Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who follow this? Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive replication is in essence positive. Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on E-Cat News. Ransom I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called âRossi Effectâ to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called âRossi Effectâ is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side. You're being a crank. My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one doing it. If we had a group of credible people (more credible than I with real track records of estimating this sort of thing) doing it, than the numbers would amount to something interesting. I refuse to let the fact that I'm the first stop me from continuing to estimate. I'd think LENR scientists would appreciate that. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote: Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who follow this? Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive replication is in essence positive. Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on E-Cat News. Ransom I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. This is not how I do my analysis. Anyone can write reports and fudge numbers intelligently. I have a long history of being very successful on Intrade of taking a bayesian approach to winning bets. The inflection point for me in the Rossi saga was the first independent report. The next was the acquisition by IH. Having Darden and Magnus release positive statements was a good sign as they are credible individuals. This claim is not an inflection point using my approach, though I will submit that it is a small, positive step forward. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side. You're being a crank. My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one doing it. If we had a group of credible people (more credible than I with real track records of estimating this sort of thing) doing it, than the numbers would amount to something interesting. I refuse to let the fact that I'm the first stop me from continuing to estimate. I'd think LENR scientists would appreciate that. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote: Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who follow this? Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive replication is in essence positive. Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on E-Cat News. Ransom I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to release their results. You can read through all their reports and see their reputation of falsification. They've done it *over and over again*, a perfect example of bayesian analysis where the priors will provide all the confidence we need to believe their results. If they were to do sustained replication (they've had a few false starts) over a few tests I'd immediately change my % to 50% On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. This is not how I do my analysis. Anyone can write reports and fudge numbers intelligently. I have a long history of being very successful on Intrade of taking a bayesian approach to winning bets. The inflection point for me in the Rossi saga was the first independent report. The next was the acquisition by IH. Having Darden and Magnus release positive statements was a good sign as they are credible individuals. This claim is not an inflection point using my approach, though I will submit that it is a small, positive step forward. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side. You're being a crank. My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one doing it. If we had a group of credible people (more credible than I with real track records of estimating this sort of thing) doing it, than the numbers would amount to something interesting. I refuse to let the fact that I'm the first stop me from continuing to estimate. I'd think LENR scientists would appreciate that. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote: Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who follow this? Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive replication is in essence positive. Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on E-Cat News. Ransom I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
BTW, Too the few souls in the world who follow this? is total crap. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this with interest. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to release their results. You can read through all their reports and see their reputation of falsification. They've done it *over and over again*, a perfect example of bayesian analysis where the priors will provide all the confidence we need to believe their results. If they were to do sustained replication (they've had a few false starts) over a few tests I'd immediately change my % to 50% On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. This is not how I do my analysis. Anyone can write reports and fudge numbers intelligently. I have a long history of being very successful on Intrade of taking a bayesian approach to winning bets. The inflection point for me in the Rossi saga was the first independent report. The next was the acquisition by IH. Having Darden and Magnus release positive statements was a good sign as they are credible individuals. This claim is not an inflection point using my approach, though I will submit that it is a small, positive step forward. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side. You're being a crank. My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one doing it. If we had a group of credible people (more credible than I with real track records of estimating this sort of thing) doing it, than the numbers would amount to something interesting. I refuse to let the fact that I'm the first stop me from continuing to estimate. I'd think LENR scientists would appreciate that. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote: Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who follow this? Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive replication is in essence positive. Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on E-Cat News. Ransom I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing context. There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer reviewed scientists and someone who has not. Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the latter category. I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi editted his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to be credible. Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell
RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
From: Bob Cook * It seems to me that there must be a separate cooling mechanism happening to remove or redistribute the heat within the reactor. Well, if you are assuming that the net gain derives from 1/10th gram of hydride fuel, which starts off as a powder, then it is possible that the powder is first liquefied - and in a few hours, before the H2 has dissipated, is trapped on the inner surface, due to a liquid film layer deposited by the vapor pressure of Li-Al, and this alloy would be uniformly coating the wall of the reactor. The coating would “redistribute the heat”, no? It would also provide a perfect surface layer for SPP formation on the interface with the alumina. On another forum, it was suggested that the number (6.7e21) of lithium and hydrogen atoms, if giving up only 4 eV per atom which is the chemical maximum - would be 4.2 kilojoules, while the observed excess heat during 8 min “heat after death” was about 380 kilojoules - and during the whole experiment much more. This is one of several details indicating that the reaction could also be related to fractional hydrogen f/H, dark matter, or Mills’ hydrino, which would release the amount of energy which is seen. This level of energy is much less than nuclear but much more than chemical. In the famous Thermacore paper, for instance - the excess energy is shown to be ~54.4 eV per active proton, which is similar to what is seen here. A longer run is possible since the f/H is not depleted in the first few levels of redundancy. In fact, if the ash in the Russian experiment does not turn up the isotopes which Rossi claims, and it probably will not IMHOI, then the underlying reaction could be related to hydrogen “shrinkage” (ground state redundancy) with the energy coming from electron angular momentum instead of the nucleus. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: BTW, Too the few souls in the world who follow this? is total crap. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this with interest. Lots of people follow cold fusion. I can see that by the traffic statistics at LENR-CANR.org. Not enough people do the research, or fund it. I am glad that Gates is looking into it, but unless he funds it, his interest will not do much good. I guess it adds credibility to the field. A few skeptics may wonder: Every year for 25 years I have said cold fusion will go away, yet it still has enough credibility to attract serious interest from Bill Gates. Why is that? Most skeptics would answer that by saying: Gates is a programmer and knows nothing about science. Obviously he is being scammed by the Italian National Nuclear Laboratories. (I am kidding. They would never add the part about the Italian National Nuclear Labs. They never stop to think about who is doing this. Neither does Blaze Spinnaker.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: . . . I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of yet that I could find. The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. It is frightening and also imaginary. As you see in Peter's translation they did control runs. I suggest you stop and examine your own words here: 1. I have not read about this experiment yet, because I do not speak Russian. (Very reasonable.) 2. Despite the fact that I know almost nothing about it, I have jumped to the conclusion that no control runs were done. (This is crazy.) 3. I am frightened by this figment of my own imagination. (Even crazier.) Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find this guy credible at all. You do not have the slightest idea whether this guy is credible or not. Stop jumping to conclusions without evidence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications Parkhomov's publication record seems to be impressive and relevant. He has jointly published articles with researchers at Stanford and Purdue. He has published a number of articles in mainstream journals on astrophysics and radiation detection, which to my mind show that he has mastered the basics of scientific research. His focus on radiation detection supports the radiation measurements in this replication. He is following a method of calorimetry used by Bazhutov, a well-known CF researcher. Parkhomov's publication record suggests that calorimetry is not the focus of his expertise. It is not clear how well or poorly Parkhomov is carrying out the calorimetry, or to what extent he has received assistance from Bazhutov or others. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
AG Parkhomov seems credible to me. But there is a more famous scientist by that name (VA Parkhomov) … they may be family related (not sure). http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications AG Parkhomov has been involved to a small extent in parapsychology, but so has Hal Puthoff and Einstein for that matter, so he is in good company (Einstein wrote a preface to Upton Sinclair's book about ESP experiments and was never critical of the University work, although everyone realizes there is a thin line between good research and tripe in this area)
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
He has never been primary author on a paper in a real journal. Being a tertiary author isn't that hard. What you say is heartening but I don't think you are turning a critical eye on this. The chemistry here is very simplistic. Heating up powdered nickel and lithium hydride? Why hasn't this already been replicated.. On Sunday, December 28, 2014, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','blazespinna...@gmail.com'); wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications Parkhomov's publication record seems to be impressive and relevant. He has jointly published articles with researchers at Stanford and Purdue. He has published a number of articles in mainstream journals on astrophysics and radiation detection, which to my mind show that he has mastered the basics of scientific research. His focus on radiation detection supports the radiation measurements in this replication. He is following a method of calorimetry used by Bazhutov, a well-known CF researcher. Parkhomov's publication record suggests that calorimetry is not the focus of his expertise. It is not clear how well or poorly Parkhomov is carrying out the calorimetry, or to what extent he has received assistance from Bazhutov or others. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
I looked for the cotroll run. Do you mean the one at lower temperature? It is frightening and also imaginary. As you see in Peter's translation they did control runs.
