MOTTO
" I see IH as poker-players, not chess players, and they called Rossi's bluff"
(Simon Derricutt, in Comments, here)
.
DAILY NOTES
a) ANSWERING TO AN OPINION AND MODE OF THINKING COMMENT BY SIMON DERRICUTT (II)
YOU
If you really want LENR to happen, following Rossi is the wrong way, and such following is thus counterproductive. Ed Storms is probably not completely right (since otherwise he'd have more experimental successes) but he's got logical and experimental reasons for saying what he does, and is likely largely right. It's a much better basis for progress. I'd hope Ed would agree here, and I'm sure he's still pondering the puzzle-pieces he has and trying different ideas.
EGO
Rossi does not describe his way completely, so it is difficult to know or state tha going on his way is fatal error. Can you enumerate in a justified mode a few better ways? OK, you speak about Ed Storms theory - fine, clearly and consistently described- free for any researcher to try it, Ed surely will help. Actuallly this was and is done, Ed has both admirers and followers (I belong to the first category but not to the second- this in principle because I have no research lab now.
I have friendly disagreed with his nano-cracks-hydroton idea from the start. It happened that a nice colleague Paul Maher has just today remembered me some of my first reactions to the Storms theory:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/some-reasons-why-lenr-nae-cannot-be.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/active-sites-and-nae.html
BTW it is not relevant if a theory is right or not- the value of them increases in the order: descriptive, prohibitive, predictive, productive (actionable)
Despite my disagreement I have sincerely wished that Ed's theory should prevail.
It would have been fine for LENR.
YOU
Axil is great at ferreting out odd theories that might just be crazy enough to be true, though in the last half-dozen years I've been reading his ideas he's had quite a few sure-fire explanations for the reasons that didn't pan out. I applaud him for this, since he's chucking ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks, and this sort of creative thinking is what is needed. Sadly, he's also being diverted by Rossi's claims so he's working on false data. I'd like to convince him to reconsider his stance on Rossi's data, and that steam heat doesn't just disappear without trace. We should know how steam heat works by now, after all.
EGO
AXIL is a progresssist, open minded, high class cultured physicist and very creative he understands better than many physicists the roles of complexity, diversity, specificity of LENR. I am sorry that for you accepting- for analysis- Rossi's claim is kind of sin.
You do not have all the data re Rossi, why do you give your verdict before the Miami Court?
YOU
Piantelli's data is probably good, Brillouin's data is probably good, and maybe the Thermacore meltdown will be replicated using the correct version of Nickel. There is hope that we will find a real LENR+. Unfortunately, it looks like Rossi's version of it is vaporware and empty claims. The legal process seems a waste of money and I'm not too worried about it, since the data of the scientific side is pretty conclusive.
I would hope that IH are still convinced of the reality of LENR and will continue to fund research. I see IH as poker-players, not chess players, and they called Rossi's bluff.
EGO
Data of Piantelli were ignored by PdD researchers. It is a genius LENR, not LENR+ method it seems. Chances of industrialization? Brillouin data good- yes but good for what? Undecided yet? Can they intensify, scale up? Grow up?
The legal process is worse than waste of money. Has IH rejected the first ERV report that according to you is a scam and according to an IH expert can be debunked even by a half-brainer in 5 minutes? No it was not, they have not divorced from Rossi and his nonexistent technology, they have not paid Rossi's due money- honestly who is the fault? What is the conclusion, and whose conclusion re the scientific side? The dispute is not about the scientific but the technological side. No final conclusion yet, I think; one will be th verdict of the trial.
You hope that despite the disappointment IH should not lose its trust in LENR- it is generous funder. Do you like IH's strategy in the deal with Rossi from start to the Test and after the trial? I dislike it.
Your last sentence is bright, please allow me to use at the Mottoes. My total admiration, even if I do not "get" clearly the part re IH.
DAILY NEWS
1) Condensed Plasmoids – The Intermediate State of LENR
Lutz Jaitner www.condensed-plasmoids.com, Germany
E-mail: lutz.jaitner@t-online.de
http://condensed-plasmoids.com/iccf20_proceedings_jaitner.pdf
2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP
Steven N. Karels
February 4, 2017 at 7:06 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Without replying about specific performance of your current or previous ecat reactors, do you consider units operating under your design to have the performance function that the difficulty of control remains the same though out the fuel time of the reactor. Specifically:
a. Control is easier at the beginning of the fuel consumption and then more difficult as fuel is consumed?
b. The difficulty of control remains about constant over the life of the fuel?
c. The difficulty of control is the most at the beginning and end of the fuel life and relatively easier in the middle of the fuel consumption?
d. none of the above?
