" In the majority of cases, the fight is not between Good and Evil but between a good evil and an evil good. Good and Evil are Siamese twins.
(Yves Henri Prum, Feb 8, 1986- 201x)
In our über -interesting world, what Prum says here is true not only for moral issues but also for solutions (both scientific and technological that is for theories too.
just for
solutions- the opposites are 'useful; and 'harming'
and for
theories- they are 'true' and 'false'.
solutions- the opposites are 'useful; and 'harming'
and for
theories- they are 'true' and 'false'.
We can see a technical solution here
How to Make a MFMP ‘Glowstick’ Reactor (Video) http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/07/how-to-make-a-mfmp-glowstick-reactor-video/
The 4 modes of thinking in Hot Cat Replication.
Arthur C Clarke has taught us that if you want to know the limits of the possible - all you can do is to go beyond these limits In the impossible. For LENR the impossible was going at so high temperatures was that the nanostructures of nickel, of vital importance for LENR will be destroyed. In 2012 I heard about 880C but I was convinced that this must be an absolute limit- the reaction stops if the metal melts, even in its nano-sized surface structures. It seems Rossi went further in the impossible or the logically forbidden and so the hot Cat was born. The details are not known at least I have no idea. Fact is, now we speak about temperatures well over 1000- it is the Lugano Report and the Parkhomov confirmation, MFMP is just now on the front-line, expert researchers and enthusiastic young ones. are preparing for tests.
This action, in its entirety is an issue of historical importance- an opportunity to achieve absolute certainty of the existence of massive heat excess plus the proff of a very high power/energy density of this new source of energy.
Rossi's achievements are unknown- 10, 100 or 1000 verifications of this extreme phenomenon- he gave a Hot Cat to the Lugano testers and they have obtained a wonderful result, however not certain - first of all due to the emissivity result. MFMP has learned for now that emissivity is a 4-letter word for alumina in any case. They cannot work with exactly the same alumina as the Lugano professors so they cannot do a genuine, total replication. Rossi is not distributing his alumina tubes as I have asked here, twice. The Testers will probably give some explanations soon...
However, Alexander Parkhomov has changed the equation nad has offered a method and results that are strong and open the gate for many researchers- to replicate.
Now, replication is a complex and dynamic issue. Taking in consideration the 4 modes of thinking in research described in: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.html
the ideal replication is purely post-logical - you are chasing identity, do exactly what
the authority has done. No prelogical- not guessing, strong logical analysis to understand the details- and try extremely hard to get the working hypothesis that drive the replicated work. Eliminate supra-logical as much as possible, do not be creative, do not subtract, add or replace.
But this is for an ideal case: what you want to replicate was a perfect success,
results are certain- and you can use the same set-up and the same measuring instruments as your model.
Our case is far- far from ideal, at Lugano pyrometry was, seemed, to be in part black art. Therefore Parkhomov was very creative, admirably superlogical when he has made the experiment calorimetrable . He has discovered many other possibilities
to improve the experiment. He is able to manufacture his alumina based reactors, covered with refractory cement and insulating powder- he caan do many experiments.
MFMP - very good supralogical thinking, have their own technology to manufacture the reactors and are climbing a very steep learning curve. Known and unknown unknowns trying to build obstacles on the way but they are progressing.
Brian Ahern and Jean Paul Biberian- our good colleagues also make changes in their variants of replications- not trying to work exactly as Parkhomov. Brian will start calibrations next Wednesday.
A newcomer, Benoit from California will use quartz tubes and TiH3 instead of LiAlH4
- in the first instance he gets rid of the nasty stuff from this exploration. If it does not work he will use the "standard" LiAlH4.
101+ Cold Fusion Articles posted gbgoble:
https://plus.google.com/107190105791959392745/posts/M1kermUdD7P
More LENR discussions in Norway
http://vgd.no/samfunn/vitenskap/tema/1809868/tittel/lenr
The rest of the World is starting to Accept Rossi’s solution:
http://vgd.no/samfunn/vitenskap/tema/1809868/tittel/lenr
The rest of the World is starting to Accept Rossi’s solution:
http://ecatsouthasia.com/rest-world-starting-accept-rossis-solution/
ROSSI HAS HIS OWN LENR THEORY
Will keep it secret- probably - so we cannot know how new, how complete and how detailed it is. Now he publishes the theory of Wladimir Guuglinski but does not "buy"it. I think a theory is problem solving tool, if it does not solve the problem of the field, it is useless- just a beautiful mental construct..
Guglinski:
Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism
February 7th, 2015 at 7:04 PM
Wladimir Guglinski:
As I said, I respect your opinion and your sincere passion. It is for this passion and for the conspicuous amount of time you dedicate to your studies that our reviewer has decided to publish your paper. Said this, as you know, in Physics nothing is impossible in absolute to exist, but everything is associated to a due probability to exist somewhere, sooner or later. What our opinion differs upon is the probability we associate to the existence of Aether: for me it is, say, 0.0something%, for you it appears to be 99.99%.
To give you some solace, I must confess to you that many times I am wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi
February 7th, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Wladimir Guglinski:
You are very welcome.
Obviously, as I already wrote on this blog, I do not agree with your Aether theory and the theory we are elaborating regarding the so called Rossi Effect is totally different. My solid opinion is that “Aether” does not exist. Nevertheless, I respect your work and the sincere enthusiasm you put in it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tomorrow, more about LENR theories- what is good and what is evil in them.
Peter
ROSSI HAS HIS OWN LENR THEORY
Will keep it secret- probably - so we cannot know how new, how complete and how detailed it is. Now he publishes the theory of Wladimir Guuglinski but does not "buy"it. I think a theory is problem solving tool, if it does not solve the problem of the field, it is useless- just a beautiful mental construct..
Guglinski:
Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism
Rossi about theory (Guglinski's):
Andrea RossiFebruary 7th, 2015 at 7:04 PM
Wladimir Guglinski:
As I said, I respect your opinion and your sincere passion. It is for this passion and for the conspicuous amount of time you dedicate to your studies that our reviewer has decided to publish your paper. Said this, as you know, in Physics nothing is impossible in absolute to exist, but everything is associated to a due probability to exist somewhere, sooner or later. What our opinion differs upon is the probability we associate to the existence of Aether: for me it is, say, 0.0something%, for you it appears to be 99.99%.
To give you some solace, I must confess to you that many times I am wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
February 7th, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Wladimir Guglinski:
You are very welcome.
Obviously, as I already wrote on this blog, I do not agree with your Aether theory and the theory we are elaborating regarding the so called Rossi Effect is totally different. My solid opinion is that “Aether” does not exist. Nevertheless, I respect your work and the sincere enthusiasm you put in it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tomorrow, more about LENR theories- what is good and what is evil in them.
Peter
Unfortunately, Peter, Parkhomov results are not "strong." His phase change calorimetry wasn't cleanly calibrated. His first report was not clear about many things, that we would need to know for a strong report, and showed contradictory data. In the field, phase change calorimetry, well-calibrated, is considered more reliable than isoperibolic calorimetry or temperature-based calorimetry. Both can be unreliable if not well calibrated. So his evaporated water shows XP, with a strange behavior that correlates with input power in a very unexpected way, Storms first noticed this. The thermometry shows a reactor that responds to input power in an expected way if there is no excess heat. It cannot, without good calibration, which is not available, rule out XP, but XP seems limited to far under 100 W, while Parkhomov is reporting from phase change, more than 8 times that.
ReplyDeleteIn later results, it can look to the casual reader that he's doing well. In fact, his last experiment showed roughly fifty watts of XP. It looked good because the input power was so low! None of this is well-calibrated, so all it takes is some unexpected entrained water, easy to generate with the kind of irregular boiler Parkhomov has, produced at higher levels with more ordinary boiling at higher input power, and the relationship of COP to input power can have an obvious possible cause. More input, more boiling, more entrained water by percentage, more apparent XP.
So far, MFMP is not doing Parkhomov replications. They are doing related stuff, like putting far too much LiAlH4 in a tube, stuffing it, and then testing pressure by heating it and seeing if it blows. *After* the test that exploded, *then* they did the calculation. 1351 bar or 19861 psi.
They put up the lexan shield just before it blew. It could have blown at any time, it's a miracle it lasted as long as it did. Someone could have been badly injured.
I completely agree that calculating after the fact and implementing too little safety precautions is a dangerous and disappointing recipe, Abd.
ReplyDeleteIndeed MFMP's experiments thus far, are not replications.
I also agree with Peter's implied advice: Do what AGP did, as closely as possible. Otherwise the adventure gains unwanted tears, and possibly injurious toll.
In modern society, the lab glass reactor has important effects on many ways. Here: www.toption-china.com/products/lab-glass-reactor. Actually, this equipment is sometimes called ultrasonic cell grinder under many situations.
ReplyDelete