Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

It is important to find a way to release stored energy in the LENR process,
and I believe that a strong magnetic pulse will do that. Like
superconductivity that is destroyed by magnetism, so is LENR.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> In the case of P & F has the energy spent loading the Pd before the
>> excess heat event
>> been included in calculations of gain?
>
>
> No. There is a small energy deficit for a few hours when loading begins
> and most of the Pd-D hydride forms. You can include that if you like
> although in most cases it is a tiny fraction of the anomalous heat. After
> Pd-D 0.8 forms, output energy balances input very closely so it would make
> no sense to include the continued energy input in the balance. In most
> published examples the energy balance applies after excess heat begins. In
> a few cases I recall people showing the balance for the whole run. I think
> that is silly. You might as well include the energy used to fabricate the
> glassware and to mine the iron ore to make the stainless steel parts.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

NASA whats to form metalized hydrogen to use as Rocket fuel. It produces 20
times more energy that burning ordinary hydrogen generates. It looks like
LENR can increase that energy storage capacity by a million times. That
would make a great rocket fuel.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:50 PM, H LV  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: H LV
> >
> > Ø   All claims of excess of heat (including P's) are based on
> > observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis that the storage of
> > input energy is either irrelevant or impossible. There has never been an
> > energy audit that proves the effect yields more energy produced than all
> the
> > energy used throughout the *entire* history of an experiment.
> >
> > That’s not accurate, Harry. P ran a cell for 6 months of continuous
> gain
> > in France, and Thermacore ran for over a year. No way was the startup
> delay
> > which was not over a couple of days in either case - commensurate with
> the
> > net output over the long runtime.
> >
> > Ø   In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has
> > never
> > been ruled out.
> >
> > That is partially true, since in one sense there probably is always a
> > “storage effect,” within the process. It would be ongoing, however, and
> is
> > already factored into the net gain in situations like the above – in the
> two
> > long runs, one of P and the other Thermacore.
>
> In the case of P & F has the energy spent loading the Pd before the
> excess heat event
> been included in calculations of gain? And by that I don't mean the
> energy used in theory to the load the Pd,
> I mean the actual energy used.
> As I said in the case of Thermocore their claim of gain still involves
> an assumption about energy loss to the environment.
> The assumption might be a reasonable working hypothesis but that
> doesn't guarantee it is accurate.
>
> > If Rossi has proved net gain
> > over a year, he would be the third instance of very long gain.
> >
>
> I think it will average out to no gain.
>
> >
> > This ongoing storage would be the situation where dense hydrogen or
> > deuterium must be made in situ, before being use for gain. However, in a
> > well-controlled system, the manufacture and use are in sync and after the
> > startup delay - there is continuity of gain despite the ongoing storage.
>
> A research emphasis on gain has meant LENR's potential for energy
> storage and conversion has been overlooked.
> So even if it proves impractical or impossible for LENR to serve as a
> source of cheap and clean energy, LENR can still shine in other
> respects.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

IMHO, the production of kaons in Holmlids reactor is important stuff. Like
LENR itself, so important that all of science cannot believe it.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The noise about the flash in the pan glow stick signal is getting totally
> out of hand. Mark Twain described such ‘social media madness’ 'There is
> something fascinating about *science*. One gets such wholesale returns of
> conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.'
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 12, 2016 10:43 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT
>
>
>
> What is considered energy? Holmlid produces loads of pions, and muons, and
> electrons? Are these sub atomic particles included in the energy
> calculations.
>
>
>
> Holmlid saw a loss of energy in his reaction and that was why he whent
> looking for sub atomic particle creation.
>
>
>
> Rossi says that 50 percent of his XCat COP comes from electricity that
> newly created electrons produce. Rossi does not count the energy that it
> takes to create electrons and neutrinos in his COP figures.
>
>
>
> By the way, when matter is produced from nothing, the energy balancing
> mechanism is the creation of negative gravity or dark energy.
>
>
>
> There is a lot of matter produced by LENR in the universe because there is
> a lot of dark energy produced in the expanding universe.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> Ø   All claims of excess of heat (including P's) are based on
> observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis that the storage of
> input energy is either irrelevant or impossible. There has never been an
> energy audit that proves the effect yields more energy produced than all
> the energy used throughout the *entire* history of an experiment.
>
> That’s not accurate, Harry. P ran a cell for 6 months of continuous
> gain in France, and Thermacore ran for over a year. No way was the
> startup delay which was not over a couple of days in either case - 
> commensurate
> with the net output over the long runtime.
>
> Ø   In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has
> never
> been ruled out.
>
> That is partially true, since in one sense there probably is always a “storage
> effect,” within the process. It would be ongoing, however, and is already
> factored into the net gain in situations like the above – in the two long
> runs, one of P and the other Thermacore. If Rossi has proved net gain
> over a year, he would be the third instance of very long gain.
>
> This ongoing storage would be the situation where dense hydrogen or
> deuterium must be made in situ, before being use for gain. However, in a
> well-controlled system, the manufacture and use are in sync and after the
> startup delay - there is continuity of gain despite the ongoing storage.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> In the case of P & F has the energy spent loading the Pd before the
> excess heat event
> been included in calculations of gain?


