Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote:
> Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. >> > > Ah, so if Ed speaks "loosely" it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a > thing I'm simply wrong? > Not if you are speaking loosely! > And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's > called "LENR"? Let's call lab stuff such as Cellini's work and whatever > Rossi and Defkalion are doing, "experiments." > I do not think Rossi is doing experiments. He does not seem to be methodically taking data or compiling tables the way the Wrights did, or the way any scientist does. My impression is that he is doing something similar to a pre-modern craftsman such as a Japanese sword maker. That is, intuitively guided trial and error. This method does work, since Japanese swords were fantastic. He does have a great deal of knowledge of catalysis so it is informed trial and error. > So: > > 1. There is claimed to be anomalous heat generation in some experiments > 2. The experiments are not reliably repeatable > 3. To date there is no theory that has been tested that explains the > anomalous heat generation > > Is that a fair summary? > Well, I think that is a little skimpy. We know more than that. You have left out some vital details, such as the fact that there are no chemical changes and some cells produce 10,000 to 100,000 times more heat than any possible chemical device of the same mass could. That is a lot more significant than just saying "anomalous heat." Also, I would not say "there is claimed." That sounds like a something witnesses caught a glimpse of. I would say: rigorously peer-reviewed results have been published in major journals, including many results measured at high s/n ratios with the best available instruments, in thousands of tests, in 200 major laboratories. That sounds more convincing, doesn't it? The thing is, my version is factually right. Your version is . . . somewhat slanted, in my opinion. Somewhat dismissive. "Reliably repeated" is not quite accurate. Bockris used to run an array of 10 x 10 cells, 100 at a time. As far as I know he always got some to work, around 10 to 30 of them. That is reliable. I would summarize the situation as follows: 1. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers from 200 major laboratories describing anomalous heat and tritium, often at extremely high signal to noise ratios; i.e., heat at 100 W with no input, and tritium at millions of times background. It is not possible such measurements are all in error. If that could happen, the scientific method would not work. 2. There are other papers showing helium production in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion produces. Neutrons and other transmutations have also been detected. 3. There is not a single example in the literature of anomalous heat accompanied by chemical changes. In many cases cells have produced much more energy than any chemical reaction can produce; sometimes 10,000 to 100,000 times more. In other words, a device the size of a coin sometimes produces hundreds of megajoules, which is more heat than you would get if you burned everything in the room, yourself included. 4. The experiments can only be reproduced by experts, just as only experts can clone animals, fly airplanes or perform open heart surgery. The success rate is typically around 1/3 for most experts. This is better than the success rate for most transistor production lines in the 1950s, and far better than the success rate for cloning, which is 1 in 1000 attempts. It is astronomically better than the success rate for the top quark, which was observed in one laboratory in two events, over two years of testing (I think). That is at a collision rate of several billion particles per second. (A success rate of 1 in ~10E16.) Note that a low success rate is never considered a criterion to reject an experimental finding, in any branch of science. 5. There is no generally accepted physics theory. To my knowledge, there is no physics theory with predictive power. That is, one that can guide an experimentalist to building more reliable devices. There are, however, many chemical theories and rules such as McKubre's formula that have been used successfully to improve performance. 6. Power density and temperatures roughly equivalent to the core of a fission reactor have been sustained in continuous, stable reactions lasting up to 3 months at Toyota, so there is no question that if the reaction can be controlled, it can be made into a useful source of energy. - Jed
