Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The Fleischmann-Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, at least primarily. Probably. Look, this is not complicated. As you say, it seems likely that Pd-D is a fusion reaction. McKubre and I believe that whatever the other reactions are, they are probably related. It seems unlikely there are multiple unrelated ways of producing heat with hydrides that of all been discovered recently. We call this the conservation of miracles which is a humorous way to express a serious idea. It is not rigorous proof but it seems logical to us. You disagree. Okay. We got it. The fact that hydrogen fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion strikes me as unimportant. Both of them are extremely unlikely according to conventional theory. Who cares if one is extremely unlikely and the other is superduper extraordinarily extremely unlikely? Theory goes out the window either way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:08, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that hydrogen fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion strikes me as unimportant. Interestingly, and relevantly it seems to me, p+d is preferentially consumed over d+d (whatever path is taken, I assume). My own favorite lead to be investigated is that Ni/H involves p+d. That, too, would be a fusion-like process. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Interestingly, and relevantly it seems to me, p+d is preferentially consumed over d+d (whatever path is taken, I assume). My own favorite lead to be investigated is that Ni/H involves p+d. I assume that would gradually deplete the D in the gas, making it less than 1 part in 6000. That should not be as difficult to detect as some other potential products. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
They shut the power off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45am EST. Does anyone know why? Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On 2012-12-13 13:25, Craig wrote: They shut the power off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45am EST. Does anyone know why? It appears they tried loading it with pure H2 instead of an H2-Ar mixture (75%-25%). This might (according to Dr.Celani) increase over time the apparent excess heat. According to MFMP calibrations with the inactive wire, at 1 bar of pressure the wire should about 1°C hotter at the input power level chosen (48 W), which means that their currently estimated excess heat under pure H2 should be about 0.7 higher than under H2-Ar for this reason alone. Anything significantly higher than this should be a due to a genuine increase of temperatures due to a LENR effect or unknown artifacts. By the way, the controversy with conservative baselines arose because the very first calibration performed with the inactive wire under H2-Ar gas (thick blue line in the graph below) and the last ones performed with the active wire under helium (not shown) showed significantly lower external glass temperature readings than the rest of those made with the inactive wire with different gases and pressures: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/PinTout-Calib-Final.png So, in order to avoid problems due to excess enthusiasm (my interpretation) they chose as a baseline the calibration showing the highest glass temperatures readings, which means that any possible excess heat effect with the active wire under hydrogen atmosphere might currently be significantly underestimated. Of course, this is assuming that LENR is indeed occurring inside the cell. There's still the chance that this could all be an unexpected error artifact especially since they're measuring temperatures from a more or less transparent glass tube. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters: From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history (yesterday and today) This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Typical real cold fusion excess heat looks like this: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf See: Exp. # 64a . . . Excess Power of up to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h This is also how Ni-H cold fusion looks. Perhaps Celani has discovered a particularly stable form of cold fusion. Frankly, I doubt it, but I am only guessing. In past cases I recall, stable reactions that look like this all turned out to be artifacts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact. Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to calibration runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert conditions. This temperature difference appears to be significant. . So, in a way, their replication was successful. It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube (preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple. If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final answer will come from proper flow calorimetry. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Which parameters were you viewing? Just the low power out? If so, then it won't be to scale on that range and will look like a straight line with the exception of where they turned the power off this morning. Are you seeing the fluctuations that are here? http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in the lower P_Xs Low parameter. Craig On 12/13/2012 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters: From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history (yesterday and today) This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
It may also be that if Celani has found a method which is 100% reproducible, then it is because his method creates a more stable reaction. Otherwise it probably wouldn't be 100% reproducible if it was as erratic as other experiments. Craig On 12/13/2012 10:14 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact. Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to calibration runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert conditions. This temperature difference appears to be significant. . So, in a way, their replication was successful. It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube (preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple. If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final answer will come from proper flow calorimetry. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:MFM Project
That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is to provide the superwave of power input - which is waves of energy superimposed on other waves. One would expect that that a Dardik chart would look extremely noisy. BTW - has Celani ever claimed cold fusion ? News to me if he has. From: Jed Rothwell Typical real cold fusion excess heat looks like this: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf See: Exp. # 64a . . . Excess Power of up to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h This is also how Ni-H cold fusion looks. Perhaps Celani has discovered a particularly stable form of cold fusion. Frankly, I doubt it, but I am only guessing. In past cases I recall, stable reactions that look like this all turned out to be artifacts. - Jed attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is to provide the superwave of power input . . . Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical. Here is another example: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control cell. Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW - has Celani ever claimed cold fusion ? News to me if he has. I believe he has, but in any case, that is what I call all unexplained non-chemical heat anomalies in hydrides and deuterides. Whether they are all actually the same effect or not is no concern of mine. The effect is also known as LENR, CANR and by various other names. They are all the same thing until proven otherwise. Anyway, as another Italian put it: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
