Posts by JedRothwell

    Convincing within the lab, yes. But still not persuasive for the world. What would be persuasive for the world is replication by several independent labs.

    One step at a time. First make it convincing within the lab to a visiting physicist. That will facilitate other steps such as having it independently replicated. It is not likely people will try to replicate it as things now stand, with no report and no response (yet) from this visiting physicist.


    Steps 2, 3, 4 etc. should not take long if each one goes smoothly. A few days or weeks each. The most time consuming one would be to write a report. It doesn't have to be a huge report. I think 8 or 10 pages should be enough. Showing the experiment to the visiting physicist will help them write the report. They should jot down the questions the physicist asks, and the concerns he raises, and then address them in the paper. That's what I did when I presented Mizuno's results at ICCF21. I had letters and notes from some visitors, and Mizuno's responses to them (in Japanese), so I simply reported the conversation. Easy-peasy for me.

    As we are currently only 14 weeks into this work, it would be premature to publish, even if we were ready. And given the timeline of most journals, it would not his print for another 12 months even if we submitted now.

    I do not think there is any chance a journal would publish this. JCMNS might, but it takes a long time. Many months and lots of painful peer-review. Not to mention copy editing by me, unless the author objects.


    When you are ready to publish, I suggest you write a report and circulate it. I will upload it to LENR-CANR.org if you like.


    I do not think it is a good idea to upload the report here, and only here, because it is difficult to find documents here. It is difficult to find anything here. Put it on your own website and circulate the URL. Don't put it exclusively on Facebook, either. Many people have no access to that.

    Well, we have a very serious hard-nose Physicist here today, going through the data and looking at the hardware in operation.

    No doubt this person will see far more data than you have published here. So perhaps it will be convincing. I said "The data published here is intriguing but it will not convince any scientists." That does not mean you don't have the data or that you will not show it to this person. It means only you have not published it here.


    It will be interesting to see if we can make a dent in his skepticism about our work.

    Yes. Dent or no dent, it will be good practice trying to convince someone. Like going to a physics conference.


    If you do not make a dent, perhaps you need to present more data or improve the presentation. The work itself may be good enough, but the presentation may be lacking. I have seen that situation before. I have also seen work that was not convincing, no matter how well presented.

    That's just an engineering problem that can be overcome with enough work and money.

    I doubt that. There is no scientific theory explaining how the reaction works. No one knows where to begin to overcome the control problem. They resemble people who tried to make semiconductors from the 1920s up to 1949. They had no theory and they made virtually no progress. Once Shockley developed the right theory, the engineers could take over and progress was swift.


    Without scientific understanding, the only way to make progress is by trial and error. That is very slow and expensive, and there is no telling whether it will work or not.


    But, I do agree with the rest of the post about convincing more scientists and engineers. Which, I think Alan and Russ are doing day by day.

    The data published here is intriguing but it will not convince any scientists. If this is all they have published, they have not yet begun trying to convince scientists.

    Having the mirage of a useful system before them researchers spin on and on developing their systems and never publishing the crucial data that may confirm or disconfirm for the world that they ever had anything in the first place.

    Yes, that has often happened. Which is not to say that is where Smith is headed.


    I'm 73, I don't have years to f**k around in. Or unlimited money. So I don't recognise what you describe. Every conventional route -and some unconventional ones - to producing and commercialising LENR effects has so far failed.

    LENR effects have not been commercialized because none of them could be commercialized. No one has produced a controlled reaction that can be scaled up or used for any practical purpose.


    If you are trying to make something that can be commercialized, I think you are making a grave mistake, and I expect you will fail. That goal is too ambitious. You should aim for something that will convince several engineers and scientists that you can reproduce the effect often (say 20% of the time at least) at a high enough power level that it can be measured easily, with great confidence (~5 W, or better). That's all you need to do to get the ball rolling. Scientists and engineers who have far more money, resources and staff at places like the Aerospace Corporation will then take over and finish the job for you, and you will get the credit.


    You do not need to convince all scientists. Or even thousands of them. Thirty or 40 would be enough, and I know several candidates.


