Friday, February 26, 2016

FEB 26, 2016 LENR DISCOVERIES ARE NOT BORN EQUAL

MOTTO

Image result for discovery quotationsImage result for discovery quotations

Therefore, the term "MISCOVERY" is actually a great compliment for the Fleischmann-Pons Cell.
And, therefore, the critical trick- miracle spice in the recipe of NiH LENR will seem, in retrospective, as the most natural choice-solution.


DAILY NOTES

Not all discoveries are born equal; some are born prematurely, handicapped, underdeveloped, weaklings unable to ever grow up.

The vision of LENR's history by Ed Storms.

Two days ago, Edmund Storms has published a nice miniature- his first reaction to
the MFMP Announcement. Here it is: 


" The LENR field is very strange indeed. Think about what has happened. A new and unique source of clean, cheap, and universal energy is discovered using PdD. This claim is immediately rejected in spite of the desperate need for such energy. Twenty-seven years of study in laboratories located in at least 12 countries support the original claims, yet rejection continues. 

Then another discovery is made claiming to make energy using NiH. This claim is better accepted than the claim based on PdD because the generated power is greater even though the information provided by the discoverer is poor and not consistent with what is observed . Although the process is new and behaves like PdD, the power is considered to result from an entirely different mechanism.  In other words, two different "impossible" process are now claimed to produce energy.


Not only are all the claims rejected by conventional science, but agreement about the mechanism cannot be achieve even within the field itself.  (plus a few words about politics (US)  and generalized probletence)

This essay has impressed me- painfully and now I want to answer to it- openly, sincerely- a bit philosophically and culturally- it is about the destiny, the karma of Cold Fusion/LENR to which I belong too.

The LENR field is very strange indeed. 
Actually, isn't it the strangest thing that has ever happened in Science? It has started as a potential huge success  than failed and became the Fiasco of the Century- but survived as kind of samizdat science in semi-darkness- and 5 years ago it has started to resurrect. Strangest...I instinctively turned to the Latin forms of superlatives - "stranissimo" and the plural brought to my memory on of the most beautiful and strange Italian songs I know about "stranissimi e profondi" fairy eyes:
Benjamino Gigli Occhi di Fata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkToLK-NH74   One of my favorites, I want to share it with my readers.

And, yes- LENR is indeed strange but it is also wonderfully beautiful, rich, interesting, surprising and I have the intuition of its strange but world-improving future- Infinite optimism for infinite energy.
However it would be  so fine if LENR could eventually understand the deep causes of its unusual strange past. For the time given this is quasi impossible due to some foundational myths and memes- with values of over 13 on the Mohs scale. 

Edmund writes:
"A new and unique source of clean, cheap, and universal energy is discovered using PdD."  
Let's try together to forget what we think we know for sure and re-think it realistically?
Source, yes, but why "unique"? Isn't this too much forward looking? Who is able to predict that no other source more or less similar will be discovered? And was it- inside its cradle- a SOURCE, a genuine source of energy? Or was it more the foreshadow of a dream of an real energy source? Few harbinger sparks of a Fire that needs a proper stove or fireplace to show its full power? WHAT EXACTLY WAS DISCOVERED BY FLEISCHMANN AND PONS?
Then: "This claim is immediately rejected in spite of the desperate need for such energy." 
Does this mean the idea was assassinated in its cradle and the researchers , including the founders, had no chances to prove they are right, lacking funds, palladium whatever ? No, the effect was real- however weak, sporadic, evanescent- intensification and scale-up were NOT possible. Why we are accepting that as long as it is confined to the  F&P Cell excess heat is inherently limited due to too low temperatures and blocked working surfaces (active sites) 