An elecrochemical environment might simply be more complex and so the power produced is more erractic. A notable exception is heat after death when an electrolyte boils away and becomes more like a Celani wire in a gaseous environment. Harry On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is to provide the superwave of power input . . . Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical. Here is another example: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control cell. Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MFM Project
What you are objecting to is more an artifact of software leveling and choices made in how data is presented - than an actual problem of results being too smooth. McKubre's chart has already been leveled and could be leveled more - and the MFM charts could be altered the other way to accentuate the small point-to-point differences, and it would appear spikier - if they desired to present it that way. I do not see this as a real issue. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is to provide the superwave of power input . . . Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical. Here is another example: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control cell. Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MFM Project
You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but cold fusion obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term cold fusion should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. Celani does not claim fusion, and cold fusion even as a non-specific generality, is unlikely to be relevant to his work - nor to these results from MFM/Quantum. In contrast to what's in name the more relevant cliché of the moment is nomen est numen. It is a mistake to be sticking with nomen nudum ... even when it is from a POV of nostalgia. Cold fusion only makes the NiH field look less scientific, even tainted to some degree. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: BTW - has Celani ever claimed cold fusion ? News to me if he has. I believe he has, but in any case, that is what I call all unexplained non-chemical heat anomalies in hydrides and deuterides. Whether they are all actually the same effect or not is no concern of mine. The effect is also known as LENR, CANR and by various other names. They are all the same thing until proven otherwise. Anyway, as another Italian put it: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet . . . - Jed attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On 12/13/2012 11:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but cold fusion obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term cold fusion should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have been shown to be correct? Craig
RE: [Vo]:MFM Project
With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It smacks of some kind of psychological payback. Science aspires to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high road, they are not giving up very much. -Original Message- From: Craig You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but cold fusion obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term cold fusion should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have been shown to be correct? Craig attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/13/2012 11:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but cold fusion obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term cold fusion should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have been shown to be correct? Craig Mallove knew what it is on a poetic level: Fire from Ice. The rest is just science. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, as another Italian put it: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet . . . Juliet Capulet was Italian?
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, as another Italian put it: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet . . . Juliet Capulet was Italian? Verona, IT. Hmm, we learn something every day.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Are you seeing the fluctuations that are here? http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in the lower P_Xs Low parameter. Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular. But better. As noted, calling up two days of data may have smoothed things too much. Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but cold fusion obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term cold fusion should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. I don't care how many angels can dance on that particular pin-head. I do not know anyone who has even looked for evidence, so I don't think that is significant. For now I will stick with McKubre's principle of the conservation of miracles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Juliet Capulet was Italian? Verona, IT. Hmm, we learn something every day. Yes, Italians spoke English remarkably well in those days. Lots of cliches though. You might be thinking of the Verona Beach, FL version with the well-known Italian Leonardo De Vinci DiCaprio. His English is also good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: An elecrochemical environment might simply be more complex and so the power produced is more erractic. That's true. And fluctuations are not desirable. This could be a sign of progress, and not a sign of an artifact. Rossi's heat is also pretty stable. I am pretty sure that is real heat, at least in the graphs that have been published. It wasn't working when NASA was there. I have no idea what that data looked like. As I read in a medical report long ago, the absence of pulse was present. A notable exception is heat after death when an electrolyte boils away and becomes more like a Celani wire in a gaseous environment. Good point. Still, it fluctuates after a while, as shown in Fig. 7 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
I wrote: http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in the lower P_Xs Low parameter. Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular. But better. If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that. They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most buildings. Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this possibility. I assume those are minutes on the X-scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another thread. Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to conclusions. Dunno. Jeff On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in the lower P_Xs Low parameter. Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular. But better. If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that. They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most buildings. Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this possibility. I assume those are minutes on the X-scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
At 10:02 AM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters: From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history (yesterday and today) This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact. That does not match the Arata gas-loading results. It's very true with the electrochemical-loading approaches. There is plenty of sign that NiH reactions may be more stable, indeed, that is part of the hope for NiH. Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is cold fusion. We don't know what it is. We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results because they are too smooth!
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right? At 11:07 AM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.netjone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is to provide the superwave of power input . . . Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical. Here is another example: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpghttp://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control cell. Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another thread. Yup. I realized that after posting the message. Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to conclusions. Dunno. Yup again. It is the kind of thing that bears looking into. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right? Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas loading. No electrolysis or input noise. We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth. Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading and de-loading of metals: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
I ran a correlational analysis on the last 4 hours of data. T ambient is correlated -.79 with P_xs. So, pxs rises when ambient drops (or vice versa). That may have to do with the spiking and dipping, but probably not with the baseline level of Pxs. On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right? Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas loading. No electrolysis or input noise. We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth. Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading and de-loading of metals: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
I'll agree. Mallove was talking about the FPHE, which *is* cold fusion (remaining arguments are semantic/pedantic. If deuterium is being converted to helium, and it is, no matter what the mechanism, it is fusion as to result.) But we don't know the mechanism for NiH. We don't really even know if the results are LENR. We just aren't there yet, as to what has been sufficiently confirmed. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It smacks of some kind of psychological payback. Science aspires to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high road, they are not giving up very much. -Original Message- From: Craig You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but cold fusion obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term cold fusion should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have been shown to be correct? Craig winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is cold fusion. We don't know what it is. Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as Pd-D heat, based on the conservation of miracles. Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any other. We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results because they are too smooth! I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is usually more lumpy. That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people. One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes in air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much. If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly re-calibration. I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is cold fusion. We don't know what it is. Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as Pd-D heat, based on the conservation of miracles. Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any other. We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results because they are too smooth! I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is usually more lumpy. That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people. One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes in air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much. If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly re-calibration. I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess. Any statement about the nature of cold fusion is a guess. There are no generally accepted theories. I'll take fusion over the W-L theory or Mills. LENR means more or less the same thing as fusion since it sure doesn't see likely to be fission. What other reactions are there starting with H or D? Nowhere to go but up. I doubt the entire thing is host metal reactions. You have to call it something. Any name will include some assumptions and exclude others. Even the FP effect assumes that Ni-H is the same effect as Pd-D. It is axiomatic in language that: Words are not in themselves the thing they represent; they are partial descriptions at best; and (also along these lines) word etymology has no bearing on present meaning. I was going to mention that with regard to your discussion about the word Allah. Even if it did once mean Moon God that has no bearing on what it means now. (I will take your word that it did not derive from that.) The English word Monday is derived from the word moon but it now has no connection whatever to the moon. The word understand no longer means standing under, even though it originally had that meaning a metaphoric sense. Computer folders no longer fold in any sense. Most words were originally derived from metaphor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
