LENR Is Real

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:05 am

Just In... more info will be provided as this as of yet unconfirmed news story develops

Employee Igor Stepanov Physics Department of Moscow State University and employees of the MEI Nguyen Quoc Chi and Yuri Malakhov created a device in which a cylindrical cell is loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride, is located in the calorimeter with running water.

After three attempts to launch completes the rapid destruction of the cell by uncontrolled overheating, June 19, 2015 have achieved stable operation with the release of excess energy.

More than an hour at a temperature of about 1100 ° C 2100 W of heat allocated with the input electric power of about 850 watts.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:18 am

Worth remembering that lithium aluminum hydride reacts quite violently (almost explosively) when in contact with water (Lithium is a bad beast), according the following reaction:

LiAlH4 + 4H2O → LiOH + Al(OH)3 + 4H2

I hope that their report will give full account of the amount of LAH used and power input,as well as an account for the side reaction of burning the generated H and eventual recombination of H2+O and the other half a dozen side reactions that i can get in mind thinking to a system where Ni, Li, Al, H, O are coexisting.

Let's see the data feed.
Look, stars!

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby palladin9479 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:08 am

JoeP wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:
The problem of the experiments of Urutskoev and Cardone is that they never scaled up.


This is not evidence that what happened at a smaller scale didn't exist, only that their understanding of the mechanic was incorrect....<snip>


Not really, IMO. G's point about scale up is that it is a way to reduce the influence of experimental error and contamination.

As in statistics. Suppose I poll 10 people randomly from a population that has studied LENR, and 9 out of 10 believe in Rossi. That doesn't necessarily mean people like Axil and Parallel are the dominant opinion, even if such results are unexpectedly interesting or surprising. The followup scale up experiment is to poll 1000 people that have studied LENR. And if only 2% believe in Rossi, then we can safely say the original poll was flawed and the results do not reflect reality. Capiche?


If the mechanics behind a process are not understood, then no amount of scaling up will possibly work. This is not a statistics poll, this is science. Having 1, 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000,000 data points does not change the laws of the universe, it either is or is not. The universal speed of light will not increase nor decrease based on how accurate we can measure it or how many people in a room agree what it's seventh decimal place is. First you understand something, then afterwards you attempt to scale up, if you fail to scale up, this means that either your original measurement was wrong or you don't understand the process enough to successfully scale up.

And thus my statement,

This is not evidence that what happened at a smaller scale didn't exist, only that their understanding of the mechanic was incorrect


People are way too binary in their thinking when analyzing uncertain data or ideas that might possibly refute currently accepted ideas. The human need to identify with a tribe, to be inclusive to some group often overrules measured healthy skepticism and forces us to jump into "for" or "against" tribes, and then defend our tribe from the enemy tribe.

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby palladin9479 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:25 am

Giorgio wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:Nothing in science is finished, there is always room for a better deeper understanding and it's this understanding we should strive for, not bashing each other over the head for being right or wrong. The universe either is or is not, it doesn't give one iota to the strength and passion of ones arguments for or against it.

I honestly don't think that anyone in this board disagree with these points, including me.

A prolific and meaningful discussion anyhow does require the same open mind attitude also from the researches/inventors making new claims.
You will agree with me that the attitude of:
"I discovered something amazing new and I don't give a darn to prove it to you, just believe me and send me a check"
is on the same level (if not worst) of:
"this doesn't agree with my version of science and is therefor wrong"

As for the one willing to explore theoretical and experimental research papers, even on science fictional area, they are mostly welcome.
It always delights me (and most of the people here) to have a stimulating discussion on any scientific paper, provided that the people at least READ the paper, get the basics out of it and make a point out of it.
Linking to papers without reading them, extrapolating few words out of the abstract, not expressing what is the point you want to prove, is not what can be considered willingness to a constructive dialogue, but only (in the best case) spamming.

That's just my 0.2 cents for what is worth.


