Jump to content

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions / Cold Fusion (thread split)


barfbag
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Those links take me to the top level of the journal, featuring the current issue, and not to individual papers.

 

the link seems broken

 

I found

Takahashi/Toyota replication

dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301

of iwamura

dx.doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.41.4642

 

anyway as some reporte here, this thread started with the 2013 E-cat test.

 

The first version of the paper about the Lugano E-cat test of 2014 is published by Swedish DoE/EPRI equivalent, Ellforsk:

http://elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/

 

Some would have noticed that even if Arxiv publish anything withut real review except formal, it was blocked...

Those who says there is no psychiatry in that affair should consider that evidence.

Brian Josephson leaked the discussion about 2013 test by Arxiv moderators who were desperately searching for excuse to reject the paper finding none. This time they win.

 

anyway review is in process, an open process.

There is among the critics many conspiracy theories, with Seagle (Start with a bang) calling for fraud and appealing to theory to say it cannot be else... If you feel that barflag and me are emotional, better not read his blog. Anyway his blog is a good moment to remind that usning theory to prove that an experimental result is necessarily a fraud because theory disagree (and not because there is evidence of fraud, a different point) is not scientific. This is a common fallacy in LENR story, well shown by famous Huizenga quote

 

 

"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."

 

a reference in circular reasoning.

 

There was an interesting critique about the possibility of artifact cause by internal light troubling the IR cam.

It can be safely ruled out with both theory and experimental argument. First the bandwith used by the IR cam match 7.5um-13um is in a zone where alumina is opaque. second the IR image don't show the visible lights patterns that one can see on the protographs.

 

Some other call for not even sub college student errors in powermeter installation... Better to ignore that on a scientific forum.

The most challengin s is by Mickael McKubre of SRI who

1- is not familiar with thermography calorimetry and prefer contact calorimetry

2- seriously challenge the quality of the test by noticing the calibration (cf http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html) was not done at full temperature, and thus that the emissivity is only estimated from tables and low temperature (450c) calibration.

 

Emissivity according to the table evolve from 0.7 down to 0.4. to explain the result it shoud go down to 0.1 to cause the illusion of 3.6 COP.

 

another critic is a bit recursive, as usual. It seems from the data availble that the apparent resistance of the load is reduced by a factor of more than 3 from 450C to 1400C. Negative temperature coffericien more heating cold, at this value, are not common.

The CSO of Industrial Heat have answered that it is proprietary doped metal alloy based on inconel.

Some people assume it is impossible and prefer to call for a conspiracy of errors, that in fact don't even match the data in detail (the power step, the exact values, difference between the two wattmeter), and don't match simply common sens of game theory (you don't let a scam toy be tested out of your presence, hoping some cautious scientists make a sequance of 2 student errors and that artifacts cillude to hide your error)... I hope people here will stay rational.

 

One should notice that there is two independent challenge on the report.

The one that follows McKubre, is the challenge on precision. It was not the main goal of the testers who just wanted to prove it worked, and precision it probably weaker than expected because of the protocol, mainly the insufficient calibration.

I expect some improvement, by usage of the power step analysis, where the 1250C run can be used as a kind of relative calibration.

 

The second challenge on the report could be on the reality of LENR. this is the elephant in the living room (in english maybe you say 10ton gorilla in the kitchen).

Not even the conspiracy theories on two inverted clamps and triac switch that conspirate with calorimetric errors to cause a COP that evole from 3.2 to 3.6 can be compatible with COP=1.

The excursion with apparent 1250C to 1400C, adding 700W, by just adding 100Win over 800W in, excludes COP=1 ...

 

maybe anyway is it too early to discuss about those artifacts claims, as the testers prepare answer to many questions, using the log of the two installed wattmeters

 

Scientifically the only interesting question is if COP=1 is possible, given the results.

 

One big question I could ask is how the kind of IR cam used react to errors if effective emissivity ?

If the IR cam assume emissivity is 0.4 and temperature is 1400C, implying emission of 3.2kW

and that it is very different, what is the emissivity required, and the real temperature, implying emission of less than 900W, to fool the IR cam, ?

 

a second question is about negative temperature coefficient.

Is there known dopped metal alloys with such a 3x resistivity over 2x temperature excusion?

I have seen report of such excusions with smaller temperature, in Pd-Ag alloys.

 

Beside that there are clear reports of TypeII superconduction. Paolo Tripodi is a reference researcher in that domain, despite some problem to publish the concluding remark.

 

Here is a starting document to find references

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SC-LENR.pdf

but best papers are from Tripodi as far as I have heard.

In short some hydride material show Type II HTSC transition in condition common to LENR.

A common reference is

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037596010000654X

 

Celani reported also resistivity changes...

 

This question raise another warning on interpreting Lugano test : that the heating coils are probably LENR devices, probably what Rossi named the "mouse". this raise also a warning on the interpretation of the isotopic analysis which are probably not representative of the whole system.

Analysis of theory, or of impossibility only from the isotopic analysis is more than risky.

 

Sorry to get back to the subject, but I tried to follow the direction of critics. We are not there to kill the 10ton gorilla in the kitchen. That is the stiff Job of Bill Gates :eyebrow: .

Edited by AlainCo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am strong in English and am a published author. Some of my posts are longer than most because I write a lot.

 

As a professional writer, I would say that your long, rambling and often incoherent posts are the product of someone who has not yet mastered the craft of writing. So I assume you mean self-published. (There is less evidence for you being "strong in English" than there is for LENR. Note: not an insult but an ironic aside.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some other call for not even sub college student errors in powermeter installation... Better to ignore that on a scientific forum.

 

 

Why ignore it? It's actually a common issue with over-unity device claims. A capacitive or inductive load when a resistive one is assumed leads to errors in power calculation.

 

My first impression (second, really, since I'm pretty sure I read this before) is why they didn't run the dummy test under the same conditions as the power generation conditions. They only went to 450 W. Not doing the same conditions raises issues of errors that would go away if it had been done properly.

 

Also, if its COP was above 3, why did't they unplug it and run in a self-sustaining mode? With a little insulation, it should be possible to maintain a high enough temperature to keep the reaction going, and provide unambiguous evidence that the device works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The COP above 3 refers to the energy output in heat. Attempts to put steam to the ecat have killed the reaction which requires a certain temperature to keep reacting.

 

Why bother with steam. Just insulate it and disconnect the power input. Let its own heat keep the reaction going.

 

The article was interesting, but I was left with a few questions (mainly about methodology; they didn't seem to have full access to and control over the system they were measuring, for example). I was surprised by the very large power output measured when other reports I have read that tested the technology showed really small outputs. Also, even if there is an excess of energy, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it is nuclear in source (e.g. no radiation measured).

 

Accept or reject that Cold Fusion exists.

 

No. I will do neither of those. (Yet.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

barfbag,

I have hidden your post since it blatantly went against my last warning. I hope you remember what you wrote in it and can appreciate the irony of some of your comments as much as I did.

For the record, I will keep hiding your posts so long as you keep ignoring the rules, or you force us to ban you. Whichever comes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Jacques,

Must be from the same catalogue that sells Hot Fusion, Higgs Boson, Cockroach Cyborgs.

 

When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone it did not automatically appear in every home overnight. It took at least a week or two.

 

Would you ingest a drug that has not been tested on humans yet?

 

When Pons & Fleischmann discovered and announced cold fusion in 1989 they could only replicate their own experiment 1% of the time. Should a device that works only a percentage of the time be sold at Home Depot? Maybe they should wait a few years and get it to work 100% of the time and work well. Is that okay with you Jaques, or do you think all research should be immediately sold in Walmart?

