Posts by AlainCo

Gennadiy Tarassenko just wrote a call for help about his LENR experiments.
He need instruments and physicists expertise.

[news=103,meta][/news]

If there is labs interested in that research project.

I post your call as a news.

Problem is not discussion about evidence and so on.
it is off-topic critics.

maybe we could be more brutal about moving off-topic, to new-topic, or like many skeptic, to recurrent topic.

I think we could move most MY and sword partner answers into one very coherent thread, while being able to discuss powder with replicators, and theory with theorists.

there is also many theoretical discussion which could be moved to theory threads.

as much as many beusinns/sociological exchanges.

my hope is that it will benefit all. and after a bloody period where some discussion will be amputated and slightly incoherent, people wil adapt to that moderation.

@me256 I agree mostly.

I would also support, here or elsewhere a similar policy on a "skeptic" corner, calming enthusiastic pro-LENR wanting to argue on every point.

I did not read those papers, but more generally on many subject, like EmDrive or LENR there is an awful habit to start with experiments then give results as interpretations,to support an assumed theory, without clear cut nor raw data.

Worst of all it seems required by editors, especially for high impact journal.
Lack of theory was the key critic to Oriani paper, and when he gave one, weakness of the theory were used to reject the paper. Experimental setup was seen flawless.

In many LENR claims, by many researchers, with few great exception, I see people focus on theory even in analysing the data.
I think it is premature, but that is how Science works today.

Problem is (said in different flavors) :
- noise preventing understanding of the topic
- repetitive statement out of context, off-topic
- permanent reconsideration of discussion axioms, assumption, basics
- insensibility to discussion, to data, to assumptions, to topic
technical thread tried to solve the problem

Best would be independent development of each other argument with few interaction, and effective assessment by each opposing side.
Question is if it is there on different forums, or there and elsewhere.

ECN is a place that mirror ECW and each other's arguments are developed locally, with clear bias, but also with sincere debate, which is accepted.

Minority reports are seldom accepted and have to walk with light foots, to state with care.

I propose mirrored forums with moderated interaction, with much lurking, taking good seed to the other camp.

Those who think it is impossible should not interrupt those who are doing it.
Even if one should check the arguments of the other camps, but it should be done voluntarily or quickly. Critic is data, not advertising or propaganda.

Extreme unjustified oppositions develop radicalization, and negative emotions, which make believers believe more, analyst lose focus (FUD effect), and newcomers flee.

I learned that by doing errors. Mea Culpa.

Energycatalyzer3 published early january an article about Nichenergy, the company of Francesco Piantelli, who just have rebuild their website.
The website contain some of Nichenergy's claimed achievement, "upscaling from watts to kW", "devices that can be triggered without outside power input", patents.
Henny suspect some "serious funding".

[news=102,meta][/news]

Just see the story of first Diesel engines.

From what he say to us, it is clear E-cat 1MW is not ready for generalization as-is.
As he said it need many improvements in many points.
I even suspect it need to be improved on the engineering first, and less on the E-cat-X evolution.

there is no news.
It works like a full size prototype. happy it did not explode and kill and operator already. (see Diesel story).
See the first derick for oil ....

Only question for skeptic is if all is a big scam. This would be a huge defeat for the domain to be victim of manipulators.
if it is simply an engineering nightmare, it is a victory. Not sure skeptic accept it, as there is room to delay coping.

about representativity of the Lugano isotopic dat,
few mg of matter are representative if the material is well mixed.
and if the material is not homogeneous at all, even 50% is not representative.

quantity is not the key, but homogeneity.

there is hint that the powder analysed is just a specific part of the full reacting material, that was scratched.

The huge isotopic shift, is clear, and difference between surface and bulk analysis show it is a complex phenomebon, that is absolutely not banal.
The only question is if it is fractionation, and if someone was able to obtain 99% fractionation of Ni, he would deserve a Nobel, or at least he would be hired instantly by nuclear industry.

I am amazed how "skeptic" are clueless when finding strange data, just trying to prove it is not nuclear, while even if not nuclear as they say, it is a (bigger) revolution.

I nearly rolled over the floor laughing out loud when some proposed that energy of nuclear scale was stored chemically. If so, it is a revolution that industrial would follow immediately.

