LENR Is Real

[paperburn1]

I am with Ivy Matt, lets talk about REAL advances / tests in LENR.
To much time is being wasted on Rossi.

[ladajo]

My point exactly. Enough with the Rossiclown.

[parallel]

MFMP New Generation Celani Wire Test Shows Possible >10% Excess Heat?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/01/mf ... cess-heat/

Greenyer reports spikes of 17% and a sustained output of 15% for a period last night.

The trolls are big on suggestions but never add any actual content.

[ladajo]

That said, I felt it important to point out that the Parallel vaunted Rossiclown Patent is rejected (again) as of January 7th, 2016 and has never been issued.

Control Number: 12736193

http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

If you want a really fun read, check out the reply letter sent to Rossiclown. The guy tears him up.

You can download the pdf from the "Image File Wrapper Tab". It is top of the list, "Non-Final Rejection" dated 01-11-2016.
If you are really bored, you can go through all the documents and see the Rossiclown pleading his case with silliness. They are giving him another chance to rebut, he has 3 months. Note that the Final Rejection was made in March, 2015, but Rossiclown appealed and offered "evidence".

I really am curious as to where that Milan 1MW went. Parallel, care to enlighten us?
Can't wait for the next Rossipunt given the conclusion of the "1 Year Test".

Rossi is full of shit.

[ladajo]

MFMP New Generation Celani Wire Test Shows Possible >10% Excess Heat?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/01/mf ... cess-heat/

Greenyer reports spikes of 17% and a sustained output of 15% for a period last night.

The trolls are big on suggestions but never add any actual content.

Why don't we go to the source instead of leaping to conclusions?

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en ... experiment

#20 Robert Greenyer 2016-02-02 11:31
@All

There were spikes over 17% last night and more recently a sustained period over 15%

The excess *estimation* has an 8-hour time constant lag - but the heat in cell and resistance are more instant metrics and strange things are going on there.

As Franco notes - this will need exhaustive post test experiment testing and deeper study of the calorimeter, so we, of course, will be very cautious about making judgements.

[JoeP]

That said, I felt it important to point out that the Parallel vaunted Rossiclown Patent is rejected (again) as of January 7th, 2016 and has never been issued.

Control Number: 12736193

http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

If you want a really fun read, check out the reply letter sent to Rossiclown. The guy tears him up.

You can download the pdf from the "Image File Wrapper Tab". It is top of the list, "Non-Final Rejection" dated 01-11-2016.
If you are really bored, you can go through all the documents and see the Rossiclown pleading his case with silliness. They are giving him another chance to rebut, he has 3 months. Note that the Final Rejection was made in March, 2015, but Rossiclown appealed and offered "evidence".

I really am curious as to where that Milan 1MW went. Parallel, care to enlighten us?
Can't wait for the next Rossipunt given the conclusion of the "1 Year Test".

Rossi is full of shit.

Interesting read; the examiner makes all the points made here in this thread pretty much as to the fatal flaws. Also tears apart Lugano report and Levi in the earlier rejection letter filed under that same Image File Wrapper Tab. Again, the comments and objections are all in line with what I have read here, especially in alignment to tomclarke's posts. This must be an older patent application that attempted to patent the reactor reaction. Rossi did get a patent but it was solely for a chemical powered thermal transfer system.

[ladajo]

This one was initially filed September 2010, application accepted October 2010.

[Giorgio]

I guess this rejection will give him a good excuse to postpone the delivery of the 204 patents that he is preparing...

[parallel]

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project added 2 new photos.
2 hrs · Brno, Czech Republic ·

Important test of wires in MFC supports the data so far...

At around hour 52:40 in the experiment, the power was raised by 10W on the suggestion of Francesco Celani. The event and subsequent response by the MFC can be seen in this GIF animation.

https://goo.gl/JyLya0

Francesco Celani's comment about the result is also attached.

What Francesco is basically saying is that after adding 10W, the supposed 9+W 'excess' was instantaneously deducted as one would expect... showing that the calculations underpinning the MFC were potentially valid. He then points to the excess then recovering, lagging by the time constant of the cell, to even a higher level than before the power input increase at times, therefore indicating that the measurement is worth considering.

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischm ... alProject/

[ladajo]

But of note, remains the point that the calorimeter has not been baselined. Until this is addressed, the readings taken must be considered suspect.

See Parallel, this is real science, in the open even. This is not what the Rossiclown is doing.

[Giorgio]

But of note, remains the point that the calorimeter has not been baselined. Until this is addressed, the readings taken must be considered suspect.

Additionally the whole body of the calorimeter should have been thermally isolated from the room to remove another source of error. That's beacuse once the calorimeter is in thermal equilibrium with the ambient of test room, when they increase the input power they will have a double variation, one from the heat being extracted from the water and one from the new thermal equilibrium condition of the non isolated parts of the calorimeter with the test room. As one can see in the GIF, the temperatures of test room, reactor body and flange have all quite big variation during the test period.
These variation are too big NOT to be accounted when you are searching for such small overunity power differences.

