Posted on 06/13/2013 2:36:56 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
European Parliament – Brussels, 3 June 2013
The scope of the workshop was to make the European community aware of the "state-of-the-art" of the studies on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) phenomenon.
This effect is the appearance of excess energy when a Pd cathode is electrolyzed in heavy water.
Energy densities measured during FPE are orders of magnitude larger than the maximum energy associated to any known chemical process.
NetworkingThis effect was first discovered in 1989 by two electrochemists Prof. Martin Fleischmann and Dr. Stanley Pons, by loading palladium with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). This excess energy is not associated with nuclear radiation and does not appear when light water (H2O) is used.
ENEA (Italy), Stanford Research International (SRI, USA) and Energetics LLC (USA) have been collaborating on an alternative energy project since 2004 based upon the FPE. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL, USA) joined the cooperation in 2008 and since 2010 also the University of Missouri was involved in the research.
All the collaborating institutions, after several years of scientific review process, based on the application of the scientific method to the study of the phenomenon, do not question the existence of this very strong isotope effect as FPE has been observed during experiments in the four laboratories.
A presentation at a cold fusion conference isn't exactly publishing, but let's look at the claimed results.
On pages 5 and 6 we see that they didn't get excess power until after 64 days, and then it was only one watt. I can see why people consider such trivial claimed power production to be intangible. After several million dollars of funding the result is pathetic.
Thanks. I thought I remembered something but wasn’t sure. Too bad...
I suggest you look at page 9. A total power output of ~300 MEGAJOULES (~83KWH) from a piece of palladium 100 mm long and 2 mm in diameter.
As to "...they didn't get excess power until after 64 days"...", this work is from 1996. Since that time, other researchers have fixed the problem of a long "lead-in" time. Several researchers have devised means of generating excess power at or shortly after startup.
I looked at page 9 and what I saw is that out of 7 experiments, 4 were total failures, a fifth was a partial failure, and of the two that appeared to produce excess power, they weren't consistent. So the results were still pathetic, and P&F were unable to exonerate themselves in spite of several millions of dollars of funding.
And the watt is the proper unit for reporting energy rates. Joules are used when you get pathetic results over a long period of time, but still want to impress the gullible.
In addition to pallidium they were replacing solvent and applying input power. And let's not forget the considerable input power when they weren't seeing any excess power, including the power applied during the 5 failed experiments.
bump
You’re slipping, Moon. You didn’t get in until double-digit replies... (and this one wasn’t even a LENR scoffing post) That’s progress :)
Go back and re-read the THIRD sentence in my comment...the work was done in 1996. Things have changed since then. Note also that you were supporting the critical comment that the IMRA experiments totally "lacked a tangible result". AT MINIMUM the IMRA experiments replicated P % F's Utah work with much more accurate and precise calorimetry. Note also that this is just ONE report on the IMRA work. I haven't bothered to look up other publications from the period.
And to rehash the topic...note also that this 1996 work, as "pathetic" as you paint it, was still more successful than any and all "hot fusion" research, which has yet to generate excess energy AT ALL, at a cost of >120 BILLION dollars.
"And the watt is the proper unit for reporting energy rates. Joules are used when you get pathetic results over a long period of time, but still want to impress the gullible.
Which is why I also expressed the quantity as KWH.
"In addition to pallidium they were replacing solvent and applying input power. And let's not forget the considerable input power when they weren't seeing any excess power, including the power applied during the 5 failed experiments."
Uh, dude.....the ~100KWH is EXCESS energy. You know, energy over and above that supplied to the system. And your attempt to use the other experiments as "power negative" is simply bogus logic/propaganda.
It's claimed excess energy. The sporadic and mostly null results over the 7 experiments make it questionable. George Miley two years ago claimed hundreds of watts of excess power, yet he's never been able to back it up.
One more time..work done in 1996...things have changed since. Replicated repeatedly, excess energy is now a certainty and no longer in doubt. 100% repeatable...no. Sufficiently repeatable for scientific proof...yes.
But this is a typical meme of the pathological skeptics. Once upon a time, one of the biggest names among them said all that was needed was a success rate of greater than 50% of runs. That "milestone" was successfully passed (over a broad range of researchers, the success rate is now > 70% of experiments). At which point the "famous skeptopath" changed the criteria he would accept to 100% repeatability.
"George Miley two years ago claimed hundreds of watts of excess power, yet he's never been able to back it up.
