FWIW: LENR-CANR update

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11531
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:13 pm

FWIW check out

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian- ... n-low.html

Follow the links.

Ahern is somone I know and have dealt with. He is solid and I respect his work. I consulted with him during my work with the Graneaus on the Water arc explosion work that led to our peer reviewed paper in the Journal of Plasma Physics in 2000.

It seems Ahern has built his own apparatus and has replicated the supposed "suspect work" of Rossi and Focardi. Hmmmm....

Finally, to all those in the CF kinda' know, Scott Chubb, a Phd Quantum Physicist has passed away. A long time researcher and theoretician along side the late Julian Schwinger (Nobel Laureate) were both deeply involved in the theoretical aspects of CF work. Both believed there was something to the work. Scott's Uncle was the famous NRL physicist, Talbot Chubb who also worked in CF. Uncle and nephew were both employed at NRL and were often at odds over their own separarte theoretcial ideas related to CANR-LENR.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/p ... morial.pdf

A full tale of Scott's life and physics record

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Carl Willis » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:26 pm

What's wrong with this picture? With no disrespect toward the individuals (I know none of them), a lot.

-The nextbigfuture blog is publishing (uncritically, as usual) an ostensibly private email discussion that was sent to them second-hand and contains lots of inane persiflage (it's an email thread, so par for the course), some claims, and some discrepancies. What information is accurate or canonical in this blog-posted reprint of a reprint of an email thread? Five watts? Eight watts? (Both are mentioned.) Who knows? Fully allowing that something interesting MAY or MAY NOT be going on somewhere, who in this chain of trickle-down rumor actually has a freaking clue? Not the reader at the end of it, that's for sure!

-The Rossi et al. innovation remains a trade secret. Their special catalyst is where all the physical novelty (supposedly) lies. These guys have had their PCT patent claims rejected for being contradicted by accepted physics, containing affected vocabulary, insufficient disclosure, etc. Look their stuff up on WIPO, and ask yourself why respectable scientists would communicate like they do. It's a good question.

-Ignoring the secret ingredient, the Rossi et al. group has NO legitimate peer-reviewed publications dealing with their calorimetry methods and results that have attracted so much attention and sycophancy, and they have started their own sham journal in lieu thereof. Why any self-respecting, principled scientist would associate with them at this stage is a good question. If they have something interesting to report, then why do they communicate like quacks?

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277

User avatar
Doug Coulter
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 7:18 pm
Real name: Doug Coulter
Location: Floyd, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Doug Coulter » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:51 pm

Right. I myself tried to figure out what Rossi et al were claiming and doing, and couldn't. I'm pretty good at finding out stuff, and there was just --- nothing to find. Incomprehensible patents rejected for non specificity was about it, and only papers published in journals they created.

They had all the earmarks of people falling out of the charlatan tree and hitting every branch on the way down, far worse than Pons et al. More like deliberate crooks than accidental.

How did Ahern find out? Was there some sort of communication? Not mentioned. With all the heating and pumping and fooling around with large power inputs, to say the least, the details of their calorimetry must be quite interesting....to be nice about it.

I'd like to believe such a thing is possible, though it would take quite a stretch -- there'd have to be some backdoor tunnel into fusion for it to happen that should have left tracks in other research if it existed at this high level - someone should have noticed something odd going on on other experiments if they reported honestly. And I don't see those tracks. That's not for lack of looking for them, either.

That's not many watts (a lot for fusion so far) for a simple chemical reaction which could explain anything that wasn't measurement error. But no tests of composition before and after were mentioned either. Just not good enough for me to hop on that wagon so far.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Chris Bradley » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:45 pm

> -The Rossi et al. innovation remains a trade secret. Their special catalyst is where all the physical novelty (supposedly) lies. These guys have had their PCT patent claims rejected for being contradicted by accepted physics, containing affected vocabulary, insufficient disclosure, etc.
I am not picking sides or wishing to take the edge of your comments, but for clarification/ information - as far as I understand it, PCT examiners can only make advisory comments and cannot 'reject' a patent, as this is an action for the respective administrations in each jurisdiction once the applicant takes it through to National examination stages.

