10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Crawdaddy]

This type of calorimetry must be conducted using controls. Prior to the experiment the calorimeter must be calibrated with a known input power, there is no oportunity to "do something" to the other reactor core if standard practices are used. The most basic of the "mutually agreed upon" experimental protocols would obviously be calibrating the calorimeter. No competent person would ever agree to put there name on such a measurement without a series of control measurements, which are standard practice in this type of calorimetry.

And how would calibrating the calorimeter prevent tinkering with the control reactor? Unless you can see what is inside, you cant know what is happening in there...

As long as you calibrate the calorimeter, and the input power is known by the independent experimenters using their own instruments and power supply, then there is nothing you can do inside the control reactor to prevent an accurate comparison.

If I know what temperature the outside surface of the calorimeter will be at a given input power, if I input that power into the control reactor I will see that external temperature. That is the nature of a control.

[tomclarke]

I wonder what "well done" experiments he is talking about. I have never seen such a report. Perhaps you can link one.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/Mizuno.html

This argument boils down to arguing that the CF experimenters have no idea how to do calorimetry. A much more authoritative figure than deadalus2u disagrees. I trust the opinion of Robert Duncan much more than some guy on the net.

Don't trust anyone, go look up the source material yourself. It is not difficult to compare good with bad experiments: if you do the errors and ommissions in the bad ones become obvious.

Ummm have you read the original Mizuno conference presentation? Please link it, I searched our university database and it does not appear to be available.

I do look up source material myself. I have been encouraging others to do the same for months. The evidence is compelling in the literature. There are dozens of papers with infinitely better apparatus, procedures, and measurements than those in the unpublished report you linked. See the Storms 2010 review for a leading reference.

I would be interested to read the Mizuno conference report (my databases do not have it available. I cannot judge how "well done" the replication is without the original research report.

Protocol: http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt

T. Ohmori and T. Mizuno, Catalysis Research Center, Hokkaido University

Strong Excess Energy Evolution, New Element Production, and Electromagnetic Wave and/or Neutron Emission in the Light Water Electrolysis with a Tungsten Cathode

Abstract: Strong heat evolution enough to incandesce the electrode was observed by applying a high electric power. The excess energy amounts to 183 W which is 2.6 times the input power. At the same time strong electromagnetic wave and/or neutron emission reaching 60,000 counts/sec by a neutron counter was observed. During the electrolysis, considerable amounts of new elements, i.e. Pb, Fe, Ni, Cr and C were produced. The distributions of Fe, Cr and C on/in the electrode were overlapped. The isotopic distribution of Pb deviated greatly from the natural isotopic abundance. These results show that the nuclear transmutation reaction took place on/in the tungsten electrode during the electrolysis.

Briefly, this paper describes excess heat and transmutations from tungsten run at high voltage at 85 to 100°C. I like this experiment because it is quick. The control run goes from 85 to boiling in two minutes, and the main experiment, with the same power input, the same mass of water, and the same stirring boils in 45 seconds. The experiment is quick, but the analysis takes weeks.

OK, I've taken the first serious excess heat experiment discussed in the Storms review:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf

This appears a serious write-up, though whether the results are significant is very unclear (it would require quite a bit of work to determine this, they are relatively low-level, so all errors must be eliminated). The D/H comparison does not do this, because there are many ways in which D & H are different. For reason that will be clear below I don't think it is worth doing this:

Here is Krivit's commentary on Mckubre's work:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ ... tale.shtml

If Krivit is right, and his research is serious, Mckubre clearly cannot be trusted because his data analysis (whether interntionally or by mistake) is seriously wrong. Since Mckubre gives calculated results, rather than raw data, I don't think we can trust it, do you?

Of course, McKubre denies this, and it could be that Krivit is seriously wrong, deluded by his loce of WL theory. But I'd rather pick an example where we do not have such a question mark hanging over the researcher - perhaps a replication of McKubre?



I can spend a lot of time chasing wild geese. So how about you tell me what is the most convincing excess heat CF experiment you know, and we will look to see whether the results are clearly significant.

