10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[happyjack27]

In all of the cases the observed excess output heat has been a small fraction of the input heat which could mean experimental error or simply a measurement issue. In the cases of higher claimes excess heat such as Rossi and Defcalion, the experimental setup has to be doubted. Also these have never been independently verified.

"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.

[happyjack27]

If you like you post details of one of these experiments and I will say why it is deficient.

I would rather you experimentally verify it than dismiss it on the grounds of any minor thing you think you find.

but i'll bite:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..MARA17009F
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJcodepositi.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSspawarsyst.pdf
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... ction.html
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... ia2007.pdf
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... PDD-DT.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakScalorimetra.pdf

[cg66]

Considering the experiment above, which is from Broullion work, what is the bet that ALL their apparent positive results are due to measurement errors caused by the use of high power HF pulses? Such errors are very difficult to track down and in the writeup they are not checking whether they exist or not with the same care as they apply to controlling calorimetry errors.

Tom – I agree you can't rule out RF errors. Years ago i worked with RF generators measuring heat generated by ultrasound transducers. Noise was really only a problem when the temperature change was small (< 1 deg C) - and the noise was primary caused by 60Hz power (granted they are using different thermocouples!). Looking at the setup of the experiment, the power supply for the pulse generator is connected to an isolation transformer and looks like the temperature measurements are made in the heat exchanger vs inside the cell. What are your thoughts on how this would impact error caused by the pulses?

[tomclarke]

Considering the experiment above, which is from Broullion work, what is the bet that ALL their apparent positive results are due to measurement errors caused by the use of high power HF pulses? Such errors are very difficult to track down and in the writeup they are not checking whether they exist or not with the same care as they apply to controlling calorimetry errors.

Tom – I agree you can't rule out RF errors. Years ago i worked with RF generators measuring heat generated by ultrasound transducers. Noise was really only a problem when the temperature change was small (< 1 deg C) - and the noise was primary caused by 60Hz power (granted they are using different thermocouples!). Looking at the setup of the experiment, the power supply for the pulse generator is connected to an isolation transformer and looks like the temperature measurements are made in the heat exchanger vs inside the cell. What are your thoughts on how this would impact error caused by the pulses?

It would be fine if the measurement is physically separated from the power stuff and also shielded (faraday cage) with HF filtering on supplies or isolated preferably battery supply, and finally no common ground connection with the power stuff. There probably is the latter via PC. You need to use optical links for data.

100ns high power pusles - with therefore harmonics 50MHz and above - are really horrible. You get coupling via magnetic and electric fields from any wire to any other wire, unless they are all carefully shielded. I'm not saying you could not get this to work without errors - I'm sure you could - but it would require sustained careful effort. These people seem not to have made that effort or they would have documented it in the writeup - and the controls they did to check whether they had succeeded.

One of the problems with this source of error is that it depends on RF rectification in amplifiers, which is very variable and "suck it and see". I'm not sure whether the thermocouple itself can provide rectification? if not, good quality shielding of the thermocouple amplifier and ADC with careful filtering of inputs is all you need to ensure accurate temp readings. You then also have accurate power readongs. We need to know more about how the power measuring eqpt is connected to the circuit, and whether it gets innacurate when presented with waveforms at higher than 100MHz.

The point is that in a measurement like this you must assume the experiment has error until you've proved it does not.

[tomclarke]

If you like you post details of one of these experiments and I will say why it is deficient.

I would rather you experimentally verify it than dismiss it on the grounds of any minor thing you think you find.

but i'll bite:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..MARA17009F

this is not excess heat, which I understand enough (I think) to critique. Error sources for CR39 detectors etc need to be critiqued by experts who are also good experimentalists.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJcodepositi.pdf

The differential heat measured here between control and active units is problematic because:
(1) it is small, could be due to physical differences in cells (probably does not matter, but could, the differences observed are maybe 5% of total power).
(2) the two cells have different powers in, which could make for different physical states (probably does not matter)
(3) the assumed identical specific heat capacity for the two cells is unwarranted and untested.
(4) the assumed identical heat loss for the two cells may not be true - is this loss significant? It is not checked. (probably does not matter)
(5) The chemical state of the two cells may be different, due to D vs H which have diferent properties, or the different powers in/out. This will result in chemical energy difference. The total energy difference between the two cells is << chemical energy possible.

There are probably many other issues, but those are the ones that come to mind. Remember these experiments are all selected for positive results - no-one reports negative results - and all sorts of spurious effects are possible.

Do I need to do all of them? I won't touch the transmutation/alpha etc ones, since the errors here are not well enough understood by me.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSspawarsyst.pdf
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... ction.html
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... ia2007.pdf
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... PDD-DT.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakScalorimetra.pdf

[happyjack27]

Do I need to do all of them? I won't touch the transmutation/alpha etc ones, since the errors here are not well enough understood by me.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSspawarsyst.pdf
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... ction.html
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... ia2007.pdf
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... PDD-DT.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakScalorimetra.pdf

just spawar co-deposition technique results.

there's a lot of results on a wide variety of topics, ranging from neutron production to site morphology, to heat localization to calorimetry...

so you're saying you can only consider calorimetry methods? you can't address any of the other results? the last one is about calorimetry... what about the light-water control never producing anamolous results, even though the same setup was used?

