Posts by Zephir_AWT

    Quote

    Why membrane is glowing at the video, if there is no plasma discharge as you're saying?


    This is indeed a good insight and a question. The story of this finding is, it has been accidentally revealed by Russian expert working in research of desalination technology in Dubai, who attempted to increase the speed of desalination process with external electric voltage introduced onto a membrane. He wasn't successful with it - but he observed an anomalous heat production instead. I believe that the overunity effect is the special result of narrow membrane pores, which would force the water molecules to reorient itself and to collide in one-dimensional manner within nanopores. My theory is, an avalanche-like effect analogous to famous Astroblaster toy is what it applies there and what amplifies the amount of heat produced due to repeated breaking and recombination of water molecules. In this extent the reading of anomalous heat during hydrogen recombination may be of certain interest there. I therefore think, that this device may not run on principle of cold fusion, as its source implies.

    If the plasma would be the actual source of anomalous heat, then no special osmotic membrane would be actually necessary and every cheap porous membrane or sintered glass filter could be used instead, because the heat would be formed across plasma layer above and bellow the membrane - not within pores of membrane and the type of pores or membrane will be irrelevant. The ceramic membranes would be more stable and as such more suitable in this type of reactor after then. The video source says, that the osmotic membrane survives just an half of hour in the experiment, after then the heat production ceases down and the membrane must be replaced. This could serve as another indicia, that the heat production actually runs inside the pores - not within plasma outside the membrane - but this assumption should be still subject of future research.

    The plasma electrolysis at electrode is commonly used in cold fusion research, but its energy yields aren't as high in general. What I think is, that the plasma has been demonstrated at the end of video when the water was already boiling. Under such a situation just a small amount of heat will be able to form vapor layer above membrane, which would get ionized with glow discharge. What I therefore think is, that the plasma formation is actually an unwanted artifact, which would decrease the energy yield and life-time of membrane - but I can be indeed still wrong. IMO it would have a good meaning to try another types of porous plates too: sintered glass, zirconia or alumina.

    This patent goes well with famous Langmuir experiments with atomic hydrogen which has been used for welding for quite some time (compare Moler generator and its replication with Naudin, who achieved COP ~ 10), Joseph Papp's noble gases engine, Chernetsky's plasma generator and whatever else (Energoniva, BrilliantLight technologies, etc..) Note that these effects manifest usually with monoatomic gases or at high temperatures, where the dissociation of gases becomes dominant,

    Quote
    In like fashion, the strong and the weak force might also be derived as emerging from changes in the quantum entanglement of the microscopic information that is underlying space-time.


    This is just a rudimentary dense aether model in disguise. But emergence concept has no geometry assigned and the entropy concept is not defined well in the same way, like the information. You can talk what you want about it, because it's just replacement of string theory model for 21th century.


    A test question: when the cloud of interstellar gas collapses by its own gravity, it's entropy increases of decreases during it?


    Water arc explosions
    were first described in 1907 by John Trowbridge of Harvard University, though the phenomenon was not studied in detail until it caught the interest of Peter and Neal Graneau in the mid-1980s (Graneau and Graneau, 1985). By discharging a high-voltage capacitor through around 100 mL of water, the Graneau team was able to expel the water from a dielectric cup. At the time, the Graneaus conjectured that the arc discharge generated high- pressure steam within the water which expanded rapidly and resulted in the observed explosions. Measurements in Graneau and Graneau (1985) and Hathaway and Graneau (1996) indicated that water arc explosions were unusually strong. The history includes work by Trowbridge in 1907 as noted below; also Frungel in 1948 and 1965 papers; and Gilchrist and Crossland in 1967. About the same time as Graneau's publications, we also find a publication by Azevedo of MIT - 1986. YT Videos: Water Drop Trigger Apparatus, Max Spark Rate Demo


    For further reading: The Mysteries of Fog (Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1985). Electrodynamic explosions in liquids. Applied Physics Letters, 46(5), 468, Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., & Hull, R. (2000). Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy. Journal of Plasma Physics, 63, 115-128), see Graneau e.a. - Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy - 2000.pdf (364.3 kB), Powerful-water-plasma-explosions.pdf (313.59 kB), GraneauEditorial94.pdf (178.4 kB), P4.pdf (320.36 kB)

    Quote
    if they're just giving people 5,000 here and there, that's nothing to even mention, in contrast to 50,000, 500,000 or 5 million, say. But Darden and Vaughn at any rate are not being flashy at all about what they've been doing


    They want to embrace the IP of cold fusion research - a fictitious company with CIA background.