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride The melting (decomposition) point of LiAlH4 is 150C. This means that after the first heating, the 2 moles of H2 are liberated as gas for every mole of LiAlH4. Presumably the LiAl forms an amalgam. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Of interest is the temperature chart: http://i.imgur.com/gWF7z9y.png Where the reactor temperature remains elevated for 8 minutes after power is cut. Heat after death! Notice how quickly the temperature falls after the heat stops. That sure indicates an energy source. It could be conventional I suppose, but I doubt there is much fuel. This is temperature hysteresis. In other words, energy release hysteresis. The cell wants to remain at the same temperature, like a piece of burning wood that is disturbed and then returns to burning at the same rate. Because the shape of the wood and the rate of fuel release is the same. I believe Stan Pons was the first person to describe this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I looked for the cotroll run. Do you mean the one at lower temperature? My mistake. Peter says the author only described the Lugano calibration. Details about a calibration during this test have not been given, yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
So do you average the COPs for a final COP? I wonder how fast in succession he ran the tests over the same fuel. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride The melting (decomposition) point of LiAlH4 is 150C. This means that after the first heating, the 2 moles of H2 are liberated as gas for every mole of LiAlH4. Presumably the LiAl forms an amalgam. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Of interest is the temperature chart: http://i.imgur.com/gWF7z9y.png Where the reactor temperature remains elevated for 8 minutes after power is cut. Heat after death! Notice how quickly the temperature falls after the heat stops. That sure indicates an energy source. It could be conventional I suppose, but I doubt there is much fuel. This is temperature hysteresis. In other words, energy release hysteresis. The cell wants to remain at the same temperature, like a piece of burning wood that is disturbed and then returns to burning at the same rate. Because the shape of the wood and the rate of fuel release is the same. I believe Stan Pons was the first person to describe this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Jones-- Your idea is similar to the one I had in mind, however, I was thinking the Li in the ceramic may be released as a vapor and be forced under a pressure gradient to the interior or at least near the interior surface where it could circulate in the porous ceramic matrix. The circulation would maintain a reasonable temperature around the reactive cites, whatever they may be, as they produce the significant energy being reported. The formation of an SPP active interface could be a possibility and is a new idea. This is the first concrete idea I have heard as to what the SPP active structure might be. Others have assumed the surfaces of nano particles are where the SPP could form, however it was always a concern that where were 2-D surfaces in the case of the nano particles. You may have identified a potential 2-D surface. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 8:15 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat From: Bob Cook * It seems to me that there must be a separate cooling mechanism happening to remove or redistribute the heat within the reactor. Well, if you are assuming that the net gain derives from 1/10th gram of hydride fuel, which starts off as a powder, then it is possible that the powder is first liquefied - and in a few hours, before the H2 has dissipated, is trapped on the inner surface, due to a liquid film layer deposited by the vapor pressure of Li-Al, and this alloy would be uniformly coating the wall of the reactor. The coating would “redistribute the heat”, no? It would also provide a perfect surface layer for SPP formation on the interface with the alumina. On another forum, it was suggested that the number (6.7e21) of lithium and hydrogen atoms, if giving up only 4 eV per atom which is the chemical maximum - would be 4.2 kilojoules, while the observed excess heat during 8 min “heat after death” was about 380 kilojoules - and during the whole experiment much more. This is one of several details indicating that the reaction could also be related to fractional hydrogen f/H, dark matter, or Mills’ hydrino, which would release the amount of energy which is seen. This level of energy is much less than nuclear but much more than chemical. In the famous Thermacore paper, for instance - the excess energy is shown to be ~54.4 eV per active proton, which is similar to what is seen here. A longer run is possible since the f/H is not depleted in the first few levels of redundancy. In fact, if the ash in the Russian experiment does not turn up the isotopes which Rossi claims, and it probably will not IMHOI, then the underlying reaction could be related to hydrogen “shrinkage” (ground state redundancy) with the energy coming from electron angular momentum instead of the nucleus. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
From: Jed Rothwell: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/ Of interest is the temperature chart: http://i.imgur.com/gWF7z9y.png Where the reactor temperature remains elevated for 8 minutes after power is cut. This is actually more impressive than Rossi’s “thermometry” in a way, since it is independent of proper calibration. There appears to be a threshold or phase change around 1150°C which fits nicely with the SPP explanation of needing IR photons of a resonant wavelength. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Table translated here: http://i.imgur.com/rYpgEm4.png
RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Since this is a boil-off reactor setup, the likelihood of accuracy is much higher than the Lugano thermometry. Sadly - there appears to be no radiation data. An analysis of the ash will be most important in furthering our understanding of what is going on. It is still not ruled out that the gram of “fuel” used was unnecessary, and that the gain comes from SPP or DCE. From: Jed Rothwell Table translated here: http://i.imgur.com/rYpgEm4.png
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Of interest is the temperature chart: http://i.imgur.com/gWF7z9y.png Where the reactor temperature remains elevated for 8 minutes after power is cut. Heat after death! Notice how quickly the temperature falls after the heat stops. That sure indicates an energy source. It could be conventional I suppose, but I doubt there is much fuel. This is temperature hysteresis. In other words, energy release hysteresis. The cell wants to remain at the same temperature, like a piece of burning wood that is disturbed and then returns to burning at the same rate. Because the shape of the wood and the rate of fuel release is the same. I believe Stan Pons was the first person to describe this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since this is a boil-off reactor setup, the likelihood of accuracy is much higher than the Lugano thermometry. I agree. I am surprised the rapid heat loss did not quench the reaction (assuming there is a reaction). I guess the cell is well insulated. Sadly - there appears to be no radiation data. There is some: . . . On the same diagram shows the count rate Geiger counter SI-8B. this counter responsive to alpha, beta, gamma and X-rays. It is seen that all during heating, the radiation situation is not very different from the background. A slight increase in temperature is noticeable only about 600 to 1000 ° C. further studies have shown that this chance or regularity. Dosimeter DK-02 is not found during the experiment set dose within the measurement error (5 MP). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
Jones, it is radiation data it cleally says no more than background I am just translating the paper. NIX radiation, fine Peter On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since this is a boil-off reactor setup, the likelihood of accuracy is much higher than the Lugano thermometry. Sadly - there appears to be no radiation data. An analysis of the ash will be most important in furthering our understanding of what is going on. It is still not ruled out that the gram of “fuel” used was unnecessary, and that the gain comes from SPP or DCE. *From:* Jed Rothwell Table translated here: http://i.imgur.com/rYpgEm4.png -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
From: Peter Gluck Jones, it is radiation data it cleally says no more than background From: Jed Rothwell . . . On the same diagram shows the count rate Geiger counter SI-8B. this counter responsive to alpha, beta, gamma and X-rays. It is seen that all during heating, the radiation situation is not very different from the background. Thanks - lack of radiation is expected given the record of gain in NiH – but it is most interesting in leaving the door wide open for many new explanations and investigations. The main missing detail is a control run with no “fuel”; and then isotopic mass analysis of the ash. There is still a decent chance that thermal gain will be seen with no “fuel” which means that we are playing a brand new game, in terms of prior expectations.
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heatIt seems to me that there must be a separate cooling mechanism happening to remove or redistribute the heat within the reactor. If it gets to hot the reaction may shut off because of sintering of the fuel. I would bet that the heat after death has to do with the availability of Li vapor from the ceramic reactor vessel. It would be interesting to know if the fuel has changed it shape from small (nano) particles to a sintered substance. If the Russian experiment is like the Lugano experiment, I think there should be a depletion of the Li. This could cause the reaction to cease also as the internal cooling from Li vapor is deminished. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 8:35 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat From: Peter Gluck Jones, it is radiation data it cleally says no more than background From: Jed Rothwell . . . On the same diagram shows the count rate Geiger counter SI-8B. this counter responsive to alpha, beta, gamma and X-rays. It is seen that all during heating, the radiation situation is not very different from the background. Thanks - lack of radiation is expected given the record of gain in NiH – but it is most interesting in leaving the door wide open for many new explanations and investigations. The main missing detail is a control run with no “fuel”; and then isotopic mass analysis of the ash. There is still a decent chance that thermal gain will be seen with no “fuel” which means that we are playing a brand new game, in terms of prior expectations.
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The main missing detail is a control run with no “fuel”; and then isotopic mass analysis of the ash. Yes -- the first is pretty much a must-have. The second would definitely be nice. Does anyone have information on the fellow who did the experiment? Eric