The reaction to such evidence is simply a physciatry experiment.
You always can be careful, keeping the possibility of a fraud, artifact, but when seeing such results the only rational response is to frantically investigate, not to rationalize and dismiss without more curiosity.

About good evidence of nuclear nature, the Tritium is a great evidence of nuclear phenomenon.
It can simply shut up skeptics.
Tritium even at low level is easy to detect for competent people, and the background level is very low.

For me it is clear tha best evidences today are with PdD. NiH evidences are often badly shared, or too amateur.
Ed Storms way is quite interesting. Good old PdD electrolytic lab rat.
ENEA do that with NRL and SRI, not to prove (done since long) but to understand.

Anyway it is for experienced experimenters with fair lab tooling.

On Richtopia an article by Derin Cag (founder of Richtopia) about Tom darden, and his LENR efforts is featured.
The article start with a favorable portrait of an entrepreneur invested in green business, benefiting of a good network.
It then explain that he support LENR energy, an "outlandish and risky technology".

[news=101,meta][/news]

http://lenr.seplm.ru/articles/…hikhsya-napravlenii-nauki

http://www.unconv-science.org/n10/parkhomov/

Isotopic analysis results of Parkhomov...

Any comment welcome to explain the results.

The testers in the report have said there was just sintering of the powder, not melting.

Some inferred from claimed 1400C temperature outside that nickel was molten inside (melting point at 1450C 1atm), but there is good reason to doubt on that claim. One is emissivity probable mistake, and other is that Rossi himself about that version of e-cat says it is working up to 1100C.

Jean Paul Biberian sur son blog
http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…aitre-dans-la-presse.html
annonce la publication de deux articles dans deux journaux économiques de référence Français.

Quote from Jean-Paul Biberian

Curieusement deux journaux grand public vont publier le même jour chacun (le 11 février 2016) un article sur la fusion froide. Ce sera d'une part "La Tribune", et d'autre part "Les Echos".

Sans être certain (F9), je ne peux que confirmer pour l'un deux, sachant que pour l'autre j'ai une idée de qui.
:lenr:

Quote from Thomas Clarke

There is no experimental evidence to link the small claimed excess heat anomalies in LENR to nuclear reactions

I know you are not incompetent, so what are you.

the nuclear origin is proven by the amount of energy produced.

Do you realize you are not honest?

I don't even talk if Helium, of tritium, which are replicated and proven many times.

What ethic do you have ? motivated reasoning ? attorney at law ?

why discuss with someone competent when he is unable to use his competence to admit facts?

sorry i'm tired.

Jean Botti, CTO of Airbus Group, CEO of Airbus Innovation, Chief Innovation officer too, to which Jean-Francois Geneste was reporting directly, have been hired by Philips

http://www.ledinside.com/news/…tion_and_strategy_officer

Quote

Philips Assigns Jean Botti as Chief Innovation and Strategy Officer
Royal Philips today announced the appointment of Jean Botti as Chief Innovation and Strategy Officer as part of the company’s strategy to capture a larger portion of the HealthTech opportunities. Jean Botti, who will join Philips as of April 1, 2016 from Airbus Group (AIR), will become a member of Philips’ Executive Committee and will report directly to Philips CEO Frans van Houten. Jean Botti will succeed Jim Andrew, who left Philips in the fourth quarter of 2015 for personal reasons.
...

What I say is that if CO2&al was the problem they try to solve (I mean the big organizations) they would behave differently and support different solutions that what is done.

My impression is that there is few axis for explaining current anti-CO2 strategy :
- oppose incumbent industry, incumbent technology (anti-establishment, anti-technology, anti-capitalism)
- increase cost of thing to make more margin (displace value added to new entrant, out of China, out of incumbent), to create jobs (and kill jobs in other domain because people cannot work=buy there)
- propose apparent solution that don't visibly challenge ideology (whether it works is not important)
- block economic growth, comfort, efficiency (Malthusian/Catholic sin)
- try not to solve the problem to keep the cash cow alive

LENR is a solution to CO2 announced tragedy.
We will see if they want a solution.

I am happy to see many enthusiastic green supporters, they are part of the solution.
I am more concerned about green business, green politicians, green NGO, as I am with utilities, workers union, oil industry, who all will have to reframe their business model.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Alain, why are the Low Energy NUCLEAR Reactions (re)searchers never trained NUCLEAR physicists?

