Posts by AlainCo

About evidence of nuclear reaction, the usual fallacy (because it is not an accident) is not to consider that excess heat above anything chemistry can explain is evidence of something nuclear.

Incompetence of physicist in calorimetry since the 50s are reported by Beaudette, and as exemplified by Lugano, Lewis/caltech, Hansen, MIT, is not an excuse to dismiss the work of competent people.

Iwamura and Takahashi anyway reproduced evdience of transmutation, with very convincing evolution of the reaction, and specificity to initial produc, eliminating the conspiracy theories of artifacts.

Evidence of tritium, a million time less than expected, but much above measurement capacity of seasoned experts, is reproduced from india to texas and LANL.

I'm tired to talk to dishonest people, sorry.
Don't pretend you don't know those numerous experiments. You are not an illiterate fool as you pretend to be.

Write a paper or stop arguing from your armchair...
PS: not personal, yo follow a collective behavior... funny for LENR.

There are reproduced experiments, that were reproduced by
F&P, Miles, McKubre, Storms, ENEA,Longchampt...
There is also the Fralick(Nasa89), U Tsinghua, Biberian, Nasa GRC 2008, Fralick 2012 (gas permeation).
There is Iwamura reproduced by Takahashi.

If you cannot see it is not only reproducible, but reproduced, it is that you are biased.

Where is the peer-reviewed paper from the skeptic that criticize the best and most recognized LENr exeriments from McKubre, Miles, DeNinno, F&P (post 89), Storms, BARC/Srinivasan, Spawar, all together ?

The only paper that emerged are :
- claim of Lewis that F&P had make a student error by not stiring the cell... refuted because size is not the same, bubbling is intense, mixing is visible wit colorant and temperature is confirmed homogeneous at 0.01C
- claim by Hansen that it is recombination. refuted because F&P measured recombination, and that recombination is negligible at high current density
- claim by Morrison that ... not clear ... not even possible to criticize. he seems to make basic errors.
- claim by Wilson that Lewis and hansen are of course wrong, but that a tiny correction explain the tiny results. In fact confirm the big observed bursts
- claim by novelist gary taubes who spread a conspiracy theory about an intered who frauded. result are incoherent with that claim (Ed Storms tested ), and the same claim was replicated in many labs including LANL and BARC...
- about Ferrara E-cat test, conspiracy theory by Stephen pons, assuming a coaxial cable, refutred by testers who checked the plug and socket.
- about Lugano test, conspiracy theory of inverted plug, on two wattmeters, incompatible with following artifact
- about lugano, test by MFMP that confirm emmissivity in IR band is probably 0.95 not the averaged emissivity of 0.7-0.4, down grading COP much below 2, runing test result.

so yes Lugano is flawed. not Ferara.

Nothing for McKubre experiments that Lewis and Garwin visited (one of the only non-armchair work of critics). they visited , found nothing to criticize, then said nothing else they continue to non-beleive in results.

Claims by skeptic are simply conspiracy theory, frauds, errors, or confirmed by said "believers".

Skeptic claim the hundreds of Excess heat evidence in LENR-style experiments are errors or fraud, but except for Lugano, they never found anything beyond a conspiracy theory based on no evidence.

Skeptic rules apply to skeptic too.

Pplease provide evidence, not suspicion or theory.

about the opinion of mary on E-cat flow calorimetry, it is her opinion, and it is not proven...
Her evident bias clearly make this statement needing verification.

For those who says all LENR experiments are bad, i wait for a peer reviewed paper that is not refuted like are Lewis, hansen, Morrison, or which does not in fact confirm excess heat result like Wilson.

if you are so good, write a paper.

It seems common sens is incompatible with pretended skepticism.

Of course the test can still fail, because the reactor is not so reliable... this is F9.
but you don't make a F9 on a COP=1... You close the plant and flee.
You don't participate to ICCF19, you rather go to another fashion conference

now yes, it can fail as F9 say.
My car can also break down going to see mum.
This does not make the existence of the gasoline engine uncertain.
If my car was a bike, I would take the train. But my car is F9 anyway.

Extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence some say...
But some time you should accept extraordinary claim, if the excuse used to deny them are even more extraordinary. Sometime I really feel like on a 9/11 conspiracy forum.

That some people screw up totally, does not justify an alien conspiracy.

An idea came, because I love symetry and Aikido spirit.

Abd Ul rahman Lomax recognize Popeye, aka Josuah Cudes is very competent, and only competent people like Abd can simply point the errors in his claims. This is a problem.

Let us assume that Josuah Cude is right and all LENR papers are flawed.

He can make a peer reviewed paper ?

If as he says there is no "blocus" against cold fusion papers, he will be published in recognized journal.

If as we say there is a stigma he can publish it in Open Journal, on arxiv, and wait for an answer by McKubre, Abd ul Rahman Lomax, who know calorimetry enough to point errors in a way that people can understand.

:cookie:

I don't talk of Rossi, but of McKubre/SRI M4 experiments, Miles, Storms, Bockris F&P, Longchampt, DeNinno, BARC/Srinivasan, Oriani, then Iwamura/takahashi. (Tritium, helium, heat)

No excuse on the "it is not peer reviewed" will be accepted, as this will be a peer review.

Anyway this already have been done. And there is no serious paper that challenges the reference experience of the domaine, taken as a whole.
Charles Beaudette in Excess Heat reports well the way the 4 critics of F&P were debunked (by skeptics too, like Wilson).

It is easy to spread FUD on Wiki or here, to flood beginners in calorimetry with unproven claims of artifacts, by "there is background", not accounting for blank tests or calibration done, selecting the worst experiments ignoring the best, but once you write done your "conspiracy of artifact and fraud", it can be debunked safely.

Never forget that there is hundreds of peer reviewed papers that describe Excess heat, and thus that only written, structured and reviewed critics can revert the burden of evidence.

Never forget that even if there was room for errors, there would be anyway a huge requirement to pursue experiments. Current situation is clearly a denial of possibility, not prudent skepticism.

The Lugano test is screwed because the physicist were not experts of IR calorimetry.
IR emissivity was probably 0.95, even if total may be as said in the report (0.7).

Question is whether COP is 1 or above 1.5...
Anyway current situation make COP=1 in the test plant more than improbable.

I remember that the worst article on cold fusion were done by physicist, and the best replication of F&P were done by an engineer (George Longchampt).

You have experiments that are numerous enough, various enough, done by serious enough people, so no doubt there is a real phenomenon.

It takes time, especially while funding and science is scarce, to develop a product.
Even for a gas boiler it takes years, and for a classical innovation it takes 5 years with 6 month expectation all along.
From 2011 we are just around the 5 years "usual innovation" delay, so if it reach the market this year we will be lucky.

The problem of LENR is not that there is no industrial product, it is that unscientific deniers prevent scientific evidence to be considered, and thus only an industrial product can convince fooled people who trust the deniers.

For any other scientific domain, just a handful of the LENR experiments, would trigger massive research and investment. There is a pathology here that, even if one can imagine conspiracy of artifacts and frauds at international scale, the scientific community and industrial community don't even try to work on that.

It is a psychiatry experiment.

People should read more on OpenPower before donating.
This is not an investment, but due diligence is a good habit.

I think Italian speaker can get better data than me.

Beau boulot Merci, j'ai pas l'énergie, et ce travail est très très utile. Dans mes bookmark.

There is a call for help on hydrobetaron.org, the site of OpenPower Association of Ugo Abundo

Quote from Open Power Association

WE NEED YOUR HELP|!

Scientific association "Open Power" is engaged in the search for a source of energy inexhaustible, clean and economical, that can tackle poverty of Peoples, and help the planet Earth to regenerate to survive. The year 2016 will be a decisive year for Our research studies!