As you said, without a previous calibration of the calorimeter at "BOTH input powers of the test with a null experiment", than the data that they are collecting are not meaningful to support (or deny) the underling hypothesis.

[parallel]

La Tribune
See pages 10 & 11
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index. ... ibune-pdf/
"IF NUCLEAR ENERGY BECOMES GREEN

Emerging LENR technology

low temperature industrial research gaining credibility.
the grail of clean abundant energy"

The trolls think they know better.
Should have some hard news next month.

[ScottL]

La Tribune
See pages 10 & 11
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index. ... ibune-pdf/
"IF NUCLEAR ENERGY BECOMES GREEN

Emerging LENR technology

low temperature industrial research gaining credibility.
the grail of clean abundant energy"

The trolls think they know better.
Should have some hard news next month.

Sensationalist Journalism, full of hope, lacking in understanding or information. Why are you posting this article? If you need a "feel good" article to reinforce your beliefs, you've got more problems than the individuals on this board. Also, I might add, name calling isn't going to persuade anyone here of your views, not to mention it is against the board rules. If you aren't here to persuade anyone and you're not here to openly discuss the topic including it's critiques in a meaningful way, then I'm not sure why you post here at all.

[Giorgio]

La Tribune
See pages 10 & 11
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index. ... ibune-pdf/
"IF NUCLEAR ENERGY BECOMES GREEN

Emerging LENR technology

low temperature industrial research gaining credibility.
the grail of clean abundant energy"

The trolls think they know better.
Should have some hard news next month.

Let me tell you the background to that article.

Erick Haehnsen, the french author, posted one month ago a list of question to e-cat world to "Michel Vandenberghe" (actual CEO of the so called LENR City, a guy with a long history of talk and no results).
As a result of these questions they inked together the article that you are now using to make the statement that "low temperature industrial research gaining credibility"! Ever heard the say: " never trust the wine seller that tries to sell his own wine"?

It took me 30 seconds of google to find all of the above, you could try sometimes to verify your sources before making a fool of yourself.
The only hard news you will have next month will be (hopefully for you) a return to reality.

[ladajo]

Parallel! I must admit that I was excited as always (really!!!) to see that you had posted!

I see that you continue to ignore real questions. That choice is not really helping your case.

Should have some hard news next month.

How many times have you said this now in previous "testing" over the last few years?

On the article you linked:
a.) Did you actually read it? While I applaud the attempt to discuss LENR in the broader context, I am not sure full due diligence was performed.
b.) Some dubious statements; such as discussing that Fleischmann and Pons has been replicated across multiple sites around the world.
c.) Another: Citing "E-Cat World" as a main reference for LENR and also using it an authority in the article.
d.) And another: Citing the Rossiclown 1MW as installed and testing in an industrial plant (This is pure Rossisaid, and has no other corroboration.)
e.) And another: Leonardo Corp. raising "$62 million". Really? and So what if they did? (Albeit false, raising funds does not imply any validity).
f.) And Another: Claiming the Nickle/H2 "sponge" effect is core to LENR. When there is no real proof of any Nickle transmutation, and why no-one ever talks about how the hyper density of absorbed H2 could then be the source of a sustained chemical reaction vice generating a mythical (up to this point) nuclear heat (with no radiation, a known physical impossibility).
g.) The obvious lack of understanding of the topic (again inferring lack of due diligence) when the editor notes that Gamma is "highly radioactive".
h.) Clearly dubious statement: The E-Cat was (first ever no less) independently tested by researchers from University of Bologna, University of Uppsala, and the Royal Stockholm Institute. It is well established that this event was neither independent, nor conducted under the official auspices of any of the institutions. And additionally, it was very poorly managed and performed, thus incurring significant doubts into internal and external validity.
i.) Completely ridiculous statement: Rossiclown is developing a wide range of units from 10KW Home to 1MW industrial (which is then noted again to be installed and running at an industrial test site). Clearly derived from Rossisaids and possibly color glossy brochures with no substance or real proof. Ie. Show me where someone other than Rossiclown has completely independent of Rossi confirmed and provided proof of said installation and test? This article offers no citation for these claims.
j.) Other quotes and statements that go unchallenged and unfact checked.

Overall, this article, while at face value appears to want to advance the support argument of LENR in general, uses unverified statements, and other hearsay, or proven falsehoods to make the point. A non-critical reader would think it informative, and not seek confirmation or apply a doubt filter. They would also overlook clear logical falsehoods that attempt to string together non-supporting points as evidence of validity.

Well done Parallel! More fun for us! Please come back soon, as I really do have fun reading your posts and responding.
It makes me happy!

Rossi is full of shit.