LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Diskutera fysik, kemi, biologi, samt direkta tillämpningar såsom teknik och medicin.
Användarvisningsbild
Merko
Inlägg: 3359
Blev medlem: tor 25 okt 2007, 20:06
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av Merko » tor 09 jan 2014, 19:33

Problemet med LENR är att det saknas reproducerbara belägg för att det alls finns något att hitta.

Det finns ingen teoretisk bas som har någon form av empiriska belägg och de teorier som finns är fantasifulla och fulla av än så länge oförklarade märkligheter.

LENR-anhängarna stödjer sig på så kallade "anomalier", vilket är enstaka "märkliga" händelser som inträffat vid sinsemellan mycket olika försöksuppställningar. Det kan handla om att man tycker sig ha observerat oväntat stor energiutveckling eller har detekterat oväntade ämnen. Men några sådana reaktioner har aldrig kunnat reproduceras och det finns inget konsensus om hur man ska ställa upp ett experiment för att få sådana "anomalier" att inträffa oftare. Anhängarna vill gärna lägga ihop mängden av sådana händelser till något slags helhet som ska visa att det finns något att hitta inom LENR, men så fungerar inte vetenskap. Det hjälper inte med tiotusen dåliga bevis, det behövs ett bra bevis som kan reproduceras och undersökas av andra forskare.

LENR är i sina bästa stunder inte pseudovetenskap eftersom vissa utövare är seriösa, men det liknar exempelvis parapsykologin genom sin brist på reproducerbara belägg, utövarnas tilltro till anekdoter om anomalier, och den höga andelen stollar, kufar och direkta bluffmakare som är aktiva inom ämnet.

AlainCo
Inlägg: 7
Blev medlem: fre 10 jan 2014, 16:39

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av AlainCo » fre 10 jan 2014, 17:21

Sorry to answer in English, I am French. I imagine you read English better than Google Translation can write Swedish. :roll:

Many physicists think LENR was debunked, but it was never, the only 4 critics were abandoned by their author, because they could not defend them facing the facts.
Only critics are obsolete or theory.

The book, Excess heat by Charles Beaudette describe technically the controversy, the experiments, the critics, the debunking of the critics, the mentalities ... a book to read, the book to read.
published as PDF for ICCF9, with permission of the author. You can find paper copy in libraries.

You will see that even if it took few years, and needed experience in calorimetry, it was reproduced in few years, by different protocols. Experiment are cross checked by those varied protocols. Fleischmann experiment was exactly reproduced by Longchampt in CEA, proving his competence (Fleischmann was a top electro-chemist in 1989).
You can see his competence compared to Lewis, who convinced planet in few hours with strong words, but who was caught simply wrong.
Lewis said his amateur cell was not mixed well, and he accused the same to Fleischmann. but Fleischmann shown that his well designed dewar cell was naturally stirred by bubbles because of it's shape. few days after in a conference that the planet ignored, and that should have ridiculed Lewis.

Fleischman and longchampt are Dewar isoperibolic calorimeter with open cell, well chosen Pd, and careful design.
McKubre used closed isotherm cell and flow calorimetry. He was the first to make the hypothesis that H/Pd loading should be high, above 0.9. His work was so clean that Lewis and Garwin when inspecting his lab, found nothing to critics. They since stayed silents.

Some experiments used Seebeck calorimeter. some separated gas to avoid recombination....

All those cross-check confirm that there is no problem of recombination, constant shift, stirring... It is a normal many time confirmed and replicated phenomenons.
Scientific method have given a clear answer, yet not so easy as physicist are used in free-space experiment. the lack of reliability is usual for people experienced in chemistry or semiconductors.
The error was simply to imagine that physicist could reproduce the work of experience chemist in few days or weeks.

3 month is the minimum to observe F&P effect in a F&P cell... It tooks 1 year to obtain solid results for chemist, and two years for physicist with experience in calorimetry. Note that calorimetry was abandonned in the 1950s by physicists... this can explain the disdain and the experimental failure. Beaudette explain that well.

Moreover some parameters were not mastered, as it is common in surface chemistry, semiconductors, and many non theoretical science.

Beside those doubtless calorimetry, there was reproduced evidence of tritium generation, and He4 correlated with heat, at a level coherent with D+D->He4 (unlike all others nuclear ashes which are much below). Result of tritium could not be artifact, and Huizenga was honest enough to admit it was not artifacts, and assumed it was general fraud.

None of the only 4 papers criticizing Fleischmann calorimetry could sustain peer-review, and they are all abandoned in free space, but not retracted.

It looks strange, but it seems that critics judge they don't need to retract they critics...
All the other critics are simply based on theory, or on the assumption that it should produce ash according to hot fusion theory.

There is no solid confirmed theory and in science that is not a problem if the evidence are solid. Rejecting evidence for lack of theory is dogmatism.
The book of Beaudette (chapter 11-12) treat that problem of epistemology.

There are consensus on the required conditions to trigger LENR :
- loading above 0.9 D per Pd
- minimum current density
- avoiding some contaminant, and researching some
- some surface crystallography state
you can find latest finding of SRI/ENEA/Navy NRL in ICCF18
you can also read the student book for cold fusion

which describe the requirements.
but best is to collaborate with ENEA/SRI/NRL who cross check their works.

I really advise people who want to have an educated opinion to read the book of Beaudette.

Once you are standing on solid facts, what is happening in corporate world, the positions of Elforsk, of national instruments, of DoE, of Nasa GRC, of US navy, of Toyota and Mitsubishi, of China, is simply logic, even a bit coward.

Hope this helps, and good reading. :smile2:
--
AlainCo

Användarvisningsbild
Merko
Inlägg: 3359
Blev medlem: tor 25 okt 2007, 20:06
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av Merko » lör 11 jan 2014, 00:28

AlainCo: Your long response contains many dubious statements, but to not bore readers I'll focus on two central points.

First, your description of what you say is the consensus method is very incomplete to say the least, and it seems that you are unaware of most of the actual research that is done in this field. Here is a pedagogic run-down of the plethora of experimental set-ups. Note that most of the illustrated 20 basic methods have further important variants, such as completely changing the materials used etc. It is not clear to me which of these set-ups that you are referring to. And it is even less clear why you believe it is the consensus. Which researchers have published experiments based on the 'consensus' method, if I may ask?

Second, your final link intended to show how LENR is taken seriously in the 'corporate world' is relying on such obvious fraud as that of Andrea Rossi and Defkalion. I'm sorry, but if you are not able to say 'no!' even to the most obvious fraud, it is clear that you will not be able to discern what might potentially be actual science.

AlainCo
Inlägg: 7
Blev medlem: fre 10 jan 2014, 16:39

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av AlainCo » lör 11 jan 2014, 13:53

I don't understand your critic on the method.
in fact the few experiments cited in Beaudette book, are enough, especially if one observe that despite the harsh critics, no critics have survived.
there is a plethora of experiments setup because the phenomenon is rich, and since all is doubted there are need to observe on many angles. since performance and not satisfying , there are also need to test variants (other metal, gas, conditions)... just basic research and engineering. I don't see the problem. as said in Beaudette book, one common fallacies of nuclear physicist is to imagine, unlike chemist and other real-world scientist, that experiments are perfectly controlled. Chemist know that if you replicate exactly, you replicate artifacts perfectly. Note

One should really read the book, which unlike me develop the arguments, the pathologies, in hundreds of pages with detailed history.

Your second arguments seems not to face the facts.
Of course most of business and politicians follow the consensus, like they did if for subprime crisis, or Wegener theory... no news.

You claim that Rossi have a controversial history, but Elforsk have no controversial history, nor Aldo Proia, nor Levi, nor Bo Hoistad, nor the 5 other italian and swedish physicists, and they support him after testing themselves.
For Defkalion the profile of Defkalion CTO, of Xanthoulis, of lucan gamberale is not at all controversial.
the profile of tanzella, of McKubre (who was working on hydrogen detector for nuclear power plant, using palladium, when he decided to reproduce cold fusion)...

Rossi is the only controversial guy (I eliminate of course the recursive argument that LENR is scam science because it is supported by scammer, with the evidence that they are all scammer because they all support scam science , LENR - this reasoning is very common in mainstream and on Wikipedia to eliminate data sources as fringe).
Now for Rossi, what is the situation.
If you were knowing his real history, from il corrierer della siera&al, from his biography, and from the nasty biography you cite only, you will know that he was the son of an industrial family working in waste management, educated in real-life technology.
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.ph ... 1#post5819

He was recognized as a hero of oil by media, but his company collapsed after reversal of a regulation. There was tons of wastes and untreated product that remained when his company was shutdown. some accused him of waste traffic, which is the basic of your theory, supported by Krivit, who is known in the community to be supporting Widom-Larsen theory, to hate Rossi and Defkalion, an to support US efforts.
Few details ruin that theory. the patent was sold for big money, and is used today. After many trial Rossi was cleared of any charge relative to waste traffic. Only charge was on trying to escape money from the bankruptcy and it is not clear...
Recent article on that subject show a local problem to clean the zone, with visible increase of cost of cleaning linked to bad organization or... or...
Note also that while he was under pursuit by justice, he was so far believed as a cook, that an US company employed him, and they tried to develop TEG for DoD... some explain that it was a scam, but there is a credible hypothesis that he simply have a prototype of TEG, based on what people try to do today withTEG (not much progress), and that like today the efforts to industrialize the prototype though many methods, many providers, all failed, like today...
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/rossi ... 1106044877

of course you can ignore the positive hypothesis, but it will only be your biased theory, like it is the one of Krivit and other conspiracy theorist.


the fact is that :
- no evidence of scam, despite many accusations
- evidence the Petroldragon patent was real and worth it
- justice cleared Rossi of any crime, except trying to escape bankruptcy
- evidence Rossi was recognized as a competent engineer by US companies
- evidence DoD found no fraud in their collaboration on TEG



The most cautious position is to say it is an open question, until better evidences.

finally we don't care if Rossi is a bandit or not, since Elforsk test by Levi&al have proven it was real.
The pathetic critics of pomp& eriksson, like the critics of Lewis, should be treated as what they are : shameful!
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

I really think you will gain to read the book of Beaudette
- to see the state of the research in 1996, the various experiments
- to see that critics are refuted and void
- to increase epistomological logic, and understand where are the fallacies around nuclear physicist denial
- to make parallel with today's behavior of nuclear physicists

this book, beside cold fusion, is really a good book on epistemology.

Användarvisningsbild
Anders
Inlägg: 11010
Blev medlem: tor 02 dec 2004, 15:54
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av Anders » lör 11 jan 2014, 18:14

AlainCo skrev:I don't understand your critic on the method.
So what! 20 odd years of research and not one, not a single functioning machine that can be scrutinized or sold to the public. No research reports in the world can trump a functioning machine. Show me a functioning LENR machine that I can buy, and I will buy one, don't worry, I have the money, and besides, it will generate energy so it will pay for itself after some time.
Maskirovka är en rysk militärteknisk term för metoder, verktyg, utrustning, med mera, som skall vilseleda en fiende i händelse av en konfliktsituation

AlainCo
Inlägg: 7
Blev medlem: fre 10 jan 2014, 16:39

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av AlainCo » sön 12 jan 2014, 00:09

You mix two problems.
The LENR was proven in few years, and it was an error to imagine that nuclear physicist could do good calorimetry in few weeks when the top calorimetry experts of that time took few years. in 1992, Heinz Gerischer, formerly skeptical, admitted there was serious evidences (he was the mentor in calorimetry of the only physicist who replicated LENR in 1996 according to Beaudette). it took one year for McKubre to do his replication with isotherm closed cells and flow calorimetry, confirming the work of Fleischmann. Same for others chemist. twice for the calorimetry-experienced physicists. Never for calorimetry-inexperienced physicists. When the first good replications were confirmed, all was closed and buried.