    If you try to develop a practical prototype, you will probably die of old age before you get anywhere. You would be like the Wright brothers trying to make a practical airplane. They never did that. They worked from 1901 to 1908 in isolation, without revealing their secrets -- and people ignored their 1906 patent. Their 1908 airplane was barely functional, and extremely dangerous. When they flew with one of the first passengers in history, Lt. Selfridge, the airplane crashed and killed Selfridge and nearly killed Orville. If they had continued to work in isolation, they would not have made a practical airplane in 20 more years. They were more or less out of ideas.

    Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.

    Of course not. They do not realize cold fusion exists. If they knew it was real, large corporations and well equipped universities would be studying and making great progress. Many of them did in the early 1990s, before the researchers grew old and retired.


    Experts have demonstrated they have the talent, the skills and the tools to do this research and to make rapid progress. If you can convince them the effect is real, they will quickly catch up with you and then overtake you. That would not diminish your contribution.

    To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

    10 W would be just as good. It would transform the lives of people because it would convince many scientists and engineers that the effect is real, and they would take it from there. They can produce a practical device much more easily than you can. So there is no need for you to make it reach a semi-practical level of ~100 W.


    A small device that produces milliwatt levels of heat would be enormously useful and valuable. Combined with a thermoelectric device it would be a good battery for a pacemaker, cell phone or other small device.

    we have taken many, and they often display very different characteristics even though they have not been disturbed (except thermally) in the meantime. - the one we showed here was smooth, but others display 'step-down' behaviours, where the system sustains one temperature for a few moments, abruptly cools a few degrees and then plateaus again, steps down again and so on.

    Are they all monotonic, or do you see increases?

    Shane, why didn’t Bernie Madoff just retire?

    As noted by A.A., Madoff could not retire. He was running a Ponzi scheme. It is like a bicycle you have to keep pedaling or you fall over. You have to keep ramping a Ponzi scheme up and up, trapping more and more victims. Eventually, you run out of new victims and the whole thing collapses.


    I believe there are other methods of committing fraud that do not have this problem. Rossi could have stopped after Doral. I think I.H. was resigned to letting him keep the money. He upped the ante by filing suit against them. I hope the legal fees cost him all the money he scammed out of them. Maybe I should not hope that? Maybe he is back in the game, looking for the next victim, because he spent all the money on the lawsuit.

    Other LENR developers should observe the type of resistance and astroturfing that your product will eventually be subjected to from the enemies of LENR.

    Yes. These fusty demands that cold fusion reactors should meet the standards imposed on all other equipment are unfair. Why should cold fusion have to be tested and certified, just because all other sources of energy and industrial equipment has been since 1880? * This is astroturfing by the enemies of LENR, such as me.


    With this obstacle in mind, make sure you have in hand an air tight theory of how your product works and can prove it without any doubt.

    Right! And of course, academic professors and the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners will instantly believe your theory, and greenlight your 40 MW reactor, whether it has been tested or not. They will collectively slap their foreheads and say, "why didn't we think of it!" Because that's how scientists and engineers react to new ideas. They don't want to see for themselves. They take your word for it.


    That's why, for example, when Boeing develops a new airplane, they don't bother with flight testing. Nobody certifies it. The first prototype off the production line flies right to a major airport, they load it up with unsuspecting passengers, and off to Wild Blue Yonder they go! Five minutes before takeoff they give the pilot a rough draft of the operator manuals, in case he has any questions. That's how it's done, according to A.A. and Axil. Regulations, schmegulations. Who needs 'em? If the engines crank up, ship it.




    * 1880 was the founding date of the ASME. Their first big projects were improving the regulation and inspection of boilers. Of course boilers and other equipment was regulated long before that. There were laws regulating fires, coal use and boilers in London in 1600. I recall reading about a double burning furnace tested around that time by burning coal soaked with cat piss. The furnace was so good, the smell hardly bothered the observers. It made me wonder, "where did they get that coal?" I suppose they must have shut some cats in a coal bin for a while. Poor things!

    Axil, have you considered that when it comes to nuclear safety unsubstantiated speculation, no matter how plausible it sounds, will never cut it? Nor should it.


    Yes. Here is something that would probably not happen at a meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The chief commissioner would probably not say --


    "Fellow commissioners, we have been informed that a new and totally unknown type of nuclear reactor is now in use, producing 40 MW of heat. It is installed in downtown Milwaukee, at the Screen & Trapdoor Glass Company. Only one person in the world -- the inventor -- has access to the controls, which he manipulates over the internet from an unknown location. Presumably he monitors the reaction and controls it 24 hours a day, but we don't know that.


