Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Palladium from most vendors does not work. ***well, this seems like a huge friggin hint. Did any of these researchers follow up on it? Obviously not, or we would know why it didn't work at this point.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In short, Mizuno’s new work could be extremely important to the future of LENR, especially if Rossi falters. In neither case is helium relevant. In neither case is palladium relevant. ***Yikes. I am not quite ready for yet another relearning of all the relevant facts on the ground. Why is it that LENR researchers never go after simple or prosaic things like replications, proof of helium-to-heat-output, running the same experiment with dozens of different palladium vendors (or nickel vendors, for that matter), verifying Celani Wire Gamma ray detections, that kind of thing? Every last one of these researchers is going after the big prize, that's why. As far as I can see, the only researcher who isn't like that is Pamela Mossier-Boss, and she pulled in a couple of big prizes herself, in her own humble way. And naturally, her bosses cut her off from funding. Jones Beene's approach, unfortunately, sends up the status quo of researchers only going after the big prize.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
I will ask him if they looked for helium. ***I LOVE first hand sources. Keep up the good work, Jed. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 1) If deuterium were to fuse to helium in LENR providing the excess heat, copious fusion reactions should be seen in this work, and witnessed by an unequivocally large amount of helium. Helium was not seen. Sez who? Did they look for helium? As far as I know Mizuno does not have a mass spectrometer that can distinguish helium from D2. I will ask him if they looked for helium. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Why is it that LENR researchers never go after simple or prosaic things like replications, proof of helium-to-heat-output, running the same experiment with dozens of different palladium vendors (or nickel vendors, for that matter) . . . They have done all of the above, many times. Especially Miles did this. See his Table 10, which I reproduced on p. 6 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf Palladium from most vendors does not work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
I wrote: See his Table 10, which I reproduced on p. 6 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf Let me know if this appears in an odd color. The color could be my Chromebook acting up. It is quirky. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Dear Stefan, BLP plays in an other league than LENR , it is kind of hyper-chemisity. Perhaps my ancient paper could help you to get the holistic vision: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html *Technologically*, Randy must solve a very *wicked problem *to convert a batch, i.e. discontinuous ultrafast process in a continuous one, as to obtain tamed electric current from lightnings. He has tried many variants- the one chosen now has great chances to succeed- but only with very hard work. It is completely unrealistic to speak about competition in New Energy- you will see tens of rather different LENR and non-LENR processes going commercial. Peter On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that hydrinos is behind LENR. It do look like in FP experiment you get a stronger effect if you use deutrium. So then I would expect that it is a nuclear reaction no? Anyway as people have suggested and Mills also acknowledge nuclear reactions can probably be triggered via hydrino formation. On the other hand assuming hydinos exists, the field blurries, is it LENR if you don't find any tritium helium and radiation while using H20. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe I don't think that hydrinos is behind LENR. It do look like in FP experiment you get a stronger effect if you use deutrium. The Rossi effect looks nothing like FP either, nor does the new Mizuno work. And there are experiments where hydrogen works and deuterium does not work at all (or that is the claim) and a few where both work. When a tank of deuterium was seen in one of Rossi’s early experiments, believe it or not, he said he used D as a quench for the reaction! The best evidence, when you go back to basics, is in the Cravens work, where he started with deuterium, tried hydrogen, and ended up with a mix of the two. That would point to an “exchange reaction” of some kind. But even then, an exchange reaction can lead to fractional hydrogen. There was an earlier thread here on exchange reactions. But also… the Cravens experiment clearly points to there being multiple pathways to gain. There is no “either-or” … most often we see “both” or “all-of-the-above”. So then I would expect that it is a nuclear reaction no? We need to distinguish between “nuclear” and “fusion.” The is little evidence of a fusion reaction in any form of LENR, sorry to say, but yes, the gain is nuclear, in the sense of nuclear mass being converted into energy in some way, which may not have been known prior to 1989. The best evidence is the helium that turns up in PF style reactions, but there are arguments from leading experts that helium is non-existent. Anyway as people have suggested and Mills also acknowledge nuclear reactions can probably be triggered via hydrino formation. He does not presently acknowledge this, but he cannot deny it - since he did publish it in Fusion Technology years ago. On the other hand assuming hydinos exists, the field blurries, is it LENR if you don't find any tritium helium and radiation while using H20. Yes, the field blurs; yes, f/H exists, at least as a transient species; and yes, the gain can be LENR, eve with no tritium, no radiation, no fusion (and/or using H2O as a reactant). That is a minority point of view, but the evidence leans that way. Nuclear mass… being converted into energy in various ways - is a form of LENR not requiring fusion, high energy radiation, beta decay, transmutation. No one has yet provided a valid argument against this Point-of-View. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The best evidence is the helium that turns up in PF style reactions, but there are arguments from leading experts that helium is non-existent. Which leading expert said that? Krivit? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Krivit is a journalist, not an expert in mass spectrometry. Brian Ahern is one expert who believes that the case for helium is not made. There are others who are less vocal than Brian, or more circumspect in public pronouncements, but equally in doubt. Surely you do not think that Krivit came up with this notion without plenty of ammo from real experts… From: Jed Rothwell The best evidence is the helium that turns up in PF style reactions, but there are arguments from leading experts that helium is non-existent. Which leading expert said that? Krivit? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Krivit is a journalist, Krivit is a blogger.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Krivit is a journalist, not an expert in mass spectrometry. Brian Ahern is one expert who believes that the case for helium is not made. Okay, that's one person. I was not aware that he is an expert in mass spectroscopy. There are others who are less vocal than Brian, or more circumspect in public pronouncements, but equally in doubt. Why would anyone be circumspect about this issue? The cold fusion researchers I know are not circumspect about anything. They tend to be bold. Even outspoken and argumentative. If they were not bold they would have left this field long ago. Surely you do not think that Krivit came up with this notion without plenty of ammo from real experts… So far you've listed one person. That does not sound like plenty of ammo to me. It sounds like one person's opinion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
From: Jed Rothwell Brian Ahern is one expert who believes that the case for helium is not made. JR: Okay, that's one person. I was not aware that he is an expert in mass spectroscopy. Yes. Brian has had access to the very best MS devices which he believes are superior to what is available at SRI, for instance. There are others who are less vocal than Brian, or more circumspect in public pronouncements, but equally in doubt. JR: Why would anyone be circumspect about this issue? McKubre is the short answer. JR: The cold fusion researchers I know are not circumspect about anything. They tend to be bold. Everyone in the field, aside from Krivit, respects and admires Mike McKubre to the max … and MM has staked out this particular territory of “helium commensurate with heat.” JR: Even outspoken and argumentative. If they were not bold they would have left this field long ago. Not really. There are a few who are downright laid back, but maybe they are all in California. Helium is a case-in-point for giving utmost respect for one expert opinion which overlooks potential problems. Rather than argue with McKubre’s conclusions, many doubters have decided to wait-and-see. That is probably the best choice, all things considered. In fact, Ahern fully respects McKubre but thinks that in this particular case, he is relying on equipment which is not suitable for the task and could be seeing mostly noise and/or contamination. Surely you do not think that Krivit came up with this notion without plenty of ammo from real experts… JR: So far you've listed one person. That does not sound like plenty of ammo to me. It sounds like one person's opinion. Then you should ask Krivit for his sources. They are probably more extensive than you realize. This is not my argument, but I do know Ahern’s opinion. If you are looking for other names now, I suspect that WL may have influenced if not coached Steve on this issue, but that is no more than a guess. In fact, several on Vortex are in the camp which differs with Brian to the extent of believing that helium must certainly have been detected, but that it is not proved to be commensurate with heat gain, and could even be incidental or contamination. It is a sliding scale and Ahern is not the extreme of negativity. In fact, Brian thinks that helium seen thus far in cold fusion is unproved and may have mundane explanations, and furthermore that SRI’s device is subpar for that extremely demanding task. This is not the same as saying that McKubre’s conclusion is wrong. The issue is not settled. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: JR: The cold fusion researchers I know are not circumspect about anything. They tend to be bold. Everyone in the field, aside from Krivit, respects and admires Mike McKubre to the max … Nope. I know several who do not like him, who often denigrate him, and who would be happy to bring him down a few pegs. There is no one in this field who commands the respect of everyone else. Even Fleischmann had his detractors. Which is ridiculous because without him this field would not exist. Helium is a case-in-point for giving utmost respect for one expert opinion which overlooks potential problems. Rather than argue with McKubre’s conclusions, many doubters have decided to wait-and-see. First of all, Miles and others presented better data than McKubre. Second, if people had reasons to doubt these results, why would they wait-and-see? Wait for what? The Second Coming? There is no reason to wait, and no benefit to it. People in this field always jump in to criticize other findings, even in cases when they should not. I see no reason why they would hold back on this particular one. Then you should ask Krivit for his sources. They are probably more extensive than you realize. I know his sources. In most cases he is flat-out wrong. For example he thought some of the Italians got far more than commensurate amounts of helium, because he did not realize they start off with an atmospheric concentration so that leaks would not be a problem. The issue is not settled. No issue in science is ever fully settled, but I do not know of any reason to doubt this particular finding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any reference to Miles-Bush @ China-Lake U of Texas, DeNino @ ENEA, Arata -- amongst around a dozen others. The SRI, China Lake, ENEA work is the most extensive/thorough. Are there possible holes in the SRI work? Sure. But the broad body of research indicates some sort of correlation -- even if not 100% commensurate. I could envision the main reaction pathway being close to commensurate, with the difference being made up by a secondary/tertiary pathways. Regardless I think the helium work is good and indicative of something very interesting well beyond artifact. But perhaps it is actually in error. I wouldn't mind accepting that if that can be proven somehow. In fact, if it is in error and the main reaction pathway is non-nuclear, LENR is even more bizarre amazing in my opinion. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell Brian Ahern is one expert who believes that the case for helium is not made. JR: Okay, that's one person. I was not aware that he is an expert in mass spectroscopy. Yes. Brian has had access to the very best MS devices which he believes are superior to what is available at SRI, for instance. There are others who are less vocal than Brian, or more circumspect in public pronouncements, but equally in doubt. JR: Why would anyone be circumspect about this issue? McKubre is the short answer. JR: The cold fusion researchers I know are not circumspect about anything. They tend to be bold. Everyone in the field, aside from Krivit, respects and admires Mike McKubre to the max … and MM has staked out this particular territory of “helium commensurate with heat.” JR: Even outspoken and argumentative. If they were not bold they would have left this field long ago. Not really. There are a few who are downright laid back, but maybe they are all in California. Helium is a case-in-point for giving utmost respect for one expert opinion which overlooks potential problems. Rather than argue with McKubre’s conclusions, many doubters have decided to wait-and-see. That is probably the best choice, all things considered. In fact, Ahern fully respects McKubre but thinks that in this particular case, he is relying on equipment which is not suitable for the task and could be seeing mostly noise and/or contamination. Surely you do not think that Krivit came up with this notion without plenty of ammo from real experts… JR: So far you've listed one person. That does not sound like plenty of ammo to me. It sounds like one person's opinion. Then you should ask Krivit for his sources. They are probably more extensive than you realize. This is not my argument, but I do know Ahern’s opinion. If you are looking for other names now, I suspect that WL may have influenced if not coached Steve on this issue, but that is no more than a guess. In fact, several on Vortex are in the camp which differs with Brian to the extent of believing that helium must certainly have been detected, but that it is not proved to be commensurate with heat gain, and could even be incidental or contamination. It is a sliding scale and Ahern is not the extreme of negativity. In fact, Brian thinks that helium seen thus far in cold fusion is unproved and may have mundane explanations, and furthermore that SRI’s device is subpar for that extremely demanding task. This is not the same as saying that McKubre’s conclusion is wrong. The issue is not settled. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Very simple answer to that one. They are waiting for kilowatt-hrs of thermal gain - continuing for months at a time before testing. IOW … like Rossi - but with deuterium as the active isotope, producing significant quantities of helium - for which contamination CANNOT be responsible. 24 MeV per atom is a lot of energy, and since helium is ubiquitous, an experiment producing watts-levels for a few weeks will not produce much helium anyway. Contamination is an issue. Disproportion is an issue. Rossi caught everyone’s attention with kilowatts of power, and month-long runs. Of course there will be no helium there; and if the TIP2 report is positive, then we will probably hear no more about the helium issue anyway. But the fact that the recent Mizuno work found no substantial helium is telling us a lot about the likelihood of past inaccuracies. From: Jed Rothwell Second, if people had reasons to doubt these results, why would they wait-and-see? Wait for what? The Second Coming? There is no reason to wait, and no benefit to it. People in this field always jump in to criticize other findings, even in cases when they should not. I see no reason why they would hold back on this particular one.
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
OK forget about McKubre for a moment and bring in the others. Are any of them above the watt level? If deuterium fuses to helium as a predictable reaction on the milliwatt level, then how does one explain that when the experimenter tries to go robust with the gain, as in the recent case of Mizuno’s incredible demo – the helium disappears? From: Foks0904 There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any reference to Miles-Bush @ China-Lake U of Texas, DeNino @ ENEA, Arata -- amongst around a dozen others. The SRI, China Lake, ENEA work is the most extensive/thorough.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
LENR is a mystery Jones. Could you please link to the Mizuno work for me? Thanks. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: OK forget about McKubre for a moment and bring in the others. Are any of them above the watt level? If deuterium fuses to helium as a predictable reaction on the milliwatt level, then how does one explain that when the experimenter tries to go robust with the gain, as in the recent case of Mizuno’s incredible demo – the helium disappears? *From:* Foks0904 There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any reference to Miles-Bush @ China-Lake U of Texas, DeNino @ ENEA, Arata -- amongst around a dozen others. The SRI, China Lake, ENEA work is the most extensive/thorough.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
The Mizuno experiment shows us two keystone concepts about the nature of the LENR reaction. There is causation at a distance where unconfined deuterium in the gas envelope is converted to protium , and that isolated endothermic nuclear reactions can happen in LERN as long as the total energy production is gainful. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: LENR is a mystery Jones. Could you please link to the Mizuno work for me? Thanks. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: OK forget about McKubre for a moment and bring in the others. Are any of them above the watt level? If deuterium fuses to helium as a predictable reaction on the milliwatt level, then how does one explain that when the experimenter tries to go robust with the gain, as in the recent case of Mizuno’s incredible demo – the helium disappears? *From:* Foks0904 There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any reference to Miles-Bush @ China-Lake U of Texas, DeNino @ ENEA, Arata -- amongst around a dozen others. The SRI, China Lake, ENEA work is the most extensive/thorough.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We need to distinguish between “nuclear” and “fusion.” The is little evidence of a fusion reaction in any form of LENR, sorry to say, but yes, the gain is nuclear, in the sense of nuclear mass being converted into energy in some way, which may not have been known prior to 1989. Most of us will have acquiesced in allowing Jones his point of view. But people who may be new to the scene will perhaps wonder at statements along these lines. To support it, Jones will need to produce evidence ruling out every instance of the following, as documented on a number of occasions in connection with PdD and sometimes NiH systems: - In PdD and NiH, fast alphas and protons. - In PdD, significant 4He production above background. - In PdD, in some cases significant tritium production above background. - In PdD and NiH, heat on order that lends itself to an explanation involving fusion (or fission). - Soft x-rays, suggestive of fast-moving charged particles. Jones is welcome to pursue his nuclear but not fusion angle, but it's good to keep in mind that this view is definitely just one among many. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: LENR is a mystery Jones. Could you please link to the Mizuno work for me? Thanks. I suppose he means the latest from Mizuno, where he describes nanoparticles produced with glow discharge: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465 The calorimetry has been improved in the last year, I am relieved to report. It was *pretty bad*! I hope to report on it in the next ICCF, or perhaps before that. If Mizuno reports on it at JCF conference I will translate his paper. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
I wrote: In PdD and NiH, fast alphas and protons. Make that, In PdD and NiH, fast protons. Fast alphas have also been seen, but to my knowledge not in NiH systems. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Very simple answer to that one. They are waiting for kilowatt-hrs of thermal gain - continuing for months at a time before testing. IOW … like Rossi - but with deuterium as the active isotope, producing significant quantities of helium - for which contamination CANNOT be responsible. You mean with Pd+D, I assume. No one claims that Ni+H produces helium. That sure would be nice. But I cannot imagine why anyone would wait for that before critiquing McKubre or Miles or any of the other previous helium results. If you have some reason to critique them why would you hold back? Just because they are low level results? That seems like all the more reason to critique them. That is one of the legitimate problems with them. Contamination cannot be responsible for some of the Italian results where they deliberately began with atmospheric levels of helium. I think Miles also effectively ruled out atmospheric contamination by showing that it would produce far *higher* levels of helium than he measured. But the fact that the recent Mizuno work found no substantial helium is telling us a lot about the likelihood of past inaccuracies. He did not look for helium as far as I know. Maybe I am confused. What experiment do you refer to? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
John, Here is the story of the presentation - with a link to the slide show. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/29/slideshow-of-mizuno-yoshino-presentation-at-mit-conference-published/ A link to the Clean Planet web site is here: http://cleanplanet.co.jp/index.php?lang=en Over 100 megajoules in a month long run. Very impressive. AFAIK there is no larger energy net gain with deuterium than this in LENR – at least not with reliable documentation. It is more accurately called the Yoshino presentation of Mizuno’s latest work, and there is a picture of the larger reactor which should be in operation by now.
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Here is the story of the MIT presentation of the latest-and-greatest from Mizuno and the well-funded Clean Planet startup company- with a link to the slide show. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/29/slideshow-of-mizuno-yoshino-presentatio n-at-mit-conference-published/ A link to the Clean Planet web site is here: http://cleanplanet.co.jp/index.php?lang=en Over 100 megajoules in a month long run. Very impressive. AFAIK there is no larger energy net gain using deuterium as the active isotope, than this report – in the past 24 years of LENR – at least not with reliable documentation. OK – here is what this latest work means to me logically and in the big picture of the LENR field, given Mizuno’s credibility, the high level of funding, the high level of respect given to Yoshino, and the quality of the experiment as evidenced in the slides and the thoroughness of data. 1) If deuterium were to fuse to helium in LENR providing the excess heat, copious fusion reactions should be seen in this work, and witnessed by an unequivocally large amount of helium. Helium was not seen. 2) Caveat: does fusion to helium absolutely require palladium? (nickel was used instead in this experiment). 3) Since nickel-deuterium gives excess heat without fusion, and costs approximately 1,200 time less than Pd – is there any reason to even argue over the nonexistence of helium? Palladium is dead. Helium is dead. Forget about it. 4) Most of the old tests in Pd-D were milliwatt and watt level anyway. Helium contamination was likely. But really, it’s not worth arguing over. 5) Greater credibility should be given to this newer result than earlier work, for many reasons including the much higher power level. Some of that old work was done by Mizuno himself, who has learned from it, and he seems to have no problem ditching palladium and ditching the idea that deuterium fuses to helium. In short, Mizuno’s new work could be extremely important to the future of LENR, especially if Rossi falters. In neither case is helium relevant. In neither case is palladium relevant. There is little technical reason to look back at the history of Pd-D or cold fusion, prior to 2013, other than nostalgia. Over. Gone. Kaput. Let’s move on to either Rossi et al with Ni-H, or Mizuno with Ni-D or Cravens with H/D… at least until something better comes along. The mantra of progress in any developing field is and should be “What have you done for me lately?” attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
As you say the new thing here are D in Ni instead of the old D in Pd. Maybe He stay inside Ni but diffuse more easy from Pd. New result are always more uncertainly, wait for replication.
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 1) If deuterium were to fuse to helium in LENR providing the excess heat, copious fusion reactions should be seen in this work, and witnessed by an unequivocally large amount of helium. Helium was not seen. Sez who? Did they look for helium? As far as I know Mizuno does not have a mass spectrometer that can distinguish helium from D2. I will ask him if they looked for helium. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
From: Jed Rothwell Sez who? Did they look for helium? As far as I know Mizuno does not have a mass spectrometer that can distinguish helium from D2. I will ask him if they looked for helium. Apparently you did not read it carefully. He does not need to distinguish helium from D2. He states that at the end of the run there was almost no mass-4 species at all! This indicates that most of the deuterium molecules were depleted and no helium was formed. Virtually all the gas was mass-2 at the end and there were about twice as many molecules as at the start - which indicates either H2 was formed from deuterium, possibly in some strange kind of beta decay, or else fractional-deuterium was formed (which can be stable as an atomic species). IOW – The original deuterium has either been converted to protium, or else into fractional-deuterium ions - what Mills would call deuterium-deuteride, but it has not fused to helium since there was no mass-4. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
Correction - what Mills would call deuterino-deuteride (instead of deuterium deuteride)