I agree with Jed, I wish we could stop obsessing over what the phrase “Cold Fusion” really means. The truth of the matter is: nobody really knows for sure what kind of phenomenon “Cold Fusion” really represents. Big deal! Get over it! The phrase “Cold Fusion” is nothing more than a place holder. I find it to be an exercise in absurdity that others continue to make such a big deal out of the fact that others continue to sue the phrase “Cold Fusion” - as if doing so is a horrible thing to do to science. What I see is far more political foreplay in harping on this issue, as compared to focusing on actual scientific investigation. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
At 04:15 PM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right? Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas loading. No electrolysis or input noise. But, often, one chaotic environment. We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gifhttp://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth. I.e., Jed, you are questioning experimental results because they don't look right to you. Right is based on long experience with a particular kind of cell. That's okay, but ... just so it's clear where the suspicion comes from. I'll say, about the Arata results -- I have in mind those temperature plots that show a large heat release with initial loading, i.e., from the heat of formation of the hydride (presumably), then a decline, settling at 2 degrees of temperature difference between the chamber internal temp and a hollow chamger surrounding it, and two more degrees to ambient (which was surrounded with insulation). First of all, there is nothing to disturbe the internal environment, unless the reaction itself, which is taking place at a relatively low level,disturbs it, and, second, this rough indication of generated heat is not precise, and would rather naturally be averaged already. So what is too smooth about the Arata curves? Arata took down his cells after 50 hours, still going strong, to measure helium, but I've never seen his results. (These were PdD gas-loading cells.) Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading and de-loading of metals: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf Dmitriyeva. Cool. She just got her PhD. For cold fusion work. Times are changing, Jed.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Dmitriyeva. Cool. She just got her PhD. For cold fusion work. Times are changing, Jed. She never got any excess heat! Years of work with no interesting results. That part has not changed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
At 05:41 PM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess. Any statement about the nature of cold fusion is a guess. No, or more accurately, only as cold fusion came to be a term for suspected LENR of many kinds. The Fleischmann-Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, at least primarily. That is a statement about the nature of cold fusion which is not a guess. It's a conclusion from the analysis of experimental data. While it could be wrong, it's very unlikely to be so. There are no credible artifacts that have been proposed and which match the experimental data. None. While there are a few unexplained results in early data, Stuff Happens. For example, helium was missing from an Arata-Zhang replication attemped by SRI, and McKubre says that he suspects the cell, a DS-cathode, leaked or was somehow prematurely opened. That cell *did* show tritium, and He-3 as would be expected from tritium generated from reactions inside the cell. There is no work that impeaches heat/helium. Don't confuse the entire class of statements, theories, with a specific class, in this case about *mechanism*. What's true is that we don't know the mechanism, we only know the result. Helium is being generated commensurate with the heat, and the amount of helium generated is consistent with experimental conditions and accuracy and the value for deuterium-helium conversion, regardless of mechanism or intermediate products. Only if an intermediate product persists would it change this, and if there are intermediates, they do not appear to be sticking around in quantity enough to affect the heat measurements. There are no generally accepted theories. I'll take fusion over the W-L theory or Mills. WRT the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, you would be on solid ground. However, that effect results in deuterium fusion. Straight deuterium fusion, for starters, is much easier to accomplish than, say, protium fusion. Deuterium fusion is not an explanation for NiH results. It is obviously different. Now, the concept of conservation of miracles. We need to stop referring to cold fusion as a miracle. It might be, but it's quite likely that all that happened was that people failed to anticipate -- and thus to calculate -- a possible physical configuration. The application of quantum mechanics to the solid state is a primitive field, it's extremely difficult to model more than two-body problems. That's what Takahashi is doing, that's what Kim is doing (in a more general way), and there is work on this going on elsewhere. This can take years. The math is difficult and complex. My suggestion: don't take anything. There were plenty of errors on the pseudoskeptical physicist side, but the other side made the error of insisting on nuclear when the evidence was still circumstantial. As a result of the crystallization of opinon, the physicists mostly stopped looking, but Huizenga noticed Miles, and commented with genuine amazement. If confirmed, he wrote, this would solve a major mystery of cold fusion. I.e., the ash. Well, Miles was confirmed, but it seems Huizenga was infirm Thinking that was are obviously two distinct effects, experimentally, must be the same because each one is a miracle is not going to help the