Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Pyroelectric fusion

Pyro electric fusion alone, yes, but as a neutron generator it could feed particles into fertile material for a sub critical reactor design or when combined with nickel nano powder and hydrogen it can result in LENR - possibly.

[ASH]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

I question you because you +1 a bunch of statements which were inaccurate and false.

I presume that your main objections to DSpencer's comment were those you quoted and then remarked upon in this post:

For crying out loud, they have generators running and wires connected to a black box device that supposedly generates power.

You say this as fact. No such thing exists or claims to have existed.

DSpencer was specifically commenting on Rossi's E-CAT, and what he wrote is an accurate description of the better-documented tests. The best write-up describing Rossi's E-CAT of which I'm aware is this paper published to Cornell's arXiv. Two experimental runs are described (one in December 2012 and another in March 2013).

It is fair to describe the E-CAT as a "black box", meaning an apparatus characterized by its inputs and outputs, the inner workings of which remain unknown. The researchers invited to observe the experiments attempted to measure the electrical power input and the thermal power output, but internal details such as the following were unknown:

• the contents of the reaction vessel
• the power waveform fed into the E-CAT during the December experiment
• the contents of a box containing a control circuit that regulated power supplied to the E-CAT in the March experiment

That's pretty much a "black box".

It is also fair to describe there being "generators running and wires connected to" the E-CAT. The paper states:

• external electrical power was supplied to the E-CAT in both experiments
• in the December experiment, three-phase electrical power was supplied to the E-CAT through three wires
• in the December experiment, an average power consumption of 360 W was measured throughout the experiment
• in the March experiment, three-phase electrical power was supplied to the E-CAT through three wires to a control circuit with a single-phase output
• in the March experiment an average power consumption of 283.5 W was estimated throughout the experiment

I take DSpencer's point to be that an input of electrical power is required to operate the E-CAT so a means of delivering external power to the E-CAT exists, and that a fraudster could supply more electrical power than declared in order to simulate the release of energy by a reaction inside the E-CAT. Many of Rossi's critics (and the critics of the paper I'm referencing, who think those observers were duped) identify ways of piping in extra electrical power using the cabling described, which would not have been detectable using the instruments and measurement configuration described in the paper. You could quibble that the phrase "generators running" imply something like diesel generators running in the lab, whereas it sounds like the power source was three-phase line power; technically, there were generators running, albeit in a power plant somewhere. But the semantics of what "generators running" implies are irrelevant to the salient technical point that there was an external power source continuously connected to the E-CAT. I think DSpencer's point was clearly that there's an opportunity for fraud here, and his exact words were certainly correct.

These devices to do not generate power, rather they generate excess thermal energy. There is a very significant difference.

The colloquial usage of the word "power" when "electrical power" is meant may have created some more semantic confusion. First of all, what DSpencer said is technically correct. Power is the first time derivative of energy. If energy is produced, the rate at which it is produced is the power of the source. If electrical power goes in and thermal power comes out, the time integral of thermal power out in excess of electrical power in will give the excess thermal energy. You're both talking about the same thing, although it's true that the E-CAT isn't hooked up to anything like a steam turbine to generate electrical power from the thermal power it produces. I didn't read DSpencer's comment as referring to electrical power as an output of the E-CAT, but rather in the general physical sense of the E-CAT releasing energy (which is equivalent to saying it generates power, in the generic time-derivative-of-energy sense); the point I thought he was making has nothing to do with electrical power as an output, and everything to do with controlling and measuring outputs and inputs of energy, regardless of form, so that one is not susceptible to fraud.

I don't see how you can describe DSpencer's statements as either inaccurate or false.

Why obsess with Rossi? ... To talk about Rossi is a complete red herring.

I only talk about Rossi when Rossi is brought up by folks enthralled with the possibilities of LENR. Rossi needs to be talked about because his particular claims seem fishy. I'm not generically hostile to LENR or claims of interesting new physics. The thing is that new physics always contains the old physics as an approximation or a limiting case -- it doesn't suddenly make untrue prior observations, rather it encompasses those past observations plus explaining some new ones that the old theory couldn't describe. The new physics is hiding in places where we haven't looked: either energy or distance scales we're unable to access experimentally or in messy regimes of material complexity that haven't been well scrutinized before. The thing I'm hostile to is claims of new physics that contradict what has already been observed rather than expanding upon it, physically implausible mechanisms, and pseudo-physical nonsense that circulates along with the sounder ideas.

You seem like a passionate defender of the legitimacy of LENR research, but you're acting like our criticisms of Rossi are broader attacks on LENR research in general. That's not the case.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Alright, Ash, here you go:

More importantly it also never gains credibility despite years of demonstrations.

False. The 3rd party independent report in arvix increased the credibility with a large group of people. Never before in the history of science has 7 employed academics signed off on such an impressive over unity reactor without it being true.

Anytime the proponents of this idea/scam have been given a chance to answer their skeptics by modifying their demonstration

False. They used thermal infrared cameras rather than measuring steam, which can be tricky.

For crying out loud, they have generators running and wires connected to a black box device that supposedly generates power.

False. For the independent report, no generators were involved. If by power, you actually meant excess thermal, energy. Fine. I'll give you that.

Ash, I advise you to read the rebuttals to the skeptics carefully, especially those rebuttals done by the folks who performed the arvix report, before commenting further. You're merely cloaking yourself in the logic of the mob.

You are not contributing anything to this conversation, except "rossi rossi rossi" .. which is pretty silly considering that this is a complex physics discussion which you'd be better suited to.

But, i tell you what, I'm feeling generous because you've been a pretty valuable guy around here and so I will give you a link:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php...s/309-iccf-fun

Take your time, peruse what these guys are doing. Read the whole site if you can.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

But, i tell you what, I'm feeling generous because you've been a pretty valuable guy around here and so I will give you a link:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php...s/309-iccf-fun

Take your time, peruse what these guys are doing. Read the whole site if you can

That site might be more credible if it weren't so closely tied with LENR as opposed to science in general or even physics in particular:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/ma...site-campaign/

So, the Fleishmann of Pons Fleishmann fame, his estate or admirers launched quantumheat.org - which unsurprisingly is a big fan of LENR.

This isn't proof of bad intention, but is absolutely proof of inherent interest or bias.

But be that as it may - I'm still asking the identical question as before: when will reasonably reproducible scientific evidence be available?

Patents, internet videos, etc etc do not constitute reasonably reproducible scientific evidence.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

But be that as it may - I'm still asking the identical question as before: when will reasonably reproducible scientific evidence be available?

Yeah, and I'm answering the same identical answer. At that point, the topic will be boring. What makes it worth talking about is that fact that it's not clear if it's real or not. Therein lies the opportunity.

BTW, the MFMP guys are good guys. Yeah, definitely biased, but they're pretty careful about finding fault in their own work and they have a lot of extensive data monitoring. They're obviously hyper open about everything they do.

Cool way to do science.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

BTW, the MFMP guys are good guys. Yeah, definitely biased, but they're pretty careful about finding fault in their own work and they have a lot of extensive data monitoring. They're obviously hyper open about everything they do.

The problem being, Rossi employed an astroturfing web site: the Journal of Nuclear Physics

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

It would seem to me that either confirming or denying what Rossi has or doesn't have, would be high on any LENR fan's list - if for no other reason than to distance from the above type of crap.

[DSpencer]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

For crying out loud, they have generators running and wires connected to a black box device that supposedly generates power.

You say this as fact. No such thing exists or claims to have existed. Please know what you're talking about before stating such things, you undermine the credibility of iTulip when you do. These devices to do not generate power, rather they generate excess thermal energy. There is a very significant difference.

ASH has done a better job defending this statement than I ever could. I'm sure you're both far more qualified to speak on the technical nature of these claims. Regardless, here is why I stated what I did:

From an article about an E-Cat test posted in another thread:
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1...st_Successful/

"On October 28, 2011, Andrea Rossi demonstrated his 1 megawatt E-Cat system to his first customer, who had engineers/scientists on hand to test/validate its performance. Due to a glitch, it provided 479 kW of continuous power for 5.5 hours during the self-sustained mode."

I'm not sure why they kept the generator running after that, but I would guess it was for back-up or safety.

"Probably the biggest opening for skeptics will be the continually running genset that is probably rated for 500 kW (my guess), and appears to have been connected by cables to the E-Cat. "Where's the mystery?" So knock yourselves out, skeptics. It's the customer who has to be happy, and apparently this one was satisfied that those cables were not contributing to the 470 kW output during self-sustaining mode."

My deepest apologies for undermining the credibility of itulip by not knowing what I'm talking about since clearly no such things exists or is claimed to exist.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

The problem being, Rossi employed an astroturfing web site: the Journal of Nuclear Physics

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

It would seem to me that either confirming or denying what Rossi has or doesn't have, would be high on any LENR fan's list - if for no other reason than to distance from the above type of crap.

As I've said a bunch of times already, there are a lot of other scientists other than Rossi involved in this. Bringing up Rossi and his questionable business tactics is an irrelevant conversation. Microsoft engaged in a lot of Vaporware when they were starting up. All businesses get a little aggressive.

