Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
>From the video, I gather Deneum is are trying to measure heat with a single thermocouple on the outside of the reactor. This is a bad idea. As I said in the paper, you should use a calorimeter. If they were to get ~100 W of excess heat I suppose they could detect it with a single thermocouple, but it seems unlikely to me they will get that much heat in the first attempt. I suppose that at best they will see 5 or 10 W, the same as Mizuno saw last year. You cannot detect that with a single thermocouple. Someone told me they would be disappointed of their replication produced only 5 or 10 W. That makes no sense to me. Any certain level of excess heat, even 1 W, is as good as 3 kW from a scientific point of view. It proves the effect is real, and that Mizuno's larger results are real. You can work from that to recapitulate Mizuno's efforts over the last few years to gradually ramp up to 100 W, and then 3 kW. It will take you a year or so, I suppose, because this is fundamental research into a phenomenon that no one understands. Someone suggested that a "valid replication" would have to be 100 W. I said that would be a miracle, not a replication. People should have realistic goals, and they should use every necessary tool to achieve them, from a mass spectrometer to an air-flow (or Seebeck) calorimeter. Taking shortcuts and leaving out essential steps and instruments makes it unlikely you will succeed. As I said, perhaps you will succeed if this experiment turns out to be much easier and more forgiving than Mizuno and I think it is.
RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results
If one were to look closely at the “replication” as it has proceeded thus far – there are already several significant variations from Mizuno’s procedure, besides the lack of RGA/MS. The heater is not the same – the silver solder was not in the original, the water used to rinse was not the same, and so on. Should Deneum see significant thermal gain – it will not become a true replication, even if they do add a mass-spec. That move is an unneeded delay, and actually seems to be a waste of time and resources at this juncture. They should stay the course. Let someone else dot every i. There are candidates for that. My hope therefore is that Deneum will continue with repeated similar runs over the coming days, basically repeating the general strategy they have come up with - and report the results. Much can be learned from this. It is a reasonable expectation that there will be improvement over time - and we could be in for a pleasant surprise within a week or two - even though it is not a true replication. Perhaps one of the many other experimenters around the globe – the ones who received a reactor directly from Mizuno - will be the best candidate to do a true replication. It is unrealistic and even counter-productive to imagine that Deneum would stop everything and make all of the changes which would be needed for true replication when they could be on the verge of seeing something very important - which is similar enough that it will expand the knowledge base greatly. From: Jed Rothwell JonesBeene wrote: You seem to be missing the point… and adding a dose of silly pedantry to boot. The goal here is to clean and completely degas the reactor --- NOT to learn the identity of the last bit of gas which was removed. Mizuno and other experts have told me that without a mass spec, you cannot tell whether you have cleaned and degassed the reactor. There may be materials in the wall of the reactor or the mesh that come out gradually. Also, if you bake it at the wrong stage, you cause materials to stick to the walls which are very difficult to get rid of. You need to check for them before you bake. Mizuno spelled out his methods in the paper. He said to use a mass spec. Other experts agreed with him. This experiment is hard enough to do with a mass spec and with the other recommended tools. People should not make it harder, or add to the unknowns and the guesswork. People who ignore the instructions may succeed despite that, but if they fail we will not know why. It is not really my business. My only concern is that they and others will say the instructions and the original experiment were flawed, even though they did not follow the instructions or do the experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
JonesBeene wrote: > > You seem to be missing the point… and adding a dose of silly pedantry to > boot. > > > > The goal here is to clean and completely degas the reactor --- NOT to > learn the identity of the last bit of gas which was removed. > Mizuno and other experts have told me that without a mass spec, you cannot tell whether you have cleaned and degassed the reactor. There may be materials in the wall of the reactor or the mesh that come out gradually. Also, if you bake it at the wrong stage, you cause materials to stick to the walls which are very difficult to get rid of. You need to check for them before you bake. Mizuno spelled out his methods in the paper. He said to use a mass spec. Other experts agreed with him. This experiment is hard enough to do with a mass spec and with the other recommended tools. People should not make it harder, or add to the unknowns and the guesswork. People who ignore the instructions may succeed despite that, but if they fail we will not know why. It is not really my business. My only concern is that they and others will say the instructions and the original experiment were flawed, even though they did not follow the instructions or do the experiment.
RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results
You seem to be missing the point… and adding a dose of silly pedantry to boot. The goal here is to clean and completely degas the reactor --- NOT to learn the identity of the last bit of gas which was removed. If they have a top of the line vacuum system, as appears to be the case - and they perform an overnight bake-out procedure which effectively cleans the reactor – then the mass-spec information they would have is redundant. Sure it would be great to do it by-the-letter exactly as Mizuno did it - and in a perfect world we would see that - but not having a record of the last few atoms of gas removed is not going to matter if they get it clean and leak-free. It is absurd to suggest that they should not proceed at all unless they follow every detail precisely. A successful outcome done slightly differently may add more understanding of the process than if done by-the-letter, and if it fails then they know what to do next. From: Jed Rothwell Yeah? When you are a "credentialed professional" does that mean you can ignore the instructions? Do things your way? If it does not work, does that mean we should doubt the original result? It ain't a replication, that's for sure.
Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
JonesBeene wrote: It is unwise and too early to belittle this fine effort . . . > I am not belittling it. I am pointing out that they are not following the recipe. They are not doing it the way Mizuno recommended. If it works, more power to them. If it does not work, we will not know why. > Apparently - their past success was unknown to those who are quick to be > critical. > Did they achieve their past success by ignoring the instructions? > These researchers are credentialed professionals who have had past > success in LENR. > Yeah? When you are a "credentialed professional" does that mean you can ignore the instructions? Do things your way? If it does not work, does that mean we should doubt the original result? It ain't a replication, that's for sure.
RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results
It is unwise and too early to belittle this fine effort, given their recent history of success with titanium electrolysis – where Deneum has already reported high levels of excess heat. Apparently - their past success was unknown to those who are quick to be critical. These researchers are credentialed professionals who have had past success in LENR. What we are seeing now is early stage and they chose a strategy to learn as they go. Even so, Deneum can make a valuable contribution without a mass spec or RGA. That is the main point. If they should fail to find the robust thermal anomaly – their error is correctable. As a practical consideration, the motivation for being critical at an early stages can appear to be self-serving and unnecessary. In short - Deneum have the skills to see excess heat in the early time frame, and even if they do not - it is unwise to be critical of such effort in anticipation that it may be null. They are unlikely to be part of some hidden conspiracy - being paid to produce a null result. From: Jed Rothwell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so far. At LENR-forum this person stated that they do not have a mass spectrometer. So they are not doing a professional job. They are working blind with no idea what is going on, and I suppose there is no chance it will work. If it does work, the experiment is much easier and more forgiving than Mizuno or I think it is is. I wrote this at LENR-forum: Let me restate this, as clearly as I can: People who are not skilled in the art cannot do cold fusion. People who do not have a complete set of instruments including a mass spectrometer, and who are not skilled in using these instruments, cannot do cold fusion. People who have to ask me or others how to set up the plumbing between the vacuum pump and the mass spectrometer, or what sort of plumbing to use, cannot do cold fusion. If you have to ask such things, you can't do it. That's what three top experts told me recently. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6017-mizuno-replication-and-materials-only/?postID=116420#post116420
Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:36 PM JonesBeene wrote: > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU > > > > They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so > far. > At LENR-forum this person stated that they do not have a mass spectrometer. So they are not doing a professional job. They are working blind with no idea what is going on, and I suppose there is no chance it will work. If it does work, the experiment is much easier and more forgiving than Mizuno or I think it is is. I wrote this at LENR-forum: Let me restate this, as clearly as I can: People who are not skilled in the art cannot do cold fusion. People who do not have a complete set of instruments including a mass spectrometer, and who are not skilled in using these instruments, cannot do cold fusion. People who have to ask me or others how to set up the plumbing between the vacuum pump and the mass spectrometer, or what sort of plumbing to use, cannot do cold fusion. If you have to ask such things, you can't do it. That's what three top experts told me recently. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6017-mizuno-replication-and-materials-only/?postID=116420#post116420
Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
Look should read long. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:26 PM Axil Axil wrote: > Did Mizumo or Rothwell ever say how look it takes for the LENR reaction to > activate in the R20 at initaliation? > > By the way, the formation of ultra dense matter in the R20 is an > unsupported assumption. > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:17 PM JonesBeene wrote: > >> It is not a big concern that it did not work the first time. An extended >> break-in period could be required. >> >> >> >> If one subscribes to a ‘dense deuterium’ theory of any kind – then an >> operational reactor could require a minimum working inventory of dense >> deuterium before gain is seen. >> >> >> >> Perhaps they should let it run at low power for several days >> continuously, so that a working inventory can be established. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Axil Axil >> >> >> >> Its not working...did they do something wrong >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU >> >> They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so >> far. >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
Did Mizumo or Rothwell ever say how look it takes for the LENR reaction to activate in the R20 at initaliation? By the way, the formation of ultra dense matter in the R20 is an unsupported assumption. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:17 PM JonesBeene wrote: > It is not a big concern that it did not work the first time. An extended > break-in period could be required. > > > > If one subscribes to a ‘dense deuterium’ theory of any kind – then an > operational reactor could require a minimum working inventory of dense > deuterium before gain is seen. > > > > Perhaps they should let it run at low power for several days continuously, > so that a working inventory can be established. > > > > > > *From: *Axil Axil > > > > Its not working...did they do something wrong > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU > > They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so > far. > > >
RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results
It is not a big concern that it did not work the first time. An extended break-in period could be required. If one subscribes to a ‘dense deuterium’ theory of any kind – then an operational reactor could require a minimum working inventory of dense deuterium before gain is seen. Perhaps they should let it run at low power for several days continuously, so that a working inventory can be established. From: Axil Axil Its not working...did they do something wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so far.
Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results
Its not working...did they do something wrong On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:36 PM JonesBeene wrote: > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU > > > > They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so > far. >
[Vo]:Deneum early results
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU They are doing a professional job but nothing anomalous is showing up so far.
