Monday, November 30, 2015

NOV 30, 2015 A GREAT DAY FOR LENR BECAUSE BECFICE WAS BORN

MOTTO

Jump, and you will find out how to unfold your wings as you fall. (Ray Bradbury)

One of the big questions in the climate change debate: Are humans any smarter than frogs in a pot? If you put a frog in a pot and slowly turn up the heat, it won't jump out. Instead, it will enjoy the nice warm bath until it is cooked to death. We humans seem to be doing pretty much the same thing. (Jeff Goodell)


DAILY NOTES

a) WHERE IS THE WORLDWIDE LENR LOBBY NOW?

 Money is the second potential saviour of LENR, immediately after new ideas so today it could be a great day for LENR. The crucial  summit from Paris- if not hit by destructive probletence- will decide that the World needs healthy and cheap energy; we know that LENR is the best candidate; hopefully the participants at the Summit who will take the decisions know it too. Or, in the worst case, will learn it very soon.

Even more promising is the organization of billionaires, including Bill Gates but also some very resonant names- amazing- 
Breakthrough Energy Coalition to Fund Innovations in Clean Energy- may I use the acronym BECFICE for it?

Will BECFICE include LENR in its plans? I have examined the list of founders- no personal friends there. Bill Gates will be a leader- how positively was he impressed by PdD LENR ENEA style? He could get there the certainty that LENR EXISTS however what could he learn about the way and its length to a practical LENR based energy source?
It is not predictable if Andrea Rossi and IH will collaborate with BECFICE. If yes, this could change the rules of the game.

If inclusion of LENR in the plans of the this hugely powerful Fund is a problem, the solution is simple and natural: make LENR to be and to look as a potential breakthrough.
LENR- weak, slow, crawling, in evolution, static, increasing incrementally- has no chances.
LENR+ - intense, fast, advancing with great leaps, revolutionary, dynamic, full of surprises, creative, complex, rich, will be the favorite child/brainchild of BECTICE, I predict.

We must activate the LENR lobby now!



b) Discussions with Ed Storms

1- Ed Storms answers to AXIL re co-deposition


It is simply not true that co-deposition produces heat 100% of the time. I and other people have attempted to cause LENR using this method without success. If the claim were true, we would have the lab rat Melich has been requesting and research would have moved rapidly forward .   

How do you know nanocracks are absent?  Have you looked for them? If so, where are the result available? You make statements  with such authority, I have to ask, What is your role in this field? What experiments have you published? What reviews have you written? What is your source of information?

2- Ed Storms postpones answer to my question regarding PdD results matching Cathode 64

Ed: The histogram is designed to answer only one question, which is does well. I would  answer your other question when I get time.  Meanwhile, Table 2, page 53 in my first book lists the values used to construct the histogram. 

I have indeed given the Storms' first book to the Energy Commission of EU and I could not buy an other copy, sorry for this. Ed says he is busy and cannot help:

Sorry Peter, I thought you said you read the book, in which case I would expect you to have a copy.  Table 2 to lists the results by date, not by amount of power. I would have to take time to look at each entry and make a list. I do not have time to do this right now. I wrote the book so that I would not have to keep answering such questions.  I will answer your question when I have time. I hope this is ok.

So I am in trouble and it hurts me that I have somehow ignored or worse- forgotten an exceptional LENR experiment due to superficiality or senility.
THEREFORE- I dare t ask my readers who own Ed's book to tell me/us what is saying that Table 2 page 53 about high intensity heat release events in PdD. Thank you in advance

3- Ed Storms, asked  about real progress comparing 1989-2007 with 2007-2015? In intensity, reproducibility, gives a rater discouraging answer: 

Ed: As best as I can tell, not much improvement has been reported in the ability to make energy from PdD. Most of the focus is now on NiH.  Nevertheless, I believe once the true understanding of how LENR works has been achieved, the energy will be made at high level using many kinds of materials. 

Actually till 2011 only Piantelli's team was seriously active in LENR based on NiH and even the coming of Rossi has not reduced much the number of PdD fans till recently so I dare to say the lack of progress is inherent to the system. Which was the peak year of PdD Cold fusion? My fast answer would be 1993

4- Ed Storms says things that make me both envious and sad:

The more I study the subject, the clearer my understanding becomes and the easier it is to ignore the many false leads being suggested. However, in this world, such insights are only accepted if they can be used to create the predicted success.  I do not have the tools to do this.  What is more important, at my age, I do not have much incentive to keep hitting my head against the wall with no result. That is a young man's sport. I'm in the progress of writing a paper describing in detail my understanding. This is done more for the benefit of future historians than for the present. Nevertheless, you will have a detailed description of my understanding soon.  Getting it publish where it will be generally read will be the next problem. 

Your papers are read and studied and disseminated, it is obvious they have great fragments of Truth in them- the question is only the domain of applicability of these Truths. I think you are over-optimistic about how much we know about the great LENR field - PdD is only a small part of it and not the most representative. We are not so advanced as you claim.
A leading PdD scientist has allowed me to cite him here:

"More innovative and fundamental experiments are required to formulate a model." (Graham Hubler, Director, Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance,


DAILY NEWS


Gates, Other Billionaires Form Breakthrough Energy Coalition to Fund Innovations in Clean Energy:

Bill Gates announces Green Tech Fund to Make Renewables Viable
    by Eric Worrall 
Today starts the meeting and many decision-makers will participate. The rumor is that Bill Gates together with several successful corporate leaders will announce a giant investment fund to support research on clean energy.
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2340-%E2%80%8BThe-climate-conference-in-Paris-cop21/?postID=9932#post993


Paris Deal Would Herald an Important First Step on Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/paris-climate-talks.html?emc=edit_th_20151130&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=15377108&_r=0

Stop Emissions!
A climate scientist argues that it should no longer be acceptable to dump carbon dioxide in the sky.