 

@ Jaques still,

 

Another thing Jaques... The inventor has been rich most of his life and owned a company worth $30 million USD when he was in his thirties. President Carter gave him a VISA to America and citizenship.

 

Now you can buy the ecat device and it is for sale if you can afford one. I think the heating units sell for approx $2 000 000. Here is a photo...

 

ECAT_1MW_plant3.jpg

 

 

@ Jaques still,

 

Not only is he rich, but he also looks a lot like Fabio.

 

 

 

 

(ps. I backed up this post also as I do with any writing)

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a mass or fallacies an erroneous arguments that I know well as they are spread like virus...

 

If Rossi had a working device he would be rich

 

... well any industrialis developping a complex technology, know that the problem is seedling money.

Another problem that LENR-Cities founders master well with their painful experiments on other innovation, is that when an innovation is disruptive, it is very hard to find markets, and operators, because markets don't yet exist, and existing market are destroyed bevor the new are created. Philippe Siberzahn in french explain it well in his book "L'effectuation"... His blog is fantatic but in french.

 

By the way after long time battling with his own money, Rossi is now rich, and CSO of Industrial Heat which is funded above 10Mn$... Brillouin is funded

 

Don't imagine that it is easy to sell Wright plane, E-cat, abortion pill, ...

 

Another argument is based on insufficient incompetence in electricity... people who know enough of electricity to know that RMS is different from average-abs or peak to peak... Wattmeter like PCE830 are computed dedicated to signal treatment who simply integrate the instantaneous power through currents and voltage at the speed of many thousands samples per seconds.

And please don't say that energy is smuggled at 100kHz at 2kWn because any engineer can see the interferences in any instruments, and worst of all any fraudsters would never allow a scientist to be alon with a device smuggling this power though the hijacked main power... that is not scientific, nor even commonsense.

 

The only hypothesis is a general conspiracy, which is more something for a planet conspiracy forum than for a scientific forum, not even a criminal forum because it is too big to be a crime.

 

Another common fallacy based agains on insufficient incompetence in energy technology is people not being aware that most energy source requires external energy to be started, and most of the time maintained. You can ask to fukushima if their powerplant coul be let off the grid easily.

For scientific people I find also it is dramatically sad to see above college people who ignore what is a subcritical reactor.

Of course if the COP is enough (above 6-10) one day, after huge engineering work with tuning of the control-command, cooling, turbine dynamics, it may be possible to return sone electricity produced to feed the reactor... Again this is understating the engineering complexity.

 

about the lack of reliability of F&P, it was far better that 1%, and even replicators like McKubre were above 10% of their cells active.

The key parameter, once you removed the triggering condition understood during the few initial years

is metallurgy and ENEA have done a huge work to understand some key crystallography condition

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1

they claim success above 60% when the crystallographical state is controlled.

 

the initial failures in the first month and years, which triggered the justified skepticism , then the definitive groupthink caused by insults and irreversible definitive claims, have been mostly explained

DJ cravens explain it here

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

 

Today Edmund storms give a good manual to trigger, and a key phase is material sorting, with success around half.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEwhatcondit.pdf

 

for anyone with technology culture it is not at all uncommon. People today seems to have forgotten how unreliable were early technologies, like transistors

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue25/transistors.html

 

what is shocking me is that many arguments used in the name of science, are hugely unscientific.

there is theory challenging experiments.

Business and technology problems justifying to deny science.

there is circular reasoning justifying to forbid publication, while claiming that it cannot be true because there is no publication... beside ignoring there are publications .

 

finally I agree that E-Cat is the solution to convince, not despite but because it is not a scientific experiment but a big tea kettle...

The test is of much lesser quality than the work of McKubre, Miles, and even recent Mizuno corrected calorimetry that Jed Rothwell recently reviewed, but it is convincing for businessmen.

 

I hope the second version of Lugano test will contain more data to eliminate some hypothesis, and will ruleout the COP=1. anyway the precision will always be questionable because of lack of high temperature calibration.

