Posts by JedRothwell

Quote from JedRothwell

Kreysa, Morrison and others have claimed that cold fusion cathodes can produce much more heat.

Kreysa removed a cathode from a cell after electrolysis and placed it on some wood. The heat from D2O formation scorched the wood. Kreysa claimed this proves that ordinary electrolysis produces as much power from D2O formation as cold fusion does. That is true but irrelevant for two reasons:

1. D2O formation cannot occur in these cells, as I said.
2. D2O formation and other chemical processes such as a burning match can produce high heat (power), but cold fusion produces thousands of times more energy. It is like a match that burns for hours, days, or months. Kryesa and Morrison did not understand the difference between power and energy.

Quote from Ascoli65

This seems contradictory with what you have written, just a few messages above, in your answer to Wyttenbach: "However, if you only look at a video of a large cathode after electrolysis, you might see boiling. Not with this cathode though. It was too small, according to F&P."

I said heat is produced by D2 formation at the cathode surface. With a cathode of this small size, that heat is far too low to produce boiling. See Fleischmann's calculation referenced above.

Kreysa, Morrison and others have claimed that cold fusion cathodes can produce much more heat. There was a palladium cigarette lighter in the 19th century. This was D2O formation in the presence of oxygen. This cannot occur in the video I described because the cathode was under water. D2O formation can only happen above the waterline where it would not heat the water. There can be no significant D2O formation at the electrodes with this geometry. (Actually, this cell was open, so D2O formation can only occur outside the cell.)

After the boil-off experiment, D2O cannot occur in the cell because these is no free oxygen in it. This has been confirmed by various methods. All of oxygen leaves the cell during electrolysis. It is not stored in the platinum anode.

Quote from Ascoli65

If I understand correctly, you state that boiling at cathode after normal electrolysis could happen.

Not with this cathode.

Quote from Ascoli65

Independently from the size, the heat stored in a palladium cathode which reach an average temperature of just 100 °C above the boiling point is able to produce more than 100 times its volume in vapor bubbles.

The vapor comes out very slowly, over several days, as Fleischmann pointed out.

Quote from Ascoli65

Which experiments are you talking about? Any proof that this happens after the electrolysis was turned off?

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

Again, let me suggest that before you speculate and make up impossible physics, try this grade school experiment:

Heat of a nail in a flame.

Drop it into some water.

Measure how long it produces boiling bubbles.

You will see that without input energy, boiling stops within seconds. It is impossible for it to continue without input power for 20 minutes or hours, weeks, or months. D2 formation is input power but it is orders of magnitude too low.

I made a printer friendly version of the ICCF-24 Program spreadsheet, but I cannot upload a .xlsx file here.

Okay, I uploaded it here:

https://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF-24%20Program%20printer%20friendly.xlsx

Quote from Bruce__H

It is because of the hysteresis. Think of it as like lighting a fire. The amount of energy released depends on the amount of fuel present and not on the amount of energy in the match that lit the fire.

I still do not see how that would be any more convincing than ordinary, conventional calorimetry. In my opinion, you should always use conventional instruments and techniques to do a scientific experiment. Industry standard, off the shelf instruments are best. Do not do anything out of the ordinary unless you have no choice. Destroying the instrument is definitely out of the ordinary.

Also, you did not address the issue of destroying the instrument and having to wait weeks or months before doing the next experiment. Then there is the expense to consider. Some reactors and calorimeters cost tens of thousands of dollars. Do you really want to throw away that money just to do a demonstration that most experts would not think is more convincing than an ordinary flow or Seebeck calorimeter?

It is bad enough having to destroy cathodes in destructive analysis testing. Destroying the whole instrument and contaminating the sample just to show what a Seebeck already shows irrefutably makes no sense to me.

Quote from Ascoli65

Any way in what you have reported I cannot find anything of anomalous.

A foregone conclusion.

Quote from Ascoli65

It's well expected that in the F&P cells described by you, the same used in the 1992 boil-off experiment, the vapor bubbles develop on the surface of the massive central cathode more easily than on that of the thin external spiraling anode. The water around the central cathode is a bit hotter than the water which cools the external anode, and at or near the boiling conditions this fact makes a big difference. Even the size of the electrode has an influence. A larger rod can support a bigger bubble, before it leaves the electrode and rises. Viceversa, the thin anodic wire could have produced only very tiny vapor bubble, not very much distinguishable from the gaseous bubbles.

That is all complete bullshit, from start to finish. Countless null experiments have been done with ordinary electrolysis, sometimes driven to power levels high enough to cause boiling. Nothing like what you describe happens. There is no boiling at the cathode once electrolysis ends. I repeat, there is never any boiling at the cathode, or the anode. Even if they are very hot, they cool down instantly and stop boiling. The same thing happens when you drop an incandescent red nail into water. It boils for a moment, cools down, and stops. It does not boil for 20 minutes or 70 days the way cathodes do with cold fusion.

You have a remarkable imagination, but you have no idea how physics work or what happens in these experiments, or in ordinary electrolysis.

Quote from Mark U

You think that all of a sudden doctors and patients alike are looking out for adverse reactions from the covid vaccine, reactions which they normally wouldn't report if was, say, the flu vaccine.

That is what doctors report. That is a fact, described in detail in the literature. Doctors normally do not report problems from the flu vaccine because they never hear about them. The patients never tell them. As I pointed out before, nearly all problems occur within a half hour of vaccination. Patients were asked to stay around for 30 minutes after the COVID vaccines, but they are not asked to stay after flu vaccines. Most people, when they suffer from an expected adverse effect listed on the handout, never bother to tell the doctor. If they do tell the doctor, he or she is legally obligated to report that to VAERS. In the case of the COVID vaccines, both patients and doctors were extra careful to report all effects, including mild, expected ones, that they would not bother to report from a flu shot.

Quote from Mark U

The background death rate is high : one in one hundred people die every year. Let's say one in ten thousand die from the jab. I can't see it is possible to confidently tease this out from a background number of deaths.

There is no need to tease anything out. When someone dies soon after getting vaccinated, the medical records are examined by experts. The attending doctor is asked what the symptoms and cause of death was. In every case, it has been clear that the person died from a known cause and not the vaccine.

It is not as if these deaths are being ignored. And it is not as if a doctor cannot tell when someone dies from a heart attack or cancer.

The problems that the vaccine can cause were discovered during extensive double blind testing with tens of thousands of people. It is not possible that additional problems emerged later. Biology doesn't work that way. Every adverse effect the vaccine can cause is known. Some of these effects could be serious -- even fatal -- but so far, not one of them has been in the U.S.

Quote from Bruce__H

I repeat something I have said before. If you want a convincing public demonstration that LENR is real, let the thing melt down. I don't under5stand why no one wants to do that.

I wouldn't want to do that because:

1. It sounds dangerous.
2. It destroys your equipment. You can only do that demonstration once, and then you have to build a new reactor. That can take weeks, or months. A demonstration you can do again the next day is better.
3. That calls for bomb calorimetry, which can be tricky. A large bomb calorimeter is expensive. The calorimeter itself would probably be destroyed, which is even more tricky and expensive. Perhaps it would produce data until a short time before it disintegrates, but that does not seem helpful.

I do not understand why you think this is more convincing than conventional calorimetry.

Quote from Mark U

Why not quantify it by comparing reported Covid vaccine deaths with reported flu vaccine deaths, as Wyttenbach said long ago.

You mean adverse effects. The number of COVID vaccine deaths is zero. Everyone who died shortly after getting a COVID vaccine died from something unrelated to the vaccine. Those were all coincidences. Deaths were examined carefully by experts, and none was attributed to the vaccine.

As I noted, comparing adverse effects to the flu vaccine is invalid because people do not hang around the clinic or drugstore after getting a flu vaccine, so there are many fewer adverse effects reported.

Quote from rubycarat

Oops, I did type them out AFTER the ai had its chance.

Should we patch 'em up a little more? Or have you had enough of them? After dealing with these things for weeks I imagine you don't want to touch them again.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

A very small percentage, found at LENR CANR are poorly written papers.

They were a lot worse before Jean-Paul started sending them to me for copy editing. Look at the ICCF-3 book.

Some of the authors do not want me to fix their spelling and grammar errors, so I don't.

Here are all 6 of the short course videos:

ICCF-24 x Solid-State Energy Summit

At the ICCF24 Solid-State Energy Summit, hosted and organized by the Anthropocene Institute, industry leaders will take a critical look at the field of…

www.youtube.com

Note that all of these have subtitles/closed captions when you click on "CC." These are not generated by AI. They were typed by Ruby and me, so they are more accurate than AI subtitles.

