LENR Is Real
Re: LENR Is Real
Tom,
Thanks for the shout out. I will take a look at your work when I get a little more time. That said, I do think you should find a way to make it available to a wider audience, just based on the feedback you've gotten. As with any analysis, critique, both positive and negative can only make it stronger.
I would also note, that you, unlike the Rossiclown, are willing to take both positive and negative feedback and use it to improve your argument or concede. Rossi is all about being self-important, and also apparently buying condos in Miami. One wonders when his "investors" are going to catch up on that one.
Thanks for the shout out. I will take a look at your work when I get a little more time. That said, I do think you should find a way to make it available to a wider audience, just based on the feedback you've gotten. As with any analysis, critique, both positive and negative can only make it stronger.
I would also note, that you, unlike the Rossiclown, are willing to take both positive and negative feedback and use it to improve your argument or concede. Rossi is all about being self-important, and also apparently buying condos in Miami. One wonders when his "investors" are going to catch up on that one.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: LENR Is Real
Rossi occupies a space where companies with nothing seem to be able to continue for decades. Look at BLP.
He is more blatant in his lies - but somehow this does not worry his followers.
I might check whether arxiv will publish this in response to the UoB publication without expecting anyone else to publish.
He is more blatant in his lies - but somehow this does not worry his followers.
I might check whether arxiv will publish this in response to the UoB publication without expecting anyone else to publish.
Re: LENR Is Real
Trust me, having sorted the ideas together and having actually made the calculation is original enough and highly appreciated from a vast community of Arxiv readers.tomclarke wrote:I should note (and do in the paper) that there is almost nothing original. Others as you know have made the points I made though not followed through with the calculations.
Just leave an email inside so that if someone finds some errors he can drop a message to you.
Arxiv is a pre-print service as you stated correctly, but in the meaning that papers there are accepted before they get printed somewhere else, but this is not an obligation.tomclarke wrote:Arxiv is for papers that will be published elsewhere.
There are quite many works on Arxiv that never reach mainstream publishing or other form of publishing for several years (if ever).
Here as an example a collection of e-Cat related papers on Arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+E-Cat/0/1/0/all/0/1
The first one is brand new. An attempt to justify the Nickel-LiAlH4 reaction even before having proved any real effect.
It's funny as Rossi and BLP are using more and more the same tactics. I would not be surprised if one day they announce a merger.
It will probably be the only "fusion" that they will ever be able to prove real!!
A society of dogmas is a dead society.
Re: LENR Is Real
You should. I read through it last night and it is excellent, and written so well it was easy for a non-physicist, yet technical person such as myself to follow with ease, including the maths. It is also very objective and fair.tomclarke wrote: I might check whether arxiv will publish this in response to the UoB publication without expecting anyone else to publish.
Re: LENR Is Real
Thanks Joe, that is very kind of you.JoeP wrote:You should. I read through it last night and it is excellent, and written so well it was easy for a non-physicist, yet technical person such as myself to follow with ease, including the maths. It is also very objective and fair.tomclarke wrote: I might check whether arxiv will publish this in response to the UoB publication without expecting anyone else to publish.
I've cleaned up the messy section on electrical errors, and added some better explanation for why the result is different from that obtained by Bob Higgins (who does the thermal analysis but gets it slightly wrong because he does not consider it from first principles as I do).
(EDIT: better download URL)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8Dg ... sp=sharing
Last edited by tomclarke on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: LENR Is Real
I am disappointed in Rossi because Rossi has allowed the open source LENR community to be misled by the Lagano report. We know now that the mouse is the only reactor type that is powered under the Rossi latest reactor architecture. The Cat is not powered and depends on the mouse as its activator. Rossi knew full well when he gave this type of reactor to the Lagano testers that it could only produce power at a level just over unity. He knew that the Lagano power production numbers must have been in error because a Mouse cannot produce all that power as Lagano claimed.
Rossi also has told us that the mouse produces power just above over unity. Real power comes when the mouse activates N numbers of non powered sub-reactor units that he calls Cats.
The errors that the Lagano team made in measuring the temperature and power production capability of the ‘Mouse” that Rossi gave the Lagano test team was left unchallenged even though Rossi knew that a mouse can only produce power just over unity. When the Lagano errors are corrected, the Lagano power adjustment shows power production just over unity.
The open source community including MFMP is hell bent in showing power production from the “mouse” to meet or exceed the invalid numbers that Rossi has let stand from the results presented from the Lagano test.
The Lagano test team had their own agenda in not correcting these overblown power production numbers. That agenda is probably centered in getting funding for there own research from the authorities.
All this subterfuge is not good for LENR.
The open source community should move on from showing the inflated power production numbers that Lagano has promulgated, and concentrate on getting the “mouse” to activate N numbers of Cats so that LENR can show some real solid over unity energy production.
Rossi also has told us that the mouse produces power just above over unity. Real power comes when the mouse activates N numbers of non powered sub-reactor units that he calls Cats.
The errors that the Lagano team made in measuring the temperature and power production capability of the ‘Mouse” that Rossi gave the Lagano test team was left unchallenged even though Rossi knew that a mouse can only produce power just over unity. When the Lagano errors are corrected, the Lagano power adjustment shows power production just over unity.
The open source community including MFMP is hell bent in showing power production from the “mouse” to meet or exceed the invalid numbers that Rossi has let stand from the results presented from the Lagano test.