No. There is a small energy deficit for a few hours when loading begins and
most of the Pd-D hydride forms. You can include that if you like although
in most cases it is a tiny fraction of the anomalous heat. After Pd-D 0.8
forms, output energy balances input very closely so it would make no sense
to include the continued energy input in the balance. In most published
examples the energy balance applies after excess heat begins. In a few
cases I recall people showing the balance for the whole run. I think that
is silly. You might as well include the energy used to fabricate the
glassware and to mine the iron ore to make the stainless steel parts.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[H LV]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> Ø   All claims of excess of heat (including P's) are based on
> observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis that the storage of
> input energy is either irrelevant or impossible. There has never been an
> energy audit that proves the effect yields more energy produced than all the
> energy used throughout the *entire* history of an experiment.
>
> That’s not accurate, Harry. P ran a cell for 6 months of continuous gain
> in France, and Thermacore ran for over a year. No way was the startup delay
> which was not over a couple of days in either case - commensurate with the
> net output over the long runtime.
>
> Ø   In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has
> never
> been ruled out.
>
> That is partially true, since in one sense there probably is always a
> “storage effect,” within the process. It would be ongoing, however, and is
> already factored into the net gain in situations like the above – in the two
> long runs, one of P and the other Thermacore.

In the case of P & F has the energy spent loading the Pd before the
excess heat event
been included in calculations of gain? And by that I don't mean the
energy used in theory to the load the Pd,
I mean the actual energy used.
As I said in the case of Thermocore their claim of gain still involves
an assumption about energy loss to the environment.
The assumption might be a reasonable working hypothesis but that
doesn't guarantee it is accurate.

> If Rossi has proved net gain
> over a year, he would be the third instance of very long gain.
>

I think it will average out to no gain.

>
> This ongoing storage would be the situation where dense hydrogen or
> deuterium must be made in situ, before being use for gain. However, in a
> well-controlled system, the manufacture and use are in sync and after the
> startup delay - there is continuity of gain despite the ongoing storage.

A research emphasis on gain has meant LENR's potential for energy
storage and conversion has been overlooked.
So even if it proves impractical or impossible for LENR to serve as a
source of cheap and clean energy, LENR can still shine in other
respects.

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Russ George]

The noise about the flash in the pan glow stick signal is getting totally out 
of hand. Mark Twain described such ‘social media madness’ 'There is something 
fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of 
such a trifling investment of fact.'

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 10:43 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

 

What is considered energy? Holmlid produces loads of pions, and muons, and 
electrons? Are these sub atomic particles included in the energy calculations.

 

Holmlid saw a loss of energy in his reaction and that was why he whent looking 
for sub atomic particle creation. 

 

Rossi says that 50 percent of his XCat COP comes from electricity that newly 
created electrons produce. Rossi does not count the energy that it takes to 
create electrons and neutrinos in his COP figures.

 

By the way, when matter is produced from nothing, the energy balancing 
mechanism is the creation of negative gravity or dark energy.

 

There is a lot of matter produced by LENR in the universe because there is a 
lot of dark energy produced in the expanding universe.