[happyjack27]

Remember these experiments are all selected for positive results - no-one reports negative results.

this is false. and assuming the conclusion. that would be totally unscientific if that were true.

i actually included an example of a negative result in the links. the one that was rejected for publication. also, they report the negative results w/the control, light water, and they run the experiment multiple times and report on all of them, regardless of whether the result was "negative" or "positive".

[tomclarke]

Remember these experiments are all selected for positive results - no-one reports negative results.

this is false.

I think it is effectively true. The published experiments have positive results. Who would publish completely negative results? Certainly the examples picked up as "evidence" are those that seem most positive. That is tautologous.

and assuming the conclusion. that would be totally unscientific if that were true.

Yes, it would be unscientific. As is having a "theory" of LENR which is effectively unfalsifiable in a Popperian sense.

i actually included an example of a negative result in the links. the one that was rejected for publication. also, they report the negative results w/the control, light water, and they run the experiment multiple times and report on all of them, regardless of whether the result was "negative" or "positive".

So this is the counterexample that proves the rule.

My point is that LENR experiments have evolved in a semi-darwinian fashion with variants of "good" experiments propagating. The definition of "good" is clearly NOT what I would call good - very accurately controlled, cast-iron. It is apparently large positive results. This is understandable. But it means we should expect any experimental methodology that produces positive errors to get propagated, whether LENR exists or no.

[tomclarke]

there's a lot of results on a wide variety of topics, ranging from neutron production to site morphology, to heat localization to calorimetry...

so you're saying you can only consider calorimetry methods? you can't address any of the other results? the last one is about calorimetry... what about the light-water control never producing anamolous results, even though the same setup was used?

Ok I'll look at that one, wait a bit.

the problem with CR39 pits is that I'm not expert enough on error sources - chemical or background from contaminants.

the problem I see with complex modern spectrographic techniques for v low-level element detection is the same, only even more so. You can't work out the errors not considered in a write-up unless you know yourself what they can be. All I will say about these various techniques is that they produce results which are not strongly predicted by any LENR theory and not coherent. One experiment produces two possible rare earth +4p (if I remember right) transmutations. Another produces a whole range of anomalous low-level elements. This lack of coherence looks more like experimental error than something new.

[Axil]

Regarding the Papp engine

The elements helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe) produce very large clusters. Xenon is the most vigorous cluster producer, Xenon clusters that take the shape of buckminsterfullerene.

The other noble gases catalyze the production of Xenon clusters. In general, the lighter atomic weight noble gases will catalyze cluster formation of the heaver weight elements. All the noble gas elements catalyze clustering in other member elements in their element family.

Mixed clustering of more than on noble gas element is possible.

Consistent with Rydberg matter, these clusters demonstrate magic numbers. These magic numbers describe clusters with a specific number of atoms that in an otherwise smooth intensity mass distribution show up in higher abundance than their neighbors. For protonated Xenon clusters the most apparent magic numbers show up at cluster sizes of N = 13, 19, 25, 71, 87 and 141 atoms. Xenon clusters can grow to exceed 1000 atoms and larger.

It is possible to control how clusters form in a mixture of noble gases by adjusting the proportions of each gas in the mix.

When these clusters are excited by lasers or sparks, they developed intense positive charge concentrations.

See

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December ... 0-1222.pdf

These clusters are Rydberg matter when they are is a state of excitement. When positively charged (Protonated Clusters), these clusters concentrate electron clouds that will reduce or eliminate the coulomb barriers of the atoms in there zones of influence.

This Protonated Clustering mechanism is the same one used by LeClair in his cavitation base LENR fusion reaction.

See

https://nanospireinc.com/Fusion.html

Cheers: Axil

[tomclarke]

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

[tomclarke]

Regarding the Papp engine

The elements helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe) produce very large clusters. Xenon is the most vigorous cluster producer, Xenon clusters that take the shape of buckminsterfullerene.

The other noble gases catalyze the production of Xenon clusters. In general, the lighter atomic weight noble gases will catalyze cluster formation of the heaver weight elements. All the noble gas elements catalyze clustering in other member elements in their element family.

Mixed clustering of more than on noble gas element is possible.

Consistent with Rydberg matter, these clusters demonstrate magic numbers. These magic numbers describe clusters with a specific number of atoms that in an otherwise smooth intensity mass distribution show up in higher abundance than their neighbors. For protonated Xenon clusters the most apparent magic numbers show up at cluster sizes of N = 13, 19, 25, 71, 87 and 141 atoms. Xenon clusters can grow to exceed 1000 atoms and larger.

It is possible to control how clusters form in a mixture of noble gases by adjusting the proportions of each gas in the mix.

When these clusters are excited by lasers or sparks, they developed intense positive charge concentrations.

