tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post3726563274184210108..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: JAN 27, 2017 LENR'S ALLIANCE WITH METALLIC HYDROGENGeorgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-87437844634965695682017-01-28T15:45:02.681-08:002017-01-28T15:45:02.681-08:00Peter - at least I'm making you think about wh...Peter - at least I'm making you think about why. That's important, since it's too easy to forget the reasons Fleischmann started this in the first place. <br /><br />I accept that you will continue to believe that Rossi has the answers even though if any of the previous versions of E-Cat had performed as claimed then there would be people who would pay him astronomical sums to be able to manufacture them, even knowing that he was bringing out a better version soon. Being the first to market would bring a lot of profits. Still, all those earlier (and proved working) versions have been abandoned, including the one used for the Doral test since the 20W QuarkX is the current thrust of research. Does this really make sense to you, and is it the way you yourself would handle an invention that would free the world from polluting power sources? <br /><br />Pweet has written some good comments pointing out the illogicalities, so I shouldn't need to repeat them. <br /><br />Given the P+F meltdown, subsequent scientific effort has been aimed at getting a reliable reaction with small quantities. Judging by the Thermacore meltdown there may be a critical mass and we don't know how big it is, for either Pd/D or Ni/H. To say therefore that the results are weak is disingenuous - they are trying to find out why it happens at all. Once we have a reliable and repeatable experiment and method, then we can get to larger quantities and produce more heat. As with Brillouin, a small but reliable reaction is worth a lot. Dead researchers may be dramatic, but I'd rather they stayed alive and worked for longer. Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-30341626785931156092017-01-28T09:45:01.275-08:002017-01-28T09:45:01.275-08:00They did learn something from Pons & Fleischma...They did learn something from Pons & Fleischmann, did they not?<br /><br />Oh, blimey.tyyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296030725193206870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-8044770194490956042017-01-28T08:44:31.091-08:002017-01-28T08:44:31.091-08:00/Science/2017/0127/Solved-Cracking-the-code-of-met.../Science/2017/0127/Solved-Cracking-the-code-of-metallic-hydrogensam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-41560302559812038452017-01-28T06:22:46.049-08:002017-01-28T06:22:46.049-08:00Dear Simon,
Your message is inspiring even because...Dear Simon,<br />Your message is inspiring even because I disagree with what seems to be your main point I am cpmbing rejection of Ed's theory with my ideas re how Rossi works.<br /><br />But for weak results the system as such is the fault Ed is a great experimentr.<br />It is rue only in a small paprt I would reject nanocracks-Hydroton slow release evn with no LENR+ existingor imagined.<br />I will try to tell more in my Editorial today<br />For weak results the ssytem as such is the fault not Ed who is great experimenter.<br /> peterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-51761111179473513252017-01-28T05:12:12.777-08:002017-01-28T05:12:12.777-08:00Axil said
In a post here on Ego Out, on Friday Au...Axil said<br /><br />In a post here on Ego Out, on Friday August 15, 2014 titled “Fundamental Causation Mechanisms of LENR” I predicted that LENR involved the production of mesons catalyzed though the application of nano-magnetism to the nucleus. Brian Ahern deserves honorable mention here<br /><br />What do you say about this Brian.sam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-34849858120194014692017-01-28T03:11:07.143-08:002017-01-28T03:11:07.143-08:00Peter - your arguments with Ed Storms seem to be p...Peter - your arguments with Ed Storms seem to be predicated on proving him wrong by pointing at Rossi's successes with Nickel. Since you believe that Rossi is telling the truth, that follows.<br /><br />Since I regard Rossi's measurements as seriously flawed, but that Martin Fleischmann's data was good, I take a different approach. What should be remembered is that JM's Palladium alloy was developed by them as a proprietary material to filter Hydrogen. You can filter Hydrogen using a film of normal Palladium (it's the normal way of purifying it) but with the absorption of Hydrogen in the material the Palladium lattice breaks down and cracks, so the (expensive) filter would have a short working life. JM wanted an alloy that didn't break down and lasted a lot longer before failure, and so developed their alloy to do precisely this. Fleischmann chose this alloy for its ability to not crack, and this seems to me to be a key point. What is special about the cracks that undoubtedly form in this alloy? The method of producing this alloy is, as far as I know, still proprietary, although I would expect that the actual atomic percentages in in are known. <br /><br />I would expect that those cracks are small and will generally self-heal. That is after all what JM would have needed for their Hydrogen-filtering systems. The self-healing process would require that the cracks remain narrow and bellow a critical size. <br /><br />Ed Storms is thus correct to focus on the physical conditions of the cracks, since unless the correct alloy is used there is no gain in Pd/D. What particular atoms (other than the major lattice of the Pd) pin the cracks and stop them from spreading? Do we have a triangular crack from the surface or (as I'd suspect) a lenticular crack under the surface that will thus apply great pressure? In such a lenticular crack, we can envision the Deuterium under even greater pressure as it approaches the limits of the crack.<br /><br />It is useful to go back to the beginning and consider why Fleischmann chose the material he did. Given that AFAIK Ed storms has not yet produced a reliably-repeatable working LENR system, it's likely that some of his ideas are not correct, but I'm certain he's on the right path and that there is a good chance he'll find the correct answers. It would certainly be foolish to reject his ideas.<br /><br />Believing Rossi's data, though, and trying to draw conclusions from it, seems to be the wrong path. Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-23633356399296379292017-01-28T02:25:58.808-08:002017-01-28T02:25:58.808-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.KetoFitastichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13046323450241178218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-41420237444149754872017-01-27T18:08:37.312-08:002017-01-27T18:08:37.312-08:00-stanford-energy-club-nuclear-energy-community-kic...-stanford-energy-club-nuclear-energy-community-kickoff-lenr-panel MFMP sam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-15857335391679530532017-01-27T14:22:06.874-08:002017-01-27T14:22:06.874-08:00Ed Storms theory is fine as far as it goes but it ...Ed Storms theory is fine as far as it goes but it is not taken far enough. Ed’s whole cloth invention of the Hydroton is not compatible with the current description of metallic hydrogen that Holmlid lays claim to. The Holmlid description has not been adopted by Ed Storms, for if Ed did understand what Holmlid is saying, the entire nature of Ed’s ideas about Cold Fusion would change. First of all, cold fusion has nothing to do with fusion. The cold fusion process involves the decay of nuclear matter into subatomic particles, the meson. <br /><br />In a post here on Ego Out, on Friday August 15, 2014 titled “Fundamental Causation Mechanisms of LENR” I predicted that LENR involved the production of mesons catalyzed though the application of nano-magnetism to the nucleus. Brian Ahern deserves honorable mention here.<br /><br />At first, caught up in the “fusion delusion”, even Holmlid believed that fusion was happening in his experiments. But in his latest paper, the culmination of years of research into metallic hydrogen, Holmlid recognizes the energies involved in the LENR reaction are far more powerful than fusion is capable of generating. It is through a deep understanding of the structure of metallic hydrogen that progress in LENR theory will spring from<br /><br />If Ed Storms would take Holmlid’s description of metallic hydrogen to heart, he would also understand what Holmlid is saying. More importantly, Ed would stand on the threshold of revising the entire concept of what modern science is based upon. This includes the proper understanding of superconductivity, the flaws in general relativity and its description of gravity, the true nature of the fundamental forces of nature, the failures in supersymmetry, what dark energy and dark matter really are, and how matter and the forces that affect matter are derived from the inherent nature of space time as a fundamental description of the universe. If Ed, the Carl Sagan of LENR, its great communicator, could get his head around these concepts, he would move progress immeasurably in both LENR and in science in general.<br />Axilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190120527431077518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-31372483240741987442017-01-27T13:57:57.837-08:002017-01-27T13:57:57.837-08:00Hi RG
I was wondering also if they were scrambling...Hi RG<br />I was wondering also if they were scrambling.<br />But if that is the case at least they are doing something.<br />It is good to know there are people like you keeping tabs on things so credit is given<br />to the ones who deserve it.<br /><br />Regards<br />Samsam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-64834954885703564372017-01-27T12:37:38.984-08:002017-01-27T12:37:38.984-08:00Ed Storms is spot on with his note that 'metal...Ed Storms is spot on with his note that 'metallic hydrogen' has been very well mentioned in cold fusion work for a very long time. That the recent news is laying claim on the creation of 'metallic hydrogen' for the first time is quite preposterous. It smacks of 'gaslighting' and 'fake news' to use the present day vernacular. One has to assume that the physics community is scrambling to lay claim on the territory so well defined and described in countless cold fusion experiments to say nothing of theory. I also tend to agree with Ed that Axil's contributions in the theoretical vein are useful but he suffers from the usual theorist pomposity. Really only experimentalists with a long track record are worth listening to.RGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13317393699961815171noreply@blogger.com