(Comments regarding Defkalion’s ICCF presentation-2)
In anticipation of Theory Panel Discussion lead by Michael McKubre at ICCF-17, Wednesday August 15.
Defkalion’s preoccupation with a proper definition of LENR- the useful kind of it- is obvious. See please the first part of their National Instruments Week technical presentation and also the part entitled “Towards an industrialization path of LENR products” of their ICCF-17 paper. Their motivation is not curiosity – they are in a very close contact with reality, they have a marketing problem and are facing even more obstacles due to their planned manufacture and selling of a product with a functionality and potential risks- still unknown- in part.
John Hadjichristos says: “The lack of any common defined definition is an obstacle (which we face already) towards LENR Industrialization”
Undefined, unknown, unexplained- all these sound badly and generate fear, suspicion, and rejection.
Please do not ignore my problem solving rule no. 17:
“NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.”
Imagination beats reality when it is about producing bad problems.(An other dreadful example for that is the phobia of genetically engineered food, but I will not enter any polemics on this).
LENR has nuclear in it and nuclear is a very negative anti-catchword today. One of the tasks of our community is to demonstrate that LENR is an almost completely harmless nuclear process, much more eco-friendly than nuclear fission or hot fusion. - as it really is. The definition has to tell how and why it is so.
While the other LENR scientists are seeking, searching, studying LENR, industrialists as DGTG have to sell it and they must tell the customers what the product/process is, what it does (good) and what it will not do. (bad).
A definition, in our case is a proto-theory! The problems of definition and of theories cannot be separated for LENR.
.
See please what I have told about theory in my Open letter to ICCF-17 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html
Simple theories do not work, all the systems of LENR are complex and those LENR+ that give energy in useful amounts are surely overly complex. They are actually “prefix theories” and the prefixes can be; hyper-, trans-, multi-, trans-, pragma- or as Defkalion’s theory is: -active, -interactive. Resembling more “How Stuff Works” http://www.howstuffworks.com/ than a simple or simplified theory based, say, on an elegant Hamiltonian treated in a bright way. Theorists can afford to focus on a single barrier, a real and effective explanation comprises a lot of barriers that have to be penetrated, overcome, removed or even cheated in some way.
When we eventually will have a good theory, it will be a fine and noble and essential task to condense it in a definition acceptable and understandable for any user of the LENR generators- Hyperion, E-Cat or else.
It is not easy to discuss with theorists, they usually are very dedicated to their mental products, “married “to it, defend it fiercely and want to apply it much beyond the normal area of validity. They are not playing God, but are frequently playing Nature- they try to tell Mother/Stepmother Nature what to do.
An example, if a theorist has decided that what happens in the Pd-D system is D + D, than he extends this to the Ni-H system, it is surely H + H- it must be so. Defkalion’s results show that this is not true, or it is a side-reaction (what about nucleosynthesys, it has to be found out!?).
A theorist can decide that the explanation must be straight and simple, but the experiment will contradict him/her- so many compounds, parameters, isotopes etc. are present and so many of these are (inter)active. Who offers a guarantee that the same things happen at 250 and at 650 C?
I am not a theorist but I am a very bad example of theoretical closed-mindedness. I have postulated in 1991-1992 that the surface dynamics of the metal (Pd mainly) is a decisive factor in Cold Fusion:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf,
It stimulates the appearance of “active sites”- later renamed more specifically Nuclear Active Environment. I still consider “environment’ not the best word here but NAE became a meme-
Unfortunately it is not a universal LENR meme.
With the advent of the “some like it hot” LENR+ - the process is seen to be enhanced orders of magnitude at very high temperatures, I have concluded quite ‘linearly’- it is normal, the dynamics of surface atoms is much greater at 400-800 C than at room temperature, surface dynamics is a part of the story.
Now, Defkalion shows that “the common nuclear active environment in which LENR occurs is proposed to be the vacancies in the crystal lattice of a heavy metal of a critical size and geometry where excited atoms of hydrogen interact” However they also say: “nothing happens unless the vacancies “open and close” changing their dimensions” An easy tasks for a subjective, prejudiced mind- it is possible to say that the vacancies performing LENR are dynamic inner surfaces ‘sui generis’. This does not change much for anybody else than me. However I am thinking that I was kind of prophet but that’s just imagination.
What kind of theory (prefix-theory) needs LENR in order to work?
Classic science distinguishes 3 categories:
Third class theories are Explicative- they explain what has happened after the experiment.
Second class theories are Prohibitive- they say what is not allowed or cannot be done.
