At 02:22 PM 4/5/2012, [email protected] wrote:
Great to see you all back from the future to reality.
See the following Chan links:
<http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html>http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html
http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/chan-formula-update-i-5.html
See
Hideki at:
<http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints#CATALYST_CHARACTERISTICS>http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints#CATALYST_CHARACTERISTICS
See Tengzelius
at:
<http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/first-commercial-cold-fusion-steam-heat-generator-for-sale/#comment-1895>http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/first-commercial-cold-fusion-steam-heat-generator-for-sale/#comment-1895
See Lucky Saint at:
<http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html>http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
See Te Chung
at:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg64616.html>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg64616.html
Question, take your best shot at designing a LERN apparatus that
should produce excess heat. One that you are capable of putting
together by yourself for under $500. Specify what and where ro buy
materials. Enought of the pipe dream boring BS. This is a challenge
for you. Are you all more than just passing wind?
It is crucial to distinguish between the explosion of speculation and
gaseous emission based on Rossi (with some sideshows involving
Defkalion and a few others), and the more than twenty years of
peer-reviewed and other published research on PdD cold fusion (with
only a little on NiH work, i.e., what Rossi is claiming).
Designing a LENR device (not LERN, though maybe
integral.property.service is French, except then it wouldn't be "LE")
that is reliable is the classic problem. It is possible to reproduce
certain experiments for on the order of $100, but those aren't the
most convincing ones, and there are many pitfalls, it is easy to come
up empty. (I can supply everything you would need except for power
supply and meters and hookup wire, to run an attempt to replicate the
SPAWAR neutron findings -- but this has practically zero implications
for power generation, and was not designed to make it easy to measure
heat, it's been scaled down, and it only looks, in the simplest
incarnation, for neutrons).
It's the wrong request, way premature. Take it back. Miles ran a
series of cells in the early 1990s, and got 21 out of 33 cells to
show excess heat. Is that "reliable"? Reliable enough for what? For
energy generation, probably not! However, for exploring the science
of this, which has been my interest, it could be quite enough.
Now, run that kind of series, using the state of the art, and measure
helium in the generated gas.
Presto! A single replicable experiment. It's been run many times, and
the famous negative replications confirm what everyone else has found.
The helium is correlated with the excess heat.
In 2004, one of the U.S. Department of Energy reviewers looked at the
heat/helium evidence that was presented, and misinterpreted it, and
based his report on this misinterpretation. Then the summarizing
bureaucrat again misunderstood what the reviewer presented, further
mangling the report, such that a clear correlation between anomalous
heat and helium production was reported, through this comedy of
errors, as an anti-correlation. No wonder they concluded that the
evidence wasn't conclusive!
The primary evidence that the anomalous heat of the Fleischmann-Pons
Heat Effect is not only real, not artifact of calorimetry error, and
that it is nuclear in origin, was missed.
Why? I'm not sure. I found a strange lack of emphasis on heat/helium
in my communications with LENR scientists as well. It would be
mentioned here and there, but always with far more focus on
calorimetry alone, or this or that theory of what's happening.
But there it is: determining heat/helium in the Fleischmann Pons Heat
Effect, the single replicable experiment that everyone has been
clamoring for, since 1989, and it's existed since about 1993. Storms
reports a dozen groups confirming the correlation. There are none in
the other direction.
That it is statistical in nature (if individual cells are
unpredictably erratic in heat generation) is not something normally
expected by physicists, that's all. It's just as convincing, once understood.
(Cold fusion is famous for replication failure, at the beginning.
People who confirmed it were largely those who didn't give up at one
or a few cells that show nothing, who kept at it. Miles' ultimate
result of 21/33 was quite high for the time. Miles, of course, was
one of the researchers whose initial negative reports were the
backbone of the 1989 ERAB report. He says he phoned them when he
started seeing excess heat, and his phone call was not returned.
Huizenga called cold fusion the "scientific fiasco of the century,"
and he didn't know the half of it.)
