10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[rcain]

This device will have more impact on civilization than a hot water heater:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -wave.html

...

kool!

i want one.

[Axil]

Has anyone heard more of this man's work (Yoshiaki Arata, Professor Emeritus at Osaka University)? He claimed to be able to demonstrate anomalous heat reliably.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nex ... 6.08d.html

---------

I found this interesting reading:

"McKubre isn't the only respectable researcher to tackle cold fusion in recent years, Duncan added. Osaka University physics professor emeritus Yoshiaki Arata, who in 2006 received Japan's highest honor, the Order of Culture, reported excess heat effects with palladium nanoparticles.

Particularly remarkable was the (decidedly chilly) cold fusion journey of Julian Schwinger, who with Richard Feynmann and Shinichiro Tomonaga won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for one of the greatest ever physical theories, quantum electrodynamics or QED.

After studying the Pons-Fleischmann experiments, "Julian had a theory that a process tantamount to cold fusion was occurring, but even as a Nobel laureate, he couldn't get reputable journals to publish it," Duncan told TechNewsWorld.

"My first attempt at publication was a total disaster," Schwinger recalled during lectures and seminars. He had devised a hypothesis about the effect "to suggest several critical experiments," but because cold fusion had become what Duncan calls a "pariah science, poison to all who touched it," Schwinger -- graduate advisor to four other Nobel laureates who also won the U.S. National Medal of Science -- was summarily ignored.

"What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?" he wondered."

Source is:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold ... 1307584888

----------

Also, concerning reproducibility, didn't Piantelli and Focardi publish all the details necessary to reproduce their work, which apparently involved consistently producing very mild levels of anomalous heat? I.e. the design that NASA is now investigating? Why isn't there more interest in this bit of work which is just waiting to be independently reproduced?

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf

Development of Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor
Using Solid Pycnodeuterium as Nuclear Fuel
Yoshiaki Arata and Yue Chang Zhang



This 12 year series of experiments demonstrates cold fusion at least in my mind. The authors created something called .Pycnodeuterium. It is various nano metal powders with deuterium forced into the center of the crystal matrix of the metal molecule.

When stimulated by low power laser excitation, it produces He4. Only fusion can make He4. When hydrogen is used instead of deuterium, no He4 is generated upon stimulation.(see figure Fig. B in the document.)

In their conclusion, the authors state as follows:

Our Laser implosion system used only 300 watt and generated about 10e19 to 10e20 particles per 10 seconds. It is concluded that solid Pycnodeuterium. with stimulation energy is by far the more excellent fusion fuel as compared with gaseous deuterium as used in thermonuclear fusion.

That is a lot of neutrons.

[tomclarke]

Has anyone heard more of this man's work (Yoshiaki Arata, Professor Emeritus at Osaka University)? He claimed to be able to demonstrate anomalous heat reliably.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nex ... 6.08d.html

---------

I found this interesting reading:

"McKubre isn't the only respectable researcher to tackle cold fusion in recent years, Duncan added. Osaka University physics professor emeritus Yoshiaki Arata, who in 2006 received Japan's highest honor, the Order of Culture, reported excess heat effects with palladium nanoparticles.

Particularly remarkable was the (decidedly chilly) cold fusion journey of Julian Schwinger, who with Richard Feynmann and Shinichiro Tomonaga won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for one of the greatest ever physical theories, quantum electrodynamics or QED.

After studying the Pons-Fleischmann experiments, "Julian had a theory that a process tantamount to cold fusion was occurring, but even as a Nobel laureate, he couldn't get reputable journals to publish it," Duncan told TechNewsWorld.

"My first attempt at publication was a total disaster," Schwinger recalled during lectures and seminars. He had devised a hypothesis about the effect "to suggest several critical experiments," but because cold fusion had become what Duncan calls a "pariah science, poison to all who touched it," Schwinger -- graduate advisor to four other Nobel laureates who also won the U.S. National Medal of Science -- was summarily ignored.