See

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December ... 0-1222.pdf

These clusters are Rydberg matter when they are is a state of excitement. When positively charged (Protonated Clusters), these clusters concentrate electron clouds that will reduce or eliminate the coulomb barriers of the atoms in there zones of influence.

This Protonated Clustering mechanism is the same one used by LeClair in his cavitation base LENR fusion reaction.

See

https://nanospireinc.com/Fusion.html

Cheers: Axil

I am all for theoretical mechanisms that could result in getting over the Coulomb barrier. This is not such, it is from top to bottom nonsense but described in such vague terms that it is difficult to know what it means and therefore prove it is nonsense.

The reference is fine, and describes Rydberg molecules in Noble gases. These are of course similar to normal molecules, but with larger inter-atomic distances and bound by very weak attractive forces, hence only stable at 3K or so. I can see no earthly reason why these clusters should flout the normal quantum limits that prevent electrons in molecules from screening coulomb barriers. in fact, because the interactions to make these molecules are so weak they appear (electronically) more like isolated atoms than conventional molecules.

It is everyone's right to post rubbish - but I wish Axil would do it less.

[happyjack27]

Remember these experiments are all selected for positive results - no-one reports negative results.

this is false.

I think it is effectively true. The published experiments have positive results. Who would publish completely negative results? Certainly the examples picked up as "evidence" are those that seem most positive. That is tautologous.

and assuming the conclusion. that would be totally unscientific if that were true.

Yes, it would be unscientific. As is having a "theory" of LENR which is effectively unfalsifiable in a Popperian sense.

i actually included an example of a negative result in the links. the one that was rejected for publication. also, they report the negative results w/the control, light water, and they run the experiment multiple times and report on all of them, regardless of whether the result was "negative" or "positive".

So this is the counterexample that proves the rule.

so you admit that what you say here is all unsubstantiated conjecture.

My point is that LENR experiments have evolved in a semi-darwinian fashion with variants of "good" experiments propagating. The definition of "good" is clearly NOT what I would call good - very accurately controlled, cast-iron. It is apparently large positive results. This is understandable. But it means we should expect any experimental methodology that produces positive errors to get propagated, whether LENR exists or no.

Ok, good that's my point. yes, that's exactly what they're trying to do is amplify the results, whether lenr exists or no. at the same time they are of course trying to keep it very accurately controlled and cast iron, as you say; they are constantly trying to minimize any experimental errors are possibilities for such as they can find. they are taking very good care to do that. it is in their best interests to take care of any experimental errors as early in the game as possible. all in all they are trying to create a very controlled environment, where they can reliably reproduce the phenomena while simultaneously accounting for and controlling every possible source of error or noise.

[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.

[happyjack27]

Regarding the Papp engine

The elements helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe) produce very large clusters. Xenon is the most vigorous cluster producer, Xenon clusters that take the shape of buckminsterfullerene.

The other noble gases catalyze the production of Xenon clusters. In general, the lighter atomic weight noble gases will catalyze cluster formation of the heaver weight elements. All the noble gas elements catalyze clustering in other member elements in their element family.

Mixed clustering of more than on noble gas element is possible.

Consistent with Rydberg matter, these clusters demonstrate magic numbers. These magic numbers describe clusters with a specific number of atoms that in an otherwise smooth intensity mass distribution show up in higher abundance than their neighbors. For protonated Xenon clusters the most apparent magic numbers show up at cluster sizes of N = 13, 19, 25, 71, 87 and 141 atoms. Xenon clusters can grow to exceed 1000 atoms and larger.

It is possible to control how clusters form in a mixture of noble gases by adjusting the proportions of each gas in the mix.

When these clusters are excited by lasers or sparks, they developed intense positive charge concentrations.

See

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December ... 0-1222.pdf

These clusters are Rydberg matter when they are is a state of excitement. When positively charged (Protonated Clusters), these clusters concentrate electron clouds that will reduce or eliminate the coulomb barriers of the atoms in there zones of influence.

This Protonated Clustering mechanism is the same one used by LeClair in his cavitation base LENR fusion reaction.

See

https://nanospireinc.com/Fusion.html

Cheers: Axil

I am all for theoretical mechanisms that could result in getting over the Coulomb barrier. This is not such, it is from top to bottom nonsense but described in such vague terms that it is difficult to know what it means and therefore prove it is nonsense.

The reference is fine, and describes Rydberg molecules in Noble gases. These are of course similar to normal molecules, but with larger inter-atomic distances and bound by very weak attractive forces, hence only stable at 3K or so. I can see no earthly reason why these clusters should flout the normal quantum limits that prevent electrons in molecules from screening coulomb barriers. in fact, because the interactions to make these molecules are so weak they appear (electronically) more like isolated atoms than conventional molecules.

It is everyone's right to post rubbish - but I wish Axil would do it less.

personally, i don't see the above as rubbish, though i agree it is vague. the problem i see with it is that the method they describes would fall way short of overcoming the coluomb barrier. -- which is really a quantumn-mechanical barrier resulting from the indeterminancy of the electron's position / velocity. i don't see anything here that substantially reduces that.