D Tibbets wrote:I watched the video, or at least most of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8Yu-Ju ... re=related
they talk about picking up neutron reactions in CR39 plastic. This seems strange that they would stick with this detection methods exclusively.
Earlier claims of high energy protons (excess of a few thousand eV) has been proposed as a fusion product. As this proton does not penetrate far, imersing a plastic sheet near the electrode seems a reasonable method of detecting these protons, if the control for other causes of pits (like chloride ions in the electrolyte solution. But in this video, they seem to be discussing high energy neutron detections. CR39is a perfectly suitable detection method, if properly controlled. But neutrons are highly penatrating (they travel far). So alternate methods of detection, such a bubbly detectors, He3 of Boron 11 detectors or scintillation detectors all should be viable. Where is the data from these measuring modalities. Also, if they are interested in the energy of the neutrons, there is neutron differential counters. Why stick with CR39 measurements alone? Adding other measuring modalities would greatly improve on possible experimental measuring errors.
Also, the scales seem odd. If they are detecting tritium production at a few thousand per second,how does this compare with multiple watts of heating power at times. You would expect power output of microwatts of power at best. Unless this mentioned reaction was only one branch out of millions occurring during the anomalous heat production. It stretches credibility.
Things just don't fit together. Extend this to Rossi claims of nearly megawatts of power, without demonstrating gross measurements of appropriate isotopes is a huge hole in his claimed performance.
I can also mention that these LENR results discussed in the video involves deuterium. Hydrogen , as you report, is a control. This is a vast difference from Rossi's claim of hydrogen nickel fusion.
Dan Tibbets
Except now National Instruments, the premier instrument and control software maker in the world, is enthusiastically supporting LENR.Just to agree with this: the key comment is "things just don't fit together".
The LENR evidence consists of a whole load of apparent experimental anomalies. But when examined carefully they do not form a coherent picture of any conceivable nuclear reaction (including slow neutron generation and capture). Nor are they coherent with themselves.
It is like magic - the human mind is very good at seeing expected patterns where none exist.
Um, I think this implies nothing, except that a company that produces a product is enthusiastic about promoting research/ end users that might require their product. Either as a profit per unit sold, or as a promotion to improve their products penetration into the market.Crawdaddy wrote:Except now National Instruments, the premier instrument and control software maker in the world, is enthusiastically supporting LENR.Just to agree with this: the key comment is "things just don't fit together".
The LENR evidence consists of a whole load of apparent experimental anomalies. But when examined carefully they do not form a coherent picture of any conceivable nuclear reaction (including slow neutron generation and capture). Nor are they coherent with themselves.
It is like magic - the human mind is very good at seeing expected patterns where none exist.
The people that design the instruments and write the software that enables accurate data acquisition across all fields of science don't think the data is an anomaly. Don't you think they might be a better judge of data quality than you?
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/nation ... y-of-texas
My small institute has spent more than 100k on NI products in the last quarter alone. How much money do you think they are making on "cold fusion" related sales?Um, I think this implies nothing, except that a company that produces a product is enthusiastic about promoting research/ end users that might require their product. Either as a profit per unit sold, or as a promotion to improve their products penetration into the market.
"the people?". Which people? No, I don't.Crawdaddy wrote:Except now National Instruments, the premier instrument and control software maker in the world, is enthusiastically supporting LENR.Just to agree with this: the key comment is "things just don't fit together".
The LENR evidence consists of a whole load of apparent experimental anomalies. But when examined carefully they do not form a coherent picture of any conceivable nuclear reaction (including slow neutron generation and capture). Nor are they coherent with themselves.
It is like magic - the human mind is very good at seeing expected patterns where none exist.
The people that design the instruments and write the software that enables accurate data acquisition across all fields of science don't think the data is an anomaly. Don't you think they might be a better judge of data quality than you?
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/nation ... y-of-texas
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brus ... ncezzi.pdfCrawdaddy wrote: If NI is promoting cold fusion and the effect is shown to be an experimental artifact, the damage done to their credibility would cost them many times what they could ever hope to make on cold fusion related product sales before the error is discovered.
I don't think your rationalization is very logical.
Mark Saker
August 1st, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. It is great news about you attending Zurich on September 8-9 for the conference entitled ‘Energy Change with E-Cat Technology’. Can you advise whether any working e-cats will be presented?
2. If the answer is yes, will it be the domestic low termperature e-cat, or high temperature e-cat?
Many Many Thanks
Mark
Andrea Rossi
August 1st, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Dear Mark Saker:
No, that will not be a demo, but a convention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
By this reasoning, unless NI is promoting the activities of your University, then that implies that they do not think your activities are useful or have any potential. You are reading too much into it.Crawdaddy wrote:My small institute has spent more than 100k on NI products in the last quarter alone. How much money do you think they are making on "cold fusion" related sales?Um, I think this implies nothing, except that a company that produces a product is enthusiastic about promoting research/ end users that might require their product. Either as a profit per unit sold, or as a promotion to improve their products penetration into the market.
Why haven't they invited my university to their "big physics meeting" given they we spend more on NI products than all cold fusion researchers combined?
If NI is promoting cold fusion and the effect is shown to be an experimental artifact, the damage done to their credibility would cost them many times what they could ever hope to make on cold fusion related product sales before the error is discovered.
I don't think your rationalization is very logical.
And anyway we don't know of any investment, other than a few (one?) NI person making noises which will no doubt get NI publicity & instrumentation contracts from LENR people.D Tibbets wrote:By this reasoning, unless NI is promoting the activities of your University, then that implies that they do not think your activities are useful or have any potential. You are reading too much into it.Crawdaddy wrote:My small institute has spent more than 100k on NI products in the last quarter alone. How much money do you think they are making on "cold fusion" related sales?Um, I think this implies nothing, except that a company that produces a product is enthusiastic about promoting research/ end users that might require their product. Either as a profit per unit sold, or as a promotion to improve their products penetration into the market.
Why haven't they invited my university to their "big physics meeting" given they we spend more on NI products than all cold fusion researchers combined?
If NI is promoting cold fusion and the effect is shown to be an experimental artifact, the damage done to their credibility would cost them many times what they could ever hope to make on cold fusion related product sales before the error is discovered.
I don't think your rationalization is very logical.
As for reputation, I am much less concerned than you . So long as they do not embroil themselves in the actual experimental claims and conclusions, and stand off- giving technical assistance and consulting only, their exposure to ridicule is minimal. Also, I'm not convinced that the market for instrumentation within the LENR community is trivial.
Essentially, I feel that NI investment in the LENR arena is neutral. It neither implies ground breaking participation or anticipation concerning LENR, not does it imply any negative perspective.
Also, I suspect many aspects of LENR labeling of efforts are unfortunate. There are many efforts that are trying to further the understanding of electrons in metals, hydrides, crystal and metallurgical effects, and all sorts of little understood quantum effects. The suggestion that some of these effects cause or explain atypical fusion, when the data for the claims are so unreliable and inconsistent on several fronts is .
I take the view of the review panel from ~ 2004. While no reliable results have (had) demonstrated fusion,confounding findings and sometimes entertaining claims have resulted. Someday the back an forth may even result in something significant. But, to claim we are there is unsupported. There are some very interesting things going on, and deserve to be pursued for their own merits.
But, the "E-CAT" is a whole different can of Worms... Even LENR enthusiasts are critial of this.
D. Tibbets
