LENR ("Cold Fusion")

[Phorce]

Thanks, I'll consider what you are saying here. Let me make it clear that the statements I made were meant in general terms and were not directed at your posts per se.

[Phorce]

Do you find it correct that the goal of the device is to produce more power than it takes to run it?

If yes, then you must agree that:
The only way to prove that the device produces more power than it consumes would be to measure the battery/line in power activating the device
at the point it enters the device and then
at the point the power exits the device.

Let me be clear, again: I'm not talking to you about how the machine works. That is not my concern.
I am saying that regardless of how the machine does it, there is only one way to prove it:

If it takes 1.0000000 unit(s) of energy to activate the device (INPUT)
and it releases 1.0000001 unit(s) of energy out the other side (OUTPUT)
then OUTPUT > INPUT

This would prove the device works.

You are bringing up irrelevant factors about patents and naysayers and it makes no sense. [...]

OK, I've considered your response. You are basically correct about the testing of this device. However after some thought I stand by what I've said. The people involved in the E-Cat invention (and other devices), as far as I can determine, have chosen deliberatly to take a course away from waiting for "science to prove the invention" towards one of "let industry prove the invention". I think anyone who is familiar with Electric Universe science or articles by Wal Thornhill should be aware of what a real mess parts of the scientific establishment are in. Those parts have become ossified and dogmatic to the point where anything that violates their holy scientific theories is rarely given a fair chance at being proved - even if your test were to be passed. I explain more about this on my site.

Far from my observations being "irrelevant" I think I have deduced the reasoning behind the behaviour of these inventors ... in fact this is backed up by the descriptions of their approach in their PDF's. In a perfect world your test would be carried out and the invention would pass or fail. However, we are dealing with human behaviour as well as political and ideological influences that have become very serious. Science, and inventors, do not exist in a vacuum. They have to respond to the real world as they see fit ! In my view to dismiss them out of hand simply because "there are no independent tests" is unfair and fails to take into account the complicated situation that these kind of inventions exist in.

[phyllotaxis]

Thank you for articulating your position further--

I am far, far, far from dismissing these inventions and their competitors.
In fact, I am 100% in support of them, and the explorers working to make them real.
Concurrently I argue that no gatekeeper on earth can falsify proven evidence that a product works.

If an inventor has a product that works, that inventor will have a huge waiting market- naysayers or no.

To claim that an inventor must first appease a hostile and insulated academic/corporate bureaucracy before proving to the public that the product even works is logically dissonant-- it is backwards and incorrect.

The people involved [....] have chosen deliberatly to take a course away from waiting for "science to prove the invention" towards one of "let industry prove the invention".

This is a non-sequitur: how can you you distinguish between "science" and "industry" as though they are mutually exclusive? Is industry going to adopt anything without scientific proof that it does what it purports to do? The implication is baffling.
To then follow that statement with a continued apologia for these inventors that refuse to prove the device works continues to read as a confusing, unfocused argument against simply proving that the device works.

It either does or it doesn't.
There is no moral gray here.
It either works, or it doesn't.

I think anyone who is familiar with Electric Universe science or articles by Wal Thornhill should be aware of what a real mess parts of the scientific establishment are in. Those parts have become ossified and dogmatic to the point where anything that violates their holy scientific theories is rarely given a fair chance at being proved - even if your test were to be passed.

As I pointed out above, it is very confusing to read this, considering your advocation against providing anyone proof that the device works in the first place.

I re-submit the original argument-- I do not believe your views are relevant to the question asked:
Does it work?

The more I read, the less I am inclined to believe that it currently does.
It may well be a promising technology that just isn't ready for prime-time yet- in which case I hope development continues-- but the smoke, steam, and mirrors dodging around the question "Does it work" currently combine to make this group seem very evasive and untrustworthy. If it's "almost there" then say so-- don't call a cake cooked when it's half-baked and try to serve it to a table--and then tell them they can only look at it from across the room.

Kindest regards--

[Phorce]

Thank you for articulating your position further--

I am far, far, far from dismissing these inventions and their competitors.

Well I feel, in fact, that you are. I feel you are refusing to or can't see alternative ways of looking at this.

