Slideshow of Mizuno-Yoshino Presentation at MIT Conference Published

Jed Rothwell has added the slideshow from the recent presentation by Hideki Yoshino and Tadahiko Mizuno at the cold fusion conference at MIT to his LENR-CANR.org site. Below is one slide that provides summary information of the testing they reported on. The best results were obtained using nickel and deuterium.

Mizuno
One interesting finding presented in the slides is that after the month long experiment was concluded, around twice the amount of hydrogen was found in the ash than from the starting gas. From the presentation:

Screenshot 2014-03-29 13.22.58

Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now has done her usual terrific job of recording and chronicling the whole conference, and the audio of the  Yoshino-Mizuno presentation can be found here. Ruby did record a video of all the lectures from the event, but the Mizuno one has not been posted yet.

  • artefact

    I hope he will be successful with his planned 1KW and 10KW reactors.

    • Christina

      Amen to that! Although is seems that Rossi is further along (I’m going on what everyone is saying here and what Rossi has published on this site. I hope that Dr. Rossi has some kind of product out soon-even if it’s the apple pie version of LENR. (You know, make a device that can be put into a fire ring in on your camping trip and you won’t need to make a fire but still have plenty of heat to cook and be warm. That would be great in Africa and South America.) 🙂

      • Ophelia Rump

        This is a very modest report. I wonder what efforts they are taking to determine the mechanism, surely that question must be consuming their thoughts. I wonder what shock waves the answer to that might bring to the academic world? Careers will be won and lost on this subject in the near future.

    • deleo77

      If Mizuno’s work could be replicated and the reaction scaled up, Mizuno and his team could be on a track to a Nobel Prize. I know that sounds kind of crazy. But this is good stuff. Replication will be the key.

      • Ophelia Rump

        On the bright side if anyone gets a Nobel prize, I think it makes the thing they worked on real. Like magic!

        Nobel= Poof! LENR is real.

        Einstein, I believe would like that equation.

      • bachcole

        I like it. And I know that Rossi is way ahead, but Mizuno is transparent and Rossi (bless his heart) is not.

        • jousterusa

          I think Rossi may soon regret that lack of transparency, even if I commiserate with him insofar as he wants to protect his intellectual property rights in the E-Cat. BTW, we are now at the end of March. Has the independent report been received?

  • artefact

    I hope he will be successful with his planned 1KW and 10KW reactors.

    • Christina

      Amen to that! Although is seems that Rossi is further along (I’m going on what everyone is saying here and what Rossi has published on this site. I hope that Dr. Rossi has some kind of product out soon-even if it’s the apple pie version of LENR. (You know, make a device that can be put into a fire ring in on your camping trip and you won’t need to make a fire but still have plenty of heat to cook and be warm. That would be great in Africa and South America.) 🙂

      • Christina

        Perhaps Dr. Rossi can do the best he can with what he’s got and then “boldly go where no one has gone before” and put something out cf out there.

        As far as I’m concerned, “to boldly go where no one has gone before” is to science what “I have a dream” was to Dr. King. (Indeed, I believe if we go with science, we can fulfill Dr. King’s dream better than if we do not go with science.)

    • deleo77

      If Mizuno’s work could be replicated and the reaction scaled up, Mizuno and his team could be on a track to a Nobel Prize. I know that sounds kind of crazy. But this is good stuff. Replication will be the key.

      • Ophelia Rump

        On the bright side if anyone gets a Nobel prize, I think it makes the thing they worked on real. Like magic!

        Nobel= Poof! LENR is real.

        Einstein, I believe would like that equation.

      • bachcole

        I like it. And I know that Rossi is way ahead, but Mizuno is transparent and Rossi (bless his heart) is not.

        • jousterusa

          I think Rossi may soon regret that lack of transparency, even if I commiserate with him insofar as he wants to protect his intellectual property rights in the E-Cat. BTW, we are now at the end of March. Has the independent report been received?

      • Warthog

        Pretty much every attempt at LENR has been replicated, including the original Pons and Fleischmann work….multiple times. All have been ignored and stifled. Why would Mizuno’s be any different. And if anyone gets a Nobel, it should be Pons, or perhaps joint with Pons, Rossi, Arata, and Mizuno. Arata, IIRC was the first to do a gas-loaded Pd/D2 experiment, which reduces the number of variables hugely compared to the original P/F electrochemical approach.

      • Warthog

        Pretty much every attempt at LENR has been replicated, including the original Pons and Fleischmann work….multiple times. All have been ignored and stifled. Why would Mizuno’s be any different. And if anyone gets a Nobel, it should be Pons, or perhaps joint with Pons, Rossi, Arata, and Mizuno. Arata, IIRC was the first to do a gas-loaded Pd/D2 experiment, which reduces the number of variables hugely compared to the original P/F electrochemical approach.

  • georgehants

    Admin, good to recognise Ruby at Cold Fusion Now.
    They do some great work over there.
    Their videos and recordings should become historic data on the scientific Cold Fusion crimes taught in students text books in years to come.

    • astralprojectee

      Yes I agree Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now seems like a professional. I brought a cold fusion calendar that Ruby Carat compiled. And I laughed hard after reading that she put the Buddha’s birthday in the calendar. LOL Of course it was an arbitrary date to a degree, but she is in the know about free thinking. Just like people like meditators tend to be open minded.

  • georgehants

    Admin, good to recognise Ruby at Cold Fusion Now.
    They do some great work over there.
    Their videos and recordings should become historic data on the scientific Cold Fusion crimes taught in students text books in years to come.

    • astralprojectee

      Yes I agree Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now seems like a professional. I brought a cold fusion calendar that Ruby Carat compiled. And I laughed hard after reading that she put the Buddha’s birthday in the calendar. LOL Of course it was an arbitrary date to a degree, but she is in the know about free thinking. Just like people like meditators tend to be open minded.

  • Hhiram

    As I recall, on his site Yoshino seems to say that this is muon-assisted cold fusion. I can’t find the site on Google now (maybe someone else knows it?).

    This presentation doesn’t mention muons, and it looks (to me) much closer to Rossi’s E-Cat.

    Was there any additional information about this at the conference?

    • warthog

      Yoshino’s company is interested in BOTH sorts of “cold fusion”. I believe the company website says that explicitly.

  • kasom

    for me it is a very simple conclusion, if the Rosssi-Effect were a non show, the Profs involved would have aborted the tests month ago.
    It doens’nt suprise me anyhow that others find some similar achievements in another setup and procedure. CF will make its way!!

  • Curbina

    I read the slides. A very interesting presentation. I could not help but got stuck in the ones about the gases released and what seems to puzzle them about not finding Helium. I think this entails with what others have said like Mills, Santilli and Sarg. Something happens to the Hydrogen atoms when this reactions happen.

  • Curbina

    I read the slides. A very interesting presentation. I could not help but got stuck in the ones about the gases released and what seems to puzzle them about not finding Helium. I think this entails with what others have said like Mills, Santilli and Sarg. Something happens to the Hydrogen atoms when this reactions happen.

  • Ophelia Rump

    This is a very modest report. I wonder what efforts they are taking to determine the mechanism, surely that question must be consuming their thoughts. I wonder what shock waves the answer to that might bring to the academic world? Careers will be won and lost on this subject in the near future. I expect to see a softening of the hard liners against LENR, as they begin to hedge their bets. There are simply too many credible reports at this point to make being a denier a safe place to stand.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It’s a very puzzling experimental result. The last bullet point means that if absence of excess heat is taken as absence of LENR, D+ or H2+ was produced (also) without LENR. If it was D+, the question arises why it didn’t recombine. If it was H2+, then it means that some ordinary hydrogen was hiding somewhere in the experiment and was released during the experiment, maybe due to heating. In this case, it might plausibly be that the larger amount of H2+ seen during excessive heat experiments also came from that same unknown non-LENR source, and its release was triggered perhaps just by the higher temperature during those runs.

    Or maybe there is some more mundane explanation: maybe the gas is D2 all along, but the measurement method falsely interprets it partly as H2 in a time-dependent way. The diagnostics method is based on ionising a molecule or atom and then measuring its charge per mass ratio. An intrinsic weakness of the method, as the authors point out, is that it doesn’t distinguish e.g. D atom from H2 molecule, or D2 molecule from He4 atom. Perhaps change of pressure in the chamber, or some other environmental factor, makes the system more or less preferentially break up hydrogen molecules before or at ionisation. Ionisation energy is usually larger than energy needed to break up a molecule so this might conceivably happen.

    If one sticks to the explanation that there is excess H2 which is produced by LENR, then in principle the Oppenheimer-Phillilps type neutron stripping reactions are usually exothermic, for example D+Ni60 –> Ni61+p. Those reactions would produce one H per each D consumed, not more. Net breakup of D into two protons is not a possible explanation since it would be endothermic. So O-P cannot explain increase the observation that amount of H2 was larger at the end than the amount of D2 initially. On the other hand, as said above, since partial evolution of H2 happened even in runs without excess heat, perhaps this is not a serious objection.

    The results are interesting, but as they stand now they remain pretty much inconclusive, in my opinion.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Atomic deuterium should recombine quickly, but D+ would have to catch an electron first. It could simply stay ionized under the conditions in the QMS.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I could be wrong, but I understood that the ionisation is made by the measurement device. In any case, if there are positive ions around but not electrons and/or negative ions, the system is not quasineutral whence there is electric field which tends to drive those ions to the walls where they would again recombine.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I guess that the reaction itself produces free deuterons. The question is indeed why they don’t convert to atoms. Maybe the plasma discharge is responsible for that, but I’m not sure if it is continuously applied. Regarding the hypothesis that protium is generated, I would expect to see atomic mass #1 as well as #2. I wonder if this was observed in the H2 experiments.

    • Gerard McEk

      Isn’t it possible that Ni contains large amount of hydrogen? I doubt that you can evacuate this out of the lattice. When you heat it (with or without excess heat) some of the hydrogen will be released. What is your opinion about this, Pekka?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I agree, maybe that’s the most plausible explanation. Also, on page 46 one sees that deuterium disappears “fast” during first 500 ks, but H2 continues to climb in a slower timescale. Maybe at the temperature used, nickel tends to outgas ordinary hydrogen but absorbs deuterium(?)

        • Gerard McEk

          Could be, although I have no idea why Deuterium would preferably be absorbed. If it absorbs more, the internal pressure should rise which would also lead to a higher Ni temperature (P*V=C). Could that be the reason for the temperature increase measured?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It might also be that ordinary dynamical equilibrium can explain it: atoms (both D and H) outgas and get absorbed all the time, similarly to the dynamical equilibrium of H2O in e.g. water/atmosphere interface. If internal storage of hydrogen is larger than the amount of gas, deuterium gets diluted even without preferential absorption. The total hydrogen+deuterium pressure would be a function of temperature with long hysteresis effect which perhaps explains the behaviour (slow increase) of the total pressure.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I like your line of thought about hidden gasses. That would be an easy variable to exclude by pre-stressing the environment by running the experiment once then replacing the gases and testing again.

      It also raises the question, was the environment pre-stressed by earlier tests, we simply do not have the precise methodology to examine. I think it would be foolish to conclude the entire test rig was pristine for each test.

    • JDM

      Undetected hydrinos elevated to higher energy thus presenting themselves?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It’s a very puzzling experimental result. The last bullet point means that if absence of excess heat is taken as absence of LENR, D+ or H2+ was produced (also) without LENR. If it was D+, the question arises why it didn’t recombine. If it was H2+, then it means that some ordinary hydrogen was hiding somewhere in the experiment and was released during the experiment, maybe due to heating. In this case, it might plausibly be that the larger amount of H2+ seen during excessive heat experiments also came from that same unknown non-LENR source, and its release was triggered perhaps just by the higher temperature during those runs.

    Or maybe there is some more mundane explanation: maybe the gas is D2 all along, but the measurement method falsely interprets it partly as H2 in a time-dependent way. The diagnostics method is based on ionising a molecule or atom and then measuring its charge per mass ratio. An intrinsic weakness of the method, as the authors point out, is that it doesn’t distinguish e.g. D atom from H2 molecule, or D2 molecule from He4 atom. Perhaps change of pressure in the chamber, or some other environmental factor, makes the system more or less preferentially break up hydrogen molecules before or at ionisation. Ionisation energy is usually larger than energy needed to break up a molecule so this might conceivably happen.

    If one sticks to the explanation that there is excess H2 which is produced by LENR, then in principle the Oppenheimer-Phillilps type neutron stripping reactions are usually exothermic, for example D+Ni60 –> Ni61+p. Those reactions would produce one H per each D consumed, not more. Net breakup of D into two protons is not a possible explanation since it would be endothermic. So O-P cannot explain increase the observation that amount of H2 was larger at the end than the amount of D2 initially. On the other hand, as said above, since partial evolution of H2 happened even in runs without excess heat, perhaps this is not a serious objection.

    The results are interesting, but as they stand now they remain pretty much inconclusive, in my opinion.

