Posts by JedRothwell

    There is no functioning and affordable method for disposing of the waste generated by fission plants and by the nuclear bomb and reactor industry.

    On the other hand, tremendous amounts of radioactive materials are released by burning coal, in the particulates. Much more than all reactors released before Chernobyl and Fukushima. The particulates are "disposed of" by spewing them into people's lungs, growing crops, houses, lakes etc.


    Plus there is a problem with CO2 and global warming . . .

    Not true. In the case of SDG&E and the San Onofre power plant, the mistake that forever destroyed the facility was made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The steam generator they made broke and leaked and it was not practical or nobody wanted to repair it.

    I believe that would be an accident, rather than ordinary decomissioning. Accidents such as Three Mile Island cost far more than ordinary decomissioning. The Fukushima disaster wiped out TEPCO, the world's largest power company, and the Japanese government is paying for part of the cleanup.


    The NEI document I cited says the industry has put aside $53 billion for decomissioning. It says only three reactors do not have enough put aside, and they soon will.


    That's what the industry says. I wouldn't know.


    https://www.nei.org/Master-Doc…Nuclear-Energy-Facilities

    Decommissioning a plant is very expensive and time consuming - taking 20+ years typically.

    U.S. plants that have not had accidents have been decomissioned faster than that, at surprisingly low costs. Accidents such as Three Mile Island or Fukushima cause huge problems and additional expenses in decomissioning. For intact plants, it takes:


    10 years for SAFSTOR, which is essentially doing nothing for 10 years. That does not cost much.


    5 years for DECON, which is the actual demolition and removal.


    See:


    https://www.nei.org/Master-Doc…Nuclear-Energy-Facilities


    By law, the cost of decomissioning is including in the cost of electricity. It is baked in to your rates. By the time the plant is finished, the money should be in the bank.


    In Georgia, they are having terrible problems trying to build a new nuke at Vogtle. The whole project may be abandoned next week. I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, I agree it is foolish to throw good money after bad. It would be cheaper by far to build natural gas plants. On the other hands, nuclear power produces no CO2 or smoke. In Georgia there is practically no potential wind power, and solar power is hardly used. So, I would like to see the plant finished and put on line.


    http://chronicle.augusta.com/n…nt-vogtle-moved-next-week

    (2) Since no repeatable, well-instrumented, and carefully controlled CF experiments show COP of > 1.3 and the input power varies over a wide range my point is made.

    That is 100% pure, complete, unmitigated bullshit. Where on earth did you get that idea? It would appear you have not read the literature.


    What is the point of making assertions wildly at odds with the facts? Anyone who has read the literature will see that you are making stuff up. This is an annoying era we are living through, in which people boldly invent their own reality. Annoying, but also puzzling. Who are you trying to kid? What is the point?

    My point was, given how simple and safe LENR is portrayed to be,

    No one who knows anything about cold fusion has EVER, EVER, E-V-E-R said it is simple. On the contrary, ever electrochemist who replicated agreed with Richard Oriani that this was the most difficult experiment they ever did. That's several hundred world class experts saying it is difficult, versus one anonymous person on the Internet (Mary Yugo) who claims it is easy.


    This is yet another confabulation by Mary Yugo. She makes up stuff which is completely contrary to the literature and to what expert says, and then she instantly believes what she -- and she alone -- said.

    Jed would point to so-called heat -after-death observations. But I've not seen quality reporting of that other than could be otherwise explained.

    No, you tried to explain it in various ways, but the papers show that your explanations are ruled out.


    The vast majority of excess heat results are suspiciously strongly related to input power.

    No, they are not. There is no correlation at all. Input power is a function of electrolysis, and it can always be explained by conventional electrochemical factors such as the distance between the anode and cathode, and the concentration of the electrolyte.


    You just made that up, out of whole cloth, without a shred of evidence. Just the way you pretend you can explain heat after death, even though your explanations (at Abd's site) are easily shown to be wrong.

    In science only replication is what matters.

    Yes, and Rossi was not replicated. He could not even show people how to use his own devices to produce the effect he claimed!

    It's symptomatic you know nothing about Lipinski, who actually published about his experiments most details.

    I cannot know about everyone. Eventually I will study Lipiniski. I have studied these others and I know for sure that Rossi is fake and Me356 was unable to show heat from his own device. If he cannot even make his own machine work, obviously he cannot be replicated! How can you "replicate" a result that the author himself cannot produce?


    Heck, if you got heat from an Me356 device, it would not be a replication. It would be a different result. He got nothing; you would be getting something. A replication would be no heat.


    than at least Parkhomov and Lipinski could be replicated because they provided all details of their setup.

    Parkhomov has not provided enough details. That I am sure of. I saw his presentation. Very few people could even hear or understand him. His calorimetry was plainly wrong.

    We know the composition of mixture, which Parkhomov did use, we also know, that he wasn't able to replicate his research. Maybe Rossi was more lucky. We also know about Lipinski cold fusion and its common points with Me356 and Quark-X experiments.

    Rossi was not "lucky." His test was fraud. There is no chance it produced excess heat. I know nothing about Lipinski. Me356 was not able to produce excess heat then the MFMP people visited him, and he never published any data showing excess heat after that, so he has nothing. The Quark-X is fraud. The input power was not measured.


    You are building castles in the air, based on nothing. These people have never demonstrated a real result. None have been replicated. Rossi's results are the clearest example of fraud I have ever seen anywhere, in any field. He is "phoning it in." He is not even trying to fool people. The only people who are fooled are those who fool themselves. Some desperately want to believe. Others such as Axil are determined not to learn anything so they refuse to even look at the Penon report.

    This is maryyugo-like logic. You haven't enough of information for being sure about it.

    I do not have much information on Parkhomov. That's why I said, "as far as I can tell." I have tons of information on Rossi, such as the Penon report. Anyone can see from Penon that the test was blatant fraud. Even Rossi tacitly admitted that when he piled fraud on top of fraud with his invisible mezzanine heat exchanger.


    If the Penon report and the lawsuit docket do not convince you this was fraud, nothing will. I cannot imagine a more clear-cut case of fakery.

    Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles

    Hideki Yoshino, Eijiro Igari, Tadahiko Mizuno

    Yes. I mean it was filed under Yoshino. It was Yoshino's presentation. Mizuno did not attend.


    I did not see the presentation and I do not know what was said, but -- getting back to the claim made by Mary Yugo -- I am pretty sure those large reactors have not been used. That's what Mizuno told me, and I have seen the actual reactors. They don't look used to me. I don't see anything on the slides that indicate the reactors were used. Maybe Yugo has some other source of information, but more likely she just made that up and now she is convinced it must be true, just as she is convinced that 6 seconds is not significantly shorter than 3 hours, or that it is very difficult to measure 100 W of heat with no input. Whatever pops into her mind she becomes instantly and irrevocably convinced must be true.

    Just take the Parkhomov mixture inside alumina pipe, place it between two electrodes attached to a Tesla coil and put the current into it. A. Rossi uses high voltage for initiation the discharge, so that use it too.

    As far as I can tell, Parkhomov's claims are mistaken. I am sure Rossi's recent claims are fraud. Some of his earlier claims might be valid -- although I doubt that -- but he never revealed enough information to replicate. He did not even reveal enough information to allow others to use his own devices to produce heat (assuming that is possible). So, you are suggesting people should replicate tests that did not work, fraudulent tests, and tests with devices that no one knows how to make or use. These are not useful suggestions.

    Perhaps you should trouble yourself to follow the link I provided. I didn't make it up. It was presented by Mizuno and others.

    I did miss that link. Sorry. That's Yoshino, not Mizuno. I did not hear the lecture. There were no claims in the slides that the large reactors were used. As far as I know, they have not been used.


    I have been to the lab, seen these reactors, and discussed the reasons why they have not been used, so I probably know more about this than you do. But, as I said, if you read somewhere that these reactors were used, please tell us where.