In fact, I am 100% in support of them, and the explorers working to make them real.
Concurrently I argue that no gatekeeper on earth can falsify proven evidence that a product works.

But I wonder if you are in fact acting like a gatekeeper. You don't seem to be able to admit that there is a new and unique world situation happening here regarding the re-emergence of Cold Fusion after a long and ardous struggle.

If an inventor has a product that works, that inventor will have a huge waiting market- naysayers or no.

Yes.

To claim that an inventor must first appease a hostile and insulated academic/corporate bureaucracy before proving to the public that the product even works is logically dissonant-- it is backwards and incorrect.

Nothing is being appeased here. In military terminology it would be called a flanking manouver bypassing the scientific establishment (but without the messy attacking part). Neither do the public need to be convinced of anything. It is companies running expensive boilers - which the E-Cat basically is - that will become interested in buying this cheap to run boiler. They could not give a rats ass if this is Cold Fusion or whatever. They just want to spend less on heating buildings or whatever else they do with boilers. There is no "logical dissonance" here or backwards thinking. I am being entirely logical by taking into account the breakdown of the academic procedures for acceptance of these breakthroughs. And it has become entirely academic. Mention "cold fusion" and academics are running around with their hair on fire. Meanwhile IN THE REAL WORLD a company is selling a new cheap to run boiler, everyone is happy and are hugely relieved that we don't have to get bogged down in academic arguments.

Of course this is not the way it should be. Science / academia SHOULD test first and prove it works (as you say), but this simply is not the way it is at the moment. I'm am interested in seeing a sane science returned to academia that CAN be trusted to do their job.

The people involved [....] have chosen deliberatly to take a course away from waiting for "science to prove the invention" towards one of "let industry prove the invention".

This is a non-sequitur: how can you you distinguish between "science" and "industry" as though they are mutually exclusive? Is industry going to adopt anything without scientific proof that it does what it purports to do? The implication is baffling.

Again you seem to be blind to my main point. Which, as I'll repeat again, is this. Science has become so blocked by dogma - ossified - that it can't be trusted to fairly test these kind of technologies. That's on the whole. There have been some institutions that have done fair independent tests. For example there have been positive laboratory results for the "Super Imploder" magnetic array water treatment from Southern Cross University, Lismore Australia. These are the kind of tests that companies and distributers will look at. I'M talking about the overall approach of the MAINSTREAM PRIESTHOOD OF SCIENCE that refuse to alter core discoveries of Science. They ignore those kind of positive test results as significant or even real.

In fact this has all happened once before with quantum physics. The electronics industry had no qualms about adopting it's controversial discoveries. Those controversial discoveries are all at work in our mobile phones and other devices.

To then follow that statement with a continued apologia for these inventors that refuse to prove the device works continues to read as a confusing, unfocused argument against simply proving that the device works.

I'm not apologising for anyone. If Rossi turns out to be fraud then that's his problem (I happen not to think that he is). I'm simply interested in meaningfull analysis of the CONTEXT of these events. Confusing, unfocussed ? Not at all. In fact I'm advocating for proper proving of this device - just not through the usual channels. Why use the usual channels if they don't work ?

It either does or it doesn't.
There is no moral gray here.
It either works, or it doesn't.

Of course. Yes, it either works or it does'nt. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get the official (mainstream, or whaever) answer any time time soon. The E-Cat guys are working in ten year plans. The first ten (yes 10) years is set aside for PROVING the device works through sales and resulting savings for companies.

I think anyone who is familiar with Electric Universe science or articles by Wal Thornhill should be aware of what a real mess parts of the scientific establishment are in. Those parts have become ossified and dogmatic to the point where anything that violates their holy scientific theories is rarely given a fair chance at being proved - even if your test were to be passed.

As I pointed out above, it is very confusing to read this, considering your advocation against providing anyone proof that the device works in the first place.

This is not what I said at all. Proof will just be provided over the long term through other channels. The "usual" channels have been blocked by vested interests.

I re-submit the original argument-- I do not believe your views are relevant to the question asked:
Does it work?

OK, well I stand by my views as being relevant. Take them or leave them.

The more I read, the less I am inclined to believe that it currently does.

OK, fair enough.