"What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?" he wondered."

Source is:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold ... 1307584888

----------

Also, concerning reproducibility, didn't Piantelli and Focardi publish all the details necessary to reproduce their work, which apparently involved consistently producing very mild levels of anomalous heat? I.e. the design that NASA is now investigating? Why isn't there more interest in this bit of work which is just waiting to be independently reproduced?

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf

Development of Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor
Using Solid Pycnodeuterium as Nuclear Fuel
Yoshiaki Arata and Yue Chang Zhang



This 12 year series of experiments demonstrates cold fusion at least in my mind. The authors created something called .Pycnodeuterium. It is various nano metal powders with deuterium forced into the center of the crystal matrix of the metal molecule.

When stimulated by low power laser excitation, it produces He4. Only fusion can make He4. When hydrogen is used instead of deuterium, no He4 is generated upon stimulation.(see figure Fig. B in the document.)

In their conclusion, the authors state as follows:

Our Laser implosion system used only 300 watt and generated about 10e19 to 10e20 particles per 10 seconds. It is concluded that solid Pycnodeuterium. with stimulation energy is by far the more excellent fusion fuel as compared with gaseous deuterium as used in thermonuclear fusion.

That is a lot of neutrons.

Since I challenged Kiteman earlier, i should take this is an answer from you.

These Arata + Arata replication experiments are difficult to analyse. I've tries to do this but all I've found so is powerpoint style writeups with a lot of data but little analysis, no conclusions, from rata specifically a large number of unsupported assertions of the form "Nuclear fusion is happens inside the vessel" or "Pycnodeuterium lumps form with 3 atoms inside each lattice cell".

The possibly positive data appears to be:

small differences in heat output between H2 & D2 in same system.

Excess He out observed when mixed gasses (He & H2 & D2) are input but not when H2 & D2 are input.

Analysis of the excess heat out is very difficult because of possible chemical reactions, and the fact that reaction rates may be significantly different for H2 & D2.

The excess He out seems suspicious to me, maybe it is an artifact caused by poor experimental protocol and in fcat is just what should be expected given He in?

Now I am not dismissing this vast & confusing dataset. But I can't properly analyse it without either;
(1) a lot of work - more than I am prepared to give
(2) a properly written paper making it clear what was done, under what conditions results were obtained, what appears anomalous, why, etc.


I don't mind whether such a writeup is peer-reviewed, as long as it is written carefully enough for me to read it and understand what is going on.

Similarly with the replications, they do not sem to give He ash, nor gammas, but small amounts of excess heat. These are extremely difficult indicators, requiring great experimental care and good writeups. It is very very easy to get false positives with the best will in the world.

I am afraid extracted headlines from this data which appear good are not enough for me to reach any conclusion. You just can't evaluate them without carefully looking at all the conditions. Having done that you can see what are the anomalies, begin to generate hypotheses, and test them.

This work is what I expect replication to have done. But I cannot find good write-ups of the replications either.

So, help me out, have you found anywhere a serious writeup of this stuff, or if not have you spent a lot of time yourself working out what is what?

Best wishes, Tom

[Giorgio]

My tests will be with two units operating side by side with Ni+H in one and Fe+H in the other.

Why Fe +H? You are at the top of the binding energy curve with Fe. Are you going to use it as reference or you hope to get any result?

[tomclarke]

Our Laser implosion system used only 300 watt and generated about 10e19 to 10e20 particles per 10 seconds. It is concluded that solid Pycnodeuterium. with stimulation energy is by far the more excellent fusion fuel as compared with gaseous deuterium as used in thermonuclear fusion.

I tried to match data in your ref with the headline summary you provide. I think the particle generation here is assumed nuclear generation of measured excess He. But since He is an input gas there must be some uncertainty about whether the measured output He is real, especially because the replications do not appear to give this?

If the results are real I can't believe there are no decent physicists out there in the LENR community able to write up the experimental data properly and draw conclusions. I'm hoping you can find me papers with clearer descriptions of the experiments than the link you provided.

[Giorgio]

Kite, Chris is correct on both points.

This has nothing to do with Rossi being correct or not, but just on the actual situation of LENR research/knowledge.

These two points ARE compatible, Kite. Just because someone finds evidence compelling does not mean that they could reproduce the means of delivering that evidence?

Also, no-one has claimed that some 'LENR researcher's results are nor repeatable, but I am claiming that they cannot be repeated BY SOMEONE ELSE because there is insufficient description of the equipment.

[KitemanSA]

I do however point out that once again, you seem to be using the explicit example of Rossi and his known refusal to publish scientific information to condemn a whole field. I find that questionable, logically speaking.

I have no conception of how you have formed that opinion of me.
I object to the crap people come out with about LENR. I have never 'condemned the whole field'. I've never even passed an opinion about it!!!

You made this statement. I have highlighted several words therein.

Also, no-one has claimed that some 'LENR researcher's results are nor repeatable, but I am claiming that they cannot be repeated BY SOMEONE ELSE because there is insufficient description of the equipment.

I find this to be a rather absolute statement. Are you sure none have ever been repeated? How would you know if you decline to recognize the places where such things get published as legitimate?

I have repeated this time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time again here.

Once people stop pontificating about bad demonstrations things unknowable, then I'll stop complaining about them.

You really need to read these 100 pages. It is the LENR proponents that are making "definitive" claims. No one I recall (apart from an invervention by Chicknva) has said Rossi is a scam. No one has said that LENR doesn't happen. What has been objected to are the statements that the Rossi 'experiments' prove this, or did that, when all it is is hearsay.

So, go check your sources [like you've suggested to me!] and note that *I* surely have never stated anything about the possibility of LENR. I've only commented on the non-science of the discussions.

First, I know I have seen the term scam and fraud used definitively and decisionally about Rossi AND LENR. I do not recall you specifically stating so. You have repeatedly made absolutist statements that implied LENR was nonscience. I quoted one above.

If in fact your opinion is one of a seeker of knowledge, then my apologies for infering differently. I just know the the general tone of your communications seem to me to be unreservedly anit-LENR.

Me? I am unreservedly confused about it but interested in learning more. If I choose to snub someone who seems to exude a "holier than thou omnicience" in the subject and makes statements that seem to be designed to dissuade me from learning more, please take no offense.

[KitemanSA]

If I'm confused, so are others.

I'm not sure what you are pointing to here. Everything you quoted supports MY position. Dan you are very confused about something. I wish I could figure it out to help.Let us do some simple combinations.

"You can't fuse iron". True
Fe + Fe = Te = ENDOthermic... the anti-fission.

"Fusion combines lighter elements". True
D + T = He + n = EXOthermic classical fusion

But what happens when you combine lighter and heavier elements? Depends on which ones!.

Mn + Co = Te? Endo; because the BOTH Mn&Co have higher binding energy than Te.
H + Ni = Cu? Exo. Becasue H has ZERO binding energy and BOTH Ni and Cu have about the same high binding energy.

[chrismb]

You made this statement. I have highlighted several words therein.

Also, no-one has claimed that some 'LENR researcher's results are nor repeatable, but I am claiming that they cannot be repeated BY SOMEONE ELSE because there is insufficient description of the equipment.

I find this to be a rather absolute statement. Are you sure none have ever been repeated?

My intent was in context of Rossi. So the sentence should read [in context] "I've not said anything about LENR being unrepeatable, but they [Rossi's results] cannot be repeated because he's not said what he's done."

Does this make more sense to you as a sentence standing out on its own?

First, I know I have seen the term scam and fraud used definitively and decisionally about Rossi AND LENR. I do not recall you specifically stating so. You have repeatedly made absolutist statements that implied LENR was nonscience. I quoted one above.

