Quote from Alan Fletcher

Something's wrong with the Calibration system (Blue) .... it's non-linear.

Good point.

That is not necessarily a problem. It depends on the details of the calorimeter. If the calorimeter is an insulated box with thin insulation, you would expect the curve to bend down at high input power. Over a smaller range of input power, with only small heat losses from the box, you couldn't see this effect. Almost all of the heat would be captured by the flow calorimetry.

On the other hand, the blue and dotted lines reach higher temperatures, yet they seem more linear. They do bend a little. That is odd. I think we need more information to understand why it is acting this way.

There are only 3 calibration points, which bothers me.

Quote from RobertBryant

the gamma spectrum bit has an element of truth in it

That is true. I concede that, and so did Martin.

I should add that his descriptions of Martin's personality are right on the mark. I think they were good friends.

Quote from Cydonia

Now, i don't expect some evolvement about the process mastery or real understanding of what is happening.

A reliable method of producing significant heat could be a tremendous help. It might be used to master the process or develop a real understanding. It is awfully difficult to master the process when you have to spend all your time just trying to make it work once in ten experiments.

It could help. It is necessary, but not sufficient. You also need skill, and luck.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think describing it as 12.4% is the wrong approach. The absolute value of excess power is more important than the percent.

Looking at it in the other direction, 1.00 W of input and 1.12 W output would be difficult to measure. Much harder than 640 W to 760 W.

Of course it depends on the calorimeter. 120 mW excess would look gigantic with a microcalorimeter.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

"We evaluated the full packet of public health measures as it was implemented in the beginning of the pandemic, but lesser mitigation measures may have worked just as well to reduce lives lost," Yakusheva said. "The fact is, we just will never know. At the time, we had to work with the information that we had. We knew the pandemic was deadly, and we did not have therapeutics or a vaccine."

I think that is the critical point. It is all very well to say that in retrospect we should have done this, or we shouldn't have done that, and maybe the lockdowns went too far in some cases. But, when you do not know much yet and lives are at stake, is is better to overreact than to underestimate the danger.

I am reminded of a quote from WWII. During Congressional testimony a Senator asked a general, "How many tanks do we really need? Are we sending too many to Europe?" The general answered, "better a thousand too many than one not enough."

A review of the Japanese government COVID response:

Opinion | What Japan Got Right About Covid-19

The country embraced the science of the coronavirus early.

www.nytimes.com

What Japan Got Right About Covid-19

By Hitoshi Oshitani

Dr. Oshitani is a professor of virology at Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. He has helped advise the Japanese government on its Covid-19 response.

SOME QUOTES:

Japan’s unique way of contact tracing also gave us more clues into how the virus spread. While other countries focused on prospective contact tracing, in which contact tracers identify and notify infected people’s contacts after they are infected, we used retrospective contact tracing. . . .

I suggested a basic concept: People should avoid the three C’s, which are closed spaces, crowded places and close-contact settings. The Japanese government shared this advice with the public in early March, and it became omnipresent. The message to avoid the three C’s was on the news, variety shows, social media and posters. “Three C’s” was even declared the buzzword of the year in Japan in 2020. . . .

Drastic measures, such as lockdowns, were never taken because the goal was always to find ways to live with Covid-19. (Japanese law also does not allow for lockdowns, so the country could not have declared them even if we had thought them necessary.) . . .

When it comes to the numbers of cases and deaths, Japan has fared well compared to other countries. It has had about 146 deaths per million people in the pandemic so far. The United States has had about 2,590 deaths per million.

Quote from JedRothwell

The absolute value of excess power is more important than the percent.

In an experiment, I mean. For a real world application it would be important to lower the input power. The difference between 644 W and 764 W can be measured with high confidence, but it would preclude any practical use for the device.

I doubt this is a long-term problem. If they can control the effect, I expect they can lower input power to the point where it makes little difference. We sometimes forget that practical generators and motors have high overhead energy, from friction and low Carnot efficiency. If someone could make a cold fusion device with 250 W input and 1,000 W output, I think it could be made into a practical generator without much trouble. It would produce a lot of waste heat. It would be inefficient and bulky. I doubt you could use it for an automobile engine, given the additional losses from low Carnot efficiency and mechanical friction. But I think it could be used for generator. I think it would also be good for a small, low powered thermoelectric device, perhaps for something like a cell phone. Maybe not? Maybe it would be too hot for your pocket? Certainly it would be good for a space-based generator, a robot on Mars, or a railroad crossing signal and gate in Alaska. (People use natural gas-fired thermoelectric devices for railroad crossings in northern climates, rather than photovoltaics.)

