Posted on 03/02/2012 6:53:05 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction. Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2 can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat, well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to negligible power input with gas loading!
(Excerpt) Read more at anstd.ans.org ...
Once again, i post as a long time lurker, just to say THANK YOU for keeping us all up to date on this fascinating topic. Don’t worry too much about the naysayers, none of us even read their wailings.
“I doubt that it will cost any more than fuel elements for, say, a fission reactor.”
Maybe, but the fission fuel produces a lot of power even though the fuel is expensive. The fuel for this type of reaction could be much cheaper, but if the power produced is much less, it could still end up being less efficient.
You’re welcome.
http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=48017
When I see the color microspectrograph picture of two elements stuck together frozen in transmutational state in NY Times, that could be proof in the pudding.
Otherwise it`s still hogwash. I was in nuclear laser fusion for 5 years and there is no nuclear without radiation. Gimme a break. Otherwise it would have been discovered centuries ago, replicated, duplicated and mass-produced by now, and we would be flying in LENR aircraft. It`s BS.
Anybody can write a paper and publish it. Look at the Univ in UK paper hoax on climate change data.
You are full of shiite.
If you had that much capability, you could write tons of peer-reviewed papers countering all those that were posted, and you would be famous.
Instead, you’re just an anonymous sniper.
No back tracking on my part. I just find it a waste of my time and effort to try and convince people that the earth is round, we landed on the moon, and that ‘cold fusion’ (by whatever name is currently used) has yet to meet certain principles of scientific experimentation. When replicated tests are done ( by other scientists than those making the claims) and theories presented which are consistent with that data then we can talk. I don’t mind if researchers want to spend money on it. Heck we have spent 40 nears and countless dollars on the National Ignition Facility. The breathless hype and name calling do not enhance anyone’s efforts in the scientific community. It wasn’t but a short time ago that scientists from CERN were claiming to have broken the speed of light-—and after all was said and done ( because the data were open and others could test theories as well as set ups) they found out they had a loose wire in a connector.
Extraordinary claims ( and cold fusion from the beginning has made extraordinary claims about the amount of product and what was measured and how) still require extraordinary proof. That has been in short supply from the cold fusion community.
I just find it a waste of my time and effort to try and convince people that ... ‘cold fusion’ (by whatever name is currently used) has yet to meet certain principles of scientific experimentation.
***What a classic example of a Freeper acting like a seagull. If it’s a waste of time, why did you post?
When replicated tests are done ( by other scientists than those making the claims) and theories presented which are consistent with that data then we can talk.
***14,700 replications
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin
1. Jed Rothwell
11:52 AM 6/20/10
Shermer says that Goodstein concluded that cold fusion was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.”
Cold fusion has been replicated in over 180 major laboratories, by roughly 1,500 professional scientists. These replications have been published in roughly 800 papers in mainstream, peer reviewed journals such as J. Electroanal. Chem. and Japanese J. of Applied Physcis. J. He of the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that the effect has been observed in roughly 14,000 experimental runs (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102).
Many of the results were at low signal to noise ratio, but others were high, such as heat from 10 to 100 W, and tritium at 50 times background (Los Alamos, Texas A&M) up to several million times (BARC).
Most of the researchers who have reported positive results are senior, distinguished experts, such as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, government of India, and the experts at Los Alamos in charge of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton. Only senior researchers can get funding because of academic politics.
When a result has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios and reported in the literature, that result is real, by definition. There is no other standard of reality in science. If it were possible for hundreds of scientists in hundreds of laboratories to be wrong, the experimental method would not work, and no result would be meaningful, and science itself would not work. If Shermer and Goodstein would substitute some other standard of truth, and ignore replication and peer-review, they are engaged in some form of faith-based religion or a popularity contest, not science.
And most of the results that you sight are barely above naturally occuring background level ( which is not the same thing as signal to noise)
Please explain
You do not know that. You’re guessing. Also you’re engaging in wishful thinking. Why should any of us waste time debating someone who hasn’t even come up to speed on the reading?
And you no doubt are still trying to find that 80mog carberator that the car manufacturers are hiding in their vaults....done
Well, these guys claim to be selling monoatomic palladium, so it appears so:
http://www.blueemeraldalchemy.com/palladium.html
It’s a noble metal, like gold, so I’d imagine if they can make monoatomic gold, they can use a similar process for palladium.
Now, about those nickel-copper meteorites with the traces of palladium ~ wonder what they were before they slagged out.
What an utterly intriguing combo for a meteorite.
Now they are claiming multiple errors ~ but what it amounts to is the way they "measured" may have more to do with it than whatever the equipment did. No one has all that much experience in measuring FTL phenomenon do they.
This article had something in it that should have triggered your "Well I'll be doggone" nerve though. Guy had three patents ~ one of them was sequestered by the Belgian military folks.
That was 20 years ago. Presumably it's still sequestered. Why don't you see if you can get your hands on it, translate it using Google.com Translate (something we all understand), and publish it for us. Maybe it's a bomb!
“BTW, things that “smooth” your intestines are not really good for you.”
Lol, yeah I don’t believe in whatever crackpot theory that site was pushing, just saying that they seemed to be selling the particles you were asking about.
“Now, about those nickel-copper meteorites with the traces of palladium ~ wonder what they were before they slagged out.”
Here’s a paper that says the same combination of elements can be found in mafic formations on Earth:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~pmorton/geol5350/2009/deposit_synthesis.ni_cu_pge.eckstrand_hulbert.pdf
I’d assume the asteroids came together in the same way, here on Earth, or on a planet with a similar mantle, then the magma or volcanic rock got blasted out into space somehow.
Be sure and get the next patent through the USPO....
and for the record a patent in and of itself means not much at all
\ LOL. EXACTLY the reaction I always get from those "superior" intellects who claim to know all there is about LENR and that it doesn't work. Ask them to show proof, and they vanish like snow in a Louisiana summer.
"I do not have to prove to you or anyone else anything. The fact that you are derisive to even the simple suggestion that heat does not necessarily precede work is sufficient for me to know with whom I am dealing.
Yes, there "are" a few places where heat doesn't precede work. Photovoltaics and fuel cells are a couple of examples. But MOST human activity doe involve heat "first".
By looking at the graph in Miley's slide presentation in which he is making measurements in the single-digit MILLIWATT range and observing the S/N ratio in that data.
I look at dozens of technical stories over the course of a week. Maintaining a set of links "for argumentations sake" is simply impossible, and quite often when I "do" make the effort for someone, I can't find the exact same "stuff" a second time.
But in this case, I was lucky. Unfortunately, I'm a work now, and the link is on my machine at home. When I get back to that machine, I'll post the link.
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.