Andrea Rossi
February 4, 2017 at 7:34 AM
Steven N. Karels:
The difficulty of control is intrinsic of the matter, in every phase.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
3) NEW THREAD on the LENR Forum by Mr Self Sustain
Back to Basics: Hydrogenation as the KEY to the Rossi Effect
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4862-back-to-basics-hydrogenation-as-the-key-to-the-rossi-effect/?postID=47630#post47630
4) NEW THREAD on LENR Forum:
My first cold fusion experiment by Titanium 0007
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4861-my-first-cold-fusion-experiment/
" I see IH as poker-players, not chess players, and they called Rossi's bluff"
(Simon Derricutt, in Comments, here)
.
DAILY NOTES
a) ANSWERING TO AN OPINION AND MODE OF THINKING COMMENT BY SIMON DERRICUTT (II)
YOU
If you really want LENR to happen, following Rossi is the wrong way, and such following is thus counterproductive. Ed Storms is probably not completely right (since otherwise he'd have more experimental successes) but he's got logical and experimental reasons for saying what he does, and is likely largely right. It's a much better basis for progress. I'd hope Ed would agree here, and I'm sure he's still pondering the puzzle-pieces he has and trying different ideas.
EGO
Rossi does not describe his way completely, so it is difficult to know or state tha going on his way is fatal error. Can you enumerate in a justified mode a few better ways? OK, you speak about Ed Storms theory - fine, clearly and consistently described- free for any researcher to try it, Ed surely will help. Actuallly this was and is done, Ed has both admirers and followers (I belong to the first category but not to the second- this in principle because I have no research lab now.
I have friendly disagreed with his nano-cracks-hydroton idea from the start. It happened that a nice colleague Paul Maher has just today remembered me some of my first reactions to the Storms theory:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/some-reasons-why-lenr-nae-cannot-be.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/active-sites-and-nae.html
BTW it is not relevant if a theory is right or not- the value of them increases in the order: descriptive, prohibitive, predictive, productive (actionable)
Despite my disagreement I have sincerely wished that Ed's theory should prevail.
It would have been fine for LENR.
YOU
Axil is great at ferreting out odd theories that might just be crazy enough to be true, though in the last half-dozen years I've been reading his ideas he's had quite a few sure-fire explanations for the reasons that didn't pan out. I applaud him for this, since he's chucking ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks, and this sort of creative thinking is what is needed. Sadly, he's also being diverted by Rossi's claims so he's working on false data. I'd like to convince him to reconsider his stance on Rossi's data, and that steam heat doesn't just disappear without trace. We should know how steam heat works by now, after all.
EGO
AXIL is a progresssist, open minded, high class cultured physicist and very creative he understands better than many physicists the roles of complexity, diversity, specificity of LENR. I am sorry that for you accepting- for analysis- Rossi's claim is kind of sin.
You do not have all the data re Rossi, why do you give your verdict before the Miami Court?
YOU
Piantelli's data is probably good, Brillouin's data is probably good, and maybe the Thermacore meltdown will be replicated using the correct version of Nickel. There is hope that we will find a real LENR+. Unfortunately, it looks like Rossi's version of it is vaporware and empty claims. The legal process seems a waste of money and I'm not too worried about it, since the data of the scientific side is pretty conclusive.
I would hope that IH are still convinced of the reality of LENR and will continue to fund research. I see IH as poker-players, not chess players, and they called Rossi's bluff.
EGO
Data of Piantelli were ignored by PdD researchers. It is a genius LENR, not LENR+ method it seems. Chances of industrialization? Brillouin data good- yes but good for what? Undecided yet? Can they intensify, scale up? Grow up?
The legal process is worse than waste of money. Has IH rejected the first ERV report that according to you is a scam and according to an IH expert can be debunked even by a half-brainer in 5 minutes? No it was not, they have not divorced from Rossi and his nonexistent technology, they have not paid Rossi's due money- honestly who is the fault? What is the conclusion, and whose conclusion re the scientific side? The dispute is not about the scientific but the technological side. No final conclusion yet, I think; one will be th verdict of the trial.
You hope that despite the disappointment IH should not lose its trust in LENR- it is generous funder. Do you like IH's strategy in the deal with Rossi from start to the Test and after the trial? I dislike it.
Your last sentence is bright, please allow me to use at the Mottoes. My total admiration, even if I do not "get" clearly the part re IH.
DAILY NEWS
1) Condensed Plasmoids – The Intermediate State of LENR
Lutz Jaitner www.condensed-plasmoids.com, Germany
E-mail: lutz.jaitner@t-online.de
http://condensed-plasmoids.com/iccf20_proceedings_jaitner.pdf
2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP
Steven N. Karels
February 4, 2017 at 7:06 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Without replying about specific performance of your current or previous ecat reactors, do you consider units operating under your design to have the performance function that the difficulty of control remains the same though out the fuel time of the reactor. Specifically:
a. Control is easier at the beginning of the fuel consumption and then more difficult as fuel is consumed?
b. The difficulty of control remains about constant over the life of the fuel?
c. The difficulty of control is the most at the beginning and end of the fuel life and relatively easier in the middle of the fuel consumption?
d. none of the above?
Andrea Rossi
February 4, 2017 at 7:34 AM
Steven N. Karels:
The difficulty of control is intrinsic of the matter, in every phase.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
3) NEW THREAD on the LENR Forum by Mr Self Sustain
Back to Basics: Hydrogenation as the KEY to the Rossi Effect
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4862-back-to-basics-hydrogenation-as-the-key-to-the-rossi-effect/?postID=47630#post47630
4) NEW THREAD on LENR Forum:
My first cold fusion experiment by Titanium 0007
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4861-my-first-cold-fusion-experiment/
5) Planets and world-views
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/planets-and-world-views/
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4861-my-first-cold-fusion-experiment/6)
6) Darden Upbeat On Other LENR Avenues
http://ecat.org/2017/darden-upbeat-lenr-avenues/
7) COLDFUSIONCONNECTIONS by Doktor Bob
http://cfconnection.leapforwardlab.com/
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
What does energy mean? An interdisciplinary conversation Energy Research & Social Scienc
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617300142
Abstract
Single-discipline research may have limited effectiveness if it fails to take into account cogent knowledge from other fields, and especially if fails to communicate using terms that are meaningful to other disciplines and to policy makers. In the energy field, interdisciplinary research is needed to address the many complex and urgent socio-technical issues involved in achieving a more sustainable future. However, the terminology and specialised concepts that are integral to disciplines can create barriers to a comprehensive understanding of a shared field of inquiry. In energy sciences the common language of mathematics is used to help in understanding of the quantitative concepts of energy and its transformations, while the social sciences use both qualitative and quantitative means to describe society and social relationships, using the subtly different languages that are associated with different social theories. If these barriers to communication can be bridged, the benefits can be immense. I illustrate some of the misunderstandings that can occur in conversations between social and physical scientists with an imaginary dialogue. I conclude that, to work effectively across disciplines, social scientists will need to learn something of what energy means, and physical scientists will need to learn something of what energy means.
Quantum phase transition observed for the first time
Photon-blockade breakdown observed experimentally
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4861-my-first-cold-fusion-experiment/6)
6) Darden Upbeat On Other LENR Avenues
http://ecat.org/2017/darden-upbeat-lenr-avenues/
7) COLDFUSIONCONNECTIONS by Doktor Bob
http://cfconnection.leapforwardlab.com/
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
What does energy mean? An interdisciplinary conversation Energy Research & Social Scienc
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617300142
Abstract
Single-discipline research may have limited effectiveness if it fails to take into account cogent knowledge from other fields, and especially if fails to communicate using terms that are meaningful to other disciplines and to policy makers. In the energy field, interdisciplinary research is needed to address the many complex and urgent socio-technical issues involved in achieving a more sustainable future. However, the terminology and specialised concepts that are integral to disciplines can create barriers to a comprehensive understanding of a shared field of inquiry. In energy sciences the common language of mathematics is used to help in understanding of the quantitative concepts of energy and its transformations, while the social sciences use both qualitative and quantitative means to describe society and social relationships, using the subtly different languages that are associated with different social theories. If these barriers to communication can be bridged, the benefits can be immense. I illustrate some of the misunderstandings that can occur in conversations between social and physical scientists with an imaginary dialogue. I conclude that, to work effectively across disciplines, social scientists will need to learn something of what energy means, and physical scientists will need to learn something of what energy means.
(only the abstracts is free)
Quantum phase transition observed for the first time
Photon-blockade breakdown observed experimentally
Date:February 2, 2017
Source:Institute of Science and Technology Austria
Summary:
A group of scientists has reported the first experimental observation of a first-order phase transition in a dissipative quantum system. Phase transitions are something we often encounter in everyday life, for example when watching the freezing of water. But they also occur at the quantum mechanical level, where they are -- in spite of their importance for various fields of physics -- relatively unexplored
The political environment that exists today in LENR is full of deception, spin, and intense competition. Those of pure heart don't last long playing the LENR game unless they adapt to this political environment.