    Well, mainstream physicists believed, that their signal originated from colliding black holes - but as I can see, we actually have no contradiction here.. ;-)

    The microwave oven is the most accessible tool for research of cold fusion in home conditions. Its output power can be reduced to few watts with ballast capacitor and coupled from magnetron into an outside with coaxial cable in similar way, like the signal from Tesla coil source. Conversely the magnetron power can be boosted in orders of magnitude by powering it from pulsed voltage source (HV capacitor) without risking its damage. Its transformer also represents the simplest source of high voltage (2000 - 6000 V), capable of powering the Quark-X reactor.


    9eVgnbQ.gif fVbYVou.gif

    Quote

    The fact that the rest of the world doesn't adhere to your way of thinking must come as a disappointment to you


    On the contrary, as it fits my theory of human society behavior. But if you would watch my info carefully, the progress just converges to my predictions systematically.


    Quote

    As I said, gravitational wave may be used to predict tsunami.


    You have it opposite, the "gravitational waves" observed so far were itself product of seismic events.

    Quote

    The claims of new discoveries are nothing more than claims until they ARE replicated and validated with other experiments.


    Nope, once they're based on real experiments and observation, they become part of reality once someone will not disprove them with a new, more careful experiments. Everyone who is delaying such a replication is therefore a plain ignorant of reality. BTW You're still owing me at least one example of LENR experiment, which has been refused later.


    Quote

    You may think you know how science works but you are way off track


    I know, that the contemporary science doesn't work according to it's own ideology and proclamative scientific method: this is exactly the reason, why I'm talking about it here.

    Quote
    History shows that many scientific discoveries that seemed to have no practical use, and were predicted to have no impact turned out to be vital to modern civilization. J. J. Thomson famously proposed a toast to the electron when it was discovered: "Here's to the electron. May no-one find a use for it." It turns out we have lots of uses for electrons.


    This example doesn't work: Thomson found an electron in the middle of technical revolution and electrification of society, when the electricity has been already exploited for more than one century. But we aren't in the middle of Higgsization and gravitational wavification of the civilization.


    Quote
    Well, if you choose to believe that groundbreaking science is to be found on YouTube and that all claims of miraculous new discoveries and inventions are true until proven false, knock yourself out.


    Groundbreaking science is illustrated on YouTube, it's not developed there. The claims of new discoveries are true until they're not replicated and proven false with another experiments - because this is how the science work: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. So it doesn't really matter, what are you believing on in a given moment, once some experiments point to something else.

    Quote

    It turns out that very little groundbreaking science is introduced to the world on YouTube.


    Only because you don't know where to look for it. For example the antigravity phenomena or room temperature superconductors are presented at videos only - nowhere else in this moment (1, 2). There are thousands of publications about cold fusion, yet none of them penetrated the mainstream journals. The fact you cannot find any information about it there demonstrates only the informational barrier and ignorance of mainstream science - but definitely not the alleged lack of information. There is most shadow under the candlestick.


    On the other hand, the so-called breakthrough science - as presented by establishment - is often predestined to leave very small impact on the world in foreseeable future. Could you bring some usage for Higgs boson or gravitational waves? I don't think so. In essence no particle prepared in colliders from 50's of the last century has some practical usage and it will probably have no usage during another fifty years. The claiming it a breakthrough is just an occupationally driven propaganda of mainstream physics. Now we are in state of utilitarian inversion of society, when the findings most important with respect to practical future applications have the smallest publicity in mainstream science and media - and vice-versa: this is just the consequence of the blind adherence on priorities of mainstream science, which generates works and jobs for itself.

    NASA observations reshape basic plasma wave physics The wave's ability to trap particles was predicted more than 50 years ago but hadn't been directly captured with such comprehensive measurements until now. The new results also showed a much higher rate of trapping than expected.

    This observation could bring a bit more clue into Ken Shoulders’ EVOs, High-Density Charge Clusters and Condensed plasmoids. The intensive microwave radiation not only doesn't scatter charged particles, but it makes them more clustered above certain intensity treshold.

    Quote

    I have a baby brontosaurus in my basement


    Just the UFO and Bigfoot claims are rather bad example for conspiratorial ignorance demonstration, as the frequency and quality of their observation increases with time.