The story of the first discovery has continued up to today:
"Twenty-seven years of study in laboratories located in at least 12 countries support the original claims, yet rejection continues."
What was actually confirmed? The original results, not the original claims or promises of an energy source. It is difficult to speak about improvements in reproducibility, scale-up is not a subject , excess power level remains <10 W. Total desolation for a technologist. But it is worse
LENR-ist take seriously- as discusssion partner an arch-enemy as Kirk Shanahan who tries to show that what we consider excess heat due to some (strange or stranger nuclear reactions) can be explained by secondary, normal chemical and physical phenomena:see this long thread:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2746-Split-Reconsidering-F-P-with-CCS/?postID=13868#post13868
 39 pages, mamma mia! It is about the basics, including the sacrest PdD calorimetry data!!!
 I did not imagine such horrible thing is still possible in 2016.

Ed's story, second part.
Then another discovery is made claiming to make energy using NiH. This claim is better accepted than the claim based on PdD because the generated power is greater even though the information provided by the discoverer is poor and not consistent with what is observed .

Actually NiH dry (working at higher temperatures) was also discovered in
1989 by Francesco Piantelli - a classic scientist and had a slow development- mainly in isolation being ignored "in house" too- actually oppressed- for some strange reasons (in Palladium veritas!) and because Piantelli  does not accepted the dominant - in Italy- Preparata Theory of CF. Anyway he has obtained some amazing results- cells functioning for months without feeding with hydrogen. Due to IP reasons we cannot know when these results will go toward industrialization. 
Then came Rossi, an outsider...
Although the process is new and behaves like PdD, the power is considered to result from an entirely different mechanism.  In other words, two different "impossible" process are now claimed to produce energy.
Why is the process (NiH) behaving like PdD? It is different as range of parameters, works with hydrogen but not with deuterium, cannot lead to
Helium as direct reaction product. And we do not speak about one NIH 
process- Piantelli and Rossi have different processes and do not forget Defkalion- this was also different. (we will not include here Brillouin for ths analysis.)  All these have much more possibilities and means to make the impossible possible, temperatures up to the melting point of Ni, active forms of Hydrogen, generation of active sites- a larger world than in a cool electrolysis cell. Actionable parameters see as an example the recent MFMP recipe- still open to improvements.
Just now the situation is becoming very simple. Andrea Rossi claims he had tested an 1MW plant for one year and the Report of an authorized experts will answer clearly: the plant has produced massive (GWatthours) of excess energy - or not. End of a story and possibly start of a Story of a new energy Era.

Ed's ending phrase
Not only are all the claims rejected by conventional science, but agreement about the mechanism cannot be achieved even within the field itself. 

If LENR goes commercial that is is converted to LENR+ than conventional science will help it to find explanations that will later be called conventional. There are probably more variants of the processes at work and agreements must refer to solving the problems not about imposing one mechanism as standard and dominant.
PdD is more static than NiH working at high temperatures.
Is it so humiliating to accept that PdD is not made for technology and D vs H is leading to deep changes?

DAILY NEWS

1) Rossi Hopes for Public Presentation of E-Cat X Plant this Year
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/25/rossi-hopes-for-public-demo-of-e-cat-x-plant-this-year/


2) New Energy Times Adds NRL Report to Archives
http://www.e-catworld.com/allposts/

4) From Andrea Rossi's blog:

Andrea Rossi
February 25, 2016 at 5:07 PM

Koen Vandewalle:
I am not just an inventor; I am also the guy which will industrialize the E-Cats. As a matter of fact I have right now finisged my meeting with ABB that will realize the robotized production line. And pretty advanced with it.
As I said, the best defense of our intellectual property will be the speed and the economy scale with which we will produce the E-Cats.
F9.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi
February 25, 2016 at 7:40 PM

Frank Acland:
No, if the results of the test made on the 1 MW plant and the R&D on course on the E-Cat X will be positive, we will make a massive aggression of the market, to bar the action of our competitors, that are “massively” waiting for our product to copy it. Our defense will be an offense based on the legal protection of the IP against the competitors and on the competitivity that will make very difficult for them to enter in the business. We are years ahead of them, in any sense, as far as I know from the intelligence we have collected. It will be extremely difficult to compete against us for our competitors, as big as their names might be. Much cheaper to find an agreement with us.
This is the strategy, in a nutshell.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Valerio Pensabene
February 25, 2016 at 6:35 PM

