Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[henryco]

That just is silly, do you know about the Coulomb barrier in fusion and why the pressure gradient and huge number of atoms at the hot core of the star matter.

Yes i know it's gravity that produces the huge number of atoms at the hot core of the star matter. I'm working on extensions of General Relativity...

This is just made up nonsense.

This is because you didnt even try to understand the alternative theory of gravity
https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume13/1-The-Dark-Side-of-Gravity.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610079
cited by the article, which predicts the occurence of huge discontinuous potential wells which can confine matter as efficiently as the usual continuous gravitational field.


but since i suspect that you would be lost quite rapidly in my theoretical paper i have written the vulgarisation phenomenological :
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf
just for people like you...

Whoah, stop right there, what exact nuclear transmutations and at what levels, you left out all the data.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101089
almost the same elements created as in Rossi reactor.
if you dont read more than the abstract (or worse the title) there is nothing i can do to help you really understand.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes i know it's gravity that produces the huge number of atoms at the hot core of the star matter. I'm working on extensions of General Relativity...

Oh do tell, so you don't know what Coulomb's barrier is.

I have had enough, you have no data, and you are making stuff up.

 

[henryco]

Oh do tell, so you don't know what Coulomb's barrier is.

I have had enough, you have no data, and you are making stuff up.

at huge densities and pressures, there is a screening effect by the elctron gas allowing nucleus to fuse (multibody reaction) even in a cold configuration (black dwarf analogy)

 

[Christian Klippel]

... Wh/h ... Wh/h ... kWh/h ... Wh/h ...

Hahaha ....

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Aepervius]

Well , a strange resistor producing more energy than it consumes:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/a-correction-makes-a-difference-in-cat-and-mouse-discussion/

"This heat activates the E-Cat and then goes to the utilization by the Customer, so that its cost is paid back by itself. This activator stays in function for the 35% of the operational time of the syspem of the apparatus. The E-Cat, activated by the heat of the Activator, works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid."

Yup. But hey, it is his claim. And it is quite explicit a heat resistance, and has always been. ETA: even his pretend patent application only had heat resistor. No spark plug.

http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/wp-...n-Technical-presentation_-J-Hadjichristos.pdf

explained in somewhat more details in :

http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/wp-...ichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf

almost the same performances as Rossi's e-cat, the same kind of techno (Ni-H) just a few monthes after the "separation".

And about the same amount of evidence.


http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3353181.ece

Notice the trend ? All *claims* by defkalion. We have other counter claim by Rossi , especially since eh did not want to give in his "secret".

science does not need spectacle

Maybe you should tell Rossi and defkalion to do science then, rather than clown-snakery.

 

[Reality Check]

your simple technique is not very efficient in this case.
For instance
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.2752.pdf

That would be a single citation in 13 years, henryco.
So far the answers to:

1. Has it been cited?
2. How much?
3. Where (and in what context)?

are

1. Yes.
2. 1 time
3. in a theoretical paper about monopoles that speculates without any evidence that these monopoles could cause the cited effects!

 

[Reality Check]

The author (G Lochak) in general published his articles in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie.

You have to wonder why G Lochak decided not to publish this paper in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie.
Instead this scientist working for Fondation Louis de Broglie decided to publish in Verlag der Zeitschrift für Naturforschung (a German journal).

We can expect LENR to be published in the journals that deal with nuclear physics. If the physics is correct then they will be able to be published in any journal.
This is despite any paranoid conspiracy theories about "filtering" or LENR being taken over by the military.

But i consider it might be a chance because then you are obliged to read and understand yourself to make up your own mind and not rely on any exterior scientific authority.

That is exactly what skeptics (most of the people in this thread!) have done, henryco !

We have looked at the scientific evidence for the validity of Rossi's apparatus and found that there is none at all - no credible published papers and only 1 paper that is obviously flawed.


There are many published papers on LENR but the big problems are

• No credible, repeated experimental evidence for LENR.
• The theoretical papers on LENR are rather dubious (to say the least!).

