I do not regret telling yesterday about the the idea of the quantitative changes, accumulated lead to qualitative transformations (I called them metamorphoses) - a principle of dialectical materialism. If you have read my blog, you know I am not a Marxist. Plus the idea was borrowed from Hegel, exactly as the other one, fight of opposites goes back to Heraclitus. Phase transitions were the best examples for qualitative leaps.
Now, for LENR along the scale of temperatures - with the aid of other parameters we go from the scientific weak and undisciplined LENR to a first kind of LENR+ this starts somewhere between the Debye temperature and 400 C, then it comes a relatively long range for the future commercial devices (I will never forget how electrified I was when Alex Xanthoulis told me about a working temperature of
880 C). A new qualitative leap appears over 1100 C- Lugano test, Parkhomov, many others coming fast will show it. My guess with this Hot Cat quality leap that - if till this some additives were necessary, these high temperatures manage to do the process- nuclear interactions plus something else - alone. (do not tell to my grandchildren I am not infallible)
At this high temperature- really and symbolically, there are many opposites fighting:
- as in LENR- LENR+ overall, sterile certainties are confronting the creative doubts;
- the complexity and diversity of reality with the ideas of uniformity quantitative variation, not different quality;
- rigid rules and surprising exceptions:
- unknown newness with the known facts- actually not valid in changed conditions;
However such things happen everywhere where some valuable New tries to come to the surface.
A special case in some analyses of Alexander Parkhomov's results is creating a false opposition between something absolute (calorimetry) and something relative (thermometry).As you can easily see from the comparative results- naked reactors vs cell covered with insulating alumina powder- the temperature measured depend on the loss of heat of the reactor- and this a function of temperature due to radiation of heat.. Calorimetry is straightforward, thermometry too intricate to be of any use.
Papers and news re LENR go marching in:
From Mats Lewan
Replication attempts are heating up cold fusion
Also Mats Lewan:
It seems big banks know about cold fusion
http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/02/it-seems-big-banks-know-about-cold-fusion/
Daniele Passerini publishes a nicely professional paper about Parkhomov:
L'exploit di Alexander Parkhomov: dalla Russia la prima replica dell'E-Cat di Rossi.
Daniele Passerini publishes a nicely professional paper about Parkhomov:
L'exploit di Alexander Parkhomov: dalla Russia la prima replica dell'E-Cat di Rossi.
An Exciting Time for LENR
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/an-exciting-time-for-lenr
Rossi: 30,000 components make up the 1 MW plant: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/02/rossi-30000-components-make-up-1-mw-e-cat-plant/
I will let others decide what is this worth:
Obama bets on the Rossi miracle generator:
Paradoxes Define Our Understanding of the Universe:
Rossi: 30,000 components make up the 1 MW plant: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/02/rossi-30000-components-make-up-1-mw-e-cat-plant/
I will let others decide what is this worth:
Obama bets on the Rossi miracle generator:
OTHER
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/paradoxes-define-our-understanding-of-the-universe
What paradoxes define the understanding of LENR?
Peter
What paradoxes define the understanding of LENR?
Peter
About the paradoxes in space: Could it not be that light is being curved by the huge mass of the black holes or perhaps all masses in the universe? This has been predicted by Einstein and was proven too. What we see at the furthest point is the edge of the black holes in which all matter disappear. Clearly when you are so near to that edge, your speed will be close to light speed. That is what we see. Is that such a bad idea?
ReplyDelete"A special case in some analyses of Alexander Parkhomov's results is creating a false opposition between something absolute (calorimetry) and something relative (thermometry).As you can easily see from the comparative results- naked reactors vs cell covered with insulating alumina powder- the temperature measured depend on the loss of heat of the reactor- and this a function of temperature due to radiation of heat.. Calorimetry is straightforward, thermometry too intricate to be of any use."
ReplyDeleteThis would be about me, since hardly anyone else is looking carefully at the thermometry, nor, for that matter at much of the report, instead people go into paroxisms of "how wonderful" or "how horrible," depending on what they want.
The Parkhomov setup, to generate rough calorimetry from thermometry, is far too complex, but it could be done with precise calibrations. However, Peter implies that thermometry is useless. No, it can be quite good for confirmation/disconfirmation of phase change calorimetry. Basically, there is experimental evidence in the thermometry that if there is XP, it is less than maybe 100 W, or even less. There is no room in the thermometry for the reported levels of power in the December experiment. In the January 18, experiment, the way this is all presented by Parkhomov makes it easy to overlook that the XP was only about 57 watts. The thermometry in this case also looks like little or no XP, as before. That is a qualitative assessment. And, yes ,it contradicts the phase change work.
So how solid is the phase change calorimetry? One knows through calibrations. I know you have read many cold fusion papers, what do calibrations look like? How do they compare with what is in the Parkhomov paper (which now apparently shows his calibrations, which had been somewhat misrepresented before)? Parkhomov changed the setup, making the old calibrations useless, so he has new ones, but how accurately are these matched? Calibrations should show the system behavior across the range of interest, not just a couple of points. Parkhomov is not presenting the data we need to understand his work clearly. What people are doing is depending on his *conclusions*, not the work itself, for the most part, and are assuming that the work was properly done, when, in fact, the reports are full of errors and unexplained anomalies. Small example: the plot of power for January 18, twice the power goes to zero, but the chart does not show zero. What is going on? These are small things, but they do not inspire confidence.
Parkhomov changed the experimental setup between the two sets of tests. In January 18, he mixed the methods. One element of concern is that variation in the insulation can cause variation in the boiling behavior, and thus variations in entrained water.
ReplyDeleteParkhomov does appear to be measuring water with more precision, now, but accuracy is still quite questionable, and he has no detail on this. Yet the calorimetry crucially depends on this. Previously, he claimed to have calibrated at 1000 watts. Seeing what is apparently the data now, there were three tests, not what I'd ordinarily consider calibrations. They do not match the experimental conditions, which can include sequencing. They were done after the December 20 tests, so he *could have* used the same input power protocol, but apparently didn't. So all we have are three data points. He presents a temperature for each test, but that temperature can vary significantly from what the charts show, so it is unclear what the temperature means. Peak temperature or average temperature. Was this a settled temperature? He doesn't show this information for any of the calibrations. However, we can now treat his 300 W test as a calibration, more or less. That confirms what I'd concluded from the thermometry, and then thermometry after that continues the expected behavior from ordinary electric heating, except for the thermal arrest, which has been explained by one expert as being possible thermocouple failure.
The thermal arrest phenomenon is utterly absent from the January 18 test. When the heater fails, the temperature declines as would be expected from no XP. If there were XP, the slope of the decline would not be as it was, relatively smooth as it asymptotically approaches ambient. There would be a slower decline that then accelerates as the temperature falls below the active temperature.
Parkhomov changed the experimental setup between the two sets of tests. In January 18, he mixed the methods. One element of concern is that variation in the insulation can cause variation in the boiling behavior, and thus variations in entrained water.
ReplyDeleteParkhomov does appear to be measuring water with more precision, now, but accuracy is still quite questionable, and he has no detail on this. Yet the calorimetry crucially depends on this. Previously, he claimed to have calibrated at 1000 watts. Seeing what is apparently the data now, there were three tests, not what I'd ordinarily consider calibrations. They do not match the experimental conditions, which can include sequencing. They were done after the December 20 tests, so he *could have* used the same input power protocol, but apparently didn't. So all we have are three data points. He presents a temperature for each test, but that temperature can vary significantly from what the charts show, so it is unclear what the temperature means. Peak temperature or average temperature. Was this a settled temperature? He doesn't show this information for any of the calibrations. However, we can now treat his 300 W test as a calibration, more or less. That confirms what I'd concluded from the thermometry, and then thermometry after that continues the expected behavior from ordinary electric heating, except for the thermal arrest, which has been explained by one expert as being possible thermocouple failure.
The thermal arrest phenomenon is utterly absent from the January 18 test. When the heater fails, the temperature declines as would be expected from no XP. If there were XP, the slope of the decline would not be as it was, relatively smooth as it asymptotically approaches ambient. There would be a slower decline that then accelerates as the temperature falls below the active temperature.
The thermal arrest phenomenon is utterly absent from the January 18 test. When the heater fails, the temperature declines as would be expected from no XP. If there were XP, the slope of the decline would not be as it was, relatively smooth as it asymptotically approaches ambient. There would be a slower decline that then accelerates as the temperature falls below the active temperature.
Parkhomov's approach, so far, is primitively realized. I certainly hope it is not stuck there. I think Axil has said that MFMP will soon outstrip Parkhomov. That's a reasonable possibility.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-nanovortices.html
ReplyDeleteNanovortices have mass. This has profound implications for the characterization of cosmic LENR. There is evidence that space is filled with excited hydrogen and helium. These vast areas between galaxies form LENR generating dusty plasma that produce extreme ultraviolet light and soft x-rays to the tune of 400% above any possible celestial body source. The dark matter inside galaxies behave as if this strange stuff was coherent and exist in a huge galaxy wide BEC.
I had conjectured that Cosmic LENR had mass and it was in fact the source of the mass attributed to dark matter. Well here is the experiment that shows that nano vortices which includes LENR associated vertices have mass. The take away...throughout the universe, LENR produces the mass attributed to Dark Matter.
Compared with the glass reactor with jacket, the high quality stone crusher has wide applications. Here: www.toption-china.com/products/glass-reactor-with-jacket-10l. Generally speaking, the stone crusher machine may include vibrating feeder, stone jaw crusher, pex jaw crusher, vertical shaft impact crusher, vibrating screen, sand washing machine etc.
ReplyDelete