Re this. Mats Lewan says:
This story on the urgency to resolve the climate crisis
could use some comments from people with knowledge on LENR.

Riscaldare casa con 20 euro l'anno? Brevetto approvato negli U.S.A ma non in Italia !
http://ilnuovomondodanielereale.blogspot.ro/

Lattice Energy LLC Scalability of LENR Power Generation Systems
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-scalability-of-lenr-power-generation-systems-nov-29-2015

OPEN POWER ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER #17: ROY VIRGILIO HONORED; COLLABORATION WITH FRANCESCO CELANI MOVING FORWARD:




Nanortech announces peer-reviewed data and information regarding its NANOR
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2344-Nanortech-announce-peer-reviewed-data-and-information-regarding-its-NANOR/?postID=9952#post9952

AXIL DIXIT

There seems to be two broad schools of thought in LENR: those who believe that LENR is catalytic and those who don’t. Peter has educated me in the catalytic paradigm and I now join him in his thinking on nuclear catalysis. Ed Storms is not in the catalytic school of thought. It seems to me that the school of catalysis considers the production of the catalytic effect must originate from the catalytic action of an Exotic Neutral Particle. There are a dozen ideas as to what that particle is but it can be tested for. To illustrate for example, the experiments doing the Cathode 64 test could have placed the cathode on a photographic emulsion immediately after LENR activity has stopped to check for particle tracts. If an experiment does not show ENP tracts, than the concept of ENP is falsified. 

Ed Storms says: “It is well known in research that we see only what we are expecting to see. This is a universal experience and says nothing about the competence of the researcher. For example, if radiation were expected, a detector would be set up. If radiation were not expected and a detector was not used, any radiation would not be seen. The radiation would remain invisible and be ignored. It would not be discovered no matter how competent the researcher.”

Researchers that expect to see ENP particle tracts have seen them. If the ENP camp wants to kill off the catalytic ENP school of thought, falsify the ENP theory by testing for the ENP when excess heat is observed in an experiment.



5 comments:

  1. Re: "Catalyst." If the NIckel-Hydeogen results may be explained by a NIi62--> NI66_-->Ni 62 cycle, appparently Ni62 would be called a catalyst. Perhaps a reasonable definition of a catalyst would be "a reactant which is regenerated during a reaction sequence.in a cyclic process. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The particle #1 analized in the Lugano report reveals amazing things about the character of the LENR reaction. This 100 micron particle is over 99% pure Ni62. This implies much about how the LENR reaction behaves.

      Ni66 does not appear in that miracle Lugano ash particle.

      See:

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/

      Delete
  2. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.2752.pdf

    Here is the math support for the “Mössbauer Effect”. It shows that a monopole magnetic field is the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer effect.

    From the Urutskoiev exploding titanium foil experiment

    4) Various difficulties of interpretation gradually led Urutskoiev and his research team to the conclusion that magnetic poles could be a possible source of the strange radiation effects they had observed. They became aware of the present author’s work and a fruitful collaboration has been initiated.

    From the very beginning, an important experiment was realized by Urutskoiev and Ivoilov [54], using the fact that 57Fe is at the same time magnetic and the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer effect. They irradiated, at some meters from the source of the supposed monopoles, a sample of 57Fe . Behind the iron sample was one pole of a long linear magnet, in order to repel the monopoles of the same sign and attract the monopoles of the opposite sign. Owing to the Mössbauer effect, they found a distinct shift of a characteristic γ ray.

    They repeated the experiment with the other pole of the magnet behind the iron sample and, with the same exposure they found a γ ray shift in the opposite direction [54].

    One can make two remarks about this experiment :

    a) This is one of the most brilliant proof of monopole magnetism. But there are others : for instance, the fact that Ivoilov focused a monopole beam with an electromagnet.

    b) If the 57Fe target sample used in the Mössbauer experiment is abandoned for three days, the preceding characteristic γ ray spectrum goes back to its mean normal position. This half-life effect seems to hold for all the effects of magnetism induced by monopoles: they seem to have a limited time of life (not predicted by theory). But other effects, such isotopic shifts are definitive.

    From this experimental result, the half life of SPP monopole magnetism is three days.

    54. N. Ivoilov & L. Urutskoiev, The influence of « strange » radiation on Mössbauer spectrum of F57 in metallic foils, Rus. Applied Physics, N° 5, 2004 (in Russian).

    In english:
    http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m331.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clustered LENR reaction require that LENR be a catalytic reaction both in the cause of the reaction and the effects of the reaction.

    Bose condensation in LENR requires that LENR must be a catalytic effect. Only a catalytic based reaction can support Bose condensation. A catalytic object is the same before and after the reaction...it does not change. The LENR reaction cannot continue as a Bose condensate unless the Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) is unchanged by the LENR reaction. This implies that any change such as energy gain that LENR produces must be shared equally by all the members of the Bose condensate.

    This clustered reaction effect in a Bose condensate is called super-absorption. But in the experiments of J.C. Fisher, he shows that tens of thousands of LENR reactions are caused by a single catalytic exotic neutral particle (ENP). It is possible that this free moving particle is entangled with others of it kind in a bose condensate which will share equally in the energy produced in the clustered reaction.

    For example in a extreme case, it looks like the 100 micron nickel Lugano ash particle #1 was converted to Ni62 in one clustered LENR reaction involving many billions of nickel and lithium atoms. The energy produced by this huge clustered reaction could have been buffered by a Bose condensate of ENPs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simple trick to cut your power bill up to 75%: DIY HOME ENERGY.

    ReplyDelete