I take that back. I see from my notes that some of them were generated by an AI service that Ruby used. That was a little unfortunate. I wish she had sent them to me for corrections. For example, when Ed Storms said "Geiger counter" the AI thought it was "gutter counter."

Quote from Daniel_G

We don't have the privilege of knowing the classified reports but you can bet your bottom dollar that they exist.

I have seen declassified results about various subjects, especially relating to cold fusion and Japan, two subjects I know enough about to judge. I have seen secret reports from the U.S. and Japanese governments. They did not have any information that was not publicly available. The public results were better. The Barnhart report was based entirely on public sources. Of course I have not read every secret report on cold fusion from governments and corporations, so there may be some impressive ones, but the ones I did read were nothing to write home about. Mainly because they were not vetted by experts. They made the same mistakes other uninformed people make. I know more than the authors did.

My parents were in the intelligence business during WWII and the early cold war. They had a low opinion of intelligence agencies, which I share. My father once told me: "If you ever get access the most secret room in the government, and you open the most secret file cabinet, you will find an old newspaper and a dried-up apple."

In the movie "Doctor Strangelove" toward the end, the Americans want to know where the Russians got their information about the U.S. doomsday machine.

Ambassador de Sadesky: The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

President Muffley: This is preposterous! I never approved of anything like that!

Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was The New York Times.

My mother heard that, laughed, and said something like, "that's probably where they would read it." She said the Times is probably better informed than anyone in the government.

Quote from Daniel_G

I will be publishing the data from a Japanese autoparts maker at ICCF-24 and another major electronics firm (with a great engineering team) also did a validation and reported excess heat. Unfortunately NDAs forbid me from disclosing their names until an official announcement is made.

So, you are going to report their results without saying their names? That seems ill advised. Anyway, I look forward to reading the report issued by autoparts maker. It sounds good, but I will reserve judgment.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I would not even mention recombination as there also was a splitting input energy. So nothing ever can be produced by this....

After electrolysis stops, the deuterium in the cathode will gradually emerge and this does produce heat from D2 formation. During loading there is a heat deficit. (It is endothermic.) In other words, the splitting input energy comes first, and it is stored up. It is released later. Overall there is no excess heat. You are quite right that if you look at the data for the entire experiment, you see no excess unless there is cold fusion. However, if you only look at a video of a large cathode after electrolysis, you might see boiling. Not with this cathode though. It was too small, according to F&P.

The emerging deuterium rises to the surface of the electrolyte and leaves this cell. With a closed cell it recombines with oxygen in the headspace. The recombiner gets hot. This heat cannot cause boiling because it is above the water.

Quote from JedRothwell

The Brillouin demonstration failed to do that. I am not saying the Brillouin demonstration did not work. I am saying that I and others do not think it clearly demonstrates anything.

To be sure, the demonstration itself might have been very good. I should say the video presentation of it was inadequate. If the video had shown the instruments, instrument readings, the configuration, and sample data, it might have been totally convincing. I have no way of knowing any of these things, so I cannot judge whether it was a good demonstration or a meaningless one.

I cannot understand why anyone would make a video of a demonstration and not show these things, and not give all relevant quantitative data, such as input and output power, temperatures and so on. It baffles me.

Quote from Mark U

Signal? What signal?

You fail to understand what you are looking at. There are many more VAERS reports in the last two years because nearly the entire population of the U.S. was vaccinated 2 or 3 times. In a normal year, only children are routinely vaccinated, 15 times in a lifetime:

Birth-18 Years Immunization Schedule | CDC

Plus a fraction of the adult population gets influenza shots. In the past two years, there were all of these background shots plus roughly 600 million COVID shots, so the number of reports increased tremendously. Doctors and nurses are legally obligated to report any adverse reaction to any vaccine, even one that is expected and listed on the vaccine insert given to all patients, such as slight fever from the shingles vaccine. The mRNA vaccine adverse reactions are listed on p. 2, here:

https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download

They occurred at the expected rate. When you give 600 million vaccinations, the expected adverse reactions will occur and will be reported. That alone will greatly increase the number of VAERS reports, even though only a tiny fraction of these adverse reactions were serious. Doctors and nurses were particularly careful to monitor COVID vaccination results, asking patients to wait 30 minutes. They never did that with other vaccination I got, and they did not do that with the flu shots I got subsequently. Nearly all adverse reactions occur within 30 minutes of inoculation, so when you ask the patient to hang around, you catch them all. When you let patients go home, even the ones who experience an adverse reaction seldom bother to tell the doctors or nurses, so the reactions are never reported. Only a small number of VAERS reports are not from doctors or nurses, such as self-reported ones.

The adverse reactions occurred at the rate predicted from the double-blind testing before the vaccine was approved. There is nothing unexpected, surprising or alarming about the surge in VAERS reports. The key thing is that there were fewer serious adverse reactions than other vaccines produce, and no deaths.

This is described in great detail in various authoritative papers. I suggest you review these papers carefully before commenting. See the papers here, for example:

Quote from Ascoli65

Could you please explain why this behavior should be considered a "definitive proof of anomalous excess heat"?

Where "this behavior" is briefly summarized:

. . . A close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons cell showed that the cathode was producing heat, the anode was not, and the bubbles were all from boiling, which was definitive proof of anomalous excess heat.

Several reasons:

It was a clear, high resolution, color video with sound, unlike the time lapse ones. So you could see what was happening. People were shown. A hand was seen close to the cell, so you could see the scale of the device. (The scale was given, but you could verify it.)

This was not a half silvered cell, so you could clearly see the cathode and anode. Like most F&P cells, the cathode was a rod and the anode a spiral around it, so you could clearly see both of them. Where the anode is something like a mesh, you cannot see the cathode, because the anode should extend beyond the ends of a rod cathode, or the cathode will not load.

Electrolysis produces bubbles on both the anode and cathode. This phase was shown in the video. The bubbles from electrolysis are numerous and fine, similar to CO2 bubbles in a soft drink. They are all about the same size. When the cathode heated up, it began boiling the electrolyte. Bubbles from boiling look very different from electrolysis bubbles. They are much larger, and they vary in size. Electrolysis power was turned off before the water level fell below the anode and cathode, unlike in the time lapse videos. At that point, boiling continued at the cathode. All bubbles from the anode ceased. So, you could see that electrolysis had stopped, and you could also see that all of heat was being produced at the cathode.

The heat production was far higher than could be produced by deuterium outgassing and recombination at the cathode surface. So, this was anomalous heat. A cathode of this size and dimensions cannot produce enough recombination heat to boil water. Fleischmann described this here:

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

The reaction continued far longer than any chemical reaction could have, according to the people who made the video. The video itself did not continue very long, as I recall, so we have to take their word for it.

Quote from Daniel_G

As Paradigmnoia says, building something that can continuously produce 1kW of electrical power that sits on a desktop is not a moonshot. I disagree that its a waste of money or resources. I may be wrong but before the end of this year we expect this device to be operating and then, if I am wrong, I will bow my head and say I should have listened to Jed.

If you can do this, it is a good idea. From what I have seen of cold fusion experiments, including Mizuno's, I do not think anyone knows how to do what you describe. It is possible to make a reactor that produces ~1 kW. That has been done by Mizuno and others. But you cannot make it reliable. You cannot replicate on demand. If you happen to make one by chance, I agree it would be an excellent idea to show it to people from large corporations such as GE and Hitachi.

You should take care to demonstrate it in such a way that the calorimetry is readily understandable. The Brillouin demonstration failed to do that. I am not saying the Brillouin demonstration did not work. I am saying that I and others do not think it clearly demonstrates anything. It might not be producing excess heat. We can't tell.

Quote from THHuxleynew

VAERS does not provide a neutral sampling of SIDS deaths. It provides a sample very specifically correlated with vaccination.

Yes, that is right.

Beware of drawing any conclusions from VAERS. You have to know a lot about statistics and epidemiology to understand it. It is raw data. Really, only an expert should try to use it. Some people have criticized the CDC for even hosting it, because it is full of trash and misleading information. Others criticize the CDC for leaving VAERS fully open to the public. They say it should only be accessible to experts. I get that, but I think it should be open. We taxpayers paid for it, so we should be allowed to see it. In any case, it is much too late to hide it now. People would say the CDC is trying to hide the truth.

Before saying anything about VAERS, read what Jeffrey Morris has to say, in papers such as this one:

Interpreting VAERs: What is the expected background death rate for the USA vaccinated population?

VAERs is an open reporting system put together by the FDA and CDC for people to enter in adverse events after vaccination for post approval safety assessments.…

www.covid-datascience.com