LENR Is Real

[JoeP]

I haven't researched Cherokee, but to say even a venture capital firm has no interest if a venture is successful or not does not seem like a wise policy. Even if the only thing at stake is the reputation for finding investments that will payoff. Nonsensical to think otherwise.

I agree with you other point about Chinese interest having little bearing on whether "LENR" is real or not.

The deal is one of common research and cooperation with top Chinese scientists from one of their most prestigious universities. Such a commitment to the realization of the LENR paradigm is not yet found anywhere in the West.

I look at it like this. The Chinese have plenty of money. A pittance invested in having a hook into something that has a tiny, but non-zero chance to payoff is fine. I don't see it as any kind of commitment. It isn't on their strategic radar really. More like a few pennies as a hedge.

[Axil]

I haven't researched Cherokee, but to say even a venture capital firm has no interest if a venture is successful or not does not seem like a wise policy. Even if the only thing at stake is the reputation for finding investments that will payoff. Nonsensical to think otherwise.

I agree with you other point about Chinese interest having little bearing on whether "LENR" is real or not.

The deal is one of common research and cooperation with top Chinese scientists from one of their most prestigious universities. Such a commitment to the realization of the LENR paradigm is not yet found anywhere in the West.

I look at it like this. The Chinese have plenty of money. A pittance invested in having a hook into something that has a tiny, but non-zero chance to payoff is fine. I don't see it as any kind of commitment. It isn't on their strategic radar really. More like a few pennies as a hedge.

The Chinese scientists are in no danger of being hounded out of science for working on LENR. The universities will not lose funding or reputation or prestige for employing these researchers. These scientists will submit their results freely to the top Chinese science publications confident that these results will be accepted and peer reviewed objectively without instructional or professional bias.

[tomclarke]

The Chinese scientists are in no danger of being hounded out of science for working on LENR. The universities will not lose funding or reputation or prestige for employing these researchers. These scientists will submit their results freely to the top Chinese science publications confident that these results will be accepted and peer reviewed objectively without instructional or professional bias.

Have you ever been part of the peer review process in the West? The publication process in China? LOL

LENR papers get published get through peer review no problem when they have even a small amount of merit. Hell, they don't have to be plausible, just well enough written. Look at the W-L papers!

The experimental lacks in typical LENR stuff are shown by MFMP, who are busy replicating what they think are the strongest LENR experiments. And have never yet found a positive above experimental error! But they have had fun discovering a whole load of interesting ways in which experimental errors can happen. Good job. If any LENR researchers had similar care they would get published - but then they would be much less likely to have any positives....

[ladajo]

True science is about finding and documenting the fails more than the wins.

A string of "that didn't works and here's why" is way more powerful a contribution than a single "it worked and I don't know why!"

LENR is currently the epitomy of a claimed "It worked and I don't know why!" And to add insult to injury of the world of real science, for the most part, LENR claims have been dubious at best, and even outright frauds at worst. This does not do serious science any favors. I have way more faith in those willing to accept, document and promulgate proof of fails than those who seek out only success. That is not science.

[GIThruster]

The experimental lacks in typical LENR stuff are shown by MFMP, who are busy replicating what they think are the strongest LENR experiments. And have never yet found a positive above experimental error!

I'm lost as to whom is MFMP. I don't think though, that this statement is true of the BLP stuff, especially at Rowan. IIRC, they were showing 10 MW out of their reactor. That is several orders magnitude past experimental error, and they characterized their calorimeter quite well. That was all open science available to anyone who liked for years until the experiment ended.

[ladajo]

There is this new thing called Google.

Look for a top hit regarding LENR after searching MFMP.

It will enlighten you.

[tomclarke]

The experimental lacks in typical LENR stuff are shown by MFMP, who are busy replicating what they think are the strongest LENR experiments. And have never yet found a positive above experimental error!

I'm lost as to whom is MFMP. I don't think though, that this statement is true of the BLP stuff, especially at Rowan. IIRC, they were showing 10 MW out of their reactor. That is several orders magnitude past experimental error, and they characterized their calorimeter quite well. That was all open science available to anyone who liked for years until the experiment ended.

MFMP: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/

BLP:

They claimed very high power - but this was based on the assumption that energy was released over very short timescale. Smoke and mirrors. the excess energy was claimed as 0.4ms*1MW = 400kJ. The system was fed with 45KW electrical input (continuous). There is room for a lot of error given the fact this is basically an electrical explosion, but I have not see a proper writeup anywhere. If somone finds one I will look at it.

I suspect the excess heat is small. (For example, 45kW for 200s). The fact that they provide power measurements as a headline (meaningless for explosions) is a red flag.

Tom

[JoeP]

http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineeri ... paper7.pdf

Found the above, but maybe there is something better or a more recent analysis somewhere. Looking very briefly at it, this caught my eye:

Using the same protocol as in all previous experiments (see previous report for detail), 800 watts was introduced into the cell for a period of time until a reaction between the BLP reactants caused an increase in heat to occur.

Reminds me of what Rossi claims happens, and in other CF experimental setups, where energy is fed in for an indeterminate (?) period and then a sudden emission of thermal energy may occur at some point down the line.

Again, I am reminded of chemical batteries where energy may be stored and then later released either electrically or thermally in a short period of time.

[Axil]

I don't follow MFMP, but for those who are interested in open source full disclosure of data, FYI courtesy of pelgrim108 as follows:

MFMP is still going strong.

They have a nickel hydrogen reactor that is now ( as of today) starting to go overunity. 5w in 5.061w out. 0.061w excess heat.

They post graphs and updates every day and even have a google thing where you can watch the values multiple times per day.

Here you can follow the progress (you have to scroll down in the first window to where you can see the last post and then click on that link)

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en ... embed-test

Here is their latest post

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s340/sh/ ... 5366a7d8ba

They are also building a ni h cell with an embedded sparker.

[tomclarke]

MFMP, to be fair, understand that 1% more measured energy out than in represents a typical null result and not a sign of LENR. Unfortunately not all in the LENR field are so enlightened.

[ladajo]

Axil,
I can understand why you don't follow MFMP. Their attempts to do real science and the results thereof do not match your technobabble pontifications. Therefore, you can choose to ignore them.

As for going strong, that is up for debate. They are not secure in funding. As much as I would like to see them be funded fully, they are not. It is a shame given how the scammers are able to suck up LENR research money for personal gain.

I also agree with Tom, one count of 5 in with 5.061 out is not yet significant. Still in the realm of possible noise. The nice thing about MFMP, unlike the clowns, is that they post full disclosure. The unfortinate part, is that also opens them up to pundits taking data out of context and trying to run it down the street on a banner. Collected data does not make a research project. Analysis of the collected data makes a research project. Something lost on those who do not know how to do real research.

[GIThruster]

The experimental lacks in typical LENR stuff are shown by MFMP, who are busy replicating what they think are the strongest LENR experiments. And have never yet found a positive above experimental error!

I'm lost as to whom is MFMP. I don't think though, that this statement is true of the BLP stuff, especially at Rowan. IIRC, they were showing 10 MW out of their reactor. That is several orders magnitude past experimental error, and they characterized their calorimeter quite well. That was all open science available to anyone who liked for years until the experiment ended.

MFMP: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/

BLP:

They claimed very high power - but this was based on the assumption that energy was released over very short timescale. Smoke and mirrors. the excess energy was claimed as 0.4ms*1MW = 400kJ. The system was fed with 45KW electrical input (continuous). There is room for a lot of error given the fact this is basically an electrical explosion, but I have not see a proper writeup anywhere. If somone finds one I will look at it.

I suspect the excess heat is small. (For example, 45kW for 200s). The fact that they provide power measurements as a headline (meaningless for explosions) is a red flag.

Tom

It wasn't an explosion. It was a constant power reactor run at Rowan for 2+ years, the papers for which were all linked in the BPL thread here. Obviously they had a fantastical amount of heat generated. The question is whether it was an Ni reaction or a LENR reaction. Those who don't accept the evidence are basically saying they don't trust the university's chemical analysis of the reactor products. This is all very old stuff, Tom. Has nothing to do with their current work nor "explosions" of any kind.

[JoeP]

It wasn't an explosion. It was a constant power reactor run at Rowan for 2+ years, the papers for which were all linked in the BPL thread here. Obviously they had a fantastical amount of heat generated. The question is whether it was an Ni reaction or a LENR reaction. Those who don't accept the evidence are basically saying they don't trust the university's chemical analysis of the reactor products. This is all very old stuff, Tom. Has nothing to do with their current work nor "explosions" of any kind.

Yeah, the link I posted from Rowan has good detail on the test runs. You have anything else you can link? Maybe there is some follow on stuff?

It was a little unclear as to how long the 800 watts of preheating went on; I reread the paper and I think they are indicating this time was accounted for in the graphs for the calibration run and also in the actual test of the reactants, it is just that during the test, the temp spiked up almost immediately. So it isn't likely an issue as I first was thinking.

So, with such a strong test and statements of easy replication by the Rowan authors, it then begs questions. As pointed out, this is all very old stuff. 2008? So why hasn't BLP had another well respected independent lab or two repeat and confirm these results? Like an MIT or a NASA lab. Sounds like a slam-dunk to me and easy to do, per the paper, if this is all true. Put in some NDAs and legal protections and so on to protect BLP's commercial interests.

But no. It is now seven years on. Suspicious scammy behavior, especially since there are no new products and just funny, explosive, flashing light demos.

[tomclarke]

It wasn't an explosion. It was a constant power reactor run at Rowan for 2+ years, the papers for which were all linked in the BPL thread here. Obviously they had a fantastical amount of heat generated. The question is whether it was an Ni reaction or a LENR reaction. Those who don't accept the evidence are basically saying they don't trust the university's chemical analysis of the reactor products. This is all very old stuff, Tom. Has nothing to do with their current work nor "explosions" of any kind.

Yeah, the link I posted from Rowan has good detail on the test runs. You have anything else you can link? Maybe there is some follow on stuff?

It was a little unclear as to how long the 800 watts of preheating went on; I reread the paper and I think they are indicating this time was accounted for in the graphs for the calibration run and also in the actual test of the reactants, it is just that during the test, the temp spiked up almost immediately. So it isn't likely an issue as I first was thinking.

So, with such a strong test and statements of easy replication by the Rowan authors, it then begs questions. As pointed out, this is all very old stuff. 2008? So why hasn't BLP had another well respected independent lab or two repeat and confirm these results? Like an MIT or a NASA lab. Sounds like a slam-dunk to me and easy to do, per the paper, if this is all true. Put in some NDAs and legal protections and so on to protect BLP's commercial interests.

But no. It is now seven years on. Suspicious scammy behavior, especially since there are no new products and just funny, explosive, flashing light demos.

To GIThruster:

I thought the topic was the latest demos.

Re the old demos, none are convincing. "obviously a fantastic amount of heat was generated" is in this case just not true. If you link the specific experiment write-up for which you think this is obvious I will explain why it is not obvious.

Rowan are suspect, because they have no research reputation to keep up and the staff doing these tests has long links with BLP. However I don't expect scam from Rowan, merely optimism and stuff not properly checked.

People like you will believe these reports, I know, but BLPs consistent inability to follow up any one reactor design with bullet-proof third party validation should raise your hackles. As should the fact that they keep on abandoning reactors and going for something completely new without even having convincing evidence the original was working. We have had powder reactors -> electrochemical cells -> explosions.

[GIThruster]

Re the old demos, none are convincing. "obviously a fantastic amount of heat was generated" is in this case just not true. If you link the specific experiment write-up for which you think this is obvious I will explain why it is not obvious.

You're certainly welcome to do that. You can hunt back through the thread yourself. We had the discussion years ago and you did not make this claim. Obviously, with the lab open to the public for a couple years, for people to ignore what they were doing while they were doing it, and only make objections years after the fact is hardly good science.

Rowan are suspect, because they have no research reputation to keep up and the staff doing these tests has long links with BLP. However I don't expect scam from Rowan, merely optimism and stuff not properly checked.

Just how many people do you think ought to have checked this work? Like I said, it was open science, and I personally posted Dr. Jansson's challenge here, as well as mediated a conversation between him and Eric Davis at Earthtech down in Austin, in order to have better criticism of the system Rowan used. Given Peter is an MIT and Cambridge Don, I think you're making some pretty serious and unfounded assumptions. Earthtech was satisfied with the Rowan setup. You should be too.

. . .BLPs consistent inability to follow up any one reactor design with bullet-proof third party validation should raise your hackles.

I think you misunderstand how science works, Tom. It is not BLP's place to follow up with a third party validation. They did all they could by paying for the work at Rowan. The ball is now in the court of the larger science community over which BLP has no control, and given the outrageous claims made by Mills and his theory, don't hold your breathe anyone will do such a validation soon.

As should the fact that they keep on abandoning reactors and going for something completely new. . .

Agreed. I think though, there is the issue that they see the huge advantage to going with a system that doesn't involve a heat cycle. The reactor from back 6-8 years ago could make steam and that was about it. The more recent attempts are for much more disruptive technology if they can make them work. My complaint is, why have we not seen a follow up on the stuff they presented a year or two ago? Why move on to this crazy thing? Unless they are showing a power density that is off the chart, for the entire system, I don't see the point. And if they use photovoltaic conversion as they've suggested, I don't see how they can have the power density here to justify the change.

In any event, blaming Rowan and pretending they did a flawed study is a cheesy attack on people you don't know. You had the opportunity to look at the work when it was being done at Rowan and chose not to. So count me unimpressed by any objection to it now.