Nasa testing the Widom-Larsen LENR theory.

[KitemanSA]

Th has occurred that is 10
4
times faster

Tom,
I presume throughout the document you quoted, statements as above are really trying to say:

Th has occured 10^4, i.e., 1E4 times faster?

[Giorgio]

@KitemanSA,
Yes correct, 10^4.
When you cut and paste from a PDF file to the forum you miss almost all of the scientific annotations.

[tomclarke]

Th has occurred that is 10
4
times faster

Tom,
I presume throughout the document you quoted, statements as above are really trying to say:

Th has occured 10^4, i.e., 1E4 times faster?

Yes, sorry for bad pasting.

With all nthe CF stuff I look at the source materisl and any followups. Sometimes followups of followups. gives a sense of balance.

The D(-1) stuff has not been touched by anyone else, so no sense of balance yet. But I've read their latest paper and the "Coulomb explosion" signals are getting a lot more complex, with elaborate explanations for why this should be. That makes me like it less.

[tomclarke]

@tomclarke,

yes, the liquid solution experiments never convinced me too.

I was referring here to the solid fracturing tests.
The one they did with different samples and bubble meter indicators to measure neutron emission.
Those are the one I can't figure our where the neutron indications could have come from.

I have not looked at those. But bubble meter experiments with low neutron counts are very prone to error. Almost anything can provide contamination.

[Giorgio]

I have not looked at those. But bubble meter experiments with low neutron counts are very prone to error. Almost anything can provide contamination.

Indeed, but is not low bubble here and is several experiments with different samples.
I'll look for some material in english and send to you some links or a PM.
Unfortunately all what I have read lately is in Italian.

Maybe you will find the logical step that I am missing as I am really scratching my head over this since that conference.

[Axil]

Th has occurred that is 10
4
times faster

Tom,
I presume throughout the document you quoted, statements as above are really trying to say:

Th has occured 10^4, i.e., 1E4 times faster?

Yes, sorry for bad pasting.

With all nthe CF stuff I look at the source materisl and any followups. Sometimes followups of followups. gives a sense of balance.

The D(-1) stuff has not been touched by anyone else, so no sense of balance yet. But I've read their latest paper and the "Coulomb explosion" signals are getting a lot more complex, with elaborate explanations for why this should be. That makes me like it less.

I think that the "Coulomb explosion" signals are a red herring in the contest the Rossi reactor.

Unlike laser initiated D(-1) fusion, where "Coulomb explosion" signals are important, in the Rossi reactor, such "Coulomb explosion" signals are to be avoided or minimized to preserve the very important pitted surface structure of the nickel nano-powder catalyst(NiO). These small Heisenberg pits are the fusion triggers that the Rossi reactor absolutely depends on.

In the Rossi reactor it is the internal lattice pressure and temperature increases from two energy amplification sources that matter. One is phonon excitation energy exchange that transfers thermal based lattice kinetic energy to the Rydberg matter to excite the H(1) state to the H(-1) excited metalized compressed state, and the other is the momentum energy fluctuation increase resulting from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of small volumes that compresses and excites the H (-1) to a state of fusion.

[MSimon]

Axil,

Your Mon May 23, 2011 6:53 pm is why I LOVE these "free energy" devices. They generate such lovely explanations.

[Giorgio]

@tomclarke

Here you go:
http://files.splinder.com/9f099aeeccd22 ... e79038.pdf
http://files.splinder.com/d01c16188dffd ... eb343c.pdf

[tomclarke]

@tomclarke

Here you go:
http://files.splinder.com/9f099aeeccd22 ... e79038.pdf
http://files.splinder.com/d01c16188dffd ... eb343c.pdf

Well, you can't tell or sure without replication. But...

It seems the bubble detector sees neutrons when the sample breaks which presumably results in vibraion and sound. Either of these could result in BD false positives?

You would need careful investigation under different conditions to work out precisely what.

Best wishes, Tom

[Giorgio]

@tomclarke

Here you go:
http://files.splinder.com/9f099aeeccd22 ... e79038.pdf
http://files.splinder.com/d01c16188dffd ... eb343c.pdf

Well, you can't tell or sure without replication. But...

It seems the bubble detector sees neutrons when the sample breaks which presumably results in vibraion and sound. Either of these could result in BD false positives?

You would need careful investigation under different conditions to work out precisely what.

Best wishes, Tom

Vibrations was the first point I raised.
The reply was that the detectors are stable to vibrations. I am still trying to verify this point with the detectors manufacturer.

I am also taking contacts with another lab in Milano who is stating to have replicated the work. I'll let you know if you are interested.

[tomclarke]

@tomclarke

Here you go:
http://files.splinder.com/9f099aeeccd22 ... e79038.pdf
http://files.splinder.com/d01c16188dffd ... eb343c.pdf

Well, you can't tell or sure without replication. But...

It seems the bubble detector sees neutrons when the sample breaks which presumably results in vibraion and sound. Either of these could result in BD false positives?

You would need careful investigation under different conditions to work out precisely what.

Best wishes, Tom

Vibrations was the first point I raised.
The reply was that the detectors are stable to vibrations. I am still trying to verify this point with the detectors manufacturer.

I am also taking contacts with another lab in Milano who is stating to have replicated the work. I'll let you know if you are interested.

It is always interesting. Though it will need careful replication, testing every parameter against control, to make me think this one means much.

Best wishes, Tom