Axil and his tribe aren't asking you to give them money, they are merely defending their tribe from the enemy tribe, which would be you. This is how human psychology works, we find something we identify with, form a tribe around that something, and then defend that something from those who form around a different something. You can see this dynamic form in everything from sports, to national politics to school yard antics. Yourself and others have formed a different tribe with a central belief that is nearly opposite that of Team Axil, and now you two are going back and forth, sparing with words in order to discredit and thus defeat the other.

The only way out of that vicious circle is to take a step back and acknowledge we all have limited knowledge of our universe and that many things could possibly be true that we wouldn't know nor understand. Adopt a healthy skeptical mind, one that questions everything but doesn't immediately attach negative emotions to things we don't like. Take the whole LENR thing, many people have tripped across various interesting anomaly's, none have been able to successfully describe and reproduce it on a large scale. From this chaotic uncertainty one could easily form a tribe around a belief, either in the existence of or the non-existence of the "something". We should resist the urge to do either and instead just take a neutral "not enough information to put significant resources behind, keep doing researching because there might be something of use there" and call it a day.

JoeP
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby JoeP » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:29 am

palladin9479 wrote:<snip>...If the mechanics behind a process are not understood, then no amount of scaling up will possibly work. This is not a statistics poll, this is science. Having 1, 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000,000 data points does not change the laws of the universe, it either is or is not. The universal speed of light will not increase nor decrease based on how accurate we can measure it or how many people in a room agree what it's seventh decimal place is. First you understand something, then afterwards you attempt to scale up, if you fail to scale up, this means that either your original measurement was wrong or you don't understand the process enough to successfully scale up.

And thus my statement,

This is not evidence that what happened at a smaller scale didn't exist, only that their understanding of the mechanic was incorrect

<snip tribe stuff...>


Sampling errors in small scale systems may be magnified, especially when doing things like small heat energy measurements over the course of time, which is the main focus of the kind of experimental data we are discussing.

Anyway, you have a contradiction in your comments.

If the scale up fails to accomplish what was apparently seen at the small scale, you say that only that their understanding of the mechanic was incorrect. First you assume here that there is a mechanism/process that is shown to work at the small scale.

And now you say that the problem could be that the original small-scale measurement could have been wrong as another thing that could invalidate the scale-up attempt. But you curiously do not elaborate as to why the measurement could have been wrong. However you have added another reason (of which I agree) as to why the scale-up experiment might fail.

So the question is: why might there be measurement errors in the original experiment? Could the effect be so tiny that is is difficult to isolate from the environment and / or noise levels in the system? In such an experiment, should one assume that there is a real mechanism or valid effect and if a larger version fails to show the same results? One should not consider that the larger scale suppressed the relative measurement errors seen the the original due to a larger data set / magnitude / ease and greater accuracy of measuring / more data points / lower signal-to-noise ratio, etcetera...? This is basic stuff.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:46 am

palladin9479 wrote:Axil and his tribe aren't asking you to give them money, they are merely defending their tribe from the enemy tribe, which would be you. This is how human psychology works, we find something we identify with, form a tribe around that something, and then defend that something from those who form around a different something. You can see this dynamic form in everything from sports, to national politics to school yard antics. Yourself and others have formed a different tribe with a central belief that is nearly opposite that of Team Axil, and now you two are going back and forth, sparing with words in order to discredit and thus defeat the other.

You are oversimplifying the issue in my opinion. While your argument about "tribes" has its merits and logic, not everyone recognizes himself in such a predefined group. I am one of those person who does not, and many other posters here are the same.
For people like us, meeting "tribe people" is just a nuisance, because we don't really care to prove our point or discredit their point.
If I am taking my time to reply to them is only to warn people about the dangers of blindly following someone words without critically verifying their claims before. If you are passionate of Psychology as it seems, you should clearly understand the reasons of my actions.

Yet, you would be amazed to discover how quickly people like me are ready to accept a different (and even unproven) view of science once faced with a logic, structured, pragmatic and testable argument. Mind you, I said "testable", doesn't necessarily mean that it must be tested before we are ready to accept it, but it must stand the scrutiny of our combined knowledge.
The Polywell idea is the perfect example of what I am talking about.


palladin9479 wrote: Take the whole LENR thing, many people have tripped across various interesting anomaly's, none have been able to successfully describe and reproduce it on a large scale. From this chaotic uncertainty one could easily form a tribe around a belief, either in the existence of or the non-existence of the "something". We should resist the urge to do either and instead just take a neutral "not enough information to put significant resources behind, keep doing researching because there might be something of use there" and call it a day.

Its exactly because I have a healthy and skeptic mind that I can say that so far all these "anomaly", as you call them, have not been properly reported nor described, yet alone tested or proven true.
When the people involved will be willing to start listening to suggestions on how to improve the result of their experiments to remove any unwanted interference and to pinpoint the origin of their surplus energy, than maybe we will start advancing in the field of LENR. But as long as their reply will be "we don't care to improve our results, we are right!", than don't expect endorsement from anyone here.
Look, stars!

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

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby parallel » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:06 pm

Industrial Heat/Rossi's 1 MW plant has now been running144 days. There is no doubt that it exists. It surely is "scaled up."

Several independent reports say that it is working well, The pathological skeptics won't believe it until the results of the the 350 day test are published - if then. Rossi forecast they wouldn't believe it until a commercial product was working in the field. It seems obvious enough that Rossi would not have assembled 103 units without first knowing that they worked.

All the irrelevant blather will make not the slightest difference.

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

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby parallel » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:30 pm

Ref https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischm ... ialProject

Russian Journal of Physics A to publish in August Pd/D results showing excess heat and transmutations...
Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A
August 2015, Volume 89, Issue 8, pp 1476-1481
But you can already purchase the report from LinkSpringer
http://goo.gl/pYpe28

Thanks to Mats002 and Alain Co, it would appear that Chinese researchers Xin Lu and Jian Tian are to publish work where they have seen sustained and significant excess heat in solid Palladium with 8 Amps of current in a 0.9 Bar deuterium atmosphere leading to transmutation on the surface of the sample of the Pd into Lead, Tin, Calcium and Silver.

Abstract

A relationship was studied among D/Pd gas-solid system current, pressure and producing excess heating in this paper. The results indicated that when the pressure of deuterium is at 9 × 104 Pa, electric current is 8 A and lasting heat is 40 days, the superheating energy is 280 MJ, the maximum superheating power is 80 W and averaging to each palladium atom energy for the superheating energy is 1.7 × 104 eV. Analysis of the sample by SEM (scanning electron microscopy) and EDS (energy dispersive spectrometry) found that after the current triggering the surface of sample was changed and new elements such as Pb, Sn, Ca, and Ag appeared. The results suggested that the superheating appeared come from a nuclear transmutation.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 ... 4415080348

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:52 pm

parallel wrote:Industrial Heat/Rossi's 1 MW plant has now been running144 days. There is no doubt that it exists.

If there is no doubt that it exists than you can tell us where it is and who the "secret customer" is, can't you? :roll:



parallel wrote:The pathological skeptics won't believe it until the results of the the 350 day test are published - if then.

The problem is not when it will be published, the problem is WHAT he will publish. If the data inside the paper will have been collected in the same amateurish way as he did till now, than nothing will change.



parallel wrote:It seems obvious enough that Rossi would not have assembled 103 units without first knowing that they worked.

So, if anyone builds anything than we must be sure that it will work, else why he build it!
This is the kind of logic that made many snake oil salesman millionaire, and most of their customers beggars.



parallel wrote:All the irrelevant blather will make not the slightest difference.

It was about time that you understood it!
Look, stars!

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:08 pm

parallel wrote:But you can already purchase the report from LinkSpringer
http://goo.gl/pYpe28ess

So, from a pure Spam linking activity to a Spam Sales activity work! Nice improvement!
Are you looking to apply for a job with Rossi as salesperson in the coming future? :mrgreen:
Look, stars!

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:46 am

http://aonetwork.com/blogs/Unveiling-th ... nies-Watch

Brillouin Energy Selected as one of the AlwaysOn Global 100 Companies to Watch


Brillouin Energy also has a new homepage

http://brillouinenergy.com/

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:24 pm

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischm ... 8445839521

Icelandic scientist discovers LENR fusion right in the kind of environments where many had been saying it was going on for over 25 years...
http://goo.gl/zSMzJo

"Ólafsson says that his Swedish colleague, Leif Holmild, has researched the fusion process for ten years. In late year 2013, Ólafsson approaced Holmild following the publication of a scientific article by the Swedish chemist.

The topic was the fusion of hydrogen isotopes into helium with the help of a laser. As the laser requires energy this process does not create [from mass conversion - Ed] any surplus energy.
Simply put, Ólafsson believed that the Rydberg matter catalyser used in Holmild‘s experiment could be used to fuse the hydrogen isotopes into helium without the laser. But this catalyser is the reason for 25 years of reported cold fusion phenomena. Subsequently, Ólafsson and Holmild continued the experiment without the laser and then discovered that process released energy."



The formation of the BEC makes the LASER more powerful to induce fusion than does all the power produced in the National Ignition Facility, or NIF. There, a laser beam of 500 terawatt (TW) peak flash of light cannot produce fusion in dueterium. But with rydberg matter of deuterium, fusion using a laser is easy.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.2781.pdf

Direct observation of particles with energy >10
MeV/u from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense
deuterium

Abstract
Nuclear fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D(-1) induced by 0.2 J pulses with 5 ns pulse length ejects ions with energies in the MeV range. The ns-resolved signal to a collector can be observed directly on an oscilloscope, showing ions arriving with energies in the range 2-14 MeV u-1 at flight times 12-100 ns, mainly protons from the fusion process and deuterons ejected by proton collisions. Electrons and photons give almost no contribution to the fast signal. The observed signal at several mA peak current corresponds to 1×10^13 particles released per laser shot and to an energy release > 1 J assuming isotropic formation and average particle energy of 3 MeV as observed. A movable slit close to the laser target gives spatial resolution of the signal generation, showing almost only fast ions from the point of laser impact and penetrating photons from the plasma outside the laser impact point. The initial photon pulse from the fusion process is observed by a photomultiplier detector on-line.
Last edited by Axil on Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:50 pm

Lot of news, lot of links, lot of talks, and always no scientific data.... and than you guys wonder why LENR has such a bad reputation in the scientific circles. DOH!
Look, stars!

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:58 pm

Giorgio wrote:Lot of news, lot of links, lot of talks, and always no scientific data.... and than you guys wonder why LENR has such a bad reputation in the scientific circles. DOH!


You are a fast reader. You rejected the paper I posted 2 minutes before I got the link corrected.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:52 am

Axil wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Lot of news, lot of links, lot of talks, and always no scientific data.... and than you guys wonder why LENR has such a bad reputation in the scientific circles. DOH!


You are a fast reader. You rejected the paper I posted 2 minutes before I got the link corrected.

I read that paper more than 1 year ago Axil, and there is no data inside.

Holmlid and Olafson way of proving their theories has always been the same from the last 10 years:
"Hey, we see a signal on our Oscilloscope, we can't understand what it is, so it must be >10 MeV particles, so it must be fusion particles!"

This is same weay of proving stuff as BLP and their Hydrinos, or Rossi using a thermal camera to prove excess heat instead of calorimetry, or same as people stating that earth is center of the solar system because "you can clearly see in the sky that the sun turn around us".

When you adapt your experimental results to sustains your dogmatic views than you are not making Science, you are making evangelism.
Real Science requires much more than that attitude.
Look, stars!


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests