Posts by Jack Cole

me356,

Even if you simply put it in a large diameter pipe (say aluminum or copper) and put insulation in the ends, you can get a more accurate reading of power output by measuring the temp even in one spot on the pipe. The good thermal conductor of the pipe serves to collect the heat over the whole area of heat produced by the reactor. Since you can turn the effect on and off so easily, you should see a corresponding change in the temp of the external pipe.

Jack

me356,

Very interesting work. Some here have called for you to do water calorimetry. I personally would not recommend that for the type of researcher you are (you rapidly iterate, make changes, and run a lot of experiments). It would be an unnecessary and difficult distraction trying to set up the system. I would recommend conduction calorimetry, which will give you a consistent way of measuring output power. That said, you may already be comfortable with how you are measuring output power, but it is not clear to me how you are doing it.

Bob Findlay developed this technique.

http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…propose-a-new-calorimeter

When I was attempting replications, I used a modified version of the technique by converting a tube furnace to a conduction calorimeter. Discussed here in the comments section:

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com…lioh-excess-heat-results/

Jack

I'm on board with [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] on this one. Of course we haven't seen the report, but it smacks of having all the same problems as the previous test given who performed the test. If Rossi gave the formula to [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], and they couldn't get it to work, then it probably doesn't work. Besides, there have probably been no less than 200 negative replication attempts. There have been no replications that I consider to be of high quality (including Parkhomov, Songsheng, Zhang). Parkhomov has since reported a max of 100W excess heat, calling all of his previous work into strong doubt. Songsheng and Zhang reported no calibration efforts as has been the problem with other previous replication efforts.

I have to say that I must consider my 1/28 experiments that appeared positive is probably questionable since I was unable to subsequently replicate it with better instrumentation.

Rossi could settle this tomorrow by starting up the plant and having some qualified scientists and engineers conduct a week worth of tests.

Maybe there is an elusive effect here somewhere, but there is no consistent or high quality evidence.

At one time he said he did [share it] and that they replicated it based on his formula. But, if it is based on the patent he got in the U.S., there is only scattered and poor evidence that the formula outlined in the patent actually works. Objectively evaluated based on the array of replication attempts, it does not work as presented. I read the statements by [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Rossi, at least partly, as subtle shots at each other. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is saying, you are just one of many possibilities and we will decide whether we think your product works based on the scientific merit. Rossi says back, from now on only LC will perform tests and nobody else is allowed. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is just one of many licensees for the Ecat. I own the IP and understand how it works.

In the end, [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is in a superior position because they have apparently other possibilities and they don't have to be tied to Rossi. This in addition to the fact that they hold the purse strings! Of course if Rossi does indeed have something that works, they all win. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] can objectively evaluate Rossi's technology, because they can just move on to something else if it doesn't work.

Thomas, not sure it matters much, but the x-rays used were reported as 15 to 100 kev.

Thomas wrote:

Quote

a reactor signal would not change given a plastic shield, and would change given a lead shield.a dust on reactor, or in air, signal would not change with eithera heat signal would change (with a time constant) with both. How much depending on the shield size.

If you consider the possibility the neutrons are activating both the aluminum foil around the detector and parts of the detector itself, you would need to carefully think through the order of procedures performed. Imagine the detector becoming activated when the plastic shield is up, and then continues to show radiation when the lead shield is up. Of course, you would expect the same from radioactive dust. I don't see a similar problem with the heat factor you propose.

Ecco's suggestion avoids this problem.

Ecco,

That is very clever and much cheaper. I do have one question. Could the particles from the radioactive dust activate the metal in the box? Presumably the answer would be no since the decay of radon and it's progeny would not emit neutrons.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “Seems like the whole discussion about funding and why the radiation problem was not solved long ago is distracting from the issue of Jeff's study. If LENR research is such a waste of time, then why contribute a mix of useful information and…

I like your answer Thomas--direct and honest. I can understand that. Whether correct or not, it certainly is an interesting study both of science and people.

Seems like the whole discussion about funding and why the radiation problem was not solved long ago is distracting from the issue of Jeff's study. If LENR research is such a waste of time, then why contribute a mix of useful information and derision for the whole field? It is puzzling how both Joshua and Thomas contribute a mix of recommendations for further study while sometimes simultaneously expressing the opinion that the whole endeavor is a waste of time. I guess I don't understand the motivation behind it. What is the goal you are working towards?

