Re: [Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

2024-02-22 Thread Jed Rothwell
I asked the Bot about F's original paper:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf

My questions were mainly about these two paragraphs:

(a) Excess enthalpy generation is markedly dependent on the applied current
density (i.e. magnitude of the shift in
the chemical potential) and is proportional to the volume of the
electrodes, i.e. we are dealing with a phenomenon in
the bulk of the Pd electrodes.

(b) Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode;
this is maintained for experiment times
in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of
electrode volume was liberated. It is
inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes.

*Overview* (auto-generated)
The document is about a study on electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
of deuterium.

*What is the H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen and
deuterium?* (auto-generated
question)
The document mentions that the H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen
and deuterium is of special interest and is explained in Figures 4 and 6 of
reference 2. However, the specific value of the H/D separation factor is
not provided in the document.


[The following are my questions, not auto-generated]
*What is the energy density of the reaction?*
The document does not explicitly state the energy density of the reaction.


*Is the reaction in proportion to surface area or volume?*
Based on the information provided in the document, it is not explicitly
stated whether the reaction is in proportion to surface area or volume.
However, we can make some inferences based on the data provided in Table 1.

Table 1 shows the generation of excess enthalpy in Pd cathodes as a
function of current density and electrode size. The "Excess specific rate
of heating" column provides the rate of excess heating per unit volume (W
cm-3).

>From the data in Table 1, we can observe that the "Excess specific rate of
heating" increases with increasing electrode size (dimensions) and current
density. This suggests that the reaction is likely dependent on the volume
of the electrode rather than just the surface area.

Additionally, the document mentions that the effects of enthalpy generation
are proportional to the volume of the electrodes and that the experiments
are close to the break-even point. This further supports the idea that the
reaction is dependent on the volume of the electrode.

Therefore, based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the
reaction is likely in proportion to the volume of the electrode.


*Could the enthalpy generation be caused by a chemical process?*

No, the enthalpy generation observed in the experiments is not likely to be
caused by a chemical process. The document mentions that the magnitude of
the effects observed in the experiments is too large to be explained by
anything other than nuclear processes. The excess enthalpy generation is
proportional to the volume of the electrodes and can exceed 10 W cm-3 of
the palladium electrode. This level of enthalpy release is inconceivable to
be due to a chemical process. Additionally, the document states that the
effects observed in the experiments are consistent with nuclear processes
and that reactions (v) and (vi) (2D + 2D fusion reactions) are only a small
part of the overall reaction scheme. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that
the enthalpy generation is caused by a chemical process.


Re: [Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

2024-02-22 Thread Jed Rothwell
Document processing AI is also making progress. Adobe Acrobat just added a
new feature, the AI Assistant. It works with documents in native Acrobat
format, not a scanned document converted to Acrobat. I tried it with my
book, but it said, "the feature only supports files with less than 120
pages." So I tried it with my paper, "How to Fix Global Warming."
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhowtofixgl.pdf

Here are some of the responses from the AI:


*Overview* (generates automatically when you turn on the AI)

The document discusses how cold fusion technology can help mitigate global
warming by eliminating carbon emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration
through reforestation projects.


*Provide a list of the 5 most important points* (one of the many
auto-generated questions that the AI suggests)

   1. Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide, so if it replaces other
   sources of energy, carbon emissions would stop. [1]
   2. Cold fusion can enhance the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by
   reforestation. [2] It can increase the amount of carbon captured by a
   factor of ten and reduce the cost of the project significantly.
   3. Cold fusion technology can be used to stop the natural boom and bust
   cycle of forest carbon by burying charcoal made from deadwood underground,
   speeding up the formation of coal.
   4. Cold fusion devices do not produce dangerous radiation and can safely
   contain tritium.

[The footnotes in square brackets jump to the place in the document where
this assertion appears.]


*What are the two technologies used to expand forests in the carbon
sequestration project?* (Another auto-generated question)

The two technologies used to expand forests in the carbon sequestration
project are indoor farms and "cultured meat" grown from animal cells.


*What is the power density by volume of a cold fusion cathode?* (Auto
generated question)
The power density by volume of a cold fusion cathode is 300 W/cm3. This
information can be found in Table 1 of the document, which compares the
power density of cold fusion cathodes from the best experiments to fission
reactor fuel pellets. The table states that the volume of a cold fusion
cathode is 0.3 cm3 and its power density by volume is 300 W/cm3.


*What did the author in the New York Times have to say about forest
sequestation [spelled wrong!]?* (My question. I deliberately did not name
the author. But I spelled sequestration wrong by accident.)

The author in the New York Times wrote an op-ed titled "Let’s Not Pretend
Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution." The author argues that
while trees can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, relying solely
on tree planting to offset emissions is not a permanent solution. The
author suggests that using trees to offset emissions can be seen as hitting
the "climate snooze button," as the carbon in trees eventually returns to
the atmosphere through forest fires or decomposition. The author emphasizes
the need for more permanent solutions to address climate change.


[Correct]


*What was the name of that author?* (My question. Too ambiguous)

The name of the author mentioned in the document is Jed Rothwell.


*What was the name of the author of the New York Times article?* (My
question.)

The name of the author of the New York Times article is not mentioned in
the document.


[The author is listed in footnote 9. I guess it is asking too much for the
AI to go from the text describing "Let's Not Pretend . . ." to the footnote
listing the author name.]


[This works much better than the AI that I installed at LENR-CANR.org.
Which, alas, I removed. I suppose it works better because: 1. It is only
running on one document; 2. Adobe tweaked the AI bot to work well with
academic documents, with abstracts, tables and whatnot. In one response it
said: "Please double-check my response carefully. Like many AI models, I'm
still learning how to understand tables in documents."]


[Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

2024-02-21 Thread H L V
AI Generated Videos Just Changed Forever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXpdyAWLDas

Harry