The problem for the handful of outspoken nuclear physicist who cannot admit that if theory and evidence disagree, theory is to be changed, who reject evidence that are incoherent with their theory, who ignore that in real science like chemistry, replication is not exact thus reliability may be difficult to obtain, and finally that one failure to respect the mainstream theory, confirmed, is enough to rule out the mainstream theory (Popper argument).

LENR is proven, and all is public. if you don't agree read the book of Beaudettes and his references, ask ed Storms, read his review of cold fusion in naturwissenschaften, read JJAP, journal of electroanalythical chemistry, and others...

that the mainstream science is not aware of that is a question addressed in Beaudette's book, but that is their problem.

Now the second problem is the time it tooks to transform anomalous heat in electrolysis context, into cheap energy.
There was many experiments which could have given the solution, but the conformism even of LENR scientist following Fleischmann, and the terror against dissenters slowed communication and adoption of dry&powder protocols (NASA GRC dry gas permeation by Fralick in 1989 get rediscovered after 2000, and replicated). NiH experiences by Miley were subject of laughing in ICCF...
It took time, and only when a maverick inventor, Rossi, decided to work the Edison's way (maybe also his experience with TEG and hot petrochemistry helped him), was a solution found.
Then knowing that it was possible, based on NiH, just reading the pile of articles and reports was enough for others innovators to find a different way...

It is like when Wright Brothers get at last believed despite scientist denial in US, that all people working on planes started to innovate frenetically and compete...


now there is a report by Levi&al. don't deny it. It is public, it could be criticized, and it have only been criticized by a pathetic duo who clearly di not read well the report, is clearly insulting, and call for conspiracy theories, doubting on well know instruments, instead of raising real facts... a shame as Bo Hoistad told in ibTimes interview.

Anyway, commercial companies are not scientists, they make demo sometime, they allow stakeholders to make their due diligence with NDA, they leak some reports if it match their strategy... normally a corp only publish data when the product is interesting the public (ready for market, for investing, need support). Hopefully innovators ego allows some to communicate when not needed.

now what we know is that LENR is real, and that the 3 reactors produce some heat (x2 to x6), but we are not sure it is stable on the long-term, reliable, and if the performance are better than 2-6...
what we only knows is that some investors named did not deny, that no serious corp have warned public of a scam or fraud, nor dropped partnership (except a very fringe German license holder, refunded), that some real-world offices, partners, exist from Vancouver to China. If it was a scam, the fund wasted in fake offices, partners, devices, would be irrational...

Of course it takes time, like a real corporate project...
If like an academic you have nothing to lose if you are wrong, you can still deny reality, but if you need to act according to the reality like a businessman, betting against LENR energy is very risky. Betting on a delay, on problems, on crash of some LENR startup, is not absurd, but the end of the story is known... LENR energy will rule in a decade. question is 2014 or 2017 for the mainstream emergence...

In a way the behavior of Elforsk, as research consortium of the utilities companies, seems shy but courageous... I suspect they want to warn their clients about that revolution, avoiding being suppressed by the mindguards of the groupthink. At least they protect their credibility in the future, when they will have to say "we warned you", to desperate utilities who refused to hear.

Användarvisningsbild
Merko
Inlägg: 3359
Blev medlem: tor 25 okt 2007, 20:06
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av Merko » ons 15 jan 2014, 23:09

AlainCo: I think your rants are getting enough detached from reality that no response is necessary. At any rate, I don't think any further communication between us is fruitful. Clearly, there is absolutely nothing that could make you change your mind, and I find your judgement completely lacking so I'm not even interested in investigating those points that you bring up that I'm not familiar with (I'm familiar with a lot of it and it is clear to me that you could not be more wrong).

Användarvisningsbild
skunkjobb
Inlägg: 934
Blev medlem: sön 12 sep 2010, 16:01

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av skunkjobb » ons 15 jan 2014, 23:49

AlainCo, är det så att du inte kan svenska över huvud taget och inte heller hade fått början på den här tråden översatt utan du sökte bara i alla möjliga fora efter något där det stod LENR? I så fall missar du en hel del och det känns mer som att du är ute efter en blogg än en diskussion.

