Sunday, May 1, 2016

MAY 01,2016 TIME FOR (RE) DEFINING LENR!

MOTTO

Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody. (Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)


In a war of ideas it is people who get killed. (Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

DAILY NOTES

Let's forget The War in LENR for a while (but perhaps after reading the very natural 6) at News) and focus on essential problems. LENR, the field is in systemic deep crisis

See please how Edmund Storms describes the situation and tries to lead us toward a solution:

I expect you all have noticed why no agreement can be reached about how to go about explaining LENR. Everyone has a different belief about what LENR does and how Nature operates.  one would apply QM, an other colleague would shift an electron to a forbidden orbit, other people would look to the chemical lattice as the site of the process, and I focus on nanocracks and the chemical issues.  Without agreement about basic principles, no agreement is possible. This would be like having a group of Muslims and Catholics trying to agree on the nature of God.  Normally such agreements are achieved either on the battle field or in a class room under the total control of a professor. Since we have neither method available, I would like to ask some questions to see if we can have any possibility of agreement.

Perhaps anyone who is interested would answer the questions and give reasons for your answers. 

1. Do you accept production of  helium as the source of energy from a fusion reaction? If not, what is the source of the measured energy?
2. Do you accept that this helium-heat relationship has been obtained using both electrolytic and gas loading of Pd? If not, why not?
3. Do you accept that this fusion reaction does not occur in the lattice structure, such as in vacancies or dislocations?  If not, where do you propose the source of heat originates in a material?
4. Do you accept that formation of unique nuclear active site is required to host the fusion reaction? If not, where does the reaction occur?
5. Do you accept that tritium is a nuclear product from the same mechanism that produces helium?  If not, what mechanism produces tritium?
6. Do you accept that LENR is produced by a universal mechanism that operates in all materials and involves all isotopes of hydrogen? If not, please identify the nature of the different mechanisms. 


All of these questions can be answered without using any math. The answers will identify which LENR religion you belong to and how a discussion has to be structure to reach agreement.  Once some agreement can be reached about the basic issues, we can then turn to the details for discussion, using math when required.  If the basic issues cannot resolved, the details would not matter because we would not be discussing the same subject.  In fact, that is the problem we have right now. We are not discussing the same phenomenon.  We can not even agree on what LENR is. Until we do, we can not hope to agree on how it operates.  So, lets start with the basics and see whether any agreement is possible.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT HERE, Ego Out is relatively unpolluted by the usual Detailitis, Dilutitis, Disputitis, Disfocusitis that can make any serious discussion, KO on Forums.....

In addition to what Ed has said,I think we have to try to re-define and radically what is LENR-or LENRs (better), we have to rethink PdD, NiH older variants and new variants- etc.the connection between diverse kinds of LENR, it cousins and neighbors.

DAILY NEWS

1) Decentralization and LENR (Michel Vandenberghe)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/30/decentralization-and-lenr-michel-vandenberghe/


2) New Live Test by Brian Albiston Started (April 30, 2016)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/01/new-live-test-by-brian-albiston-started-april-30-2016/




3) About LENR origin then feed back from Alexander Gromov


LookMoo
May 1, 2016 at 2:46 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

In one of your replies you briefly mentioned that IH had guided tours with potential customers during the one year test of the 1 MW plant.

Can you tell us a little bit more about these happenings??

Like:

* How many guided tours
* When was the last guided tour by IH.
Andrea Rossi
May 1, 2016 at 7:52 AM

LookMoo:
We have the movies of them, because the plant had cameras for security issues, and photos, but all this information cannot be published before it is disclosed in Court.
I can make this statement, though: all I said in this blog about the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat will be sustained by undisputable evidence in Court.
I say this now: all the main investors that gave real money to IH before IH bought other IP around have repeatedly visited our plant. I can also add this, because it is already public: the ERV made a partial report every 3 months and the results were the same as in the final report. This means that IH received a report in April, a second report in July, a third report in October, before the final report. The results of all these report were the same, moreless. IH not only never criticized the reports, but shown the reports to Woodford and in an official conference in China, using them to collect investments. The comments of Darden about the reports can be read in his interviews after the Chinese conference.
So, for one year of test IH accepted with great enthusiasm the reports, used them to get enormous investments from funds and never made a single communication to the ERV, who sent to them all the preliminary reports, not a single word in negative.

