Posts by Valeriy Tarasov


    Could you provide links to the papers about the "cases where the COP exceeded 3 with input power", or titles of these papers ?

    Yes. There are several papers showing heat with no input power, with the "COP" of infinity. The COP has no meaning in cold fusion. It is not a useful metric. It tells you nothing about the reaction.


    Could you provide the info about these papers ?


    No input power at all, from the begging the experiments ? Or, this is "COP" infinity after switching off the power applied at the begging the experiment - "heat-after-death" heat ? If that the case then it is not really "COP" infinity, since you should take into account energy consumed before switching off the current in electrolytic cell.


    Yes, use the old idea - interaction of 7Lithium with protons to achieve Lithium fission to produce energetic alpha particles through the intermediate formation of 8Beryllium. So, at the end the energetic alpha particles (helium atoms) as source of heat production.


    It will be even more interesting if they will perform next the discharge experiments with plasma containing not deuterium but Hydrogen and Lithium, and the Lithium on cathode.


    I have to repeat again, we should wait next paper from Google team, since they refer to the manuscript in preparation with details about used setups, also with Lithium I guess.


    If they have considered the scheme of Lithium fission induced by collision with protons that will be nice to see how exactly it was done (and no conspiracy behind the Nature publication). If they simply heated mix of Lithium with Nickel without induction it will be not a surprise. Anyway the scheme of induced fission of stable elements like Lithium should be considered as very probable mechanism of heat production for LENR experiments.

    At one point the Nature paper is very positive, since it shows that there is no fusion reaction, i.e Cold fusion reaction producing heat is not detected.


    So the research should go in the direction of fission (induced fission of stable elements), and this is good. I am still wondering why it is so difficult to except that there is no Cold fusion reaction producing heat ?


    The opposite of fusion is fission, and nothing more, if you follow the logic - Law of excluded middle.


    So, even heat excess in FP electrolysis had the possible explanation of Lithium fission as result of interaction of Lithium nuclei with hydrogen nuclei (protons).


    The same fission reaction was even more clear considered as explanation of heat production in Rossi experiments.


    Besides Lithium similar fission reaction can take place for Boron nuclei colliding with protons.


    And it is also clear that you have to not only supply Lithium (Boron) and Hydrogen, but also stimulate the collision of them. And, the obvious way is to apply electric pulses.

    The public effect of this paper is clear negative.


    In contrast to public, for LENR community this paper proves nothing about LENR reality. The main LENR effect important for everybody is heat and the heat excess at high level only was demonstrated by Rossi. But, in the paper there are no details about the Rossi type experiments, only one resulting Fig.3, no description of experimental setups. These details should come in next publication (manuscript in preparation). We should wait this publication.


    "Each unique experimental condition was typically sampled in quadruplicate. ... Dots, 420 individual sample runs"(Fig.3)

    "However, none of the 420 samples we evaluated provided evidence of excess heat;"


    Are 420 individual sample runs the same as 420 samples ?

    Quote

    In short, they're saying that even though they might have not found a new energy source yet, they still made interesting findings that could be useful in other fields. I think this paper was a good occasion for them to present their efforts and possibly set themselves as unbiased testers in case they will be able to fully describe and prove excess heat or nuclear anomalies later on.


    It will be nice intention without such a title in very prestigious Nature - "Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion" and conclusion from it about no heat excess. And for 10 millions they could make much more for LENR, not just for self advertising with new colorimetry devices :).


    But of course, we should wait a next publication coming from preparation (P.A. Schauer et al.) to re-evaluate their contribution to LENR.

    I have missed the link to the whole Nature article at first page of this thread.

    Now, I have read the article and it is clear that conclusion of this paper about no heat excess in Cold Fusion - in Rossi-type experiments is based only on some data from a manuscript in preparation. So, we know nothing what they did and should simply believe in no heat excess based on unpublished data. It is really strange way to make scientific conclusion.


    We should wait till this manuscript will be published and today nothing new about reality of LENR came from the Nature publication.


    And, why in many places it is written about 400 experiments, it was about 420 samples for experiments :) Rossi is correct about ridiculous number of the experiments :).


    Thank you for the quotes! Ok, they replicated Rossi-type experiments, I am not correct.

    Have you read the whole article having that last quote? I am asking because what I see in the quote is the statement about no heat excess with reference on manuscript in preparation. If the conclusion about no heat excess in Cold Fusion is based only on the manuscript in preparation the Nature publication is strange. Could you confirm that there is no more data besides from this quote in the whole Nature article, or articles ?

    It is quite hard to believe, that 400 experiments had the wrong setup, because You say so.

    If there is something into this, and google would have detected it, they would become the emperor of the world. Ok, one can say: Ok, if they found something, they will be quiet about it, until a working prototype is available for presentation ( unlike the Rossi-idiot )... and I do not think, google will loose reliability if they admit doing research on internet fringe hype bullshit-bingo. As far as it looks for me, it will even strengthen their position in: Look, google, that big data monster now tries to "myth bust" some internett myths. Let's follow them.


    In science believing is not an argument, as well as the number of experiments. If you are in the world of logic and experimental data looking for new physical phenomena to be investigated, then you should design LENR experiment as replication of not FP electrolysis one, but do what Rossi has been doing. For a simple reason, because there is a report about Lithium fission as main source of LENR heat excess in Rossi' type experiments. This heat excess is much higher than in any replication of classical FP experiment. Why this was ignored by Google team, and they one more time performed the FP experiment, which was unsuccessfully replicated many times? I would like to hear the logic behind this design of Google experiments ignoring the Rossi' type experiments.

