LENR Is Real

[Giorgio]

Liar ScottL,
Who cares what you think? You seldom, if ever, add news or anything useful.

Coming from you, parallel, this is such a preposterous statement that I can't decide if it is more funny or more sad.....

Anyhow, welcome to the "Liars and Trolls" club ScottL!
Make yourself comfortable, Ladajo will hand over also to you a bowl of popcorn as soon as he is around.
Time by time we also serve Lasagna and Tiramisu, but only in special occasions!

[ScottL]

I feel as though quoting Rossi is the equivalent of linking and running. You aren't really adding to the discussion by posting a quote the same as you aren't adding by posting a link to an abstract, etc. This ties back to rule #2 of the forums. If you want to post an article and discuss the scientific merits of that article (like the math, chemistry, etc.) that's fair game, but this lack of discussion can't continue. Most of the posts look like poorly masked hype train garbage and we all know most of the people here aren't jumping on. Let's get this back to scientific discussion, not cheap shots and bogus posts.

Liar ScottL,
Who cares what you think? You seldom, if ever, add news or anything useful.

Point out a single instance of a lie I've told. Furthermore, it's your opinions nobody (save maybe Axil) cares about here, not what I think. Finally, I seldom add news because I refuse to contribute to the heaps of useless abstracts, articles, and hype-train media pieces that are littering this thread and others on the forum. I actually think before I post and if I'm posting news or an article, I engage in discussion on it, not just link and run.

[parallel]

My apologies ScottL. Giorgio was the liar. Sometimes I have trouble separating the trolls from each other.

[ScottL]

My apologies ScottL. Giorgio was the liar. Sometimes I have trouble separating the trolls from each other.

You can't help yourself can you? Still calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with you "a troll." Your posts are like all the pro-GW/GCC posters. You post a link, refuse to discuss it, and when called on it, you stick your fingers in your years and yell "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." You only buy into ideas that support your pre-existing world view and fail to apply any critical thinking at all.

[Axil]

THE LETTER OF LEONID URUTSKOEV (first part)

In this letter I want to tell you the history of observation of the anomalous quantities of hydrogen. Toward the end of the 90-ties we have studied the multi-channel (we have used 8 channels) - the high current electrical explosions of titanium foils in water.

Completely by chance it was observed that in the titanium powder formed as result of the electrical explosions shows a strong isotopic shift compared with the initial metal.
The content of 48Ti was approx. 65% instead of the starting 73.8%. The contents of the other four Ti isotopes have remained at the natural relative proportions.

The measurements were also made on some types of mass-spectrometers and the results have shown that the errors are around 1% admissible. The experiment was repeated many times (not less than 100) however by far not in all cases have we observed a significant isotopic shift of titanium. The effect could be small (3%) or completely missing but we have never observed the increase of the content of 48Ti in the mixture of isotopes. I have to tell that we never succeeded to record some, any kind of significant increase of neutron or gamma radiation despite working in the Kurchatov Atomic Energy Institute where it is an abundance of measuring instruments for gammas and neutrons. I will not tell more about this, all details can be found in the paper No. 1

There were performed some 300 experiments using mass-spectrometry and we have stated that the parent 48Ti nuclei are not converted to other isotopes of Ti or elements neighboring it in the MendeleevTable as it would have been seen for the usual nuclear reactions, and but it is
decaying in a complete spectrum of other chemical elements (from the lightest to Zn. (paper No. 1).
Such a process contradicts everything that we have learned in our courses of nuclear physics. So we have thought that this type of processes is impossible. However, our colleagues from the Institute of Nuclear researches (Dubna) have performed independent experiments on our set-up and have obtained the same result.