Jeff,

In your write-up of your study you state:

Quote

Radiation measurements were made with the cell in the insulated airflow calorimeter chamber with the lid partially open to accommodate the cable to the detector head.

Some have talked about a good place to find radon (computer power supply fans for one). I didn't find the radon hypothesis very plausible until I considered your box has fans in it. It does seem possible that radon could have collected in the fan(s) of your calorimeter and that the dust particles could be stirred up when it heats up. The dust could also collect and settle on the aluminum foil. Anyway, something to consider.

This is probably not ready for prime time. They need to do a lot more work for this to be taken seriously (e.g., better input power measurements and an electrolytic control for comparison). If this type of experiment worked with thoriated tungsten, then Ugo Abundo would have proven this long ago.

Thomas,

I did misunderstand you. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

Quote

The space here is so large that in general it may not be done.

There is little reason for assuming that space is so large that ruling them out would be untenable. Yet, additional instrumentation certainly is in order as Jeff already suggested in his paper. In fact Jeff's recommendations, if followed, would render irrelevant much of the discussion that has taken place here about artifacts.

He wrote:

Quote

The observed levels of radiation should be sufficiently large to permit more accurate characterization of energies once improved equipment becomes available. A CZT or NaI detector plus an MCA would permit characterization of gamma energies. Better yet would be a cooled Si or Ge detector. A thermalizing type or a direct energy detecting neutron detector would also be of great use, if for no other reason than safety. With the energy signatures of the radiation quantified it will be possible to determine the isotopic origins thereof and potentially the pathways by which LENR activity occurs.

The "dust" theory could maybe be easily ruled out by blowing a fan around the detector when it is showing elevated readings. Although it is an unlikely scenario that it is related to radioactive dust, it is best to take any testable alternative explanation seriously.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

Quote

(3) Natural radiation is often found in mildly radioative dust. Also, if there have ever been radioactive materials used where you have run the experiment there could be some low-level contamination, but the levels you observe are consistent with dust.(4) One mechanism for these results would therefore be radioactive dust distributed by convection currents from the heating and gradually settling afterwards (the timescale looks about right).

Interesting idea. I wouldn't fully discount it, but it seems unlikely that this dust would accumulate right around the cell in a more concentrated manner than it would be otherwise in the immediate environment. Should be easy enough to rule out with further testing.

Jeff,

Beautifully done. If it were me, I would try the following next.

I'd try 4 more things. Repeat what you have already done 5 more times (also put a lead shield in front of the detector while it is running to see the effect). Also try moving the lead shield to all different sides of the detector. Run again with Kanthal wire (there is no theoretical reason to expect you would see radiation with this). Then run one more time with fresh nickel wire in normal atmosphere (or vacuum). Then run that new nickel wire again under H2.

Quote from wishfulThinking

Thanks for the estimate Jack. The fact is there is just too many unknowns in this experiment. It wasn't designed to find COP and therefore it's impossible to determine an accurate COP from it. If I decide I want to determine COP I'll use calorimetry in a future experiment.

Brian, I agree. David Roberson does believe this experiment of yours showed excess heating. It probably would have been obscured by the way i did my analysis. Please see David's analysis.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg102532.html

Hi Brian,

First, let me say that I think you are doing great work. I think that we hobbyists can learn a lot from each other.

I did a quick analysis on your data and the method I used showed a max COP of ~1.06 at the 4th and 5th temperature steps (looks like between 1050 and 1100).

Since we don't have a calibration, we can use the reactor as its own calibration. We have reason to believe that any gain below 1000C would be small. Therefore, you can generate a calibration curve with data points below 1000C.

I average power and temperature values at each step. I eyeballed the cell ranges from a chart, so it won't be 100% accurate, but it's close enough.

I averaged the temperature values of all the thermocouples together, which will probably give the best overall measure. I generated a polynomial calibration curve from the first 3 power/temperature steps (core temp <1000C). Using the polynomial curve, I used the temperature values to calculate the output power. I divided Output Power by Input Power to get the COP at each power/temp level. I used the data contained in the spreadsheet on Power Compiled and TC compiled.

Anyway, hope this helps. The COP increase of 6-7% is something that I have often seen, and probably should not be discounted (but certainly not seen as clear evidence either). I have seen results like this after more successful runs (and other times where it is better). Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.