    • bachcole

      Not that I actually understand what you are saying, Pekka, since I don’t know what ‘M’ is in those formulas, but it seems to me that a COP less than one does not mean no LENR. It just means no demonstrable LENR. If I run a current through a resistor, the measured heat is surely going to be less than the calculated energy of the electricity. But adding a little LENR may not raise the measured heat high enough for people to get excited about a COP greater than 1. Am I right?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes. The M in the formulas is atom or molecule mass. M/e is the mass per charge ratio of the ion, which is the quantity that their gas analyser measures. They assume throughout that e=1, that the atom or molecule is singly ionised.

        • bachcole

          So what does T mean?

          It looks like they did what I suggested [ before I suggested it of course, and they wouldn’t listen to me anyway because I didn’t know what M or T was (:->) ]. My suggestion was to see if a mixture of D and H worked; but for them in their reactor, D worked and H did not. Did I get that right? I suggested it because D is so expensive.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            T is tritium (one proton and two neutrons). I understood that also H worked for them, but not as well as D. Or at least their best experiment (the one with largest excess heat) had D.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            T is tritium (one proton and two neutrons). I understood that also H worked for them, but not as well as D. Or at least their best experiment (the one with largest excess heat) had D.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Atomic deuterium should recombine quickly, but D+ would have to catch an electron first. It could simply stay ionized under the conditions in the QMS.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I could be wrong, but I understood that the ionisation is made by the measurement device. In any case, if there are positive ions around but not electrons and/or negative ions, the system is not quasineutral whence there is electric field which tends to drive those ions to the walls where they would again recombine.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I guess that the reaction itself produces free deuterons. The question is indeed why they don’t convert to atoms. Maybe the plasma discharge is responsible for that, but I’m not sure if it is continuously applied. Regarding the hypothesis that protium is generated, I would expect to see atomic mass #1 as well as #2. I wonder if this was observed in the H2 experiments.

    • Gerard McEk

      Isn’t it possible that Ni contains large amount of hydrogen? I doubt that you can evacuate this out of the lattice. When you heat it (with or without excess heat) some of the hydrogen will be released. What is your opinion about this, Pekka?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I agree, maybe that’s the most plausible explanation. Also, on page 46 one sees that deuterium disappears “fast” during first 500 ks, but H2 continues to climb in a slower timescale. Maybe at the temperature used, nickel tends to outgas ordinary hydrogen but absorbs deuterium(?)

        • Gerard McEk

          Could be, although I have no idea why Deuterium would preferably be absorbed. If it absorbs more, the internal pressure should rise which would also lead to a higher Ni temperature (P*V=C). Could that be the reason for the temperature increase measured?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It might also be that ordinary dynamical equilibrium can explain it: atoms (both D and H) outgas and get absorbed all the time, similarly to the dynamical equilibrium of H2O in e.g. water/atmosphere interface. If internal storage of hydrogen is larger than the amount of gas, deuterium gets diluted even without preferential absorption. The total hydrogen+deuterium pressure would be a function of temperature with long hysteresis effect which perhaps explains the behaviour (slow increase) of the total pressure.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It might also be that ordinary dynamical equilibrium can explain it: atoms (both D and H) outgas and get absorbed all the time, similarly to the dynamical equilibrium of H2O in e.g. water/atmosphere interface. If internal storage of hydrogen is larger than the amount of gas, deuterium gets diluted even without preferential absorption. The total hydrogen+deuterium pressure would be a function of temperature with long hysteresis effect which perhaps explains the behaviour (slow increase) of the total pressure.

        • Gerard McEk

          Could be, although I have no idea why Deuterium would preferably be absorbed. If it absorbs more, the internal pressure should rise which would also lead to a higher Ni temperature (P*V=C). Could that be the reason for the temperature increase measured?

    • Herb Gillis

      Is there any reason why there cannot be endothermic LENR, if there is exothermic LENR? It seems conceivable that endothermic LENR could be driven by the same surface phonons that drive exothermic LENR. Could this explain situations where no NET heat is produced, but there is evidence of transmutation?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It’s a good question and I have also thought about it, but I’m not sure about the answer. At first sight, an endothermic nuclear reaction would sound like a violation of the second law, but on the other hand since chemical endothermic reactions exist, why couldn’t nuclear also.