    The inventor and the Screen & Trapdoor Glass Company did not inform this commission or the public about this reactor until after it was installed and in operation, which is why it just came up on our agenda.


    We have concluded this reactor is probably safe because an anonymous person on the internet who calls himself 'Axil' has informed us that it derives energy from the vacuum, and it is made up of 400,000 small units. The small units are probably safe, as far as anyone knows, although they have not been tested by any lab or safety regulator. Anyway, if they are safe, it stands to reason that a conglomeration of them is probably safe too. Why wouldn't it be? Although there are no details on how this conglomeration is controlled, or whether the units might interact. That is a trade secret known only to the operator.


    The reactor might or might not produce penetrating radiation. No one has reported any radiation sickness yet. So far so good! The reactor can probably be controlled to avoid an explosion, although the inventor says his previous reactors often went out of control and almost exploded. Again, so far so good. We see no reason to do any safety or performance checks. We are inclined to believe everything the inventor claims without any third-party verification. Although we note that he has been involved in several criminal and civil actions, and in his testimony he admitted he defrauded people and lied about the performance of the machines. There are some technical doubts about his previous claims. He claimed there was a heat exchanger which does not appear in any photos of the facility. Three leading engineering experts reviewed his performance report and pointed that it was nonsense without a shred of scientific or engineering validity. Putting all this aside, we are inclined to believe all of the inventor's claims.


    By the way, the reactor is not insured as far as anyone knows. The inventor says that is up the customer, and Screen & Trapdoor refuses to discuss the matter. We contacted several insurance companies, explained the situation, and asked if they are covering it, or whether they would cover it. They said no, they have not heard of it, and it would violate their procedures to insure a reactor that no one understands and that has not been safety tested. But what do they know? Maybe some company insured it.


    I move that we retroactively approve this installation. Let us hope it does not explode or irradiate anyone. As our national poet said, hope is the thing with feathers, and that's good enough for this commission. And as I said, so far so good! What's the worst that could happen? Okay, no one knows what might happen, but it isn't as if the public is counting on us to ensure safety."




    . . . A.A., Axil and Rossi apparently believe this is a realistic scenario. I don't think so.

    I want to push back on the notion that LENR is nuclear. LENR produces no gamma radiation. and neutrons. The energy that LENR releases could well come from the vacuum.

    Rossi claims it is nuclear in his patent. There is no evidence that energy can be extracted from a vacuum with "zero point energy," so your saying it "could well" be coming from that is nonsense. Zero point energy has been suggested by some theoreticians but never demonstrated. This is like saying "time travelers could well exist" because a few theories suggest time travel might be possible.


    It is up to the regulators to duplicate Rossi's reactor and determine where the energy is coming from before they ban that energy source as having an unknown character.

    Here on planet earth, that is not how regulators work. They do not have to show there is a safety problem. They have to perform extensive tests proving there is no safety problem. Things are banned until they are proven safe, using long-established tests and criteria. If Ford makes a new model car that has not been crash tested yet, they are not allowed to sell it because "there is no proof it is not safe." It never works that way.


    Furthermore, all major scientific organizations and institutions have to agree on the theory, and theory of operation. No one would be allowed to operate a large scale machine when no one understands what makes it work. Rossi alone might claim he understands, but that doesn't count. The whole scientific establishment has to understand and it has to agree on the theory.


    For all intents and purposes LENR is not harmful to life since LENR can also be produced by bacteria.

    No one has any idea whether LENR may be harmful to life. There has not been a single test of this, other than scientists being exposed to reactions mostly of a fraction of a watt. Rossi has never been exposed to a large scale LENR reaction because his Doral, FL device was a crude fake that produced no cold fusion reaction, as you see in the Penon report that you refuse to look at. More to the point, many LENR devices have exploded, and Rossi often claimed that his devices went out of control and were on the verge of exploding. Explosions are harmful to life. An explosion of a 40 MW device in a populated area could be catastrophic.


    There is only a little evidence that LENR can be produced by bacteria. As usual, you take partial, fragmentary, or vaguely suggestive evidence and you assume it is right, and you blow it up into a proven fact.