All Our work is funded by Our associated with fatigue. Help us to carry on this important work! Join or make a simple donation to scientific "Open Power".

All those who will joint us will receive the pleasant calendar "Open Power 2016" in PDF format, and our monthly newsletter. In addition, all members will be eligible to receive technical discussions about their own experimentations freely by the staff of Open Power sending their questions to the following email:

[email protected]

Your help is very important!

Display More

The fact that the article was not blocked like for FT and The Economist last year, is interesting.
It is like the falling of the Berlin wall, the Wall was a phantom in many place and it is only a phantom that collapsed because of a misunderstanding that nobody corrected.

The anti-LENR wall is getting phantomatic.

you speculate mary...

speculation is not forbidden.

for example some speculated LENR does not exist despite they have no evidence of anything supporting their view.

Some speculate Rossi have frauded, while their thesis outcome can be positive or negative, since they have nothing else innuendo and conspiracy theory.

Peter Gluck have wrote an Open Letter to carl Page
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…portant-because-lenr.html

Quote from Peter Gluck

We all want LENR to become the great energy source of the future. To make this a reality we need
a) new ideas- a new paradigm;
b) creative, bold leadership;
c) plenty of funding, well planned and used with responsibility

Now we have this answer from CARL PAGE. His brother BILL is one of the most important architects of the Information Revolution; can Carl become a Leader of the
Energy Revolution? Is he willing to contribute to the good Change? He has the best means and possibilities- and EGO OUT's full support. He can convert his words in actions- creating coopetition for [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Rossi, I think he can atttract othe very influential and powerful people- bllionaires or not.

Dear Carl, history is waiting your answer!

Peter

Display More

I join my New Years wishes to yours.

I wish we have patience too, as I expect all will be slower than hoped.

PS: I moved your post to a new thread @fabrice DAVID @frankwtu

We can remember the participation of Carl Page to ICCF19 in Padua.
Here Carl Victor Page Jr confirm his interest, in Edge.org media, answering like many to the question

Quote

2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?

He answers here:

Quote from Carl Victor Page Jr

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Work And Could Supplant Fossil Fuels

Climate collapse demands a supply of energy that is far cheaper than fossil fuels, resistant to bad weather and natural disaster, and sustainable in fuel inputs and pollution outputs. Can a new poorly understood technology from a stigmatized field fulfil the need? The Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) could help at large scale very quickly.

[...]

In many experiments with LENR, observed excess heat drastically exceeds known or feasible chemical reactions. Experiments have gone from milliwatts to hundreds of watts. Ash products have been identified and quantitatively compared to energy output. High energy radiation has been observed, and is entirely different than hot fusion.

Dr. McKubre at SRI International teased out the required conditions out of the historical data. To bring forth LENR reactions that produce over-unity energy, a metal lattice heavily loaded with Hydrogen isotopes, driven far out of equilibrium by some excitation system involving proton flux and probably electromigration of lattice atoms as well.

A great quantitative characterization of the outputs was Dr. Miles' meticulous 1995 experiment at China Lake. LENR releases Helium-4 and heat in the same proportion as familiar hot fusion, but neutron emissions and gamma rays at least 6 orders of magnitude less than expected.

Successful excitation systems included heat, pressure, dual lasers, high currents and overlapping shock waves. Materials have been treated to create and manipulate flaws, holes, defects, cracks, and impurities, increase surface area, and provide high flux of protons and electron current. Solid transition metals host the reaction, including Nickel and Palladium.

Ash includes ample evidence of metal isotopes in the reactor that have gained mass as if from neutron accumulation, as well as enhanced deuterium and tritium. Tritium is observed in varying concentrations. Weak X-rays are observed along with tracks from other nuclear particles.

LENR looks like fusion judging as a chemist might, by the inputs Hydrogen and output Helium-4 and transmutation products. It looks not-at-all like fusion when judging it as a plasma physicist might—by tell-tale radioactive signatures.