        Although, it feels easier (less problematic regarding second law) to think of a nuclear reaction which has exothermic and endothermic components nearly cancelling each other (the exothermic slightly winning) than a reaction where the endothermic side wins so that the material acts as a true sink of thermal heat.

        Obviously such reactions could be very important from the applications point of view. If one encounters such behaviour experimentally, one shouldn’t consider the experiment failed. (Of course one must be careful not to mix it with chemical endothermic reactions which also exist in the E-cat according to Rossi.)

        I have a feeling that some physicist might be able to answer this question properly using thermodynamic arguments, although I can’t.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Widom-Larsen theory is an example, although it is not finally proven. The first step (inverse beta decay) would be endothermic.

          • LCD

            Probably many possible endothermic nuclear reactions but energies seem too high, including the WL theory.

            The key to this whole thing seems to be unknown low energy windows. Until quantum tunneling was discovered, fusion in the sun could not be properly explained.

            I would say that condensed matter physics has many more group dynamic anomalies than hot particle physics (What WL would call collective effects). Those anomalies may lead to lower energy transition/interaction windows. And those transitions probably do not lead to the same hot particle products.

            These windows probably don’t represent new physics but maybe new solutions to really tough multi-body math problems.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It’s a good question and I have also thought about it, but I’m not sure about the answer. At first sight, an endothermic nuclear reaction would sound like a violation of the second law, but on the other hand since chemical endothermic reactions exist, why couldn’t nuclear also.

        Although, it feels easier (less problematic regarding second law) to think of a nuclear reaction which has exothermic and endothermic components nearly cancelling each other (the exothermic slightly winning) than a reaction where the endothermic side wins so that the material acts as a true sink of thermal heat.

        Obviously such reactions could be very important from the applications point of view. If one encounters such behaviour experimentally, one shouldn’t consider the experiment failed. (Of course one must be careful not to mix it with chemical endothermic reactions which also exist in the E-cat according to Rossi.)

        I have a feeling that some physicist might be able to answer this question properly using thermodynamic arguments, although I can’t.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I like your line of thought about hidden gasses. That would be an easy variable to exclude by pre-stressing the environment by running the experiment once then replacing the gases and testing again.

      It also raises the question, was the environment pre-stressed by earlier tests, we simply do not have the precise methodology to examine. I think it would be foolish to conclude the entire test rig was pristine for each test.

    • JDM

      Undetected hydrinos elevated to higher energy thus presenting themselves?

  • david55
  • david55
  • Pekka Janhunen

    Yes. The M in the formulas is atom or molecule mass. M/e is the mass per charge ratio of the ion, which is the quantity that their gas analyser measures. They assume throughout that e=1, that the atom or molecule is singly ionised.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It’s a good question and I have also thought about it, but I’m not sure about the answer. At first sight, an endothermic nuclear reaction would sound like a violation of the second law, but on the other hand since chemical endothermic reactions exist, why couldn’t nuclear also.

    Although, it feels easier (less problematic regarding second law) to think of a nuclear reaction which has exothermic and endothermic components nearly cancelling each other (the exothermic slightly winning) than a reaction where the endothermic side wins so that the material acts as a true sink of thermal heat.

    Obviously such reactions could be very important from the applications point of view. If one encounters such behaviour experimentally, one shouldn’t consider the experiment failed. (Of course one must be careful not to mix it with chemical endothermic reactions which also exist in the E-cat according to Rossi.)

    I have a feeling that some physicist might be able to answer this question properly using thermodynamic arguments, although I can’t.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Widom-Larsen theory is an example, although it is not finally proven. The first step (inverse beta decay) would be endothermic.

      • LCD

        Probably many possible endothermic nuclear reactions but energies seem too high, including the WL theory.

        The key to this whole thing seems to be unknown low energy windows. Until quantum tunneling was discovered, fusion in the sun could not be properly explained.

        I would say that condensed matter physics has many more group dynamic anomalies than hot particle physics (What WL would call collective effects). Those anomalies may lead to lower energy transition/interaction windows. And those transitions probably do not lead to the same hot particle products.

        These windows probably don’t represent new physics but maybe new solutions to really tough multi-body math problems.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    T is tritium (one proton and two neutrons). I understood that also H worked for them, but not as well as D. Or at least their best experiment (the one with largest excess heat) had D.

    • Obvious

      Seems to me like the neutrons are somehow being stripped off D then beta decaying (separately from the original D) into P. Perhaps self capture beta decay to a high ionization level keeps more energy in the resulting H atom, (that energy which is usually passed on to a neutrino). Then photon energy releases to reduce the excited electron back down to a ground state, and two new H+e combine to form H2.