    AA since you worked with glass manufacturing,.... what did you think of Bass's "fake" J.M Products business card with the picture of an industrial glass making manufacturing plant in Japan that he gave to IH?


    court docs: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…11/0029.20_Exhibit_20.jpg


    Recall he just used the picture from: http://acidcow.com/pics/16423-plants-in-japan-35-pics.html

    (image #17)

    Is that a glass manufacturing plant? I read about these photos but I don't recall the details. Image 28 shows tanks that say "Central Glass Co., vinyl chloride monomer" but I guess they deal in all kinds of chemicals, and that might not be the same factory as Image 17.


    I think these photos are by Ken Oyama (http://www.ohyamaken.com/) who has become rather famous for them. I vaguely recall this set of photos was taken on the Inland Sea, my old stomping grounds. These industrial complexes don't look pretty during the day.

    What do you mean by a "gas fired furnace"? They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and in industry are not standardized.

    But they are governed by laws and regulations, and by ASME standards that fill entire books. Whereas no one knows anything about the Rossi reactor and there is not a single regulation or safety test on record that applies to it. You seem to imagine that if there are no applicable regulations to it, that means it can be used freely, in a happy-go-lucky world. No, that means it cannot be used. Period. Not until the safety tests are done and the regulations are on the books. That would take years and billions of dollars.


    Insurance was dealt with by another dept, so I don't know mush about it.

    You do not know anything about it. Whereas other people here, including me, have dealt with it and we know a lot. The first thing we know is that there is not a single insurance company on God's Green Earth that will write a policy to cover a nuclear reactor that works by unknown processes, that only one person claims to understand, and that has never been safety tested, without any regulations covering it. The chances of that are zero to 5 significant places. I cannot even get insurance coverage for a house because it does not have modern plumbing. The insurance company almost withdrew coverage from my brother's house because there was dry rot on the porch. Insurance companies stick close to the rules and they take no unnecessary risks. Anything that looks like a violation of regulations will rule out coverage immediately. If they find out you deliberately violated or ignored regulations, they will not cover an accident.


    No corporation would risk using the Rossi device, whether they could get insurance or not. If something went wrong and there was an accident, they would face so many criminal charges and civil liabilities, the company might be bankrupted, like Tokyo Electric Power was after the Fukushima disaster. The management would end up in prison. No sane person would run that risk just to save 20% on energy costs for heating.


    You have not addressed any of these issues, and I am sure you will not address them. Your only response is "Rossi knows this stuff better than you do." No, he does not.

    You really like spinning things to make them fit your version of the Rossi story.


    You write "a conventional 40 MW heater costs roughly $60 million." Yet your link further down shows that is a the cost for a geothermal heater - hardly conventional.

    Are you suggesting that a 40 MW Rossi device is conventional?? It would be the most unconventional machine in human history. It would work by principles that no scientist on earth understands, or can even imagine. It would not be safety tested. The control system would have to be invented from scratch. (The Doral system did not need any controls, because it was fake.) Surely, the cost of developing such a revolutionary machine would exceed the cost of developing a geothermal heater. Geothermal heating is boring, conventional technology that has been used for over a century in one form or another, mainly for electric power or combined heat and power, but also for direct space heating.

    Do you have any insights into his motivation?

    He was a difficult person to know. He was a flaming egomaniac. The worst I have ever met. He distributed an elaborate book with 4-color separation glossy paper describing his accomplishments, and illustrating his awards and patents. He was a tyrant with his grad students. Decades later, when they were middle aged professors, he yelled and abused them in my presence, and with national mass media people standing right there. He was an extreme right wing nationalist, in favor of Emperor Worship. He made several lurid YouTube videos of himself extolling the glories of the Imperial Japanese system, and bashing communism, featuring intros with Mt. Fuji and cherry blossoms and the Japanese national anthem right out of 1940. He hung around with creepy lowlifes who claimed on video they were assaulted and were in gang fights with communists. There are a lot of right-wing hoodlums like that in Japan. When I lived there, they used to dress up in WWII uniforms and drive trucks around with loudspeakers blasting nationalist propaganda, intimidating the neighborhood and reportedly collecting protection money from local businesses to shut up and go away.


    All that would be insufferable, and he would be a nobody, except that he actually did accomplish a tremendous amount. He won many distinguished awards, including two from the previous and present Emperor. They named an international prize after him, and while he was still alive they named a building after him on the campus at Osaka National U. I have never heard of a building named after a living person at a national university. All these awards were richly deserved.