They have analyzed the results of the measurements and have called our attention to the fact that in the experiments there are obtained both lighter (e.g. Al and Si) and heavier chemical elements. Because the maximum bond energy per nucleon is near to Fe, than for all elements at the left side of it, energetically more favorable is fusion, while for the right side- fission. It was totally obvious that the energy consumed in the experiment was insufficient for initiation both of these processes. In the battery of condensators /capacitors we had globally 50 kJ for 1019-20 acts of nuclear reactions. And here appears the idea: isn’t it possible that the fusion and fission reactions take place simultaneously?
For this it can be imagined that the wave functions of some nuclei, for some reason are overlapping and the ensemble of the neighboring nuclei in some way “feel” as being one single nucleus that is able to redistribute its neutrons and protons. That is, some collective processes can appear. We have thought that when nuclear processes take place, huge quantities of energy are released but this cannot be seen. In some experiments after a bang a bright plasma irradiation has appeared- and isotopic shifts were recorded for Ti. The energy released was consistent with the small energy stored in the capacitors. . This fact imposes stringent limitations on the enthalpy of a hypothetical nuclear processes. Thus, the question arises: is it possible to choose the combination of atoms in which the mass of the parent atom different from the mass of daughter atoms with not more than 100 KeV? (We remind you that the mass of an electron is 0.5 MeV.)

Even if we accept the theoretical possibility that collective nuclear reactions can take place (by an totally unknown physical mechanism) it is absolutely necessary that the conservation laws should be respected- conservation of energy, barions, leptons, and of electric charge. It was worked out a computerized model that has immediately shown that there is no solution for the nuclear processes based on weak nuclear interactions as beta decay and K-capture, that is transition from a neutron to a proton and conversely because such combinations cannot satisfy the above shown requirements.
However if we want to decide the reality of such weak nuclear processes and as parent nuclei we choose Ti, O and H than it is possible (with the help of the computer) to find combinations where as daughter nuclei we obtain nuclei, including those of Zn. It was not possible to get from the starting parent nuclei- daughter nuclei heavier than Zn. This was already quite similar to what experiments have given.

We have called this the phenomenological model because it is not some physical mechanism included in it, except the conservation laws.

The model has worked from one reason- the number of stable isotopes in the Mendeleev Table- as the experiment has shown, we never have obtained radioactive elements.
By replacing in these experiments the light water with heavy water we have not more observed the appearance of isotopic shifts for Ti. This fact has removed for us the illusion that we have to do with “cold fusion.”

But the phenomenological model did not allow combinations with acceptable levels of enthalpy. It became obvious that we have to select more parent nuclei with extra neutrons to enter in low energy reactions. I will not give here further details but I want to tell that the phenomenological model has suggested that if vanadium is added to the parent atoms then the isotope Fe57 is obtained – a rare isotope easy to detect/identify. The result of the experiment has coincided with this prediction of the model. Everything is described in paper No 2.

The results obtained by us have lead to the idea that there must exist a new type of nuclear reaction which we have called “transformation” reactions to distinguish them
From transmutation reactions as used by the researcher and in which it takes place the conversion of the nucleus of one chemical element in the nucleus of an other chemical element.
The introduction of the new concept of transformation has the aim to emphasize that this is completely new class of nuclear reactions that have a collective and not a two particles character. (Usually it is considered that three particles reaction are rather rare. But in the transformation reactions there are no collisions and they are more similar to exchange reactions in which an intermediate nucleus is formed and this is then collapsing in excited fragments. (to be continued)

[Axil]

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Clayto ... iumpro.pdf

TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM A LOW VOLTAGE DEUTERIUM DISCHARGE ON PALLADIUM AND OTHER METALS
T. N. Claytor, D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tuggle Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545

ABSTRACT Over the past year we have been able to demonstrate that a plasma loading method produces an exciting and unexpected amount of tritium from small palladium wires. In contrast to electrochemical hydrogen or deuterium loading of palladium, this method yields a reproducible tritium generation rate when various electrical and physical conditions are met. Small diameter wires (100 - 250 microns) have been used with gas pressures above 200 torr at voltages and currents of about 2000 V at 3-5 A. By carefully controlling the sputtering rate of the wire, runs have been extended to hundreds of hours allowing a significant amount (> 10’s nCi) of tritium to accumulate. We will show tritium generation rates for deuterium-palladium foreground runs that are up to 25 times larger than hydrogen-palladium control experiments using materials from the same batch. We will illustrate the difference between batches of annealed palladium and as received palladium from several batches as well as the effect of other metals (Pt, Ni, Nb, Zr, V, W, Hf) to demonstrate that the tritium generation rate can vary greatly from batch to batch.

related video
https://youtu.be/-UQYyToKDnY

[Giorgio]

My apologies ScottL. Giorgio was the liar.