 

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

-Original Message-
From: H LV

*   All claims of excess of heat (including P's) are based on 
observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis that the storage of input 
energy is either irrelevant or impossible. There has never been an energy audit 
that proves the effect yields more energy produced than all the energy used 
throughout the *entire* history of an experiment.

That’s not accurate, Harry. P ran a cell for 6 months of continuous gain in 
France, and Thermacore ran for over a year. No way was the startup delay which 
was not over a couple of days in either case - commensurate with the net output 
over the long runtime.

*   In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has never
been ruled out.

That is partially true, since in one sense there probably is always a “storage 
effect,” within the process. It would be ongoing, however, and is already 
factored into the net gain in situations like the above – in the two long runs, 
one of P and the other Thermacore. If Rossi has proved net gain over a year, 
he would be the third instance of very long gain.

This ongoing storage would be the situation where dense hydrogen or deuterium 
must be made in situ, before being use for gain. However, in a well-controlled 
system, the manufacture and use are in sync and after the startup delay - there 
is continuity of gain despite the ongoing storage.

 

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

What is considered energy? Holmlid produces loads of pions, and muons, and
electrons? Are these sub atomic particles included in the energy
calculations.

Holmlid saw a loss of energy in his reaction and that was why he whent
looking for sub atomic particle creation.

Rossi says that 50 percent of his XCat COP comes from electricity that
newly created electrons produce. Rossi does not count the energy that it
takes to create electrons and neutrinos in his COP figures.

By the way, when matter is produced from nothing, the energy balancing
mechanism is the creation of negative gravity or dark energy.

There is a lot of matter produced by LENR in the universe because there is
a lot of dark energy produced in the expanding universe.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> Ø   All claims of excess of heat (including P's) are based on
> observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis that the storage of
> input energy is either irrelevant or impossible. There has never been an
> energy audit that proves the effect yields more energy produced than all
> the energy used throughout the *entire* history of an experiment.
>
> That’s not accurate, Harry. P ran a cell for 6 months of continuous gain
> in France, and Thermacore ran for over a year. No way was the startup
> delay which was not over a couple of days in either case - commensurate
> with the net output over the long runtime.
>
> Ø   In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has
> never
> been ruled out.
>
> That is partially true, since in one sense there probably is always a “storage
> effect,” within the process. It would be ongoing, however, and is already
> factored into the net gain in situations like the above – in the two long
> runs, one of P and the other Thermacore. If Rossi has proved net gain
> over a year, he would be the third instance of very long gain.
>
> This ongoing storage would be the situation where dense hydrogen or
> deuterium must be made in situ, before being use for gain. However, in a
> well-controlled system, the manufacture and use are in sync and after the
> startup delay - there is continuity of gain despite the ongoing storage.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV
*   All claims of excess of heat (including P's) are based on 
observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis that the storage of input 
energy is either irrelevant or impossible. There has never been an energy audit 
that proves the effect yields more energy produced than all the energy used 
throughout the *entire* history of an experiment.
That’s not accurate, Harry. P ran a cell for 6 months of continuous gain in 
France, and Thermacore ran for over a year. No way was the startup delay which 
was not over a couple of days in either case - commensurate with the net output 
over the long runtime.
*   In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has never
been ruled out.
That is partially true, since in one sense there probably is always a “storage 
effect,” within the process. It would be ongoing, however, and is already 
factored into the net gain in situations like the above – in the two long runs, 
one of P and the other Thermacore. If Rossi has proved net gain over a year, 
he would be the third instance of very long gain.

This ongoing storage would be the situation where dense hydrogen or deuterium 
must be made in situ, before being use for gain. However, in a well-controlled 
system, the manufacture and use are in sync and after the startup delay - there 
is continuity of gain despite the ongoing storage.

