Re: [Vo]:Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc: 'This is LENR.'
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Lewan Mats mats.le...@nyteknik.se wrote: udge for Yourself: The composition of the gas mass on the exit of the hydrogen reactor in one hour makes more than 7 kg of hydrogen. Since the working substance in the Symphony 7A is water, then its decomposition product can only be oxygen and hydrogen. Perhaps Robin will correct me if I'm wrong, but the decomposition of oxygen into hydrogen can be expected to be extremely endothermic. That is, in the universe we know and love, you would need to feed a *lot* of energy into the system to obtain such a result. Unless the required energy comes from another dimension through a portal. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc: 'This is LENR.'
They say that they have a patent application but I can't find it. I want to read the patent. Does anyone have a link to this patent application? On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Lewan Mats mats.le...@nyteknik.se wrote: udge for Yourself: The composition of the gas mass on the exit of the hydrogen reactor in one hour makes more than 7 kg of hydrogen. Since the working substance in the Symphony 7A is water, then its decomposition product can only be oxygen and hydrogen. Perhaps Robin will correct me if I'm wrong, but the decomposition of oxygen into hydrogen can be expected to be extremely endothermic. That is, in the universe we know and love, you would need to feed a *lot* of energy into the system to obtain such a result. Unless the required energy comes from another dimension through a portal. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc: 'This is LENR.'
Mats, Have there been any independent tests? Are there more details about how this is supposed to work than given in that link? It sounds like it is less likely theoretically than the Rossi effect.
Re: [Vo]:daily info and more about the Scientific Method
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:00 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Einstein also was deeply troubled by the concept of quantum entanglement. Recall his thoughts about spooky action at a distance. I believe this is dealt with in Bohm's and De Broglie's pilot wave theory through the concept of path memory [1], which results in something that looks identical to action at a distance. That is to say, Einstein's issues might have all gone back to the Copenhagen interpretation after all. (I'm not sure about this.) Eric [1] http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Re: [Vo]:Jiang slides Fig. 6
more than being probably correct as you conclude, this experiment unlike Lugano can be reproduced and thus improved. The protocol is more clean, involve less manual phases, so with a plan ans some samples a third party should probably replicate. anyway maybe there is some accidental unnoticed parameter http://blog.disorderedmatter.eu/2009/03/16/wolfgang-pauli-speaking/ *One shouldn’t work on semiconductors, that is a filthy mess; who knows if they really exist!* *God created the solids, the devil their surfaces.* Wolfgang Pauli 2015-06-04 20:42 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Someone pointed out to me that the T3 malfunction does not appear to be temperature related. T3 starts to go haywire around 1050°C, at around 15:00. You can zoom in on the slides here and see that kind of detail: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Jiang%20DATA%202015-May-04%20to%20May-07.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
MFMP's instrumentation error is currently of about 10%. If they had excess heat in the last experiment it unfortunately was within the measurement error... What we need (considering keeping the current setup), then, is a high amount of excess heat. Typically, nuclear reactions need a certain critical mass. In the Lugano report it is said that Rossi have loaded the reactor with about 1 gram of fuel (http://www.sifferkoll.se/.../2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf). MFMP used 0.6 grams. Also, the inner diameter (ID) of the alumina tube used in the Lugano report was about 4 mm, while MFMP have used a tube with ID equal to 3.175 mm. I have suggested to them use more fuel and an alumina tube with ID = 3.9624 mm. They mentioned they are planning a new experiment with more fuel. Let's hope they find the right parameters, if there are any... Alberto. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during this initial test. Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time around. I think of an error that is in one's favor as a banker's error. If one discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it should be, there is less incentive to complain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
I believe that this last MFMP experiement is suffering from a undersized fuel load. But a larger fuel load will most likely blowout the alumina tube when the temperature hits the 600C critical temperature. The energy burst from from a larger fuel load when the reactor hits that critical temperture threshold will blowout the tube. The amount of fuel used in the LENR reactor may be a critical parameter in the robustness of the reaction. In the alumina tube reactor design, only a very small amount of fuel can be tolerated. If too much fuel is used, a blowout occurs. The oxide compound of the containment tube makes the alumina tube hydrogen tight. In the latest MFMP reactor design, only a fraction of a gram fuel load is used and no blowout occurred. But the reaction was not very vigorous. Songsheng Jiang used another approach. His reactor is strong. It can constrain and control far more fuel. His reaction shows bursts of power that are very vigorous. This type of reaction would blowout an alumina tube. But Jianr’s reactor is stainless steel which can resist bursts of high LENR activity. Being a metal, the realitively high heat conductivity and ductilibility of stainless steel will absorb and distribute the bursts of LENR energy