Quote from Shane D.

644W input/764W total heat or about 12.4% XH. 80W absolute XH. max.

I think describing it as 12.4% is the wrong approach. The absolute value of excess power is more important than the percent. 120 W excess power is easy to measure even with high input power. As I have often said, input power is not noise. It is very easy to measure and subtract from the total. Depending on the calorimeter, you might have difficulty measuring output power to within a few percent, but input power from resistance heating can be measured with confidence to within a fraction of 1%.

Granted, if this were the difference between 12,800 W and 12,920 then subtracting the input power would be more tricky.

Anyway, it is great news! It will be a considerable relief to me personally if this pans out.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The Vaccine Death Charts Could Shock All Americans: In most countries the number of Covid-10 deaths started to grow AFTER introduction of vaccines

There is nothing remotely "shocking" about this.

Obviously this is because it takes a while to vaccinate a significant fraction of the population, and because it takes two month to administer two doses. This graph shows the introduction of vaccines in January 2021, shortly after the vaccines went into production. It was not possible to vaccinate more than a small number of people before the peak of deaths in February. As soon as the number of vaccinated elderly people became significantly high, deaths dropped sharply. That proves the vaccine was working.

What else would you expect? Do you think that after the first few vaccinations, the death rate would magically drop to zero? Among people who were still not vaccinated? How would that work?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

His series of papers on electrocrystallisation, electrochemically-induced solid-state transformations and the anodic deposition of insoluble phases are classics, and have defined the field ever since.

The parts of this letter about cold fusion are horseshit from start to finish.

Quote from Fm1

Your right experts believe you are delusional with your cold fusion.

The people who think that are not experts. They imagine they are experts, but they are not. See: Fallacious appeal to authority

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Here is a well-known example:

"This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. . . . The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives. "

- Admiral William Daniel Leahy describing the atomic bomb project, 1945

Quote from Fm1

The experts you refer to say boosters offer minimal protection.

No, they do not. See:

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show

But uptake has slowed in the U.S., and less than half of vaccinated people have gotten the additional shot

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

Let me just say this. If you want to pretend you are some sort of genius expert who knows better than the people at the CDC, go ahead! Live the fantasy. Tell us any kind of bullshit that pops into you head. You are not fooling anyone, but it causes no harm, and it is only mildly annoying. It is an ordinary case of the Dunning Kruger effect. But, when you claim the CDC people did not say what they clearly and repeatedly did say, you are distorting matters of fact. That is annoying. Your opinion of yourself is your opinion, and it can be anything -- as we have seen -- but facts are facts.

Quote from Fm1

I'm not so sure that more of the present vaccines is the answer.

I am sure they are the answer, and so is just about every doctor and public health experts on God's Green Earth. I do not know why you think you are smarter than these people. They all say that the present vaccines reduce the risk of getting infected, and greatly reduce the risk of serious illness or death. Perhaps re-engineered vaccines would be even better, but these are much better than nothing. They are far better than acquired immunity, because in the course of acquiring it, you might die, you might suffer lifelong disabilities, and you are likely to suffer a few weeks of misery. Whereas the vaccine causes mild symptoms in most people, and no problem in others (including me).

Actually, I think I do know why you and others here suffer from the delusion that you know better than experts. See the book "The Death of Expertise" that I just reviewed here:

Post

RE: THE USEFUL BOOK THREAD

Here is a book that I think is relevant to cold fusion:

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters

Tom Nichols

This is an excellent little book. It was written before the pandemic and 2020 election, when the problem became much worse, so I think it needs a new introduction. You can read the gist of it here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod…_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o00

Blurb:

[…]


I believe this is one of the main reasons cold fusion has foundered. Ed Storms often…

JedRothwell

Jan 21st 2022

Quote from Alan Smith

“There is no such thing as #Deltacron,” tweeted Krutika Kuppalli, a member of the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 technical team based at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, on 9 January. “#Omicron and #Delta did NOT form a super variant.”

Thank goodness.

As far as I know, a variant might emerge that is both highly contagious (like omicron) and very dangerous (like delta). If it also evades the present vaccines, that could be catastrophic. This is why it is essential that first world countries rush to manufacture and distribute vaccines to the entire world population. They should have done that in 2021.

Quote from stefan

3300km is viable I guess that's the ballpark where it is usable. losses 1,5% per 1000km at the highest voltages

Ah. There is been more progress than I realized. Years ago, losses would have be prohibitive at these distances.

Quote from Alan Smith

Ken Shoulders Book on EVO technology.