AlainCo
Inlägg: 7
Blev medlem: fre 10 jan 2014, 16:39

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av AlainCo » ons 15 jan 2014, 23:56

Ok, I think so, as long as you don't read the data.
It is very common, don't feel uncommon.

manifesto
Inlägg: 10620
Blev medlem: ons 24 dec 2008, 22:10
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av manifesto » sön 26 jan 2014, 15:20

Någon här som har koll på Blacklight Power? De menar att LENR är en hittills okänd kemisk reaktion (inte nukleär), och att de har resultat i storleksordningen 10 megawatt.
War is peace.

Thomas P
Inlägg: 9214
Blev medlem: sön 27 aug 2006, 19:01

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av Thomas P » sön 26 jan 2014, 16:30

manifesto skrev:Någon här som har koll på Blacklight Power? De menar att LENR är en hittills okänd kemisk reaktion (inte nukleär), och att de har resultat i storleksordningen 10 megawatt.
Vanlig kallfusion är osannolik, men den startar och slutar i alla fall med kända ämnen och om man kan hitta ett sätt att få en reaktion tillstånd så skulle den generera energi.

Blacklights "hydrino" är ren magi, eller kanske snarare "crackpot science". Något sådant ämne kan inte finnas enligt känd fysik, och om det existerade borde allt väte redan kollapsat till det. Och om de mot alla lagar lyckas skapa en massa sådan där hydrino, vad gör de med den? Riskera vi någon sorts ice-nine scenario?

manifesto
Inlägg: 10620
Blev medlem: ons 24 dec 2008, 22:10
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av manifesto » sön 26 jan 2014, 17:12

Thomas P skrev:
manifesto skrev:Någon här som har koll på Blacklight Power? De menar att LENR är en hittills okänd kemisk reaktion (inte nukleär), och att de har resultat i storleksordningen 10 megawatt.
Vanlig kallfusion är osannolik, men den startar och slutar i alla fall med kända ämnen och om man kan hitta ett sätt att få en reaktion tillstånd så skulle den generera energi.

Blacklights "hydrino" är ren magi, eller kanske snarare "crackpot science". Något sådant ämne kan inte finnas enligt känd fysik, och om det existerade borde allt väte redan kollapsat till det. Och om de mot alla lagar lyckas skapa en massa sådan där hydrino, vad gör de med den? Riskera vi någon sorts ice-nine scenario?
Dom har tydligen en demonstration av kommersiell manick nu på tisdag den 28:e januari. Vidare påstår de att de har 6 st oberoende verifieringar av teknologin, samt 60 miljoner $ investerat kapital så här långt. Big scam?
Senast redigerad av 1 manifesto, redigerad totalt 0 gånger.
War is peace.

Användarvisningsbild
rikard
Inlägg: 2750
Blev medlem: sön 04 jun 2006, 19:55

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av rikard » sön 26 jan 2014, 17:20

Thomas P skrev:Blacklights "hydrino" är ren magi, eller kanske snarare "crackpot science".
Exakt. Välkänt sådant.

manifesto
Inlägg: 10620
Blev medlem: ons 24 dec 2008, 22:10
Ort: Stockholm

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av manifesto » mån 27 jan 2014, 11:38

rikard skrev:
Thomas P skrev:Blacklights "hydrino" är ren magi, eller kanske snarare "crackpot science".
Exakt. Välkänt sådant.
Du menar att det är välkänt att det är en bluff?
War is peace.

Användarvisningsbild
rikard
Inlägg: 2750
Blev medlem: sön 04 jun 2006, 19:55

Re: LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)

Inlägg av rikard » mån 27 jan 2014, 21:27

manifesto skrev:
rikard skrev:
Thomas P skrev:Blacklights "hydrino" är ren magi, eller kanske snarare "crackpot science".
Exakt. Välkänt sådant.
Du menar att det är välkänt att det är en bluff?
Ja, eller snarare välkänt som crackpot science. Han tror säkert på det själv...

Skriv svar