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".
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Richard Hull »

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Carl Willis »

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 3:18 pm
Real name: Doug Coulter
Location: Floyd, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Doug Coulter »

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: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Chris Bradley »

> -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: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Richard Hull »

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Doug Coulter
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:18 pm
Real name: Doug Coulter
Location: Floyd, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Doug Coulter »

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 7:51 am
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by David Geer »

Ah, good ol' worldlingo.com! The translation is State Question: Not Assigned.
- David Geer
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Chris Bradley »

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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:40 pm
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Dustin »

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 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Carl Willis »

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
Dustin
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:40 pm
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Dustin »

While I am very skeptical of this process and device,
(a good critique can be found here;
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 41327.html
)

Richards posted link gives this some credibility,
Brian Ahern received his PhD in material science from MIT, holds 26 patents and was a senior scientist for 17 years in research and development at USAF Rome Lab at Hanscom Air Force Base.
He seems to have the credentials to do some Calorimetry which gives the process some credence.

I think it is an appropriate place (other forms of fusion) to post this even though
not definitively proven as fusion.
It would not be difficult for the amateur to try to replicate.
As much as I respect your opinion, your censoring of topics may not be the general consensus of the forum members and should be open for general discussion.
Steve.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Carl Willis »

Why The Crap on NextBigFuture.com Should Not be Discussed on Fusor.net, 2nd Edition
(In Three Easy Pieces)

1. It's commercial rather than amateur activity (and for that reason I suppose, lacks the standard of disclosure that is expected).

2. Nobody posting on the Fusor.net forums is actually doing anything with these projects or ideas. Here it's only talk. Of a highly speculative and gossipy nature. As I said before, when someone actually does something and talks about what they have done, the topic of what they are doing will be appropriate for discussion.

3. The projects mentioned so far are objectively sensational and popular discussion topics in many other venues that are more appropriate and easy to find for those who are into that kind of thing.

These criteria are not specific to the Italian catalyst quackery milieu, but have been applied to sedate the most egregiously inappropriate Polywell banter in the past as well. Certain topics just suffer from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and I like to poach them in infancy with an elephant gun loaded with Ritalin. You can call my complaining censorship, but another more routine way of looking at it is that I have certain standards regarding what I think this site is about. They are already codified in the "etiquette" section of the board's introductory reading.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Chris Bradley »

Carl Willis wrote:
> Why The Crap on NextBigFuture.com Should Not be Discussed on Fusor.net, 2nd Edition
> 1. It's commercial rather than amateur activity (and for that reason I suppose, lacks the standard of disclosure that is expected).
> 2. Nobody posting on the Fusor.net forums is actually doing anything with these projects or ideas. Here it's only talk. Of a highly speculative and gossipy nature. As I said before, when someone actually does something and talks about what they have done, the topic of what they are doing will be appropriate for discussion.
> 3. The projects mentioned so far are objectively sensational and popular discussion topics in many other venues that are more appropriate and easy to find for those who are into that kind of thing.

I do not necessarily seek to disagree with the conclusions, but the logic seems flawed, for there are also reasons to discuss such things.

In the interest of balance;

1) This forum says it is "for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR ..should contain...URLs related to 'other than fusor' fusion". Therefore Steven's original post with a single URL line would seem appropriate.

2) Notwithstanding the lack of information in the linked site, these types of 'reactors' follow recipies that look simple enough that amatuers may want to see if they can do something similar and make up their own 'recipies', but might need a place where actual experimenters lurk so as to build up some confidence and discuss how to go about attempting them first. How would an uninitiated amateur attempt to try something new if no-one wishes to even begin to countenance a discussion about how to try, let alone move on to propose pros/cons and possible controls and outcomes to experiment for?

3) Publications on LENR 'Crap' can be found in bona fide conferences and journals and is currently being experimented on by major institutional bodies. It would therefore seem a matter of pure sensorship and selectivity to exclude such publications and projects merely by pointing at the 'ficticious' type of 'Journals' like Rossi's, without giving credit to the mainstream publications and Nobel laureats who give a forum for discussion of research in the field.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Frank Sanns »

I can say for certainty that there is no intent for censorship on this forum. During every meeting and email with the owner of the site and unanimously with all administrators, posts will not be censored.

Posts will be cleaned up, kept organized and be focused. Focused to keep the posts on the mission of the forum which is amateur inertial electrostatic confinement fusion.

Yes, there are other forms of fusion and they can have an interest and role in what is being done on the forum but posts of fringe technologies does not add much value to the forum but it can and does add noise. It seems that the more fringe the technology, the more the number of redundant or posts of lesser significance arise and the hype factor goes up by exponents.

I personally do not care if project x fringe gets another $500,000 to continue the project for another 6 months. Equally I do not think it helps the forum when repeated news flashes of nothing new keep bumping to the top of the Recent Threads page.

If there is something new or a good technical discussion can be mustered for fusion related items then it is good. In theory, a single line post of an alternative fusion technology is appropriate. In the context of multiple shout from the mountain again and again about nothingness is not. To my recollection, Steve Hosemans has been a good contributor on the forum and never one of the noise makers. I just think it was one of the posts that added to the previous noise and was the one that elicited a corrective response from Carl. It is unfortunate that it had to be you Steve as I am certain it was not personal but rather global to the forum.

Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by Carl Willis »

Chris, if you're gonna go to the trouble of quoting my entire post, you might as well go to the trouble of exercising some good ol' fashioned reading comprehension.

Let's run through this again because, although the horse may be dead, that never prevented some of us from wanting to beat it again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

This particular subforum is about "Other Forms of Fusion." The SAME standard applies here as elsewhere on fusor.net: the focus is real, experimental, amateur nuclear fusion. I am not passing judgment on everything possibly described as LENR, but on one persistent bit of popular quackery that for some reason keeps trying to get a foothold here. I welcome anyone on this forum who is actually working on the Rossi concept (or any other concept) and is willing to discuss what they are doing within our rules and open-source framework. However, right now, the purported technical breakthrough in the Rossi project is officially a business secret.

Alas, I repeat myself.

Keep poundin' that horse, see where it takes you.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
eprparadox
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:27 pm
Real name:

Re: FWIW: LENR-CANR update

Post by eprparadox »

Hello - I came across this thread today while familiarizing myself with the fusor.net site, and I thought the contributors might find the following information to be of some interest. I also just become aware of Mr. Rossi and his putative invention this past week. After a cursory investigation, I found that there are physicists researching Rossi's work, notably Yeong Kim of Purdue University. The latter's paper "Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System" specifically aims to furnish a theoretical framework for interpreting Rossi's claimed results. I've attached a copy of the paper, which has caused me to take a slightly less skeptical attitude than I originally had... something more like 'wait and see' (the whole thing comes across as bogus, of course, but it is claimed that a commercial plant will be online in the next three months).
Attachments
Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation.pdf
(107.85 KiB) Downloaded 390 times
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”