Just look at the paper you have cited where the authors see a different distribution of isotopes in generated ball lightning from the source material. So they evoke magic to create the different isotopes without looking at what real physics says about it.
ETA:

The science is that they are studying the explosion of pure titanium wires in distilled water.
The non-science is that they have no analysis of the distilled water (they assume that it contains only H2O!).
The magic is that they state that Ti in the electrodes is somehow turned into B, Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Cr, Fe, Cu and Zn in the discharge along with a different isotopic composition of Ti (Ti46 decreases, Ti47 decreases Ti48 increases, Ti49 decreases Ti60 decreases).

 

[Reality Check]

at huge densities and pressures, ...

Thank you, henryco, for confirming that you have no idea what the Coulomb barrier is !
The Coulomb barrier always exists. You need "huge densities and pressures" to overcome the barrier.

 

[Reality Check]

but since i suspect that you would be lost quite rapidly in my theoretical paper i have written the vulgarisation phenomenological :
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf
just for people like you...

Oh goody - another Internet relativity crank !
Maybe you should start another thread on the topic, henryco.
Your theoretical paper though is out of date and has many crank features

• there is no longer a measurement of a superluminal velocity of muon neutrinos,
• the Pioneer effect has been explained,
• LENR has nothing to do with gravitation,
• "god of the gaps" arguments are never valid (you cannot find an explanation of X, thus your idea explains X)!

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oh goody - another Internet relativity crank !

Hey there! No matter if those cranks are, well, cranks or something to be taken serious. I _really_ would love if my electricity company would bill me by kWh/h, while keeping the same price per kWh!

Don't you?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Dancing David]

at huge densities and pressures, there is a screening effect by the elctron gas allowing nucleus to fuse (multibody reaction) even in a cold configuration (black dwarf analogy)

And where was that demonstrated, as in actual demonstration, given the Rossi scenario/

Which one is comparable at all to Rossi's device?

The sonic bubbles are not.

 

[Aepervius]

And where was that demonstrated, as in actual demonstration, given the Rossi scenario/

Which one is comparable at all to Rossi's device?

The sonic bubbles are not.

Yeah that is like homeopath. They cite you study on water "memory" conformation having a life of microseconds, then ignore that sugar pills is how most homeopathy is sold.

So now we got some study cited about sparks in water (not even counting the funny stuff as realityCheck points out), when the Rossi experience are about Ni in H atmosphere.

 

[henryco]

That would be a single citation in 13 years, henryco.
So far the answers to:

1. Has it been cited?
2. How much?
3. Where (and in what context)?

are

1. Yes.
2. 1 time
3. in a theoretical paper about monopoles that speculates without any evidence that these monopoles could cause the cited effects!

let me just tell you about the latest citation i heared about:
It's an article published 2 days ago
http://restframe.com/downloads/tm.pdf
check the references at the end of this, many of them posterior to 2001 cite
the article...i told you there are many citations but you still might want to ask many times the question : has it been cited and how much, ... depends on how many times you want to be ridiculous..

 

[ben m]

let me just tell you about the latest citation i heared about:
It's an article published 2 days ago
http://restframe.com/downloads/tm.pdf
check the references at the end of this, many of them posterior to 2001 cite
the article...i told you there are many citations but you still might want to ask many times the question : has it been cited and how much, ... depends on how many times you want to be ridiculous..

Yikes. I see citations in Annals de Fondation Louis de Broglie; in cold-fusion web pages (lenr-canr.org isn't a journal); and at cold-fusion conferences.

Let's put it another way. You have a monopole/tachyon/ball-lightning/cold-fusion/compact-star theory.

There are mainstream monopole experts publishing in Phys Rev and similar high-quality journals. Why aren't they citing your monopole ideas? (Or are they? You tell me.)

There are mainstream tachyon theorists, publishing in Phys Rev and similar high-quality journals. Why aren't they citing your tachyon ideas?

There are mainstream compact experts, publishing in Astrophysical Journal and similar high-quality journals. Why aren't they citing your compact-star ideas?

There are mainstream atmospheric science, plasma, and electromagnetic discharge experts, publishing in Nature Geoscience and similar high-quality journals. Why aren't they citing your ball-lightning ideas?