    What is one to take away from a presentation featuring these "reactors"? That they are fanciful sculptures? What does the caption say? These were apparently slides. I don't know what was said during their presentation.

    I do not know what presentation you mean.


    If you "don't know what was said," then why do you assert that Mizuno claimed he got kilowatts from these reactors? Which is it? Do you know, or don't you?


    To the best of my knowledge he was not able to use the large reactors. Perhaps you know something I don't know. If you have heard that he used these reactors or that he claimed they produced kilowatts, please tell us where you got this information.


    Or did you just make that up?

    Of course, I am referring to Mizuno's cutely named reactors (I think one was Scarlet?) which are supposed to make in the tens of kilowatts for one and IIRC in the dozens or hundreds of kW for the other.

    As far as I know he has not been able to test these reactors. Can you point to a paper by Mizuno claiming that he did use these reactors, and he was able to produce kilowatt levels of power? Or . . . did you just make that up and post it here?

    3) Mizuno may not care about personal enrichment but certainly, he needs money to fund work so he can't not care about money as you say. And if he wants his peers to validate him, he needs to provide better data and better devices.

    He and the others are doing the best they can. They have no money and they face tremendous political opposition. I do not think you could do a better job than they have done, unless you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and you have access to top-notch labs. It is easy for you to criticize but I doubt you have any practical suggestions.


    There is such strong political opposition because the opposition is irrational, unscientific, and innumerate. You are a prime example. You are sure there is no difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours, or 200 mW and 100 W. Shanahan is even more extreme, claiming that a hot object is "not a heater" and a heater that remains hot for days is "not being heated." You go along with this, just as you go along with any anti-cold fusion statement, no matter how unhinged. Granted, you two are extremists, but it is only a matter of degree. Other opponents are either irrational and innumerate, or they know nothing about the subject and they make up nonsense. There is no legitimate scientific reason to deny that cold fusion is real. There have not been any reasons since 1990.

    Have each of these experiments been replicated multiple times by authorities completely independent of the original claimants?

    Some have, some have not.

    I would think that if 100W was easy to obtain with a high COP, major universities would have published many papers about it.

    Who said it was easy? It is hard to make cold fusion work at any power level.

    I just don't see it.

    You don't see it because you have not looked. Clearly, you have not read the literature or the Storms books, so you know nothing about this subject.

    If it only works in the claimants laboratory, the claims are inconclusive at best.

    I suppose that if that were the case, and if the s/n ratio were low, and if the people reporting these results were not world class experts, you might be right. But it isn't; it's high; and they are, so you aren't.


    I realize we are living an era of anything goes, do-it-yourself reality, but this is about science. You can't just make stuff up.

    This might be one of the reasons why, after all these decades, the output of claimed LENR/CF successes never increases above certain levels:

    That statement is incorrect. Cold fusion has been scaled up, from a fraction of a watt in many cases to 50 to 100 W. This is done mainly by increasing the size of the cathode and by raising the temperature.


    See "Peak heat from 124 tests:"


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

    Nobody has denied that IH/Darden brought both Woodford and potential Chinese investors to demo the Doral facility, have they?

    Yes. Were you there? Do you know what they told Woodford? I know what they told other visitors at that time, and what they told me. It was a negative appraisal. I think it is unlikely they would have told Woodford one thing and many other people (including me) the opposite. I think Woodford would have discovered that quickly, from other people. I do not know the man and I have not heard from him, but I am sure he is in contact with many people who at that time had a low opinion of Rossi's test.


    I do not know whether Woodford has technical knowledge of calorimetry and HVAC, but if he does, five minutes after entering Rossi's warehouse, he would have seen the test was fake and the claimed results were preposterous. He was not being cooked alive, so the machine could not have been performing the way the instruments indicated. It makes no difference what IH told him -- he would have seen that for himself. Anyone reading the Penon report can see it.

    As far as I can tell it looks like they were happy showing potential investors the Doral plant at least halfway through the test or something, and that they had nothing bad to say about the test until after Rossi sued for payment.

