Posts by JedRothwell

    All correct except Mizuno did not attend this ICCF. Trevithick was going to "ask around" to see what everyone had heard about it.

    I do not think he is interested. He did not ask me anything about it. He did not ask me who is replicating, and how they are getting along. No one other than Mizuno knows more about this than I do. Not because I am an expert, but because he has sent me a lot of information and I have only translated and explained part of it.


    (I do not think I have left anything important on the cutting room floor. I have written up everything he asked me to, and everything the people replicating asked about.)


    I only spoke with him briefly. I confirmed that their Fleischmann-Pons bulk-Pd experiments did not reach high enough loading to produce heat. One of them got close, but it did not produce measurable heat. The threshold is not that well defined. It is somewhere around ~0.9. It depends on how you measure loading. High loading is necessary but not sufficient. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/word…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg

    Excess heat generation by simple treatment of reaction metal in hydrogen gas, Tadahiko Mizuno, Jed Rothwell, ICCF-21 3-8 June 2018


    The PowerPoint slides:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf


    You show 13.4 L/s air in your calculations, however I get 13.54 L/s air using the values supplied.

    This leads to 202.6 W rather than the 198 W you calculated, using 1.293 kg/m3as suggested.


    I am not going to quibble about a 4 W difference. The error margin is larger than that.


    However, consulting an on-line calculator https://www.engineeringtoolbox…essure-density-d_771.html , the suggested mass of air for 29.32 C is 1.167 kg/m3, which lowers the power to 182.9 W.


    I don't see where on that page you found those numbers. Anyway, I used an on-line calculator (cheat sheet) and that's what you see in the slide.

    A couple of weeks ago I quoted an economics book, "The Worldly Philosophers" describing events in 1666:


    The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: "If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild." One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.


    This attitude is still with us today. It is how scientific peer-review and Hollywood movie script writing are done, which is why most research and most movies are a stagnant repetition of what you have seen before. Here is quote from J. Schlefer "Truth, beauty, and peer review," Technology Review October 1990:



    Peer review is widely seen as the modern touchstone of truth. Scientists are roundly drubbed if they bypass it and "go public" with their research. Science writers count on it as the test for

    what to report on. Artists hold it up as the rebuttal to Sen. Jesse Helms, who would distribute arts funding according to his own morality. Ming Cho Lee, a professor at the Yale School of Drama,

    huffed in a letter to the New York Times: "The only criterion artists or arts organizations must meet to be entitled to my money is that they pass the vigorous scrutiny and evaluation of a

    panel of their peers, based on a standard of artistic excellence."


    Peer review is doubtless useful to help evaluate articles for journals focused on a particular discipline and as one mechanism, albeit fallible, to allocate grants. But our society often wants to

    see peer review as a mechanical certification of truth for which no one has to take responsibility. No such mechanism is conceivable. . . .

    [Hydrogen combustion is around 1.48eV]


    The problem is that burning carbon gives double this rate and burning alumina would give almost a 7-fold rate.


    Carbon has lots of electron bonds. Diamonds have the most bonds between atoms of any molecule. Burning a diamond produces 4 eV per atom. I believe that is the highest number per atom. However, burning hydrogen produces the most energy per gram of any substance, which is why hydrogen is used as rocket fuel.

    We are right to be afraid of nuclear bombs. They are dirty and toxic and there are too many nutjobs who want the fame of a terrorist. But, is a weapon of mass destruction via cold fusion possible? Is it even responsible to consider it in an open forum?


    Fleischmann thought a bomb is possible, and he wanted to keep the research secret for that reason.

    JedRothwell’s comments and information are valuable too since I don’t know much about those LENR companies’ inside story.

    Cavitation Energy Systems, lnc may be worth to follow (http://cavitationenergysystems.com/ ).


    I do not know anything about this Cavitation Energy Systems company in Florida.


    Anyone interested in cavitation should read the papers by Roger Stringham, such as:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRwhenbubble.pdf

    So FP replications are evidence that the Suncell works because they are both LENR?

    They might be. There are some resemblances. Assuming they are both real. That remains to be seen when a theory emerges (if ever).


    Mills himself has waffled on this, saying he does not think cold fusion is real. Of course, what he says is not necessarily a sure guide to what is true. The person who discovers a phenomenon does not get to decide how it works or what is true about it. Fleischmann said that cold fusion is a bulk phenomenon but many others disagreed.

    . . . and the fastest way to a theory is via research geared towards learning the nuclear mechanisms.

    The only way to a theory is to produce the reaction. No reaction means there is nothing to study.


    In the past, people have looked for nuclear mechanisms and nuclear evidence in cells that did not produce measurable excess heat. This is a waste of time. It is like fishing in a dry hole. No heat means there was no reaction, and there will be no evidence. If you think you found transmutations in such a cell, you are probably wrong. It is probably contamination. If you think you found neutrons, it is noise.


    Some people try to do cold fusion without even trying to measure heat. This is a waste of time squared. They have no idea whether the reaction even occurred -- and it probably did not. So going to the next step to look for nuclear evidence is even more futile than usual. At least, when you look for heat and you don't see it, you know there is no point to looking for other evidence. You save the time and effort it would take.


    Not measuring heat in cold fusion is equivalent to not measuring radioactivity in conventional fission. You have no clue whether anything is happening.

    At 12:50 Bill Collis has some advice for the field, as he tries to encourage a more disciplined, nuclear centric approach going forward. Frowns on "looking for heat", as a dead end that will not break LENR out of the vicious circle it is stuck in.

    I disagree. No heat means there is no cold fusion. "Heat is the principle signature of the reaction. - Fleischmann. If "nuclear-centric" means looking for neutrons, it is a dead end.

    Some people have reported that the Pd is so hard, it does not rub off onto the Ni mesh. Ashraf Imam suggested that annealing Pd for two hours at 650 C will soften it. An inert atmosphere, like argon, ought to be used for the annealing to avoid oxidation.