I do not recall any such implications of mine that LENR generally is non-science. I have referred only to what has been discussed about it [particularly here, but also some of the 'witness accounts' of Rossitron] as non-science.

If I have confused you by my anomisity to those conversations/mis-informations, and that the way I presented it has appeared to confobulate the two together, then all I can say is that it was not intended.

If in fact your opinion is one of a seeker of knowledge, then my apologies for infering differently. I just know the the general tone of your communications seem to me to be unreservedly anit-LENR.

Well, not entirely. I am not really seeking any 'knowledge' on LENR because I have not seen anything that I find of scientific merit. Don't get me wrong [again! ] - there may well be some material out there of good standard, but I am not a 'seeker' of it, I will merely respond, and have merely responded, to the material that *I* have seen where it fails to be even 'internally' self-analytic. If, and where, folks present a rigorous account of their thoughts and feelings about what they've heard - fair enough. I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the 'absolutism' of the 'pro-Rossi' brigade here who say "this HAS been proven" or "that is EVIDENCE and the only way MUST BE...&c.". It's the 'pro-Rossi's that are this deterministic, not the 'cynics'. As mentioned, I don't even consider I qualify as a cynic because there just isn't enough information from Rossi to be cynical about. However, I AM cynical about his manipulation of the media and any claims about his demonstrations, but not, per se, about the demonstrations because to me they fail to show anything conclusive to talk about.

[KitemanSA]

My tests will be with two units operating side by side with Ni+H in one and Fe+H in the other.

Why Fe +H? You are at the top of the binding energy curve with Fe. Are you going to use it as reference or you hope to get any result?

Since the claim is that Ni+H is the magic formula for this process, how bout THREE identical set-ups, Ni+H, Ni+D, and Ni+He. Or even 4 with Ni+T along for the ride!

[KitemanSA]

Kite, Chris is correct on both points.

This has nothing to do with Rossi being correct or not, but just on the actual situation of LENR research/knowledge.

These two points ARE compatible, Kite. Just because someone finds evidence compelling does not mean that they could reproduce the means of delivering that evidence?

Also, no-one has claimed that some 'LENR researcher's results are nor repeatable, but I am claiming that they cannot be repeated BY SOMEONE ELSE because there is insufficient description of the equipment.

I'm sure you won't get upset if I decline to recognize his and your omnicience in the matter?
I will continue to investigate as if there MAY be something to find. Still early days IMHO, despite MSimon's implications.

[KitemanSA]

You made this statement. I have highlighted several words therein.

Also, no-one has claimed that some 'LENR researcher's results are nor repeatable, but I am claiming that they cannot be repeated BY SOMEONE ELSE because there is insufficient description of the equipment.

I find this to be a rather absolute statement. Are you sure none have ever been repeated?

My intent was in context of Rossi. So the sentence should read [in context] "I've not said anything about LENR being unrepeatable, but they [Rossi's results] cannot be repeated because he's not said what he's done."

Does this make more sense to you as a sentence standing out on its own?

Absolutely and I am sorry that I did not catch that meaning the first time around.

First, I know I have seen the term scam and fraud used definitively and decisionally about Rossi AND LENR. I do not recall you specifically stating so. You have repeatedly made absolutist statements that implied LENR was nonscience. I quoted one above.

I do not recall any such implications of mine that LENR generally is non-science. I have referred only to what has been discussed about it [particularly here, but also some of the 'witness accounts' of Rossitron] as non-science.

So if it was indeed my inference rather than your implication, I apologize.

If I have confused you by my anomisity to those conversations/mis-informations, and that the way I presented it has appeared to confobulate the two together, then all I can say is that it was not intended.

thank you for your clarification.

If in fact your opinion is one of a seeker of knowledge, then my apologies for infering differently. I just know the the general tone of your communications seem to me to be unreservedly anit-LENR.

