New Report of Excess Heat Generated in a Hot Cat Replication Attempt by Jack Cole with Dale Basgall [Update: Q&A on Details of Experiment]

Thanks to Mr. Moho for posting about this on the Replication Thread.

An article on the LENR-Cold Fusion web site reports about an experiment which appears to show the generation of relatively small levels excess heat (compared to the Lugano report) in an attempt to replicate a Hot Cat-like device.

I am not exactly sure who the person reporting about this is. There is no author’s name listed on the site, but there are a number of references on this website to Dale Bagsall — so that might be the person who is doing the experimenting here.

UPDATE: Jack Cole commented on this thread today:

“I am the one who did the experiment. Dale [Basgall] provided valuable ideas and insight along the way. Sorry for the confusion and my name not showing on the site. This has been fixed.”

In any case, the article give some details about the setup, although not everything is clear:

“There have been several failed experiments and several promising experiments. The most recent experiment was the most promising finding yet–yielding an apparent excess heating of 10.4 watts. I utilized a different design in this experiment of sealing the heating element inside of the reaction chamber with the fuel. Using this approach, I was able to use DC current with a programmable power supply to reach higher temperatures within the core of the chamber. The temperatures were recorded via a PC connected to a type K thermocouple attached to the exterior of the alumina tube”

The author also notes that “This study used a different method of producing hydrogen within the cell than the LiAlH4 that is safer to handle while loading the fuel.”

In the article you will see various charts of power levels used and excess heat produced. Apparent excess heat is diminishing as power input is increased. The experiment is apparently ongoing, and the author says more data may be provided as time goes on.

UPDATE: More details about the experiment can be found in this Q&A on the Cold Fusion Now website:

http://coldfusionnow.org/qa-with-jack-cole-on-new-hot-cat-replication-experiment-completion/

  • bachcole

    Interesting, but I am not yet ready to get excited. We need a longer run and more excess heat, then I will tell my son with great excitement.

  • Mats002

    Wonderful day!

  • Mats002

    Wonderful day!

  • Sanjeev

    10 W over 90 something watts input is interesting. The delta T is small.

    Note that he says LAH was not used.

    • Mr. Moho

      I only glanced at the article quickly when I linked it on the other thread and somehow managed to miss that he didn’t use LiAlH4. It does seem he uses a different method for supplying hydrogen chemically to the cell, but there aren’t many more details than this about his experiment on his website yet. Hopefully he can provide more information soon.

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, the details are needed. There are no numbers, you can very roughly read the excess temperature from the graph, about 30-40C over 400-500C of control. Not much but still this is something.

        Perhaps using LAH would have increased the margins a bit?

        • Mr. Moho

          Reactor assembly details would be helpful too (to me it’s not even clear what we’re exactly looking at in the provided photo, to be honest), in addition to knowing what was used instead of LAH and how much, what nickel powder was used, etc.

          Basically this report does not tell much more that a (long-time?) LENR follower attempted a Hot-Cat replication apparently succeeding in obtaining some excess heat, although there are some interesting positive details (DC instead of AC, apparent excess heat slowly declining over time and with temperature – which make it less likely to be an instrumental artifact, etc) that make me look forward to reading more about his experiments.

          • Mats002

            lenr-coldfusion.com have since a few months back a category for hobbyist-lenr, see previous attempts and active commenters at: http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/category/hobbyist-lenr/
            This hobbyist is Dale G. Basgall, would be nice to know more from him here at ECW.

          • Fortyniner

            Dale fights on valiantly at ECN. I’ve no idea why he bothers.

          • Jack Cole

            I am the one who did the experiment. Dale provided valuable ideas and insight along the way. Sorry for the confusion and my name not showing on the site. This has been fixed.

          • ecatworld

            Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Very interesting work — and thanks for sharing your results. I will be watching with interest.

          • Mats002

            I read your presentation at http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/lenrcoldfusion-1585090-automated-electrolysis/ , you seems to been practising this for some time. Very good work, thanks for sharing!
            Are there other links you would like to share or recommend?

          • Thank you. Yes, I did ~200 electrolysis experiments with nickel (and other cathode materials) without success. As a result of that, I developed a lot of methods and controls that have been useful in this gas-loaded cell work.

