At 04:57 PM 2/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'm correcting this comment as to the Violante data using more
accurate numbers as provided by Violante and inferred from that.
Provided where? When? To you in private correspondence, or did you
find the data elsewhere?
I can poke around and see if I have some unpublished data . . .
You won't have it, I suspect.
First of all, the data in the paper is only found in the chart, that
is, the only place where the helium results are reported is the
chart. The actual numbers aren't given, so, without further
confirmation from Violante, it's necessary to read the results from the chart.
And from that, I suspected that there was some discrepancy, but the
discrepancy was smallest if it was Laser 3 that was not accurately
plotted. Until I noticed what Krivit had written, in detail, I
thought that Violante might have used separate correction values for
the background, and that part remains mysterious. They did measure
helium background separately before running the cell and gathering
the experimental helium, and they also ran a light water control.
The paper is obviously a rather sketchy report of part of their
experimental work.
However, in substance, the chart is accurate as to the general
impression that someone without an axe to grind would gather.
Violante provided his own numbers for "new helium," at least twice,
and maybe three times, in response to repeated requests from Krivit.
The very original response was simply a reference to the paper, and,
in fact, *in substance*, nothing I now know contradicts the paper.
But, as suspected, Laser 3 helium results were poorly placed on the chart.
Violante's statement of the excess helium is reported at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/343inexplicableclaims.shtml
This is Krivit's report. From my experience with Krivit, the actual
facts are accurate, but the interpretations are out in left field.
However, what is important is the *relationship* between the helium
results and the projected helium result from 24 MeV as applied to the
heat data.
Why 24 MeV? Well, that's pretty obvious, I'd think. It's a reasonable
hypothesis, often noticed by others. But "24 MeV" was not the purpose
of the paper, and that paper did not purport to establish the figure
at all, that's also obvious from reading the paper. It made no such
claim. All it claimed, essentially, was that increased helium was
correlated with increased energy. Which is quite accurate.
The Laser 3 result was so close to background, and the energy so low,
that the result is *almost* a no-energy control. But not quite, and
it's important to notice that there was a small amount of energy
generated, and a small amount of helium, such that the error bars on
the helium are clear of background. By itself, this would mean
little, and that result certainly can't be used to make more than the
grossest estimate of Q factor. Together with the other results,
though, it's still of interest.
One can see at a glance from the original chart that too little
helium is found for Laser 2 and Laser 4 for the 24 MeV factor to be
accurate, unless retained helium is hypothesized. They did not
address this issue because it really wasn't important for the purpose
of the paper.
And with Laser 3, a little too *much* helium is found, but again,
when the error bars are considered, the difference is well within
them. Nevertheless, unless Laser 3 released more helium than the
others, the result would be a (small) anomaly. The anomaly is quite
visible in the chart: for the two large heat values, the helium found
is substantially less than predicted from 24 MeV, whereas with Laser
3, the helium looks, at first glance, to be about on the money. In
fact, it's a little too high, not much. That's probably simply a coincidence.
Krivit somehow converts the chart and certain difficulties in
interpreting it into a conspiracy to promote 24 MeV. If so, it was
singularly clumsy! I can't imagine reading that and thinking that 24
MeV was *demonstrated.*
Instead, what I'd see, right off, is that the two experiments with
significant energy came up with substantially less helium than
predicted by 24 MeV, though quite in line with what other experiments
have found, unless major efforts are made to recover all the helium.
But the Laser 3 data stands out as too much helium by comparison. And
then I'd realize that really, this is just above background, and the
measurement is quite imprecise.
If there is some smoking gun for a theory of a conspiracy to promote
24 MeV as a done deal, this wasn't it. At all.
But heck, I think that the actual Q factor for the predominant
reaction would be found to be 24 MeV or so, if serious efforts are
made to recover all the helium. But I would never claim that this has
been proven, because that detailed (and difficult, and expensive)
work has not been done, not enough to demonstrate the true Q factor.
I would expect that we will eventually find that any difference in an
accurately determined Q factor would be due to other reactions, but
not the predominant one. Unless it is an experiment under different
conditions that promotes a different major reaction. All bets would
then be off!
What I've seen *actually claimed* is that heat/helium determinations
have been found to be "consistent with" 24 MeV, which includes a
theory of some level of helium retention, helium that ends up not
being measured. A single SRI experiment has been published that made
strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I
recall, about 25 MeV.
What would be needed to nail this down would be an experimental
approach that had these characteristics:
1. Significant energy production, accurately measured. Consistency of
energy production is not required, variability will actually help,
because then we'll see variation in helium with energy, over a range
of energy values and helium values. Better, in fact. But low-energy
approaches such as, perhaps, codeposition on wires, my approach, will
probably not produce enough energy and helium. This is a job for more
heavy-duty approaches. It's important to get that helium level up,
well above background. With being close to background, more runs
would be necessary.
2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and
unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as
possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. I forget the
best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. If
the cathode is one with substantial surface area but low thickness,
it should be pretty easy to dissolve, the trick would be to do it
without opening up the cell. So perhaps the acid would be sitting in
a compartment, attached. Finish the run, turn the cell on its side,
the acid runs down and eats the cathode and farts helium. So to
speak! And thus the helium is released, I'd think. Better than this,
of course, would be a design by someone who *actually knows what they
are doing.*
