Of course Cravens demo don't need a nuclear explanation by itself. But in the overall picture of LENR research he added an interesting experiment. The balls were taken out from the bed and cut in half in front of an audience at the end of the weekend.
Mats002
Member
- Member since Apr 18th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Mats002
-
-
A monopole drives magnetricity which is the cousin of electricity?
-
Yeah! This experiment still linger in my mind, it is so very different from other LENR claims. It wasn't even a claim, just sitting there and people had to think for themselfes how it could be possible that the two balls differ a few degrees during the whole weekend.
The magnetic monopole theory as the root cause for LENR is interesting!
-
Hi Jeff! Did you try to shield the radiation with lead or alumina? The signal should change I suppose and if not then the origin is not your experiment.
-
Joshua: Of course alpha can be detected - and it does! You say the obvious which I agree with. And?
-
"The likelihood that these alleged, very low level, emissions (that no one can characterize) are somehow associated with another unlikely reaction (that no one can characterize) that produces measurable heat is extremely remote."
On the contrary - radiation disappears in the thermalization process.
-
"If the same reaction produces heat and radiation, then the radiation should be much more intense. Of course, some large fraction could be absorbed, but it's not plausible that in all the various reports of measured radiation, with wildly different geometries, with and without shielding, with detectors inside the cells, etc, that only a few parts in a billion get to the detectors."
so: heat with no to low radiation is not plausible?
-
350 days times 1 MW is just little more than 8000 MWh. All signals (not evidence though) so far indicates a successful delivery of energy so this should be it.
What puzzles me in what Peter says is the rumor of a first page with a summary maybe within 12 days. Who told him that? Did he see it himself?
-
It's all about the total sum of energies (Joules), - if we still agree that is our common understanding of our universe.
Now, how to make experiments of this base assumption? What is energy in the first place?
What about it is acceleration?
-
About heat/helium correlation: when not correlated the explanation can be either shortcomings in He measurements (like insufficient degassing from lattice or leaks to the environment) or that expected energy not accounted for escaped by radiation not properly catched (thermalized in the calorimetry mass flow apparatus or in particle detectors. What else?
-
-
Interesting walk down memory lane.
I wonder how CCS can apply to Brillouin claims of:
- Ratios of thermal energy out to electromagnetic pulse power energy in of greater than 4:1
- Continuous reactor operation for weeks at a time
- Power output for a single reactor core up into the hundreds of watts -
@Thomas: You are a wizard of long writings, but many words alone don't give the content any higher quality by default. In your latest answer(s) to Abd about CCS you totally ignore his answer to you that FPHE show both excess heat AND excess tritium which rule out CCS because CCS apply to excess heat ONLY.
I understand your strategy of answers as 'divide and conquer' and that goes well with your hydra. But this hydra head have BOTH lightning and thunder and both must be explained simultaniously.
-
Thanks for sharing your findings s_gray, what is your plan now? I guess the phenomenon needs to be repeated several times again and again to be verified. To my knowledge Parkhomov did not repeated in public, he went into the dark, is that your understanding too?
-
Amazing! Where is the thermocouple placed? Is it more than one? How calibrated?
-
barty: that emo looks like it violates the new posting rules, it is kind of saying something about the object of your text
-
Thanks MY, I learned new things today!
-
Answer to MY about that most of electric energy IN go to heat loss in the apparatus: According to Bob at MFMP the heat loss is 22.28% determened from calibration runs.
77.72% of input electric energy go into the mass flow of water through the apparatus.
You are wrong.
-
@MY: You are knowledgable in calorimetry, why not help Mathieu to improve so that the excess heat signal go away! Don't let the flaws of MFMP be a foundation for more fraud in the LENR business. Walk the talk!
@TC, HG and other strong minds: Help find the truth about this phenomenon. The Lugano team did not answer questions on critics but MFMP will.
-
Example of a weak spot in this experiment that Mathieu want to improve:
Franco,During calibrations, the flange was reaching about the same temperature. Yes it radiates and I should say, hopefully! Otherwise it would melt down.Using screening of aluminum or stainless steel is just making the temperature inside the chamber greater with less power input. Because it lowers the heat radiation, very effectively due to the T^4 factor of the Boltzmann equation. I have talked about that in the document.We need to have thermal loss form the reaction chamber to the water, simply because we want to have a signal, here ∆T we measure.What we don't like is the heat-loss from the water to the envelope then to the bench. That is one thing I know/want to improve.Water inlet is 30°C because the bench is thermally regulated with a heating element controlled by a PID (take a look at the document's schematics), so it needs to be above room temperature with a sufficient margin. Additionally, the flow controller is measuring the flow of water using a expansion based characterizatio n device. It means, water out of the flow-controller is hotter than water in. Hence it is simpler to set the water inlet temperature of the calorimeter higher than room temperature.