ReplyDeleteRossi has been through the process a few times and has made adjustments. His run in with the Mafia has thought him a lot.
We all must take this political situation into consideration when judging the validity of the "facts" provided by all concerned.
Over the years, I have come up with an understanding regarding Rossi as regards the judgement about what to trust and what not to trust in what he says.
As it natural in evaluating data, what Rossi says is filtered by by my understanding about how LENR works. The details that Rossi supplies is usually compatible with that understanding.
As an example, I am very suspicious about what Rossi says related to the radiation coming from his reactors because admitting to radiation production would be deleterious to his product development interests and unfettered distribution of his products to a wide customer base.
IMHO, LENR will produce a ton of radiation that will make LENR a product that is fit only for use by electrical utilities.
I also beleive that few in the LENR product development arena will admit to this "fact" for the same reason that Rossi doesn't.
This informed evaluation of systems also includes R. Mills who is far more disingenuous to the truth than Rossi is. If anyone needs to be purified, it is R. Mills.
The difference in the Storms model from the Holmlid model of hydrogen cluster formation is that with Storms, the hydrogen cluster stays confined inside the crack. In the Holmlid model, the hydrogen cluster eventually is released from the cavity or the bump and falls free and floats around. It eventually falls under the influence of gravity and lands onto a collection foil.
ReplyDeleteHolmlid has produced 171 research papers over 42 years on this subject vs. none for Storms. Who would you judge has it right?
http://www2.chem.gu.se/~holmlid/lpub.pdf
It's not that surprising that Holmlid is the only guy that can produce these hydrogen clusters. He has spent his long life doing it, or at least since 1975
If Storms had some humility, one would assume that Storms would look into what Holmlid has found out in his research with regards to hydrogen clustering.
.wired.com/2017/02/live-best-life-mathematics/ magazine
ReplyDeletePeter - you are right that a theory does not have to be correct, but it does need to be useful. That implies that a significant part of it is close to being right, allowing predictions of what you need to build in order to achieve a desired result.
ReplyDeleteThe current ideas floating around, from Axil amongst others, that LENR may produce radiation at some distance from the reactor, are worth thinking about and finding ways to detect them if they are there. This might be useful for Brian Ahern, who has dropped hints he will soon be trying to replicate the Thermacore meltdown. This is of course a very important development especially if he succeeds.
For Brillouin, they have had their system verified at SRI which gives me assurance that they have something that actually works. Given the timeline, it is also fairly certain that they are having problems scaling up. I hope they succeed in getting to the next stage. If the Q-pulse depends on the highest frequencies emitted, though, scaling-up will be a problem since a larger antenna will not radiate these well.
I have given my reason (Conservation of Energy) as to why I don't accept Rossi's data as being true. I find the argument from CoE to be conclusive, since it would take some very hard evidence to demonstrate that steam-heat energy can disappear with no evidence-trail - this goes against centuries of evidence. It is not a sin to consider CoE to be invalid, but it it is almost-certainly unwarranted and will lead you to a wrong conclusion. What the courts decide on the contractual questions is of little concern, except in so far as it delays progress.
We don't know Rossi's theory, and I've stated that the Doral data cannot be right on the grounds of CoE. There's really not much solid to argue about. Maybe the QuarkX will be successful, but we'll have to wait to find out. Based on the history so far, I won't be holding my breath.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
DeleteGeorges Lochak and Leonid Urutskoev proved that the LENR reaction is produced at a distance. All the uranium U238 salt desolved in the water that surrounded the foil was affected by the titanium foil blast, not just the titanium. IMHO, this is a result of muon catalyzed fission of U238.
The authors state:
"For us, it is important that the transformation can also take place outside the plasma channel."
In this exploding foil experiment, the authors wanted to show that electrical explosion can produce nuclear fission at a distance from the point of explosion as happened at the chernobyl #4 reactor.
Axil
ReplyDeleteSome discussion about radiation
testing on the Ecat in this article.
https://gizadeathstar.com/2014/10/dr-rossis-cold-fusion-e-cat-reactor-verified-mystery-remains/
Sam
you could find out that your frame may be benefited from the vitamins. however, the burden expected to be loss will substantially dependent on how a terrific deal weight you've got got placed on http://www.strongtesterone.com/alpha-x-boost/
ReplyDeleteGood information about different online video poker free sites will come from the official forums for the games. Use the fan websites from multiple games to try to find the online video poker free.
ReplyDelete