10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[D Tibbets]

I watched the video, or at least most of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8Yu-Ju ... re=related

they talk about picking up neutron reactions in CR39 plastic. This seems strange that they would stick with this detection methods exclusively.
Earlier claims of high energy protons (excess of a few thousand eV) has been proposed as a fusion product. As this proton does not penetrate far, imersing a plastic sheet near the electrode seems a reasonable method of detecting these protons, if the control for other causes of pits (like chloride ions in the electrolyte solution. But in this video, they seem to be discussing high energy neutron detections. CR39is a perfectly suitable detection method, if properly controlled. But neutrons are highly penatrating (they travel far). So alternate methods of detection, such a bubbly detectors, He3 of Boron 11 detectors or scintillation detectors all should be viable. Where is the data from these measuring modalities. Also, if they are interested in the energy of the neutrons, there is neutron differential counters. Why stick with CR39 measurements alone? Adding other measuring modalities would greatly improve on possible experimental measuring errors.

Also, the scales seem odd. If they are detecting tritium production at a few thousand per second,how does this compare with multiple watts of heating power at times. You would expect power output of microwatts of power at best. Unless this mentioned reaction was only one branch out of millions occurring during the anomalous heat production. It stretches credibility.

Things just don't fit together. Extend this to Rossi claims of nearly megawatts of power, without demonstrating gross measurements of appropriate isotopes is a huge hole in his claimed performance.

I can also mention that these LENR results discussed in the video involves deuterium. Hydrogen , as you report, is a control. This is a vast difference from Rossi's claim of hydrogen nickel fusion.

Dan Tibbets

[seedload]

MSimon,
Your examples were about quibbling with theories. What I was talking about was independent groups producing experimental data of anomalous heat.

Personally, I think comparing cold fusion to something like high temperature superconductivity is a better illustrative comparison.

Same decade of announced discovery. Similar revolutionary potential. Same scientific community. Same huge press reception and speculation on potential. Same lack of an initial theory. Similar need for new physics. Similar problems with initial replication of results. Same scientific stampede towards replication.

Cold fusion died with the majority of the scientific community because it could never be reliably duplicated and had no workable theory. A tiny community of enthusiasts carried on and we are still waiting for the next conference or paper that will show us the light.

Meanwhile, high temperature superconductivity overcame replication problems, was conclusively demonstrated, quickly won a Nobel prize, saw a four fold improvement in temperature in a year, has had over 100,000 papers published, has reasonable theory, has found two classes of high temperature superconductors and is beginning to see commercial applications.

It is the same story within the same scientific community happening in the same decade. One revolutionary discovery passes scrutiny and is heralded. The other doesn't come close.

It is the same story within the same scientific community happening in the same decade. One revolutionary discovery passes scrutiny and is heralded. The other doesn't come close.

http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm

Wrong again as usual and still living in a dream world.

Wrong about what? I was talking about high temp superconductivity and you post a web site about someone claiming room temperature superconductivity as an example of me being wrong. Honestly, I really don't understand your reference.

[seedload]

Cold fusion died with the majority of the scientific community because it could never be reliably duplicated and had no workable theory.

Well... not quite. Cold Fusion suffered badly from the perception that Pons & Fleishman were not rigorous or honest.

The experiments showed fairly quickly (by 1995) that there were small amounts of cold fusion happening in deuterium loaded metals.

Oh jeez. I didn't realize that it was just perception that they were not rigorous. Silly me, I thought they actually weren't rigorous.

I also didn't realized that cold fusion was conclusively demonstrated in '95. Someone should have mentioned that to Japan before they shut down their national program in '97 or to University of Utah which stopped spending money in '98 or to the DOE for their report in '04.

