LENR Is Real

[GIThruster]

Yes, in fact, Kuhn's thesis is that we never begin a paradigm shift to a new "revolution" in science, until the old paradigm clearly demonstrates it is not answering our questions. It's where the current paradigm fails, that it becomes vulnerable to revision and replacement. So for example, so long as the QM continues to answer the bulk of our questions, no one in their right mind is going to invest thousands of hours study to give Mills' theory a fair hearing. That is just the way these things go. I'm not saying here I agree with Mills. I don't. But there is literally no way to tell if he's right, while the current paradigm seems to be answering our questions.

So the radicals, those with more courage than brains; are the only folks who brave these things. Widom-Larsen. Mills. Sonofusionkindaguys.

[Axil]

Yes, in fact, Kuhn's thesis is that we never begin a paradigm shift to a new "revolution" in science, until the old paradigm clearly demonstrates it is not answering our questions. It's where the current paradigm fails, that it becomes vulnerable to revision and replacement. So for example, so long as the QM continues to answer the bulk of our questions, no one in their right mind is going to invest thousands of hours study to give Mills' theory a fair hearing. That is just the way these things go. I'm not saying here I agree with Mills. I don't. But there is literally no way to tell if he's right, while the current paradigm seems to be answering our questions.

So the radicals, those with more courage than brains; are the only folks who brave these things. Widom-Larsen. Mills. Sonofusionkindaguys.

In my view, there is no new science involved in LENR. It’s a matter of engineering over science. The principles of LENR are partitioned into two distinct areas. One involves Nanoplasmonics, and the other involves the effects of magnetism on the nuclear processes.

Science has shown that Nanoplasmonics can concentrate optical energy by a factor of a billion. This is in the text books. The engineers have increased that by 10 orders of magnitude at a minimum. It is a matter of raw power rather than a new scientific paradigm.

This great concentration of power at the atomic level can be greater than found in neutron stars or black holes. Such strong magnetic fields can be found in heavy ion collisions and are studied there. No science can conceive that this level of power can be produced in cold dusty plasma.

I present an experiment that shows how Nanoplasmonics can produce fusion in a deuterium gas. It’s those spikey nanostructures that are the engineer’s method the enables great power enchantment, concentration, and focus. It’s in the Nanoplasmonics text books, no new science required.

In particular, Nanoplasmonic experiments can be performed that evoke nuclear reactions through the use of laser irradiation of metallic nanoparticles. The nanoparticles amplify, concentrate, focus and convert the photons from the lasers into magnetic energy as described in my previous posts, for example see this experiment:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf

Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water.

In this nanoplasmonic experiment, tritium can be increased or reduced or both simultaneously based on the parameters manipulated by the experimenter.

The metal used is sensitive to the degree of reflection of the laser light. More reflection produces more reactivity.

The duration of the laser pulse also is a factor. I believe that tritium production in Deuterium systems is a matter of timing related to an incomplete reaction cycle.

In a system that flickers magnetically, and/or does not sustain a state of Bose Einstein condensation will produce nuclear products. A good example of this is the cavitation system that Mark LeClair has developed.

The experimenter in the referenced paper remarks as follows:

“The efficiency of nuclear processes occurring during the course of heavy water electrolysis can depend on the character of roughness of the electrode surfaces on a nanometer scale, the “spikiness” parameters [17, 18] in particular. Indeed, it is precisely in the regions of the sharpest surface relief alterations that high electric field strengths making for the acceleration of electrons and high mechanical stresses depressing the activation barriers for electrochemical processes can both get realized. This parameter is out of control in most experiments with electrolysis of heavy water. On the contrary, laser ablation of metallic targets by sub-nanosecond laser pulses leads to formation of self-organized nanostructures (NS) on the target. The average size and density of NS depends on laser fluence on the target and target material. Typical view of such NS on Ti and Au target ablated in water with 10 ps laser pulses are presented in Fig. 1.”


The paper is reflecting the rationale I gave for the formation of static and dynamic nuclear active environments.

Clearly, uncontrolled creation of NAE is consistent with what happens in many uncontrolled LENR systems using electrolysis. By the way, to avoid chance in NAE formation, in recent Misuno reactor experiments, Mizuno preconditions his electrodes to form metal spikes to enable the static NAE in the nanoplasmonic LENR process.

The authors of this paper has their own theory of what is going on, my agreement will the author will vary on certain issues.

At the end of the day, uncontrolled random effects can increase and/or decrease the creation and/or destruction of tritium. Tritium is not an indicator of a hot fusion like reaction but instead shows that a marginal system is flickering in terms of sustaining a nanoplasmonic LENR reaction.

[Ivy Matt]

The other mode of education of problem solving is provided by real world experience in meeting project oriented requirements. In business, a customer puts out a request for quote (RFQ) that requires a potential vender to meet a specification describing the project.

The customer does not require the vender to follow any method in the way that the vender solves the conformance of the proposed solution to totally meeting the entirety of the specification.