Uh, please cite proof. When I looked into this quite a while ago, it appeared to me that all it proved was the Krivit didn't know how to read a graph.
One more time..work done in 1996...things have changed since. Replicated repeatedly, excess energy is now a certainty and no longer in doubt. 100% repeatable...no. Sufficiently repeatable for scientific proof...yes.
But this is a typical meme of the pathological skeptics. Once upon a time, one of the biggest names among them said all that was needed was a success rate of greater than 50% of runs. That "milestone" was successfully passed (over a broad range of researchers, the success rate is now > 70% of experiments). At which point the "famous skeptopath" changed the criteria he would accept to 100% repeatability.
"George Miley two years ago claimed hundreds of watts of excess power, yet he's never been able to back it up.
Uh, please cite proof. When I looked into this quite a while ago, it appeared to me that all it proved was the Krivit didn't know how to read a graph.
ITAR ~ one item ~ with no proof of concept, has already cost $16 billion and we are still a decade away from getting all the concrete poured.
The scale of the TOKAMAK scam dwarfs everything ever spent on LENR or related projects!
Well put. And unlikely to ever BE completed.
Which raises the question: Where's the beef? Why I can't I or anyone else buy one? Thanks for providing the 1996 reference. Perhaps you would like to provide more for your new claims.
BTW, my statement still stands. P&F were unable to exonerate themselves with their disappointing 1996 progress report, in spite of several million dollar in funding.
But if as you say, their 1996 report is solid gold, and they've been exonerated in the years hence, then what are you complaining about? P&F have been vindicated and we all have cheap and clean cold fusion power generators in our homes.
Uh, please cite proof. When I looked into this quite a while ago, it appeared to me that all it proved was the Krivit didn't know how to read a graph.
Which raises another question. If Krivit is wrong why hasn't Miley, with two years to do so, published his results, rather than leaving us with a wild claim made at a hippie environmental conference? Furthermore, why hasn't he also gone commercial?
I've told you where to start, multiple times. I will NOT lead you by the nose with a direct link.
"BTW, my statement still stands. P&F were unable to exonerate themselves with their disappointing 1996 progress report, in spite of several million dollar in funding.
Of course. Everything you ever say stands forever, wrong though it may be. That's why your "skepticism" is "pathological".
"But if as you say, their 1996 report is solid gold, and they've been exonerated in the years hence, then what are you complaining about? P&F have been vindicated and we all have cheap and clean cold fusion power generators in our homes.
Broken record, old boy. The deliberate delaying tactics of your brother in crime skeptopaths might have a bit to to with it. Delay, deny, denigrate. It's what you do. Clue for you....the train is leaving the station despite your yeomanly efforts at stalling.
"Which raises another question. If Krivit is wrong why hasn't Miley, with two years to do so, published his results, rather than leaving us with a wild claim made at a hippie environmental conference? Furthermore, why hasn't he also gone commercial?
LOL. Perhaps he hasn't published because he HAS "gone commercial". See "Lenuco". Which is evidence enough of the reality of Miley's claims.
I’m reminded of the discovery of fire. Everybody was waiting around at the edge waiting for the forest to spontaneously combust when Wonder Wombat started busting rocks....... “that’s just a scam” screamed Dirtman88.
In most states you can form a corporation by filling out a short form and paying a small fee.
So as usual we are left with nothing economically valuable to show for several years of claimed cold fusion successes. Big claims followed by big excuses, that's the cold fusion way.
Deny, delay, denigrate. That is YOUR (and the skeptopath) way. Of course, as usual, you fail to accurately (or at all) compare cold fusion to hot fusion. Which is the bigger failure??? Based on that, which should be funded?? Which DE-funded??
And Lenuco has done a bit more than just incorporate.
So what's the problem with cold fusion?
What have they done?
Nice weasel move. So, to re-phrase, which is a bigger failure, earth-bound artificial hot fusion "containment" (>$120 billion spent, break-even never achieved), or cold fusion (<$100 million spent, breakeven reached multiple times).
"So what's the problem with cold fusion?"
Lack of research funding due to the underhanded tactics of "high energy" physicists and their allies (that would be you and the rest of the skeptopaths). But despite your best efforts, LENR development "is" happening, and going commercial.
And the ITER, which will never be completed, will stand as a monument to the hubris of the high energy physicists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.