category of too unlikely to gain the slightest bit of my attention.

    Jed, thanks for your reply. It would be silly of me to argue that corruption cannot exist in science. But wouldn't the sort of thing you describe just lead to people plagiarizing the potentially world changing results regularly discussed here, or fighting over priority. It's been decades since I left school, but when I was there it seemed like it was curiosity, not greed, that brought people into research. I'm sad that no readers have chosen to challenge your comment. This is a field in which some obvious charlatans and conspiracy types operate, but I remain interested precisely because of my respect for researchers who assert that there is fire behind the smoke, and say they've seen it with their own calorimeters.

    There are so many separate issues here. Getting press attention, getting the attention of funders, publicizing various results. I think the way science is taught may be an issue; what is taught as science is the relatively stable views of reality that have earned a consensus based on complicated analyses that can then be boiled down to a layperson-suitable page in a textbook. Those views, I believe, are stable for good reasons. No one wants to pull support columns out of a massive structure if there are alternative approaches. Perhaps, as an outsider, I have a naive view of things, but I think scientific review is one of the few things that still functions in our society. That is, when papers are rejected by peer review, I tend to assume that there are valid reasons for rejection.

    Science, I believe, is grounded on replication. It excites me when people offer recipes for reliable replication, and I continue to find it hard to believe that "impossible" results that are replicated by multiple groups under properly controlled conditions will not be treated fairly by scientific journals. And I think most science journalists are well advised to show appropriate deference to that peer review process. For that reason, I find it discouraging that some in this community seem to feel that they need an end run around that process in order to publicize their results.

    I'm someone who truly wants to believe in the results being reported. But I don't think any sensible journalist would be moved by a letter to the editor, when they know that people invest a decade of their lives or more to learning enough about a narrow field just to reach the point at which they can offer an informed opinion. I'd listen to the folks who've put in that time, knowing full well that they're imperfect. And I'd be highly suspicious of anyone who told me there was a conspiracy among such people to suppress the truth. I'd ask why, and on an existential issue, I'd find competition to be an unlikely answer.

    I believe the Nobel Prize is often considered a bit of glamour, and I expect it is on offer to the first person or group able to (1) produce multiple copies of a device which generates substantially more heat or electricity than a chemical explanation can provide; (2) transport copies of this device to multiple universities for inspection and verification.

    I hear, for example, that Brillouin now has a COP of about 3, and Clean Planet is in an alliance with a boiler manufacturer. So both should be able to satisfy both requirements (1) and (2) above. Instant glamour.

    I suppose it is barely possible that the great universities of the world are all populated solely by enemies of humanity, people who would not be interested in accelerating the adoption of devices based on a phenomena that promises pollution free energy. Similarly, it is possible that the world's governments have all colluded to suppress such a device so that the fossil fuel companies can continue to prosper. It seems to me more likely that no one has yet presented evidence that can be unambiguously verified by independent observers. That, of course, could just be my insufficient attention paid.

    Thanks, Jed, for offering that explanation. Personally, it simply doesn't strike me as believable, but that's not to say it's not true. The explanation depends upon the idea that someone has hit upon a hard-to-find proof of something that most people do not believe, and then rather than keeping it running so that others can, if they wish, see it in action, voluntarily destroys it.

    After a scientist/inventor had established ease of replication and had several running reactors that many academics had examined in detail, someone might submit one to destructive testing. That, I'd believe.

    Let's review the history of this field of endeavor. Thirty years ago, two highly respected and reputable scientists displayed a reactor apparently showing the effect that is searched for. Other reputable people assert they've seen similar effects, while it appears that charlatans have also made such claims.

    Meanwhile, over the thirty years since the initial discovery, the destruction of the human-evolutionary-climate proceeds and worsens, and a crash development effort leading towards such a device might have a serious impact on this existential problem. A researcher has a device that has operated successfully for a long period of time, while mainstream science continues to doubt the reality that such a thing is possible.