Well, not entirely. I am not really seeking any 'knowledge' on LENR because I have not seen anything that I find of scientific merit. Don't get me wrong [again! ] - there may well be some material out there of good standard, but I am not a 'seeker' of it, I will merely respond, and have merely responded, to the material that *I* have seen where it fails to be even 'internally' self-analytic. If, and where, folks present a rigorous account of their thoughts and feelings about what they've heard - fair enough. I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the 'absolutism' of the 'pro-Rossi' brigade here who say "this HAS been proven" or "that is EVIDENCE and the only way MUST BE...&c.". It's the 'pro-Rossi's that are this deterministic, not the 'cynics'. As mentioned, I don't even consider I qualify as a cynic because there just isn't enough information from Rossi to be cynical about. However, I AM cynical about his manipulation of the media and any claims about his demonstrations, but not, per se, about the demonstrations because to me they fail to show anything conclusive to talk about.

If you do not seek, please at least do NOT avoid and dang it don't impede!
And I agree with your "problem with" the absolutist "PRO" as I have with the absolutist "anti".
Have fun!

[Kahuna]

Giorgio,

This exchange on Rossi's forum yesterday does not bode too well for getting results from rigorous E-Cat testing from the U. Bologna:

Roger Barker

June 8th, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

Loris Ferrari (University of Bologna) stated in an article that you will be giving his team an opportunity to test the E-Cat. I have some questions about this:

1) When will testing on the E-Cat begin at the University of Bologna begin?
2) What type of tests are you allowing Loris Ferrari and his team to conduct?

Thanks
Roger


Andrea Rossi

June 8th, 2011 at 8:23 PM
Dear Roger Barker:

1- It will not be a test, but a R&D program, to implement our technology, financed by us. It will not be public and most of the data will be confidential
2- The particulars of the R&D program are not supposed to be disclosed to the public

Warm regards,
A.R.

As we discussed earlier, if they even get the R&D funds and an E-Cat, that will be a good sign, but if delays ensue long a red flag. Hopefully your source will have some insights to share next week.

[Giorgio]

I'm sure you won't get upset if I decline to recognize his and your omicience in the matter? I will continue to investigate as if there MAY be something to find. Still early days IMHO, despite MSimon's implications.

I wont, I already consumed my monthly quota of nervousness for this month

But I like to pont it out that this is not an attempt to impose a personal idea. I have been following LENR experiments from something like 10 years now, and the issue with them has always been that you cannot repeat an experiment in a coherent and constant way.
I'll be amazed if someone could point me to an experiment that give extra heat (LENR or not) and that is constantly repeatable .

That said, the day it will happen I'll be really happy as it means we moved our knowledge one step further.

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,

This exchange on Rossi's forum yesterday does not bode too well for getting results from rigorous E-Cat testing from the U. Bologna:

Roger Barker

June 8th, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

Loris Ferrari (University of Bologna) stated in an article that you will be giving his team an opportunity to test the E-Cat. I have some questions about this:

1) When will testing on the E-Cat begin at the University of Bologna begin?
2) What type of tests are you allowing Loris Ferrari and his team to conduct?

Thanks
Roger


Andrea Rossi

June 8th, 2011 at 8:23 PM
Dear Roger Barker:

1- It will not be a test, but a R&D program, to implement our technology, financed by us. It will not be public and most of the data will be confidential
2- The particulars of the R&D program are not supposed to be disclosed to the public

Warm regards,
A.R.

As we discussed earlier, if they even get the R&D funds and an E-Cat, that will be a good sign, but if delays ensue long a red flag. Hopefully your source will have some insights to share next week.

I agree, yet another not good sign. I really dislike the way this story is developing.
If he had already decided not to divulge the UoB results, why the hell did he spread the news and used it to bolster his claims? Really, this guy amazes me.

Every time he speaks I am getting more convinced that he still does not have a repeatable process in hand. Either that or he has no idea of how to make a proper business strategy, and I do not know which one of the two scenario is worst....