Well, unfortunately the Dick Smith $1 million LENR prize expired without being claimed.

[GIThruster]

I present an experiment that shows how Nanoplasmonics can produce fusion in a deuterium gas. It’s those spikey nanostructures that are the engineer’s method the enables great power enchantment, concentration, and focus. It’s in the Nanoplasmonics text books, no new science required.

Well, we seem to have a difference in experience where I meet people all the time that say cold fusion is impossible, based on X, Y, Z understanding of plasma physics. Do the normal skeptics of LENR agree with your statement here or have they failed to look at the details? Seems to me all the folks with the PhD's in plasma physics seem to be of one accord so it's hard to believe what you're saying.

However, granting your point for argument's sake, that there is no new physics involved, this certainly would place you in a different category than those who are proposing a radical paradigm shift. You don't then need to wait for a revolution in science. You can just put the stuff through peer review. So here's the question: if there's no new science, why are we not seeing proposals like what you say you have in peer review journals? You do realize, this is how normal science gets done? If you don;'t have the credentials to so publish, you find someone who does. Without the sheep skin, no one is going to pay you any heed, for you have no professional reputation to risk by making crazy proposals. You need to use the peer review system.

[Axil]

I present an experiment that shows how Nanoplasmonics can produce fusion in a deuterium gas. It’s those spikey nanostructures that are the engineer’s method the enables great power enchantment, concentration, and focus. It’s in the Nanoplasmonics text books, no new science required.

Well, we seem to have a difference in experience where I meet people all the time that say cold fusion is impossible, based on X, Y, Z understanding of plasma physics. Do the normal skeptics of LENR agree with your statement here or have they failed to look at the details? Seems to me all the folks with the PhD's in plasma physics seem to be of one accord so it's hard to believe what you're saying.

However, granting your point for argument's sake, that there is no new physics involved, this certainly would place you in a different category than those who are proposing a radical paradigm shift. You don't then need to wait for a revolution in science. You can just put the stuff through peer review. So here's the question: if there's no new science, why are we not seeing proposals like what you say you have in peer review journals? You do realize, this is how normal science gets done? If you don;'t have the credentials to so publish, you find someone who does. Without the sheep skin, no one is going to pay you any heed, for you have no professional reputation to risk by making crazy proposals. You need to use the peer review system.

The vast majority of the LENR community does not understand how LENR works any more than anyone else does. This old guard of LENR is fixated on the hot fusion paradigm of deuterium and palladium which is a dead end from an engineering standpoint. The engineers who can make LENR work are not interested in science because they have a product to produce and intellectual property to protect. Science will not take Lenr seriously until they see a functional product. Building a failsafe consumer based reactor is a very hard job. Rossi also does not understand how his reactor works and cannot control his reactor so he will not produce a product anytime soon. The Nanoplasmonic science use gold instead of nickel which is not very good at power concentration. These people are mostly chemists and optical physicists who don’t understand how to experiment with nuclear reactions. It’s just a fubar situation.

Someone will come out of the dark with a working reactor someday soon. The patent office would then be forced to accept LENR as real and will protect its IP, and that is when science will start its work.

[GIThruster]

So you're saying you don't want to go with the open science approach because there's a lot of money to be made by protecting the IP involved?

[Axil]

So you're saying you don't want to go with the open science approach because there's a lot of money to be made by protecting the IP involved?

There has been enough demos done to convince business that LENR can be developed into a viable energy source. These financers and business interests now backing this development effort have constrained the people who are sympathetic to the more noble interests of science through the imposition of non disclosure agreements. And yet there still has been many clandestine attempts to acquire this engineering IP from parties who want to get into the business. So security has gotten extremely tight. Sadly IMHO, science won't get their hands on any of this engineering knowhow for many years to come... legally. After the first release of product, scientific researchers will just need to go it alone confident in knowing that it can be done.

[tomclarke]

That cannot be the case, or given the extraordinary potential of such technology there would be major industrial involvement.

There was some money from Japan 15 years ago or more, it has dried up. Now there are a number of "free energy" companies which look like scams or near scams and have little money.

So you're saying you don't want to go with the open science approach because there's a lot of money to be made by protecting the IP involved?

There has been enough demos done to convince business that LENR can be developed into a viable energy source. These financers and business interests now backing this development effort have constrained the people who are sympathetic to the more noble interests of science through the imposition of non disclosure agreements. And yet there still has been many clandestine attempts to acquire this engineering IP from parties who want to get into the business. So security has gotten extremely tight. Sadly IMHO, science won't get their hands on any of this engineering knowhow for many years to come... legally. After the first release of product, scientific researchers will just need to go it alone confident in knowing that it can be done.

[JoeP]

That cannot be the case, or given the extraordinary potential of such technology there would be major industrial involvement.

There was some money from Japan 15 years ago or more, it has dried up. Now there are a number of "free energy" companies which look like scams or near scams and have little money.

So you're saying you don't want to go with the open science approach because there's a lot of money to be made by protecting the IP involved?

There has been enough demos done to convince business that LENR can be developed into a viable energy source. These financers and business interests now backing this development effort have constrained the people who are sympathetic to the more noble interests of science through the imposition of non disclosure agreements. And yet there still has been many clandestine attempts to acquire this engineering IP from parties who want to get into the business. So security has gotten extremely tight. Sadly IMHO, science won't get their hands on any of this engineering knowhow for many years to come... legally. After the first release of product, scientific researchers will just need to go it alone confident in knowing that it can be done.

Right. There was a big infusion of money early on after CF hit the media, but nothing exploitable came out of it. I personally do think it warrants more research though as there have been enough empirical data showing small levels of excess energy and other phenomena that keeps it alive -- barely.

There is no large investment going into this now though. Rossi's IH deal and Mill's continuous investor sources are probably the largest from a private business or industry source, and these are very small...in fact, microscopic when viewed as part of energy sector research. Plus, one or the other of these, likely both, will turn out to be dead ends or, sadly, scams.

I guess the interest from some people at NASA is probably the biggest thing -- but that isn't private business.

[Asterix]

So those of you who believe that LENR is real, have you personally verified (conducted measurements yourself) on these working devices? Or are you relying on what you read on the web?

See, if you can believe that it's real beyond any sort measurement error, can you explain why the good folks at MFMP who are trying their damnedest to get some sort of credible results are still going at it.

So you who have constructed and tested your own Rossi-like device, please step forward. I have some questions for you.

[Axil]

So those of you who believe that LENR is real, have you personally verified (conducted measurements yourself) on these working devices? Or are you relying on what you read on the web?

See, if you can believe that it's real beyond any sort measurement error, can you explain why the good folks at MFMP who are trying their damnedest to get some sort of credible results are still going at it.

So you who have constructed and tested your own Rossi-like device, please step forward. I have some questions for you.

You have got me there. I have only watched the two live demos of the DGT R5 reactor shown at ICCF-18 conference as instrumented using national instruments test equipment. All 9 hours are not available but some of it can be viewed here

http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US

[ladajo]

Way to go again Axil!
Gold Star for a twofer with "Appeal to Authority"!

I also though highly of your earlier post claiming "demos".
A lot of snake oil was sold courtesy of "demos".
How you ken that oh internet wise one?

When one of these clowns comes forth with real documented and repeatable research vice magical physics and noise magnitude "clear positive results", then maybe the critical community will take notice and behave accordingly. Unfortunately scammers like Rossi & Co. create to much visceral hype that drowns out the real researchers who are trying to give it an honest effort. You know, like the open science MFMP "no secrets here" guys.

Grow up and learn to think for yourself you lemming.

[ladajo]

Oh, and one more thing...stop plagiarizing the internet and trying to pass it off as original thinking.
If you were a student of mine, you wouldn't be.

Lemming.

[Giorgio]

Oh, and one more thing...stop plagiarizing the internet and trying to pass it off as original thinking.
If you were a student of mine, you wouldn't be.

Lemming.

That gave me a good morning laugh. Thanks pal!

[tomclarke]

You have got me there. I have only watched the two live demos of the DGT R5 reactor shown at ICCF-18 conference as instrumented using national instruments test equipment. All 9 hours are not available but some of it can be viewed here

http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US

LOL.

So you have followed the DGT live demo saga, and read the report from the DGT Europe guy who replicated the experimental setup and obtained apparent Q=5 from a null device?

full report here: http://animpossibleinvention.files.word ... nglish.pdf

The issue was the flow meter that under variable flow conditions would misread flow, the correct flow conditions can then result in integrated volume from meter much higher than real volume. Chaotic steam production in the reactor can produce these conditions.

That is borderline between scam and mistake - given DGT have been working on this for quite some time.

However this same guy went public (some time after the demo) after not receiving satisfactory answers to his repeated requests to tighten up the protocol with an additional flow meter. And he says that he was concerned about this issue well BEFORE the demo went public, told DGT of his concerns, and they ignored him.

During the setup of the laboratory in Milan various improvements were introduced by the DE technicians
and scientists concerning the calorimetry measurement. In particular a method independent of the flow rate
measurement has been developed based on the heating of a large amount of water contained in a large tank
and circulated through a pump in a closed circuit. This measure is independent of the measurement of the
flow through the coil and it would remove any doubt about the heat measurement. DGT has not allowed DE3
to use such measurement in none of the tests of their technology. As a further improvement we added a
second flowmeter upstream of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter during
the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added flowmeter was readily removed by the
DGT technicians forbidding us to make any verification.

That tips it well into scam territory.

It also shows how easily apparently good demos can generate spurious results. MFMP deserve great credit for sticking to their mission and investigating every experimental anomaly until they have got bullet-proof results. Of course, all the experimental positives they have found so far turn out to be illusory. How many of the LENR "positives" are obtained from people without either the skill or the patience to cross-validate the way MFMP are doing?