            Here is a longer presentation in which I describe the first 25 electrolysis experiments. It is interesting only in the methods used and how it was possible to experimentally disprove any apparent excess heating when it appeared. The Android based control system emailed me summary updates every hour, and experiments were run in various combinations (24/7) without the need for me to be present.

            http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/lenrcoldfusion-1599138-automated-android-electrolysis-system-lenr-experiments-1-25/

            I will continue to try to disprove the current results. I have learned that one must be willing to fail often with this work and not get too excited when something looks positive.

      • Warthog

        There are many possible hydrides that give up hydrogen on being heated. In early research on “the hydrogen economy”, storage of hydrogen as a reversible, stable hydride was heavily investigated.

  • Sanjeev

    10 W over an input of 90 W something is interesting. The delta T is small.
    Note that he says LAH was not used.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It seems like temperature was the critical factor in his opinion. If you reduced the size of the housing and kept the same amount of heating element you might get better results. I would look at minimizing the surface area for test rigs, to allow a broader range of heat input with the same power source. Maybe keep the same mass to provide thermal stability.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It seems like temperature was the critical factor in his opinion. If you reduced the size of the housing and kept the same amount of heating element you might get better results. I would look at minimizing the surface area for test rigs, to allow a broader range of heat input with the same power source. Maybe keep the same mass to provide thermal stability.

  • Mats002

    lenr-coldfusion.com have since a few months back a category for hobbyist-lenr, see previous attempts and active commenters at: http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/category/hobbyist-lenr/
    This hobbyist is Dale G. Basgall, would be nice to know more from him here at ECW.

    • Dale fights on valiantly at ECN. I’ve no idea why he bothers.

      • Jack Cole

        I am the one who did the experiment. Dale provided valuable ideas and insight along the way. Sorry for the confusion and my name not showing on the site. This has been fixed.

        • Frank Acland

          Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Very interesting work — and thanks for sharing your results. I will be watching with interest.

        • Mats002

          I read your presentation at http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/lenrcoldfusion-1585090-automated-electrolysis/ , you seems to been practising this for some time. Very good work, thanks for sharing!
          Are there other links you would like to share or recommend?

          • Thank you. Yes, I did ~200 electrolysis experiments with nickel (and other cathode materials) without success. As a result of that, I developed a lot of methods and controls that have been useful in this gas-loaded cell work.

            Here is a longer presentation in which I describe the first 25 electrolysis experiments. It is interesting only in the methods used and how it was possible to experimentally disprove any apparent excess heating when it appeared. The Android based control system emailed me summary updates every hour, and experiments were run in various combinations (24/7) without the need for me to be present.

            http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/lenrcoldfusion-1599138-automated-android-electrolysis-system-lenr-experiments-1-25/

            I will continue to try to disprove the current results. I have learned that one must be willing to fail often with this work and not get too excited when something looks positive.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    5.5 W over 12 h equals 238 kJ. Burning 1 g hydrogen would release 141.8 kJ. Unfortunately, we do not know the mass of the fuel, but if it was as low as in the Lugano and Parkhomov reactors, the numbers would not look bad – even with a large error margin.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    5.5 W over 12 h equals 238 kJ. Burning 1 g hydrogen would release 141.8 kJ. Unfortunately, we do not know the mass of the fuel, but if it was as low as in the Lugano and Parkhomov reactors, the numbers would not look bad – even with a large error margin.

  • Gerard McEk

    The second grah shows some temperature variation which could also be caused by a faulty measurement (bad mechanical or electrical contact of the thermocouple). I would have done a second calibration run afterwards.

    • Warthog

      The graphs show some noise…not evidence of calibration shifts. As he doesn’t have equipment to do parallel reactors, and after the FIRST control run, the reactor is loaded with hydride, it is sort of hard to do a second.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I for one am very excited about all the replications popping up, verified or not. All those reports will cause more and more heads to perk up and take an interest. It seems to me that excess heat experiments are starting to become relatively easy and cheap to do. As this enables almost everyone to experiment with the effect themself, it should not take long for LENR to become inevitable and breakthrough on the MSN.

        I think that from now on we will see LENR knowledge and development progressing at an ever increasing rate.

        Disclaimer: I have been known to be wrong before and predictions in this field are almost as hard to do as converting pathosceptics.