      How exactly one peels a neutron from a D atom at low energies I have no idea. Perhaps this is part of an endothermic reaction that requires a heater to overcome.
      The masses agree though: D2 (M4) -> HD (M3) ->H2 (M2)

  • Bernie777

    Dr. Rossi earlier in his career was interested in heat to electricity research. I have asked him several questions about this because I think the E-Cat would be an ideal heat source. He has replied he is interested but the efficiency is not there, but he is keeping an eye on the research progress. This article might be the opening we need to make it more efficient.

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/02/20/nanoscale-pillars-could-radically-improve-conversion-heat-electricity-say

    PS Admin. Could you ask Rossi if he has seen article, I am having problems accessing his site.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi earlier in his career was interested in heat to electricity research. I have asked him several questions about this because I think the E-Cat would be an ideal heat source. He has replied he is interested but the efficiency is not there, but he is keeping an eye on the research progress. This article might be the opening we need to make it more efficient.

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/02/20/nanoscale-pillars-could-radically-improve-conversion-heat-electricity-say

    PS Admin. Could you ask Rossi if he has seen article, I am having problems accessing his site.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps the tritium disappears by the following pickup reactions.

    H(3) + Ni(58) > H(2) + Ni(59) 2.74 MeV
    H(3) + Ni(60) > H(2) + Ni(61) 1.56 MeV
    H(3) + Ni(61) > H(2) + Ni(62) 4.34 MeV
    H(3) + Ni(62) > H(2) + Ni(63) 0.58 MeV

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Ni(59) and Ni(63) are non-natural isotopes. They could be detected reliably by accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS). I hope that the next paper will address the question what happens with the nickel. Again, we will have to wait…

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Spectrometry, of course. I should create a regular account so that I can edit my posts.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps the tritium disappears by the following pickup reactions.

    H(3) + Ni(58) > H(2) + Ni(59) 2.74 MeV
    H(3) + Ni(60) > H(2) + Ni(61) 1.56 MeV
    H(3) + Ni(61) > H(2) + Ni(62) 4.34 MeV
    H(3) + Ni(62) > H(2) + Ni(63) 0.58 MeV

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Ni(59) and Ni(63) are non-natural isotopes. They could be detected reliably by accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS). I hope that the next paper will address the question what happens with the nickel. Again, we will have to wait…

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Spectrometry, of course. I should create a regular account so that I can edit my posts.

  • Obvious

    Seems to me like the neutrons are somehow being stripped off D then beta decaying (separately from the original D) into P. Perhaps self capture beta decay to a high ionization level keeps more energy in the resulting H atom, (that energy which is usually passed on to a neutrino). Then photon energy releases to reduce the excited electron back down to a ground state, and two new H+e combine to form H2.

    How exactly one peels a neutron from a D atom at low energies I have no idea. Perhaps this is part of an endothermic reaction that requires a heater to overcome.
    The masses agree though: D2 (M4) -> HD (M3) ->H2 (M2)

  • LCD

    Speaking of Rossi. In my opinion he is taking a long time for what should be a simple product. Although I think he has a reaction I no longer feel that he will be the first to market with one. He has pointed too many people in the right direction and given them too much time.

  • LCD

    Speaking of Rossi. In my opinion he is taking a long time for what should be a simple product. Although I think he has a reaction I no longer feel that he will be the first to market with one. He has pointed too many people in the right direction and given them too much time.

  • georgehants

    Come on guys, somebody put up something interesting as it’s quiet.
    All my interesting things are off topic.
    I can tell everybody that I cut my toenails last night if that helps create some action.
    🙂

    • bachcole

      Hopefully this is interesting. I take the WAR between lamestream so-called medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to be a model for the WAR between mainstream (at least they actually do something) physics and LENR. So that is why I talk about health a lot here, aside from my own personal interest.

      Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal (a paper I listen to and respect, sort of) had an article about how coconut oil, although a saturated fat, has been shown to break-up the gunk (I don’t remember the technical term) in the brains of mice and that scientists are beginning to think that coconut oil may be good for people, particularly for Alzheimer’s disease. This is just great. And how does this relate to the WAR between LENR and mainstream physics. Because I knew this about 10 years ago, and the WSJ is the first lamestream media outlet (that I know about) that has let this little secret out. So, does it take 10 years for these anal-retentive uptight a$$holes to figure these things out? Is everyone going to behave like Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales. I sure hope not.

      Giving credit to the WSJ, they also mentioned that there was next to no heart disease in countries where coconut oil is a common part of their diet, and there was another datapoint, but I forget what it was. Anyway, among health renegades this is all old news.

    • Bernie777

      This should get the discussion going. (:

      This is the most recent report from the IPCC. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf

      Climate Change. I am not a climate scientist. The IPCC 2013 report, and this report, on climate change is a thorough scientific report which must be respected. It was researched, written and reviewed by over 1000 scientists. If I am told by 95 heart doctors that I need a heart bypass to stay alive, but also told by 5 heart doctors I do not need a bypass, any reasonable person would opt for the bypass. Substitute the heart above for our planet. Any reasonable man would opt for actions to mitigate climate change.

      • Omega Z

        Bernie

        Most of those 1000 Scientists do not believe in the CO2 argument.
        They merely state that people can have an impact on the environment. As in we can pollute our environment. “Beijing”.
        This gets their name drafted, as in being in consensus even tho some go public & state otherwise. Note many aren’t even in this field of research or anything close to it.

        Ignore the fact that we don’t really have a clue nor the Data or technology to even make the claims they make.
        It’s all about Funding. And Increased Tax revenue for the Government/Elite.

        In Point: Something Interesting is about to take place.
        The U.S. has rolled back CO2 output to mid/early 90’s levels.
        This due to switching to Natural Gas which is continuing.

        With less support for their CO2 agenda due to this changing situation, Watch what is going to happen within the very near future. Likely in the next few weeks.

        Their about to change the bogyman. The terrible culprit responsible for AGW. It is now Methane. Yes, Natural Gas. And in their Eyes, It is the culprit destroying their CO2 Agenda.

        Note: Maybe they are aware:
        LENR will not stop their Agenda. Methane will never go away as it is produced by every living organism on earth. Both while living & in it’s decay after death. Providing them with a forever AGW Tax. It’s the Money…

        • bernie

          Omega Z ….sorry but I am not willing to bet you are right and do nothing, especially when we are seeing evidence of climate change.

  • georgehants

    Come on guys, somebody put up something interesting as it’s quiet.
    All my interesting things are off topic.
    I can tell everybody that I cut my toenails last night if that helps create some action.
    🙂

    • bachcole

      Hopefully this is interesting. I take the WAR between lamestream so-called medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to be a model for the WAR between mainstream (at least they actually do something) physics and LENR. So that is why I talk about health a lot here, aside from my own personal interest.

      Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal (a paper I listen to and respect, sort of) had an article about how coconut oil, although a saturated fat, has been shown to break-up the gunk (I don’t remember the technical term) in the brains of mice and that scientists are beginning to think that coconut oil may be good for people, particularly for Alzheimer’s disease. This is just great. And how does this relate to the WAR between LENR and mainstream physics. Because I knew this about 10 years ago, and the WSJ is the first lamestream media outlet (that I know about) that has let this little secret out. So, does it take 10 years for these anal-retentive uptight a$$holes to figure these things out? Is everyone going to behave like Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales. I sure hope not.

      Giving credit to the WSJ, they also mentioned that there was next to no heart disease in countries where coconut oil is a common part of their diet, and there was another datapoint, but I forget what it was. Anyway, among health renegades this is all old news.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      This should get the discussion going. (:

      This is the most recent report from the IPCC. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf

      Climate Change. I am not a climate scientist. The IPCC 2013 report, and this report, on climate change is a thorough scientific report which must be respected. It was researched, written and reviewed by over 1000 scientists. If I am told by 95 heart doctors that I need a heart bypass to stay alive, but also told by 5 heart doctors I do not need a bypass, any reasonable person would opt for the bypass. Substitute the heart above for our planet. Any reasonable man would opt for actions to mitigate climate change.

      • bachcole

        Sorry, I don’t care how many doctors think that I need a heart bye-pass. I ain’t gonna get one. All of the doctors have the same paradigm, so they all think alike. And anyway, I take responsibility for my health (which is NOT part of their paradigm) so even if I were to visit a doctor and let him/her do their thing with their diagnostic equipment, they won’t find a problem. And even if they did, which is highly unlikely, my solution is better than their heart bye-pass surgery, which is absurd on the face of it.

