However the step is not great enough: the chasm between
LENR denial and LENR acceptance is broader and you cannot cross a chasm in smaller
steps.
The study is a breakthrough that, very probably will not
break through the great obstacles on the way to new energy
This was unavoidable because LENR truth is a very complex
truth and has no chances against simple lies or simplistic truths.
During the last 24 hours hundreds of intelligent comments
re the Report have appeared on the Web forums- I have tried to read them all
and I will take in consideration many of them.
I predict not much will change there, but polarizations
will become stronger.
I have anticipated the Report with my question if it will
be a paradigm killer and changer? Please allow me to answer later
after
discussing some definitory aspects of the Report.
First: clearly this was a scientific, NOT a technological
test aiming for truth not value and maximum performances.
Its
aim massive,
long time excess heat demonstrated beyond any rational, irrational and
pathologically hostile doubt was demonstrated indeed, however hostile doubt is invincible,
absolutely immune to facts.
Second: Rossi has told innumerable
times that the report can be “positive or negative” when it was obvious that it
is both, in different extents and for diverse aspects. Nobody would continue a
test that gives nothing.
Excess heat was very positive – but a
scientific paper is not viable when, as one of the authors has stated: “we face a phenomenon without explanation”
Without a decent hypothesis at least,
a paper is not scientific.
Third: the weakness described in the
2nd paragraph is actually
something highly positive and as
important as the fine excess
heat- the test has demonstrated that
the process is much more complex than we admit and try to explain by the LENR
theories. I have expected this with deep commitment; this can be the surprise
for many colleagues. You know as a general rule in life and science, 80% of the
surprises are negative.
Fourth: It is laudable that the
report has added fuel/ash analytics to the thermal results; I am pleased with the
methods
but what I still have to find out is sampling.
What have they not analyzed? Or, what data are not made public? My guess is
that there are more complete variants of the study including features, elements
that are connected with Rossi’s know-how. With these data it would be easier to
find out how that Hot Cat works, what
are the most significant reactions, which are secondary or parasitic reactions,
In which extent the process can be called nuclear- and nuclear of what kind:
transmutation, fission, nucleosynthesis. I dare to say that this study is a
window to the new paradigm- a small window not clean; and a new confirmation of
the statement that this process is too complex to be let to the physicists
alone.
Fifth: if the study supports the
Storms Theory or not, the author will answer himself. It is his right and duty.
He can decide if the active nickel works via nanocracks and hydrotons. However
the Ni core takes part in a reaction, it is still not know how the Ni isotopes
except NI62 disappear.
In the light of what we know or claim
to know about LENR the experimental facts found in this study make no sense. The data seem no real. The data are
contradicting what we have found in 25+ years of research in cold fusion- LENR ,
in so many successful studies- however the experimental conditions. Only if we
believe that LENR is unique and unitary and unchangeable in principle may we
reject these new experimental data as false
It is unpardonable naivety from a
researcher to think that beautiful theories and hypotheses accept passively to
be massacrated by the hideous experimental facts, no their resistance can be
fierce.
Sixth- I have asked: How many times appear
in the report words as ICPMS, isotopes, “don’t know yet” “not nuclear” “active
sites” and many other words rich in significance?
The answer is quite satisfactory, however we don’t know yet
if the authors will help Rossi to conceive a theory- this will show where, how and
why the reactions (which) take place.
Seventh- there are some, more formal. flaws of the study and
of the research strategy on which it is based: unchanged team, not published in
a reputed journal, no peer review, ambiguous or contradictory statements by
Rosss –just good to make the Rossi deniers happy, but if we think realistically
there were no alternatives.
I still
have to study this Report many days in order to understand some significant subtleties.
From personal reasons I intend to use more rational thinking than intelligence,
in this action, see:
Details
and plans coming in my next paper(s)
I have
read so many irrational comments about this study that I had to take attitude.
Peter
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of subtleties for you to consider:
- Rossi was present and had hands on the hot cat during critical phases of the experiment including switching from the dummy run to the active run and extracting the so-called ash at the end.
- Any reasonable reaction kinetics would predict that as the original isotope of nickel, whatever it may have been, was completely converted to Ni-62 (the so-called ash), then the reaction would have slowed. It actually accelerated. So Rossi discovered yet another violation of the laws of nature. Or he stupidly put the wrong purchased isotopes into what he misrepresented as the ash.
In addition, far from being a new test, this test was done by the same people using the same instruments, including, unbelievably, the same clamp on ammeters which are easily fooled by a wiring trick. And nothing was done to test for such a trick.
There is nothing at all believable about this test. It is more nonsense from the master of nonsense. It proves nothing at all. It was done incompetently. Again.
Your modus cogitandi and opus operandi are very similar with the Stalinist trials. Rossi and the Professors are guilty sinners beyond any doubt. If Rossi is present at some decisive phase, everything is compromitted irreversibly
DeleteA everybody, you do not understand the process but you can predict
its kinetic. You know that the clamp used stimulates the measuring instrument that show great excess heat. Tricks chaeating everywhere but you know it.
The cumulated IQ of the Professors is smaller than 100.
You want to be the prosecutor, judge, executioner, gravedigger of the hot Cat.
It was not a milliwatt of excess heat, and it will never be. You know it
with absolute certainty.
Peter
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenote that nothing prove that the Ni62 is important for the reaction...