    I do not think he made a lot of money because he did all of this as a national university professor, which is like working for the DoD and inventing the internet. You are paid well but you get no intellectual property.


    So I would say he was motivated by curiosity and academic rivalry. In my experience, there is no group of people more cutthroat, more willing to hide data, steal ideas, and ruin other scientists' reputations more than academic scientists.


    Didn't he have associates or students who knew what he knew? (at least collectively)

    Mainly Chinese people. His main co-author is Chinese, Yue-Chang Zhang. I think she retired to the U.S. (She told me she hoped to.) The others in his lab were all Chinese as far as I know. (The ones listed in his papers are.) They have not revealed anything to the Japanese scientists as far as I know. They speak excellent Japanese, which is how I spoke with them and communicated with them by e-mail. It is ironic that Arata was wildly anti-communist, yet his staff and funding appeared to be coming from Beijing.


    He did not tell the other Japanese researchers how to make the material in the cell. I guess they reverse engineered it. They said something like that. Anyway, if anyone knows how to make it, and if anyone has samples, it would be the people in China.

    Regarding "More to the point, to design, debug and certify a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles and has never been safety tested would cost far more than $60 million."


    How do you know that this reactor is nuclear?

    Assume it works the way Rossi claims. In that case, if it is not nuclear, it must be something totally unknown to science, and inexplicable. In that case it will take even longer to establish that it is safe. A large group of scientists will have to first establish some understanding of what it is and how to control it. Rossi cannot be the only person in the world who thinks he understands it, and has confidence he can control it. Small cold fusion reactors have gone out of control. Rossi often claimed that his other reactors went out of control. If a 40 MW device went out of control, it might create a tremendous explosion. If it is some sort of nuclear device, it might irradiate the surroundings.


    To scale up this device at this stage in its development, and to put it anywhere near a populated area would be so foolhardy, no one in the last 400 years would do it, and no government would allow it.


    That is assuming it works. I assume it does not work, any more than the Doral, FL device did. That was a blatant fraud. People who spent 5 minutes in the building instantly saw that it was fake. Anyone with an ounce of common sense who reads the Penon report will see it was fake. I assume the 40 MW unit (if it is ever actually constructed) will be another inept fake. The purpose of the Doral fake, and probably this one, was to fool gullible people on a jury, not an observer who actually goes into the building and looks at the machine. There may be another fake customer as well, just to lend verisimilitude from a distance. Rossi's "tests" resemble inflated rubber tanks in WWII used to fool air reconnaissance. They did not fool anyone on the ground. See:


    https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/to-make-a-fake-tank/

    1. That is Rossi's stated plan. Further, the customer does not pay in advance for the heat. Do tell us, how do you know better than Rossi what he plan is ?

    I know better because a conventional 40 MW heater costs roughly $60 million. Not to design, debug and certify. $60 million is what it costs to make one. There is a limited market for such things. As I mentioned, the entire Cornell campus with 608 buildings uses about 30 MW of centrally generated heat. How many institutions in the entire world have more than 608 buildings for which they would buy heat from Rossi? Zero.


    http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/…geothermal-heating-plant/


    There is a much larger market for a 40 MW electric generator, so it costs $8 million. I am sure Rossi does not have $60 million or $8 million. More to the point, to design, debug and certify a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles and has never been safety tested would cost far more than $60 million. More like $600 million or $6 billion, depending on who you ask. Only an crazy person would think Rossi is capable of making one.


    In short, anyone knows better than Rossi about this. It is obvious he is lying. You cannot see this because you have not considered what it would cost and what steps have to be taken to manufacture and install a 40 MW nuclear reactor based on unknown principles.

    And some people never expect to die.

    Good point. Seriously, that is probably why some people do this.


    Not all. Arata was very sick for many years, and very old. He must have known he would die. But as far as I know he remained uncooperative and secretive to the end.

    Why would anyone do that [take it to the grave] with anything that actually worked?