The situation changed as soon as payment time came.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

7) The Possible Political Impact Should LENR Emerge (Doug Marker)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/01/the-possible-political-impact-should-lenr-emerge-doug-marker/




LENR IN CONTEXT-1

From Maria Popova's fine Brain Pickings- it is much more there! The Psychology of Time and the Paradox of How Impulsivity and Self-Control Mediate Our Capacity for Presence

13 comments:

  1. With the greatest of respect I offer an opinion of Ed Storms request for dialog based on the evidentiary ground rules that Ed has dictated. Ed Storms is stuck in a rut. Ed has been looking for the same LENR indicators for decades and this stagnation in expectations has calcified Ed’s theoretical though processes.

    These ground rules include as follows:

    1. The production of Helium
    2. The production of Tritium
    3. The production of excess heat
    4. The helium-heat relationship

    The experiments of Holmlid has shown us that there is another way to look at the LENR experimental landscape, that being subatomic particle production. If Ed Storms would modify his experimental expectations, he would see a completely new perspective on the ways and means of the LENR reaction.

    The production of mesons, pions, Kaon, muons, and electrons leave little room in the interpretation of these experimental results.
    The production of Kaons, indicated that strange matter is produced in the LENR reaction. This can only happen when quark/gluon plasma is produced when quarks are deconfined in the nucleus. This also means that the monopole flux tubes that connect quarks together are being screened. This in turn implies that monopole flex tubes are being produced by chemical means.

    The production of LENR through magnetism also implies that intense RF radiation will be produced in active LENR experiments. Such RF radiation has been seen in the experimental results produced by me356 who has verified that the LENR reaction is producing this EMF radiation. The experimental results from Defkalion also show powerful magnetics and RF production.

    Ed Storms should modify his experimental procedures, methods, and expectations to detect subatomic particles, specifically muons. This could be done by using a cloud chamber. An RF and magnetic detection method should also be a part of Ed’s experimental setup.

    The experimental data that an experiment produces colors the theory that is derived from that data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there is an interesting paragraph in recent Edmund Storms 's paper, about the possibility to dissipate energy through electron.
      the conclusion is that ther should be a noticeable current (few mA per watt) and probably magnetic field...

      http://lenrexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Expanded-explanation-revised-2.pdf

      in that article, ed clearly says that others theories may give some explanations for the main sketch that he dedice from experiments and usual chemistry laws.

      I remember references to Kim, Hagestein...

      Cold Fusion is also a kind of cooking, and mixing tastes like mixing theory is the way to go.
      however each theory should be considered as a sketch, as the proposed scenario of a movie scene, not as the final Bible.

      I see many good arguments for and against ed theory, for an against any other theory.
      I can bet easily that none is good, and that many of them bring a piece of the puzzle.

      This is not a question of competence, but just observing the varied educated opinions.

      I admit that I love Ed approach, because I'm not a quantum physicist, but just an engineer. But physics is not about loving.

      Delete
  2. @ Axil: We know you have your own opinion how it works, Axil. But the only thing Ed asks is to answer his 6 questions, so he can cathegorize you.
    Most of these questions you can answer, and please do so. But what I understand you think more questions should be asked to cathegorize even further, well please do so.
    I am not a physisist, so I cannot do this, but you probably are, I look forward seeing your answers and additions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Storm's strategy, so he can categorize you:

      “Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots.”
      ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      Delete
  3. Dear Peter,

    please come in into Facebook. Here You will have thousand members audience for sure. Craig Brown with Free Energy Truthe hera has over 60.000 readers.