It may well be a promising technology that just isn't ready for prime-time yet- in which case I hope development continues

Deary me. Don't you get it ? Development is over. It's already been developed. It has gone into production and will be sold through distributers. This prime time ... NOW.

-- but the smoke, steam, and mirrors dodging around the question "Does it work" currently combine to make this group seem very evasive and untrustworthy. If it's "almost there" then say so-- don't call a cake cooked when it's half-baked and try to serve it to a table--and then tell them they can only look at it from across the room.

Well, I'm as wary as any one else I hope. But what can seem "evasive and untrustworthy" can also be canniness and knowing how to protect one's interests.

Disclaimer: By the way, I feel I should point out that I do not work for any of these inventors or companies (neither Rossi or Breakthru Technolgies). I do not have any financial investments in their concerns.

[phyllotaxis]

Reading your excellent reply I am convinced we are 90% in agreement- with the only essential exception being the route the inventors have chosen to "reveal" their work to the world.
Please take no offense to my writing here- I mean to imply none.

I can only say that these individuals are doing hard work, and it is my hope that it comes to fruition. For example,
I can indeed see why the potential business customers would want to be discreet about the success of this technology for competitive reasons et al.

I am a passionate advocate of all science, research, and questioning of the hows and why's of our reality. I can happily say this as an honest, curious mind, comfortable in rejecting every convention where there is reason shown to do so. My only relation to a gate in science is the act of flinging them open to exploration. Free knowledge is righteous knowledge.

You and I have much in common- at the root of every discovery in man's history, there was a curious mind.
Before the tool, before the idea, there was why.

While I continue to advocate a more transparent process by the E-CAT team proving the basic functionality of their device as I have laid out in prior posts here, (thereby settling every question and quieting every doubter as to the "does it work" question) this by no means negates the usefulness or import of their machine if it does in fact work.
If nothing else it would remove the air of "just trust us" that currently surrounds the project.
But that is their choice.
Time will tell. Let me say- should this resonance technology become a reality, I'd love to have a unit next to my air conditioner at home, powering my house off-grid.

I'm a buyer- but I expect to be convinced, not just promised, that the machine works before I invest in it. I expect you feel the same way.

With Respect--

[Benevolent]

This looks promising.

Brillouin had Los Alamos and SRI validations

Brillouin has had two significant independent validations of their scientific model and claims. One of those was by Los Alamos National Laboratories. The other was by Dr. Michael McKubre of Standford Research International (SRI), who subsequently joined their board of advisors. McKubre was especially impressed by the consistency of the results. This was the first time (in the LENR experimental arena) that he was able to repeat something every time, without exception.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/04/brillo ... d-sri.html

As for the nature of the experiments at a government lab, I [Robert Godes] only learned of them late in the day on Friday July 1 2011 and [scientist] was on his way out on a trip. He told me the experiment used 2 meters of .1mm Pd wire and 10A pulses. Started with high purity D and produced "lots of tritium."

Robert Godes sent him the following

Tom,

I am looking forward to helping with the [lab] replication of BEC experiments. It would be helpful if you could send me an email with information about the experiments you have already performed and results with current pulses and gas loading.

His reply yesterday July 8 2011
I will do, but first we have to get a (classification review).

[scientist] at [government lab] was able to demonstrate nuclear reactions using a test he put together based on the brillouin energy PPT.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/robert ... louin.html

Reports of tritium production from Rossi-like experiments

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Brian Ahern [omissis] wrote:

Dave,

I just spoke with Tom Claytor at Los Alamos NL after I heard a rumor he was getting tritium from his Rossi-like experiments. I expected that it was a rumor from 20 years ago when his named was associated with CF and tritium. Surprisingly, that was not the case. He is using nanopowder alloys and hydrogen and he was getting 5% excess energy. Now he says he can reliably and repeatedly move between 5% and 16% with the 'movement of a control'. They are writing up patent applications right now, so I could not press him for details. The tritium is real, but so low as to provide no health or proliferation hazard. I asked him about DOE Headquarters and their attitude. He said their recent proposal was deemd in the top five for the year, so they are getting some funding. I asked him if he saw the potential for this becoming useful in a direct path. He said that he and his team do indeed see a path for development. I hope it is related to voltage triggering. Don't you think Matrix Capital should start looking closely at this area? At least to correspond with LANL?

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 49051.html

Akira - yes this conversation did happen; but it is/was NOT supposed to be
public. The subject line is also misleading.

This is an extraordinarily important validation for the field in general,
but not exactly for Rossi. The one important correction is that Claytor uses
deuterium in gas-phase (which is "hydrogen", so the original statement is
technically not incorrect).

My main comment: Tritium is easy to verify, even in minute quantities. It is
the gold standard of proof since it is not natural and radioactive. Plus the
radioactive decay rate is well-known; so there is little possible argument
of mistake. Especially not when the authority is also from LANL and at a
high level! They have a certain expertise with tritium, shall we say, going
back to the birth of atomic energy.

Indeed, when published (after the patent filing) this work will most likely
be considered to represent ROCK SOLID proof of LERN, and of nuclear fusion
of deuterons, but the net thermal gain is far, far below what Rossi claims.

And again - this is NOT protium as the active gas. The gas is deuterium, so
it is very different in many important ways.

Too bad for the LENR skeptics in one sense: LENR is real. BTW, early reports
of this work is probably what has silenced the usual skeptics, like Park.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 49057.html

> By the way, I wonder if the "Rossi-like experiment" being tested at
LANL has something to do with the recently disclosed Brillouin device
which is supposed to be replicated there too...

... that is a very good bet

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 49061.html

[phyllotaxis]

Now that's what I'm talking about

Very compelling news-- thank you Benevolent

[Benevolent]

Papers from the 17th International Conference on "Cold Fusion"

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conference ... F-17.shtml

[Chai Wallah]

some interesting news

Andrea Rossi has revealed that the upcoming high temperature plant will be very compact in size. ... a megawatt of power -- in the form of heat -- will be produced from a barrel sized container !

http://pesn.com/2012/08/30/9602172_A_Ba ... re_E-Cats/


.. in early September at the Zurich conference, a test report is to be released.

..in October, scientists affiliated with the University of Bologna will release a more comprehensive review of the tests they have performed." "

[Phorce]

Here are some reports from the recent E-Cat conference in Zurich ...

http://pesn.com/2012/09/11/9602180_2012 ... Cat_Ready/

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/repor ... -attendee/

http://nickelenergy.wordpress.com/2012/ ... t-success/

[Benevolent]

Swedish investment in E-cat halted after test

A group of Swedish private individuals since the summer preparing an investment in the controversial energy invention E-cat. Now halted investment because the technology did not work in a test last week.

When investors measuring 6 September in Bologna, however, could no heat energy is found beyond the input electrical power.

Investor Group had instructed the SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute , to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than Rossi himself measured (the measurement used the SP called True RMS Instruments ).

http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... 535258.ece

Controlled Electron Capture and the Path Toward Commercialization
Robert Godes1, Robert George1, Francis Tanzella2, and Michael McKubre2
1 Brillouin Energy Corp., United States, reg@brillouinenergy.com
2 SRI International, United States

Abstract—We have run over 150 experiments using two different cell/calorimeter designs. Excess power has always been seen using Q pulses tuned to the resonance of palladium and nickel hydrides in pressurized vessels. Excess energies of up to 100% have been seen using this excitation method.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conference ... -Paper.pdf

[Benevolent]

Mitsubishi Reports Toyota Replication

Researchers from Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories performed an independent replication of a Mitsubishi low-energy nuclear reaction transmutation experiment, according to a physicist from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries speaking at the American Nuclear Society LENR session on Nov. 14 in San Diego, Calif.

The physicist, Yasuhiro Iwamura, told the ANS audience that the Toyota researchers confirmed that nuclear changes from one element to another took place without the use of high-energy nuclear physics. Most scientists who have not followed this field closely consider such profound claims inconceivable. Toyota used a LENR deuterium-permeation transmutation method that Iwamura invented.

Iwamura has been working with this LENR method for 14 years. He said that one of his LENR transmutations was closely but not identically replicated by Toyota. Osaka University and Iwate University previously reported similar replications.

2012 - Yasuhiro Iwamura Presentation at American Nuclear Society Meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VefCEaLAkRw