field. No, the FPHE is not a miracle, it's natural, under the conditions. And a real conservation of miracles leads me to suspect that this is also true for NiH, if it's real and confirmed. There is NiH work going on right now at SRI, or at least being set up. Brillouin. There is the Celani work and the MFMP replication, and these people, I suspect, aren't going to stop with mere replication, they will attempt falsification, at least I hope they will! Meanwhile, *we do know,* at least, the fuel/ash relationship for PdD. It's obviously going to be different for NiH. While the mechanism may be similar, it's unlikely to be exactly the same. If it were the same, the NAE for PdD would work with H. If it does, it's only at very low levels. Calling NiH cold fusion is jumping the shark. Even calling it LENR, without confirmed nuclear products, is premature. It *may be* LENR, and, yes, if it's LENR, some kind of fusion is most likely. However, not all LENR would be fusion as to product. For example, neutron activation is not normally called fusion (though it can be thought of as the fusion of an element with neutronium), and it can lead to energy release from *fission*. I'll agree that the reaction is *probably* some kind of fusion, but that is *only* speculation. I'd say its very important for those who accept cold fusion to back off from belief and take on the skeptical role that the pseudoskeptics abandoned. We need
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
At 06:32 PM 12/13/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: I agree with Jed, I wish we could stop obsessing over what the phrase âCold Fusionâ really means. The truth of the matter is: nobody really knows for sure what kind of phenomenon âCold Fusionâ really represents. Big deal! Get over it! The phrase âCold Fusionâ is nothing more than a place holder. It was at one time. It was quickly realized that this was misleading, because we didn't know it was fusion. However, as soon as Miles was confirmed, that was obsolete. The FPHE is a result of the conversion of deuterium to helium through an unknown mechanism That is, we have not identified the burglar, but we know what was taken and what was left behind. We don't have to know who the burglar is to call the incident burglary. It's actually very important to establish cold fusion as meaning the conversion of lighter elements into heavier ones, releasing the energy expected from the mass deficit. Not as meaning d-d fusion, bringing up images of colliding deuterons. Bad Idea. It might be similar to that, or very different, but the fuel-product relationship is clear, at least for the main reaction. All kinds of stuff might be happening in there, explaining those minor effects, like tritium production or ... neutrons! (at extremely low levels). Krivit has been damaging the field by saying it's not fusion. He's doing this because he imagines that W-L theory isn't fusion. It may not be as to specific reaction mechanism, but even Larsen acknowledges that certain SRI work showing a heat/helium ratio a bit above 30 MeV/He-4 is sound, he merely interprets it differently, but he *does* acknowledge helium as a product, and his reactions start with deuterium. (In the PdD environment.) So what is accomplished is fusion, and *maybe* there are some other things going on in there, but that has not been established.) Krivit does not understand this, unfortunately. I tried to meet with him when I was there. Hostile, and gratuitously so. Unfortunate. He's trashing his career. I find it to be an exercise in absurdity that others continue to make such a big deal out of the fact that others continue to sue the phrase âCold Fusionâ - as if doing so is a horrible thing to do to science. What I see is far more political foreplay in harping on this issue, as compared to focusing on actual scientific investigation. I now refer to the FPHE as cold fusion. Storms did so in his 2010 review, Status of cold fusion (2010), which is a remarkable shift. He didn't use the word in the title of his book, only three years earlier. The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. However, it's in the subtitle: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion. Nothing changed of importance on this issue between 2007 and 2010. I think it's very important. But until there is solid evidence that NiH reactions are real and involve fusion, I'm going to discourage it, and probably challenge it. It's important to distinguish what is scientifically established from what is not. That obvious does not mean that we should discard NiH! The opposite. There are persistent reports, and the big problem with the entire field has been that there are extremely interesting findings that nobody replicates. They may be real, they may be artifact. We really need to know! My favorite example is biological LENR. If Vysotskii's work can be confirmed, it could be an approach to LENR that would blow all the others out of the water. Imagine, biologically engineering Nuclear Active Environment. Growing cold fusion cells, literally, in culture medium. Not to mention other applications Has *anyone* tried to replicate Vysotskii? I have heard of nothing. This is not difficult work, it could be expected. For one approach, one simply needs a strain that works, I presume Vysotskii would cooperate, and access to a Mossbauer spectrometer for a few measurements. Those are not rare. Hah! The pseudoskeptics think that Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal. So, where would a Vysotskii replication be published? NW? Not a bad idea.
