Posts by StephenC

For those looking for a standard candle in the streaming video of the miniSKLEP:

We have a few candidates for approximate standard candles that may help determine that actual output Lumens,

1. The ambient light in daytime when the office lights are on maybe 250 Lux

2. The LED display on the power supply. (The light per number pixel should be easy to determine although it is red rather than blue-white)

Driving a 7-segment 4-digit LED display

Hi all, A while back I bought a stack of ATA3491BW 4-digit 7-segment displays, on the cheap from Sparkfun because they’d got the wrong item… These are…

forum.arduino.cc

So 10mA per segment mostly all 0’s is 10 x 6 x 4 x 3 = 720 mA and assuming something like 2.0 to 2.8V for red LED’s would give 1.5 to 2W and about maybe 150 to 200 lumen, but probably it also is a bit less as it’s using red LEDs so maybe 50 or 100 lumen for the PSU display. One segment would be maybe between 20 and 28 mW and one "0" digit between 120 and 168 mW.

3. There is the green indicator led on the front of the PSU which I guess is a 3mm led perhaps 40mW or 4 lumens

4. There is also the clock display that has blue white Digital display but I think that’s more likely a led screen display rather than a seven-segment based one. But assuming this is about 200 cm^2 and is about 300 nits I think it would also be about 50 to 100 Lumens.

5. Possibly more complex but maybe still indicative the reflection of the window during daylight in the lamps mirror.

I think that is pretty good amount of options to make a reasonable estimate of the output.

I think it is indicating that it is close to what Andrea Rossi said, but each one of us can make our own conclusions based on this input.

To put it in perspective the input power less than 0.0007 W would power less than 3% of 1 segment of 1 digit in the PSU digital display

Interesting find by Zorud on the crea LED.

Wow some people have sharp eyes for sure.

I don’t think it’s the 1304 as the diameter 4.4mm) is too small it looks closer to 1cm (9.8 mm) to me.

Here is the data sheet:

https://cree-led.com/media/documents/XLamp_CMA_CMT_High_Current_Feature_Sheet.pdf

I wonder if it was still using less power than expected given the diameter?

Interestingly there are >10000 Lumen version but they are larger diameter 22mm

Hopefully I couldn’t link to the You Tube video either now could link to that page earlier.

Maybe it’s just because it’s about to start shortly. I can see the Leonardo Corporation page.

The e-cat world site is down.

The YouTube link is not available.

Looks like another DOS attack to me.

Or are others able to get through?

Hi David

Did you see this?

https://www.sciencealert.com/c…around-dwarf-planet-ceres

I have just yesterday had a few exchanges with Pekka just now on this topic:

https://www.researchgate.net/p…or_aerospace_applications

https://e-catworld.com/2021/01…omena/#comment-5233555849

I was really into this concept some 35 years or so ago but was never capable enough to follow it through. Really great to see that others were working on something similar. I think from the papers list Jean-Pierre Petite was working for even longer amazing.

Jean’s background is amazing artist author engineer. Isn’t it amazing that these subjects attract such polymaths we are in the presence of giants.

Amazing small world! And I don’t just mean Ceres

Anyway it seems to me that you and Pekka have some common interests.

Thanks Cydonia I will try to consolidate my thoughts a bit and raise some questions to Slobodan on an appropriate thread when I have them better thought through.

It is an interesting presentation and makes me think.

This is a great initiative. Its needed and could be really productive. It’s great there is a work place for serious theorists.

I’m really Looking forward now to seeing what they/you all come up with in time.

I’m afraid I have had a bit of a brain storm about the spectrum presented in Slobodan Stankovic’s presentation.

Has anyone here taken a look. I’m curious why we only see the p3 to s3 emission line for Sodium and p4 to s4 for Potassium but none of the other Principle or other recombination lines normally apparent in this Spectral range.

Is there a normal explanation for this?

I’m curious what ionizes the Sodium and Potassium to allow these emission lines once present if it was deposited rather than produced.

Also Why we don’t see any lines from Magnesium, Silicon and Calcium? Given that it is apparently present in the SEM.

I’m also curious what is the origin of the molecular Raman spectrum like broad spectrum.

Does anyone here have answers?

Wyttenbach may I ask... have you looked at the scalar meson resonances such as the f0(500), f0(980) resonance with regard your SO(4) theory approach or are these kinds of resonances currently out side the scope of that approach for now?

When I consider these things this way I realize how big the job can be. But if it’s relevant to the processes associated with LENR it could be interesting.

I’m not sure if this is the right place to post it but this paper might be if interest to sveinol and Leif Holmlid.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S037026931830580X

I’m not an expert on these things but the decay paths and line widths are interesting I think.

I suppose they are aware of it.

JedRothwell

Do we know how much energy was consumed in the endothermic events

I’m pretty sure you have considered this but I’m wondering if Hydrogen desorption from one of the metals could account it.

Or alternatively adiabatic expansion and cooling of the contained gas due to depressurization?

For example if the original heating effect dies out when all the atomic hydrogen is converted to H2. Does it only readsorb the Hydrogen in the palladium when the temperature/ pressure is right there may then be heat of absorption of H2 in the palladium but could there also be cooling due to adiabatic expansion of the remaining gas?