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

Energy storage is confirmed through the energy calculations provided in the
photo track analysis of exotic neutral particles(ENP). The energy content
of the ENP is proportional to the length of the track on the film.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:40 AM, H LV  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: H LV
> >
> >> Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's
> estimate for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the
> "heat loss to the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs and
> the active runs.
> >
> > Yes, but that parameter can be accurately controlled and measured by
> skilled experts.
> >
> > Thermacore is possibly the leading expert in the world at heat
> measurement. They invented the heat pipe, for instance. Thermal engineering
> is their specialty.
> >
>
> Even if calorimetry established there was no excess heat, the thermal
> anomaly would survive. All claims of excess of heat (including P's)
> are based on observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis
> that the storage of input energy is either irrelevant or impossible.
> There has never been an energy audit that proves the effect yields
> more energy produced than all the energy used through out the *entire*
> history of an experiment.
>
> quoting Mckubre
> < "Fleischmann-Pons Effect", that there is "heat production consistent
> with nuclear but not chemical energy or known lattice storage
> effect".>> from the wikipedia page on Martin Fleishman.
>
> In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has never
> been ruled out.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[H LV]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's estimate 
>> for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the "heat loss to 
>> the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs and the active runs.
>
> Yes, but that parameter can be accurately controlled and measured by skilled 
> experts.
>
> Thermacore is possibly the leading expert in the world at heat measurement. 
> They invented the heat pipe, for instance. Thermal engineering is their 
> specialty.
>

Even if calorimetry established there was no excess heat, the thermal
anomaly would survive. All claims of excess of heat (including P's)
are based on observations of thermal anomalies plus the hypothesis
that the storage of input energy is either irrelevant or impossible.
There has never been an energy audit that proves the effect yields
more energy produced than all the energy used through out the *entire*
history of an experiment.

quoting Mckubre
<> from the wikipedia page on Martin Fleishman.

In other words, the possibility of "unknown" storage effect has never
been ruled out.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

It is possible that the powder of dust under discussion is produced by
the LENR device. It is also possible that both Radon and the LENR
device are producing reactive dust.

The LENR dust could be metalized hydrogen that is not properly
confined by the LENR device. There have been experiments that have
checked how to confined LENR reactive dust. In terms of confinement,
steel works and aluminum does not confine this LENR dust.

The wire reactor is confined using quartz. This experiment should be
done using steel confinement. It is possible that when very hot
hydrogen will pass through steel.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's estimate 
>> for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the "heat loss to 
>> the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs and the active runs.
>
> Yes, but that parameter can be accurately controlled and measured by skilled 
> experts.
>
> Thermacore is possibly the leading expert in the world at heat measurement. 
> They invented the heat pipe, for instance. Thermal engineering is their 
> specialty.
>

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

> Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's estimate 
> for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the "heat loss to 
> the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs and the active runs.

Yes, but that parameter can be accurately controlled and measured by skilled 
experts. 

Thermacore is possibly the leading expert in the world at heat measurement. 
They invented the heat pipe, for instance. Thermal engineering is their 
specialty.

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[H LV]

Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's
estimate for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the
"heat loss to the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs
and the active runs.

Harry

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Here is the relevant citation from the LENR-CANR library – it is one of the
> strongest demonstrations of Ni-H out there, in the sense of the credibility
> of the High Technology company doing the work, and acceptance by the funder
> (USAF - WRIGHT-PATTERSON) and the fact they ran a similar experiment for
> over a year of gain. Modest gain but solid proof.
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
>
> I would be extremely happy if Rossi’s result was the same range of COP (1.5)
> as long as the proof was as verifiable as this.
>
> One has to wonder about the credibility of an anonymous poster who claims to
> get excess heat in a Celani experiment, publishes no data, and instead of
> using Constantin wire as does Celani – he uses nickel. Or is the data and
> other details posted somewhere?
>
> At best - that makes it a Thermacore experiment, which actually gives it
> more credibility than Celani. But it should not be confused with Celani
> where the wire treatment is said to be critical.
>
> There is no doubt that Thermacore had about the same gain using nickel and
> also could not make it go higher than about COP ~1.5.
>
> From: Jack Cole
>
> me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani
> type experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe
> that matters.
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1
>
> Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type experiments
> and notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal
> communication, he indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is
> currently focused on TiH2.
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/
>
> Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something
> discovered which invalidates the results.
>
> Jack
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jack Cole]