EV A Tale of Discovery - Kenneth R. Shoulders-OCRs.pdf

And here is Alan's own review of Shoulder's work:

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

Here is a book that I think is relevant to cold fusion:

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters

Tom Nichols

This is an excellent little book. It was written before the pandemic and 2020 election, when the problem became much worse, so I think it needs a new introduction. You can read the gist of it here:

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters

www.amazon.com

Blurb:

Quote

Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism.

I believe this is one of the main reasons cold fusion has foundered. Ed Storms often complains that people do not respect his expertise. He is right; they don't. They darn well should, and decades ago they would have. Since the 1980s respect for expertise has declined. This book describes the main reasons. The trend was accelerated by the internet. As I see it, cold fusion is mainstream science. It was confirmed by the leading experts in electrochemistry. [1, 2] People such as Yeager, who they later named the research center after. [3] Yet, as everyone here knows, the New York Times, the Scientific American, Nature and others ignored these replications and attacked the field. This was partly old fashioned academic politics, which have always been with us, but it was made worse by the burgeoning new electronic media. With the growth of the internet, pernicious sources of misinformation such as Wikipedia proliferated. Now, when you look for cold fusion, you find nonsense instead of facts.

Many people say that cold fusion is an example of renegades versus the establishment. Of outsiders challenging the mainstream. I think it is the opposite. I agree with Martin Fleischmann that "we are painfully conventional people." I am, anyway. Mel Miles is . . . and more power to him. Cold fusion is based on 19th century thermodynamics, and calorimetry going back to the 1780s. These are among the most firmly established parts of physics and chemistry. To disprove cold fusion, you have to uproot everything from Laviosier to the present. Other than Shanahan [4], no opponent of cold fusion has even tried to disprove the definitive experiments, such as Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre, [5] Miles and others. Instead of doing science, they come up with a litany of irrelevant reasons that they imagine cast doubt on the results. Mainly when they confuse power with energy, the way Morrison and Kreyasa did. [6] This is not a scientific argument. It is nonsense. As far as I know Shanahan and Morrison are the only published technical objections to the experimental results. Everyone else says there are unspecified mistakes in the experiment. An unspecified mistake cannot be verified or falsified. There were many theoretical objections, but theory cannot disprove replicated experiments, so these objections do not count.

1. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

2. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

3. https://chemistry.case.edu/research/yces/

4. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf

5. https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

6. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf, p. 6

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is enough desert land in USA with tons of shun shine the whole year.

Yes, there is more than enough desert. The problem is, desert land is far from most population centers, and you cannot transmit electricity long distances. There is no large power line infrastructure large enough, and even if there were, the power lines lose too much. Arid and desert land could power some large cities such as Los Angeles, but not Chicago, New York or Atlanta.

If a better method of transmitting power could be developed, that might change things. For example, high temperature superconducting power cables, or converting the electricity to hydrogen and shipping the gas in pipelines. Hydrogen could be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. That would be good because it would allow 24-hour generation, both at night and in inclement weather.

Quote from Fm1

Scientist surprised by discovery of ‘99%’ effective, cheap COVID treatment

Nothing is cheaper or more effective than a vaccine. Not for COVID or any other infectious disease.

IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:

IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS 1

Land Requirements for Utility-Scale PV: An Empirical Update on Power and Energy Density

Abstract—The rapid deployment of large numbers of utility scale photovoltaic (PV) plants in the United States, combined with heightened expectations of future deployment, has raised concerns about land requirements and associated land-use impacts. Yet our understanding of the land requirements of utility-scale PV plants is outdated and depends in large part on a study published nearly a decade ago, while the utility-scale sector was still young. We provide updated estimates of utility-scale PVs power and energy densities based on empirical analysis of more than 90% of all utility-scale PV plants built in the United States through 2019. We use ArcGIS to draw polygons around satellite imagery of each plant within our sample and to calculate the area occupied by each polygon. When combined with plant metadata, these polygon areas allow us to calculate power (MW/acre) and energy (MWh/acre) density for each plant in the sample, and to analyze density trends over time, by fixed-tilt versus tracking plants, and by plant latitude and site irradiance. We find that the median power density increased by 52% for fixed-tilt plants and 43% for tracking plants from 2011 to 2019, while the median energy density increased by 33% for fixed-tilt and 25% for tracking plants over the same period. Those relying on the earlier benchmarks published nearly a decade ago are, thus, significantly overstating the land requirements of utility-scale PV.

Index Terms—Energy density, land requirements, land-use impacts, photovoltaics (PVs), power density.