    The single best support for governments instituting a crash development program would be a reactor which produced the effect at the magnitude asserted; it seems extremely foolish for someone who is confident he has such a device to discontinue it for any reason.

    > The only strange thing is that so many scientists are overlooking such wide cases of reactions. There is no magic and all these experiments are perfectly repeatable. Yet there are good tools to study them for over 40 years.

    I find it strange that someone claims to have a repeatable experiment they assert heated their home through a winter, yet dismantles that experiment before others had confirmed their findings.

    To jump to the report's conclusions: they used a much cheaper material than Palladium (Constantan, an alloy of copper and nickel), and they observe anomalous heat.

    (1) It was experimentally demonstrated that the “old” beneficial effects of HPPP [High Peak Power Pulse], discovered by us starting in 1994 with the very costly Pd system (Pd has recently cost about 75 Euros per gram), can be “transferred” also to the low cost Constantan alloy (about 20 Euros per kilogram).
    (2) The pulsing procedure, by itself, can induce some AHE [Anomalous Heat Effect], which is stable over time.

    Thank you. I'll look at the earlier papers. When I look at the dotted lines beginning around .67 on the horizontal axis, I think of my plain-old-physics classes and graphs of temperature vs time, where temperature stops rising as a phase change takes place from ice to water. But that's not what's being graphed here, so what is supposed to be going on as the dotted line flattens over some regions of D/H to Pd ratio?

    Thank you, Alan. That's very helpful in trying to visualize what is believed to be happening as more D/H enters a lattice. I'll describe my layperson's mental image and perhaps you'd be kind enough to say what might/might not fit where? I picture the lattice as a tub of ball bearings, say, with magnetized parts at the poles and four points along the equator of each ball bearing resulting in a "crystal" structure. There are vacant spots throughout, and an external atmosphere containing half-sized ball bearings (the D/H). If I understand you correctly, the hypotheses are saying that at certain D/H densities, those vacant spots form channels through which additional D/H can travel, and/or create enough weakness in the lattice that it breaks apart along a collection with a high percentage of vacant spots as (shifting the metaphor) perforated forms are easier to separate along the perforations. I don't understand (trapped, perhaps, by these images) why having a vacancy occupied would weaken the structure further than the vacancy itself. What is the effect of the D/H on the metal atoms that reduces their attachment to one another? Does the D/H exert force against them? How?

    I find it easy to imagine the vacancies themselves acting to make it easier to split the lattice. I find it hard to imagine the role of the D/H.

    Thank you! So would it be fair to say that "phase" in this case is referring to a particular ordered arrangement of atoms and vacancies which may exist at particular ratios of deuterium to palladium in particular temperature and pressure zones? And does miscibility refer to the ability of two such phases to mix? It is hard for me to make sense of what it would mean for two modes of arrangement to mix, since I imagine mixing as randomizing any structured arrangement. I'm guessing there's a problem with what I'm imagining.

    This is very good. Thanks!!!


    Can anyone out there explain to an intelligent layperson how what Prof. Staker refers to as crossing the miscibility gap increases the D/Pd ratio? The phase diagrams are Latin, I'm afraid; I am still in water, ice, steam world. For bonus points can anyone explain what the delta phase is, or is believed to be? And, since Prof. Staker's paper documents additional requirements for replication, is anyone here able to share any news of replication experiments following Prof. Staker's guidance?

    Thanks in advance, and apologies if this thread is not for questions.


    Can anyone out there explain to an intelligent layperson how what Prof. Staker refers to as crossing the miscibility gap increases the D/Pd ratio? The phase diagrams are Latin, I'm afraid; I am still in water, ice, steam world. For bonus points can anyone explain what the delta phase is, or is believed to be? And, since Prof. Staker's paper documents additional requirements for replication, is anyone here able to share any news of replication experiments following Prof. Staker's guidance?

    Thanks in advance.