[Skipjack]

As long as you calibrate the calorimeter, and the input power is known by the independent experimenters using their own instruments and power supply, then there is nothing you can do inside the control reactor to prevent an accurate comparison.

If I know what temperature the outside surface of the calorimeter will be at a given input power, if I input that power into the control reactor I will see that external temperature. That is the nature of a control.

You still dont get it, do you? How can you prevent the control reactor to be tinkered with, if you cant see what is happening inside?

[Crawdaddy]

Protocol: http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt

T. Ohmori and T. Mizuno, Catalysis Research Center, Hokkaido University

Strong Excess Energy Evolution, New Element Production, and Electromagnetic Wave and/or Neutron Emission in the Light Water Electrolysis with a Tungsten Cathode

Abstract: Strong heat evolution enough to incandesce the electrode was observed by applying a high electric power. The excess energy amounts to 183 W which is 2.6 times the input power. At the same time strong electromagnetic wave and/or neutron emission reaching 60,000 counts/sec by a neutron counter was observed. During the electrolysis, considerable amounts of new elements, i.e. Pb, Fe, Ni, Cr and C were produced. The distributions of Fe, Cr and C on/in the electrode were overlapped. The isotopic distribution of Pb deviated greatly from the natural isotopic abundance. These results show that the nuclear transmutation reaction took place on/in the tungsten electrode during the electrolysis.

Briefly, this paper describes excess heat and transmutations from tungsten run at high voltage at 85 to 100°C. I like this experiment because it is quick. The control run goes from 85 to boiling in two minutes, and the main experiment, with the same power input, the same mass of water, and the same stirring boils in 45 seconds. The experiment is quick, but the analysis takes weeks.

So in contrasting the experiments... one uses a tungsten-platinum cathode and the other uses an all platinum cathode.

This report does not rise to the level of a "well done" replication, it is not even a replication. To my knowledge there has never been a report of cold fusion from Pt electrochemical experiments.

OK, I've taken the first serious excess heat experiment discussed in the Storms review:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf

This appears a serious write-up, though whether the results are significant is very unclear (it would require quite a bit of work to determine this, they are relatively low-level, so all errors must be eliminated). The D/H comparison does not do this, because there are many ways in which D & H are different. For reason that will be clear below I don't think it is worth doing this:

Here is Krivit's commentary on Mckubre's work:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ ... tale.shtml

If Krivit is right, and his research is serious, Mckubre clearly cannot be trusted because his data analysis (whether interntionally or by mistake) is seriously wrong. Since Mckubre gives calculated results, rather than raw data, I don't think we can trust it, do you?

Of course, McKubre denies this, and it could be that Krivit is seriously wrong, deluded by his loce of WL theory. But I'd rather pick an example where we do not have such a question mark hanging over the researcher - perhaps a replication of McKubre?



I can spend a lot of time chasing wild geese. So how about you tell me what is the most convincing excess heat CF experiment you know, and we will look to see whether the results are clearly significant.

I don't find excess heat to be a the best evidence for cold fusion. Transmutation is much more compelling. Here is a paper where the transmutation of various metals is observed in situ in an XPS instrument.

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

I consider it a "well done" experiment.

[Crawdaddy]

As long as you calibrate the calorimeter, and the input power is known by the independent experimenters using their own instruments and power supply, then there is nothing you can do inside the control reactor to prevent an accurate comparison.

If I know what temperature the outside surface of the calorimeter will be at a given input power, if I input that power into the control reactor I will see that external temperature. That is the nature of a control.

You still dont get it, do you? How can you prevent the control reactor to be tinkered with, if you cant see what is happening inside?

The calorimeter itself must be calibrated with a known input power. Independent experimenters would place a heat source inside the calorimeter and calibrate it. They would not use the uncharged reactor to do the calibration runs! That would be the dumb.

[Joseph Chikva]

And how would calibrating the calorimeter prevent tinkering with the control reactor? Unless you can see what is inside, you cant know what is happening in there...