It's understandable, perhaps, that only cold-fusion crackpots will cite you cold-fusion theory. But it looks like you can't get any respect for the rest of your theories, either. Why not? Could it be "because all of your theories are nonsense, and easily recognizable as nonsense to experts?"

 

[GlennB]

I see "Server not found at restframe.com". Perhaps they use cold fusion to power the server?

 

[ben m]

let me just tell you about the latest citation i heared about:
It's an article published 2 days ago

And when you say "published", what do you mean? Published by who?

 

[Reality Check]

let me just tell you about the latest citation i heared about:
It's an article published 2 days ago
http://restframe.com/downloads/tm.pdf

So now we have you confirming how obscure and ignored the paper is, henryco .
Urutskoev L.I., Liksonov V.I. Observation of transformation of chemical elements during electric discharge published Prikladnaya Fizika (Applied Physics, in Russian), 2000, vol.4, pp. 83-100.
Cited twice in 13 years in

1. a theoretical paper about monopoles that speculates without any evidence that these monopoles could cause the cited effects!
   This scientist working for Fondation Louis de Broglie decided to publish in Verlag der Zeitschrift für Naturforschung - one wonders why?
2. a PDF on the Internet!
   The author shows a fair amount of scholarly incompetence, e.g. scientific papers do not cite pre-prints as a rule. They never cite web pages! Even conference presentations are not valid citations.

You are still fantasizing about there being many citations to this paper, henryco.

 

[acementhead]

That is correct - there is a magic catalyst in Rossi's device that does nuclear fusion .

Not any more there isn't. The latest iteration of the Rossi Wonder© no longer requires the Secret Sauce™. Apparently the latest amended USPO filing by Rossi deletes all reference to a "catalyst".

For a good laugh see the short video

youtube.com/watch?v=Vt2JqEmaUGc

wherein a Swedish "scientist" says

"In this case, you have to believe in the inventor Rossi, ..."

That's not science in the world in which I live.

Pteridine I'd still like to try to get a worthwhile bet on this if you are interested.

 

[Aepervius]

Not any more there isn't. The latest iteration of the Rossi Wonder© no longer requires the Secret Sauce™. Apparently the latest amended USPO filing by Rossi deletes all reference to a "catalyst".

For a good laugh see the short video

youtube.com/watch?v=Vt2JqEmaUGc

wherein a Swedish "scientist" says

"In this case, you have to believe in the inventor Rossi, ..."

That's not science in the world in which I live.

Pteridine I'd still like to try to get a worthwhile bet on this if you are interested.

In that case it would simply be a oven heater with possibly gas (H) inclusion. probably nothing really patentable, nothing new under the sky. But probably a way to run around patent restriction and pretend "hey guy I got a patent".


ETA: I see this is news from end of may : http://shutdownrossi.com/technology...patent-filing-with-the-rossileviessen-report/

Do you have a link to the patent ?

 

[Horatius]

The amendments to the European Patent Application can be seen here:

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab=doclist


It's interesting mostly in that he completely avoids mentioning the catalyst issue, entirely. Just dropping the catalyst from the claim won't get him off the hook for this though, as the catalyst is still mentioned in the description (See page 5), and his public statements are still usable against him.

One interesting thing he's added is that the metal tube must now be a copper metal tube. He uses this to distinguish his device from the prior art, and also indicates that the description stresses that "the metal pair of nickel and copper is used" and "is fundamental for achieving the energy generating reactions".

The only problem is, I can't find anywhere where he "stresses" that the tube must be copper. He mentions the use of cooper in passing a few times, but makes no indication that this is an essential feature. Indeed, at one point, he does the exact opposite, where, on page 4, lines 31-32, he describes the tube as being "preferably, though not exclusively, made of a metal", which implies both that the metal could be any metal, not just copper, and that even a metal tube isn't necessary, implying you could use something like plastic, glass or ceramics. This new insistence that a copper tube is essential to the operation of the system would be considered "new matter", and you're not allowed to add such new matter this late in the game.

There doesn't seem to be anything new filed in the US case, which is US20110005506. It's harder to link directly the the US site, but you can search for that number here:

http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair