Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: I realize that I've shown up here as a newbe and immediately gored the sacred cows and questioned the answers of some of the most respected longest contributing members on this list. I do so with great respect for your opinions and only want to explore why and how not insult or denigrate. So if your at all put off by my responses, please accept my apology. Your ideas are very interesting. Don't worry about goring sacred cows; sometimes it is fun to do this in limited amounts. Intuitively, the wind-tunnel analogy makes a lot of sense. With limited funding available, an Edisonian trial-and-error approach that makes use of systematic protocols and in which the results are made generally available is perhaps the best one for the moment. From watching the MFMP difficulties with calorimetry, I take it that any kind of calorimetry will add a lot of latency to this approach. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Hello, As far as I know because of the low heat production ( 25-50W for 5 km nickle tubing as an kathode) and the saftely risk of developing this boilersystem (it can explode) thermacore shifted the interest to heatpipe cooling systems for computers. Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or debunk), after all these years... Srinivasan thought he replicated this at BARC. He got heat and tritium. Then he spent 6 months at SRI trying to do it again. He finally concluded that his results were caused by recombination. That was a noble effort. He went back to India and tried again, looking for tritium only, with no calorimetry. They saw some tritium this time, but not as much. I recall some other people tried to replicate, without success. The results were not encouraging. I do not understand why Thermacore abandoned this. It is one of many discouraging failures. The failure to follow through. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: 1. There is anomalous heat generation in most experiments which follow the Craven and Letts (and/or Storms) criteria The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Along the same lines, when Bockris looked for tritium in 100 cells at a time, I think he always found a few that produced it. I think he told me 10 to 30 of them worked. So is that a 10% success rate, or a 100% success rate looking at the whole batch? I think the question is meaningless. If one-tenth of your grass seeds germinate no one would claim that proves grass does not grow. I like the success rate for the top quark. 1 in 10E16 collisions, seen maybe twice at only one laboratory, and never independently replicated. The people doing experiments like that criticize *us* for doing irreproducible science! That's chutzpah, that is. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
(Replying to Jed on success rate) Earlier discussion starting at http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71026.html #1 150/150 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Abstract We have run over 150 experiments using two different cell/calorimeter designs. Excess power has *** always been seen *** using Q pulses tuned to the resonance of palladium and nickel hydrides in pressurized vessels. Excess energies of up to 100% have been seen using this excitation method. #2 Comment on Arata --- I don't have an actual paper http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71367.html #3 Miles 6/6 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71369.html #4 -- The only one I CAN'T find : didn't Celani report that the entire wire was acttive?
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR process. This lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR. Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too great to be explained by any chemical process. Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!! As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas. Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important. Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not had success with this method. People keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. Ed described this here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf See also: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDfactorsaff.pdf FP got some bulk Pd cells to run for up to 158 days. See the table at the end of this paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf Some did not work at all, as you see. Mizuno and most others I know lose the cathodes in the end with destructive testing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
If one is doing a broad search it strikes me that reducing the detecton tme and thus the cycle time is paramount. A calorimeter is a slow sensing device Building a reactor before one has gathered the wind tunnel data gives you Langley's result not the wright brothers result. The writghts did not have a theory of lift they had a data set that told them when and how it occurred. The what reacts and what does not and how to turn it on an off need to be worked BEFORE trying to build a commercially viable reactor. What one really wants to measure is heat from the active material. The thing closest to the active material is the material itself... The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you in a matter of 200msec if a potential sample under test has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample. If one does this the whole caliorimeter nightmare goes away... the experiments get easier to build and try easier to cycle through both materials, and stimulation experiments? Is anyone doing this? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? . . . As I mentioned, see also Ed's paper How to . . . Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? Yes! You have to be skilled in the art. Plus you need either a year of free time or a barrel of money. Or both. I am writing a presentation about that very subject, with help from Ed, Mike and Mel. Quoting myself: People often ask me: How do you replicate cold fusion? What’s the secret?!? There are many valuable papers in the archive, but for a do-it-yourself guide, I like these three: Miles, M. and K.B. Johnson, *Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems*, Final Report. 1996, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. [Table 10] Cravens, D. *Factors Affecting Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF Cells*. in *Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion*. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. Storms, E., *How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect*. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 261.] [skipping 2 pages] . . . It took Ed about a year to test all 90 [cathodes]. So, that is how you replicate! Ask Johnson Matthey for 90 pieces of hydrogen filter palladium. Master the techniques described by Cravens. Then, spend a year of your life testing them. With any luck you will find a few that work. If you don’t, get another 90 and start over. I said I would show you how to do cold fusion. I did not say it was easy. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be automated? Jed's original assertion was Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the experiments (or tests or whatever you'd like to call them). I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the technology of LENR is understood in any deep way or on the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not. [mg] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR process. This lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR. Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too great to be explained by any chemical process. Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!! As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas. Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important. Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not had success with this method. People keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
The problem with tis approach is the need to apply energy to get the process started. This takes the form of electrolytic power or increased temperature. As a result, the material starts hotter than the environment. The question is, Is this extra temperature natural or extra. Looking at the IR would not be sensitive enough to tell whether the extra temperature was normal or artificial. That is why I keep suggesting that the NAE be identified and made on purpose. This way the conditions needed to create LENR are present in advance. I have found, like others, that the H2 system generates photons having enough energy for some to exit the apparatus. These can be detected easier than heat production and at a much lower level of reaction rate. I suggest this method be used instead of a calorimeter to detect the occurrence of LENR. Besides, such radiation can only result from a nuclear reaction, so the effect is unambiguous, unlike calorimetry. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Paul Breed wrote: If one is doing a broad search it strikes me that reducing the detecton tme and thus the cycle time is paramount. A calorimeter is a slow sensing device Building a reactor before one has gathered the wind tunnel data gives you Langley's result not the wright brothers result. The writghts did not have a theory of lift they had a data set that told them when and how it occurred. The what reacts and what does not and how to turn it on an off need to be worked BEFORE trying to build a commercially viable reactor. What one really wants to measure is heat from the active material. The thing closest to the active material is the material itself... The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you in a matter of 200msec if a potential sample under test has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample. If one does this the whole caliorimeter nightmare goes away... the experiments get easier to build and try easier to cycle through both materials, and stimulation experiments? Is anyone doing this? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the experiments (or tests or whatever you'd like to call them). The entire process is an experiment. One continuous segment with one sample is a test. I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the technology of LENR is understood in any deep way or on the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not. I know everyone in this field and I do not know ANYONE who claims they understand in a deep way, or that LENR is on the edge of practicality. Most people I know with experience in industry, such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Melich, say it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to bring it to that edge. The tests at Toyota showed that the reaction is capable of reaching the power density and temperatures of a conventional fission reactor, so there is no question that it is physically possible for this reaction to produce useful energy. However, the reaction cannot be controlled and -- as Ed pointed out -- the material does not last, so a practical, commercial reactor is out of the question. If you tried to scale up and build one, it would probably not work. Or it might work so well it blows your head off. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the manufacturing could be automated. At this time, most of the variables are unknown. That is the basic reason why LENR is so hard to cause. We do not understand the important variables. This understanding must be guided by a useful theory because too many variables are important to discover them all by chance, as is the present approach. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be automated? Jed's original assertion was Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the experiments (or tests or whatever you'd like to call them). I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the technology of LENR is understood in any deep way or on the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not. [mg] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR process. This lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR. Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too great to be explained by any chemical process. Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!! As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas. Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important. Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not had success with this method. People keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
I wrote: However, the reaction cannot be controlled and -- as Ed pointed out -- the material does not last . . . Arata and others claim that nanoparticle gas loaded Pd lasts much longer then electrochemically loaded bulk Pd, and it produces more stable heat. I do not think the electrochemical technique can ever be used for a practical source of energy. We should pursue it for scientific reasons, to learn the nature of the reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the manufacturing could be automated. The testing described in How to . . . could also be automated. Or you could hire grad students. That is why I said you need either one year or a barrel of money. Money can substitute for time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you in a matter of 200msec if a potential sample under test has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample. . . . Is anyone doing this? See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=952 As Ed points out, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between electrolysis heat and anomalous heat. Sometimes you can tell though. The anomalous heat occurs in very small domains, and it comes and goes, as you see in that IR movie. Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to clobber the experiment. Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary calorimetry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
H2 system generates photons having enough energy for some to exit the apparatus I 100% agree that detecting penetrating photons with some sort of GM tube would be the almost ideal sensing scheme... There are several problems with this scheme... its not very precise, ie If one tests an array of 100 potential materials its hard to know exactly which one makes detectable photons... The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems seems iron clad. The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems seems less iron clad The case for detectable photons having enough energy to leave the device as a stand in for excess heat seems even less iron clad... In fact in Dr Storms how to replicate paper he points out that systems that seem to make Tritium do not seem to make excess heat. So if you optimize for maximum penetrating photon emission, its not necessarily 100% correlated with heat... Has the tie between apparatus generating GM detectable penetrating radiation and excess heat in H-Ni systems been demonstrated by others?
RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems seems iron clad. The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems seems less iron clad Whoa. Thermacore ran both wet and gas-phase Ni-H cells for DARPA continuously for over a year - with something over 100,000 Whr net gain - and that is not iron clad?