more readily than a ceramic tube would thus mitigating the destructive potential of the energy bursts. Jianr makes his reactor hydrogen tight by using a ceramic outer container. That ceramic is probably an oxide that keeps the hydrogen that leaks through the stainless steel contained. Like in a nuclear rector, the amount of nuclear active material used is critical to keep the reaction under control. The amount of fuel used must be matched with the strength of the reactor’s ability to contain the reaction. But more fuel makes the reaction proportionally more viable. Like fire, a small fire is proportionally harder to manage than a large one. A large reaction will mitigate any flaws in the reactor’s design and/or management. A strong reactor design like the tungsten tube design that I have previously recommenced would be able to hold a large amount of fuel and fully able to contain the near instantanous energy bursts produced by that large fuel load when the reactor hits the critical reaction startup temperature. A strong metal reactor is the best way to show what LENR can do. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: MFMP's instrumentation error is currently of about 10%. If they had excess heat in the last experiment it unfortunately was within the measurement error... What we need (considering keeping the current setup), then, is a high amount of excess heat. Typically, nuclear reactions need a certain critical mass. In the Lugano report it is said that Rossi have loaded the reactor with about 1 gram of fuel (http://www.sifferkoll.se/.../2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf). MFMP used 0.6 grams. Also, the inner diameter (ID) of the alumina tube used in the Lugano report was about 4 mm, while MFMP have used a tube with ID equal to 3.175 mm. I have suggested to them use more fuel and an alumina tube with ID = 3.9624 mm. They mentioned they are planning a new experiment with more fuel. Let's hope they find the right parameters, if there are any... Alberto. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during this initial test. Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time around. I think of an error that is in one's favor as a banker's error. If one discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it should be, there is less incentive to complain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:actually it is about extending the LENR taxonomy
Hello Peter, I was impressed by the report *http://kochari.info/2014/05/07/solar-hydrogen-trends-inc-s-chief-scientist-konstantin-balakiryan-reveals-the-secrets-of-the-hydrogen-reactor-symphony-7a/ http://kochari.info/2014/05/07/solar-hydrogen-trends-inc-s-chief-scientist-konstantin-balakiryan-reveals-the-secrets-of-the-hydrogen-reactor-symphony-7a/* If my math is correct we are talking about a COP close to 500. I looked on the company website but became no more enlightened about what is going on. I understand that there are many objections to hydrogen as a replacement to gas (petrol). Distribution, volume required, cost of production, efficiency of fuel-cells to mention a few. If this technology works reliable I see no reason for it to not be a winner. Is there any further information about the cost and what stands in the way of commercialization? I understand time / engineering but . . . . Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, this is for today http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/06/geofusion-new-voice-in-lenr-great-opera.html Please think about and try to define your Research Ideolog we have to make some essential decisions Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Jiang slides Fig. 6
Someone pointed out to me that the T3 malfunction does not appear to be temperature related. T3 starts to go haywire around 1050°C, at around 15:00. You can zoom in on the slides here and see that kind of detail: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Jiang%20DATA%202015-May-04%20to%20May-07.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc: 'This is LENR.'
http://kochari.info/2014/05/07/solar-hydrogen-trends-inc-s-chief-scientist-konstantin-balakiryan-reveals-the-secrets-of-the-hydrogen-reactor-symphony-7a/ QA with this item, among others: 1. “This is Nuclear” Professor K. Balakiryan – “We have been avoiding using this term for some time because we are seriously investigating, and treat the scientific work and the description of physical phenomena, with the utmost of respect. We never display our wishful thinking as if it were reality as many do in various parts of the world. We can confidently state that in Symphony 7A, there is a transmutation process of atoms of oxygen into hydrogen. Judge for Yourself: The composition of the gas mass on the exit of the hydrogen reactor in one hour makes more than 7 kg of hydrogen. Since the working substance in the Symphony 7A is water, then its decomposition product can only be oxygen and hydrogen. There is no oxygen on exit. However, there is hydrogen, which is eight (8) times more than it should be. And where is the oxygen? There should be 6.2 kg. But there is not. Leakage of oxygen is excluded, because we know how volatile hydrogen is, and we made sure that our hydrogen reactor is hermetically sealed. The answer is clear – “This is transmutation!” However, transmutation of oxygen atoms to hydrogen atoms (reaction) at temperatures below 80F, and with energy input of 0.5 kWh can be called “low energy nuclear reactions” (LENR, aka cold fusion [but in this case it’s not “fusion”]). There are no other options. Therefore, this is classical LENR!!! To understand and scientifically describe all processes in the hydrogen reactor, it will require efforts of hundreds of scientists and theoretical physicists and experimentalists. A team of scientists from Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. hopes that in the next few years, in partnership with you, esteemed members of the scientific community, we’ll get the justification of physical processes in hydrogen LENR reactors Symphony 7 series.