I am proud to be defined a liar by people who (like you) refuse any dialogue when confronted on their dogmas.

[Giorgio]

THE LETTER OF LEONID URUTSKOEV (first part)
...Snip...

As I already explained 2 pages ago:


The problem of the experiments of Urutskoev and Cardone is that they never scaled up.

Urutskoev tried to scale up but the anomalous hydrogen production in % dropped as the total volume of hydrogen produced in the experiment increased (Hint! Hint!).

Cardone likewise was never able to increase the anomalous decay reaction of the Thorium, facing similar problems to Urutskoev.
He was removed from CNR few years later and ended up in an Italian military research center, where he was still unable to scale up his experimental results.

Several researchers pointed out to potential sources of error for both experiments in their original form, but I don't think that they was ever replicated fixing those potential error sources.

[Axil]

LEONID URUTSKOEV is trying to explain the scale up acheived by SHT.


Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. Invented and patented a LENR based Clean Air Hydrogen Reactor. The claims of SHT are hard to beleive. They claim that they can decompose the oxigen content of water into hydrogen. Their claims have said to have been verified by three independent testing companies. Here is another technology to be availible in the next year.

They claim that water goes in and mostly hydrogen comes out. It is a cavitation based system using aluminum as the reactive metal.

Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. develops innovative breakthrough technology with the world’s first hydrogen reactor for production of unlimited hydrogen; reactor uses water as main fuel and is 100% carbon free! “Endless fuel from water…”

Menlo Park, CA (PRWEB) March 05, 2014 – Menlo Park based technology firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com) today announced that it has revolutionized the world of energy production with their invention of the world’s first hydrogen reactor for the production of unlimited hydrogen. The hydrogen reactor uses water as a main fuel and is 100% carbon free.
The groundbreaking technology can be used as hybrid solution for energy savings up to 95% when coupled with coal, natural gas, gasoline, biofuels, diesel power plants or incinerators (three to five times cheaper than coal power plants – two to three times cheaper than nuclear, WITHOUT hazards to the environment). In addition, the reactor can be coupled for production of amplified energy output with Hydropower, Solar or Wind farms in peak hours.
Jack Aganyan, Founder and President of Solar Hydrogen Trends commented that “This is a critical step in the development of alternative, clean air energy. As the nation continues its drive to reduce air pollution and mine more cost-effective energy production, we are excited to launch our groundbreaking hydrogen reactor, which provides a formidable solution to these green initiatives. We believe this technology is of national strategic importance. It is clean, efficient, scaleable, and can help the dollar gain back its strength.”
Konstantine Balakiryan, Founder, CEO/Chief Scientist and driving force behind the seven models of the hydrogen reactor, added “With our technology, a hydrogen plant with 150 million cubic feet per day production would provide enough hydrogen to power 200 thousand homes. With only 500 watts/hour of input energy we produce 2,797 cubic feet or 79,098 liters per hour of hydrogen or 221 kWh energy equivalent – at the cost of only $1.80USD. Our hydrogen reactor technology could very well be the biggest breakthrough of our time.”
How does the Hydrogen Reactor work?
The technology provides multifactorial hydrogen reactor with elevated hydrogen production due to a set of sixteen (16) physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds. The technology is non-volatile and produces free flowing hydrogen which can be compressed or used to convert to another form of energy. The reactor can be used as a free standing electrically powered device that will produce unlimited amount of hydrogen at world’s cheapest rates or a simple “bolt-on” solution that provides savings when coupled with energy producing technology.
Hydrogen reactor performance.
Airkinetics, a prominent EPA-certified national emissions testing specialist conducted an engineering test that measured the hydrogen reactor output at 50 ACFM with 93.1% Hydrogen content. Downloadable report: : http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_ ... 0_test.pdf
The mini hydrogen reactor model measures: Length 32″ x Width 14″ x Height 20.5″ and weighs 250 lbs.

Patents

WO/2015/005921

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... y_Hydrogen

MULTIFACTORIAL HYDROGEN RyEACTOR Inventors: BALAKIRYAN, Konstantin; (US) AGANYAN, Hakop; (US); Publication Date: 15.01.2015; Pub. No.: WO/2015/005921; International Application No.: PCT/US2013/050031

Abstract

The present invention provides multifactorial hydrogen reactor with elevated hydrogen production due to complex set of sixteen (16) physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds in aqueous solutions of electrolytes. This is achieved due to the process, which takes place in forty two (42) distributed volumes of hydrogen reactor under the effect of the electro-hydraulic shock, which forms local micro-cavities with pressures in the hundreds of thousands of atmospheres and a temperature of several thousand degrees (plasma). Frontline water wave pressure passing through electrolyzer's electrodes creates in micro-environment infrasonic, sonic, and ultrasonic vibrations that, along with the heat, ultrasound and hydrodynamic cavitation, turbulence, high-pressure, chemical catalysts, light energy, electrostatic and electromagnetic fields, dramatically increases decomposition process of water molecules. Simultaneously, electro-hydraulic shock destroys the oxide film, allowing the oxidation reaction of reactive metals to continue continually; reactive metals, from which plates of electrolyzer are made, are part of the hydrogen reactor.
Profile: Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.

"Menlo Park based firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. is an innovative technology firm focused on the development of clean air, cost reducing energy solutions for the multi‐billion dollar Energy Services industry. Recipient of a 2013 grant from the Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation supporting scientists and engineers in developing creative and innovative ideas that will improve the quality of life for all, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. consists of a team of chemists, physicists and engineers from across the globe." [1]
Independent Replication

Apparently the figures have been replicated by an independent company
See

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_ ... 0_test.pdf

[Giorgio]

LEONID URUTSKOEV is trying to explain the scale up acheived by SHT.


Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. Invented and patented a LENR based Clean Air Hydrogen Reactor. The claims of SHT are hard to beleive. They claim that they can decompose the oxigen content of water into hydrogen. Their claims have said to have been verified by three independent testing companies. Here is another technology to be availible in the next year.

They claim that water goes in and mostly hydrogen comes out. It is a cavitation based system using aluminum as the reactive metal.
...Snip....
Apparently the figures have been replicated by an independent company
See

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_ ... 0_test.pdf

They are just another company marketing the production on H2 from an aluminum medium according the well known:
2Al + 3H2O —> Al2O3 + 3H2
Here is quite a good paper from US Department of Energy
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenand ... drogen.pdf

And the "independent replicators" are just labs testing the quality and composition of the gas output of the apparatus, not replicating the process at all.

Before considering this technology as a breakthrough they should actually disclose "how much" aluminum they are consuming to get that H2 production rate. It takes 9 Kg of Aluminum wire (or flakes or plates) to get a single Kg of H2 gas in a real world process.
Once they disclose some real data it will be possible to judge.

Unfortunately their unwillingness to publish Aluminum consumption rate is already an almost self explanatory indications of what type of company they are and what they are trying to sell.......


For someone that wants to be a scientific news reporter (or blogger) your lack of basic scientific and technology knowledge is quite puzzling Axil.... I am still trying to understand what's your final aim in wasting your time in posting all these stories that any first year science student can debunk in few minutes.

[Axil]

I found this responce to the understandable analysis of the Energy Return on Energy Investment(EREI) issue...

First of all the device is not 900% overunity. The latest test run showed a COP of 900x overunity. In terms of efficiency it would be 90,000%, not 900%. A big mistake on your part in my opinion!

We all understand that there is nothing above 100% efficiency, but for the sake of accounting we can say 90,000% to indicate overunity operation.

