Posts by mjtrac

Quote from Alan Smith

Then you haven't read the literature.

No, I certainly haven't read the scientific reports, nor do I expect I'd understand them. I'm aware that Brillouin claims to have been validated by SRI, and I gather that Brilliant Light Power has a bunch of "names" willing to vouch for them. I know Mizuno claims to have had something heating what appears to be a den or living room for a winter, but then apparently dismantled it.

Given that I don't view myself as capable of understanding the physics at any worthwhile detail, I rely on my understanding of human nature. If greedy capitalists have failed to understand the physics and/or calorimetry, then my approach has backfired. I just figure that there'll be a rush to the slop trough if and when there's anything worth eating. No visible rush, and I assume there's been no verification satisfactory to the people who are paid really good money to make wealthy people wealthier.

Quote from RobertBryant

based on the chickenfeed investment .. so far LENR works to the level of at least 2:1 energy out/energy in

but this is insufficient to match the heat transfer COPS of 4:1 or 6:! available from electrical air conditioninh

Different meaning of COP.

When someone demonstrates that sufficient energy is produced by an "LENR" device to make the device power its own input needs -- even if it does not produce sufficient excess to harvest energy for any other purpose, the investment into LENR would IMO become on the order of trillions of dollars.

I understand that there are claims, and I understand that there are claims of verification. I also understand that a LOT of human beings are anxious to make money, to the point that they will, for a profit, produce and advertise addictive products that kill people, or deny that the product they produce is destroying the environment for future generations.

So I am 100% convinced that, once there is a whiff of profit to be made from a previously unknown physical process, the existence of the process will be obvious to all due to the rush of money into attempts to exploit the process. Let me be clear: I'm not saying the phenomenon is not real; I'm just saying no one has yet demonstrated it in a repeatable fashion. When they do, I'm confident that will be apparent to all.

Quote from Drgenek

Prime video has a documentary called Newman. It is story of a proven over unity device by Newman. It is sad to see his personality transform. Basic he had something. He showed it often, got more support than I would have imagined is possible yet no body could make sense of it. But he believed that it does matter that no one could understand it, that it would lead to something important. Caution: fighting for what you know works against the impossibility of acceptance can turn one's personality to the dark side. Understanding will come but it can't forced.

BLPs current efforts turn water into energy. Isn't it amazing how many have claimed to turn water to energy. I seen this forum say some very unfavorable things about companies with water to energy technology and favorable things about other water to energy technology. I is really all the same. I know based on mass balance, stoichiometry, thermodynamics and kinetics that water serves as reactants to produce by a series of transformation reactions nitrogen, a nuclear process. This is what happens with Aquafuel and therefore likely with BLP and all the others. But even facts from numerous sources struggle to get well meaning but nevertheless very prejudice people to do due diligence.

It will happen when it does we will all wonder how we could all be so blind.

All anyone needs to do is set up an isolated system that includes whatever startup energy is necessary, and then run a device for a long enough time to harvest more energy from it than it needed to start up. Newman never did that, so he didn't have a "proven over unity" device. LENR is different, but the same rules of proof apply. The movie is an interesting study of how we can fool ourselves when we really want something to be true.

IMO, when someone has an LENR device that works, they will not have any trouble finding investors. And, conversely, if someone has trouble finding investors, they are very unlikely to have a device that works.

Quote from Mark U

Let me guess - you were critical or skeptical during the exchange and Mills didn't have time for you.

Let's just say I hope one of the companies that has been working in this area is successful at, first, verifying their claims and, eventually, commercializing a lower cost and fossil fuel free form of heat and/or electricity. For the first past the gate, it won't matter what their personalities are like.

I had a (very) brief exchange with Dr. Mills just moments ago, and I think I'm much clearer now on the company. Its sales record makes much more sense. What a XXXX. <--

this was not a compliment. mjtrac.

Edited for content. Shane

Quote from truth

It's also so fragile that not survived to any independent verification.

The failure to replicate rightfully makes anyone suspicious, but it is not proof that nothing is happening. What's interesting to me about Brilliant is that it is not claiming 5 excess watts over short period, but is claiming that it has repeatedly run a process that generates kW over multiple hours. They seem to have reputable people on their board, and they seem to have attracted investor money. If they make a go of this as a business, we'll all know soon enough. Ever since P&F, it has seemed as plausible to me that there is a difficult-to-replicate phenomenon that P&F, to their misfortune, (re-)discovered, as it is that all the people who have reported inexplicable results involving certain metals and spare protons are fooling themselves or others.

A situation in which replication is difficult, and that promises "free" energy, or free anything, is going to attract frauds and hucksters, so the presence of likely frauds and hucksters does not strike me as evidence against the existence of the phenomenon -- just as reason to be cautious about each claim. That's why big claims, like that of Mizuno, and HUGE claims, like that of Brilliant, capture my interest. Brillouin, at least, claims to have been replicated by SRI. And if you're doing runs at the kW level over hours, it shouldn't be hard to find outside observers to confirm or deny.

If Brilliant, for example, has what it claims, it should be able to prove that to the world, regardless of the validity of the theory on which it is based.

Thank you, Robert, Alan, and LeBob. So intriguing.

I do have one question, though I'm not sure if it is answerable, but, worth a try.

Does anyone have an informed opinion as to whether (regardless of theory) the effect being observed by Mills and Brilliant is the same (previously?) hard to replicate phenomenon that has been observed by all or some of Rossi / Brillouin / Mizumo / etc...; or are the effects sufficiently different that they might not represent the same "surprise" in physics? Inquiring minds, layman class.

Cool. I mean, "hot!" They can now, I assume, start selling heat for less than the going rate. When they do so, I guess they'll rapidly be a billion dollar (trillion dollar?) company. So, the matter should be settled within, what, a year from now?

If I had a spare million or two to invest, I'd certainly follow this more closely. As it is, I'll just follow the business press for updates. I'm sure the physics are beyond me, but if Mills has identified new physics, I'll look forward to hearing confirmations from the "laggards."

Quote from Shane D.

mjtrac Well said with the exception of lumping Mizuno in with Rossi. These Japanese are all about saving face, and Rossi is a conman.

I have no desire to discredit anyone. I'd been very excited by Mizuno's results, but my hopefulness has been tested by the inexplicable statement I believe I've heard that his unit, which had operated giving off excess heat through a winter, was disassembled. It stretches my credulity beyond the breaking point to think that someone had a hen laying golden eggs and dissected it before it was reported on by a credible news source on the order of the BBC.

Thanks to those who replied to my question about COP. My feeling about BrLP is the same as my feeling about Mizuno, which is the same as my feeling about Rossi.

While it's entirely possible that we are witnessing new physics being midwived, that's not my primary interest. My primary interest, regardless of whether the energy is being produced by hydrogen electrons falling to new lower orbits, or by fusion, or by angels rubbing sticks together, is "can you show that your technology produces more energy out than energy in for a sustained period of time." The way to show that is by making a demonstration self-powering. It wouldn't even have to be replicated; a single instance made available to outside observers would, IMO, be sufficient.

I don't have particular confidence that journalists would print articles about it, but I do have confidence that capitalists would attempt to capitalize on it, with the result that we'll all know of the accomplishment, unless it disappears into a government lab -- and in that case, I'd guess the journalists would write about that. I feel this confidence in much the same way that I feel confident that if someone invents a machine that produces, say, gold bars at half the cost of existing technology, capitalists will invest in it. The capitalists will either lose their money or will form successful companies; if the latter, I believe that will be a wonderful thing.

Would anyone here be willing and able to summarize the energy in versus energy out over, say, a 24 hour run of the BLP setup, where energy out is the thermal energy available to an external process or the electricity that would theoretically become available from a PV cell array covering the device's available "lit" space?

I'm just trying to understand, on the assumption that BLPs numbers are accurate, what sort of a COP is being stated to be available. Thanks.

Jed,

If you have a moment, can you clarify what you mean by 30W? Is it that you are feeding in 250W and getting 280W "worth" of heat out?

It is unfortunate that there is no longer an operating device with the COP and power reported; that obviously changes the value of a Google confirmation project. I can understand the need to examine the effects on the mesh, but it remains unfortunate.

I don't understand how I could have missed the fact that the R20 is no longer operating.

Quote from THHuxleynew

After ten or so failed replications that would split into some who were convinced the original results were real, and more who reckoned they were probably not. And of course, even one reputable replication would change everything.

If the original result is real but a series of replications fail, then to not have independent observers (including skeptics and non-skeptics) observe and thoroughly document any ongoing phenomenon would be tragic. While many here are confident that the behavior of the R20 is as now written up, the rest of the world does not appear to be.

The claimed power level and COP both make this particular claim, assuming the R20 is continuing to operate, easy for observers to confirm or refute. Confirmation (even if not believed by many) would draw funds and researchers to the field. Refutation would limit the energy wasted on a wild-goose chase.

Quote from JedRothwell

Hundreds of researchers at major labs such as Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC published peer-reviewed in major journals papers making this claim. These experiments were every bit as convincing as Mizuno's is, from a scientific point of view...There is not the slightest chance any editor would allow that. If they mentioned it at all, they would only say that this is part of long string of fraud and criminality that Google has apparently fallen victim to, and they would cite Rossi and the problems with IH and the British investor.

The difference, IMO, is that Dr. Mizuno is claiming more than a kilowatt of heat which is unaccounted for, not peaks on particular spectra or 8 watts in place of 7.5.

Anyone, even me, can understand that if you get a sustained 2kW "worth" of heat out of a box when sending 250W of electric power in, something is going on. There are only two to three things to establish: that the only possible power into the box is from the path going through "honest" meters, that there is no wireless transmission of power involved, and that the box is empty except for the mesh and heater. Any popular news editor, I am confident, would be thrilled to have the story. They would put the risk primarily on Google, not their paper, by quoting the Google investigators for any statements as to what was observed. (That's just competent journalism, not cowardice.) And they would be fully prepared to run a follow-up, if it turned out to be necessary, showing how the Google engineers were fooled. But based on what little I know of reporters, nobody would want to miss out on being the first to run the story about Google confirming the heat. If confirmed, it doesn't just mean a Nobel for Mizuno, it would also mean a Pulitzer for the reporter who first reported the story.

I'm aware of anecdotes of people denying heavier-than-air flight was possible even after viewing the Wright Brothers' early flights. That's why I don't feel Dr. Mizuno's results must be incorrect. But I don't share your belief that positive results from an investigation would be suppressed by the entire mainstream media. I can't even imagine a world where that sort of suppression would be possible.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think it would take a few months, or maybe a year for that to happen. First, you have to see 10 or 20 other large companies such as Google replicate.

Well, I haven't gone through what Jed and others have. But given the climate crisis, if a large reputable company were to announce that they thought they'd found a new non-fossil-fuel based, non-radioactive, non-polluting energy source, I'd be very comfortable firing any editor that did not put that on the front page.

I agree that a story announcing a hitherto unlikely new source of energy would not be a big deal. But the story would not be "new energy source found, says little known group;" the story would be "New energy source works, say Google researchers." Actually, the story would probably be more like "Alphabet announces $100 million investment in new energy source, following investigation confirming inexplicable results from Japanese researcher."

It is still my hope that Google and Dr. Mizuno will arrive at mutual agreement about a Google examination of Dr. Mizuno's existing physical instance of the R20, with Google to generate a public report carefully describing the tests they were able to conduct and their results.

I don't care what's happening in the box. If there's heat and COP at the levels reported by Dr. Mizuno, and the box contains nothing but Dr. Mizuno's mesh, a 250W heater, and a bit of gas, Google should back Dr. Mizuno up with all the credibility that a wealthy corporation will have. I believe if Google were to say they'd examined the R20 and it does what Dr. Mizuno says it does, it would be the lead story on every newscast and in every newspaper in the world, the next day.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In fact the safe approach, which any really high quality scientist would provide, would be to assume nothing, and question everything, including one's own expertise. That would mean lots of external advisors called in.

Some people would reckon you would also want a magician, to check for possible trickery.

Sometimes, people who have spent time training themselves in the use of high-precision experimental devices may forget that such devices are not always the required tools. For the R20, perhaps, a fuse, a thermometer, a Rolodex and a phone might be appropriate tools to apply to the problem.

At the power levels and excess heat reported for the R20, I believe independent measurement would require little expertise. My point is, if these results are personally observed by two or four people, those people would be able to bring in others with more expertise; then, if those people could not explain what they saw, they would be able to bring in people with more reputation, and so on. As for THHuxleynew's mention of a magician, or, more generally, a professional debunker, I'd imagine that if the R20 passed through a couple of rounds of Rolodex, such a professional would be brought in prior to any announcements, because people with reputations don't like being fooled in public.

Quote from JedRothwell

Who do you have in mind? Which independent observers? No one at the DoE or any university would touch it. Any major institution that touches it will come under a barrage of attacks by Nature and the mass media. We have the best people we can find working on replications.

Perhaps a team composed of a science journalist at a local paper and a physics or chemistry professor from a local university, given permission to add any other two willing examiners of their choice. I would imagine that if a pair or quartet like that were given an opportunity to examine the set-up and invited to report their findings, and if they could not explain their own observations, they would have little difficulty in recruiting others to see as well. Whether the results were confirmed or not, it would certainly make an interesting story for a science writer.

Quote from Shane D.

mjtrac

What has made this Mizuno thing so unique in the annals of LENR history, is that he has been so transparent. By his count, he already gave 12 reactors away (not sure if those are R20, or R19?) to be tested, and sent Jed here with the operating manual for others to replicate. Does not get more open than that.

In addition to Dr. Mizuno's providing twelve reactors, I believe that besides his willingness to be transparent, he in unique in having results which claim power and COP levels that can be confirmed or refuted without worrying about calorimetry. That is the reason it would be unfortunate if no objective outside observer has been invited to observe the effect and then dismantle the R20. Unlike many other experiments of which I have heard, this one should be extraordinarily easy for any outside team to confirm or refute.

I confess I am incapable of imagining why the R20 would be used to heat a room for a period of weeks without also having been observed to do so by outside objective observers, who would now be stepping forward to say "I saw it with my own eyes, and..." It is beyond my abilities to imagine any reason for the set of facts before us all, without some fact being incorrect or missing.