 

I would need more knowledge in the algorithm used by IR cam to estimate temperature for an assumed emissivity. if someone can help on that point.

 

Today McKubre report he was invited in Norway to participate a panel, because Norway prepare to hedge their economy agains LENr revolution... They are not sure, but they want to hedge. that is rational.

It is more clear today why Brillouin joined Steven Chu in Statoil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Sensai,

 

After I wrote, "here is a photo" I then went searching for one by typing ecat in images.

 

I found some but the 3D view of one was more detailed.

 

I SWEAR IF YOU DO NOT CROSS EVERY i and Dot every T around here........

 

 

 

d3d65eca05b1a7127f4207b353a2333b.png?139

 

back.jpg

 

1MW-ECAT-Load-on-Truck.jpg

 

Better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I SWEAR IF YOU DO NOT CROSS EVERY i and Dot every T around here........

It's called the scientific method. You should try it some time.

 

 

Better?

Not when most (all?) of your posts are loaded with petulance and anger. You preach; you don't discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... well any industrialis developping a complex technology, know that the problem is seedling money.

Another problem that LENR-Cities founders master well with their painful experiments on other innovation, is that when an innovation is disruptive, it is very hard to find markets, and operators, because markets don't yet exist, and existing market are destroyed bevor the new are created. Philippe Siberzahn in french explain it well in his book "L'effectuation"... His blog is fantatic but in french.

 

By the way after long time battling with his own money, Rossi is now rich, and CSO of Industrial Heat which is funded above 10Mn$... Brillouin is funded

 

 

So IOW there is no seedling money issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you dont need cold fusion to have a fusion machine. they are easily built with a bucket of cash. thats right, fusion already can be done at home.

the whole problem though is that the process is innefficient. i have no response to whether or not fusion is taking place because the powerplant regardles either way has not been demonstrated working at an acceptable level for the community to agree.

 

edited...

i actually had to overcome my disregard for such voodoo and take a close look at the product...

not what i thought it was. still in the same boat though.

Edited by davidivad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Sensai,

 

After I wrote, "here is a photo" I then went searching for one by typing ecat in images.

 

I found some but the 3D view of one was more detailed.

 

I SWEAR IF YOU DO NOT CROSS EVERY i and Dot every T around here........

 

....

 

1MW-ECAT-Load-on-Truck.jpg

 

Better?

 

 

Very Interesting - I checked out the specs and was intrigued. Perhaps you can correct my sums? The thermal energy is carried away in water that is hotter on leaving than arrival - makes sense.

 

1. You have 1500kg per hour water flow - thats 1500/(60*60) kg per second .41667kg/s

 

2. You are gaining 1MW of power - thats 10^6 Joules per second

 

2a To be conservative let's assume that 1MW isnt the net output but the gross - thus the input energy power of 167kW should be subtracted that 8.33*10^5 Joules per second

 

3. Thus each .41667kg of water must be raised in temperature such that the rise requires 8.33 *10^5 Joules

 

4. Now the Specific Heat Capacity of water varies with Temperature and Pressure but in the temperature range give it is not greater than 4250 Joules per Kelvin per kilogram. I'm worried how it varies with pressure - but just cannot find resources.

 

5. Energy = mass * Specific Heat * Change in Temp

 

6. 8.33*10^5 = .41667 * 4250 * Change in Temp

 

7. Change in Temp = 470 Kelvin

 

8. Spec'd Change in temp = Max 116 Kelvin

 

I am sure I must have made a miscalculation - and would love to have the record set straight

http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/ecat-1mw-technical-data

 

 

Thermal Output Power 1 MW

Electrical Input Power Peak 200 kW

Electrical input Power Average 167 kW

COP 6

Power Ranges 10 kW-1 MW

Modules 106

Power per Module 10kW

Water Pump brand Various

Water Pump Pressure 4 Bar

Water Pump Capacity 1500 kg/hr

Water Pump Ranges 30-1500 kg/hr

Water Input Temperature 4-85 C

Water Output Temperature 85-120 C

Control Box Brand Leonardo Corp.