Caro Dr Rossi:
Do all these replications of the Rossi Effect infringe your US Patent?
Valerio
Andrea Rossi
February 25, 2016 at 7:33 PM

Valerio Pensabene:
Laboratory replication for scientific purposes are not patent infringements and I am delighted to read about them. Only if it is put in commerce an apparatus, that copies one or more of the claims of our patents, our attorneys will immediately file a suit.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

5) Presentation of the Seminar in PFUR  Feb, 25, 2016

6) In Russian

Rossi has finished the 1MW plant test and is ready to produce 10 kW reactors :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN-PBUAVVS0

7) BREAKING: The E-Cat has been replicated—here's the recipe! |

8) Last hour info:
Rossi: UK to Get first Industrial E-Cat X Plant
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/26/rossi-uk-to-get-first-e-cat-x-plant/

LENR IN CONTEXT-1

Bill Gates claims climate-saving energy breakthrough is only 15 years away:
http://inhabitat.com/bill-gates-claims-climate-saving-energy-breakthrough-is-only-15-years-away/


LENR IN CONTEXT-2

11 comments:

  1. I enjoy seeing your correspondence with Professor Storms, as a layman I immediately identified Storms as someone worth following and watching. I have been following the mega thread @ www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2746-Split-Reconsidering-F-P-with-CCS/ with great interest. It is disappointing to see the dismissive tone used with Professor Storms while discussing the topic, some of the respondents are close to being openly rude and quite a few are openly sarcastic and petty. I suppose that means the Professor is getting close to making his point and is hitting some raw nerves. In past times scientists had private communications with each other to discuss their respective theories, sometimes the back and forth was quite heated and contentious, their writings were usually seen only after they passed on, but the internet is now allowing some of these previously confidential communications to be followed by anyone with an interest. I appreciate being able to follow these discussions in real time, it is truly exciting to me, to be able to watch and even to occasionally participate in a small way. I feel quite fortunate to be able to watch historic figures (you may have to wait until you are no longer with us, but you will be remembered I promise!), debating the data in real time, I feel like very important history is being made and we have a front row seat. It’s like viewing the private correspondences between 17th century scientists of old, very exciting stuff and I enjoy it greatly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "science will help it to find explanations that will later be called conventional"
    Perhaps 'science' should go back to its roots of that which was once 'conventional'. I am, of course, talking about phlogiston! What a merry way to have deja vu all over again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a new phlogiston theory abroad in science; it is called dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter seems to be everywhere but cannot be found. This is because dark matter is really one face of LENR. Until science understands LENR, this phlogiston of our modern age will be hidden from the mind of man. But when LENR is fully understood, science will be placed back on the right path again.

      Delete
    2. and it would be a superb trademark for LENR device maker to boot!

      Delete
  3. Peter you have often called to our attention the importance of human psychology especially with regard to scientific thinking and how the way we think about a topic can influence outcomes. Professor Storms addresses this on occasion also. I feel that most researchers think that cold hard facts and data are 99% of what constitutes science, research and development. But it could be the opposite, many good ideas may have been ignored because group thinking did not agree with or allow for unexpected ways of considering something. How can this be reversed, so that this kind of negative psychology is taken into account and utilized to assist in realizing new discoveries instead of hampering them? I think our education system needs to address this phenomenon to reduce the tendency to kill new, novel ideas and discoveries.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Piantelli has tolds us that most of the metals in the periodic table can produce LENR results. In Russia, a few experiments use titanium. It is pedantic to fall in love with any particular LENR engineering approach when there is so many variants to select from.

    I like the Holmlid approach since it produces the most astounding and unbelievable results. A Holmlid reactor could also produce the core of a star drive space engine that can get us to a good fraction of the speed of light when it is turned to space exploration. This particular LENR recipe is what dreams are made of: striding boldly where no man has gone before between the stars like gods.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I will propose my interpretation of NiH/PdD paradox as Edmund Storms wonder about.

    PdD LENR was discovered by electrochemist, and interpreted as nuclear thus concerning physicist. It was considered as a social violation of hierarchy in science, that electrochemist, not even chemist, could make nuclear reaction that top scientists like physicist could not explain.

    This hierarchy violation, after some transient interest by the most curious, fueled a deep demand to deny LENR.

    It could have been saved by practical application, and more than curiosity, many teams worked on LENr with hope to be rich, in term of money or of glory. Finally not only it was ruining reputation (thanks to the mindguard), but even if clearly confirmed scientifically, it have all characteristic of something useless : tiny results, very hard to obtain, with bad reproducibility by third party...

    NiH followed initially the same way...

    Then camer Rossi and he game hope of industrial application.
    He is of a lowest cas, even below electrochemist. He is entrepreneur, inventor, with a complex personal history... anyway people interested in money or glory, are not afraid of that.

    The usual mainstream scientist of course continue to laugh, and love NiH because, unlike PdD there is nearly no scientific paper, worst replicability... I've noticed how mindguards now love to bash NiH studies, because to be honest PdD is now quite well documented and it is really hard to fool the innocents who discover PdD scientific articles and realise it is seriously confirmed since decades.

    So there is no paradox.

    NiH scientifically is much worse than PdD... quite no public paper of well done experiments, quite no reproducibility, and some very amateur experiments supported by enthusiast hobbyists learning chemistry and calorimetry the hard way (It seems NRL did it that way too) ...
    Scientific mindguards continue their denial, helped by this lower quality of scientific publication on NiH.

    Anyway, who cares of those clowns? Fortune, La Tribune, Nikkei, Aftenposten, make article on LENR ... Cherokee fund, Woodford fund, NEDO, invest money in LENR...

    Science as a mainstream community have failed. this is definitive.
    Entrepreneurship have won.

    PdD or NiH is not the problems.

    APS will discover LENR in WSJ, not in Science.

    By the way, now i think that Palladium, but maybe tungsten or titanium may participate with nickel to the third wave of LENR++.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Strange field indeed. Every now and then the lenr quacks go apeshit over some new miraculous event like MFMP fucking up P&F style.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world couldn't care less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really , people, to me, there is a very simpLe explanation of the "Cold fusion " problem as an unrecognized fact that the hydrogen forms are basic structural units which wil have soMewhat different chemistries from those of higHer elemeNTS, moSt specificAly in thier reactin with certain isotopes, or moST specifically with cationS of certain isotopes.

      THESE REACTIONS OCCUR WITHIN THE "OUTER SKIN" SURFACE. CONSIDERED THIS WAY ALL OF THE COLD-FUSION/JTRANSMUTATION REACTION CAN BE RATIONALIZED AND THE FIELD SHOULD ADVANCE TO USE OF ORE FINANCIALLY PRACTICAL REACTANT THA TNE CURRENT SITUATION.
      iT APPEARS THAT pIANTELLI WAS RIGHT ON . THE DISCUSSION ABOVE SIMPLY ELUCIDATES A BIT ON HIS OBSERVATIONS MAKING THE SITUATION SPECIFIC TO CATIONS AND TO SPECIFIC ISOTOPES.
      fOR NICKEL THE KEY ISOTOPE APPEARS TO BE NI62 WITH A DICATION AS A KEY INTERMEDIATE.
      DICATION FORMATION UNDER CONDITIONS NOT CONVENTIONALLY EXPECTED APPEARS TO BE THE KEY PROBLEM IN THE LACK OF REPRODUCIBILITY OFTEN SEEN.

      Delete