[Crawdaddy]

I watched the video, or at least most of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8Yu-Ju ... re=related

they talk about picking up neutron reactions in CR39 plastic. This seems strange that they would stick with this detection methods exclusively.
Earlier claims of high energy protons (excess of a few thousand eV) has been proposed as a fusion product. As this proton does not penetrate far, imersing a plastic sheet near the electrode seems a reasonable method of detecting these protons, if the control for other causes of pits (like chloride ions in the electrolyte solution. But in this video, they seem to be discussing high energy neutron detections. CR39is a perfectly suitable detection method, if properly controlled. But neutrons are highly penatrating (they travel far). So alternate methods of detection, such a bubbly detectors, He3 of Boron 11 detectors or scintillation detectors all should be viable. Where is the data from these measuring modalities. Also, if they are interested in the energy of the neutrons, there is neutron differential counters. Why stick with CR39 measurements alone? Adding other measuring modalities would greatly improve on possible experimental measuring errors.

Also, the scales seem odd. If they are detecting tritium production at a few thousand per second,how does this compare with multiple watts of heating power at times. You would expect power output of microwatts of power at best. Unless this mentioned reaction was only one branch out of millions occurring during the anomalous heat production. It stretches credibility.

Things just don't fit together. Extend this to Rossi claims of nearly megawatts of power, without demonstrating gross measurements of appropriate isotopes is a huge hole in his claimed performance.

I can also mention that these LENR results discussed in the video involves deuterium. Hydrogen , as you report, is a control. This is a vast difference from Rossi's claim of hydrogen nickel fusion.

Dan Tibbets

These objections are totally different from your initial arguments. I am glad you finally watched "most" of their conference proceedings. Now please read the literature publications. They will answer your questions.

[Crawdaddy]

FYI

60 Minutes is doing a piece on cold fusion next Tuesday, July 17.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/

[Kahuna]

I think this is a rerun of the 60 Minutes episode that aired last year (Cold Fusion is Hot Again) rather than a new production. I think it is on YouTube also.

[Crawdaddy]

Ack!

That is disappointing.

[Axil]

From my TV listings for next week’s CNBC programing, the show is new with the date of production as of 2012.

[Kahuna]

I hope you are right Axil. The title is the same as last year's (Cold Fusion is Hot Again) but the lead-in to the story is:

"CNBC brings you the latest on these classic stories with updates and never before seen footage of these award winning business news stories."

My guess is that they are going to play the original and do some updating at the end.

Since Professor Robert Duncan (U of MO) played prominately in the original show and was a key presenter at the recent William & Mary LENR Conference, I would not be surprised to see him front and center in any updates they have added. He was not even a major player when CBS tapped him to do the CF investigations for 60 min (as far as I know), now he has started a LENR incubator at UofMo and gotten a big grant to fund it, brought Energetics over from Israel, etc. I'd say he was converted during the investigation/filming.

[Kahuna]

Peter Gluck appears to have some decent sources at DGT. Here is his latest report/insights:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/07 ... lions.html

He promises more...

[D Tibbets]

I watched the video, or at least most of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8Yu-Ju ... re=related

they talk about picking up neutron reactions in CR39 plastic. This seems strange that they would stick with this detection methods exclusively.
Earlier claims of high energy protons (excess of a few thousand eV) has been proposed as a fusion product. As this proton does not penetrate far, immersing a plastic sheet near the electrode seems a reasonable method of detecting these protons, if the control for other causes of pits (like chloride ions in the electrolyte solution. But in this video, they seem to be discussing high energy neutron detections. CR39is a perfectly suitable detection method, if properly controlled. But neutrons are highly penetrating (they travel far). So alternate methods of detection, such a bubbly detectors, He3 of Boron 11 detectors or scintillation detectors all should be viable. Where is the data from these measuring modalities. Also, if they are interested in the energy of the neutrons, there is neutron differential counters. Why stick with CR39 measurements alone? Adding other measuring modalities would greatly improve on possible experimental measuring errors.

Also, the scales seem odd. If they are detecting tritium production at a few thousand per second,how does this compare with multiple watts of heating power at times. You would expect power output of microwatts of power at best. Unless this mentioned reaction was only one branch out of millions occurring during the anomalous heat production. It stretches credibility.

Things just don't fit together. Extend this to Rossi claims of nearly megawatts of power, without demonstrating gross measurements of appropriate isotopes is a huge hole in his claimed performance.

I can also mention that these LENR results discussed in the video involves deuterium. Hydrogen , as you report, is a control. This is a vast difference from Rossi's claim of hydrogen nickel fusion.

Dan Tibbets

These objections are totally different from your initial arguments. I am glad you finally watched "most" of their conference proceedings. Now please read the literature publications. They will answer your questions.

Actually my earlier dissatisfaction was based on their presumed high energy proton detections and uncertainty about chemical sources of the CR39 pits. This now is supposing neutron production. This does not suffer from the short penetrability of energetic protons. With neutrons there is no need for detectors being within mm of the source. . The situation can be cleaned up and controls much less troublesome by going to external neutron detectors. The3y could even stick with Cr39 detectors. The chemical etching could be easily eliminated as a source for error.. When their work first came out nearly a decade ago, it was interesting and seemingly suggestive of anomalous high energy proton production. One of the major criticisms was control against chloride etching from the electrolytic solution the experiment was immersed in. Later studies did show this and made the earlier results suspect (in terms of the pits originating from fusion proton impacts). I don't know how insulating a thin layer of mica is to chemical etching from caustic ions such as chloride. Now that they are claiming neutron detections, this entire issue can be eliminated by a extremely simple adjustment to the experimental setup. Place the detector outside of the chamber. A counter argument is that the added distance would place the counts below the noise floor (inverse square law. The problem with this dodge is that with watts of heat produced, a huge number of neutrons (or protons) would be produced, and in the neutrons case they would probably be detectable at many meters distance unless appropriate shielding material was interposed. With simple neutron coulters Bussard was able to detect an output of ~ 500,000,000 neutrons per second. And that was with about 1 milli Watt of heat production. If these researchers are detecting neutrons from D-D fusion. it is only contributing perhaps less than 1 / 10,000th of the heat . That means that ~ the rest of the heat is completely unexplained. Even if their data is true, only ~ 1 10 thousandths of the heat production is explained. This is why I say the numbers do not add up. The production of tritium, neutrons, protons and He3 account for at most a tiny fraction of the heat production. This still leaves the need for thousands of times more non recognized physics process*yields to explain the thermal claims.

A comparison of neutron yields from accepted hot D-D fusion is ~ 500 billion neutrons per second for ~ 1 watt of heat generation. With mundane neutron detection equipment you might detect ~ 1/ 10,000 to 1/100,000 of the isotropic neutron flux at ~ 1 meter distance. That you would have ~ 5 million detections per second. Without running the numbers, I think this would also be a significant radiation dose for anyone in the room. Perhaps as much as much as ~ 1 REM/ hr. If this cold D-D fusion is occuring, it is nearly as aneutronic than P-B11 fusion. The D-D to He3 + N reaction is not occuring 50% of the time, but less than ~0.01% of the time. Likewise for the D-D to tritium + P reaction, else many more high energy protons would have been detected. Again, if the data is accurate and real, they are only explaining less than 1/ with their results.1thousandths of the physics and/or chemistry going on.
* If the calorimetry is accurate, remember there are still chemical, crystal structure, hydride issues,etc that may explain a significant portion of the intermittent excess heat production. This by itself may be very interesting and even productive for certain applications, but the low signal to noise ratio, the criticisms of experimental setup and appropriate controls has plaged this field throughout. I don't think this implies that this line of research should be abandoned, indeed I think a careful and extensive research program is warranted. This group has pursued a systematic course to a degree, but there is still a long way to go before they can claim a yureka moment.

Dan Tibbets

[seedload]

Peter Gluck appears to have some decent sources at DGT. Here is his latest report/insights:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/07 ... lions.html

He promises more...

His self professed "total absence of naiveté" is impressive.

[Skipjack]

His self professed "total absence of naiveté" is impressive.

Made me LOL too

[Axil]

FYI

Rossi is about to come out with some info. The big September reveal.

For all those who must soon eat their words: Stay hungry my friends.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 68193.html

[ladajo]

I believe that it will be undeniably inconclusive as always when dealing with Rossitwotongue.

Are you ready to eat your words that easily Axil?