Deletemaybe it was exhausted in the first days of heating, with no problem...
it can be like a barbecue that get black when the fire start, making the silver parts disappear, replaces by sooted parts...
we don't have a theory so conclusion based on theory are absurd like installing a chair on the deep ocean.
about the power meter is seems that many people ignore that electrician get very good results in complex installations with triacs, IGBT, multiphase synchronous rectifiers, and they can even measure non periodic power inside their bandwidth...
Deleteas someone explained if it was easy to fool them, many clients would fool their electric company.
it seems the argument are more and more desperate...
it worked since the first day, that is the simple and clear truth, and the crime you accuse levi is simply to having been more honest than you are, to admit reality facing evidences.
at worst if you really are skeptic, propose hypothesis not claiming to be sure, ask questions, build scenarios and compute...
Peter, I agree with you that LENR probably will not be understood thoroughly by using conventional thinking. And if anyone does understand it today, they probably arrived at that understanding through multidisciplinary non-conventional reasoning. The second report is very satisfying in that it provides solid scientifically gathered information that confirms many of our suspicions regarding its ability to operate as stated by Dr. Rossi. I don't think many of us are surprised by the behavior of the skeptics, we knew that in order to convince even a small percentage of them, the report would have to be supernaturally pristine and perfect in every way. My favorite aspect of the report is how it reveals to us the amazing transmutations that are occurring inside the E-cat. This is sure to provide food for thought for many of the scientists, engineers and physicists that are following this story. Perhaps Dr. Storms was incorrect about the micro cracks, but I am sure that he will also be able to gain new insights into the problem after reading the report. The second report has something interesting for everyone, hard-core believers and followers are happy and those who are just reading about it now find it very interesting, and the pathological skeptics have much to talk about. Everyone who has been following this story for a such a very long time, it has to be an uplifting time, to finally see positive results coming after all of the hard work that has been done in this field for the last 30 years.
ReplyDeletePeter, you have captured a Rat in your mouse trap, it squeals most terribly as it struggles to escape from its most unfortunate dilemma, complaining that it cannot eat the cheese. Explain to the the poor creature that the cheese has been transmuted into different elements that it cannot see with it small red, pig like eyes.
ReplyDeleteDear Nixter,
DeletePerhaps I am a bit senile, but I don't get this analogy exactly. Do you refer to the unhappy pathological skeptic who wrote the first comment?
Peter
With 98% of the nickel 'fuel' converted to another isotope at the end, I'd have expected them to report that net energy output was rapidly declining at that point.
ReplyDeleteis Ni62 important ?
Deletemaybe not.
my tea kettle have a 95% black bottom and still work. it was white when new!
you mean it should be exhausted?
After writing a french synthesis, I discoverd the "Reduction of the Coulomb barrier hypothesis" from Vladimir I. Vysotskii, which studied it in condensed matter, and seems unify the standard model, the LENR and the biological transmutation.
ReplyDeleteLENR seems to encompass a broad game of phenomena it is a matter of definitions. This high temperature process is at the other extreme than Vysotski's biological trnsmutation.
DeleteCan you please send the preprint of your French synthesis? Thank yu in advance
Peter
Sorry, I put the link in my wikiversity pseudo, but it isn't ok. Vysotskii writed "Such results can explain Rossi-Focardi experiments" and "nuclear transmutation of stable and
Deleteradioactive isotopes in growing biological systems", see http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Transmutations_biologiques/Recherches_récentes#2011_Reduction_of_the_Coulomb_barrier_hypothesis
Barry Kort wrote
ReplyDeleteIn the iconic photo of the device under test, one can see the apparatus with the red-hot glowing wires visible through the translucent 3mm thick alumina casing.
This is a significant observation, because it’s the principle source of evidence that the thin alumina shell is translucent and not 100% opaque.
Why does that matter? It matters because the IR camera equipment that is used to reckon the heat coming out of the device assumes that the alumina shell is an isothermal black body radiator operating at the emissivity of alumina at that temperature. But that conveniently simple energy budget model breaks down if the alumina casing is not 100% opaque. As can be seen in the photograph, some of the photons from the interior apparatus are being transmitted through the translucent shell, rather than being absorbed by it. When those directly transmitted photons impinge upon the IR camera, which is calibrated for the emissivity of alumina, the calculation model incorrectly assumes the alumina shell itself is glowing red hot in accordance with a black body radiation model. This results in a sizable systematic error in reckoning the heat being produced by the device.
My comment:
Barry Kort just explained that the actual output power is highly likely to be much less than the value measured. Indeed, if this device is not a “reactor” but simply an electric heater – which is what I believe based on Rossi’s criminal history – then we can all safely ignore this travesty of a report. It will never achieve peer review in any case because of its parlous quality. And to call it “independent” is a bald-faced lie.
Imagine looking at an ordinary household light fixture with a typical translucent shade around the bulb. The filament inside the bulb is at an incandescent temperature, but it also has a very small surface area. When you look at the light fixture with the translucent shade in place, you see those same photons, but now they appear to come from the large surface of the translucent shade. If you imagine the shade to be the originating source of those photons, in accordance with a black body radiation model, you (incorrectly) deduce that the shade itself is glowing at that same incandescent temperature. Since the shade has orders of magnitude more surface area than the filament inside the light bulb, you end up concluding (incorrectly) that an enormous amount of heat is being produced.
In short, the experimenters have to reckon the translucency of the 3mm alumina shell that encases the apparatus, and adopt a corresponding energy budget model. Since that’s not practical, they need to encase the entire apparatus in a fully opaque isothermal shell, so as to be able to properly apply their isothermal black body radiation measurement technique to the system.