The Lagano test team had their own agenda in not correcting these overblown power production numbers. That agenda is probably centered in getting funding for there own research from the authorities.
All this subterfuge is not good for LENR.
The open source community should move on from showing the inflated power production numbers that Lagano has promulgated, and concentrate on getting the “mouse” to activate N numbers of Cats so that LENR can show some real solid over unity energy production.
Re: LENR Is Real
Axil, they didn't go over unity though. They were within experimental error so likely under unity which is to be expected.
Re: LENR Is Real
There has been a handful of experiments that compare a dummy reactor with a fueled reactor where both reactors were powered by the same drive current. In all these tests, the fueled reactor hits a temperture where the fueld reactor is hotter than the dummy reactor by about 100C. The number of tests that show the same behavior speaks against experiemtal error due to the misplasement of the thermal sensors.ScottL wrote:Axil, they didn't go over unity though. They were within experimental error so likely under unity which is to be expected.
As the number of these experiemts increase over time that show this result, the likelyhood that they are caused by experimental errors is reduced proportionally.
Re: LENR Is Real
I think you should go back and re-read some of the posts from the last 2 pages. I mean really read them, not just scan and cherry-pick.
Re: LENR Is Real
Tom Clarke:
This COP of between 1 and 2 in the maximun sweet spot temperature zone is consistant with the experimental results produced by the open source LENR community.To address your point more directly:
The X7 here comes from:
X3 is because the wrong temperature makes COP 3 when it should be 1
There remains approx X2 "acceleration".
Re: LENR Is Real
Yeah, and that "isotopic shift" trick he pulled wasn't very sporting either, but fortunately the LENR community completely disregards it when claiming replications.Axil wrote:I am disappointed in Rossi because Rossi has allowed the open source LENR community to be misled by the Lagano report. ... Rossi knew full well when he gave this type of reactor to the Lagano testers that it could only produce power at a level just over unity. ...
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
Re: LENR Is Real
If you have looked at the structure of that Ni62 micro particle from the Lagano report, it is impossible to fabricate that particle without spending many millions of dollars for Ni62. It still retains the nanowires on the surface of the particle that is typical of that type of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) particle. Those nano-structures are unique to the commercial production process. A huge amount of nickel is required to build that type of particle using that commersial process.Ivy Matt wrote:Yeah, and that "isotopic shift" trick he pulled wasn't very sporting either, but fortunately the LENR community completely disregards it when claiming replications.Axil wrote:I am disappointed in Rossi because Rossi has allowed the open source LENR community to be misled by the Lagano report. ... Rossi knew full well when he gave this type of reactor to the Lagano testers that it could only produce power at a level just over unity. ...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3qufG ... sp=sharing
The nanostucture on the surface of the Ni62 microparticle
The existence of that single particle proves LENR as far as I am concerned.
Re: LENR Is Real
That is technically correct. The other experiments have all shown COP = 1 (to within errors). that is (sort of) between 1 and 2.Axil wrote:Tom Clarke:
This COP of between 1 and 2 in the maximun sweet spot temperature zone is consistant with the experimental results produced by the open source LENR community.To address your point more directly:
The X7 here comes from:
X3 is because the wrong temperature makes COP 3 when it should be 1
There remains approx X2 "acceleration".
Many of the COP=1 experiments (I guess Brian Aherne for example),which are the ones using better techniques and getting 1 most precisely, you just don't hear about. But Jiang's experiment shows very clear COP = 1, from its (working) inner and outer TCs tracking each other.
Re: LENR Is Real
Axil,Axil wrote: If you have looked at the structure of that Ni62 micro particle from the Lagano report, it is impossible to fabricate that particle without spending many millions of dollars for Ni62. It still retains the nanowires on the surface of the particle that is typical of that type of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) particle. Those nano-structures are unique to the commercial production process. A huge amount of nickel is required to build that type of particle using that commersial process.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3qufG ... sp=sharing
The nanostucture on the surface of the Ni62 microparticle
The existence of that single particle proves LENR as far as I am concerned.
It is good to get some definite statements from you. I see nothing unusual in an Ni particle that is porous after sintering at high temperatures with reducing agents from Ni powder. Nor do I believe do you have any evidence that that photomicrograph is different from what anyone would expect from Ni powder sintered.
Ni is used in NiCd batteries and there is quite a literature on how to make it porous.
Try searching "Ni powder sintered" on google images and you will see what I mean.
Re: LENR Is Real
Rossi's nickel powder is produced through a Carbonyl processtomclarke wrote:Axil,Axil wrote: If you have looked at the structure of that Ni62 micro particle from the Lagano report, it is impossible to fabricate that particle without spending many millions of dollars for Ni62. It still retains the nanowires on the surface of the particle that is typical of that type of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) particle. Those nano-structures are unique to the commercial production process. A huge amount of nickel is required to build that type of particle using that commersial process.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3qufG ... sp=sharing
The nanostucture on the surface of the Ni62 microparticle
The existence of that single particle proves LENR as far as I am concerned.
It is good to get some definite statements from you. I see nothing unusual in an Ni particle that is porous after sintering at high temperatures with reducing agents from Ni powder. Nor do I believe do you have any evidence that that photomicrograph is different from what anyone would expect from Ni powder sintered.
Ni is used in NiCd batteries and there is quite a literature on how to make it porous.
Try searching "Ni powder sintered" on google images and you will see what I mean.
http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder ... duced.html