10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

TallDave wrote:Sufficient credit would suffice, I think.

I agree you would want to take all the 1:1 action you could get first, but you're going to have about 100x as much action at 10:1, and so forth.

Of course, if you really want to be slick about it, you set up multiple, ongoing expirations -- say, every three months. Then, each time, you can re-invest your profits until the whole Rossi craze blows over and no one wants to lose their money anymore.

Ah, finance.
Yep, I see what you're saying.

Sounds like hard work... almost tempting.

EDIT: second thoughts, way too much work for too little gain.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Here are the pdf files for the Proceedings 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Part 1 & part 2). 2009, ENEA: Rome, Italy. 385.

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

These papers, and experimental results, answer the critics who have claimed that the FPE is an illusion, that the results are due to experimental errors and why the inital efforts at replicating P & F failed. What one has to do to get reliable results now seems better understood.

I assume this is too long for tomclarke to read, so we can expect his criticisms to continue.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

These papers, and experimental results, answer the critics who have claimed that the FPE is an illusion, that the results are due to experimental errors and why the inital efforts at replicating P & F failed.
That was 2009. So where is my LENR water heater?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

From the paper:
The palladium giving a significant probability to observe the effect has several features that have been identified; however the possibility to reproduce a material having those characteristics remains still an open problem . The consequence is the absence of a full reproducibility and of the control of the signals amplitude.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf
So it is still hit or miss. Dang. I thought it was well understood. My mistake.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

More:
The study of transmutations is a controversial field within the frame of the condensed matter nuclear and an accepted answer whether the phenomenon exists or not doesn’t exist yet. The evidence of elements after the experiment that were considered to be absent at the beginning is not enough since reorganizing the contaminant concentration profiles and/or contaminant from the ambient could be the reason for such an evidence.
Even if a reasonable transportable reproducibility has been achieved and material characteristics, that are necessary conditions to observe the effect, have been identified the start up of the effect and the amplitude of the signals are not under control yet. A complete theoretical frame defining the effect, its trigger and able to increase the reproducibility and the amplitude of the signals is not available yet.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

My Interpretation of the current standing:
The effects are well known....to uhhh.....be completely random....but we seriously maybe have come close to possibly figuring out what it is we might be doing.....maybe.
Of course, like all others, I'd love to see a definitive answer either way, but this is funny regardless.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

MSimon,
Yes, you can pick out pieces that say it is not 100% foolproof, but several factors are now known as requirements for it to work. There was a list of six published not so long ago.

The fact remains, given a sample piece of Palladium that does meet all the specs, the results are more likely to produce anomalous heat than not. Quite large amounts of heat in carefully controlled experiments. Sure there are things to discover to make every experiment a certainty, but the weight of evidence is now solidly on the side of FLE being real.

It will be interesting to see the results from the conference now being held. From the little I have seen already, options using Ni & H2 will also be mentioned.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Yes, you can pick out pieces that say it is not 100% foolproof, but several factors are now known as requirements for it to work. There was a list of six published not so long ago.
You know that is not enough. It is like saying, "To build a generating plant I need some coal, some iron, copper wire, and a few other things - TBD."

You don't know everything you need to know about everything you have to have.

You might as well go with: I have a pile of wood and plenty of oxygen from the air. Why don't I have a fire? At least in the case of fire we know the missing ingredient. In the case of LENR? TBD. And BTW there is no theory which as yet points to the missing ingredient. We do have plenty of phlogiston. So there is at least that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

MSimon,

It may not be enough to please you, but LENR has been demonstrated often enough, by competent people, that it really does exist.

I agree it is not well understood. All the requirements for it to happen are not yet known, but enough are. As the list of things that must be first fulfilled for it to happen grows, as it will with more people working on it, it will be understood.

While I have your attention, would you be willing to hold the stakes should CKay and I manage to reach agreement on the conditions for the bet?

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

parallel wrote:MSimon,

It may not be enough to please you, but LENR has been demonstrated often enough, by competent people, that it really does exist.

I agree it is not well understood. All the requirements for it to happen are not yet known, but enough are. As the list of things that must be first fulfilled for it to happen grows, as it will with more people working on it, it will be understood.

While I have your attention, would you be willing to hold the stakes should CKay and I manage to reach agreement on the conditions for the bet?
Parallel -

You underestimate the ingenuity of human beings. Researchers looking for excess heat will find all sorts of really inventive experimental errors that generate it. As you know, the vast body of CF work does not focus on experimental errors, merely on "what works". Why do the CF conferences have ppt papers with no proper error analysis? Were i a CF resercher it would be the one thing that would interest me: are the results larger than the errors - and that means very careful examination of all possible errors.

Were there one single bulletproof experimental result CF would be big news again. Given the large heat available from CF you would think, if it worked, that bulletproof experiments would be findable by now with high Q from people other than apparent fraudsters.

But even if not, just take the best of your 1000s of experiments, refine it, remove experimental errors. If the results are real it could be made bulletproof. Alas i've never seen anything like.

Best wishes, Tom

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Let us look at this a different way:

You pump the device for a long time. After pumping it emits energy in excess of the immediate amount going in. Then it seems to stop.

Sounds like a new method of energy storage to me.

Where are the theories? All we hear is "no known method". Well duh. The same is true of the fusion claims. "No known method". So we have fusion theories but no storage theories. Fusion is sexy. "Batteries" are not.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Tom,

From my posted quotes alone it is obvious that the people who know the field consider the experiments inadequate. And yet Parallel seems to think based on scant evidence that "It works. And it is an energy generator. For sure. Without a doubt."

Excellent point about error bars.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Post by Carl White »

Here's a question for MSimon:

Do you believe that LENR/CF is worthy of taxpayer-funded scientific investigation?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Carl White wrote:Here's a question for MSimon:

Do you believe that LENR/CF is worthy of taxpayer-funded scientific investigation?
Only if rigor is enforced. And of course "worthy" is not really a good term. As always with these decisions "worthy compared to what?"
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Some uninvited comments.

Should tax payer money be spent on cold fusion/ LENR? Short answer is yes. Long answer is much more complex. But money is wasted on many things- like laser confined fusion. It has no potential for energy production, only as a high intensity neutron source for weapens testing. And a FF type device may do as well at 100-1000 times less expense. But things are learned in the fields of materials research, laser systems, etc, etc. Who knows where it will lead. Relative small scale research which in total would be much less than Tokamak research and has perhaps similar chances of final product success are reasonable. It does seem that Tokamaks may reach net positive Q's, but that is still a long way from a useful viable plant.

Hydrogen loading into metal crystals is an interesting field that seem to be poorly defined. "CF" as a battery may actually be a very attractive technology, that has not been studied well- oh wait, Nickel metal hydride batteries, etc. have been studied and developed extensively.

My personal view is that if 'CF' schemes eventually are developed as a concentrated energy source*, it will be as a battery, much like the radioisotope thermal power sources used in some space craft. While it is not a source of excess power, it might perform better than current storage methods. That in itself may be very useful.

*Muon catalyzed fusion is an exception, but it is a completely impractical approach unless new physics is discovered about Muon production and durability.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Post Reply