Converting Hydrogen to Helium will release lots of energy no matter how it is done. LENR is not zero-point energy or perpetual motion. The question is whether that energy can be released with affordable tools.

Plasma physicists understand hot thermonuclear fusion in great detail. Plasma interactions involve few moving parts, and the environment is random so it's effect is zeroed out. In contrast, modeling the LENR mechanism will involve solid-state quantum mechanics in a system of a million parts, being driven far out of equilibrium. In LENR a nano-scale particle accelerator can't be left out of the model. A theory for LENR will rely on intellectual tools that illuminate x-ray lasers or high temperature superconductors or semiconductors.

Many things need to be cleared up. How is the energy level concentrated enough to initiate a nuclear reaction? What is the mechanism? How do output energies in the MeV range come out as obvious high energy particles? Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT has been working hard at a "Lossy Spin Boson Model" for many years to cover some of these gaps.

Robert Godes at Brillouin Energy suggests a theory that matches observations and suggests an implementation. The "Controlled Electron Capture Reaction."
[...]

Hence Helium is produced with the tools of chemistry and without overcoming the Coulomb positive-particle repulsion force. And without requiring or producing radioactive elements.

It is strange that LENR is neglected by the DOE, industry and the Pentagon. But no stranger than the history of nuclear power—if it weren't for the leadership Admiral Rickover, and his personal friends in Congress, nuclear fission power for submarines and power plants would never have seen the light of day. The best endowed institutions rarely disrupt the status-quo.

Progress is being made quickly by private enterprise in lieu of government support. Sadly that means you cannot stay up to date relying on a subscription to "Science." But stay tuned.

Display More

the most surprising is not that Carl Page think that, but that his answer was accepted.
Did you feel the noise? less and less strong "reputation trap" for media.

If he have direct electric conversion at 5-10% of heat, this is simply a business dream... the one of entrepreneurs.
Not more risky than the vision of Elon Musk on his powerwall.

anyway this is a dream, no evidence.
If you trust (moderately) Andrea Rossi's says, then it is a symptom of what he feel on Ecat-X... F9. it can be confirmed or not. it can be realized or not.
If you don't trust him, this is just noise.not even worth criticizing.

By the way Jed cite @fabrice DAVID device as an example of direct conversion from LENR to electricity, in fact via photovoltaic device .

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DavidFselfpolari.pdf
I've quoted key sentences to summarize the paper. I imagine Fabrice will answer questions...

Quote

...
Our concept considers that before transforming itself into heat, the energy released by fusions of the deuterium initially will produce an excitation of the atoms. It is the same thing when a photon of visible light hits a solid, initially electrons of the atoms of the solid are excited, and after this first step, the energy is decayed into heat.
It is possible to take this energy away before its transformation into heat: in a photovoltaic cell. A solar cell is a diode with a large surface. When photons fall on the junction zone, certain atoms are excited, and electrons pass from a low energy level to a higher energy level.
...
We built our Fusion Diode by mixing palladium powder and semiconductor powder, in order to obtain a decreasing silicon gradient, and a increasing palladium gradient throughout the tube. This forms a zone of contact (junction) between the semiconductor and palladium. This zone of contact generates a very a large contact surface. Importantly it will be noticed that not only a voltage appears, but that this voltage is concentrated in a thin zone, the junction zone. If the junction thickness is 0.5 micrometer, and the voltage 0.5 volt, the field equals one million volts per meter.
...
Once the D2 is introduced to our device, voltage quickly rise from zero to 0.5V
...
We conducted a triple-blind test with each diode. The triple-blind results on the chart followed a three week test period. A week on Argon, during which no voltage was observed, a week on H2, which showed a level of voltage, and a week of D2 which showed a higher level of voltage.
...

Display More

That you don't understand is not a mystery to me.
You don't understand what is the difference between uncertainty, ignorance and the certainty of the negative.