It is possible. And what? Who has done?

It is very funny to read discussion how to measure the heat if developer of device would ask for help in calorimetry. 100% probability that matter is not in calorimetry. But matter is in absence of anomalous heat which has to be measured.

And so this discussion would be helpful only for self-education of someone.

Also for followers of Rossi. For those who till now believes that Rossi sold at least one 1 MW device. What is the cost of fuel cycle? Cost of 1 kW*h, 1 btu, etc.
Who except of idiot will buy device without knowledge of operational cost?

Certification of device emitting neutrons or gamma? Does that emit radiation or not?
Mr. Parralel waits for selling that by his opinion would allow Rossi further development. But who will allow sales of portable radioactive device? Am I wrong that this type of devices are under control and producers should have corresponding certificates?

[Carl White]

As long as you calibrate the calorimeter, and the input power is known by the independent experimenters using their own instruments and power supply, then there is nothing you can do inside the control reactor to prevent an accurate comparison.

If I know what temperature the outside surface of the calorimeter will be at a given input power, if I input that power into the control reactor I will see that external temperature. That is the nature of a control.

You still dont get it, do you? How can you prevent the control reactor to be tinkered with, if you cant see what is happening inside?

Maybe you could propose a scenario in which such tinkering would be effective.

Remember, the devices will be opened for inspection.

[Skipjack]

Remember, the devices will be opened for inspection.

The reactor core as well?

[Carl White]

Remember, the devices will be opened for inspection.

The reactor core as well?

According to NyTeknik, anyhow:

Defkalion describes a test method known as "Differential thermal analysis". The intention is to measure the difference between power development in a reactor loaded with fuel and one that is empty and only heated by the resistor needed to start the reaction, and then repeat the measurement after the reactors have been switched.

The description in the press release, however, is scant and partly incorrect.

In addition to power measurement, alpha and gamma radiation will be measured, and the reactors will be weighed, measured, and also opened.

Test protocols will be published before tests and the results may be published freely by invited evaluators.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 391463.ece

EDIT: Also, posted by a Defkalion representative in one of their website forums:

Both test Reactors will be measured (weight and all their dimensions) before and after their testing. Testers/evaluators may inspect the inner of both reactors during their "role change" preparation procedure (before second run).

[Joseph Chikva]

Remember, the devices will be opened for inspection.

Very well if will be opened.
Very well that there is such invitation to test with independent testers' own instrumentation.
Very well if they this time will use higher then water heat-transfer medium.

But what sizes that device has? This information is needed for determination of vessel's dimensions in which device should be immersed.
If we would use any indirect calorimetry methods.

And if we would use direct calorimetry by measurement of coolant flow and delta T - the easiest and at the same time the most accurate method), some fittings' dimensions should be determined in that case.

Invitation like: please come to our site with your instrumentation has not make sense without providing of such information.
Did Dekfalion provide that?

[Carl White]

Invitation like: please come to our site with your instrumentation has not make sense without providing of such information.
Did Dekfalion provide that?

Have you looked at the "Hyperion KW Series Specification Data Sheet (Preliminary)"? It provides some diagrams and dimensions.

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/H ... er2011.pdf

I expect the bare reactors would be a subportion of the depicted units.

Anyhow, I expect that interested investigators could contact them in advance with questions.

[Joseph Chikva]

Have you looked at the "Hyperion KW Series Specification Data Sheet (Preliminary)"? It provides some diagrams and dimensions.

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/H ... er2011.pdf

I expect the bare reactors would be a subportion of the depicted units.

Anyhow, I expect that interested investigators could contact them in advance with questions.

No I have not. This information enough for selecting right instrumentation.
And when the test will be?

PS: They have gamma-shielding 0.3 cm. For what gamma-quant energy this is enough?

[tomclarke]

I don't find excess heat to be a the best evidence for cold fusion. Transmutation is much more compelling. Here is a paper where the transmutation of various metals is observed in situ in an XPS instrument.