    Quote

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence


    This is another fallacy, because the true value of every claim can be reversed easily. On the contrary, a single counter evidence (order of Venus phases) can ruin the whole extensive theory build for years (string theory, epicycles) - this is how the scientific method is working. For disproving theory a single experiment is enough. My philosophy adheres strictly on Popper's scientific method which is experimental falsification based - whereas Sagan (who was proclamative proponent of science) lays an artificial obstacles to falsification and it favors theories over experiments.

    Quote

    As far as I know, very few UFO or Bigfoot claims have actually been disproven.


    So that they should be considered real - it's as simple as that. Their rareness and unpredictability cannot serve as an arguments of their nonexistence: many phenomena (ball lightning) are rare by their very nature. Most of overunity phenomena are also real or at least we have not enough of data for their dismissal. The fact we have not these data yet doesn't mean, that we already disproved them - the claiming the opposite would be an Appeal to ignorance - do you remember?


    Quote

    Pons and Fleischmann's neutron claims were definitely discredited.


    As I explained you, these were cold fusion patoskeptic claims, not the Pons and Fleischmann's ones. Link the source if you're convinced about the opposite. Nevertheless, the neutrons often emerge during cold fusion, especially during the thermal runaway of reaction (Andrea Rossi could talk about it).

    Quote
    There was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the usual dd fusion branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, because of neutrons interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.


    This is a just a very confused misinterpretation of famous pathoskeptics argument against cold fusion, which you turned on its head. Pons and Fleischmann originally reported in 1989 that their chemical cells had produced excess heat, neutrons, and tritium. Their interpretation was that deuterium nuclei were fusing to produce 4He. The branching ratios in this process are known: 50% n+3He, 50% p+3H, and 10^-6 4He+gamma. The pathoskeptics argued, that if the claimed excess heat had been produced by fusion, then the experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons coming from the 50% of the decays that proceeded by neutron emission.



    The truth remains, that both tritium, both production of helium is routinely observed during palladium electrolysis. The cold fusion doesn't adhere on the classical branching ratios for heat formation - it actually usually doesn't release neutrons at all. If you would use the patoskeptics arguments, then indeed not only many cold fusion related claims would fail - but most of them get failed already.


    I'm replying to the posts in their corresponding threads - if you don't want to argue with me here, just don't do it. If you want to transfer discussion into another thread, you should move your posts there too.

    Quote

    One of the most common logical fallacies: argumentum ad ignorantiam, also known as appeal to ignorance, which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false.


    Every claim can be presented like the dismissal of its negation - so that the appeal to ignorance is fallacious by itself. So which claim of cold fusion proponents (not opponents) has been already disproved? You should have (successful) attempt for its falsification - which is just what all pathoskeptics are desperately lacking, as they avoid the replications like devil the cross and they even base their argumentation on lack of attempts for falsification.


    Which is reliable way, how to recognize pathoskeptics: they present their weakness and lack of arguments like their main advantage.

    Quote
    There was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the usual dd fusion branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, because of neutrons interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.


    This is a just a very confused misinterpretation of famous pathoskeptics argument against cold fusion, which you turned on its head. Pons and Fleischmann originally reported in 1989 that their chemical cells had produced excess heat, neutrons, and tritium. Their interpretation was that deuterium nuclei were fusing to produce 4He. The branching ratios in this process are known: 50% n+3He, 50% p+3H, and 10^-6 4He+gamma. The pathoskeptics argued, that if the claimed excess heat had been produced by fusion, then the experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons coming from the 50% of the decays that proceeded by neutron emission.


    The truth remains, that both tritium, both production of helium is routinely observed during palladium electrolysis. The cold fusion doesn't adhere on the classical branching ratios for heat formation - it actually usually doesn't release neutrons at all. If you would use the patoskeptics arguments, then indeed not only many cold fusion related claims would fail - but most of them get failed already.

    Quote

    There was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the usual dd fusion branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, because of neutrons interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.


    This is a just a very confused misinterpretation of famous pathoskeptics argument against cold fusion, which you turned on its head. Pons and Fleischmann originally reported in 1989 that their chemical cells had produced excess heat, neutrons, and tritium. Their interpretation was that deuterium nuclei were fusing to produce 4He. The branching ratios in this process are known: 50% n+3He, 50% p+3H, and 10^-6 4He+gamma. The pathoskeptics argued, that if the claimed excess heat had been produced by fusion, then the experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons coming from the 50% of the decays that proceeded by neutron emission.


    The truth remains, that both tritium, both production of helium is routinely observed during palladium electrolysis. The cold fusion doesn't adhere on the classical branching ratios for heat formation - it actually usually doesn't release neutrons at all.