Controlling Software Leonardo Corp.

Operation and Maintenance Cost $1/MWhr

Fuel Cost $1/MWhr

Recharge Cost Included in O&M

Recharge Frequency 2/year

Warranty 2 years

Estimated Lifespan 30 years

Price $1.5M

Dimension 2.4×2.6x6m

Weight 10t

 

ECAT 1 MW Plant is made up of smaller modules where the actual reactor is the size of 20cmx20cmx1cm. These small reactors are coupled in modules of 3 pieces each, then these modules in turn are built into a 20 ‘container with a series of 106 pieces.

 

In the spirit of enquiry can someone tell me how many modules of 3 pieces each are required to make a total of 106 ;-)

 

Strangely all the pictures show 52 modules - 2 each would make 104 and three each 156. hmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Greetings.

 

A brief, detailed and well documented recapitulation of events from march 1989. until march 1999., by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, former MIT-s chief science writer.

 

MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report

 

- very enlightening 57 pages.

 

***

 

@imatfaal, Steven Krivit claims that Rossi is a notorious fraudster.

 

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/03/10/industrial-heats-e-cat-exit/#more-43212

Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings.

 

A brief, detailed and well documented recapitulation of events from march 1989. until march 1999., by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, former MIT-s chief science writer.

 

MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report

 

- very enlightening 57 pages.

 

***

 

@imatfaal, Steven Krivit claims that Rossi is a notorious fraudster.

 

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/03/10/industrial-heats-e-cat-exit/#more-43212

 

Will check out the document - thanks. And re Rossi - huge numbers of people do; for the benefit of this thread and others I try to keep an open mind and judge only on the claims made (which per my last post above they fail badly even at maths) . This attitude also helps stop disciples from dismissing all my posts as preconceived dogma - and I would love one of these claims for cheap clean energy to be true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, does anybody check it? I'm very interested in other opinions, because according those text it seems that topic is suppressed on MIT with administrative actions rather than scientific methods. And motives are clearly financial.

And because that among supporters are some highly credible persons (Nobel Prize in physics awarded Julian Schwinge, top electrochemist McKubre, senior scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center Joseph Zawodny*, and many others...), that matter deserved to be reconsidered with same scientific scrutiny as hot fusion is.

 

*http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

 

 

... and I would love one of these claims for cheap clean energy to be true

 

 

De facto we already have that; a huge free and safe fusion reactor above our heads which supplies us with by far more energy that we need at present level, and hence is no need to mess with atoms et all (although always is wisely to have some backup options). We just need to find best ways to collect that energy, which may be accomplished yet that we were invested same amount of efforts, funds and resources in artificial photosynthesis, hydrogen-based economy and some other promising renewable technologies, as we were in hot fusion researches.

 

 

Sorry for out-of-topic drop, it ends here... and apology for somewhat clumsy expressions or wrong words eventually, english is not my native language (also I'm not from Italy :D)... hope at least meaning is clear.

Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, does anybody check it? I'm very interested in other opinions, because according those text it seems that topic is suppressed on MIT with administrative actions rather than scientific methods. And motives are clearly financial.

And because that among supporters are some highly credible persons (Nobel Prize in physics awarded Julian Schwinge, top electrochemist McKubre, senior scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center Joseph Zawodny*, and many others...), that matter deserved to be reconsidered with same scientific scrutiny as hot fusion is.

 

The easy thing is with energy production is that when "Galileos" cry that they are being ignored by the establishment there is one easy response; if you are generating power for less than you are putting in then you can start to sell it back to the national grid. This would soon get academics attention - but none of them actually manage this overunity production in anything apart from stage managed and clearly fallacious show-trials. It is a not a difficult experiment that needs highly trained observers - just an isolated box that takes in X watts and exports X+E watts.