    How far can you tell? Did they offer to show you the site halfway through the test? I was in contact with them and they did not seem happy to me. Who told you they were happy?

    They seem to be very clear about Rossi having nothing to do with these plans, so no hindrences there, right?

    Earlier they said Rossi was their most important project. However, sometime around when the Doral project began they backed off and said they saw no heat from Rossi's devices. What followed you can read about in the lawsuit docket. Rossi was a tremendous hindrance. He destroyed them, and by doing so, he cut off just about all funding to other researchers. As described in the docket, they fired their technical staff and stopped all R&D. I do not think they are supporting many other researchers now.

    They tried to execute a business strategy where they seemed merely interested in collecting IP from various researchers but not in industrialization.

    That is completely wrong. They spent a great deal of time and money pursuing industrialization.


    Where did you get that information? I suspect this is mere speculation. I think you should refrain from speculating about people and business strategies that you know nothing about.

    I take it that you don't forsee any resistance from any energy provider no matter what stage of commercialization that LENR archives going forward?

    Good grief! What did I say that put that crazy idea into your head??? What a weird thing to say. No, obviously, if it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, there will be TREMENDOUS OPPOSITION TO IT. The physics establishment, the DoE, the oil companies, wind turbine manufacturers and many others will come down on it like a ton of bricks, just as many of them did in the early 1990s. They will, once again, denounce it the mass media and accuse the researchers of being frauds, criminals and lunatics (Washington Post). They do not attack it now because, as I said, they do not know it exists. They assume they crushed it once and for all, which they probably did.


    A few years ago a high government official in Japan refused to fund any research in cold fusion because, he said, if it works it will disrupt the energy market. That was an official in a country with virtually no fossil fuel or wind resources. Imagine how officials in Russia, the Middle East or the oil producing states in the U.S. would react!


    In the U.S. various energy interests fight one-another ruthlessly. The coal industry has been trying for years to have wind turbines outlawed and taken down, ostensibly because the turbines kill birds. This is absurd, because coal kills far more birds than wind turbines do, not to mention 20,000 human beings per year. The coal industry fights natural gas and solar, the gas industry denounces nuclear power, and everyone gangs up against wind power, which is currently growing most rapidly and eating other people's lunches. If these industries become aware that cold fusion is real and it might become a practical source of energy, I am sure they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising and bribes to the Congress to crush it. They will succeed, unless the public demands they stop.

    This forum should expect that vested anti LENR interests

    There is no such thing as a vested anti-LENR interest. No one cares about the research except for the researchers themselves, and they are mostly elderly people without funding or influence. There is no opposition from any mainstream organization. Only neglect, and ignorance of the subject.


    In the 1990s, there was strong opposition from institutions such as the DoE and Nature, but that has all been forgotten now. The fight ended 20 years ago.


    Most of the major opponents such as Huizenga are dead. I knew them all. None of them has posted here. There are no organizations such as oil companies opposed to cold fusion today. If there were, I would know about it. There are no pretend grassroots organizations ("astroturf" organizations) opposed to cold fusion. That is a ridiculous and totally unfounded claim made by some of the Rossi supporters here. No organization anywhere is paying people to oppose cold fusion, or -- for that matter -- to support it.

    Cleverly orchestrated, designed and tested means of misdirection?

    Doral was anything but clever, orchestrated or designed. It was a farce from start to finish. That was clear to me five minutes after seeing the data.


    Some of the other experiments have been much more convincing, as I said several times. You have not found a problem with them, and neither have I. Subsequent events cast doubt on them, but no one has found a problem or an indication of fraud. That does not mean there was no fraud.

    In a nutshell, basically, the only new principle involved is that instead of the power being generated by the relaxive motion of conductors and fluxes, it is produced by the modial interactions of magneto-reluctance and capacitive directance.


    The original machine had a base-plate of prefabulated amulite, surrounded by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in direct line with the pentametric fan . . .

    This is a gross oversimplification! But thanks for explaining what Axil has in mind.