It is interesting.  And 500' of nickel tubing is far beyond the amount of
nickel used in any experiment I've seen.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:15 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Here is the relevant citation from the LENR-CANR library – it is one of
> the strongest demonstrations of Ni-H out there, in the sense of the
> credibility of the High Technology company doing the work, and acceptance
> by the funder (USAF - WRIGHT-PATTERSON) and the fact they ran a similar
> experiment for over a year of gain. Modest gain but solid proof.
>
> *http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf*
> 
>
> I would be extremely happy if Rossi’s result was the same range of COP
> (1.5) as long as the proof was as verifiable as this.
>
> One has to wonder about the credibility of an anonymous poster who claims
> to get excess heat in a Celani experiment, publishes no data, and instead
> of using Constantin wire as does Celani – he uses nickel. Or is the data
> and other details posted somewhere?
>
> At best - that makes it a Thermacore experiment, which actually gives it
> more credibility than Celani. But it should not be confused with Celani
> where the wire treatment is said to be critical.
>
> There is no doubt that Thermacore had about the same gain using nickel and
> also could not make it go higher than about COP ~1.5.
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
> me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani
> type experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe
> that matters.
>
>
> *https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1*
> 
>
> Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type
> experiments and notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal
> communication, he indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is
> currently focused on TiH2.
>
>
> *http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/*
> 
>
> Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something
> discovered which invalidates the results.
>
> Jack
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

Here is the relevant citation from the LENR-CANR library – it is one of the 
strongest demonstrations of Ni-H out there, in the sense of the credibility of 
the High Technology company doing the work, and acceptance by the funder (USAF 
- WRIGHT-PATTERSON) and the fact they ran a similar experiment for over a year 
of gain. Modest gain but solid proof. 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

I would be extremely happy if Rossi’s result was the same range of COP (1.5) as 
long as the proof was as verifiable as this.



One has to wonder about the credibility of an anonymous poster who claims to 
get excess heat in a Celani experiment, publishes no data, and instead of using 
Constantin wire as does Celani – he uses nickel. Or is the data and other 
details posted somewhere?

At best - that makes it a Thermacore experiment, which actually gives it more 
credibility than Celani. But it should not be confused with Celani where the 
wire treatment is said to be critical.

There is no doubt that Thermacore had about the same gain using nickel and also 
could not make it go higher than about COP ~1.5. 

From: Jack Cole 

me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani type 
experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe that 
matters.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1

Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type experiments and 
notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal communication, he 
indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is currently focused on TiH2.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/

Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something discovered 
which invalidates the results.  

Jack



 

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

Jack,

 

One has to wonder about the credibility of an anonymous poster who claims to 
get excess heat in a Celani experiment, publishes no data, and instead of using 
Constantin wire as does Celani – he uses nickel. Or is the data and other 
details posted somewhere?

 

At best - that makes it a Thermacore experiment, which actually gives it more 
credibility than Celani. But it should not be confused with Celani where the 
wire treatment is said to be critical.

 

There is no doubt that Thermacore had about the same gain using nickel and also 
could not make it go higher than about COP ~1.5. 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani type 
experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe that 
matters.

 

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1

 

Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type experiments and 
notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal communication, he 
indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is currently focused on TiH2.

 

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/

 

Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something discovered 
which invalidates the results.  

 

Jack

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Russ George]

Good luck keeping TiHx ductile enough to remain intact! If the loading level is 
kept low the metal remains OK but as loading levels go over 1:1 the metal 
becomes increasingly embrittled and falls to pieces. Don’t expect to keep a Ti 
wire with a coiled bend intact for long. If the idea is to benefit from 
hydrogen loading increasing at one end of the wire success results in friable 
fractured wire. Typically before ‘cold fusion’ arises growth of defects 
de-loads it. As for ‘cold fusion’ occurring in Ti it is a terrific environment, 
at least as good as Pd likely better. Zr and Nb also are similarly effective. 

 

From: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 5:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

 

me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani type 
experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe that 
matters.

 

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1

 

Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type experiments and 
notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal communication, he 
indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is currently focused on TiH2.

 

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/

 

Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something discovered 
which invalidates the results.  

 

Jack

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

From: Ken Deboer

 

… it may yet be possible to 3d print various lattices of nickel. The industry 
blurb from Nano Dimensions from Israel included here is kinda interesting.

 

 

Yes – especially if they can print quantum dots. Googling “nickel quantum dots” 
turns up lots of hits for solar powered water splitting. If any alternative 
energy technology is more exciting and desirable than LENR, it is photovoltaic 
water splitting. 

 

However, the level of hyper-inflated claims is even higher … but it seems to be 
no coincidence that nickel figures prominently in both. That is likely because 
of an affinity to hydrogen which is not yet understood.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jack Cole]

me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani
type experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe
that matters.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1

Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type experiments
and notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal
communication, he indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is
currently focused on TiH2.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/

Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something
discovered which invalidates the results.

Jack





On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Ken Deboer
>
>
>
> … it may yet be possible to 3d print various lattices of nickel. The
> industry blurb from Nano Dimensions from Israel included here is kinda
> interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes – especially if they can print quantum dots. Googling “nickel quantum
> dots” turns up lots of hits for solar powered water splitting. If any
> alternative energy technology is more exciting and desirable than LENR, it
> is photovoltaic water splitting.
>
>
>
> However, the level of hyper-inflated claims is even higher … but it seems
> to be no coincidence that nickel figures prominently in both. That is
> likely because of an affinity to hydrogen which is not yet understood.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

From: Ken Deboer

 

… it may yet be possible to 3d print various lattices of nickel. The industry 
blurb from Nano Dimensions from Israel included here is kinda interesting.

 

 

Yes – especially if they can print quantum dots. Googling “nickel quantum dots” 
turns up lots of hits for solar powered water splitting. If any alternative 
energy technology is more exciting and desirable than LENR, it is photovoltaic 
water splitting. 

 

However, the level of hyper-inflated claims is even higher … but it seems to be 
no coincidence that nickel figures prominently in both. That is likely because 
of an affinity to hydrogen which is not yet understood.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Ken Deboer]

Still  wondering if instead of nickel wires or sintered powder etc, it may
yet be possible to 3d print various lattices of nickel.  The industry blurb
from Nano Dimensions from Israel included here is kinda interesting.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> I lost track of the discussion but I recall there was still one graph that
>> looked promising, with a conservative claim of anomalous heat. Perhaps it
>> is still unresolved?
>>
>
> Ah, here we are:
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3
>
> - Jed
>
>


nickel.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

I lost track of the discussion but I recall there was still one graph that
> looked promising, with a conservative claim of anomalous heat. Perhaps it
> is still unresolved?
>

Ah, here we are:

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

I have serious doubts about any Celani reaction working at all. There have
> been too many high quality builds which have failed.
>

I have doubts as well. I agree that there have been many high quality
builds. What's more, in many cases they have received wires directly from
Celani as well as technical support from him. I do not know of any
successful replications.

There was some indication of excess heat from the MFMP described here
starting on Feb. 24. First they thought it was 1.20 times input. Then they
kind of retracted and said it was more like 1.06 times input which would be
within the noise. I lost track of the discussion but I recall there was
still one graph that looked promising, with a conservative claim of
anomalous heat. Perhaps it is still unresolved?

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

I have serious doubts about any Celani reaction working at all. There have been 
too many high quality builds which have failed. 

The main problem could be that the physical layout of Celani's experiment does 
not favor SPP creation. Sure, LENR happened for decades without plasmons, 
especially at the subwatt level, but evidence is turning up that the this 
approach is more effective at higher power- 100 watts and up. 

The glow-tube layout can be made to better favor SPP creation with a few mods. 
It is ridiculously inefficient as a light source now. When run with deuterium 
it will have a better chance of showing a respectable COP simply by using a 
mirrored reflector to concentrate photons, which couple far better to bosons. 

A recent paper is one of many to show that surface plasmons are indeed bosonic: 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0813

QUOTE: "we measure a coincidence dip with a visibility of 72%, a key signature
that SPPs are bosons and that quantum interference is clearly involved."

It could scarcely be clearer that if the glow-tube is benefiting from SPP, the 
experiment needs to use deuterium instead of protium.

-Original Message-
From: Russ George

In the past week a report of Jeff Morriss on a distinct radiation signature 
during a Cellani style lenr wire experiment created much interest. Jeff has now 
found the bugs in the data, radon fleas!