[Vo]:actually it is about extending the LENR taxonomy
Dear Friends, this is for today http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/06/geofusion-new-voice-in-lenr-great-opera.html Please think about and try to define your Research Ideolog we have to make some essential decisions Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:daily info and more about the Scientific Method
Axil, entanglement and the future directing the past might be part of the barrier to LENR theory. All control loops are based on normal linear time and no one is even suggesting instantaneous control or spooky action at a distance much less strategic posttest measurements that could be used to alter/control previous [from our perspective] operation [could pwm have some of this quality?].. but the geometry and environment do make it a candidate for this intriguing possibility. We have already seen anomalous radioactive decays but science as a community only thinks of time dilation in terms of near C or equivalent gravity wells.. there is very little experimental knowledge wrt Warps, for one thing the smooth square law transition between gravitational levels in a gravity well do not appear to apply- Cavity QED refers to breaches in isotropy where the inverse cube or even the inverse spacing to the 4th [for ideal metals] allows for an entire tapestry of different vacuum pressure in violation of macro isotropy. Also we are 3d creatures immersed in what we perceive as a constant sea of time and can only perceive velocity as dx/dt where dt is a constant – hence we see “stop” as 0dx/dt but if you can alter dt directly [through nano geometry/suppression] the whole “price you pay” for large values of dx and it’s Pythagorean relationship with time go out the window. The other oddball consequence of this particular rabbit hole is that we are equivalent to the “slowed down” paradox twin who comes back to earth young when compared to the radioactive gas exposed to warping [essentially a negative well]. IOW the tiny radioactive observer would perceive us as getting slow while from it’s perspective it is still decaying at it’s normal rate – only when the gas is removed and measured in our frame will the anomaly be exposed. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 2:00 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:daily info and more about the Scientific Method Physicist Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of relativity and the father of modern physics could never bring himself to believe in quantum mechanics. This inability to believe is common in science in regards to LENR. No matter what experiments are done that show LENR, science will just refuse to believe. The root of his behavior is centered on the quantum mechanical nature of the LENR reaction. LENR is from another world that is simply not acceptable to the common experience of people. There are dozens of versions of quantum mechanics, each describing worlds that are far beyond the experience of the “real” world. Can the future direct the past. There are QM experiments that show this, but people just don’t believe that this can happen. Are there endless worlds of alternate realities. Even I don’t believe in that idea. Galileo would have a hard time with his credibility if he lived today and was a quantum experimenter. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It is here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/06/galileo-has-created-rigorous-scientific.html some surprises today and not bad Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Jiang slides Fig. 6
Jiang's last message to me confirmed that T2 finally bit the dust: We hope[d] to calibrate T2 after experiment, but when cooling down to 150°C,T2 was working abnormal,and T2 finally died on 11 May, temperture to zero. *My conclusion* I think there was excess heat on May 5. Based on T1 (red line), I think the heat continued up to around 19:00, in two bursts. T4 (purple line) also shows some signs of this, even though it was cooled by a fan and mounted outside the cell. What happened after 19:00 is unclear to me. Here is some other evidence for excess heat on May 5 and 6: On May 5, T4 shows a definite increase, even though it is mounted outside the cell with a cooling fan. I think I see a slight temperature elevation in T4 on May 6 as well. On May 6, T1 definitely rose again, even though input power was stable. There is no sign that T1 was damaged or that it ever exceeded 1300°C so I think it is reliable. I think this experiment is better than Lugano or Parkhomov's. I will translate the two graphs, annotate them with the text I added to the Fig. 6 screen. I will upload the slides in an Acrobat file, and send the link to E-Cat World. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:daily info and more about the Scientific Method
Einstein also was deeply troubled by the concept of quantum entanglement. Recall his thoughts about spooky action at a distance. If I recall correctly, the other physicists of the time thought he was behind the time and perhaps past his prime. My thoughts are that he had a far superior capability for the visualization of phenomena. When theories became impossible to relate to common sense he could not use this gift further. If Mills is correct, then Einstein might well have been able to continue in his usual manner. Better instruments may one day reveal that quantum mechanics has much wrong in their approximations to reality. So far many strange behaviors described by the quantum theory appear to be explained. I await the coming of the next better theory, or it may just take additional adjustments to the main one. The only thing that we can count on is that change is coming one day just as it has in the last thousands of years. Once Newton's understanding of gravitation was the ultimate answer. Predicting the future is never an easy task, but predicting that a future change to our understanding of nature will come is relatively easy. I always recall the scientist that felt that the patent office should be closed due to the lack of anything new of value to be invented. His thinking was premature! Perhaps in a thousand years it will be time to shut down that shop, but I would not count on it. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2015 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:daily info and more about the Scientific Method On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Lasers and their kin did not come into play until much later than they were possible. A.N. Whitehead felt that the ancient Greeks might have had enough knowledge of physics and math to discover that steam could be used a source of locomotive power had they been tea drinkers and observed boiling tea kettles. (I can't find the original quote and am going off of someone's paraphrase.) The practical harnessing of steam power, of course, was a major contributor to the industrial revolution. Albert knew something was not right and he spent much of his life trying to find the real truth. I get the sense that Einstein's objections were not with the facts relating to quantum behavior, but with the Copenhagen interpretation specifically. Did his objections go beyond that (Interesting to note that Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect, in which light is observed to behave in a quantum manner.) Eric