First class theories are Predictive they say what has to be done for the success of the experiment, process whatever.
It is a sad truth that LENR had no first class theories and even the other theories were of limited use for the experimenters who had many troubles.
However now this is changing quite surprisingly, Defkalion’s theory defines a new class:
Premium class theories are Productive they are effectively part of a new process and make scale-up, improvements and development possible.
OK, let’s the theory of LENR theories for other occasions and try to not forget an other very fundamental issue: bureaucracy: the definition of LENR has to be standardized and legally accepted.
I have lived a half of century in an idiotic oppressive bureaucracy; one of my most stupid and sadistic bosses used to say “A good researcher is first of all a good bureaucrat” And still I am convinced that in context, bureaucracy is a great thing, is order is rules, is discipline, standards; intelligent bureaucracy is not an oxymoron.
The Definition has to become official and universally accepted and used to protect the generators that will change the situation of energy worldwide.
Today (Aug 14) at ICCF-17 Lawrence P.G. Forsley has presented a very interesting and documented paper re. official and legal issues of LENR. Unfortunately I still do not have the text but I have listened at Skype to it…and it is a part of the solution, inclusive the bureaucratic solution.
Defkalion has a strategy for solving the definition- bureaucracy problem. Quoting John Hadjichristos:
We think that a new International Independent Institution, as the main body on standards and industrial support references, is the best we can expect at the moment. This could play a serious role against using Nuclear/Atomic agencies for licensing LENR products, which are not nuclear (following the old definitions) but related with energy from nuclei interactions. An Organization, with similar structure as IAEA, is yet not possible, as far as it will require national formation of relevant bodies and multinational agreements. So an Institution could be a helpful interim solution.
Important clues for the definition will come from the analytical works of DGTG – especially the on-line mass spectrometer and this needs collaboration and cooperation. But it is a problem of the LENR community.
In order to enter the Industrial Era, the LENR army- has to pass the Definition Barrier too. Together.
Peter
I stand ready to take back my criticism of DGT. Their data on slides 31 and 32 are problematic is that:
ReplyDelete1. The key figures are out of focus.
2. the COP is written backwars and it too is hard to discern the number.
Their COP definition is : Input power/output power = 1:8 - 1:22
This means their COP is between 8 and 22. Why do they change the universal notation?
Those slides and also their paper presented on ICCF 17, which is also available, are sadly inconclusive. They just add confusion to the mass.
ReplyDeleteI asked someone to ask defkalion people if they had done isotope analysis and to ask what were the light elements.
They said they did no isotope analysis, yet they said there was no transmutation of Ni. I don't know how could they conclude that.
Also, they did not find Triton, He3 or He4 among the light elements. They found lithium, beryllium and boron, though.
So, they claim things completely different from any group before them. They are sloppy and illogical . I am completely confused. Maybe they do not have good intentions, after all?
Considering only the paper presented in the conference, it is not clear to me if they used isotopic ratio mass spectroscopy, which means, it seems did not try to determine the isotopes, they just plotted the variation of the mass of the samples with great accuracy. It's not possible to figure out if the samples were contaminated.
It seems they used this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_mass_spectrometry
When they should have also used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope-ratio_mass_spectrometry
Their data on small mass elements is still crazy, just with the crude method. This is unlike anything that was seen before, as far as I know.
DGT used XRF for anylysis. This is the wrong tool. They need time0-of-flight Mas Spec.
ReplyDeleteThere is a first class theory for Superconductivity, but less than 5 people in the world know of its existence. It completely explains SC in PdH-PdD, but it offers little enlightenment on the LENR aspect.
>they have a marketing problem and are facing even more obstacles due to their planned manufacture and selling of a product with a functionality and potential risks- still unknown- in part.
ReplyDeleteTheir only problem is that nobody believes that they are able to do what they claimed. This is the first point. Other considerations are secondary. Do you think it's suffice to cut the "N" letter in the LENR acronym to convince people that DGT is producing something real?
>An example, if a theorist has decided that what happens in the Pd-D system is D + D, than he extends this to the Ni-H system, it is surely H + H- it must be so. Defkalion’s results show that this is not true, or it is a side-reaction
But Defkalion results of what? What results are you talking about. Did you ever see some result by Defkalion? Are they able to start a Ni-H reaction with some Watt of power? And in this case, it lasts for how many minutes? Are they able to get more power than the input power?
Maybe theorists will be convinced by Defkalion's principle of theory if someone will show them some result.
You should understand that if you want to change the way of thinking, even inside the CF/LENR community, you have to show yourself, your work and first of all the results you get with your work.
If a theorist is thinking that what happens in Pd-D systems can be extended to NI-H systems is because until now no one has showed them that it isn't true.
Another way of doing things is Rossi's way: everything is a secret, no independent verification is required, the market will decide,
and at this point would be better if DGT should do the same. But at least Rossi has the coherence to not direct to the scientific community and to attend to scientific conference, and the same should do Defkalion.
>OK, let’s the theory of LENR theories for other occasions and try to not forget an other very fundamental issue: bureaucracy: the definition of LENR has to be standardized and legally accepted.
The way of doing this is to show that LENR is REAL. If someone has the power, he _MUST_ do it.
Show to the world that LENR is real and important for the resolution of many mankind's problems, then it will be standardized and legally accepted with a proper path. Until then you can stay here to talk for years, even decades, nothing will happen.
>We think that a new International Independent Institution,...
This could play a serious role against using Nuclear/Atomic agencies for licensing LENR products, which are not nuclear (following the old definitions) but related with energy from nuclei interactions. An Organization, with similar structure as IAEA, ...
Here again, what are they talking about? It seems that someone has to build an atomic bomb based on LENR technology.
I have to remember that Brian Ahern claims that "the energy is real, repeatable and of useful output. I will also state that it IS NOT OF A NUCLEAR ORIGIN. I will say that it is a manifestation of asymmetric magnetism."
At the moment his statement has the same value of Defkalion's statements.
Do you have to worry about an asymmetric magnetism? Does it really needs a kind of IAEA agencies for licensing LENR products based on asymmetric magnetism?
So, who is right, Defkalion or Ahern? At the moment we don't know because nobody has showed to the world neither a little result nor that the approach to the market is already possible.
Peter, I'm very disappointed by Defkalion, they talk and behavior like leaders but now they have demonstrated that have nothing in their hands. A working prototype is still a long way off, probably years.
They are trying to find their way of doing money with licenses like hundreds of companies BLP, STEORN, ROSSI etc.
Celani and Ahern claim few Watts but at least the are not selling licenses.
Franco.
About rossi, don't forget that he start to make open demo, and finally gat accused of fraud.
Deletethere is no solution, mainstream is in Hypercritical Rhetoric. Any opepening lead to greater critic and questioning. when asked data is given they are not believed and more is demanded. when independent result are given, the independent source is assumed as corrupted...
It is Conspiracy theory.
the reason is simply that the truths is clear since long, that there is a great coherent network of data that can support 99% of claims...
And the collective delusion, that even the believers share unconsciously, make people focus on the 1% of discrepancies, errors, and frauds. Reality is in light Grey, but in normal like you can bu sure and take rational decision without seeing yourself independent test and 6sigma results, and without checking lab photos about numbers.
You trust people because of their competence, the risk they take, their business profile, the trust they inspire to competent relations...
There can be surprise, but it will be classic for business story... unexpected delays, NDA, strategy changes, small mistakes...
anyway how can you imagine that all the engineer cannot detect a COP of even 8, and not differentiate 22 from 1? You imagine that someone working in a university can kill his career accepting to put his name on a faked report?
The fraudsters are mainstream since 1989, and the mechanism is well known, and they will never be punished because they did what everybody was asking them to do. the worst is that even long time LENR researcher have absorbed that delusion and doubt about results that CERN would publish without question, if not about LENR.
Sorry I'm fed up of that Stockholm Syndrome in LENR. If there are data to check it is not in LENR, but in many fashion subject and industry, where crazy claims can be accepted without any substance nor risk.
AlainCo, The least that DGT could do is to name at least one independent, reliable entity that could at least confirm that there was a COP in the range of 8 (or perhaps even 20). They promised to release third party test result no later then August. DGT calls for cooperation (I agree on that) but first we have to rule out the possibility of false claims.
ReplyDeleteit is possible they do it, but NDA of clients may forbid it.
DeleteAnother thing is that we are not so important. Clearly DGT give mark of respect to the research community at ICCF17, but for layman like us... Anyway reopening the forum on 20 is a mark of attention.
In a way it is done, since the paper is signed by someone of NTUA, the third author.
Problem also is that a "credible organization" might accept to commit only with full data to defend their position, otherwise they would be accused of voodoo science.
For what I've learn today, corporate know the facts, and keep silent as usual, preparing to take advantage or block then capture, depending on their challenger or incumbent status.
AlainCo, In case they don't want to show, why don't they keep silent? They know their own NDA's. And The scientific community demands more then I do.
Delete