    I do not know why people do that, but they often do. Patterson probably did. Fleischmann took many of his secrets with him, as you see in his letters to Miles and to me. This happens with cold fusion and with many other conventional inventions, products, business methods, horticulture, and every other field I know of. To take a famous example, the Wright brothers compiled superb wind tunnel data in 1901 and 1902. They discussed it with Chanute and sent him some samples. He made some corrections. They used this data to design the wings and propellers of their airplane. After they became famous, they said they would publish it, but they never did. Others did not produce data as good as this until the 1920s, so it would have been helpful during WWI. Samples were published after Orville died.


    Here is a sample data table and graph:


    https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k…lane/wrights/results.html


    People take secrets to the grave, and corporations often keep secrets until they are forgotten or useless. Xerox kept their technology more or less under wraps even after Steve Jobs stole it.

    obsessive Regulation and precautionism is preventing any breakthrough

    I have never heard of an experiment that was delayed by regulations. At one point, the managers at China Lake tried to stop Miles by telling him this is a nuclear effect and it has to be regulated. He pointed to articles in Nature saying it is a mistake, and not nuclear, so they agreed it should not be covered by nuclear safety rules. I have heard of precautions slowing down research. Mizuno was not allowed to do experiments after one of his cells exploded.

    I already said we repeated it and got different results. It will be repeated again and again I expect. Your argument is a bit like a 'cant win' scenario, repeat a test and get the same result is a bad sign you suggest, personally I think that repeatable experiments are better than those with wildly different results

    It depends on how close the two curves are. If they fall exactly on top of one another, I would suspect that is generated some sort of instrument error, or method error. I have seen many results like that. Wildly different results are also bad.

    You are a great example of our currently risk adverse society.

    Not me. This is how society is. The public demands safety. It will not allow Rossi to operate a 40 MW nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles and that has not been extensively tested for safety by many experts, and certified safe. This is the 21st century, not 1600.


    I agree with the need for testing. Frankly, if you would allow Rossi to operate such a large machine without safety testing, I think you are crazy.


    Certification and safety checks are not new. We have always been risk-adverse, for good reasons. A barn built in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1790 had to meet building codes, or the builder would lose his license. (I happen to know about this in some detail because I own the barn, and it had to be repaired.) In the 19th century, boilers and other heavy equipment required certification and periodic inspection and testing.

    Any large company would be interested in cutting energy costs by 20%

    That is incorrect. The people at Hydrodynamics supply heat to carpet makers in Georgia. The carpet makers can save 20% by various means, but they have other priorities that matter more. (Which Hydrodynamics can meet.) Cost is not always the first priority, and 20% savings in energy is not necessarily important. Also, would that be 20% off of gas heating, coal, solar or electricity? At what temperatures, for what purpose? Reliability, speed, safety and many other factors might trump cost.


    It is not as difficult as Jed makes out to get approval in an industrial setting.

    For a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles? Are you serious? (Silly question. Of course you are.) If a 40 MW nuclear reactor went out of control, the entire city would have be evacuated. There has not been a single safety study or even a verification of this claim. The notion that the authorities would allow it is utterly preposterous. Utterly unthinkable.


    Any authority who allowed this would end up serving a long sentence in prison for many reasons, not least endangering the public. He wouldn't be reprimanded or fired, he would be arrested. As I said, this would be like surreptitiously allowing regular passenger planes to fly without pilots, as drones. The difference is, drone technology exists and it would probably work for large airplanes, whereas every test done by Rossi was a fraud.


    The whole idea that Rossi will sell any reactors, at any power level, for practical purposes is an outrageous lie. You don't see that, but anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it. At most he could sell a few small reactors to laboratories for testing, evaluation, verification and safety testing. By "small" I mean 100 W. I.H. allowed what was claimed to be a 1 MW reactor. I find that deeply disturbing, as I did at the time. It was irresponsible. Fortunately -- or unfortunately perhaps -- by the time the 1-year Doral test began they were 99% certain the reactor did not work. It was a last ditch effort, as I.H. said in the documents that you refuse to look at.

    Don't go confusing LENR with chemistry.

    LENR is definitely the product of chemistry, and it follows many laws similar to chemistry. Many nuclear reactions do.


    LENR is the product of chemistry in the same sense that a plutonium fission explosion is the product of a chemical implosion. It is triggered by a chemical effect. In LENR, increased heat will increase chemical activity which -- presumably -- triggers more LENR activity. However it does that.