 

 

De facto we already have that; a huge free and safe fusion reactor above our heads which supplies us with by far more energy that we need at present level, and hence is no need to mess with atoms et all (although always is wisely to have some backup options). We just need to find best ways to collect that energy, which may be accomplished yet that we were invested same amount of efforts, funds and resources in artificial photosynthesis, hydrogen-based economy and some other promising renewable technologies, as we were in hot fusion researches.

 

Maybe I should recheck my sums - but a back of the envelope calculation shows that we would need about .1% of the area of the uk covered in Solar Cells that were 100% efficient to cover our Electricity needs here - and about 5 times that amount for total household energy consumption. Not at the present feasible for a cloudy country at 51 degrees north.

 

Note hydrogen based is not renewable - it is just a clean fuel but the energy to create hydrogen still needs to come from somewhere.

 

And - no need to apologise for your English it is superb and I hadn't even thought that you were not a native speaker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The easy thing is with energy production is that when "Galileos" cry that they are being ignored by the establishment there is one easy response; if you are generating power for less than you are putting in then you can start to sell it back to the national grid. This would soon get academics attention - but none of them actually manage this overunity production in anything apart from stage managed and clearly fallacious show-trials. It is a not a difficult experiment that needs highly trained observers - just an isolated box that takes in X watts and exports X+E watts.

 

Generally, agreed with that principles again, but... how that matter could get wider academics attention, when is from very beginning stigmatized as a quack/pathological/pseudo science, reputable peer-review magazines (as Nature) refusing to publish any works about it, and patent offices (in US) don't giving any grants?

 

Pons and Fleishman, two prominent and experienced electrochemists, was simply humiliated in front of American Physical Society comity:

"Top physicists directed angry attacks at Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, calling them incompetent, reciting sarcastic verses about their claims and complaining that they had refused to provide details needed for follow-up experiments...

... Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann." The audience of scientists sat in stunned silence for a moment before bursting into applause...

... Dr. Jones (who was parallely committed similar experiment) himself spoke at the meeting, and although participants questioned him sharply about his experiment, questioning was generally friendly.

He drew cheers and laughter when he concluded his talk by saying, "Is this a shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!" He defended his own experiment, describing his results as a "fragile flower" that would never grow into a "tree" producing useful energy, but could nevertheless "beautify" science...

In a telephone interview, Dr. James Brophy, director of research at the University of Utah, responded, "It is difficult to believe that after five years of experiments Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann could have made some of the errors I've heard have been alleged at the American Physical Society meeting."

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

(an article from May 3, 1989)

 

After resigning his membership from the American Physical Society, Schwinger (who had been a leading member for over 50 years), explained his act: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0303/0303078.pdf

(the spokesman for the American Physics Society brags that he has never read a single experimental paper on cold fusion but he knows it must be wrong)

 

McKubre verified plenty experiments from various independent laboratories around a world which claimed that proved reaction, but bulk of US scientific community simply ignored that.

 

And it's not easy to reproduce CF experiment:

 

"The first challenge is to get the cell to produce energy, and to be sure that the energy is real. In early replications, the experiment was performed very much the way Pons and Fleischmann did it. That was not good enough. Many other variations were called for, using entirely different instruments and techniques. Other kinds of nuclear evidence had to be confirmed. Pons and Fleischmann had only $100,000, barely enough to do a rudimentary experiment with simple instruments, looking for a few signs of a nuclear reaction. If everyone had performed the same experiment using the same type calorimeter they used, researchers would not have learned much more than Pons and Fleischmann already knew. What is worse, it is conceivable that dozens of scientists worldwide might all make the same systematic error.

To ensure against this remote possibility, in the years following the announcement, many different instrument types were employed. Heat measurement, for example, was first performed using single-wall isoperibolic calorimeters. Later, many errors were removed by using the double-wall type. Mass flow calorimeters and a variety of electronic Seebeck calorimeters were also used. Sometimes these techniques were used simultaneously; heat from the same sample was measured with different methods. Although many experiments produce only marginal heat, or no heat, every type of instrument has seen examples of strong positive results, or what is called a large signal-to-noise ratio.

The same principle applies to the measurement of nuclear effects. Autoradiographs with ordinary X-ray film often show that a cathode has become mildly radioactive during an experiment. But suppose the sealed film is somehow affected by the minute quantity of deuterium gas escaping from the cathode? Very well, devise a plastic holder that keeps the film a millimeter away from the metal surface, and put the cathode and the film together into a vacuum chamber, so the outgasing hydrogen never reaches the sealed X-ray film. When that works, try again with an electronic detector. The outgasing deuterium cannot have the same effect with all three methods, yet the shadow of radioactivity from the hot spots in the cathode surface shows up every time. Every conventional type of spectrometer has been harnessed to detect tritium and metal transmutations, time after time, in experiment after experiment. A researcher will examine a specimen with SIMS, EPMA and EDX spectroscopy, to be sure he sees the same isotope shifts with different instruments. He will probably examine the specimen before and after the experiment, and compare it to an unused sample.

This is the cheap and easy technique, but researchers at Mitsubishi were not satisfied with it. They developed highly sensitive on-line spectroscopy that takes data as the reaction is occurring. Such equipment costs tens of millions of dollars, but the results are highly reliable, and they tell us far more about the nature of the reaction than static results taken after the nuclear process has ceased. For the past six years Mitsubishi has been able to perform the experiments several times per year, with complete success each time. They observe excess heat, transmutations and gamma rays.

Dozens of parameters can be changed in a cold fusion experiment, but only one reliably predicts the outcome: the metallurgical and physical characteristics of the active material. For example, researchers at the National Cold Fusion Institute in Utah did twenty different types of experiment. In the final and best version, they achieved 100 percent reproducible tritium production, proof that an unusual nuclear reaction had occurred. Four out of four heavy water experiments produced significant tritium, while none of the light water controls did. The final report said, "tritium enhancements up to a factor of 52 were observed," meaning there was 52 times more than the minimum amount their instruments could detect. In these tests, 150 blank (unused) samples of palladium were tested extensively, by dissolving in acid and by other exhaustive methods. None of the blank samples had any measurable level of tritium."

http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Does-cold-fusion-exist.html

From my laic's point of view, it is still questionable could that reaction be useful for commercial gaining energy at all, is it really cold fusion, or some new kind of chemically assisted nuclear reaction / low nuclear reaction (as Krivit claims), but it's doubtless that exists. Analogous to that, we are not certain about truly mechanism of sonoluminescence, but we have no doubts that it exists too (and Schwinger proposed theoretical connection with CF). Maybe CF/LENR/CANR is applicable, maybe even Rossi, discarding his past, have something real, maybe whole thing is just an illusion, but we will never know for certain if we don't examine it through purely scientific methods.

And why that topic about new energy source was discarded in US scientific community from very beginning, I have opinion which doesn't belong on this forum, but just a hint: follow the money.

 

 

 

Sorry, maybe this whole text is too long, but I don't know how to avoid posts fusion made by forum's engine.

 

 

 

Maybe I should recheck my sums - but a back of the envelope calculation shows that we would need about .1% of the area of the uk covered in Solar Cells that were 100% efficient to cover our Electricity needs here - and about 5 times that amount for total household energy consumption. Not at the present feasible for a cloudy country at 51 degrees north.

 

Note hydrogen based is not renewable - it is just a clean fuel but the energy to create hydrogen still needs to come from somewhere.

 

 

I agreed that UK is not the best place in the world to spread solar cells, same as the rest of central and north Europe (and yet Germany despite that has large inflow of electricity via solars), but there are some other renewable sources.

After all, UK imports most of fossil fuels. Renewables could significantly lower that dependency.