...and [staggeringly.. or not, depending on your point of view!!], the UIBM (the Italian IP office) have, indeed, granted his patent!

http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanza ... =Invention

This patent is for 'a metal tube with nickel powder that can generate an exothermal reaction with hydrogen'. I don't see how that claim would be defensible, but anyhow he has chosen not to disclose his special sauce in this patent.

I am not yet aware of any patent rejections.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11531
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:00 pm

I also take no sides and resist tales of "secret catalysts" of unknown composition which just might add the energy seen in a normalized chemical reaction. The nickel-hydrogen reaction burps up, in my mind, methods of "Raney metal" preparation, a catalyst itself, and the only known method of nickel purification to better than 4 nines...all, old processes.

As always, I remain plugged in and listening, but have seen nothing that pushes me any more than I am pushed or elated by any of ITER's work, hopes or pronouncements. However, CANR-LENR is moving into real fusion hopeful land with the "big boys" as its first generation of researchers is now dying off and the new cadre takes over. Hot fusion has had several generations of deaths with a much more impressive "time on th' job" and with no more usable excess energy successes as well.

CF boasts energy producing hardware, albeit with virtually unusable sustained output, if real, yet with zero accepted theory or understanding behind the action. HF has a fully accepted and long known theory with fusing hardware that hasn't produced any usable energy while often damaging the engine if run for any period of real value. In this case opposites don't attract.

As we note: The beat goes on and on.....I'm watchin' 'em both. Unless some lucky donkey wanders onto the stage within the next 15-20 years, I'll never live to see fusion energy pour outta' my wall outlet. However, once I understood fusion, I lost all hope for it in my lifetime even though I, personally, have done it. An amazing and tragic dichotomy.

Nature just don't want this stuff burnt unless on a billion-qunitillion joule scale run off potential energy exchanges between mutually exclusive forces/sources bound within heptillions of tons of matter. Good thing, too. Otherwise, our butts would be a' burnin' in a fire we started, but couldn't put out.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Doug Coulter
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 7:18 pm
Real name: Doug Coulter
Location: Floyd, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Doug Coulter » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:38 pm

Chris, sadly I don't read italian, but I see this:

Stato Domanda
non assegnata

Anybody translate it yet?
I don't know enough to get to the text of the thing from the link myself.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!

David Geer
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:51 pm
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by David Geer » Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:03 am

Ah, good ol' worldlingo.com! The translation is State Question: Not Assigned.
- David Geer

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Chris Bradley » Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:20 am

I think [I do not know for sure] that this relates to whether the applicant has allowed/requested it to be a fully searchable application by other IP offices (as there are now certain agreements between participating IP offices),

or ....

patent law generally requires an applicant to lodge in their own country first, and some jurisdictions reserve the right to disallow an applicant from patenting abroad. Therefore, this might indicate permission has been given for foreign applications. [Don't ask me why... the USPTO does this - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... _C_184.htm - and if you make a 'regular' national US application from abroad (rather than a PCT route) then it is funny to get a letter from them giving you permission to do what you've already done!! The US rule of law knows no boundaries, neither in space nor time!!]

I think [I don't speak Italian either, particularly technical words] 'rilasciata' might better translate as 'released' rather than 'not assigned'.

The key date looks to be "Data Brevetto" = licenced date.

Dustin
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:40 am
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Dustin » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:59 pm

Another nickel-hydrogen device >100% output.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/brillo ... ially.html

User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Carl Willis » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:08 pm

Nonsense. Just...nonsense.

What is the point of re-posting from the NextBigFuture blog? Aren't the people who want to follow sensationalist, uncritical coverage of energy pseudoscience already followers over there? And--more to the point--does any of the material have a proximate bearing on real experimental amateur nuclear fusion? Does any of it meet the basic standard for being a discussion topic here? Not really.

My take from months ago:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=419#p3034

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277

Post Reply