Alain, you are correct in your analysis. Even though most of us have confidence in the accuracy of McKubre's work I would be willing to bet that most of the standard physicists do not. They are going to have to either be told by the group belief that LENR is real or perform each of the experiments themselves. It is always possible to conclude that a flaw exists unless you personally conduct an experiment which proves otherwise.
There is never going to be any experiment that convinces most of these guys that LENR is real until most of them are burned by a hot device that has been sitting around in their lab for months running in the SSM. Even then, they might suggest that someone put a radioactive core within the device that generated the heat without radiation escaping the enclosure. They would rather come up with an impossible alternate source of heat instead of accepting cold fusion. It is amazing to what lengths these guys go in order to continue to have confidence is what they were taught in school and in the scientific literature. I don't think that this state of affairs is much different than what the Wright Brothers encountered. It seems that they are frozen in place until one of them develops a theory that the others can relate to after having a device forced upon them with no escape ladder. This behavior is a serious problem for the advancement of new science. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> To: Vortex List <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Mar 20, 2015 11:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc., I read skeptic discussion, and running parallel reactor, or the same in sequence, is judged as not being a reliable calibration because reactor may be different, change emmisivity, radiate more or less... any complex calorimetry is rejected because hard to understand and frone to fraud any simple calorimetry is rejected because imprecise or prone to artifacts any thermography is rejected because prone to problem of emmisivity, of transparency, of change in suface emmisivity, in convection any steam mass calorimetry is rejected because of wet steam any thermometry is rejected because of parameter change any closed calorimetry is accused of fraud any open calorimetry is accused of influence from air or from radiations none of these problems is stupid, but they can be mitigated, and old scientist in the domain have mitigated since long through good science... just look at McKubre isothermal calorimetry, at F&P isoperibolic calorimetry, at Oriani and Storms seebeck calorimetry. all those researchers have learned all the questions the new generation is rediscovering. there is no limit to denial, that is human nature. note that groupthink is a characteristic of a consensus, not of a dissensus. 2015-03-20 15:09 GMT+01:00 Alberto De Souza <[email protected]>: The only calorimetry that the skeptics would accept is savings on heating bills; I'm with Rossi on that one. That's why I'm proposing examining this binary hypothesis: "A reactor loaded with LENR fuel produces excess (non-chemical) heat". To test this hypothesis one has to run an experiment to test exactly that: is the reactor with fuel hotter? To eliminate most variables (if not all) that are not relevant to the test, one has to run two identical reactors at the same time (with identical heating coils in series) and in the same room, one with the variable of interest (the LENR fuel) and one without. Once it is proved that we have excess heat, one can then go to the trouble of doing precise calorimetry. That is important to sell a product (how much I save in my heating bills if I use this technology). What we need now is to prove that we have abundant (COP 3) excess heat. If we have COP 3, we will see large differences (hundreds of degrees) in temperature between the reactors. Alberto. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: Your prudence seems the fruit of experience ;-) The calorimetry is to be improved to convince. it seems to be a single thermometer... It won't convince GSVIT ;-) Anyway we have not enough data on the calibration, not even to criticize. As I understand Alexander is working to improve the calorimetry ? is there ideas where he is going ? what would be the possibilities according to competent people here ? Mass calorimetry (steam, or why not ice?) could be interesting, but the device now is quite big, and a big shelter is hard to maintain heat tight... Moreover some people would like thermometry to cross check the measurements and with such a big device and big shelter, it is difficult to make any thermometry. Thermography seems too complex with alumina, but maybe if painted in black... Just a a naive kid, I ask to competent people if covering the reactor with soot, would make it quite blackbody? at least greybody ? of course there is specific painting, but expensive ... Is there a cheap blackbody covering? 2015-03-20 3:41 GMT+01:00 Jack Cole <[email protected]>: Without all the details, it may be hard to fully evaluate this. If the thermocouple was on the inside of the cell (and only one was used), it opens the possibility of differences in heat conduction. Imagine a thermocouple in the air in the center of the tube versus touching the nickel fuel in the active run. The heat would conduct more readily through the nickel than it would through the air (obviously). If the control run was heated up much more rapidly and given less time to fully heat the inside of the chamber, that may also be a problem. It would be good to have a second thermocouple affixed to the outside of the heater (assuming he didn't use more than one TC). There would be some fairly obvious indications that something was wrong if this was a big problem (e.g., incandescence level differences). It seems unlikely that Parkhomov would have missed something like that. Overall, it seems to support his previous findings. Looking forward to more details. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Alberto De Souza <[email protected]> wrote: I would suggest running two identical reactors in the same room (one without fuel) with heating resistances (identical) in series. If the fueled reactor becomes hotter, we have excess heat. One can film (MFMP style) the measurement of the resistance of the heaters before, and the voltage on them during the operation, to prove to skeptics that one have excess heat. Alberto. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: The main player is hydrogen. LIALH$ contains ` 10% in weight H2, i.e. 6mgr. 2 gr H2 is 22410 mL in standard conditions; ergo 6mgr hydrogen makes 67 mL gas. This is disappearing during the process adsorbed in the melt and...? Peter On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: If there are some air in the reactor the oxygen will oxidise Ni an possible other compounds then the temperature becomes high enough. This binds the oxygen and it will lower the pressure. It will also make some heat, but only until the oxygen are consumed. Torulf On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:44:40 -0400, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: That's awesome! On Thursday, March 19, 2015, Jack Cole < [email protected]> wrote: It is impressive even without calorimetry. He would have to make a severe mistake on input power measurement to be off that far. To be more specific, he would have to make a mistake on input power measurement on the run with fuel that he did not make on the run without the fuel (very unlikely). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Jack, This morning - 8 hours ago, the reactor was still working. Nothing was announced till now. I am sure Alexander will work out a proper calorimetry system, not easy - if no sufficient cooling (as in his older system) risk of overheating and burnout. I have searched for the new sort of nickel he is using- it is Ni-carbonyl powder according to GOST 9722-97 (Like ASTM, DIN) type PNK-O2 See please here- with Google Translate http://meganorm.ru/Data2/1/4294820/4294820717.pdf Please tell me if it does not work so. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: Great work Peter. The fact that he has repeated the results using a method alternative to his calorimetry is very encouraging. In addition, the fact that he was able to run for such a long time easily rules out chemical effects. Hopefully, it will keep on running for more days to weeks. I was concerned about the fact that he ran out of his initial supply of nickel, but fortunately, the concern appears unfounded. There is another important detail disclosed - he only obtained 5 bar of pressure at max. This may well indicate that relatively low pressures are fine for initiating the reaction. That's good news from a safety perspective. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: The evolution of pressure is a lesson of realism, we have calculaled hundreds of bars from inside and have 1/2 bars from outside. Best wishes, Peter Dear Friends, I wanted that you should receive these news as fast as possible http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/fast-issue-lenr-parkhomov-news-from.html We will discuss detais and connections later. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