Since you’ve been so kind in your presentation of Solar Hydrogen Trends and appreciate the work we’re doing we are giving you an opportunity to be first to post the video on your site. These tests were done a week ago with the newly acquired Fluke pitot tube flowmeter. The peak flow rate of 41 cfm is for air flow which is equivalent to 155 cfm when multiplied by the conversion factor for hydrogen. At 97% hydrogen purity this translates closer to 2000x overunity.

What you see coming out of the 2” exit pipe is the water moisture. Hydrogen gas can’t be seen. This is visually very deceiving. Some people get the wrong impression when they see the low amount of moisture exiting the pipe.

I’m not sure if you will proudly post or proudly decline to post these results.
I would like to also remind the community that in the May 2014 press release (http://kochari.info/2014/05/07/solar-hy ... mphony-7a/ ) Professor Konstantin Balakiryan stated –

“In Symphony 7A, active metal alloy is involved in the oxidation reaction. However, the amount of formed oxide for a one hour period is only 2.1%. During that same time, Symphony 7A produces more than 7 kg of hydrogen, and the share of that chemical reaction is only about 189 grams of hydrogen. If all the hydrogen in Symphony 7A reactor was produced by oxidation – reduction reaction, then in one hour we would spend 97.9 % of all active metal alloy, and the cartridge would have to be replaced practically every hour. This could have become the weak point of our hydrogen reactor. However, in Symphony 7A, the cartridge is replaced once a week, and for the model Symphony 7AM, cartridge replacement will take place once every four weeks.”

The quoted overunity numbers and hydrogen production price from SHT have always accounted for all consumables with a few percent of margin of error, which is normal.

The problem with most of the readers and want-to-be debunkers is that they don’t follow the story from the beginning and don’t recall the facts that were publically disclosed. Out of context mentioning of bits of information confuses both them and their audience.

As for the chemicals and chemical reactions that people claim that Solar Hydrogen Trends is employing: those are all 6th grade chemistry experiments that all of the SHT team members did in their youth (back when Armenia was still part of Soviet Union).

I’m amazed that there are people who imply that it is possible to deceive investors and the scientific community with such simplistic chemical processes. I doubt you will find any sophisticated investor that will invest in anything of this magnitude without going through proper due diligence. Solar Hydrogen Trends has always been ready to work with investors and supports their need for due diligence while making sure that its intellectual properties are protected.

The amount of Auminum consumed is a key factor on the EREI issue. But it all ultimatly come down to the total cost at which hydrogen can be produced.

Common industrial electrolyzers have a nominal hydrogen production efficiency of around 70%(electicity in to hydrogen out). Any efficiency over 70% should be considered a plus for this method even with the cost of aluminum electrodes are figured in.

I am still trying to understand what's your final aim in wasting your time in posting all these stories that any first year science student can debunk in few minutes.

I like this system in that it provides the naysayes here with both an open experiemtal science platform and an example of a scaled up industrial product that uses that science that is not available from Rossi.

[Giorgio]

I am still trying to understand what's your final aim in wasting your time in posting all these stories that any first year science student can debunk in few minutes.

I like this system in that it provides the naysayes here with both an open experiemtal science platform and an example of a scaled up industrial product that uses that science that is not available from Rossi.

There is no open experimental science platform, no real data and no industrial product. There is nothing from these companies except "believe us" and "give us investments".

I have been analyzing almost every claim from people like these for the last 20 year, always in the hope of a new technological golden era for humanity and to give me some new physics to explore.
Do you really think that what SHT is presenting is a new idea that has never been claimed before? I can remember at least three more with the same claims, all of them with their fans and supporters and all of them disappearing when the money flowed in and they was asked to produce real machines. The scheme is always the same, but people seems always to ignore past history lessons....

[palladin9479]

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. As I've said before, there have been far too many people tripping over similar results for it to be total bullshit. There should most definitely be an attempt made at understanding and better defining this mechanic and not the typical "this doesn't agree with my version of science and is therefor wrong" instinctual reaction. Remember science is not the universe but rather our attempts at defining and understanding the universe, it's not nor will ever be complete. 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.

[JoeP]

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?

[Giorgio]

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.