Or is the endothermic energy involved larger than we would expect from this?

I know this is obvious to most here... but just pondering it:

The heat of adsorption of this amount of hydrogen on nickel seems to me to be a two or three orders of magnitude less than could explain the heat generated.

https://royalsocietypublishing…bs/10.1098/rspa.1970.0010

Do we know how many mols of gas was included? (I was estimating about 0.000185 mol)

It’s interesting the profile seems to indicate that sorbtion plays some role though.

Just thought it was interesting to mention.

Edit. If the gas is being breathed by the metal. Or acting like a bi metallic heat pump then it would take something like 1000 full adsorption cycles with no equivalent cooling due to desorption to account for this excess heat. Desorption with out equivalent heat loss in this case would normally be a hard to explain process.

Do we know if he used meshes prepared by Mizuno? Or prepared by himself?

I wonder if there are lessons learnt about what steps might have differed from the preparation by others which were less successful so far. Was the out gassing preparation phase more thorough for example.

Anyway it’s great to hear we are starting to get interesting results. Thanks to Jed for updating us with this good news.

After all this you could be satellite engineers.

I think for satellites it can take some weeks to out gas at least a number of days. And this can be critical for some instrumentation.

But I suppose it depends what materials are present.

I would definitely agree Mizuno’s equipment is the best option at this time.

It seems resonant to me that the opportunity to test this comes up just at the tine we have the details of the set up for a test released from Mizuno.

We also have the ideal interface with Jed. His contact with Mizuno, his long history in LENR and his ability to speak Japanese. It’s a really good opportunity that just opens at this time. A perfect match you might say. Maybe too good to miss.

I would like to see Mizuno’s method verified. (We should bare in mind it might not be easy to do right off the bat but certainly worth pursuing)

It maybe the work and approach with this could establish trust between the team and the community about aims, motives which would be fair I think.

The need to verify the technology out weighs many things in my opinion. Not for business opportunity or positive belief or skeptical proof reasons. But simply because if there is any chance for a positive result the world could really be helped by it. For that in these times, we should never stop searching.

I would also like to see:

Holmlid work verified (I suppose this might be difficult but I wonder if Zeiner’s work with one of Mizuno’s prototype’s can give an opening there?)

Russ and Alan’s work verified when ready. (But I wonder if he is already getting verification by other groups?)

Mizuno’s work looks like the best first opportunity but I wonder if it is also worth making a priority list of follow ups including others?

To get in the frame. I would suggest they see a working prototype before starting. I wonder if that would be possible.

I would also suggest verification of other potential LENR related aspects than just thermal. Perhaps different particle measurement methods, radiation and apparent transmutations, isotopic ratio changes of fuel, presence of helium and other gases, magnetic fields and charges etc. but I suppose thermal must still be the highest priority.

Just to clarify was the woodpecker previously operated in the room where the Gieger is currently being measured?

Or was that also in a different room?

Edit:

It would be interesting to check with another unused Geiger in the same location to check if active agents or some other effect on the Geiger itself are stimulated by the static or something. if Radon then both should be affected.

Also maybe to check with the same tests in a different location in the near locality but distant from the current air flow. I suppose Radon progeny should be similar in both locations... but if something else is the cause such as other nano particles or activated constructs then it might be just local to the original test environment.

This has been really interesting.

It’s also kind of ironic that high static may be linked to LENR in some ways and perhaps plays a role at producing particles that may decay or activate it may also result in collecting Radon Daughters collecting on the equipment some how.

Which ever it is it’s good this process is being done and people like Can are looking and checking.

Although Radon looks like a likely cause in such cases I get the impression we are curious if this or other potential sources are the cause. I wish Can could get hold of a spectrometer but if not I wonder if there is a way to verify this with out a spectrometer.

Would putting the equipment inside a grounded or insulated help?

It does seem similar to muon type signatures In Holmlids experiments.

I wouldn’t want to touch too much a working device before it’s well characterized. Still lots to do there I guess.

But I do wonder if distance increases or decreases the signal or if it shows 1/r^2 decay.

I wonder if Replacing the foil in paper with some unused writable cd discs would show something akin to what Bob is searching for.

Also curious if just copper, zinc or Nickel shows similar sustaining behavior or if it requires the mixture. I suppose that’s something for later.

It’s been fascinating seeing the progress of this test here

I wouldn’t want to over load suggestions and I’m sure there are many good candidates.

But on a Technical level I would really like to hear:

An interview with Wyttenbach about SO (4) theory. I find his approach really fascinating.

An interview with Bob Greenyer about strange radiation tracks on surfaces materials. He has found and collated some really interesting information and data there. It’s getting pretty hard to ignore what he is finding in his current OHMA project.

Ruby is One if the stars of LENR.

Just made a donation. I’m really intrigued what she will come up with.

I wonder if as part of her interview archive if it would interesting to interview some of the others that have supported LENR in the none technical but also important areas such as publications and media. I’m

thinking Frank Acland , Jed Rothwell, Peter Gluck, the administrators of the LENR Forum, Amongst others. It would be fascinating hearing their history what first got them interested in LENR what motivated them to start their work and sites and their most interesting insights in the many years they have done this work.