        • bachcole

          I agree, except that verified is better than not verified. In fact, given the reaction to our boys at MFMP possibly going to Moscow, it would seem that a verification is just about as good as a replication. Of course, a replication is a necessary precursor to a verification. They sort of go together, one before the other. (:->)

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Oh sure, I agree with you too bachcole. Verification of a claim is much stronger than an unverified report.

            However, as you can see with the information coming from guy’s like Piantelli, Parkhomov and now this link “http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/rossi-effect-visible-without-catalyst/”, more and more information about how to trigger the LENR reaction pops up all over the internet.
            Soon it’s not a question of verification anymore but can anyone with a little engineering gift build his/her own reactor and starts to heat his/her house and see the electric/gas bill go down. We should see quite a little revolution then.

            I think the cat is really out of the bag 🙂

          • Mats002

            R Ventola: Very very clever! I think right on target. A good listener doing a cold fusion of all digested information over the years. This statement can be positive or negative.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Good one. I like the disclaimer too 😉

    • Gerard, the variations in the second graph are due to rapidly changing resistance. This occurs because the heating element is in the cell with the fuel. The power supply compensates for changing resistance every 5 seconds, but there was some periods of instability in the input power (see the graph of input power during the experimental run). In other words, it is not noise, but reflects actual temperatures that vary because the input power is varying.

      • Gerard McEk

        Any idea where this resistance drop comes from? Maybe you had a bad contact in your wire heating circuit?
        If you look to the temperature drop around 400 C, then the corresponding 2-4 W power drop does not sufficiently seem to explain this 15 C – 20 C temperature drop.
        However, LENR may effect the electrical resistance of the heating coil as the Lugano test seems to show. Perhaps you are on the right way. I hope you will succeed.

  • Gerard McEk

    The second grah shows some temperature variation which could also be caused by a faulty measurement (bad mechanical or electrical contact of the thermocouple). I would have done a second calibration run afterwards.

    • Warthog

      The graphs show some noise…not evidence of calibration shifts. As he doesn’t have equipment to do parallel reactors, and after the FIRST control run, the reactor is loaded with hydride, it is sort of hard to do a second.

    • Gerard, the variations in the second graph are due to rapidly changing resistance. This occurs because the heating element is in the cell with the fuel. The power supply compensates for changing resistance every 5 seconds, but there was some periods of instability in the input power (see the graph of input power during the experimental run). In other words, it is not noise, but reflects actual temperatures that vary because the input power is varying.

      • Gerard McEk

        Any idea where this resistance drop comes from? Maybe you had a bad contact in your wire heating circuit?
        If you look to the temperature drop around 400 C, then the corresponding 2-4 W power drop does not sufficiently seem to explain this 15 C – 20 C temperature drop.
        However, LENR may effect the electrical resistance of the heating coil as the Lugano test seems to show. Perhaps you are on the right way. I hope you will succeed.

  • John

    I know E-Cat world can’t verify all claims all over the world but it’s time to start considering not talk about any claim without full verification, because, the risks are loose credibility and becoming a free energy apologist. This is not the role of E-Cat world I think. And (if) we start commenting hobbyist claims all over the planet all the serious and committed researches will look at E-Cat world as a non serious place or a hub to improve this technology just because they don’t want their names inside garage builders or weekend experimenters. It’s just my opinion… Thx

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks for your thoughts, John. Here’s the way I’m thinking about the things you mention.

      I see E-Cat World as a site where it can be worthwhile to discuss serious work related to E-Cat/LENR technology. It may well be that important discoveries and replications are made by home experimenters — this has been true with various scientific and technological breakthroughs throughout history.

      Reporting about an experiment is not the same as endorsing the results, or verifying the claims. If we shed light on someone’s work it allows readers to use their own judgement and critical thinking skills to evaluated what is reported, and hopefully we can learn something useful. I feel like have a smart group of readers here, and lots of useful input from many of them, which I think can be very useful when looking at what people report.

      I think we’ll see more and more replication efforts by people curious to find out more about this LENR phenomonon, and I expect we’ll see more interesting results reported — and I do think it’s important to cover them on this site.

