thanks for the data. anyway the results are much less replicated in volume than PdD electrolysis. However in Cold fusion, based on the huge LENr evidence with PdD, we should maybe stop treating LENR as fringe science, doubting of any even reputed scientist results...
there are many claimed results by different, competing, scientists. it is a normal science domain, like superconduction, and when 4 scientist, with different protocols, claims high energy density with NiH, we can be confident. when we see industrial jumping on the bandwagon, we can expect they businessly lie, but (except rossi) that they dont lie totally... LENr is hard science. we shoul not keep our Stockholm syndrome. to be honest I'm even more skeptical than a corporate innovator I know... for him, all is clear, much clearer than many usual technologies with weaker claims. Nothing is sure in real life, and LENr existence is one of the most solid fact. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't > know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.* > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has > provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from > the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. > > This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document > titled: > > > TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION > PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. > > > The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix > of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions > might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees > that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random > way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various > nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and > repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, > Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation > products are also documented. > > Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR > experimental references down through the years. > > This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the > Rothwell LENR library. > > > > > Cheers: Axil > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: >> >> >> Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? >>> >>> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion<http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion> >>> >> >> With friends like this, who needs enemies? >> >> The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: >> >> 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does >> distinguish between Rossi et al and other "more scientific groups," but >> then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... >> Celani has not been confirmed. >> >> 2. "unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support >> it." Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the >> author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still >> almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be >> adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the >> matter. >> >> 3. "Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 >> million, but was discouraged by negative results." The immediate impression >> created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota >> were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and >> Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. >> However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who >> would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired >> article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and >> commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, >> controversial, not scientifically established.) >> >> 4. "Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are >> consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where >> results notoriously fail to get replicated." And then they drive another >> nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it >> was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original >> reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium >> cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the >> palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same >> cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what >> appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of >> the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat >> would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a single >> reproducible experiment was developed, but simply not called that. Run a >> series of cells to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat >> and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. It has been measured as >> within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are >> consistent with this, and this result is confirmed, and recognized as such. >> There is no contrary research. No heat, no helium. >> >> Wired is correct that the field is notorious for unconfirmed results, but >> the basic work by Pons and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There is >> anomalous heat generated from PdD under some conditions. By stating the >> Brillouin claim -- just a claim! -- as they did, they have created >> confirmation of a major error, often repeated in the media, that cold >> fusion results were irreproducible. >> >> 5. On the NASA/Boeing report: "The report concludes that LENR lacks >> verification, but expresses this in terms of feasibility rather than >> assuming it's impossible." What is "LENR"? The report mixes PdD -- which it >> doesn't mention, but there is reference to "high temperature pitting" which >> has, I think, only been reported with PdD -- with NiH. NiH lacks >> verification. PdD reactions have been heavily confirmed and verified. >> >> The fact is that "LENR" is verified. We don't know whether NiH results >> are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we >> don't know what the reaction is, and we also don't know what levels of heat >> are being obtained, we only have unconfirmed reports of *demonstrations*, >> no independent verifications by experts. (Experts have observed >> demonstrations, but ... it's easy to overlook something under live >> conditions like that, where the expert cannot control what is being done. >> Kullander and Essen used a relative humidity meter in an attempt to >> determine steam quality, which can't be done with such a tool. And steam >> quality was crucial, as well as the possibility of overflow, unboiled >> water.) >> >> This article adds to the confusion, it does not clear it up. >> Pseudoskeptics will use the article to shore up their "not reproduced" >> arguments. >> >> The NASA/Boeing report actually tells us practically nothing about LENR. >> I.e, if LENR is real, the report tells us, here is a plan to utilize it. >> It's essentially pie in the sky, because planning how to use LENR when *we >> don't know what is happening in detail," is radically premature. >> >> What's needed is basic research to determine the physics of LENR, and to >> provide data for the development of verified theory. >> >> >> >