    I can only copy paste the corrected text I have written at e-catworld.com


    The report is published in the Nature magazine. It means that it should be taken quite seriously and the report should be trusty.

    What it is about ? The quotes from the second link (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01683-9):

    "The researchers pursued the three experimental strands that they deemed sufficiently credible. In one, they tried to load palladium with amounts of deuterium hypothesized to be necessary to trigger fusion. But at high concentrations the team was unable to create stable samples.

    A second strand followed up on 1990s work by US physicists who claimed to have generated anomalous levels of tritium — another heavy hydrogen isotope, created only through nuclear reactions — by bombarding palladium with pulses of hot deuterium ions. Google’s analysis of nuclear signatures showed no tritium production from this experiment.

    A final strand involved heating up metallic powders in a hydrogen-rich environment. Some current proponents of cold fusion claim that the process produces excess and unexplained heat, which they theorize is the result of fusing elements. But across 420 tests, the Google team found no such heat excess."

    So, what should we consider seriously - the classical setup of Cold Fusion is not working in way as it was performed by the Google team.

    And, Who is against this conclusion ???? The answer is - nobody (almost, to be fully correct), who is currently involved in LENR experiments !!!!

    It looks like the scientists from the Google project has just confirmed obvious things and simply waisted Google's money.

    Why they have not tested the setups which are currently used by many LENR experimentalists ? Seriously, why ????

    Where the Lithium in the fuel ? Where is the consideration of Lithium as a source of heat resulting from its fission to alpha particles ?

    Did they exactly repeat the classical Cold fusion experiment, that means, have they used Lithium in a solution ?

    Rossi has said not once (if I remember correctly) that classical electrolysis is not a really working system.

    In my opinion the classical setup was unreliable because at that time nobody had payed attention to the Lithium fission,

    mistakenly the hydrogen fusion reaction was the main focus. And the hydrogen fusion is not working. In this sense Cold Fusion is not working.

    My first reaction was quite serious on this news, but only till the first look on the available details (even without having access to the articles).

    I have spent enough time in science to know about the motivation among the scientists, real one, not idealistic from books, so I can only laugh about Google if they were serious to test the Cold fusion / LENR .

    Rotating coupled mass in central orbits can only exist in stable quantized distances called energy surfaces. Using such a model and correctly deducing the density of matter in galaxies has been done by quite a few people. They all did show that we don't need dark matter and basic Newton laws work as expected. Unluckily the math of coupled rotating masses is a it more complicated than just writing some fancy - thrilling - papers about dark matter.

    Yes, you right, the Dark Matter concept is nice for theoretical paper writing in our news media time.

    But, it cannot be forever, already today after three decades the proponents of this idea are tired themself

    to find any experimental evidences for Dark Matter existences.


    I am not quite underestand the connection between rotating coupled mass and the constant velocity of outer stars in spiral galaxies.

    Could you give a link to material about rotating coupled mass you are mentioning ?


    From my point of view the explanation for the constant velocity is very simple - gravity has distance limit, when no

    gravitational force is effecting these outer stars.


    Of course, this rises another question about stars and galaxies formation. Modern physics claims that a star resulted from the gas condensation. The answer in h-space theory is different. Also the fact that spiral galaxies are increasing in size, i.e. galactic outskirts stars are flying away is fitting very good to the explanation in h-space theory. And, this is not the case for modern physics, it is very unclear why galaxies are increasing in size, see - https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…-scientists/#43681e505f95


    Anyway, the h-space theory has much more than just a new view on the facts which were used to invent the Dark Matter concept.

    Nice, if somebody would like to see a paradigm change in Physics I advise to read this site about h-space theory.


    https://hspacetheory.wordpress.com/2018/?order=asc


    Just one example of a new view on a widely excepted interpretation about the distance unlimited action of gravitation.


    Dark matter.


    There are the following facts:


    1. Spiral galaxies are increasing in size, i.e. galactic outskirts stars are flying away.

    2. Velocity of the galactic outskirts stars at the distance larger than some distance is constant.

    3. Question - When velocity of physical body is constant ? Answer - when no force is applied to the body.


    Conclusion from these facts is that gravitational force is not applied to the galactic outskirts stars. And,

    this means that gravitation has distance limit. This is a conclusion from experimental (observational) data.


    The h-space theory implies the existence of distance limit for gravitational interactions and it is independent from

    the facts above, which become the experimental confirmation of the theory.


    The key, a paradigm change in the h-space theory is originated from a new definition of physical Space.

    What is the role of the plasma? Is it necessary for the generation of the excess heat or is it a byproduct of the heat?

    At temperature 2000 °C, Li in gas phase (boiling point 1330 °C), Ni and Al are melted, so H is going in-out of Ni and H+ reacts with Li resulting in Li nuclei fission. If plasma is mix of Li+, H+ and electrons so plasma is source of heat. But, what is really the plasma in this case is open question.

    One more question, based exclusively on my theoretical speculations. Why size is so small ? Besides the convenience to control, I see the dimension around 10 in order minus 4 - 5 meter is critical.