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

I consider it a "well done" experiment.

OK, these people use 5kV ion bombardment to build up a thin film of Pt. They infuse it with D2. After this, they observe various spectral peaks which (they think) indicate isotopic comprosition of Pr & Sm. They also find a |Mossbauer resonance that is indicative of Pr.

The levels observed of these elements are incredibly low, a few atoms.

Their own claim is that Pr is definitely observed (because of the Mossbauer effect observed), and Sm possibly.

The paper states that the Pr is formed because of the D2 loading of the Pt film.

No evidence is provided for this conclusion. No controls are done to see which elements of the experimental setup correlate with the observed results (e.g. substituting D2 for H2, or nothing).

In fact, there are other possible reasons for the stated results which are not even mentioned:

(1) That the Pr was not contamination already present on the Pt

(2) that the Pt deposition did not generate Pr (since 5000V and +50 ions gives ionic energy of 250keV, maybe enough for some nuclear stuff? I don't know about this, so may be completely wrong.

(3) I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I suspect somone who was would know about false positives etc in the spectral methods used to identify incredibly low quantities of these elements. The authors themselves think the Sm result bis ambiguous so I imagine tehre are many different ways in which the observed spectral [peaks could happen.

If this is a "well-written paper" with its unsubstantiated leaps of fantasy, and complete lack of critical analysis, god help the bad ones!

I don't know if it has been published, but any decent reviewer would require the uncritical statements in the paper to be substantiated or deleted.

[rcain]

...

Well said! Defkalion is clearly the next shoe to drop. There may be some modest delays, but I don't see any major issues with their published test guidelines...
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... ?f=4&t=926

If I have read the Defkalion test parameters (within which tests will be agreed) right:

Drill down to the parameters within which testing will be agreed. They will not allow flow calorimetry. This is what would (easily) have proved Rossi's reactors real or false had he ever adjusted the flow rate for an output decently above both input and ambient (say 50C) and decently below 100C to eliminate uncertainty due to phase change.

The tests sound great till you see what they do. They have two black box reactors with thermocouples on the inside and outside. One will be active, one inactive. They measure temp difference, power in.

This relies in the thermal conductivity of the two reactors being identical. But there is no procedure for testing this. Faking the setup as described would be very easy.

The method is OK if very carefully checked, but it is not intrinsically as bomb-proof as flow calorimetry. That BTW is why Rossi clearly did not have anything. His methods (from the first 10 tests) could very easily have been adjusted for bomb-proof results. And many people told him how to do this.

These tests are particularly unhelpful because the results will depend on the internal thermal characteristics of the two (sealed) reactors. It looks as though people will be asked to assume that the two reactors are identical - else why have the control reactor. But that is not externally verifiable.

This type of calorimetry is commonly used, but with careful calibration of test vessel thermal conductivity before and after. Looks like Defkalion are replacing this step (which would be much more difficult to fake) by the two reactors, which are trivial to fake.

Still, I will await what really happens in these tests. With no expectation.

- absolutely - where is flow measurement (flow calorimetry )!?

- would be the simplest thing to arrange, even with a closed glycol loop - they need to muster all the corroborative data they can to quell the critics. yet they CONSPICUOUSLY PRECLUDE such measurements.

by contrast, if they allowed 'free measurement' access - we might all have some clue about radiation and transmutation characteristics - they would have serious science crawling all over them, along with real investors and real customers. they would still be ahead of the curve on patentable technology, if that ever come to pass.

but i fear, just another bunch of cowboys.

[rcain]

They will not allow flow calorimetry. This is what would (easily) have proved Rossi's reactors real or false had he ever adjusted the flow rate for an output decently above both input and ambient (say 50C) and decently below 100C to eliminate uncertainty due to phase change.

This remains one of my fundamental sticking points that pushes me to non-belief.

Such a simple thing to address and end the Rossiworld Circus.

There can be no reasonable explanation why any of them refuse doing this. A simple closed loop test where they heat somebody's swimming pool. Easy day.

ditto.