[Vo]:MFM Project
You can follow this latest replication live here: http://data.hugnetlab.com/ Click on 'View' for Celani Cell #2 and you can follow the live graph. If you have Google+, you can join a live hangout with them and talk to them in real time. The hangout is 'MFMP'. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at around 67 - 70 watts out. Craig On 12/12/2012 04:45 PM, Craig wrote: You can follow this latest replication live here: http://data.hugnetlab.com/ Click on 'View' for Celani Cell #2 and you can follow the live graph. If you have Google+, you can join a live hangout with them and talk to them in real time. The hangout is 'MFMP'. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On 2012-12-12 22:47, Craig wrote: The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at around 67 - 70 watts out. The conservative estimate is *really* conservative. Basically, it's the calibration with the inert wire which gave the highest external glass temperature readings, putting aside that it was running at a lower hydrogen pressure (which increases glass temperatures slightly). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani replications occuring? Harry On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-12-12 22:47, Craig wrote: The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at around 67 - 70 watts out. The conservative estimate is *really* conservative. Basically, it's the calibration with the inert wire which gave the highest external glass temperature readings, putting aside that it was running at a lower hydrogen pressure (which increases glass temperatures slightly). Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:MFM Project
Minnesota for US South of France for EU I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani replications occuring? Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On 2012-12-12 23:39, Harry Veeder wrote: I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani replications occuring? In Europe (France) and in the US (Minnesota). The replication apparently showing excess heat as of now is the European one, which is very close to the original Celani experiment (using a borosilicate glass tube). They're planning to set up several different cells soon in the Minnesota lab in order to more confidently replicate the excess heat effect and verify that it's indeed real. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
ok, thanks harry On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: Minnesota for US South of France for EU I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani replications occuring? Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Thanks. I hope they do the calorimetry soon. That should reveal or eliminate any possible heating artifact once and for all. harry On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-12-12 23:39, Harry Veeder wrote: I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani replications occuring? In Europe (France) and in the US (Minnesota). The replication apparently showing excess heat as of now is the European one, which is very close to the original Celani experiment (using a borosilicate glass tube). They're planning to set up several different cells soon in the Minnesota lab in order to more confidently replicate the excess heat effect and verify that it's indeed real. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
At 04:47 PM 12/12/2012, Craig wrote: The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at around 67 - 70 watts out. This may be unfair, because it's a reaction to Craig's comment and not the MFM results, but conservative and optimistic don't really have a place in scientific reports. What we want to know is the measure of output power, the error bar. It's sounding like it's 52-70 watts, which would be amazingly imprecise. (Pons-Fleischmann were measuring in milliwatts, if I'm correct, using complex isoperibolic calorimetry, and the accuracy of SRI flow calorimetry, solid and much simpler but less precise, was, as I recall +/- 50 mW.) With that much imprecision, the input power of 48 watts is only slightly outside the error, and some relatively small unidentified effect might explain it. I'm hoping it's unfair
[Vo]:MFM Project
I belive it would be better to do a comparison between cells. The idea is to build four cells: 2 exactly as Celani's; and 2 again exactly as Celani's, but without active wires. With proper mounting, the four cells can have wires almost identical (size and initial resistance). Therefore, they could be powered up in series (only the wires used for heating). In this case, all cells would receive the same amount of power and should show about the same internal and external temperatures. Unless of course, as many would expect, the active cells show excess heat. In this case, considering the amount of excess heat Celani saw (~12W of excess heat from 48W of input heat), it would be easy to spot the temperature differences and, therefore, prove that the excess heat came from LERN in the cells with active wires. By using two active and two inactive cells, one could rule out other factors if the inactive cells show the same internal and external temperatures and the active cells, at the same time, show significantly higher temperatures in accordance with Celani's calorimetric formulation. To avoid problems with pressure and gas composition, the cells could also be connected in series with tubes and receive the gases in series at the same time. Before power on, valves between cells (open during gas load) could be used to isolate then to avoid heat transfer via gas. I believe this approach is much easier and cheaper than flow calorimetry... Alberto F. De Souza. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:47 PM 12/12/2012, Craig wrote: The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at around 67 - 70 watts out. This may be unfair, because it's a reaction to Craig's comment and not the MFM results, but conservative and optimistic don't really have a place in scientific reports. What we want to know is the measure of output power, the error bar. It's sounding like it's 52-70 watts, which would be amazingly imprecise. (Pons-Fleischmann were measuring in milliwatts, if I'm correct, using complex isoperibolic calorimetry, and the accuracy of SRI flow calorimetry, solid and much simpler but less precise, was, as I recall +/- 50 mW.) With that much imprecision, the input power of 48 watts is only slightly outside the error, and some relatively small unidentified effect might explain it. I'm hoping it's unfair
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 04:47 PM 12/12/2012, Craig wrote: The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at around 67 - 70 watts out. This may be unfair, because it's a reaction to Craig's comment and not the MFM results, but conservative and optimistic don't really have a place in scientific reports. What we want to know is the measure of output power, the error bar. It's sounding like it's 52-70 watts, which would be amazingly imprecise. (Pons-Fleischmann were measuring in milliwatts, if I'm correct, using complex isoperibolic calorimetry, and the accuracy of SRI flow calorimetry, solid and much simpler but less precise, was, as I recall +/- 50 mW.) With that much imprecision, the input power of 48 watts is only slightly outside the error, and some relatively small unidentified effect might explain it. I'm hoping it's unfair Unless one is trying to see if the data points are consistent with a *predicted* curve, I don't think error bars are particularly instructive at this time. Harry