 

I'm aware of that the most of the hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels today, but it is proven that is also commercially feasible from water using electricity or heat from renewables. And could be transported bounded in ammonia same as fossil fuels are.

 

And - no need to apologise for your English it is superb and I hadn't even thought that you were not a native speaker

 

 

Thank's on that, I was expected that will sound strange at least. :D

Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haram

 

I won't quote your message otherwise it will all get very long.

 

Why were the scientists stigmatized? To an extent the ostracisation is exaggerated and to a further extent it is deserved; their experiment was flawed (that happens to everyone), they made mistakes (again everyone), they were too excited and lost focus (again), and they stopped being disinterested in the result (again). But when great research teams around the world explained the problems, showed there was not independent corroboration, detailed their misgivings in the methodology, failed to reproduce when doing things right, and asked for a re-think - the original teams doubled down and refused to admit that they had cocked up. For a better example of how they should have behaved look at the history of the superluminal neutrinos at gran sasso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Haram

 

I won't quote your message otherwise it will all get very long.

 

Why were the scientists stigmatized? To an extent the ostracisation is exaggerated and to a further extent it is deserved; their experiment was flawed (that happens to everyone), they made mistakes (again everyone), they were too excited and lost focus (again), and they stopped being disinterested in the result (again). But when great research teams around the world explained the problems, showed there was not independent corroboration, detailed their misgivings in the methodology, failed to reproduce when doing things right, and asked for a re-think - the original teams doubled down and refused to admit that they had cocked up. For a better example of how they should have behaved look at the history of the superluminal neutrinos at gran sasso

- Here is the November 26. 1989. report from Energy Research Advisory Bord to the US Department of Energy - "diligent work during the last six months“ based on single failed replication experiment.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf

- Schwinger's theoretical preliminary works on that matter was discarded on grounds unfitting established theories, without peer-review method applied.

- Various independent labs and teams from France, Italy, Israel, India, China, Japan... are reporting about experiments confirming F&P's, for more over twenty years.

- Last two decades are proposed numerous theories as explanations, by prominent physicists.

 

It is possible to all that experts in world-spread laboratories that confirming F&P experiment are measuring wrong calorimetryc output too, during 25 years of experimentation, but it is highly unlikely. And to establish consistent experimental conditions it is essential to describe consistent physical theory –and in case of CF/LENR it is to many of them proposed.

 

And those scientists who take close look at CF experiments today, after skepticism turns up to proponents of that matter -for instance Peter L. Hagelstein

http://www.rle.mit.edu/people/directory/peter-hagelstein/

... or Robert Duncan, which is called as independent investigator from The American Physical Society (same that Schwinger left in protest) to examine work in Israel lab.

(Duncan appears in about 7:30)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Duncan_(physicist)

 

- and it's clearly that, among others, scientists at NASA and DARPA are convinced in reality of that reaction.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160000347.pdf

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/IPAG12_Presentation.pdf

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html

http://www.lenrnews.eu/dod-darpa-and-cold-fusionlenr-are-they-watching-or-trying-to-save-usa-industry/

https://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/m/35303

 

- as for CERN and CF:

Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)

"An overview will be given on the main progress made –since March 1989- through experimental/theoretical studies on thermal/nuclear anomalies observed in forced interactions of Hydrogen isotopes (H, D), in non-equilibrium conditions, with pure or alloyed materials (mainly Palladium, Nickel). Most of the experiments used electrolytic environments at moderate temperatures (20-50°C). More recently, gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed). Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role both in basic studies as well as in, recently claimed, technological/industrial applications. A plethora of theoretical models have been proposed to explain several experimental anomalies in LENR. A brief description of a weak interaction model shall be presented that claims to explain almost ALL of the anomalous effects found so far."

http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/

 

After all, sounds pretty much as scientific confirmation to me.

Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No nothing here is conclusive enough to be considered as conclusive. All the articles mention is the possible viability and details some of the research. Conclusive proof would hit the news in this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.