      • Brokeeper

        Frank, I have to agree to some degree with John. As replications increase without verification may raise eyebrows either way. Perhaps you could provide a separate section dedicated to unverified replications with links pointing to their YouTube, article or web site. Post the more serious scientific results with data analysis for main topics. As you have said, this will still let the readers decide.

        • Frank Acland

          Thanks, BK — yes, there could well come a time when there will be lots of replication efforts taking place (I hope so), and we may have to come up with a different way of keeping track of the variety of experiments taking place.

        • bachcole

          I agree with Brokeeper on this. If people knew that their replication would look much better if they had it verified, then they would try to get it verified. Let us keep in mind that this is a brand new phenomena never before recognized as real in the history of the world. The more verified replications we get the better.

  • Bob

    Great to see these new independent experiments popping up. And as important, with some apparent success. This has to bode well.

    Has any one heard any news about the catalytic converter test? That was being conducted early fall and I would think there would be some conclusions by now, even if preliminary.

    Anyone know?
    -Bob

  • LuFong

    At one time I believe Rossi would add the hydrogen into his reactor in the form of a pill (versus powder). Perhaps this form makes the handling of LiAlH4 safer to handle when loading the fuel. It would be nice to know in what form Jack Cole introduced Hydrogen into his reactor.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      If industrial manufacturing is available, one could probably wrap the LAH inside, for example, a small mylar plastic bag. The PET plastic decomposes easily upon heating and consists only of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, all elements which already exist in the reactor for other reasons. In case LAH would react with the plastic,one could apply some barrier coating. There are probably many ways to encapsulate LAH in such a way that the capsule breaks and decomposes in elevated temperature.

      • Hydrogen Storage Powder can be bought off the shelves

      • Hydrogen Storage Powder can be bought off the shelves ^ ^

        http://www.drboblog.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/cold-fusion-device-99027_185x185.jpg

        • Mats002

          Ahhh – that explains the balls with different temperature. Was that trick above chemical effiency?

          • Mats0002 – that is a very good question.

            The nano reactions we see in our devices are typically only a few hundreds thousand times stronger than normal chemical reactions. Because the margins are sooo small, its really difficult to draw any definite conclusions.

          • Mats002

            Be careful with using the correct numbers of zeroes 🙂

    • BroKeeper

      I give you the ‘Safety First’ award.

    • I was wondering the same Lu. Sanjeev posted this link
      http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/01/03/secret-sauces-cold-fusion-cookery/

      scroll down and you’ll see some “hydrogen pills”. (“polymettallic getter is a variation of SAES st707”) I tried to learn more about these without a lot of success.

    • Obvious

      I like this fuel additive combination.

  • ecatworld

    Thanks for your thoughts, John. Here’s the way I’m thinking about the things you mention.

    I see E-Cat World as a site where it can be worthwhile to discuss serious work related to E-Cat/LENR technology. It may well be that important discoveries and replications are made by home experimenters — this has been true with various scientific and technological breakthroughs throughout history.

    Reporting about an experiment is not the same as endorsing the results, or verifying the claims. If we shed light on someone’s work it allows readers to use their own judgement and critical thinking skills to evaluated what is reported, and hopefully we can learn something useful. I feel like have a smart group of readers here, and lots of useful input from many of them, which I think can be very useful when looking at what people report.

    I think we’ll see more and more replication efforts by people curious to find out more about this LENR phenomonon, and I expect we’ll see more interesting results reported — and I do think it’s important to cover them on this site.

    • BroKeeper

      Frank, I have to agree to some degree with John. As replications increase without verification may raise eyebrows either way. Perhaps you could provide a separate section dedicated to unverified replications with links pointing to their YouTube, article or web site. Post the more serious scientific results with data analysis for main topics. As you have said, this will still let the readers decide.

      • ecatworld

        Thanks, BK — yes, there could well come a time when there will be lots of replication efforts taking place (I hope so), and we may have to come up with a different way of keeping track of the variety of experiments taking place.

    • Daniel Maris

      I think you’re doing fine Frank. It’s good to hear about all these experiments – the the admissions of failure as well as the claimed successes.

      No one seriously thinks they necessarily amount to LENR proof but they add to our group knowledge I think.

      This site can act as a useful information exchange point.