    It is also the product of chemistry in that it only works in a narrow set of physical and chemical conditions, in an NAE (Storms). It is form of catalysis. I mean the physical properties and configuration of the metal trigger the reaction, and they are not "used up." The metal catalyzes and the deuterium or hydrogen is the fuel.


    There are also nuclear catalysts.


    For example, the system was much less active today, nothing in the parameters was changed, the same test gave us around 2W. Tomorrow it may be different again. Simple chemistry - or simple linear relationships between temperature and anomalous heat don't always work out in this system.

    Nothing about LENR is simple. Catalysis never is. It isn't linear, but it has some linear components which you can see if you can strip away other control factors.


    Assuming this is LENR, I would expect it to change even though the parameters were not changed. Not changed by you, that is. Some unknown, uncontrolled parameter changed.


    Then again, this behavior might indicate some sort of error. Because I would also expect the HAD to be quite different than what these graphs show. It is possible you have discovered an exceptionally stable form of LENR, with HAD that looks entirely different from other forms. Possible, but I kind of doubt it, so if I had to guess, based on this graph, I would guess this a mistake. I have no idea what kind of mistake it might be. As I said before, I suggest you try to repeat it and see if the results are very close the previous ones. That would be a bad sign.

    So, it stands to reason that an enterprise that makes use of 20 MW of power (presumably on a continuous basis) would be eager to install an untested black box based on an unknown and unproven technology and operated from afar by a controversial character with a checkered past to achieve that result. It is no wonder they would need to keep it secret. Otherwise, the men in white coats would be at their door within the hour.

    Didn't he say 40 MW?


    Okay, let's say it is 20 MW of heat, probably low grade heat. Very few factories need that. Something like an industrial scale lumber kiln is the only thing I can think of offhand. That's a very large insulated warehouse. 1 or 2 MW of low grade heat is all you need to heat a large shopping mall, for example.


    The combined heat and power generator at Cornell has two late model efficient generators of 15 MW of electric power capacity each. The waste heat that can be distributed to the campus is probably about ~30 MW as well. That's a campus with 608 buildings on 2000 acres. So, you can see there are not many places that need 20 or 40 MW of heat.


    https://energyandsustainabilit…eating/production/cep.cfm


    Anyway, the whole discussion is lunacy because, as I have pointed out before, it wouldn't only be men in white coats. It would also be the police and every state and federal regulatory agency. You would NEVER, EVER, EVER be allowed to operate a large scale nuclear power source that works by unknown principles, that has not been safety tested and certified. If they found you were doing that, there would dozens of police cars and swat teams at your door within a half hour. I mean that. No exaggeration. Regulators do not have police powers. They cannot arrest you. But they can inform authorities, including the police, who sure can arrest you.


    Never mind nuclear power -- if they found out you had a large, conventional boiler that had not been inspected and might not be safe, it would be like finding rats in a restaurant. They would close you down immediately.


    That goes twice for a heat source remote controlled from a distant site. That alone has to violate dozens of regulations. It is unthinkable.


    Any company that accepted any of these conditions, or tried to use the technology, would be headline news in every mass media outlet. Every responsible person in the company would be doing a perp-walk to jail in front of the press. It would be the worst public relations fiasco in corporate history. The only thing I can think of that it might resemble this would be a major airline that transports passengers in a jet with a remote control pilot only, like a drone, and no pilot on board, without telling anyone. The airline would be put out of business tomorrow. There would be Congressional investigations and everyone involved would end up in prison.



    For these reasons, and many others, Rossi's latest story is a preposterous fantasy. It is amazing to me that any technically educated person would believe a word of it. Some other reasons would be that a machine of this size would cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to develop, even if there were no regulatory issues. Rossi does not have that kind of money.

    I have a rough idea why that might be but do you know explicitly why that was?

    Good question. In the cell that I saw long ago, I recall it was several centimeters above the anode & cathode. Sort of like this:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceeding.pdf#page=52


    Note that this configuration uses a single thermistor in a glass tube. I saw multiple devices in a similar tube. (Thermistors or thermocouples -- I don't recall.)


    The boil-off paper shows the sensors stuffed inside the anode loop, above the cathode, which would reduce the difference between the cathode temperature and the sensor temperature during electrolysis. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf


    I am not sure what the actual dimensions of these cells are. It is listed somewhere. The shape and proportions are as shown.