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 <[email protected]> wrote:
A question for Ed:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell
<[email protected]> 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]