As it is they all act more like witch doctors trying to cure cancer by magic spells and healing.

Nuclear physicist are incompetent in calorimetry, unlike electrochemist, chemist, and radiochemist, for which it is their expertise.
At best tritium evidence are best measured by radiochemists, and nuclear weapon specialists (Storms, BARC)

the reason why LENR is denied is because people like you think that because the theory have to be nuclear, the experimental competence is to be nuclear.
sorry the expertise needed is the one of chemist.
And it is very strange, but only physicist moan, and chemist either support cold fusion experiments (sometime failing in nuclear measurement, equally physicist fail in calorimetry).

Strangely one of the only physicist who replicated F&P was trained by skeptic Heinz Gerisher, and did it in 2 years instead of 1 year like most chemists.

You point is very good once you put it upside down.

For explanations, read Charles Beaudette in excess Heat :
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

Reading Wilson about Hansen and Lewis papers could also help to understand the problem.
Even Lugano is an evidence of that problem.

I have heard many environementalist, finally convinced of LENR, find it was great.
I've also heard some saying cheap energy was immoral, promoting human growth and destroying planet.

anyway we don't talk of individual but of big organization, who are very efficient in motivated reasoning.

Nuclear energy, as some people like Monbiot and Hansen explain, is the best solution of tha cataclysm predicted by climate theories. I see it is not promoted, but opposed for reason that according to the mainstream position are less critical, especially if unlike the population and the media we are informed of the weak death toll of recent accidents.

Even worse, everybody know house thermal insulation is ten time more efficient to reduce CO2 than any renewable energy, but it is too cheap.

There is a great debate whether renewable are polluting more than said, and pushing fossil fuel backup.
if battery storage is not more consuming than the energy it stores.
Promoters of renewable energy always have answers, that I don't understand how people can accept, but that politicians catch. Maybe I miss a point, or my knowledge in electric engineering make me catch a point.
As Thomas Kuhn was saying, it is incommensurable positions.

Anyway I can exclude that the question is CO2.

Give me evidence that McKubre is not more competent than were Lewis and Hansen in electrochemistry ?

to be serious, McKubre with his isothermal flow calorimetry showed he was very competent, and surviving to Lewis and Garwin lab investigation is good symptom.

McKubre like most LENR scientist is far from endorsing E-cat test as they consider it is not done scientifically, but under business context.

You are right that Brillouin test are not fully published (there was presentation at ICCF17 and poster at ICCF19), but McKubre is clearly supportive to the reality of the technology and to Godes claims of COP=4 with control.

As usual you cast innuendo of fraud , not daring to say it clearly .

You say Brillouin and McKubre are in a scam process ? You can ! just prove it!

Tell it clearly, and don't hide your conspiracy theory under FUD.

Many innovation are slowed or even blocked by big corps, not because it is new, but because those organisation don't see how to adapt their own model.
Another problem is that if no big corp try to embrace the new idea, it often die.

What people imagie is that big corps will actively oppose new technology, like ludites, like taxi agains Uber. It is not so common in freemarket (workers union are more in that logic), but what is common is simply passive reaction of developing the old technology, under the old business model, and let others with that strange new model...

Philippe Silberzahn, like LENr-Cities, have nice papers on that subject.

Kodak and Fujifilm are good example of that problem.
Kodak invented digital camera, make technology watch on it, have seen it develop, and anyway keep it's cash cow with fils, pushing an hybrid technology APS to try to satisfy it's old model with new technology.

Fujifilm reacted differently. they developed a digital photography product line, but mostly reaevaluated their own competence seeing that they were good in chemistry, in thin films, and develope business to business product in that domain.

For LENR the oil companies should embrace LENR and see in what they are competent.
Why not moving to chemistry, syn fuel, mining exploration, international negotiations, logistic, water treatments.

Electric grid company will have bigger problems, but why not moving to selling microgrid (block/district scale), while electric product industrialists should also provide nanogrid (building/house scale) solutions.

It is important for big incumbent industry to embrace and exploit LENR, not to try to save their cash cow.

I don't think Rossi is sincere with that "integration". LENr will integrate with other technology like steam and sail. there will be some parallel exploitation, but quickly it will kill all previosu technology.
however the companies who sell old technology, can exploit LENR to stay alive in a changing landscape.

don't oppose and delay, but embrace and accelerate.