        In the same way, even if 1000 out of 1000 “climate” scientists say that the Earth needs bye-pass surgery, LENR will work better than all the crapola that they propose.

        I don’t buy their paradigm; I don’t buy their solutions. With regard to climate scientists, their paradigm does not seem to include plant life and a hundred other things, like the fact that the Earth has been hotter in the past and nothing bad happened, and the CO2 has been higher in the past and nothing bad has happened.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Just wait until you cannot breath, with chest pains, you will change your mind very fast.

          • bachcole

            I’m not waiting until I cannot breath, with chest pains. I’m doing something about it now and have been for decades.

      • Omega Z

        Bernie

        Most of those 1000 Scientists do not believe in the CO2 argument.
        They merely state that people can have an impact on the environment. As in we can pollute our environment. “Beijing”.
        This gets their name drafted, as in being in consensus even tho some go public & state otherwise. Note many aren’t even in this field of research or anything close to it.

        Ignore the fact that we don’t really have a clue nor the Data or technology to even make the claims they make.
        It’s all about Funding. And Increased Tax revenue for the Government/Elite.

        In Point: Something Interesting is about to take place.
        The U.S. has rolled back CO2 output to mid/early 90’s levels.
        This due to switching to Natural Gas which is continuing.

        With less support for their CO2 agenda due to this changing situation, Watch what is going to happen within the very near future. Likely in the next few weeks.

        Their about to change the bogyman. The terrible culprit responsible for AGW. It is now Methane. Yes, Natural Gas. And in their Eyes, It is the culprit destroying their CO2 Agenda.

        Note: Maybe they are aware:
        LENR will not stop their Agenda. Methane will never go away as it is produced by every living organism on earth. Both while living & in it’s decay after death. Providing them with a forever AGW Tax. It’s the Money…

        • bernie

          Omega Z ….sorry but I am not willing to bet you are right and do nothing, especially when we are seeing evidence of climate change.

          • bachcole

            bernie, that’s a good one. Oh, I’m sorry, you weren’t telling a joke. The climate is always changing. The climate change that we are seeing now is it is getting colder. That is what climates do.

  • georgehants

    Just like Cold Fusion and many other serious scientific subjects, most of science has it’s head in the sand.
    ——-
    How to Prove the Paranormal: Scientists Discuss
    A growing number of scientists are calling for a shift in
    scientific methods to acknowledge phenomena commonly experienced but
    difficult to study according to conventional methods.
    Here’s a look at some insights from scientists who explore paranormal
    phenomena or matters related to human consciousness. They discuss how
    science can move forward.
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/587308-how-to-prove-the-paranormal-scientists-discuss/?photo=4

  • georgehants

    Just like Cold Fusion and many other serious and important scientific subjects, most of science has it’s head in the sand.
    ——-
    How to Prove the Paranormal: Scientists Discuss
    A growing number of scientists are calling for a shift in
    scientific methods to acknowledge phenomena commonly experienced but
    difficult to study according to conventional methods.
    Here’s a look at some insights from scientists who explore paranormal
    phenomena or matters related to human consciousness. They discuss how
    science can move forward.
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/587308-how-to-prove-the-paranormal-scientists-discuss/?photo=4

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Just wait until you cannot breath, with chest pains, you will change your mind very fast.

  • Henry
    • that is in their dream…
      if rossi was doing this kind of experiment, challenging a calibration curve with their different setup, they would be the first to call him fraudster and incompetent.

      Jed Rothwell is trying to educate them but they believe that any difference between their idea and apparent reality is because of a conspiracy organized by thousands of scientist, engineers, and businessman.

      they can even be right sometime like a dead clock, twice a day.

  • either the calibration curve done by a scientist and cross checked is wrong, thus a fraud,
    or your replication does not replicate the same thing…

    anyway since it is an adiabatic calorimetry, it is not important.

  • you ignore volontarily that after a breakdown of the pump, there was a test proving the asserted low power caused by the pump.
    despite your chatting this does not change the question of adiabatic calorimetry which measure transient (even if long as you say, Jed says 6 hours I think)

    the question you raise on impact of ambiant is much more legitimate, and unlike your garage demo, use the data of the real experiment.

    jed work on that question…

    what is clear is that on that subject you try to defend a position, not to find the reality.
    you assert instead of questioning. that is a symptom.

  • it seems you don’t interpret that calibration the same way as scientists.

    anyway it is a baseline power so the adiabatic calorimeter is not concerned.