      Given the nature of this technology, as claimed, it is not inconceivable that someone could come up with a convincing and reliable proof of concept in a small workshop.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I for one am very excited about all the replications popping up, verified or not. All those reports will cause more and more heads to perk up and take an interest. It seems to me that excess heat experiments are starting to become relatively easy and cheap to do. As this enables almost everyone to experiment with the effect themself, it should not take long for LENR to become inevitable and breakthrough on the MSN.

    I think that from now on we will see LENR knowledge and development progressing at an ever increasing rate.

    Disclaimer: I have been known to be wrong before and predictions in this field are almost as hard to do as converting pathosceptics.

    • bachcole

      I agree, except that verified is better than not verified. In fact, given the reaction to our boys at MFMP possibly going to Moscow, it would seem that a verification is just about as good as a replication. Of course, a replication is a necessary precursor to a verification. They sort of go together, one before the other. (:->)

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Oh sure, I agree with you too bachcole. Verification of a claim is much stronger than an unverified report.

        However, as you can see with the information coming from guy’s like Piantelli, Parkhomov and now this link “http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/rossi-effect-visible-without-catalyst/”, more and more information about how to trigger the LENR reaction pops up all over the internet.
        Soon it’s not a question of verification anymore but can anyone with a little engineering gift build his/her own reactor and starts to heat his/her house and see the electric/gas bill go down. We should see quite a little revolution then.

        I think the cat is really out of the bag 🙂

        • Mats002

          R Ventola: Very very clever! I think right on target. A good listener doing a cold fusion of all digested information over the years. This statement can be positive or negative.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Good one. I like the disclaimer too 😉

        • bachcole

          This is really very exciting.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Nickec is also on course with a project to see Heat After Death which would require an actual LENR reactor and of course MFMP is working towards an open source LENR reactor and may very well be successful by the end of January. Piantelli is nearing the end of his journey and is probably sharing all he knows so everywhere there is information going towards the same goal: a working and repeatable LENR reaction. It really is very exiting. 2015 is off to a good start!

  • bfast

    This is truly exciting!

  • bfast

    This is truly exciting!

  • Mr. Moho

    Coldfusionnow.org posted a short Q&A with Jack Cole on this experiment:
    http://coldfusionnow.org/qa-with-jack-cole-on-new-hot-cat-replication-experiment-completion/

    • ecatworld

      Thanks very much, Mr. M! I have put the link in the post above.

  • Bernie777

    We need a replication that does some eye popping actual work, and goes viral on YouTube.

    • What we need is a replication that is working and is tested without any restrictions by let’s say MIT, Max Planck Institute or any other scientific instution in this range, and it’s excess heat confirmed by them.

      The icing on the cake will then be, that the same institute replicates this replication itself (maybe with the instructions of the developer of the original “replication”). Then all speculation is over…

      I’m sure MFMP will do something when they got it working!

      • Mats002

        MIT yes, but Caltech can stay in the penalty box.

        • Private Citizen

          Both belong in the penalty box.

        • BroKeeper

          If MIT, then perhaps some integrity redemption could arise through
          validation penance with confession of their follies debunking CF. Otherwise their integrity will be suspect for a long time.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    We need a replication that does some eye popping actual work, and goes viral on YouTube.

    • What we need is a replication that is working and is tested without any restrictions by let’s say MIT, Max Planck Institute or any other scientific instution in this range, and it’s excess heat confirmed by them.

      The icing on the cake will then be, that the same institute replicates this replication itself (maybe with the instructions of the developer of the original “replication”). Then all speculation is over…

      I’m sure MFMP will do something when they got it working!

      • Mats002

        MIT yes, but Caltech can stay in the penalty box.

        • bachcole

          I’ll bite. Why does CalTech stay in the penalty box? I would think that MIT would stay in the penalty box for roughly ever.

          • Mats002

            Three institutions was heavily involved in debunking Fleischmann & Pons:
            Harwell, MIT and Caltech, see http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

            I do not know anything about Harwell, do they still exist?
            MIT get a cigar because they host Peter Hagelstein and Dr. Mitchell Swartz
            What has Caltech done for LENR?

          • The UK Atomic Energy Authority’s labs were based at Harwell in Oxfordshire in 1989. The UKAEA as such was split up in the early ’90s and partly sold off, but the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, which is probably where the cold fusion work was done, is still in existence as part of the rebranded ‘Research Complex at Harwell’. It is the home of some major physics research facilities such as the ISIS neutron source and the Diamond Light Source.

          • Mats002

            Thanks. And to support my opinion about Caltech, see this article from 2013, at the end a professor from Caltech teaches that what we all here at ECW see do not exist :), only 18 months ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
            It would be good for Caltech to have at least one voice on the other side of the fence, I do not know of any.

          • Ivy Matt

            I don’t see how you derive your interpretation of the quote from Dr. Goodstein. My interpretation is that he’s lamenting the wide gulf between cold fusion research and mainstream science, and arguing that better science would be done if there were more communication across the fence. The full text of Dr. Goodstein’s article can be found here:

            http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

          • sure harwell exist and…

            let me roll over the floor laughing out loud

          • bachcole

            About a year ago, some professor from CalTech verified some process, but I forget what it was. It wasn’t “mainstream” LENR but rather something new like SHT, but I don’t think that it was SHT. I checked his credentials online, sent him an email, and got a response saying that he did say what the report said that he said.

        • Private Citizen

          Both belong in the penalty box.

        • Brokeeper

          If MIT, then perhaps some integrity redemption could arise through
          validation penance with confession of their follies debunking CF. Otherwise their honesty will be suspect for a long time.

  • Oceans2014
  • georgehants

    Via Vortex with thanks
    SHORT INTERVIEW WITH YU. N. BAZHUTOV
    I had the privilege to ask a few preliminary questions from the
    leader of Russian LENR researchers Yuri Nikolaevich Bazhutov. They call
    the field Cold Nuclear Transmutation
    and I think this name is more realist than Cold Fusion.
    Yuri Bazhutov is an ’89-er cold fusionist (excuse me) a well known
    member or our community, a reputed author, 15 papers 1982 to 2014 in
    the LENR-CANR Library, organizer nd participant at our meetings, CNT
    strategist, a personality..
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/short-interview-with-yu-n-bazhuto

    • Chris, Italy

      Oh how about PNR – Peccaminous Nuclear Reactions. Yeah, I’d say this has just the right glitter, as well as not excluding anything, except what it should exclude.

      Uhm, or… call it a tømåtö.

    • BroKeeper

      Sorry George, I got: “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.” (???)

  • georgehants

    Via Vortex with thanks
    SHORT INTERVIEW WITH YU. N. BAZHUTOV
    I had the privilege to ask a few preliminary questions from the
    leader of Russian LENR researchers Yuri Nikolaevich Bazhutov. They call
    the field Cold Nuclear Transmutation
    and I think this name is more realist than Cold Fusion.
    Yuri Bazhutov is an ’89-er cold fusionist (excuse me) a well known
    member or our community, a reputed author, 15 papers 1982 to 2014 in
    the LENR-CANR Library, organizer nd participant at our meetings, CNT
    strategist, a personality..
    Read more —-
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/short-interview-with-yu-n-bazhuto

    • Chris, Italy

      Oh how about PNR – Peccaminous Nuclear Reactions. Yeah, I’d say this has just the right glitter, as well as not excluding anything, except what it should exclude.

      Uhm, or… call it a tømåtö.

    • Brokeeper

      Sorry George, I got: “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.” (???)

  • Chris, Italy

    Looking good, although not egregious it’s yet one more witness.

  • Chris, Italy

    Looking good, although not egregious it’s yet one more witness.

    • bachcole

      egregious: extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant:

      Your definition is considered archaic by Dictionary.com, and I didn’t understand it at first also.

      (:->)

      • Chris, Italy

        (retrying)

        Yeah wasn’t that an AWFUL definition! ;-D

        Sometimes I forget how English uses words in a sense opposite to their real meaning. Reminds me of that scene in a musical (It must have been “New York, New York” was it? ), can’t find it on YT, where the guy starts singing to her:

        You’re… awful, [she gasps in horror]
        Awful nice to look at…

        LOL egregious means excellent, above the crowd, literally “selected out from the flock”.

        • bachcole

          Not according to Dictionary.com and and any usage that I have ever heard or read.

          • Chris, Italy

            Oh c’mon, at least it was “not egregious” that I said.

            Besides it ain’t my fault if anglophones never get Latin straight. 😛

  • Ged

    Interesting indeed. Looking foreword to what more replications show, but the evidence is growing.

  • Ged

    Interesting indeed. Looking foreword to what more replications show, but the evidence is growing.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Nickec is also on course with a project to see Heat After Death which would require an actual LENR reactor and of course MFMP is working towards an open source LENR reactor and may very well be successful by the end of January. Piantelli is nearing the end of his journey and is probably sharing all he knows so everywhere there is information going towards the same goal: a working and repeatable LENR reaction. It really is very exiting. 2015 is off to a good start!

  • Sanjeev

    The post is now updated, showing extra 13 hours of run.
    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/13/hot-cat-replication-attempt/

    Temperature remains about 15-20`C above the calibration. Small and not conclusive but very encouraging. Are we reaching the stage of 100th monkey effect?

  • Sanjeev

    The post is now updated, showing extra 13 hours of run.
    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/13/hot-cat-replication-attempt/

    Temperature remains about 15-20`C above the calibration. Small and not conclusive but very encouraging. Are we reaching the stage of 100th monkey effect?

    • bachcole

      100th monkey effect?

    • bachcole

      That is what I would call, if I were a skeptopath, measurement error. But since I am not, I’ll just say that I am unconvinced.

      Does he switch the test and control setup? Take the fuel out of the test setup up, empty it clean, and put the same fuel in the control/calibration setup?

      Or if he has only one setup, does he remove the fuel, wipe the chamber clean, and re-calibrate.

      • Sanjeev

        The experimenter himself, as he says, is unconvinced. But its good enough to go ahead.

        I guess he will try those things you are asking about next.

  • Mats002

    Three institutions was heavily involved in debunking Fleischmann & Pons:
    Harwell, MIT and Caltech, see http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

    I do not know anything about Harwell, do they still exist?
    MIT get a cigar because they host Peter Hagelstein and Dr. Mitchell Swartz
    What has Caltech done for LENR?

    • Fortyniner

      The UK Atomic Energy Authority’s labs were based at Harwell in Oxfordshire in 1989. The UKAEA as such was split up in the early ’90s and partly sold off, but the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, which is probably where the work was done, is still in existence. It is the home of some major physics research facilities such as the ISIS neutron source and the Diamond Light Source.

      • Mats002

        Thanks. And to support my opinion about Caltech, see this article from 2013, at the end a professor from Caltech teaches that what we all here at ECW see do not exist :), only 18 months ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
        It would be good for Caltech to have at least one voice on the other side of the fence, I do not know of any.

    • sure harwell exist and…

      let me roll over the floor laughing out loud

  • Sanjeev
  • Sanjeev

    The experimenter himself, as he says, is unconvinced. But its good enough to go ahead.

    I guess he will try those things you are asking about next.

  • artefact

    Experimental Plans for Replication

    “We should have results for Experiment A within a day or two.”

    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/14/experimental-plans-replication/

  • artefact

    Experimental Plans for Replication

    “We should have results for Experiment A within a day or two.”

    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/14/experimental-plans-replication/

  • John Littlemist

    His name is Dale Basgall, not Bagsall.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, John!

  • John Littlemist

    His name is Dale Basgall, not Bagsall.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, John!

  • Chris, Italy

    (retrying)

    Yeah wasn’t that an AWFUL definition! ;-D

    Sometimes I forget how English uses words in a sense opposite to their real meaning. Reminds me of that scene in a musical (It must have been “New York, New York” was it? ), can’t find it on YT, where the guy starts singing to her:

    You’re… awful, [she gasps in horror]
    Awful nice to look at…

    LOL egregious means excellent, above the crowd, literally “selected out from the flock”.

    • bachcole

      Not according to Dictionary.com and and any usage that I have ever heard or read.

      • Chris, Italy

        Oh c’mon, at least it was “not egregious” that I said.

        Besides it ain’t my fault if anglophones never get Latin straight. 😛

  • uDevil

    Jack Cole has reported on a subsequent trial where he didn’t see excess heat. He had made some changes compared to the previous experiment. He’ll be trying again next week. This reinforces that at this stage it’s more important to replicate (repeat/copy), than improve.

  • LuFong
    • bachcole

      Oh well {sigh}, back to the drawing board, or the CAD system.