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to clobber the experiment. Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary calorimetry. Yes very hard to do IR temp sensing in a wet cell electrolytic system. Seems much easier in a dry gas system, which is a more useful result in any case If your trying to measure heat generated in a substance(Which in fact is what your trying to measure) it strikes me that Calorimetry is probably the hardest way to do it To stay in theme for this series of posts I'll take some liberties and rephrase A wind tunnel is useless unless you can stick the whole plane in there... The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the parameters necessary to build a plane. I'm trying to understand the best way to build a LENR wind tunnel, and while eventually the goal is to have a macro system that generates useful energy. The wind tunnel goal is to take data the value of the wind tunnel is in the data that allows the end result ie the flying plane If you agree that the goal is to find a repeatable reliable result then quickly directly sensing the production of heat in the material under test is much more useful than perfect calorimetry that takes hours to get a result The obsession with calorimetry seems to be more a byproduct of the early history of this field than the best way to explore process and material options? I realize that I've shown up here as a newbe and immediately gored the sacred cows and questioned the answers of some of the most respected longest contributing members on this list. I do so with great respect for your opinions and only want to explore why and how not insult or denigrate. So if your at all put off by my responses, please accept my apology. Paul On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you in a matter of 200msec if a potential sample under test has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample. . . . Is anyone doing this? See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=952 As Ed points out, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between electrolysis heat and anomalous heat. Sometimes you can tell though. The anomalous heat occurs in very small domains, and it comes and goes, as you see in that IR movie. Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to clobber the experiment. Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary calorimetry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the parameters necessary to build a plane. Along these lines, the people at the NRL in Washington are using a microcalorimeter with a fast response rate. The sample is tiny. You cannot tell where, within the same, the heat is coming from, unlike with an IR camera. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
For the record - the Thermacore Ni-H gas-phase experiment is less well-known than the electrolytic - but is available: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or debunk), after all these years... From: Jones Beene From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems seems iron clad. The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems seems less iron clad Whoa. Thermacore ran both wet and gas-phase Ni-H cells for DARPA continuously for over a year - with something over 100,000 Whr net gain - and that is not iron clad? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or debunk), after all these years... Srinivasan thought he replicated this at BARC. He got heat and tritium. Then he spent 6 months at SRI trying to do it again. He finally concluded that his results were caused by recombination. That was a noble effort. He went back to India and tried again, looking for tritium only, with no calorimetry. They saw some tritium this time, but not as much. I recall some other people tried to replicate, without success. The results were not encouraging. I do not understand why Thermacore abandoned this. It is one of many discouraging failures. The failure to follow through. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:41:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach From: p...@rasdoc.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to clobber the experiment. Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary calorimetry. I would say that one “wind tunnel” type series experiments I did was nothing more than 2 dozen small co-deposited wires with various additives. Their test tubes were all placed in the same water bath (in series for the same current, and zenors across the electrodes in glass tubes for the same net voltage across each so the power inside each were roughly the same). I then just compared them. I did not start with absolute measures, just rough relative measures from the mean. It allowed for rapid screening of various additives. You don’t have to have a micrometer to see which piece of spaghetti is the longest – just line them up. Dennis Cravens Yes very hard to do IR temp sensing in a wet cell electrolytic system.Seems much easier in a dry gas system, which is a more useful result in any case If your trying to measure heat generated in a substance(Which in fact is what your trying to measure) it strikes me that Calorimetry is probably the hardest way to do it To stay in theme for this series of posts I'll take some liberties and rephrase A wind tunnel is useless unless you can stick the whole plane in there...The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the parameters necessary to build a plane. I'm trying to understand the best way to build a LENR wind tunnel, and while eventually the goal is to have a macro system that generates useful energy. The wind tunnel goal is to take data the value of the wind tunnel is in the data that allows the end result ie the flying plane If you agree that the goal is to find a repeatable reliable result then quickly directly sensing the production of heat in the material under test is much more useful than perfect calorimetry that takes hours to get a result The obsession with calorimetry seems to be more a byproduct of the early history of this field than the best way to explore process and material options? I realize that I've shown up here as a newbe and immediately gored the sacred cows and questioned the answers of some of the most respected longest contributing members on this list. I do so with great respect for your opinions and only want to explore why and how not insult or denigrate.So if your at all put off by my responses, please accept my apology. Paul
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Jed Said: 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. Is there a paper or other reference on this experiment?
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: 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. Is there a paper or other reference on this experiment? http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf See the table at the end. I should have said 5 months. 158 days. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Dennis Cravens wrote: I would say that one wind tunnel type series experiments I did was nothing more than 2 dozen small co-deposited wires with various additives. Their test tubes were all placed in the same water bath (in series for the same current, and zeners across the electrodes in glass tubes for the same net voltage across each so the power inside each were roughly the same). I then just compared them. I did not start with absolute measures, just rough relative measures from the mean. It allowed for rapid screening of various additives. You dont have to have a micrometer to see which piece of spaghetti is the longest just line them up. Hi Dennis, I would be interested in the results of this experiment. Was it reported anywhere? What was the electrolyte and what materials did you test. Perhaps a gas phase version of this idea could be used to evaluate Ni-H materials applied to wires at constant power. This is probably not better than Brian Ahern's experiments. It would be interesting to provide atomic H rather than H2 to separate the splitting of the H2 from the heat generating possibly OU effects. There are obviously many problems in applying this to gas phase. It is however quite a neat trick for electrolytic experiments. George Holz Varitronics Systems geh...@optonline.net
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any such thing. Well, not to quibble or split hairs, but you said the Wrights had a theory of lift. They had no theory. They did not know what caused lift. They did not try to learn that. Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com (snip, snip, snip) The Wright Brothers had a theory - it was called the theory of lift. They were the first to understand this process, which allowed them to have the success that was missing when flight was attempted without this understanding. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. The point is, it wasn't a theory, it was data. They had tables of lift and drag for different airfoils, with different chambers, at various different angles of attack. This was measured data, not based on any physics theory. They used the tables to design the wings, propeller and other components. It is a shame cold fusion does not have only one major control parameter, similar to lift. If it did, we could make a table of that parameter and use it to control the reaction. McKubre has identified the major control parameters for bulk Pd, and his equation does predict performance, but he cannot control these controls as easily as the Wrights could. For example, the way they could shape a wing chamber. McKubre knows that loading must reach a certain level. He knows how to load Pd. But loading is a complicated process which is not well understood, and it is difficult to control, so even though McKubre is an expert he cannot ensure loading will be high, or that it will not suddenly de-load. It is as if the Wrights knew what the wing chamber should be, but the chamber was dynamic and it kept changing for unknown reasons. Actually their wing chambers did change slightly because the wings were made of wood and fabric, and they tended to flatten out more than a modern wing. Imagine the wings suddenly went flat or flipped over the other way and you will get a sense of what McKubre is up against. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: 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? The point is, it wasn't a theory, it was data. Ed raised the issue of the necessity of a theory and I get/got his point and I agree that's the wrong term ... as I suggested, technique might be better as that's exactly what's the problem and, indeed, what the Wright Brothers had to contend with ... they had no theory just techniques that worked to greater and lesser degrees just as you explain regarding McKubre's preparation of loaded Pd. 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. 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? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
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
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
At 05:33 PM 2/20/2013, Mark Gibbs wrote: 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. 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? Keeping the wording as simple as possible: 1. There is anomalous heat generation in most experiments which follow the Craven and Letts (and/or Storms) criteria 2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter have improved from some cells show excess heat, to most cells show excess heat and recently, to all cells show excess heat. 2B The excess heat can range from barely detectable to equipment-destroying explosions 2C. There has not yet been reliable replication of the exact same configuration of one experiment by a different experimenter. 3A To date there is no theory that has been tested that explains the anomalous heat generation 3B Scientific method dictates that experiment trumps theory If you must weasel-word it with claims , put it as an overall disclaimer, not for each and every aspect.
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: 2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter have improved from some cells show excess heat, to most cells show excess heat and recently, to all cells show excess heat. Where? With Pd? 2B The excess heat can range from barely detectable to equipment-destroying explosions I think it is essential to talk about overall energy, not just power. After all, a chemical explosion can destroy the equipment. You have to say that the overall heat release often exceeds the limits of chemistry in cells with no chemical changes. This is the single most important fact discovered about cold fusion (so far) and the most convincing evidence that it is anomalous, and probably nuclear. Any description which leaves this out misses the whole point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
At 07:04 PM 2/20/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: 2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter have improved from some cells show excess heat, to most cells show excess heat and recently, to all cells show excess heat. Where? With Pd? Yes -- Pd. eg Celani's recent paper claims 100%. We had a discussion on 100% back in the 2012 archives. ISTR I found three papers claiming 100% per batch. 2B The excess heat can range from barely detectable to equipment-destroying explosions eg Rossi keeps his COP low so it's controllable. He said that he had a better catalyst which was uncontrollable. OK, so the SRI explosion was probably chemical, but others were probably LENR I think it is essential to talk about overall energy, not just power. After all, a chemical explosion can destroy the equipment. You have to say that the overall heat release often exceeds the limits of chemistry in cells with no chemical changes. This is the single most important fact discovered about cold fusion (so far) and the most convincing evidence that it is anomalous, and probably nuclear. Any description which leaves this out misses the whole point. Probably need to change 2B 2B The excess heat can range from barely detectable, to exceeding any chemical reaction, to equipment-destroying explosions Overall, I was trying to keep the language and examples at the popular science (not the magazine) level. (ps : I liked most of your descriptions)
