10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[happyjack27]

tom clarke, what do you think of the <s>6</s>4 independant replications of the SPAWAR co-deposition experiment, in light of your earlier comment about the lack of independant replication?

also what do you have to say about the fact that all the replications had positive results in light of your conjecture that they only report positive results? is it just that they only reported the positive results, which happened to be all of the replication efforts?

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... ia2007.pdf

[happyjack27]

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakScalorimetra.pdf

OK. This writeup annoys me. The (accepted) theory behind temperature changes is presented in great detail. However the raw data from which the experimental results are obtained is left out. So we are not able to consider in detail for ourselves what are the sources of error. Moreover there is no attempt in the paper to analyse errors. There must be errors. We just don't know how large they are. The excess enthalpy and power graphs do not give input enthalpy and power (they do give input current, but not voltage). And we have no idea what are the temperatures used to calculate powers except the suggested equations involve assumptions about constant heat capacity not always true when bubbles form, and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. That is a bad sign, but we are just not given anywhere the information to determine how robust is this data.

It annoys me.

Maybe previous write-ups from the same people are better? I am a bit jaded myself having looked at quite a bit and never found anything which is carefully conducted.

Best wishes, Tom

ya, i was disappointed with that paper myself. too theoretical, no raw data. in any case they explain their setup and math pretty well. maybe one of the other papers has something more raw.

"and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. " so because they're being extra careful you are MORE suspect? that seems counter-intuitive.

might be some better sources in the references on here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf

[tomclarke]

and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. " so because they're being extra careful you are MORE suspect? that seems counter-intuitive

I did not put that quite right. They are inferring some parameters, like spec heat capacity, which they then use to model the system and so calculate enthalpies. It is Ok, but more complex and error-prone than more direct methods. And maybe they cannot use direct methods because signal is too small, I have not thought about it much because they do not describe in enough detail precisely what they are doing.

[In my "better version of NANOR experiment" above spec heat capacity is unwanted, and serves to slow down things by giving system a time constant. But its effect can be arbitrarily reduced by increasing experiment time.]

[happyjack27]

and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. " so because they're being extra careful you are MORE suspect? that seems counter-intuitive

I did not put that quite right. They are inferring some parameters, like spec heat capacity, which they then use to model the system and so calculate enthalpies. It is Ok, but more complex and error-prone than more direct methods. And maybe they cannot use direct methods because signal is too small, I have not thought about it much because they do not describe in enough detail precisely what they are doing.

[In my "better version of NANOR experiment" above spec heat capacity is unwanted, and serves to slow down things by giving system a time constant. But its effect can be arbitrarily reduced by increasing experiment time.]

they do have graphs of enthalphy in that calorimetry paper; you don't have to guess.

[Skipjack]

"in all cases of observed..." demonstrably false.

"In the cases of higher claimes excess heat such as Rossi and Defcalion, the experimental setup has to be doubted." why? this is assuming the conclusion.

"Also these have never been independently verified." also demonstrably false.

Uhm, nope, they are not.

[happyjack27]

"in all cases of observed..." demonstrably false.

"In the cases of higher claimes excess heat such as Rossi and Defcalion, the experimental setup has to be doubted." why? this is assuming the conclusion.

"Also these have never been independently verified." also demonstrably false.

Uhm, nope, they are not.

Care for me to demonstrate, or would you like to retract that statement?

[Skipjack]

Care for me to demonstrate, or would you like to retract that statement?

You were the one who first said "demonstrably false". So you demonstrate, where and how Rossi's setup has been independently verified and where in th4e other cases, the excess heat was large enough to be beyond a doubt of a measurement error?

[Kahuna]

Brian Wang has an article on "leaked" info/phot of Rossi's (1000C) Hot Cat:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/leaked ... -high.html

Hank Mills @ PESN has some info on the supposed leaker:

http://pesn.com/2012/08/13/9602161_Deta ... ta_Leaker/

The "leaked" results are supposed to be validated in Sept/Oct by Univ. of Bologna. We shall see.

[tomclarke]

Brian Wang has an article on "leaked" info/phot of Rossi's (1000C) Hot Cat:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/leaked ... -high.html

Hank Mills @ PESN has some info on the supposed leaker:

http://pesn.com/2012/08/13/9602161_Deta ... ta_Leaker/

The "leaked" results are supposed to be validated in Sept/Oct by Univ. of Bologna. We shall see.

The leak claims the device radiates IR at 800C. The output heat is calculated based on this radiation. However 800C radiation would look red. 800C => BB radiation red.
http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.ph ... glows_red/

So the outer surface is not at 800C. From the given photo. We don't of course know what other errors exist in this leaked information. But Rossi is pretty outstanding at only ever releasing technical information about his devices that is internally self-inconsistent, as here.

[parallel]

LENR doubting Thomases might read early comments on the latest Celani demonstration. This has been set up by NI earlier and now TI.
Jed Rothwell reports here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 69102.html
A published paper is to follow.

[Kahuna]

LENR doubting Thomases might read early comments on the latest Celani demonstration. This has been set up by NI earlier and now TI.
Jed Rothwell reports here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 69102.html
A published paper is to follow.

If Celani can get this running in self-sustain mode for an extended period, that will be very compelling evidence for LENR. It will obviate the need for all the measurment error discussions.

[ladajo]

"Colonel Engineer" Domenico Fioravanti.

Right.

Has tested Thermodynamics of Nuclear Carriers.

Right.

There are no "Colonels" that test any US Nuclear Carrier Reactors. There certainly are no foreign Colonels especially.

What a load of shyte.

And nobody has yet to explain to me how you can pass 3KW of current via those little wires in the pictures. They certainly do not look like 10 or 12AWG equivilant.

[happyjack27]

Care for me to demonstrate, or would you like to retract that statement?

You were the one who first said "demonstrably false". So you demonstrate, where and how Rossi's setup has been independently verified and where in th4e other cases, the excess heat was large enough to be beyond a doubt of a measurement error?

I know and I'm saying I wouldn't have used the word demonstrably of I wasn't prepared to back it up. But neither of us even mentioned Rosie' setup. Your claim was a general and absolute claim. (which, btw, are rarely correct)

[Skipjack]

But neither of us even mentioned Rosie' setup

Actually, I did.

[parallel]

Here is Celani's paper thanks to Jed Rothwell.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFcunimnallo.pdf