    Greeting form Czech Republic

    30 years back known as Guru

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Free Energy Truth was only mentioned as example of possible audience

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the idea, nice. Eo Out is a Blog kind of personal diary living in a relatively peacefulenvironment, Fascebook seems to be more noisy. But please tell me how do you see a conversion of a blog in a Facebook page- if yiu have time.
      thanks,

      peter

      Delete
  4. Fedir MykhaylovMay 2, 2016 at 6:39 AM

    1. For the reaction of Li + H.
    2. At low energies, the priority will be without neutron channel.
    3.Reaktsiya is in the octahedral voids lattice Ni.
    4.This area called cloud Cottrell. There is its isotope enrichment D in diffusion.
    5.Reaktsiya D + D = T + P. The reaction between the partially shielded deuteron are in oktopore lattice Ni and accelerated incident deuteron.
    6. Continuous production of neutrons with a low pulse of the proton plasmon interaction with the conduction electrons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Craig Brown? ROTFWL! He's a Steorn supporter who has never been right. Not once in ten years. He's the lowest common denominator of dumb. And Guru is equally stupid with all his antisemitic BS.

    Wow, Peter. You sure have some brilliant contributors these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello George Hody

      Delete
    2. Hello folks, I am great supporter of Semitic folks. I publicly support Semitic folks. As it is important to know that Palestinians are real Semitic folks. So your attacks about anti-semitism is false. Something from paid Sayanim manufacture. Best Regards (32 years back in mandatory army service Hungarian Slovaks comrades called me Guru - they used me instead of Google)

      Delete
  6. Ed Storms' book "The Science of LENR" reveals many approaches to LENR. On page 127, for example, he discusses that "Deuterium is not the only active hydrogen isotope. Nickel exposed to hot H2 gas has been studied by Focardi" In the next paragraph, he is back to talking about Pd/D. Later on, he discusses biological LENR as well as many other observed effects.

    My point would be to decide which of these many kinds of LENR has the best potential to lead us most quickly to a practical device which would produce energy in commercial amounts. It seems that nothing less than a power plant will attract public attention. Were we to be able to point towards a actual power plant operating on LENR, this would easily attract enough money and believers to fund and man the study ALL the different forms of LENR listed in Storms' book.

    d

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here are my answers, Peter, though they kind of turn Storms's assumptions upside-down.

    1. Do you accept production of helium as the source of energy from a fusion reaction? If not, what is the source of the measured energy?

    No, I believe that fusion and other nuclear effects are actually byproducts of the process that underlies the generation of excess heat. You can read my thinking on it here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/icqomucyy9qwt1s/MathisianPhysicsandLENR-PreliminaryGuideMay2draft.pdf?dl=0

    Or if that doesn't work, here:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5nqCJFoFccdOG5uTUZsa1JWcmM/view


    2. Do you accept that this helium-heat relationship has been obtained using both electrolytic and gas loading of Pd? If not, why not?

    Well, if helium is produced, then it is a byproduct of the processes underlying LENR, but I do not believe that any apparent byproducts of a fusion reaction are the primary cause of excess heat.


    3. Do you accept that this fusion reaction does not occur in the lattice structure, such as in vacancies or dislocations? If not, where do you propose the source of heat originates in a material?

    I don't think fusion is the main cause of excess heat, and I don't see any reason to think cracks or dislocations are crucially important. AHE's may be important, but not for the reasons Storms thinks.

    4. Do you accept that formation of unique nuclear active site is required to host the fusion reaction? If not, where does the reaction occur?

    I believe the process that produces (most of) the excess heat in LENR is not fusion and can be produced under many circumstances and configurations, and does not require the formation of a unique NAE.

    5. Do you accept that tritium is a nuclear product from the same mechanism that produces helium? If not, what mechanism produces tritium?

    Yes. They are byproducts of the same process, which is not fusion. Tritium is produced by neutron capture, D + N.

    6. Do you accept that LENR is produced by a universal mechanism that operates in all materials and involves all isotopes of hydrogen? If not, please identify the nature of the different mechanisms.

    YES. See paper at the links for more info.

    ReplyDelete