Anyways, if you reviewed the MFMP website carefully before commenting, you'd see how transparent they are about everything and how careful they are about performing falsification on their results / various hypothesis.

But, c1ue, you're falling into the same trap everyone else is. You're not interested in the truth. You're just interested in figuring out some way to prove your prejudgement.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

All this debate here brings me right back to a statement made by a lady scientist in a BBC TV program about the LHC; "Our beautiful mathematics, our less than beautiful observations".

On my part, I spent the best part of a decade writing a new book "The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy" which is today not available either as an e-book or in print. The reason being that no one would review it and as such, I decided to instead concentrate my meagre income on supporting my ongoing input to the debate about the lack of free enterprise equity capital finance for new very small businesses. That decision has, just two weeks ago, been demonstrably vindicated by my receipt of a personally signed letter of encouragement from Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament.

Having created a very detailed description of a new; inviolably attached electromagnetic force field structure for the proton, (with the proton's electron as a part of the structure of the proton, rather than a separate particle in it's own right), and which description starts with a debate that there is no such thing as a Black Particle; you might wonder at my thoughts when, the front cover of the 20 July issue of New Scientist, titled "Tiny Particle Big Problem; the humble proton is nothing like we expected" accompanies an illustration that tends towards my own description of the structure of the proton. Then add, inside the self same story on page 33 they refer to "the dark photon".

I could write a long and detailed description of my reasons to believe many have read my book, alongside a parallel belief that today science has no interest in new thinking; instead, I will return to my intent to create a totally independent gravity and energy research institute.

Everything I read here demonstrates the need for such an institute; we can argue all day long about this or that theory; yet the only way forward is to create demonstrations that produce repeatable, verifiable OBSERVATIONS.

So; why NOT?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

But, c1ue, you're falling into the same trap everyone else is. You're not interested in the truth. You're just interested in figuring out some way to prove your prejudgement.

I can't speak to others' motivations, but in general Truzzi's aphorism holds. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

One can remain agnostic about something until such time as extraordinary proof or disproof occurs without harboring prejudice.

[shiny!]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

I can't speak to others' motivations, but in general Truzzi's aphorism holds. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

One can remain agnostic about something until such time as extraordinary proof or disproof occurs without harboring prejudice.

Beautifully stated, dcarrigg. This is going into my "quotes" file.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

As I've said a bunch of times already, there are a lot of other scientists other than Rossi involved in this. Bringing up Rossi and his questionable business tactics is an irrelevant conversation. Microsoft engaged in a lot of Vaporware when they were starting up. All businesses get a little aggressive.

Anyways, if you reviewed the MFMP website carefully before commenting, you'd see how transparent they are about everything and how careful they are about performing falsification on their results / various hypothesis.

But, c1ue, you're falling into the same trap everyone else is. You're not interested in the truth. You're just interested in figuring out some way to prove your prejudgement.

That's funny, I've stated several times that I'd be thrilled if LENR proves to either become a new energy source or even just add to our knowledge of how things really work.

So what pre-conception am I following exactly?

I did look at the articles; the problem being that the levels of so called nuclear fusion are so low that they could as easily be a statistical artifact - i.e. are being seen because the observers wish to find them.

I chose the previous example of homeopathy very specifically because many believers are motivated the same way: they ascribe statistical artifact effects to homeopathy actually doing something. Humans in general have a predisposition to go from one and two, to many - and beliefs reinforce this tendency tremendously. The numerous examples in climate science where flat out wrong headed understanding of statistics led to ridonkulous conclusions - such as the 'Most Influential Tree in the World":

http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/y...and-the-trees/

So the question then is - is LENR real or is it an artifact of observer bias?

The answer to this question is very simple: real world proof.

And I repeat again: I have not seen it yet.

As for Rossi - I focus on him because the overall LENR community has not summarily rejected him and his claims as far as I can tell. Some {like Krivit} have, but many others are 'keeping an open mind'. The problem with this being that a charlatan can poison the well for everyone.

And why would these people do this? Perhaps because some or possibly most think that any exposure is good along the lines of 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'.

But this shouldn't be about publicity. This should be about science.

And there is definitely such a thing as bad science.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Oh, and BTW - one reason I take the LENR community's internal commentary with a grain of salt can be seen in the way said community treats Pons and Fleischmann vs. the general scientific community.

You can see this best with the 2 following contrasting commentaries:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports...alPapers.shtml

On April 10, 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published their 8-page "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. The paper was rushed, very incomplete and contained a clear error with regard to the gamma spectra. Their claims were largely rejected and quickly denounced by the scientific community.

As a result of the actions of competitor Steven E Jones, Fleischmann and Pons and the University of Utah were forced into situation to publish many months before they were ready.

A year later, in July 1990, Fleischmann and Pons corrected the errors from their hasty "preliminary note" and published their detailed 58-page seminal paper "Calorimetry of the Palladium-Deuterium-Heavy Water System," in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.

In Sept. 1989, John O'Mara Bockris, professor at Texas A&M University, published the first replication of the excess heat effect in his group's paper, "Sporadic Observation of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect," in Electrochimica Acta.

In 1992, the Wilson group from General Electric challenged the Fleischmann-Pons 1990 paper in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. The Wilson group asserted: "While our analysis shows their claims of continuous heat generation to be over stated significantly, we cannot prove that no excess heat has been generated in any experiment."

When Fleischmann and Pons analyzed the Wilson critique, they found that, based on Wilson's own evaluation, the Fleischmann and Pons cell generated approximately 50% excess heat and amounted to 736 milliwatts, more than ten times larger than the error levels associated with the data.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_12

One year after the press conference that had garnered Pons and Fleischmann so much attention, the scientific process had finally been able to sort through the evidence regarding cold fusion.

Few groups had found support for the hypothesis, and those few had inconsistent results and could not reliably reproduce their findings. This lack of replicable evidence was a major blow for cold fusion. The laws of nature don't play favorites.

If cold fusion works in one laboratory under a certain set of conditions, we'd expect it to work in other laboratories at other times under the same conditions. Hence, lack of reproducibility is a serious problem for any scientific finding, casting doubt on the validity of the original result and suggesting that there's been a misinterpretation of what's going on. In Pons and Fleischmann's case, lack of reproducibility indicated that whatever it was they had originally detected, it probably wasn't cold fusion.

This interpretation is also supported by the fact that independent scientists couldn't find any evidence that Pons and Fleischmann's own cells had actually produced fusion. In light of all this evidence, most scientists consider Pons and Fleischmann's results to be an experimental error.

Now, the rest of the community certainly could be biased. But bringing lawyer tactics into science isn't science - if LENR is real, then the effects must be reproducible.

That's my bar.

As I noted previously - it has been 24 years since Pons and Fleischmann. How much longer before reproducibility is going to happen?

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

On the subject of patents - this one is pretty funny:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6960975

patent example.png
This bad boy was issued in 1971 and has been updated many times since, the latest in 2002 where a 'universal particle flux pressure converter' was added.

At least it wasn't called a flux capacitor.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Tom Darden, cofounder of Cherokee, is an investor in Industrial Heat.

Cherokee has $2 billion under management according to their website.

http://www.cherokeefund.com/company.htm



Industrial Heat Has Acquired Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat Technology

RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., Jan. 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —
Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to
Andrea Rossi’s Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the
Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat). A primary goal of the company is to make the
technology widely available, because of its potential impact on air
pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and
biomass.

“The world needs a new, clean and efficient energy source. Such a
technology would raise the standard of living in developing countries and
reduce the environmental impact of producing energy,” said JT Vaughn
speaking on behalf of Industrial Heat (IH).

Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing
rights to Rossi’s LENR device after an independent committee of European
scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy.

The published report by the European committee concluded, “Even by the
most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the
result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy
sources” [referring to energy output per unit of mass]. The report is
available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. In addition,
performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of IH
personnel and certified by an independent expert.

Since acquiring Rossi’s technology, IH has engaged in a broad-based effort
to protect it by preparing numerous patent applications related to the
core technology as well as associated designs and uses.

Tom Darden, who co-founded Cherokee Investment Partners, a series of
private equity funds specializing in cleaning up pollution, is a founding
investor in Industrial Heat. He is one of a small group of like-minded
investors who are supporting this technology because it could
significantly address a number of social and environmental challenges.
They have committed to make it broadly available because of its potential
for impact. IH is considering partnerships with industry participants,
universities and NGO’s to ensure the technology is developed in a
thoughtful and responsible manner.

JT Vaughn manages Industrial Heat. He is the founder of Cherokee McDonough
Challenge, an accelerator for environmental startups, and a leader in the
startup community in the Research Triangle.

Companies or organizations interested in partnering with Industrial Heat
should reach out to JT Vaughn at info@industrialheat.co.

CONTACT: JT Vaughn, jvaughn@industrialheat.co, 919-649-5299

SOURCE Industrial Heat, LLC

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/pr...at-technology/