LENR Is Real

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby parallel » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:40 pm

For the trolls who are weak in the head, I repeat what I wrote earlier.
The pathoskeptics won't believe any replication experiment however well done, so we will have to wait for commercial sales to convince them.
The commercial 1 MW plant has now been running well for eight months. The results are due Feb/Mar 2016.

JoeP
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby JoeP » Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:14 am

parallel wrote:For the trolls who are weak in the head, I repeat what I wrote earlier.
The pathoskeptics won't believe any replication experiment however well done, so we will have to wait for commercial sales to convince them.
The commercial 1 MW plant has now been running well for eight months. The results are due Feb/Mar 2016.


Actually I think almost everyone here would believe an experiment that was well done and accurate. Every demo that Rossi has done so far is full of issues. Including the very last one, which would have been interesting, at least from the ash isotope analysis, if he didn't have his hands on the materials before and after the test.

Smells like crap.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:04 am

ScottL wrote:
parallel wrote:The radiation level near the 1 MW plant is continuously measured and is reported not to be above background level.


That would lead us to 1 of 2 conclusions:
1. There's a ton of shielding although none of the pics of the 1 MW plant have ever looked shielded.
or
2. Neutron production is not happening, therefore no radiation.
So my question would be, which is it?
Not an either/or. Other possible explanations exist.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:12 am

KitemanSA wrote:
ScottL wrote:
parallel wrote:The radiation level near the 1 MW plant is continuously measured and is reported not to be above background level.


That would lead us to 1 of 2 conclusions:
1. There's a ton of shielding although none of the pics of the 1 MW plant have ever looked shielded.
or
2. Neutron production is not happening, therefore no radiation.
So my question would be, which is it?
Not an either/or. Other possible explanations exist.


“Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression on Atomic Decay Rates”.

At: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1638v1.pdf

LENR produces a large scale separation between positive and negative vacuum energy zones in the vacuum that increases decay rates.

I reference nanoplasmonic based experiments here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission without neutrons.

See references:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 1029,d.dmQ

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby paperburn1 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:46 am

Image
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:01 am

Paradigm Change Kuhn Cycle, paradigm change


Image

Also called a paradigm shift, Paradigm change is the fifth and final step in the Kuhn Cycle. Earlier steps have created the new model of understanding (the new paradigm). In the Paradigm Change step the new paradigm is taught to newcomers to the field, as well as to those already in it. When the new paradigm becomes the generally accepted guide to one's work, the step is complete. The field is now back to the Normal Science step and a Kuhn Cycle is complete.



Why Paradigm Change is usually slow

People and systems resist change. They change only when forced to or when the change offers a strong advantage. If a person or system is biased toward its present paradigm, then a new paradigm is seen as inferior, even though it may be better. This bias can run so deep that two paradigms are incommensurate. They are incomparable because each side uses their own paradigm's rules to judge the other paradigm. People talk past each other. Each side can "prove" their paradigm is better.

Writing in his chapter on The Resolution of Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn states that: (pages 147 to 148)

If there were but one set of scientific problems, one world within which to work on them, and one set of standards for their solution, paradigm competition might be settled more or less routinely by some process like counting the number of problems solved by each.

But in fact these conditions are never met. The proponents of competing paradigms are always at least slightly at cross-purposes. Neither side will grant all the non-empirical assumptions that the other needs in order to make its case. Like Proust and Berthollet arguing about the composition of chemical compounds, they are bound partly to talk through each other.

Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing his science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be solved by proofs.

We have already seen several reasons why the proponents of competing paradigms must fail to make complete contact with each other's viewpoints. Collectively these reasons have been described as the incommensurability of the pre and post revolutionary Normal Science traditions....

Actually the incommensurate paradigms problem applies mostly to the Model Revolution step. But if incommensurability is acute the delay it causes spills out into the Paradigm Change step, slowing it down considerably.

The larger the difference between two paradigms, the slower the Model Revolution and Paradigm Change steps usually are.


An example of long Paradigm Change

In Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, John Sterman documented how long it took Paradigm Change to come to the British merchant marine: (page 19)

Prior to the 1600s, scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) was the greatest killer of seafarers—more than battle deaths, storms, accidents, and all others combined.

1601: Lancaster conducts a controlled experiment during an East India Company voyage. The crew on one ship received 3 tsp. of lemon juice daily; the crew on the other ships did not. Results: At the Cape of Good Hope 110 out of 278 sailors had died, most from scurvy. The crew receiving the lemon juice treatment remained largely healthy.

1747: Dr. James Lind conducts a controlled experiment in which scurvy patients were treated with a variety of elixirs. Those receiving citrus were cured in a few days. None of the other treatments worked.

1795: The British Royal Navy begins using citrus on a regular basis. Scurvy wiped out. [Just in the navy]

1865: The British Board of Trade mandates citrus use. Scurvy wiped out in the merchant marine.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ScottL » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:48 am

KitemanSA wrote:
ScottL wrote:
parallel wrote:The radiation level near the 1 MW plant is continuously measured and is reported not to be above background level.


That would lead us to 1 of 2 conclusions:
1. There's a ton of shielding although none of the pics of the 1 MW plant have ever looked shielded.
or
2. Neutron production is not happening, therefore no radiation.
So my question would be, which is it?
Not an either/or. Other possible explanations exist.


Ok, or it doesn't work at all. Did I cover them all now? :P

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:03 pm

Thanks to Zephir for providing a link to a newly approved patent to the United States Navy for an LENR process. The inventor is David Kidwell, and the assignee is “The United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy (Washington, DC)”

A link to the patent can be found here.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... I.&OS=TTL/

Claim 1 provides an overview of the patented method:

“A method for measuring excess enthalpy, comprising: placing a test material in a pressure vessel; heating the pressure vessel to a given temperature; evacuating the pressure vessel; introducing deuterium, hydrogen, or both into the pressure vessel; measuring the enthalpy generated during pressurization; again evacuating the pressure vessel; and measuring the enthalpy used during depressurization.”


In furtherr claims, the test materials are described as palladium, platinum or any combination thereof with a size of , and “oxide support” is described as a zeolite or alumina.

This patent is for what seems to be a very basic process, as deuterium/hydrogen, combined with platinum/palladium have been used in LENR experiments since the time of Pons and Fleischmann, and the USPTO granting this patent might signal something of a vindication for those who have been experimenting with these materials over the years, and reporting excess heat. However, this is not an electrolysis system as Pons and Fleischmann used, but sounds similar to the work of George Miley at Lenuco, who has reported excess heat in a pressurized vessel with nickel nanoparticles .

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:09 am

paperburn1 wrote:Silly picture saying
Physics
Doesn't Work
That Way


Yeah, and we know all the physics we will EVER know, right?

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby paperburn1 » Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:24 pm

paperburn1 wrote:
Silly picture saying
Physics
Doesn't Work
That Way


Yeah, and we know all the physics we will EVER know, right?

Well , would you feel better if I stated "Current physics doesn't work that way"
And just to clarifyMy position on the matter as I have stated before. I do not discount LENR as a possibility and believe there is enough research for further investigation of the matter. As a potential energy source for the future I would rather place my hope on fusion as I think LENR is not a potential solution at best with our current understanding of the field.

My comments instead refer to my Rossi bashing because he is yet to even come across with a consistent explanation of how things work. It seems obvious to the casual observer that Rossi is running some sort of scam which in the long run is hurting the whole field. With his secret customers, secret processes, and his supposed ties to the military as well as lack of independent verification I cannot place any faith in Rossi. Also the attempts of other people to justify his work by loosely connecting some random paper in an effort to justify LENR our at best counterproductive. Normally I try not to comment on other people's suppositions but sometimes, late at night, in my dimly lit room the troll comes out. So my lighthearted jest against Rossi and his supporters offended you I really don't know what to say but "read my tagline"
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:51 am

The SAFIRE project (Stellar Atmospheric Function In Regulation Experiment) is exploring the “electric sun” hypothesis. Recently Montgomery Childs reported that SAFIRE Project is finding nuclear products and massive energy spikes with a device designed to simulate the electric sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFsTttzh0oA

Like many experiments, Safire may have recreated a long dead and forgotten LENR mechanism based on plasma condensation.

Safire has discovered a layer of dark mode hydrogen that accumulates near the outer surface of the hydrogen plasma ball in the SAFIRE experiment. This layer absorbs energy until it reaches a limit where it erupts. The input power is only 1800 watts of DC power and the power produced during an eruption is between 2,000,000 to a maximum of 10,000,000 watts. There is also signs of a material with a nucleon count of 3 being produced in the experiment.

A theory that could explain the development of the dark layer is the “Dark mode” polariton soliton LENR theory. The polariton “Black Hole” absorbs energy until it reaches a limit whereupon it explodes in a bosenova. This is a cluster reaction behavior that is also seen in the experiments of Holmlid, defkalion and even Rossi among other LENR experiments.

This theory can be verified by the appearance of K-mesons and its decay products such as muons and electrons. A particle detector that follows Holmlid’s design might work well in the Safire experiment it show that a tachyon based nuclear process is happening in SAFIRE.

There have been reports that solar flares produce changes in nuclear decay rates here on earth.

This may be do to the separation of positive and negative vacuum energy between the interior of the sun and its surroundings.

A experimental suggestion for the Safire experiment is to check nuclear decay rates before, during, and after a 10 megawatt outbursts to see if the vacuum is being distorted by the cause of the outburst.

This SAFIRE experiment looks a lot like the plasmatron, an overunity power device produced in the 1980’s using hydrogen based plasma.

Experimenters in overunity could duplicate the SAFIRE and/or the plasmatron experiment and test for emissions of sub-atomic particles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-94c1Q6Ms

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:58 pm

What a novel thought; bombarding something with charged particles might affect its decay rate.

Who would've ever considered that? Just plain crazy talk.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:26 am

http://coldfusionnow.org/brillouin-ener ... s-capitol/

MAJOR UNITED STATES ENERGY BREAKTHROUGH ANNOUNCED AT U.S. CAPITOL


Brillouin Energy Corp. presented its groundbreaking thermal energy technology on Capitol Hill last week. Attendees included Members of Congress, congressional aides, federal government officials, industry representatives, and citizens’ groups concerned with the federal government’s progress on developing clean energy solutions.

“It was great to see that much interest in DC for a true safe green nuclear power technology,” commented Brillouin’s President and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Godes.

Attendees were able to learn about Brillouin’s prototype LENR reactors and hear from a number of speakers, including Dr. Michael McKubre of Stanford Research International (SRI). Brillouin and SRI have entered into a technology research agreement under which SRI is engaged in calibration testing and independent analysis of the Brillouin technology.

As Dr. McKubre noted in a report distributed at the event, “it is very clear that something on the order of four times (4x) and potentially more gain in power (and therefore ultimately energy) was achieved at an impressive and industrially significant operating temperature of around 640°C. To my knowledge this had not been achieved before in the LENR field. The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.” . . .

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ScottL » Sat Nov 14, 2015 1:19 am

Vaporware. Show us the readily available reactors if it works!

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby paperburn1 » Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:11 am

I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 5 guests