• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

I have met LENR in real life today!

Peter i

Critical Thinker
Peter i
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Denmark
Or rather, I have met someone who seriously seemed to believe in it.

The surprise was, that it was an otherwise serious and competent person hosting him.

And a poor grad student was building a "model T test kit" like this one:
http://www.lookingforheat.com/shop/diy-kits/lenr-test-kit-mk1-model-t/


It involved some of the lousiest engineering practice I have seen for a long time, among other things regulating the furnace by switching on and off the mains voltage to the power supply with a PID-controller and an SSR, rather than switching the low voltage DC between the power supply and furnace (could be done with a MOSFET or a power transistor).

And it intends to measure minute temperature variations with Chinese type K thermocouples.

And a PWM motor controller has been placed between the power supply and furnace to chop up the current in a magical 10 kHz square sine wave, that is essential for the fusion.
Should it be adjusted, this would further serve to screw up the PID-values.

And he got offended when it dawned on me what was going on, and I said:"Oh, you are attempting cold fusion?".





I honestly thought, that cold fusion died long ago!
 
On another note, he was also an avid believer in some russian named Vysotskii, whom he claimed had trained bacteria to make Caesium-137 decay a lot faster than normally.
 
Last edited:
Peter i said:
On another note, he was also an avid believer in some russian named Vysotskii, whom he claimed had trained bacteria to make Caesium-137 decay a lot faster than normally.
Click to expand...

Now I have a picture in my head of a Russian scientist standing over a petri dish with a clicker and a few pieces of extra nutritious agar :D
 
Turgor said:
Now I have a picture in my head of a Russian scientist standing over a petri dish with a clicker and a few pieces of extra nutritious agar :D
Click to expand...

I saw him leaning over the petri dish with a tiny chair and whip in his hands.
 
It seems that Vysotskii has actually managed to publish i "Annals of nuclear energy" in 2013.

I found a claimed "in print" and the paper shows up when searching for it.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...dioactive_waste_in_growing_biological_systems

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but my ********-o-meter rings loudly when reading it.
http://vglobale.it/public/files/2013/ANE_3339.pdf

Speeding up radioactive decay 30 times with regular baker's yeast should have rocked the scientific world..... If it really had happened.

Not to mention, that it is very unlikely IMHO that it would not alreade have been a problem for anybody trying to establish the laws of nuclear decay, if yeast in your beaker could offset the results so much.
 
Last edited:
"LENR" = "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"? Or some such? I initially took it to be some sort of railroad -- the London and East Northern RR or something like that.
 
Exactly!

"Low energy nuclear reactions" is just a modern word for "cold fusion" or "alchemy".

Just like "creationism" became "intelligent design" when "creationism" started to stink too much.


The components sold to build the "reactor" above, are by the way the cheapest possible from ebay.
And they want to show nuclear reactions taking place, by comparing temperature in the two tubes.... Of which only one is actually giving a feedback to the PID and the other is just connected in series.
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Ah, you obviously have never attempted to travel by train in the UK.
They use buses instead.
Click to expand...
the New York New Haven Railroad used to do this on some of their branch lines back in the 1960's when running trains no longer paid, and before they just gave up altogether. They must have found some junkyard somewhere, and dragged out the most incredible antiquated, smelly old turtleback buses, which they would send careening up the back roads, broken shocks clanking, and rarely on schedule. they would drop you off in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. The railway stations, of course, were long gone, converted to hippie shops and private homes. It was a fearsome experience, one of those things that's fun to recall as an episode in one's wasted youth, as long as it need not be repeated.
 
The guys around here who were getting caught up in in took a closer, critical look.

The conclusion was, not surprisingly, that it was an orgy of bad experimental design and procedures, and that the "gurus" Rossi and Cellini had very little to hang their hats on.

Experimental details were "secret", raw data were "secret" and any critical question was met with technobabble, change of subject or downright anger.


.... and no-one has touched the "experimental set-up" since.

:thumbsup:
 
Yep, home spun uneducated engineers and physicists:

I recently discovered that a co-worker believes in a form of perpetual motion machine. Specifically: uses the DC power supply from an automobile engine to dissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen, then passes the hydrogen back through the air intake to the engine.

According to him he has seen the design for this and that if one just tweaks it enough it is possible to wean off the gasoline supply and run the engine and power the car only from the hydrogen produced. All you need gasoline for is to get the motor running in the first place.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yep, home spun uneducated engineers and physicists:

I recently discovered that a co-worker believes in a form of perpetual motion machine. Specifically: uses the DC power supply from an automobile engine to dissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen, then passes the hydrogen back through the air intake to the engine.

According to him he has seen the design for this and that if one just tweaks it enough it is possible to wean off the gasoline supply and run the engine and power the car only from the hydrogen produced. All you need gasoline for is to get the motor running in the first place.
Click to expand...

I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
 
Last edited:
Peter i said:
I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
Click to expand...

I too have read about several such schemes. They all seem to make the unspoken assumption that the electrical power from the alternator comes at no cost in input energy. That is, you can come out ahead if you use an electrolyzer that generates twice as much hydrogen/oxygen even though it draws twice as much current from the alternator. That this extra current places a greater mechanical load on the engine driving the alternator is ignored.
 
Peter i said:
I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
Click to expand...

And I get my money from grease! What's the problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom