New LENR Experiment Report from Tom Conover

The document and comments have been submitted to me by Tom Conover, aka Wizkid

Control Tests & Live Run Results: Tests Performed 10/09/2016 thru 10/10/2016

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/October-11-2016-Hydrogenation-Fuel-Mixture-Test-Results2.pdf

To the readers: I read the temperature from 2 to 20 times per second. The way that I dropped the temperature during the run was that I controlled the wattage, based on benchmark temperatures I had experimentally determined. Even simpler than that, I just drop 10ms off the ON time every 5 minutes, because I wanted to find the sweet spot for the ignition point, and it had to be up high.

I started the with 240ms on, 16ms off, and kept the 16ms off static. My results were astonishing to me, I hope you enjoy reading the data half as much as I did. I had two experiments that showed more ‘anomalies’, but I resisted bothering you with them, even though they have pretty copper deposits clearly showing in the fuel cells that were destroyed.

Both of these experiments were high temp burnouts at the end, so I had to hunt the change in my software that was in charge of the function down and fix the problem. A day in the life…

Anyway, I ran another benchmark test on a brand new tube with my new algorithm, and it didn’t burn the tube out . . . finally! My new method is to start at 5 yard line on the field, and play backwards to the kickoff area. So I start very very high in temp, then drop 50C, then kick it up again (but with less and less wattage), and so on and so forth, all the way back to touch-back.

It is a strange way to try, seems to go against logic, but it also seems very much to work! The best part of this method is that I am (almost) convinced that I have seen actual LENR events in my lab, which has been a dream for me since 2011. The LENR ignition on this pre-loaded fuel cell starts immediately! I am so very happy that my daughter just happened to be visiting us, and she had lots of fun with me as we watched the scoreboard together!

This time, both of my “Live” tests tried to stop the experiment by burning out to connecting wire opposite from the K-Type sensor. The first experiment went to the finish line on zero power, but not before winning the football game! My daughter was here with me and I told her the players just left the field and went into the locker room to celebrate at half time, because the other team couldn’t even get off the bench.

The next test also burned the electrical power wire at almost the exact same time in the test. (Strange) I was watching the experiment progress this time, and as only a 1/4″ section of the lead was lost from the end of the lead, I simply reconnected the clip using very heavy leather gloves. (and I didn’t stop the experiment). So there is a big dip in this chart, but at least they went back into the game.

My tech buddy genius says my hardware needs work, and that I gotta beef it up. Dah! He did like the charts though, (very much!), and the story they tell all by themselves. So, I will be working on beefing up my hardware (again!) and preparing for more positive results I hope. It’s been a long time coming, but this bad boy was more than one watt over unity.

Anybody out there wanna try to compute the COP for me based on the Placebo tests please? Please note that I provide the fuel formula, mixing method, method for hydrogenation of the fuel etc… Don’t forget to heat the nickel powder to at least 250c for 30 minutes or so BEFORE you mix the fuel, to get the water out. You fellow replicators – hope this encourages you to stay in the game!

Enjoy, and thank you for sharing my interests.

WizKid

  • Frank Acland

    Thanks very much for sharing the report, Tom. It’s great to see you sticking with the project and trying to deal with the problems that have come up. Please keep it up!

    • wizkid

      Thank you for your encouragement, Frank, and the opportunity to share with this unique group here at e-catworld!

    • zintarweb

      The Fail is strong with this one. “No conclusions of value…” Really? Finding the limits of the current experimental set-up is of no value? What a troll. “Scientist”, more like “Egotist”.

  • Frank Acland

    Thanks very much for sharing the report, Tom. It’s great to see you sticking with the project and trying to deal with the problems that have come up. Please keep it up!

    • wizkid

      Thank you for your encouragement, Frank, and the opportunity to share with this unique group here at e-catworld!

  • William D. Fleming

    It looks encouraging–more heat with live fuel. We’ll be watching eagerly for your next effort.

  • William D. Fleming

    It looks encouraging–more heat with live fuel. We’ll be watching eagerly for your next effort.

  • Slad

    “Anybody out there wanna try to compute the COP for me based on the Placebo tests please?”

    Your control test needed 700 W for the thermocouple to read 1000 C. Test2 only needed 500 W to do the same.

    Assuming the fuel provided the rest: CP = 700 / 500 = 1.4

    • wizkid

      Thanks, Slad! Pretty simple math, isn’t it!

    • Ged

      Surprisingly consistent with other experiments of similar fuel and vessel design from a number of folks now, though towards the higher end.

      • SG

        Had test 1 not had the connection failure, the COP might have been even higher. The temperature appeared to maintain at 1200 C while the power was continually being dropped, right up to the time of the connection failure. So, how low could the power really go while still maintaining the 1200 C temp?

  • Slad

    “Anybody out there wanna try to compute the COP for me based on the Placebo tests please?”

    Your control test needed 700 W for the thermocouple to read 1000 C. Test2 only needed 500 W to do the same.

    Assuming the fuel provided the rest: CP = 700 / 500 = 1.4

    • wizkid

      Thanks, Slad! Pretty simple math, isn’t it!

    • Ged

      Surprisingly consistent with other experiments of similar fuel and vessel design from a number of folks now, though towards the higher end.

      • SG

        Had test 1 not had the connection failure, the COP might have been even higher. The temperature appeared to maintain at 1200 C while the power was continually being dropped, right up to the time of the connection failure. So, how low could the power really go while still maintaining the 1200 C temp?

  • congrats! and thank you for a fun read!

    • wizkid

      Glad to share, had to share!

  • congrats! and thank you for a fun read!

    • wizkid

      Glad to share, had to share!

  • Ged

    A very interesting strategy to start high and to edge down with pulses–I enjoy that thinking outside the box. There is definitely anamolous behavior in the tests, even ignoring the absolute temp/power ratio during the early part steady state. In the end, after the cut out, test2 seems to have a similar reduction in temp per reduction in power as the control (similar dT/dP) just by looking at the graph by eye, but was different before the cut out. Something to mull on. Test 1 was also behaving differently and looking very good before the unfortunate loss.

    Good to see multiple runs adding confidence to the data! Also interesting to see the difference in thermal inertia in control 2’s insert compared to the stainless steel of control 1, showing how important a similarly massed control to the fuel is. Good info to help all future experimentalists. Very nicely done!

    Hopefully your hardware behaves, and good luck with continued success! Thank you for your hard work and data!

    • wizkid

      Thank you for your support, Ged! I need to finish 2 or 3 runs (at least) without failures, then I can allow myself to learn how to teach my controller to optimize maximum power. Examples likely include: @ drop level (n1,2,3,4,5,x) degrees, increase on-time power by (y1,2,3,4,5) microseconds of power. A brute force solution should be obvious (where is he anyway?) but the elegant solution is always a delight to find!

      I have four new tubes curing for two more days before runs, and I will need to build some more of the alumina fuel cells, but I have a few stainless steel fuel cells still waiting to test also. Don’t tell my wife, but I put an arduino with a K-Type on the kitchen counter and use my wife’s oven to activate the cells as a group instead of one at a time … Hopefully she be out and about sometime soon so I can cook up some good stuff!

      • SG

        Want to echo Ged’s sentiment. Well done Wizkid / Tom. Your handle seems quite fitting. Some of the best and clearest test results and graphs we have seen yet, showing a clear > unity COP. I’m sure we all hope you keep on trucking, and continue to maintain an open nature with your results (aka in the spirit of MFMP) as you have been quite generous and friendly so far. And with the detailed parts list to boot. The LENR+ community really could use more of these kinds of efforts just about now.

        • wizkid

          Thanks for the encouragement, it’s been 2 years in the making, but at least I didn’t spoil my track record. Not my first rodeo for positive results with strange projects, all of my relatives and most of the people I know go “huh?”. You guys make me feel at home.

  • Ged

    A very interesting strategy to start high and to edge down with pulses–I enjoy that thinking outside the box. There is definitely anamolous behavior in the tests, even ignoring the absolute temp/power ratio during the early part steady state. In the end, after the cut out, test2 seems to have a similar reduction in temp per reduction in power as the controls (similar dT/dP) just by looking at the graph by eye, but was different before the cut out. Something to mull on. Test 1 was also behaving differently and looking very good before the unfortunate loss, but not enough data to say if or for how long it would diverge from the controls on dT/dP.

    Good to see multiple runs adding confidence to the data! Also interesting to see the difference in thermal inertia in control 2’s insert compared to the stainless steel of control 1, showing how important a similarly massed control to the fuel is. Good info to help all future experimentalists. Very nicely done!

    Hopefully your hardware behaves, and good luck with continued success! Thank you for your hard work and data!

    • wizkid

      Thank you for your support, Ged! I need to finish 2 or 3 runs (at least) without failures, then I can allow myself to learn how to teach my controller to optimize maximum power. Examples likely include: @ drop level (n1,2,3,4,5,x) degrees, increase on-time power by (y1,2,3,4,5) microseconds of power. A brute force solution should be obvious (where is he anyway?) but the elegant solution is always a delight to find!

      I have four new tubes curing for two more days before runs, and I will need to build some more of the alumina fuel cells, but I have a few stainless steel fuel cells still waiting to test also. Don’t tell my wife, but I put an arduino with a K-Type on the kitchen counter and use my wife’s oven to activate the cells as a group instead of one at a time … Hopefully she be out and about sometime soon so I can cook up some good stuff!

      • SG

        Want to echo Ged’s sentiment. Well done Wizkid / Tom. Your handle seems quite fitting. Some of the best and clearest test results and graphs we have seen yet, showing a clear > unity COP. I’m sure we all hope you keep on trucking, and continue to maintain an open nature with your results (aka in the spirit of MFMP) as you have been quite generous and friendly so far. And with the detailed parts list to boot. The LENR+ community really could use more of these kinds of efforts just about now.

        • wizkid

          Thanks for the encouragement, it’s been 2 years in the making, but at least I didn’t spoil my track record. Not my first rodeo for positive results with strange projects, all of my relatives and most of the people I know go “huh?”. You guys make me feel at home.

  • Obvious

    Keep up the good work, but like you buddy says, make it stronger/more durable. Once the system can take some abuse and survive, then you can start getting really reliable data from repeatable tests. You seem to be working out the bugs OK, so I don’t have too many concerns.

    I do wonder a bit how power is calculated or measured, when the duty cycle or triac conduction period is changed.

    • wizkid

      Thanks for the comment. I use the Watts Up Pro Portable Power Meter to record the power used. I use an Arduino computer to record the temperature. I use a bidirectional triac and a duty cycle algorithm, but I would very much invite collaboration in integrating a zero crossing feature in my builds. Any volunteers?

      • Jouni Tuomela

        Thanks for your efforts.
        Here one from where you hopefully have have benefit, perhaps you already have visited.
        http://www.rotwang.co.uk/projects/triac.html

        • wizkid

          You are welcome, I am motivated to find the truth. Your link is interesting, thank you.

      • Obvious

        I would like to try one of those Watts Up units at some point, to see how reliable they are with noisy power. I saw Rossi had one in Bologna. I haven’t heard anything bad about them, anyways. I suppose that even if it isn’t perfect at measuring triac altered waveforms, as long as the tests are run the same, the measured power should be comparable.

  • Obvious

    Keep up the good work, but like you buddy says, make it stronger/more durable. Once the system can take some abuse and survive, then you can start getting really reliable data from repeatable tests. You seem to be working out the bugs OK, so I don’t have too many concerns.

    I do wonder a bit how power is calculated or measured, when the duty cycle or triac conduction period is changed.

    • wizkid

      Thanks for the comment. I use the Watts Up Pro Portable Power Meter to record the power used. I use an Arduino computer to record the temperature. I use a bidirectional triac and a duty cycle algorithm, but I would very much invite collaboration in integrating a zero crossing feature in my builds. Any volunteers?

      • Jouni Tuomela

        Thanks for your efforts.
        Here one from where you hopefully have have benefit, perhaps you already have visited.
        http://www.rotwang.co.uk/projects/triac.html

        • wizkid

          You are welcome, I am motivated to find the truth. Your link is interesting, thank you.

      • Obvious

        I would like to try one of those Watts Up units at some point, to see how reliable they are with noisy power. I saw Rossi had one in Bologna. I haven’t heard anything bad about them, anyways. I suppose that even if it isn’t perfect at measuring triac altered waveforms, as long as the tests are run the same, the measured power should be comparable.

  • Rene

    I admired the real-time hot fix. I imagine you’ll work out those bugs soonest. Congrats on the first look COP > 1 results.

    • wizkid

      It was fun to be Bruce Willis for a second. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
      Cheers.

  • Rene

    I admired the real-time hot fix. I imagine you’ll work out those bugs soonest. Congrats on the first look COP > 1 results.

    • wizkid

      It was fun to be Bruce Willis for a second. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
      Cheers.

  • Obvious

    I’m not sure how your wires are clipped on, but turning a small loop on the heater wire ends and nut-bolting the heater wire to the supply wire should be a bit tougher. That connection is under a lot of heat stress. Doubling the heater wire over and twisting it so that the loop part has two wires in it sometimes (and less heat at the connection) helps, as long as the wire isn’t damaged in doing the twisting.

    • cashmemorz

      My experience in wiring projects says to remove any resin or shellacc coating on the wire. This is to make sure the wire is able to give off heat by radiation. Extra radiative cooling can be achieved by lightly scraping the surface to make it shiny. Any shellac is the first insulation. The plastic or other material as the outer sheath for general insulation purposes might be also removed as far as possible from the contact screw base for convection cooling. The best contact for cooling is soldered connection. The solder allows much more conductive heat removal. Also for high temp the solder should be not used but have a brazed connection =brass melt not the tin or silver type.

      • wizkid

        Thank you for your comment

      • Obvious

        Calibrated resistance wire can be a pain to solder or braze to, and often won’t take any type of other metal at all. Braze does work on nichrome, when fresh. I haven’t tried it on Kanthal, myself. A mechanical connection is always superior.
        I used to rebuild pump motors for low riders. They would burn the brushes right off, and even melt the brush leads. I designed a crimper based on a bolt cutter to clamp the new brush leads on with a custom brass strip, then silver soldered. Even the silver would melt under load, but the brush leads never came undone before the brushes were destroyed. A purely soldered connection or weak crimp with the lame metal tab supplied with the replacement brush leads would just fall off. These were large 12V motors being run with 36 to 60V. There wasn’t enough room to nut and bolt the leads, or I would have. The crimp allowed the connection to be cut, and then unsoldered easily enough for subsequent repair.

    • wizkid

      Me either, I already knew better and shame on my. My tubes have been upgraded already.

      • Obvious

        If you are using spade type clips, another thing I have done that works well is scavenge the brass terminals from a good quality (not plated) 110 V or 220 V replacement plug (the part that goes into the wall outlet, these are like $3 to $5 from a hardware store). These come with screw terminals on one end (to strongly attach the heater wire), and a 1/4 inch spade on the other, when freed from the plastic. They are long enough to keep most of the heater wire heat from the supply connection, and fat enough that a 1/4 inch female spade is a tight fit. The female supply spade can be crimped a bit tighter to ensure a good connection if needed. (Do this with the spade not connected).

        • wizkid

          I have already turned a small loop on the heater wire ends and nut-bolted the heater wire to the supply wire should be a alot tougher. Doubling the heater wire over and twisting it so that the loop part has two wires exiting from under the hull of the tube has been tested and used successfully in my experiments many times. I am guilty of not having this done before I got OU but I was too happy with the results not to share. Even my daughter understood the positive results during the test run! But I have fixed the furnaces and will not make this mistake again. 😕

  • Obvious

    I’m not sure how your wires are clipped on, but turning a small loop on the heater wire ends and nut-bolting the heater wire to the supply wire should be a bit tougher. That connection is under a lot of heat stress. Doubling the heater wire over and twisting it so that the loop part has two wires in it sometimes (and less heat at the connection) helps, as long as the wire isn’t damaged in doing the twisting.

    • cashmemorz

      My experience in wiring projects says to remove any resin or shellacc coating on the wire. This is to make sure the wire is able to give off heat by radiation. Extra radiative cooling can be achieved by lightly scraping the surface to make it shiny. Any shellac is the first insulation. The plastic or other material as the outer sheath for general insulation purposes might be also removed as far as possible from the contact screw base for convection cooling. The best contact for cooling is soldered connection. The solder allows much more conductive heat removal. Also for high temp the solder should be not used but have a brazed connection =brass melt not the tin or silver type.

      • wizkid

        Thank you for your comment

      • Obvious

        Calibrated resistance wire can be a pain to solder or braze to, and often won’t take any type of other metal at all. Braze does work on nichrome, when fresh. I haven’t tried it on Kanthal, myself. A mechanical connection is always superior, even when soldering.
        I used to rebuild pump motors for low riders. They would burn the brushes right off, and even melt the brush leads. I designed a crimper based on a bolt cutter to clamp the new brush leads on with a custom brass strip, then silver soldered. Even the silver would melt under load, but the brush leads never came undone before the brushes were destroyed. A purely soldered connection or weak crimp with the lame metal tab supplied with the replacement brush leads would just fall off. These were large 12V motors being run with 36 to 60V. There wasn’t enough room to nut and bolt the leads, or I would have. The crimp allowed the connection strip to be cut, and then unsoldered easily enough for subsequent repair.

    • wizkid

      Me either, I already knew better and shame on my. My tubes have been upgraded already.

      • Obvious

        If you are using spade type clips, another thing I have done that works well is scavenge the brass terminals from a good quality (not plated) 110 V or 220 V replacement plug (the part that goes into the wall outlet, these are like $3 to $5 from a hardware store). These come with screw terminals on one end (to strongly attach the heater wire), and a 1/4 inch spade on the other, when freed from the plastic. They are long enough to keep most of the heater wire heat away from the supply connection, and fat enough that a 1/4 inch female spade is a tight fit. The female supply spade can be crimped a bit tighter to ensure a good connection if needed. (Do this with the spade not connected).

        • wizkid

          I have already turned a small loop on the heater wire ends and nut-bolted the heater wire to the supply wire should be a alot tougher. Doubling the heater wire over and twisting it so that the loop part has two wires exiting from under the hull of the tube has been tested and used successfully in my experiments many times. I am guilty of not having this done before I got OU but I was too happy with the results not to share. Even my daughter understood the positive results during the test run! But I have fixed the furnaces and will not make this mistake again. 😕

  • Bruce Williams

    Tom, thanks a lot for your efforts and please keep up the good work! I look forward to reading your next report.

  • Bruce Williams

    Tom, thanks a lot for your efforts and please keep up the good work! I look forward to reading your next report.

  • Bruce__H

    It seems to me that there are many differences between the fuel slug in your live runs and the inert fuel slugs you use in the control runs. This makes it hard to interpret the results.

    You could get a cleaner comparison by using as a control a “live” fuel slug which has not been loaded with hydrogen.

    • wizkid

      Excellent comment, this is the first time I got results like this, and I have already scheduled this test. THANK YOU.

  • Bruce__H

    It seems to me that there are many differences between the fuel slug in your live runs and the inert fuel slugs you use in the control runs. This makes it hard to interpret the results.

    You could get a cleaner comparison by using as a control a “live” fuel slug which has not been loaded with hydrogen.

    • wizkid

      Excellent comment, this is the first time I got results like this, and I have already scheduled this test. THANK YOU.

  • Frank Acland

    In the fueled tests the temperature seems to flatline at 1200C and I wonder why. In the live test #1 there is a sharp increase in temperature with the power dropping over about a 4 minute period, but once the temp hits 1200C it flatlines. In the second live test, the temperature never goes above 1200 either.

    • wizkid

      Hi Frank,

      Materials science requires me to acknowledge the tested limits that I have learned based on my over two years of experience with this specific type of research. Most materials have thermal limits for functionality, and especially the 100mm K-Type Temperature Controller Thermocouple Sensor 100°C to 1250°C device that I use is subject to heavy oxidation in relatively short periods of time at temperatures that exceed 1150°C. It can read 1250°C but I absolutely have no option other than to respect the limits this imposes. Below is the logic I use to protect the hardware by turning the duration of power to zero if temperature is over setpoint limit:

      Setpoint = 1200;
      if ((Input+) >= Setpoint){
      HighOn=0;
      }

      Thank you for your kindness and your shield for me with the comment from “Scientist”, My next statement is for his benefit too. “I also have 50 years of experience with computer programming, and have written world class internet based software systems that accomplished functionality that corporate conglomerates were unable to achieve with unlimited funds, and I was able to protect that IP with security measures the withstood an IP attack on me that was funded with unlimited resources and manpower. The company that attacked me no longer is functional, I wonder why? The answer is that I turned off my computer software after spending $27,000 to my lawyer to allow me the privilege of turning off the software version of life support for that company, legally!

      I very much enjoyed my career, and now I enjoy my hobbies very much.

      Cheers!

      • bfast

        Hence the reason temperature goes to 1200.

        Wizkid, your experimentation is exciting. I wish you continued progress in your pursuit.

      • Bruce__H

        Don’t take Scientist’s comments the wrong way. They constitute almost exactly the sort of commentary that goes on within science all the time. It shows that Scientist is taking your work seriously and wants to see it move forward.

        You should realize that what you are embarked on now is empirical research. It differs greatly from computer programming, mathematics, etc and your experience in those areas only partly equips you for your new venture. This is what Scientist is warning you about. An interesting observation is that prodigies often crop up at a young age in mathematics and programming whereas in the empirical sciences you mostly need to be at least in your late 20s and have undergone an apprenticeship period before becoming truly productive. There is a reason why this is so..

        • wizkid

          That is truth. May God bless me with patience, insight, and wisdom and give me the strength to follow through completely on all of the tasks before me and always help me to remembe to thank Him for his undeserved love. He brings me joy in these tasks.

          I will indeed build the sixteen reactors I ordered last night and I will finish and share the admittedly preliminary results here.

          Thank you.

  • Frank Acland

    In the fueled tests the temperature seems to flatline at 1200C and I wonder why. In the live test #1 there is a sharp increase in temperature with the power dropping over about a 4 minute period, but once the temp hits 1200C it flatlines. In the second live test, the temperature never goes above 1200 either.

    • wizkid

      Hi Frank,

      Materials science requires me to acknowledge the tested limits that I have learned based on my over two years of experience with this specific type of research. Most materials have thermal limits for functionality, and especially the 100mm K-Type Temperature Controller Thermocouple Sensor 100°C to 1250°C device that I use is subject to heavy oxidation in relatively short periods of time at temperatures that exceed 1150°C. It can read 1250°C but I absolutely have no option other than to respect the limits this imposes. Below is the logic I use to protect the hardware by turning the duration of power to zero if temperature is over setpoint limit:

      Setpoint = 1200;
      if ((Input+) >= Setpoint){
      HighOn=0;
      }

      Thank you for your kindness and your shield for me with the comment from “Scientist”, My next statement is for his benefit too. “I also have 50 years of experience with computer programming, and have written world class internet based software systems that accomplished functionality that corporate conglomerates were unable to achieve with unlimited funds, and I was able to protect that IP with security measures the withstood an IP attack on me that was funded with unlimited resources and manpower. The company that attacked me no longer is functional, I wonder why? The answer is that I turned off my computer software after spending $27,000 to my lawyer to allow me the privilege of turning off the software version of life support for that company, legally!

      I very much enjoyed my career, and now I enjoy my hobbies very much.

      Cheers!

      • bfast

        Hence the reason temperature goes to 1200.

        Wizkid, your experimentation is exciting. I wish you continued progress in your pursuit.

      • Bruce__H

        Don’t take Scientist’s comments the wrong way. They constitute almost exactly the sort of commentary that goes on within science all the time. It shows that Scientist is taking your work seriously and wants to see it move forward.

        You should realize that what you are embarked on now is empirical research. It differs greatly from computer programming, mathematics, etc and your experience in those areas only partly equips you for your new venture. This is what Scientist is warning you about. An interesting observation is that prodigies often crop up at a young age in mathematics and programming whereas in the empirical sciences you mostly need to be at least in your late 20s and have undergone an apprenticeship period before becoming truly productive. There is a reason why this is so..

        • wizkid

          That is truth. May God bless me with patience, insight, and wisdom and give me the strength to follow through completely on all of the tasks before me and always help me to remembe to thank Him for his undeserved love. He brings me joy in these tasks.

          I will indeed build the sixteen reactors I ordered last night and I will finish and share the admittedly preliminary results here.

          Thank you.

  • Scientist

    A lot of DIYers understandibly have little experience in science. This may look good, but with only two semi-failed attempts with live fuel, no conclusions of value can be drawn.
    What you need to do, and what shockingly pretty much no one in this “community” has done, is to repeat your experiments a number of times, calculate average values, and then perform appropriate statistical analysis.
    First of all, obviously your set up needs work: the temperature doesn’t seem to ever go over 1200C (which is an oddly even number). Are your thermocouples capable of measuring higher temperatures? You have to make sure your data is in range of your mode of measurment.
    Then you have make sure you can do the tests reliably, dislodging sensors and broken cables mid-experiment ruins the whole data set.
    Once you have reliable operation in the range of what you can measure, repeat the null experiments at least five times, and the live experiments at least five times. Do not change ANY parameters between repetitions.
    When you have these datasets, you can start to draw conclusions. Before then, it’s just “mickey mouse-science”.

    • Frank Acland

      You make lots of good suggestions here, Scientist — but I don’t think anyone is drawing firm conclusions here. Tom has been good enough to share his experimental results, and is willing to get feedback and suggestions. I have no problem with amateurs doing this kind of work (there is a good tradition of significant scientific progress from amateurs), especially if the professionals are not doing it.

      • Scientist

        Of course. I also have no problem with amateurs doing science. I just have a problem with anyone doing bad science, amateur or not 🙂
        Of course it’s difficult to do expensive and tedious repetitions of experiments when you are working out of a basement at home, and I understand that the excitement of seemingly positive results can get you to rush ahead instead of going back and doing the same thing over and over again. But I think it is important to remind people who have no formal training that without proper experimental design and scientific rigor, there can be no reliable progress.
        I have been watching DIYers tackle fringe science from the side-lines for a while now, and it gets increasingly frustrating to see people sink so much time and money in a project only to then proceed to squander it by either starting to change parameters for the next experiment before confirming what they already have, or declaring success and calling it a day. What’s left in the end is a half-assed and completely inconclusive dataset that is of no real help to themselves or anyone else.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Sounds like you have the experience, knowledge and interest to do your own research into LENR why not give it a try?

          • Scientist

            Well, contrary to what some people here are suggesting, I am actually a working scientist. As anyone else in the field can confirm, this means I have no spare time and very little money. 🙂
            And I sort of have to focus on my own research, which is not at all related to lenr.

        • wizkid

          OMG! E48 has a new handle, but he still has a big mouth but never brushes his teeth! Your teapot whistles while I work, ha ha ha! Thanks for NOTHING E48. You are my fly in the ointment.

        • SG

          I have been listening to couch scientists call courageous researchers fringe amateurs and crackpots from the side-lines for a while now, and I think it is unnecessary.

          • Bruce__H

            I disagree. Scientist is weighing in with valuable criticism based on experience.

            Everybody doing research needs to be held to high standards. Being thin-skinned about criticism does no one any good.

          • Ged

            His remarks are mostly based on inaccurate presumption due to a lack of bothering to ask details. How is that “valuable criticism”?

            Also, based on what experience? The way he talks is not like a scientist, as we certainly understand “works in progress” versus finalized publication, and what each looks like.

            Contrast with Obvious, who does actually speak from experience and provides specific and useful details.

          • TVulgaris

            He SOUNDS like an MS or new PhD, or perhaps a BS who’s been working in industry or institutional environments for just a few years. If it’s not top-notch (which usually entails big-budget resources), it MUST be bad science, or it would already have been done and published…
            Me, I’ll be the first to admit that everything technical I try is based on wild guesses (I always call them hypotheses to confuse the easily-impressed)- I’ve just gotten pretty good with them over the past 5 decades, and seem to improve incrementally.

          • SG

            The replicators are not thin-skinned. They take constructive criticism. The condescending language is uncalled for. That was my point.

          • Scientist

            I said nothing about crackpots. But a non-professional is by definition an amateur. Obviously the science itself can not sense whether you’re working in a shed or a university lab, but if you don’t follow the scientific method, you’re not doing science.

          • SG

            The scientific method involves hypothesizing and testing, and then modifying the hypothesis. The problem with a subsection of the scientific community today is that they oppose the scientific method in some instances, dismiss out of hand, and vociferously claim that no effort or money should be applied to areas such as LENR, because it would be “wasteful.” I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not fall into that subsection.

          • Scientist

            You’re right to give me the benefit of the doubt, and I think you should extend it to the rest of mainstream science as well. I’ve never met a scientist who “opposes the scientific method”. I’m not sure how anyone could survive in science with that kind of attitude.

            The reality is that there is never unlimited money or a carte blanche from funding agencies. It’s like comparing solid investment to playing the lottery. What would you rather do if you only had a few precious dollars to spend?

          • SG

            I appreciate that you maintain an open stance. Sorry, I can’t extend it to the entire scientific community–at least not many of self-proclaimed “Internet” scientists who go around visiting various forums and communities preaching that all LENR, EmDrive, and other curious phenomena are crackpotish and deserve no attention or funding by the government. None! Even in the face of some curious evidence! And on phenomena, which if proven, have very significant implications to society!

            Where the potential significance to society is high, at least some amounts of funding by the government should be allocated, without question. We aren’t asking for billions, like some big-science projects, but a mere rounding-error of those amounts.

    • wizkid

      I suspect that you are but a child with the limited experience you demonstrate in working with people in your comment, dear sir. My tech genius has also advised me and mentors me on these needs, you need not bother.

      • Hhiram

        It would behoove you to maintain a professional tone in response to criticism. The LENR community has a serious credibility problem already. Reacting defensively with snide comments, as you are doing in this forum, is not a good way to instill confidence in anyone who is observing the LENR community’s experimental efforts and hoping to glean useful information.

        • wizkid

          Perhaps you are right, and I hear your tone. I will try harder. Thank you.

    • SG

      I would encourage you to continue with your constructive suggestions and drop the condescending language. It won’t garner you many friends in this “community.” And by the way, you can drop the quotes on community.

    • Ged

      The central idea I see here is fundamentally flawed: this is not a finalized, all experiments wrapped up, peer reviewed paper. This is a “data as it is coming” update for feedback and analysis to inform further experiments. Any actual lab doing work has numerous projects that are of course at this state of in progress and not perfected. One can’t just snap ones figures and have all the answers instantly. He has said there will be more runs, there will be deeper analysis, and no conclusions are being drawn yet. It is additionally an important progress report as he has done things differently than anyone else and the data that is yielding is instructively useful to the field.

      It is also far more professional to ask for more information on methods and such, rather than make baseless and inaccurate assumptions; such as to why his experiment is capped at 1200 C. It never hurts to ask for clarification, and definitely good to do so.

      However, it is good you give ideas for how many N you would like to see–that is the sort of valuable feedback being solicited here and which is always useful. Offering help is also good, rather than assuming you know more than the guy or that he hasn’t done the things you suggest already (which goes back to the problem that one should ask about the methods rather than make assumptions).

      • Scientist

        He’s asking for people to calculate the COP. I’d say that means he thinks the experiment was successful. I say it’s not an experiment yet, just an early optimisation run. And I think if you want to share the results of an experiment, you should finish the experiment first. Otherwise there is really not much to be said, and you are likely setting yourself up for misinterpretation of the data and a subsequent waste of time.
        Anyway, it was not my intention to criticise, just to give advice and warn not to repeat the mistakes made by others.
        As for the assumptions, the only assumptions I made were about the thermocouple, which turned out to be accurate. It is imperative that the data you are recording is within the range of measurement. This is really basic stuff that I don’t think comes as a surprise to anyone. Just a reminder.

        • Bruce__H

          I disagree that wizkid should finish the experiment first before sharing the results. What we are seeing here is an instance of public science as enabled by social media. I think it has great promise not so much to achieve this scientific result or that scientific result but to expose the whole process of empirical research to people who would otherwise know nothing about it.

          The greatest failings I see in correspondents posting their views on this site is that they do not understand how often blind alleys turn up in research and do not understand how to be both open-minded and skeptical at the same time. Every professional experimentalist knows all about this and knows that, contrary to the famous dictum of Gene Kranz, … failure is always an option. In contrast, amateurs are afraid of any failure that contradicts their preconceived notions.

          Wizkid seems willing to report all his results whether as they come out and no matter how they fit in with his preconceptions. To me this means that all who read his posts will get to taste life at the bench and I hope that will be educational for many.

          • Scientist

            While I agree completly with your second paragraph, I think posting unfinished data sets is setting yourself up for unnecessary problems. And if we put Tom aside for a minute, this is problem I have seen with a lot of people doing these sort of experiments at home. I think it’s important to hold scientists up to the proper standards of scientific conduct, whether they are professional or not.

            I also think there seems to be some kind of us-versus-them mentality among people here, where DIYers are put against professional researchers. I think this is a real pity, and I think it generates unnecessary distrust towards the scientific community, which in turn leads to a distrust of good scientific practice.

          • TVulgaris

            So, are you currently, or have you in the past, attempted an “open-science” experiment? If so, can you report exactly how you conducted it, including reporting, collating, and analyzing the data?

          • TVulgaris

            If so, what kind of community participation occurred, and was it according to your selected parameters

            of involvement?

          • Scientist

            I suppose that depends on what you mean by “open-science”. In my view, most science not performed by private institutions is relatively open. Maybe hard to access from the outside, but sharing of data is going on all the time. What do you think research journals and conferences are for?

        • Ged

          He finished four experiments, and yes, a completed “run” is an experiment (and provides an experimental N of one), as any research scientist would know.

          Calculating COP says nothing about if the experiment supported or disproved the hypothesis being tested. Again, that is an irrational and inaccurate presumption. COP is a vital feature of the data and the principle metric required for testing the hypothesis. These are basic design features of the research here, which it takes but a bit of reading to understand.

          The temps are within the range of the thermocouple, as if you read the documents provided, you would know it was K-type which are reliable to 1260 C http://www.thermocoupleinfo.com He additionally capped the experiment to 1200 C to prevent out of range events. So no, it appears you were wrong in your assumptions as you presented them–he was several steps ahead of you.

          Sharing data is always good, and it must be continued and updated over time to reach conclusions; but if it is shared then others can continue the work too. Being afraid of data is anti-scientific, no matter the rational one attempts to use. See Sciencematters.io for an entire science journal dedicated to publishing pieces of data, to correct for the damage to science caused by that corrupt philosophy regrettably espoused in your post.

          Giving advise is great and appreciated, and you did give some which is awesome, so thank you again for the suggestions. But most of what you gave was your own phisosophical belief based on inaccurate presumption about the experiments here and presented in a pretentious way–and that is neither needed nor appreciated by any observer.

          • Bruce__H

            I think it is a poor idea to calculate COP by comparing one run with another when the materials used in the 2 runs are so different. It is premature. I wouldn’t even think about achieving an interpretable COP until the whole design is tightened up.

            It is this preliminary sorting out and being cautious with interpretations that is a completely ordinary part of science … one that those who aren’t working scientists never see. This is why I think that this whole public science enterprise is valuable. People reading wizkid’s results will just have to learn to be skeptical but open-minded and full of enthusiasm all at the same time.

          • Frank Acland

            Bruce, it’s going to be hard to keep people here from trying to interpret things like COP from any experimental data, since these kinds of results come only rarely.

            Obviously it will be provisional, subject to change, but I think making a guess based on information we have to work with is interesting and I don’t see it as being particularly harmful. And we can learn about the scientific process as things progress.

          • Ged

            Well, my view is that it is not only fine but actually good to calculate the COP for each set of control-active pairing. It is an essential feature of the data and the entire point of doing these experiments and having a control. It allows us to evaluate the quality of the signal versus noise, which we can’t start to do without knowing the difference (COP) between the control and active over successive pairs.

            I understand and appreciate your thoughts that it could lead to incorrect leaps to conclusion, but I don’t see that happening at the moment thankfully–and rather than stand against needed data analysis, we should deal with bad rushing to judgement when and if we see it.

            You are completely correct that the control needs to be improved (and make other good points), and your non-hydrogenated nickel idea is very good for that, and I would argue is required. And knowing the COP with the current two controls now will better help us evaluate the COP with that proper control to understand context if the signal disappears completely (thereby letting us quantitate how much error is in the COP of the other control types which are currently being used by people), or remains and by how much. We need to know.

            Look at dCt (control Ct – experimental Ct for each pairing) values for a very similar situation to this regarding gene expression in biology assayed by qRT-PCR. The considerations in data analysis there and here are practically identical. No one would every stop someone from computing dCt as they go along, as the data is not interpritable without it for quality control, analysis, and further experimental design, even before enough data is collected for conclusions.

          • Bruce__H

            OK. Well argued! I would contend, however, that the control and experimental samples in RT-PCR would usually be taken from some constant biological background whereas I think of wizkid’s control and treatment groups as being from orangutans and parrots. The difference due to treatment seems to be the least of the worries.

          • Scientist

            Well, I certainly don’t see how I was being pretentious, but that’s not really the point here anyway.
            And I’m afraid you’re completely wrong about what constitutes an experiment. An experiment is a series of tasks performed to provide evidence for or against a hypothesis. When you only have one N, the experiment is not finished, as there is no way of calculating the statistical significance of your results. And when you can’t do that, you don’t have any evidence.

            And this is why posting incomplete data sets is problematic. You think you see an effect, but this could easily be an error. Asking for advice on how to proceed in that situation can easily lead you down dead ends. As someone who has spent hundreds of hours on similar mistakes, believe me when I say it’s a waste of time. Repeating the experiment until you can say that there is an effect within a defined certainty allows you to get advice that is based on actual evidence, and that is a thousand times more valuable.

            And I clearly said I thought there was a problem with the range of the thermocouples, so I really don’t know what you are talking about regarding that.

          • Ged

            There isn’t a problem with the range of the thermocouples, that is what I linked to show you.

            You are working from a different meaning of “experiment”, so to firm up the ground, here is the definition supplied by Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/experiment

            It is “a test”, not tests–any time you take a series of actions to test an idea, that is an experiment, and an N of one. Statistics require multiple repeated N, so the same experiment must be repeated several times till necessary statistical power is achieved (N of 3 being the minimum, and he provided an N of 2 for control and experimental here). See how the definition you are using for your argument is flawed and incorrect?

            You want a tidy, published paper, and all papers have many experiments and repeated experiments contained within to reach a defensible conclusion. But where you go off the rails is thinking erroneously that sharing current progress from several experiments done already is somehow in error–when that could not be further from the truth. And no where does he say he is done or that conclusions can be reached or that analysis is complete. Yet you argue like that is the case, wrongly.

            I am also dismayed when you say, “Asking for advice on how to proceed in that situation can easily lead you down dead ends.” That is completely against the scientific method, because “dead ends” are observations and all observations are essential to scientific understanding. You also cannot know what will or won’t work until you try and run an experiment, so it is complete investigator bias to fear “dead ends”. All observations are equal in science; positive or negative are concepts created by humans based on desired outcome or perspective, but reality is as it is and that is what we are investigating.

            You see repeated experiments here, and you see past repeated experiments from Wizkid, and you see he is going to continue repeating and refining his experiments until they are sufficient to allow conslusions, so your arguments are pointless to disengenuous. Meanwhile you see several folks actually helping and providing useful insights to assist in improving the experiments and getting us closer to a conclusion on the hypothesis–you should be more like them.

          • Scientist

            Christ. Calm down.
            First of all, you said yourself that the thermocouples only go up to 1260 degrees, and that he had to cap it at 1200. Since the temperature evidently reaches the cap, there is clearly not enough range in the measurment. This is not rocket science.

            Second, I am obviously talking about experiments from an empirical science point of view. Simply out, one experiment is one way of test a certain hypothesis. Without a certain statistical significance, you can say exactly nothing about the hypothesis.
            The reason for this is that there is such a thing as false positives. In the present case, Tom posten some data from an unfinished experiment. I think you would also agree that if we all knew whether or not his experiment worked, we could give more accurate and valuable input. As it stands right now, there is no way of knowing the probability of these results being false positives.
            This is VERY imporant and not something to shrug off because you happen to have some weird comtempt for scientists.

            And sure, wasting time in dead ends can teach you valuable lessons, but if you think that is the way science is OUGHT to be done, you’re beyond delusional.

            The ACTUAL reality here is that not one single DIYer here or anywhere else, as far as I’m aware, has performed experiments with enough scientific rigor to say with any certainty that the effect they are seeing is not an artifact. And that’s just sad. And you should spend less time telling people how they should be and more time educating yourself about the topic you’re discussing.

          • Ged

            No no, by capping it, he stated his controller keeps power input from pushing the temperature past 1200 C. It isn’t that he isn’t measuring past 1200 C, it is that he is not allowing heating to push past 1200 C so that it doesn’t exceed the thermocoupler’s limits. That is a proper way to do it, and one doesn’t want to heat past 1200 C regardless as it causes high probability of reactor tube failures pretty quickly after that point.

            Also, I am a peer-review journal published and publishing research scientist, so once again you doth presume too much (illogically too as I have shown no “contempt” for science–my job–while you arguably have). I am telling you all these things from actual successful experience in a paid career to do research. I also provide you with references to give you a larger point of view and not just my own view–something you do not do.

            Simply put, you are apparently misusing and misapplying scientific concepts; the definition of an experiment is not what you attempt to pawn it off as (as I linked you; what word you are looking for is “research”, which is a collection of experiments aiming at elucidating a particular concept), while you try to disparage data sharing (the central core of science). That is a matter of language, but if one can’t accept the conventions of communication then discussion is impossible.

            Asking for input to improve the experimental procedure based on data gathered from this system does not depend on any way on statistical analysis (you technically -can- run statistics on this N of 2, so try it), that is unrelated to helping find solutions here. There are no false positives yet as no conclusions are being drawn; this is about experimental design improvements and important progess, which requires the current raw data. You seem to be confusing concepts and making random leaps without connective tissue between them, which is… interesting.

            You also currently argue in a way that suggeats a lack of experience with actual research, such as not understanding that one cannot know what is a “dead end” or not (how do you claim what is a “dead end” anyways when data is data? That requires an unscientific bias) until one does the work to find out. I do not see how that is a hard concept, unless you are unfamiliar with the fact that most research experiments do not yield the results people “look for” or “expect”. And that is where a lot of the greatest discoveries come from, that serendipity of things not working like you “wanted” and opening whole new avenues for you to explore. There are no “dead ends” in science. Engineering maybe, but not research science. If refining the current experimental designs do not yield support to the hypothesis under test, that is a vitally important result, and the work here is on going.

            Also, you may lack a great deal of knowledge about the LENR field to make the claims you do. Even the recent academic news out of Japan shows fine scientific rigor so far. And you know what? The whole point of wizkid sharing his data and asking for input here has been to… guess what… help to increase his scientific rigor and yet you argue he shouldn’t share results. That is crazy and anti-scientific. These results are not claimed as conclusive yet, and wizkid himself labels them properly as preliminary, just like the data you see on any poster at a scientific conference (his data would be perfect for a research conference poster), though maybe you have not have been to a national conference if talk as you do?

            Data should always be shared and because it is shared we can see this research needs more of it and how; and no one is surprised or unexpectant of that except you it seems.

            But I am sorry if I come across as grumpy at you–I don’t mean it personally. I simply don’t tolerate any belittling or attacking or discouraging the act of data sharing, as it goes against everything I stand for and make a living doing, so it probably makes me overly harsh.

          • Scientist

            Maybe you should spend a little less time being condescending and more time actually trying to understand what I am telling you.
            If he has to cap anything to avoid going out of range, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RANGE IN THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM. Try to understand that.

            Furthermore, the “reference” you provided states “a test done in order to learn something or to discover whether something works or is true”. As a working researcher, you should know very well that you can NOT learn the truth of a hypothesis with any certainty with N=1 (or 2, unless you are extremely lucky).
            And you should also know, through your years of experience, that if you show up at a lab meeting with incomplete data sets and present them as results, your PI will promptly direct you back to the lab floor.
            And since you mentioned confecerences, I have been to many (INTERnational conferences), and I have never in my life seen a poster with experiments with an N of less than 3.
            To put it simply, since you don’t seem to understand anything else I am writing: you’re dead wrong.

            Conclusions about this kind of data is being drawn ALL the time here, just look through the comments of the posts on this site. People take non-reproduced data as truth as start making assumptions based on inconclusive evidence. Maybe YOU don’t, but that’s unrelated.

            Let me give you a hypothetical scenario to make it more clear, since you obviously didn’t fully understand my last post:
            Tom posts a dataset which could very well be entirely wrong, since he hasn’t, and can’t, analyse it properly. The people here look at his data, think there is an effect when there actually is none, and suggest he alters parameter A (which would make sense, if there was an effect). Tom alters paramter A, and the observed effect goes away (in reality, it was never there to begin with). Or does it? Maybe this is another artifact, and altering parameter A actually made it work! Regardless, people here, who take the incomplete data set as actual results, instead advice him to change parameter B. Repeat ad nauseum. No new knowledge has been generated, no trustworthy data is collected, and Tom is back to square one.
            If Tom spend a day to repeat the experiment WITHOUT changing any paramteres, he may have been given different advice which would have saved him a lot of trouble. And as a bonus, the people he shared the results with will know – with a defined certainty – what the result of performing the experiment would be.

            And contrary to what you’re saying, an opposing viewpoint to this would betray a severe lack of scientific experience.

            Of course Tom can ask for help with the engineering, but as you well know, that is not what we are talking about.

            You are also totally misrepresenting what I have said; of course there is usually no way of knowing what will be a dead end or not, but that doesn’t mean one should not try to avoid them. Or do you suggest that running around like a headless chicken, waiting to bump in to some amazing discovery is the proper way to conduct research? In that case, good luck with your career – you’re going to need it.

            Regarding LENR, you are again (intentionally?) misunderstanding me. If you read my post, you would see that I wrote that DIYers lack scientific rigor. People with funding agencies breathing down their necks usually keep the standards reasonably high.
            And you write that the point of Tom posting his results here is to increase his scientific rigor. His language and lack of humility kind of points to the contrary. And again, what do you think the point of my original post was, if not to encourage proper conduct? I never said he shouldn’t share results, again you’re putting words in my mouth. I said he should share his results WHEN HE HAS RESULTS TO SHARE, so that people can give advice based on EVIDENCE, and not potential artifacts.

            For the record, I am also a working, paid, published, and publishing scientific researcher. So you can drop the presumptious and condescending tone. And don’t confuse your inability to understand what I am writing as me discouraging the sharing of data – it’s dishonest.

          • Ged

            If he has to cap anything to avoid going out of range, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RANGE IN THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM. Try to understand that.

            No, you completely misunderstand what is going on here and the physics. The measurement system is not the problem, once again, and please pay attention this time. A cap is necessary for physical reasons as the heater plus any reaction combined could heat the device to physical destruction and melting of the sensors. Obviously that is not a good outcome. The measurement range is perfect for the hypothesized reaction in question, and furthermore, if the heater has to cut back to prevent overheating in the Active run versus Control, that is strong evidence of an energy producing reaction.

            This is a simple matter, if one does not understand this basic premise then there is a serious problem with comprehension of the work being done.

            And you should also know, through your years of experience, that if you show up at a lab meeting with incomplete data sets and present them as results, your PI will promptly direct you back to the lab floor.

            I must call Bull. That is completely and flagrantly wrong. Why? Because one will almost never have a “completed dataset” until one is ready for publication, and I would never expect you nor any of my other colleagues to have such at a weekly meeting. Preliminary data is what is presented and the purpose of the meetings to review. If you are doing research, you would understand the time scales it takes and how the data evolves with further experimentation and what people even discuss at a meeting (and how methods get tweaked with feedback from preliminary data, contrary to what you say later). You may have one or two completed experimental N, but not a full dataset until compiled to publish. The ideas you state here are not remotely real.

            I have never in my life seen a poster with experiments with an N of less than 3.
            To put it simply, since you don’t seem to understand anything else I am writing: you’re dead wrong.

            Yeah, I don’t buy that for one second. Particularly since all the conferences I have presented at specifically state not to present finished research, as a conference is looking for preliminary data on the cutting edge. I have seen many posters with N less than 3 and even down to 1 depending on experiment, as that is the reality of where thieir research’s edge was. What you say is not remotely true. There is no way you have not seen the same if you actually went to a conference. There have even been papers published with N of one when dealing with endangered species–so there are such circumstances and realities to deal with, which display how inexperienced your words sound. But here, we are dealing with more N than one.

            Conclusions about this kind of data is being drawn ALL the time here, just look through the comments of the posts on this site. People take non-reproduced data as truth as start making assumptions based on inconclusive evidence. Maybe YOU don’t, but that’s unrelated.

            Then correct them rather than being afraid of them having data. Plenty of incorrect conclusions are made in and from whole papers all the time. For how long did the nutritional world demonize dietary cholesterol? This is something you need to get used to facing rather than running away from. And worst I don’t see you quoting anyone here as doing such, despite your claims.

            Tom posts a dataset which could very well be entirely wrong, since he hasn’t, and can’t, analyse it properly. The people here look at his data, think there is an effect when there actually is none, and suggest he alters parameter A (which would make sense, if there was an effect). Tom alters paramter A, and the observed effect goes away (in reality, it was never there to begin with). Or does it?

            Yeah, see, there is a problem with your example–that is the very process of science! They don’t have to think there is it isn’t an effect, nor does it matter if they do or don’t, you are trying to conflate unrelated events and concepts to marginalize the discussion. Altering a parameter to see what happens to the effect is the process or scientific experimentation. Let’s change the words some so you can see: parameter A = independent variable; observed effect = dependent variable. Look familiar now?

            Every parameter change and resulting effect is new knowledge, and I am sad to see your reply failed that fundamental fact. There is no square one, as all the data is present for all to see.

            Moreover, you wanted the measurement method changed, which is changing a method paramter, just like you bemoan in your hypothetical scenarios. Irony winner indeed.

            If Tom spend a day to repeat the experiment WITHOUT changing any paramteres, he may have been given different advice which would have saved him a lot of trouble.

            He did. Once again, you presume instead of read or ask, and wrongly. Your argument’s premise is based fully on error, he has already repeated the same process, which is why we have multiple experimental N.

            But you also fundamentally fail to ask, why do parameters get changed? You have created this scenario where any changes in parameters is because… I dunno, people just feel like it? Nevermind that that is how science is done, you know, changing the independent variable(s) and seeing the effect on the dependent variable; but your big error here is that parameters are being changed to improve the quality and rigor of the experiment and the quality of the data. We need the data to see where improvements can be made, as without testing of the methods we have no idea if the methods will work as intended or not. Hence, we in science test and refine ad nausium until we are confident enough in the method quality to repeat and draw conclusions.

            Of course Tom can ask for help with the engineering, but as you well know, that is not what we are talking about.

            He did and has been here, and that is what is being talked about in several threads of you haven’t noticed. But why would it matter? How is sharing preliminary data and asking for method insights any different than sharing preliminary data and leaving it at that? It isn’t. His data is important, and so very useful to the community to see the methods and what those methods yield, regardless of any other motives. That is the purpose of science.

            The philosophy in your posts is fundamentally flawed and wrong, if not even dangerous and anti-science.

            You are also totally misrepresenting what I have said; of course there is usually no way of knowing what will be a dead end or not, but that doesn’t mean one should not try to avoid them.

            I am? Well, let’s look at what you said: “Asking for advice on how to proceed in that situation can easily lead you down dead ends” and “And sure, wasting time in dead ends can teach you valuable lessons, but if you think that is the way science is OUGHT to be done, you’re beyond delusional.” Nope, seems I am not misrepresenting you at all.

            Now, let’s look at the logical flaw in your reasoning: you say “dead ends” should be avoided, yet you cannot know what is or isn’t a “dead end” according to your goal bias till you try and find out, so how do you avoid what you do not know and cannot know to avoid till attempts are made? Yeah, see, your logic here is deficient at the core. Understand it now?

            You are also projecting bias, and haven’t even defined what a “dead end” is for your “purpose”, or if even such a concept applies. It doesn’t, as knowing what doesn’t work is a fundamental part of characterizing the system. This is basic scientific method concepts here–making up an undefined “dead end” boogyman to try to disparage and prevent suggestions is dead wrong and anti-productive, in addition to your post’s broken logic (how can you presume to avoid what you do not know to avoid till you test, hm?).

            Showing it works is not a “dead end”, showing it doesn’t work is not a “dead end”. Both are important results. So that “dead end” argument is fictitious and useless.

            Regarding LENR, you are again (intentionally?) misunderstanding me. If you read my post, you would see that I wrote that DIYers lack scientific rigor. People with funding agencies breathing down their necks usually keep the standards reasonably high.

            Ah, so you want to attack DIYers? MFMP has had great scientific rigor open to all on their multiple projects, enough to get them multiple university and other high level sponsors for a taboo’d topic. Obvious has displayed fine scientific rigor from what I have seen. Me365 was great but lately disappeared. Hm, yep, seems you are wrong here again too. The DIYers are doing a great job, and wizkid here is also showing and building quite nice rigor, even if you seem to struggle with cognitive dissonance about it.

            I said he should share his results WHEN HE HAS RESULTS TO SHARE, so that people can give advice based on EVIDENCE, and not potential artifacts.

            He does have results to share, that is what data is, and the methods to go along with them–and by sharing we can all peer review it. You are indeed trying to block his sharing of data by “moving the goal posts” erroneously. This –is evidence, as all data is, and the process of increasing confidence in data and post analyzing it, is a separate domain to “HAVING RESULTS TO SHARE” and part of the continuance of research to find and eliminate artifacts if they exist and to what degree. That is, signal to noise.

            All of this you see are results. Did you misunderstand the meaning of experiment and now results too?

            He seems plenty humble to me as well, so your personal opinion of him is meaningless and not shared by others as far as I see here.

            For the record, I am also a working, paid, published, and publishing scientific researcher. So you can drop the presumptious and condescending tone. And don’t confuse your inability to understand what I am writing as me discouraging the sharing of data – it’s dishonest.

            Uh-huh. Let’s look at what you said again: “I said he should share his results WHEN HE HAS RESULTS TO SHARE”. No one but you is putting word in your mouth. You made it clear you didn’t like him sharing his data, so the only dishonesty is your attempt to pretend that isn’t so while still thumping on it at the same time. I won’t make presumption a about your experience, unlike you about me with your remarks like “contempt for science”, so I will leave others to make their own determinations from your words.

          • Scientist

            1. You’re wrong all over.

            “Materials science requires me to acknowledge the tested limits that I
            have learned based on my over two years of experience with this
            specific type of research. Most materials have thermal limits for
            functionality, and especially the 100mm K-Type Temperature Controller
            Thermocouple Sensor 100°C to 1250°C device that I use is subject to
            heavy oxidation in relatively short periods of time at temperatures that
            exceed 1150°C. It can read 1250°C but I absolutely have no option
            other than to respect the limits this imposes. Below is the logic I use
            to protect the hardware by turning the duration of power to zero if
            temperature is over setpoint limit:

            Setpoint = 1200;
            if ((Input+) >= Setpoint){
            HighOn=0;
            }”

            = He is cutting power to protect his thermocouples. End of story.

            2. You don’t know what a dataset is. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_set
            Also, the ideas I’m stating are very much real. I don’t know how much experience you have, but I have had weekly lab meetings for many years and countless other meetings where new data is presented in various collaboration projects and noone has ever EVER presented an incomplete dataset (i.e. N<3) without explicitly stating that that specific experiment is still in progress.
            If you indeed have published anything, especially in life science journals (which as I understand is your field, that or biology), you know as well as I do that you will need probably around 25-50 datasets (~five figures with 5-10 subfigures) to conclusively prove your point. This is very different from a lab meeting.

            3. You obviously don't know what preliminary data means either. You want to prove a hypothesis. You perform a study, this study consists of many experiments, and each experiment consists of several replications of that experiment. Once you have performed enough experiments to effectively argue your point, you can publish. If you only have a couple of experiments that point you in the right direction, but on their own don't prove anything, you have preliminary data. If you have one repetition of one experiment, you have absolutely nothing (except MAYBE an idea about whether or not it is worth it to repeat it).

            In fact, I was going to answer your entire post, but frankly it is a waste of time. You are being absurdly hostile and confusingly defensive about things I have never even said. Clearly this is somehow very personal to you and I don't think me lecturing you on scientific practice is actually going to make you learn anything. You've already made up your mind – closed it, so to speak.

            I wish you the best of luck in your work, and the best of patience for your PI.

          • Ged

            He is cutting power to protect his thermocouples. End of story.

            Which is exactly what I’ve been telling you all this time. The 1200 C measurements are not out of range for the thermocouples, and there is no signal chopping issue. The couples can measure the set point just fine, and are appropriate for that set point. That set point is well within the range of temperatures expected to see the effect according to the current hypothesis (going just 200 C higher will melt the nickel), as we have also seen tested by MFMP and others. So, now you finally agree, and disagree with yourself when you said “THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RANGE”.

            You don’t know what a dataset is. Here you go:

            How silly of you. You tried to make an example where “incomplete data sets” was seen as bad, and that was what I was refuting, obviously, since I quoted you. All data, since data is plural, is part of a set. That argument does not support you in any way, as all datasets are “incomplete” while you are gathering data and evaluating it at meetings, unless you are having a meeting about writing the paper with your completed datasets.

            I don’t know how much experience you have, but I have had weekly lab
            meetings for many years and countless other meetings where new data is
            presented in various collaboration projects and noone has ever EVER
            presented an incomplete dataset (i.e. N<3) without explicitly stating
            that that specific experiment is still in progress.
            If you indeed
            have published anything, especially in life science journals (which as I
            understand is your field, that or biology), you know as well as I do
            that you will need probably around 25-50 datasets (~five figures with
            5-10 subfigures) to conclusively prove your point. This is very
            different from a lab meeting.

            Yes, it is very different from a lab meeting, that’s the point. And the data here is being presented as still in progress, so I guess you agree now and disagree with your former position, as data in progress does not have an N of 3. My work and collaborations generally deal with Ns in the 10s and 100s, so an N of 3 is still typically “on going” for us for most experiments. Of course, any new experiment can be an N of 1 complete by the time the meeting rolls round. All of these are those “incomplete data sets” your hypothetical example PI seemed to take issue with.

            By the by, “results” is the outcome of any experiment, so a dataset is always “results”.

            You obviously don’t know what preliminary data means either. You want to
            prove a hypothesis. You perform a study, this study consists of many
            experiments, and each experiment consists of several replications of
            that experiment. Once you have performed enough experiments to
            effectively argue your point, you can publish. If you only have a couple
            of experiments that point you in the right direction, but on their own
            don’t prove anything, you have preliminary data. If you have one
            repetition of one experiment, you have absolutely nothing (except MAYBE
            an idea about whether or not it is worth it to repeat it).

            You were right up until that last part, where you disagree with everything you yourself were just saying. Any dataset you are not finished gathering results for is preliminary data, and the N is unrelated other than part of the benchmark used to determine once preliminary moves to complete.

            Perhaps you are thinking more of “provisional data”, which is a term used in early but incomplete data analysis http://water.usgs.gov/wateralert/provisional/

            And in this case, what do we have with our N of 2 control and active datasets? Preliminary data, is what, as wizkid makes it plain he is working to improve (“beef up” as he says) his set up and that he is not convinced yet. No one has claimed anything else.

            In fact, I was going to answer your entire post, but frankly it is a
            waste of time. You are being absurdly hostile and confusingly defensive
            about things I have never even said. Clearly this is somehow very
            personal to you and I don’t think me lecturing you on scientific
            practice is actually going to make you learn anything. You’ve already
            made up your mind – closed it, so to speak.

            I wish you the best of luck in your work, and the best of patience for your PI.

            I enjoy how you assume I have a PI, rather than that I am the PI or some other type of research position, when you have no basis for your assumptions (other than projecting from your own position, perhaps).

            I quote you at every turn, so you can’t pull the “I have never even said” card, sorry. And yes, it is personal. I do not take kindly to arguing against data sharing, or against making suggestions about methodology, or against the opportunity for peer reviewing information by releasing it; and even organizations like USGS share their data even when it is not reviewed or finalized for digestion yet (as I linked above to their disclaimer about such). But I am encouraged you have walked back your arguments significantly, and are starting to sound more rational and amiable to the collaborative scientific process.

          • It is true as many says, the K-Type Thermocouples are not optimal, exspecially not extended runs at high temperature, because of Oxidation etc

            We are looking for a good vendor who can provide higher spec TC’s. / Sam

    • Hhiram

      Unfortunately, I have to agree completely. So far there is very little to see here except some obvious methodological mistakes that are almost certainly the result of a lack of formal scientific training. If anyone is following LENR developments and wondering why the scientific community doesn’t take DIY results seriously, this is why.

      Now, if the effects being produced were simply *overwhelming* – like, say, a COP of 200, then of course the scientific community would be paying attention. The problem is that as long as any over-unity results are anywhere close to the margin of error, they can be ignored unless the experimental method is *absolutely* *bulletproof*. And (again unfortunately) that is very far from the case here.

      I would encourage DIYers like Tom to continue their work, but to take these constructive criticisms to heart. The DIY LENR community needs to maintain the highest possible methodological standards in order for any of its results to be credible. The first step in any DIY project should therefore be to formalize the experiment’s method. There are plenty of methodological textbooks available that DIYers can draw upon, and there is no reason (or excuse) not to utilize them properly.

      • Gerald

        I don’t agree, perhaps the lack of formal scientific training is an advantage. Most of the time it starts with an spontanious idea or an effect you stuble over, then science takes over to get it explained. Just say its bullocks because the methode wasn’t right isn’t good, just stay open. Like I stand open for kinds opinions, sometimes they make me feel stupid because I act and think in a methode I’ve got use to and learned over the years. I’m sure Whizkid will try to perfect his methodes and prove to himself if this was real or not.

        • sam

          What you said Gerald reminds of A.R.

      • Ged

        So far there is very little to see here except some obvious methodological mistakes that are almost certainly the result of a lack of formal scientific training.

        Please specifically state the methodology mistakes and provide the corrected protocol for each one. Anything that is a matter of time (such as increasing N) is not in question.

    • zintarweb

      The Fail is strong with this one. “No conclusions of value…” Really? Finding the limits of the current experimental set-up is of no value? What a troll. “Scientist”, more like “Egotist”.

  • Frank Acland

    You make lots of good suggestions here, Scientist — but I don’t think anyone is drawing firm conclusions here. Tom has been good enough to share his experimental results, and is willing to get feedback and suggestions. I have no problem with amateurs doing this kind of work (there is a good tradition of significant scientific progress from amateurs), especially if the professionals are not doing it.

    • Scientist

      Of course. I also have no problem with amateurs doing science. I just have a problem with anyone doing bad science, amateur or not 🙂
      Of course it’s difficult to do expensive and tedious repetitions of experiments when you are working out of a basement at home, and I understand that the excitement of seemingly positive results can get you to rush ahead instead of going back and doing the same thing over and over again. But I think it is important to remind people who have no formal training that without proper experimental design and scientific rigor, there can be no reliable progress.
      I have been watching DIYers tackle fringe science from the side-lines for a while now, and it gets increasingly frustrating to see people sink so much time and money in a project only to then proceed to squander it by either starting to change parameters for the next experiment before confirming what they already have, or declaring success and calling it a day. What’s left in the end is a half-assed and completely inconclusive dataset that is of no real help to themselves or anyone else.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Sounds like you have the experience, knowledge and interest to do your own research into LENR why not give it a try?

      • wizkid

        OMG! E48 has a new handle, but he still has a big mouth but never brushes his teeth! Your teapot whistles while I work, ha ha ha! Thanks for NOTHING E48. You are my fly in the ointment.

      • SG

        I have been listening to couch scientists call courageous researchers fringe amateurs and crackpots from the side-lines for a while now, and I think it is unnecessary.

        • Bruce__H

          I disagree. Scientist is weighing in with valuable criticism based on experience.

          Everybody doing research needs to be held to high standards. Being thin-skinned about criticism does no one any good.

          • Ged

            His remarks are mostly based on inaccurate presumption due to a lack of bothering to ask details. How is that “valuable criticism”?

            Also, based on what experience? The way he talks is not like a scientist, as we certainly understand “works in progress” versus finalized publication, and what each looks like.

            Contrast with Obvious, who does actually speak from experience and provides specific and useful details.

          • TVulgaris

            He SOUNDS like an MS or new PhD, or perhaps a BS who’s been working in industry or institutional environments for just a few years. If it’s not top-notch (which usually entails big-budget resources), it MUST be bad science, or it would already have been done and published…
            Me, I’ll be the first to admit that everything technical I try is based on wild guesses (I always call them hypotheses to confuse the easily-impressed)- I’ve just gotten pretty good with them over the past 5 decades, and seem to improve incrementally.

          • SG

            The replicators are not thin-skinned. They take constructive criticism. The condescending language is uncalled for. That was my point.

  • wizkid

    I suspect that you are but a child with the limited experience you demonstrate in working with people in your comment, dear sir. My tech genius has also advised me and mentors me on these needs, you need not bother.

    • Hhiram

      It would behoove you to maintain a professional tone in response to criticism. The LENR community has a serious credibility problem already. Reacting defensively with snide comments, as you are doing in this forum, is not a good way to instill confidence in anyone who is observing the LENR community’s experimental efforts and hoping to glean useful information.

      • wizkid

        Perhaps you are right, and I hear your tone. I will try harder. Thank you.

  • SG

    I would encourage you to continue with your constructive suggestions and drop the condescending language. It won’t garner you many friends in this “community.” And by the way, you can drop the quotes on community.

  • Ged

    The central idea I see here is fundamentally flawed: this is not a finalized, all experiments wrapped up, peer reviewed paper. This is a “data as it is coming” update for feedback and analysis to inform further experiments. Any actual lab doing work has numerous projects that are of course at this state of in progress and not perfected. One can’t just snap ones figures and have all the answers instantly. He has said there will be more runs, there will be deeper analysis, and no conclusions are being drawn yet. It is additionally an important progress report as he has done things differently than anyone else and the data that is yielding is instructively useful to the field.

    It is also far more professional to ask for more information on methods and such, rather than make baseless and inaccurate assumptions; such as to why his experiment is capped at 1200 C. It never hurts to ask for clarification, and definitely good to do so.

    However, it is good you give ideas for how many N you would like to see–that is the sort of valuable feedback being solicited here and which is always useful. Offering help is also good, rather than assuming you know more than the guy or that he hasn’t done the things you suggest already (which goes back to the problem that one should ask about the methods rather than make assumptions).

  • Hhiram

    Unfortunately, I have to agree completely. So far there is very little to see here except some obvious methodological mistakes that are almost certainly the result of a lack of formal scientific training. If anyone is following LENR developments and wondering why the scientific community doesn’t take DIY results seriously, this is why.

    Now, if the effects being produced were simply *overwhelming* – like, say, a COP of 200, then of course the scientific community would be paying attention. The problem is that as long as any over-unity results are anywhere close to the margin of error, they can be ignored unless the experimental method is *absolutely* *bulletproof*. And (again unfortunately) that is very far from the case here.

    I would encourage DIYers like Tom to continue their work, but to take these constructive criticisms to heart. The DIY LENR community needs to maintain the highest possible methodological standards in order for any of its results to be credible. The first step in any DIY project should therefore be to formalize the experiment’s method. There are plenty of methodological textbooks available that DIYers can draw upon, and there is no reason (or excuse) not to utilize them properly.

    • Gerald

      I don’t agree, perhaps the lack of formal scientific training is an advantage. Most of the time it starts with an spontanious idea or an effect you stuble over, then science takes over to get it explained. Just say its bullocks because the methode wasn’t right isn’t good, just stay open. Like I stand open for kinds opinions, sometimes they make me feel stupid because I act and think in a methode I’ve got use to and learned over the years. I’m sure Whizkid will try to perfect his methodes and prove to himself if this was real or not.

      • sam

        What you said Gerald reminds of A.R.

    • Ged

      So far there is very little to see here except some obvious methodological mistakes that are almost certainly the result of a lack of formal scientific training.

      Please specifically state the methodology mistakes and provide the corrected protocol for each one.

  • Gerard McEk

    Well, that looks very interesting, Tom!
    As others say, maybe it is now time to beef-up your experiments. There are two possibilities:
    Either you use a dual tube with coils in series like MFMP did or evaporate water like Parkhomov did.
    I hope you got a proper power meter, then the COP can be easily determined using either method. good luck with your next tests!

    • wizkid

      I use a Watts up Pro device to measure my power. My genius buddy has been notified that I need a cooling system shortly, now that I have positive results. He had already offered to build it for me. That will make it easier to formalise my experiments. Parkhomov method to verify energy is preferred, and that is where I got the idea to use the dummy cel in order to measure output from the live show. I will make an exact copy of the live cell but not hydrogenate it as one of the readers was kind enough to recommend. That test also will be able to validate my results, if repeated (30 times?) as recommended by another reader. Thank you for your comment.

      • Ged

        Bruce_H’s excellent suggestion for that non-hydrogenated nickel control (Nickel Dummy) is a very important one. I would suggest adding another type of control to go along side that Nickel Dummy if possible (Nickel Dummy takes priority), where you do not pre-bake the nickel but otherwise have all the same fuel mix componants (Inactive Fuel Dummy).

        Since the current working hypothesis you mentioned features that nickel pre-baking at 250C is essential for activity, if you do a non-baked control along with the Nickel Dummy, that would both test that hypothesis as well as allow a control where you have all the fuel elements present as in your Live Run (Active Fuel), and where the only difference is the pre-processing.

        All three together should make for some very interesting data with great contrast while fully controlling for thermal inertia differences in the fuel portion.

        • wizkid

          Thanks Ged, I’m going to try to make sure the validation is effective, but I haven’t made a final decision yet.

      • Gerard McEk

        Watts up Pro does not seem a very sophisticated watt meter to me, but I could be wrong. It is just important to know that you need a real good power meter to measure distorted current and voltage signals to measure power and I am not sure what the output of your SSR is, either.
        Anyway high accuracy is not needed when having a COP >2.
        Just a tip if you want to maintain your coils longer: Put the reactor in a small closed area in which you remove all the oxigen by burning it away (e.g. using a candle).

        • wizkid

          I agree, the Watts up Pro model is an estimation of power, but it has data recording and tracks voltage, amperage, and wattage (dah) and other household variables like cost of running an appliance etc… The high COP puts it back in the running though, and I could justify upgrading readings if I get REAL results, these are definitely preliminary so far. I use Secar 71 between the winding on the core and the hull of the reactor, so that has solved (pretty much, mostly, 99%) my oxidation issues in the coil. The K-Type is driving me nuts right now, it is my current nemesis. I burned out 4 of them last night and then blew one of my new tubes because of unreliable results from the K-Type. Frustrating events indeed. So then, I built an air tight chamber already for my coils, and thank you for your input.

          • Gerard McEk

            The K-type may not be very useful at temperatures exceeding 1200C. Look for rhodium type thermocouples. These are a lot more expensive though. The K-Type destruction may be caused by currents to ground, ensure insulation to ground of the temperature measuring circuitry and the TC. (aluminia starts to conduct around 1000C, so currents start to run from the coil to the TC if it is not insulated).
            Also EM fields may cause measuring problems. Low frequency filtering in the measuring circuitry will help, but may slow-down the response. However, as a Wizkid you know all that :). Keep on going, you are on the right track!

          • wizkid

            Much appreciated, Gerard. Thanks for the encouragement and your reminders too!

        • Obvious

          The coils are protected by an oxide layer. Putting them in a reducing atmosphere will make them fail sooner.

          • Gerard McEk

            The danger is oxidation which cannot stopped by an oxide layer at high temperatures, but removing oxygen will help. Tom has found a better way though.

  • Gerard McEk

    Well, that looks very interesting, Tom!
    As others say, maybe it is now time to beef-up your experiments. There are two possibilities:
    Either you use a dual tube with coils in series like MFMP did or evaporate water like Parkhomov did.
    I hope you got a proper power meter, then the COP can be easily determined using either method. good luck with your next tests!

    • wizkid

      I use a Watts up Pro device to measure my power. My genius buddy has been notified that I need a cooling system shortly, now that I have positive results. He had already offered to build it for me. That will make it easier to formalise my experiments. Parkhomov method to verify energy is preferred, and that is where I got the idea to use the dummy cel in order to measure output from the live show. I will make an exact copy of the live cell but not hydrogenate it as one of the readers was kind enough to recommend. That test also will be able to validate my results, if repeated (30 times?) as recommended by another reader. Thank you for your comment.

      • Ged

        Bruce_H’s excellent suggestion for that non-hydrogenated nickel control (Nickel Dummy) is a very important one. I would suggest adding another type of control to go along side that Nickel Dummy if possible (Nickel Dummy takes priority), where you do not pre-bake the nickel but otherwise have all the same fuel mix componants (Inactive Fuel Dummy).

        Since the current working hypothesis you mentioned features that nickel pre-baking at 250C is essential for activity, if you do a non-baked control along with the Nickel Dummy, that would both test that hypothesis as well as allow a control where you have all the fuel elements present as in your Live Run (Active Fuel), and where the only difference is the pre-processing.

        All three together should make for some very interesting data with great contrast while fully controlling for thermal inertia differences in the fuel portion.

        • wizkid

          Thanks Ged, I’m going to try to make sure the validation is effective, but I haven’t made a final decision yet.

      • Gerard McEk

        Watts up Pro does not seem a very sophisticated watt meter to me, but I could be wrong. It is just important to know that you need a real good power meter to measure distorted current and voltage signals to measure power and I am not sure what the output of your SSR is, either.
        Anyway high accuracy is not needed when having a COP >2.
        Just a tip if you want to maintain your coils longer: Put the reactor in a small closed area in which you remove all the oxigen by burning it away (e.g. using a candle).

        • wizkid

          I agree, the Watts up Pro model is an estimation of power, but it has data recording and tracks voltage, amperage, and wattage (dah) and other household variables like cost of running an appliance etc… The high COP puts it back in the running though, and I could justify upgrading readings if I get REAL results, these are definitely preliminary so far. I use Secar 71 between the winding on the core and the hull of the reactor, so that has solved (pretty much, mostly, 99%) my oxidation issues in the coil. The K-Type is driving me nuts right now, it is my current nemesis. I burned out 4 of them last night and then blew one of my new tubes because of unreliable results from the K-Type. Frustrating events indeed. So then, I built an air tight chamber already for my coils, and thank you for your input.

          • Gerard McEk

            The K-type may not be very useful at temperatures exceeding 1200C. Look for rhodium type thermocouples. These are a lot more expensive though. The K-Type destruction may be caused by currents to ground, ensure insulation to ground of the temperature measuring circuitry and the TC. (aluminia starts to conduct around 1000C, so currents start to run from the coil to the TC if it is not insulated).
            Also EM fields may cause measuring problems. Low frequency filtering in the measuring circuitry will help, but may slow-down the response. However, as a Wizkid you know all that :). Keep on going, you are on the right track!

          • wizkid

            Much appreciated, Gerard. Thanks for the encouragement and your reminders too!

        • Obvious

          The coils are protected by an oxide layer. Putting them in a reducing atmosphere will make them fail sooner.

          • Gerard McEk

            The danger is oxidation which cannot stopped by an oxide layer at high temperatures, but removing oxygen will help. Tom has found a better way though.

  • DAK

    It is not clear why you are using isotopically pure Li7. Can you elaborate? The Li from LAH will contaminate any isotopes.

    Have you considered Pt-Rh thermal couples? They are designed for this kind of experiment and are reasonably priced. Just calibrate relative to whatever system your reader thinks that you are using. A look-up table would be suggested if you are reading mV or if you have a commercial reader just convert the temperature value using a reverse look-up table (temp with TC reader ==> mV ==> TC actual). Some calibration would be suggested as you will have TCs at various contact points. However, to keep your excitement up, you really only need a difference in apparent temperatures as the values you are getting are large.

    In case you did not know, Li metal reacts with nitrogen (and oxygen).

    • wizkid

      Hi there, I’ll send you my link for the LS7 and you send me your link for the thermocouples. Deal?
      Sources:
      Lithium-7Li fluoride, 99.994 atom % 7Li, Certified, 5g . Source ebay. Vendor: chemsaversinc1

      • Axil Axil
        • wizkid

          Not sure why, but I am having trouble sourcing it, Do you happen to know where I can purchase this?

      • Axil Axil

        how did you ever thing to use pure Li7, or was it just luck?

        • wizkid

          Axil, Axil !
          All results in research require persistence and element of surprise or joy upon unfolding an answer, similar to luck but attributable to hard work, logically determined and pursued. I saw the isotopic analysis story here on ecat world, re-wrote the analysis on a chalk board with another line to show what I thought was missing, (used or added), and it was obvious to me that Li7 was needed in some way shape or form. I asked the man that knows the answer, Andrea Rossi, and he go so excited and told me that I had replicated his experiment (NOT TRUE, at least at that time) but here are the quotes from his blog to clarify for you.

          Tom

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db388ee8f4ac362191149876bca32be62d77db6703276d023fdbb294733f509e.png
          ——————————-
          Andrea Rossi
          July 16, 2016 at 9:10 PM
          Tom Conover:
          Thank you for this very interesting comment, but you did not put the “table below” with the isotopical transmutations obtained in your experiment to replicate, very intelligently, the effect from my patent! Please send it, or write in a comment the isotopes before and after your experiments.

          ———————-
          Tom Conover
          July 16, 2016 at 10:34 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          Please let me first say these were isotopic numbers from the EcatWorld website from an UNKNOWN POSTER, not related to my experiments. Although I would like it if they were. This version of the table should also be easier to see the results on the blog, I replace the tab characters from Xcel with spaces. These results consume 7Li.

          While I have done many experiments, I have not replicated the ecat yet, none of the tests were strong enough to send in the ash for isotopic analysis. I apologize if I said anything that may have implied that.

          My question is and remains “Should I replace the Li6 in my recipies with Li7 fluoride?” Below is a nicer copy of the table you like.
          ———————-
          Andrea Rossi
          July 17, 2016 at 6:55 AM
          Tom Conover:
          I understand, sorry, my mistake of interpretation about what you wrote.
          I cannot answer in positive or in negative to the kind of questions you put, but since you are making experiments, the sole way to know if a thing works is to try. Attention, though, use a mask with a proper filter and work in a well ventilated lab, because the materials you are using are toxic and dangerous. I do not know if you are an expert experimentalist or not, therefore: if you are not an expert experimentalist, please work with the assistance of an expert for safety reasons.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.
          ———————-

    • wizkid

      Thank you very much for your comment. I would be happy to hear more about the thermocouple you reference. I’m not using pure lithium. Anymore. I did try it. I appreciate great comments like this.

    • Axil Axil

      See post above…

  • DAK

    It is not clear why you are using isotopically pure Li7. Can you elaborate? The Li from LAH will contaminate any isotopes.

    Have you considered Pt-Rh thermal couples? They are designed for this kind of experiment and are reasonably priced. Just calibrate relative to whatever system your reader thinks that you are using. A look-up table would be suggested if you are reading mV or if you have a commercial reader just convert the temperature value using a reverse look-up table (temp with TC reader ==> mV ==> TC actual). Some calibration would be suggested as you will have TCs at various contact points. However, to keep your excitement up, you really only need a difference in apparent temperatures as the values you are getting are large.

    In case you did not know, Li metal reacts with nitrogen (and oxygen).

    • wizkid

      Hi there, I’ll send you my link for the LS7 and you send me your link for the thermocouples. Deal?
      Sources:
      Lithium-7Li fluoride, 99.994 atom % 7Li, Certified, 5g . Source ebay. Vendor: chemsaversinc1

      • Axil Axil
        • wizkid

          Not sure why, but I am having trouble sourcing it, Do you happen to know where I can purchase this?

      • Axil Axil

        how did you ever thing to use pure Li7, or was it just luck?

        • wizkid

          Axil, Axil !
          All results in research require persistence and element of surprise or joy upon unfolding an answer, similar to luck but attributable to hard work, logically determined and pursued. I saw the isotopic analysis story here on ecat world, re-wrote the analysis on a chalk board with another line to show what I thought was missing, (used or added), and it was obvious to me that Li7 was needed in some way shape or form. I asked the man that knows the answer, Andrea Rossi, and he go so excited and told me that I had replicated his experiment (NOT TRUE, at least at that time) but here are the quotes from his blog to clarify for you.

          Tom

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db388ee8f4ac362191149876bca32be62d77db6703276d023fdbb294733f509e.png
          ——————————-
          Andrea Rossi
          July 16, 2016 at 9:10 PM
          Tom Conover:
          Thank you for this very interesting comment, but you did not put the “table below” with the isotopical transmutations obtained in your experiment to replicate, very intelligently, the effect from my patent! Please send it, or write in a comment the isotopes before and after your experiments.

          ———————-
          Tom Conover
          July 16, 2016 at 10:34 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          Please let me first say these were isotopic numbers from the EcatWorld website from an UNKNOWN POSTER, not related to my experiments. Although I would like it if they were. This version of the table should also be easier to see the results on the blog, I replace the tab characters from Xcel with spaces. These results consume 7Li.

          While I have done many experiments, I have not replicated the ecat yet, none of the tests were strong enough to send in the ash for isotopic analysis. I apologize if I said anything that may have implied that.

          My question is and remains “Should I replace the Li6 in my recipies with Li7 fluoride?” Below is a nicer copy of the table you like.
          ———————-
          Andrea Rossi
          July 17, 2016 at 6:55 AM
          Tom Conover:
          I understand, sorry, my mistake of interpretation about what you wrote.
          I cannot answer in positive or in negative to the kind of questions you put, but since you are making experiments, the sole way to know if a thing works is to try. Attention, though, use a mask with a proper filter and work in a well ventilated lab, because the materials you are using are toxic and dangerous. I do not know if you are an expert experimentalist or not, therefore: if you are not an expert experimentalist, please work with the assistance of an expert for safety reasons.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.
          ———————-

    • wizkid

      Thank you very much for your comment. I would be happy to hear more about the thermocouple you reference. I’m not using pure lithium. Anymore. I did try it. I appreciate great comments like this.

    • Axil Axil

      See post above…

  • wizkid

    Anybody want to volunteer to help me get a zero point Crossing circuit added to my controller?

    • Obvious

      If you use a SSVR (Auber makes nice ones) instead of the SSR, you will get that. But then if you want to control it electronically, rather than by rheostat (as supplied) you need to make another voltage controller. The SSVR will output AC cut off at the same voltage as the input voltage. It will still do duty cycle batch fire by the same method you use now, (if I understand properly what you are doing) if the full 120 (or 240 V depending on the supply) is used for the control input. That way you can have both control methods at your disposal.

      • wizkid

        I purchased the Auber, it is here, but I need more details on controlling it with a computer … The only thing I see is a manual method to adjust the phase control on the device – can you clarify please?

        • Obvious

          That’s what I have to spend some time on, but haven’t sat down properly to concentrate and figure it out. The manual dial needs to be replaced with another signal, which is also AC as far as I can tell. I was considering a series of selected resistors as a workaround until I get the control circuit worked out. (This should make nice repeatable steps, though). The phase control is not linear in output, also, since it is shortening a sine wave, so there is are few tricks to work out.

          • wizkid

            Keep me posted if you figure it out. I think the only way is with crossover detection optically isolated and I have tried but it’s like trying to swat a fruit fly. Very frustrating at this moment, it will be simple as everything else is after I reach my epiphany. Meanwhile, I will bail out the spills from the choppy waters. I do know that walleyes bite better in a good chop. Maybe I’m just fishing again …

          • Obvious

            The 0 to 5V DC control version might be a lot easier to electronically control. But the loss of the top 5% of the AC output voltage can be a real drag. That loss is what I was trying to avoid when I went to the SSVR in the first place.

          • wizkid

            I’m sure I can spare the voltage, I only need 600-700 watts to fire up to 1200c.

          • Obvious

            Sorry to bring this up now, but are you sure about your coil being 55 ohms?

          • wizkid

            22 ohms is the correct answer, 24g

          • Obvious

            OK. You had 55 ohms in your report linked above. At 22 ohms, it would take 131 V RMS to reach your peak wattage reported (792 W) The resistance may have dropped since the coil was wound and heated. I have seen this happen. Can you double check the resistance, or is the coil dead?
            A drop to around 100 V would cause a very significant drop in wattage. (Down to 455 W).

          • wizkid

            The original coil is dead, but I measured it immediately before failure at 22 ohms 24ga. I appreciate your assistance.

          • Obvious

            With 22 ohms, it should not be possible to go over 655 W with 120V RMS. That’s straight up 120 V full sine, no pulsing. So I have some concerns with the power measured.

            Can you try out straight up AC for a short while, or will it burn the coil?

            I sent a question into Watts Up also about clipped and PWM AC waveforms, It looks like they calculate amps and volts based each full sine, and the watts are integrated over 1 second from that data. They do not say anything about part sine waveforms. I wouldn’t expect any serious problem with batch fire and full sines, but part sines or noise generated from part sines may mess up the measurements. I am not certain about that, though. Lets see what they say. They did recommend using an extension cable to get noisy equipment farther away from the meter if problems arise, on their website.

          • wizkid

            Sure! Full power direct a/c can run for a short time, but I hesitate to run it for extended periods. I measured three brand new, never plugged in coils I made. 21.5 ohms each. The readings (2 for each coil) are 973, 981; 970, 973;976,1001. 28 watts uncertainty factor. Relatively conclusive, but I need more tests before I would publish this. 🙂

          • Obvious

            I had a look at some experiments done testing the power factor of triac waveforms on an EE site. They did a test with a 750 W bulb and a commercial triac dimmer, where the Watts Up seemed to work properly. Since this was a bulb, the resistance changes a lot at different temperatures so it was a bit hard to judge if the watts were behaving properly, but it looked OK.
            Another comment elsewhere suggested that the individual Watts Up watts readings were not so good, but the aggregate over time was quite accurate. Averaging your data, and doing some math, I came up with a possible 20.2 ohm typical effective R for your coils. But that ignores the complex switching, etc., so I consider it to be a talking point more than a real number.
            Is the Watts Up installed ahead of all the gear, or inserted somewhere in the middle of the wiring?

          • wizkid

            20.2 ohms is very very close IMHO. Thank you for your consideration of this information! The Watts Up is installed ahead of all the gear. Even if we call the Watts Waltzes or something else though, don’t the measurements made in the 4 data sets express a relationship that is accurate relative to a common reference point? Measurements are made on agreed standards, and even if the Watts Up reports it’s own version of power, at least it is not condemned on the reviews. My intuition of it’s utility is that it is helpful, but not perfect. My goal is to get data that stands on it’s own and negates trivia. Your continued interest and comments are very much appreciated.

          • Obvious

            Well, my intuition says that if even if the Watts Up does measure power a bit off, if the tests are done the same then the measurements should be comparable. Where things will go haywire is if the power to make the higher temperature is extrapolated from a lower power value that is not accurate, then a COP calculation might be skewed or very wrong. What can be safely said (I think) is that the temperature is significantly higher in the fuelled runs than the control at what should be equivalent power input levels. What needs to be verified is if the temperature increase is actually caused by a power output increase (via reaction, etc.) or if an unknown thermal characteristic change of the fuelled device is increasing the outer temperature to increase, but the heat power is the same. The latter can only be tested by loading the reactor by removing heat somehow.

            Very interesting stuff anyways.

          • Obvious

            I had to read your comment again…
            Those are watts? Hmmm. Seems way too high for 21.5 ohms. Is that peak, or an average?

            Extended full power can be a nuisance if the coil gets too hot. One in open air should probably survive quite a while, if you feel like testing this some more.

          • wizkid

            My understanding of this issue is that instead of using open air measurements I am using a core and hull, and a winding prior to applying power. This results (for some unknown to me) in the use of more wattage, because I think the temperature goes up so much more than in open air that it probably reduces the resistance radically. But I’ve been wrong before! (only once though)

            I feel better now that I finally got that one out. Whew!

          • Obvious

            The resistance of Kanthal should go up with temperature, and not really by that much. Maybe 1% every 100C or so, (I forget) but not exactly linearly.

          • wizkid

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e123cf3061a2cc03e7e580da8f017fa91a7c8f3b98f530ffb9849014d020735b.jpg

            Here is my theory based on measured ohms vs measured output using coils vs open air. I hope this comparison 1200c vs 716c makes sense, the true output is 1200c with a coil, but in open air it straight wire is 716c.

            676w vs 1248w.

            You are hurting my brain, but this has to be. Obvious.

          • Obvious

            A tight coil will run hotter than a straight wire, due to the view factor of the radiated heat of adjacent wires. Adding a tube increases the heat storage capacity of the system, and reduces convection cooling of the wire, so the temperature can climb considerably.

          • wizkid

            So we’re both on the same page, then? With a coil and a tube? You forgot I wrapped the baby in an alumina blanket too. It gets real toasty after you do that. An extra thick blanket at that. If I recall exactly the hull is .6in OD and .393 ID. The tube is .331 OD x .231 I think. Im in the car, but I will recheck when I get home. My wife is driving, so I’m almost safe.

          • Obvious

            It’s not the temperature, which can be affected by lots of things without changing the absolute power (watt) input, but the wattage and amperage that are essentially not compatible with the resistance you measured and 120V input. The wire watts won’t change by coiling it (well it could go down a little bit) or burying it in insulation. The meter is recording way more watts and amp input than should be happening, based on 120 V RMS maximum in and 21.5 ohms resistance, for some reason. There are lots of reasons for why that could be.

          • wizkid

            My tests with open are are consistent with http://www.jacobs-online.biz/nichrome/NichromeCalc.html tables and calculations, but I have to extrapolate results that are radically different when using windings. The website warns that …

            “The calculator is based on experimental values for straight oxidized nichrome wire in stagnant (not moving) air and not in contact with any other material. Any other configuration will result in different values from what the calculator will show.”

          • wizkid

            re: “One in open air should probably survive quite a while, if you feel like testing this some more.”

            I have done this, it does survive for some time, I will again if you need me to, but I’m not sure it’s very relevant. I had fun doing it though, enough to privately publish a short vid with, the YouTube told me violated copyright laws for the music. (sorry about that! didn’t mean too, didn’t think I was!)

            Strictly for your enjoyment, here it is for you.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43rFQUPVFE

            This video is not science though!

          • Obvious

            Thanks. The amps are much higher than I expected, which explains a lot. I’ll fiddle with calculations and see where it goes.

          • wizkid

            Much appreciated.

          • wizkid

            ouch. much different… need time to adapt a bit… See my post with two measurements from jacobs comparing theoretical with actual results, the amps double with coil vs open air. 5.6amps vs 10.4. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e123cf3061a2cc03e7e580da8f017fa91a7c8f3b98f530ffb9849014d020735b.jpg

          • Obvious

            The wire isn’t shrinking on your coil, so you need to hold the resistance constant to compare. The amps will do whatever they have to based on voltage, and watts will follow.

          • wizkid

            I see now the 55 ohms coil in my hardware design page of the pdf Frank put up. I wrote that a month or two ago, but thought it relevant to my posting. I will update it before the next publication . The model used for this group of experiments was a 22 ohm coil.

    • JDM

      Have you considered using a VFD as a power supply? Many (most) will give a 3-phase output for single phase input. Output is “choppy”. see:
      http://www.motioncontroltips.com/problems-vfds-cause-cable-types-help-solve/
      Of course you would have to reconsider your windings…
      I think AR has used 3-phase in many applications for a reason.

      • wizkid

        Interesting link, especially the part about “harmful corona discharges from reflective waves”. I though I might have seen plasma around the connecting wire right before the failure on the second run, so I video taped that moment … Thanks!

  • wizkid

    Anybody want to volunteer to help me get a zero point Crossing circuit added to my controller?

    • Obvious

      If you use a SSVR (Auber makes nice ones) instead of the SSR, you will get that. But then if you want to control it electronically, rather than by rheostat (as supplied) you need to make another voltage controller. The SSVR will output AC cut off at the same voltage as the input (control) voltage. It will still do duty cycle batch fire by the same method you use now, (if I understand properly what you are doing) if the full 120 (or 240 V depending on the supply) is used for the control input, but modulated. That way you can have both control methods at your disposal.

      Edit: I haven’t tried my Auber SSVR with part voltage input for the control circuit and modulated duty cycle combined. I can’t see why it wouldn’t work, at least above 30 V. I suspect that some of Rossi’s control boxes were doing something like this. I have been planning to test this modulated lower voltage set up for a while, but have been doing massive work on my shop instead.

      • wizkid

        I purchased the Auber, it is here, but I need more details on controlling it with a computer … The only thing I see is a manual method to adjust the phase control on the device – can you clarify please?

        • Obvious

          That’s what I have to spend some time on, but haven’t sat down properly to concentrate and figure it out. The manual dial needs to be replaced with another signal, which also has to be AC as far as I can tell. I was considering a series of selected resistors as a workaround until I get the control circuit worked out. (This should make nice repeatable steps, though). The phase control is not linear in output, also, since it is shortening a sine wave, so there are a few tricks to work out.

          • wizkid

            Keep me posted if you figure it out. I think the only way is with crossover detection optically isolated and I have tried but it’s like trying to swat a fruit fly. Very frustrating at this moment, it will be simple as everything else is after I reach my epiphany. Meanwhile, I will bail out the spills from the choppy waters. I do know that walleyes bite better in a good chop. Maybe I’m just fishing again …

          • Obvious

            The 0 to 5V DC control version might be a lot easier to electronically control. But the loss of the top 5 to 10% off the AC output voltage can be a real drag. That top end voltage loss is what I was trying to avoid when I went to the SSVR in the first place. It kills peak power a lot. 240V will fix that problem, though.

          • wizkid

            I’m sure I can spare the voltage, I only need 600-700 watts to fire up to 1200c.

          • Obvious

            Sorry to bring this up now, but are you sure about your coil being 55 ohms? Something closer to 15 ohms would be needed to get close to 700 W.

          • wizkid

            22 ohms is the correct answer, 24g

          • Obvious

            OK. You had 55 ohms in your report linked above. At 22 ohms, it would take 131 V RMS to reach your peak wattage reported (792 W) The resistance may have dropped since the coil was wound and heated. I have seen this happen. Can you double check the resistance, or is the coil dead?
            A drop to around 100 V would cause a very significant drop in wattage. (Down to 455 W).

          • wizkid

            The original coil is dead, but I measured it immediately before failure at 22 ohms 24ga. I appreciate your assistance.

          • Obvious

            With 22 ohms, it should not be possible to go over 655 W with 120V RMS. That’s straight up 120 V full sine, no pulsing. So I have some concerns with the power measured.

            Can you try out straight up AC for a short while, or will it burn the coil?

            I sent a question into Watts Up also about clipped and PWM AC waveforms, It looks like they calculate amps and volts based each full sine, and the watts are integrated over 1 second from that data. They do not say anything about part sine waveforms. I wouldn’t expect any serious problem with batch fire and full sines, but part sines or noise generated from part sines may mess up the measurements. I am not certain about that, though. Lets see what they say. They did recommend using an extension cable to get noisy equipment farther away from the meter if problems arise, on their website.

          • wizkid

            Sure! Full power direct a/c can run for a short time, but I hesitate to run it for extended periods. I measured three brand new, never plugged in coils I made. 21.5 ohms each. The readings (2 for each coil) are 973, 981; 970, 973;976,1001. 28 watts uncertainty factor. Relatively conclusive, but I need more tests before I would publish this. 🙂

          • Obvious

            I had a look at some experiments done testing the power factor of triac waveforms on an EE site. They did a test with a 750 W bulb and a commercial triac dimmer, where the Watts Up seemed to work properly. Since this was a bulb, the resistance changes a lot at different temperatures so it was a bit hard to judge if the watts were behaving properly, but it looked OK.

            Another comment elsewhere suggested that the individual Watts Up watts readings were not so good, but the aggregate over time was quite accurate. Averaging your data, and doing some math, I came up with a possible 20.2 ohm typical effective R for your coils. But that ignores the complex switching, etc., so I consider it to be a talking point more than a real number.

            Is the Watts Up installed ahead of all the gear, or inserted somewhere in the middle of the wiring?

            On the other hand, it looks like your fuelled runs are about 200 C hotter than the control in the first 32 time segments, with power normalized in my data crunching. I have no explanation for that, nor does it look like an electrical measurement problem per se, since both control and fuelled runs have quite similar averaged power.

          • wizkid

            20.2 ohms is very very close IMHO. Thank you for your consideration of this information! The Watts Up is installed ahead of all the gear. Even if we call the Watts Waltzes or something else though, don’t the measurements made in the 4 data sets express a relationship that is accurate relative to a common reference point? Measurements are made on agreed standards, and even if the Watts Up reports it’s own version of power, at least it is not condemned on the reviews. My intuition of it’s utility is that it is helpful, but not perfect. My goal is to get data that stands on it’s own and negates trivia. Your continued interest and comments are very much appreciated.

          • Obvious

            Well, my intuition says that if even if the Watts Up does measure power a bit off, if the tests are done the same then the measurements should be comparable. Where things will go haywire is if the power to make the higher temperature is extrapolated from a lower power value that is not accurate, then a COP calculation might be skewed or very wrong. What can be safely said (I think) is that the temperature is significantly higher in the fuelled runs than the control at what should be equivalent power input levels. What needs to be verified is if the temperature increase is actually caused by a power output increase (via reaction, etc.) or if an unknown thermal characteristic change of the fuelled device is causing the outer temperature to increase, but the heat power is the same. The latter can only be tested by loading the reactor by removing heat somehow.

            Very interesting stuff anyways.

          • Obvious

            I had to read your comment again…
            Those are watts? Hmmm. Seems way too high for 21.5 ohms. Is that peak, or an average?

            Extended full power can be a nuisance if the coil gets too hot. One in open air should probably survive quite a while, if you feel like testing this some more.

          • wizkid

            My understanding of this issue is that instead of using open air measurements I am using a core and hull, and a winding prior to applying power. This results (for some unknown to me) in the use of more wattage, because I think the temperature goes up so much more than in open air that it probably reduces the resistance radically. But I’ve been wrong before! (only once though)

            I feel better now that I finally got that one out. Whew!

          • Obvious

            The resistance of Kanthal should go up with temperature, and not really by that much. Maybe 1% every 150C or so, (I forget) but not exactly linearly.

          • wizkid

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e123cf3061a2cc03e7e580da8f017fa91a7c8f3b98f530ffb9849014d020735b.jpg

            Here is my theory based on measured ohms vs measured output using coils vs open air. I hope this comparison 1200c vs 716c makes sense, the true output is 1200c with a coil, but in open air it straight wire is 716c.

            676w vs 1248w.

            You are hurting my brain, but this has to be. Obvious.

          • Obvious

            A tight coil will run hotter than a straight wire, due to the view factor of the radiated heat of adjacent wires, and convection changes. Adding a tube increases the heat storage capacity of the system, and reduces convection cooling of the wire, so the temperature can climb considerably at the same power level.

          • wizkid

            So we’re both on the same page, then? With a coil and a tube? You forgot I wrapped the baby in an alumina blanket too. It gets real toasty after you do that. An extra thick blanket at that. If I recall exactly the hull is .6in OD and .393 ID. The tube is .331 OD x .231 I think. Im in the car, but I will recheck when I get home. My wife is driving, so I’m almost safe.

          • Obvious

            It’s not the temperature, which can be affected by lots of things without changing the absolute power (watt) input, but the wattage and amperage that are essentially not compatible with the resistance you measured and 120V input. The wire watts won’t change by coiling it (well it could go down a little bit) or burying it in insulation. The meter is recording way more watts and amp input than should be happening, based on 120 V RMS maximum in and 21.5 ohms resistance, for some reason. There are lots of reasons for why that could be.

          • wizkid

            My tests with open are are consistent with http://www.jacobs-online.biz/nichrome/NichromeCalc.html tables and calculations, but I have to extrapolate results that are radically different when using windings. The website warns that …

            “The calculator is based on experimental values for straight oxidized nichrome wire in stagnant (not moving) air and not in contact with any other material. Any other configuration will result in different values from what the calculator will show.”

          • wizkid

            re: “One in open air should probably survive quite a while, if you feel like testing this some more.”

            I have done this, it does survive for some time, I will again if you need me to, but I’m not sure it’s very relevant. I had fun doing it though, enough to privately publish a short vid with, the YouTube told me violated copyright laws for the music. (sorry about that! didn’t mean too, didn’t think I was!)

            Strictly for your enjoyment, here it is for you.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43rFQUPVFE

            This video is not science though!

          • Obvious

            Thanks. The amps are much higher than I expected, which explains a lot. I’ll fiddle with calculations and see where it goes.

            Edit: Plugging in 21.42 ohms, 120 V, into the Jacobs calculator, I get 5.62A, 674.4W, which is consistent with what I came up with. I understood (perhaps incorrectly) that you were using Kanthal, which should have even higher resistance.

            8.4A and 1183 W needs both 140.8 V and 16.77 ohms to work. So something is wierd somewhere.

            Try http://www.steam-engine.org/ohm.asp where you can feed various values in a bit easier. I have used the calculators here, and they are amazingly good (the coil wrapping part).

          • wizkid

            Much appreciated.

          • wizkid

            ouch. much different… need time to adapt a bit… See my post with two measurements from jacobs comparing theoretical with actual results, the amps double with coil vs open air. 5.6amps vs 10.4. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e123cf3061a2cc03e7e580da8f017fa91a7c8f3b98f530ffb9849014d020735b.jpg

          • Obvious

            The wire length isn’t shrinking on your coil, so you need to hold the resistance constant to compare. The amps will do whatever they have to based on voltage, and watts will follow.

          • wizkid

            I see now the 55 ohms coil in my hardware design page of the pdf Frank put up. I wrote that a month or two ago, but thought it relevant to my posting. I will update it before the next publication . The model used for this group of experiments was a 22 ohm coil.

    • JDM

      Have you considered using a VFD as a power supply? Many (most) will give a 3-phase output for single phase input. Output is “choppy”. see:
      http://www.motioncontroltips.com/problems-vfds-cause-cable-types-help-solve/
      Of course you would have to reconsider your windings…
      I think AR has used 3-phase in many applications for a reason.

      • wizkid

        Interesting link, especially the part about “harmful corona discharges from reflective waves”. I though I might have seen plasma around the connecting wire right before the failure on the second run, so I video taped that moment … Thanks!

  • DAK

    look at:
    http://www.omega.com/pptst/IRCO_CHAL_P13R_P10R.html
    You want type B, R,S (I would choose type R or S for cost but get a longer lead to be outside of the hot zone). Call Omega tech support to discuss. Note the contamination issues. NIST publishes temp vs. mV tables.
    Also selection chart at:
    http://www.omega.com/toc_asp/frameset.html?book=Temperature&file=tc_colorcodes

    Note you may also want:
    Extension Grade
    Connecting Wire for
    R & S Thermocouples,
    Also Known as RX & SX
    Extension Wire.

    • wizkid

      I ordered 2 type S thermocouples and 2 Adafruit Universal Thermocouple Amplifier MAX31856 Breakout interface boards for my system a moment ago, Thanks for your help, Dak!

  • DAK

    One more note, we spot-weld thermal couples. You can use junction couplings but you need to make sure that they are compatible. Every junction is another thermal couple. This is OK if your temperatures of the junction do not vary as again I claim you do not need absolute temperature measurements but only relative ones. If you want closer numbers, you need to take into account the junction mV generation.

    You might want to review:
    http://www.acromag.com/sites/default/files/How_to_prevent_temperature_measurement_errors_when_installing_thermocouple_sensors_and_transmitters_926A.pdf

    • wizkid

      I hope this is what I think it might be, a solution for my thermal measuring method. Thank you very very much, DAK. I’m checking your information now.

      • Omega Z

        And this is what Rossi means when he says he learns much in his exchanges of comments on JONP.

        You never know where that pearl may arrive from.

        • wizkid

          I looked all over for that pearl. Had to come here for this one. Many great comments. I’m sewing some rips in my sails.

  • Bruce__H

    I disagree that wizkid should finish the experiment first before sharing the results. What we are seeing here is an instance of public science as enabled by social media. I think it has great promise not so much to achieve this scientific result or that scientific result but to expose the whole process of empirical research to people who would otherwise know nothing about it.

    The greatest failings I see in correspondents posting their views on this site is that they do not understand how often blind alleys turn up in research and do not understand how to be both open-minded and skeptical at the same time. Every professional experimentalist knows all about this and knows that, contrary to the famous dictum of Gene Kranz, … failure is always an option. In contrast, amateurs are afraid of any failure that contradicts their preconceived notions.

    Wizkid seems willing to report all his results whether as they come out and no matter how they fit in with his preconceptions. To me this means that all who read his posts will get to taste life at the bench and I hope that will be educational for many.

  • Ged

    He finished four experiments, and yes, a completed “run” is an experiment (and provides an experimental N of one), as any actual research scientist would know.

    Calculating COP says nothing about if the experiment supported or disproved the hypothesis being tested. Again, that is an irrational and inaccurate presumption. COP is a vital feature of the data and the principle metric required for testing the hypothesis. This is basic design features of the research here, which it takes but a bit of reading to understand.

    The temps are within the range of the thermocouple, as if you read the documents provided, you would know it was K-type which are reliable to 1260 C http://www.thermocoupleinfo.com He additionally capped the experiment to 1200 C to prevent out of range events. So no, you were wrong in your assumptions–he was many steps ahead of you.

    Sharing data is always good, and it must be continued and updated over time to reach conclusions; but if it is shared then others can continue the work too. Being afraid of data is anti-scientific, no matter the rational you attempt to use. See Sciencematters.io for an entire science journal dedicated to publishing pieces of data, to correct for the damage to science caused by that corrupt philosophy espoused in your post.

    Giving advise is great and appreciated, and you did give some. But most of what you gave was your own phisosophical belief based on inaccurate presumption about the experiments here and presented in a pretentious way–and that is neither needed nor appreciated by any observer.

    • Bruce__H

      I think it is a poor idea to calculate COP by comparing one run with another when the materials used in the 2 runs are so different. It is premature. I wouldn’t even think about achieving an interpretable COP until the whole design is tightened up.

      It is this preliminary sorting out and being cautious with interpretations that is a completely ordinary part of science … one that those who aren’t working scientists never see. This is why I think that this whole public science enterprise is valuable. People reading wizkid’s results will just have to learn to be skeptical but open-minded and full of enthusiasm all at the same time.

      • Frank Acland

        Bruce, it’s going to be hard to keep people here from trying to interpret things like COP from any experimental data, since these kinds of results come only rarely.

        Obviously it will be provisional, subject to change, but I think making a guess based on information we have to work with is interesting and I don’t see it as being particularly harmful. And we can learn about the scientific process as things progress.

      • Ged

        Well, I think it is not only fine but good to calculate the COP for each set of control-active pairing. It is an essential feature of the data and the entire point of doing these experiments and having a control. It allows us to evaluate the quality of the signal versus noose which we can’t start to do without knowing the difference (COP) between the control and active.

        I understand your thoughts that it could lead to incorrect leaps to conclusion, but I don’t see that happening–and rather than stand against needed data analysis, we should deal with bad rushing to judgement when and if we see it.

        You are completely correct that the control needs to be improved, and your non-hydrogenated nickel idea is very good for that, and I would argue is required. And knowing the COP with the current two controls now will better help us evaluate the COP with that proper control to see if the signal disappears completely (thereby letting us quantitate how much error is in the COP of the other control types which are currently being used by people), or remains and by how much. We need to know.

        Look at dCt (control Ct -experimental Ct) values for a very similar situation to this regarding gene expression in biology assisted by qRT-PCR. The considerations in data analysis there and here are practically identical. No one would every stop someone from computing dCt as they go along, as the data is not interpritable without it for quality control, analysis, and further experimental design, even before enough data is collected for conclusions.

        • Bruce__H

          OK. Well argued! I would contend, however, that the control and experimental samples in RT-PCR would usually be taken from some constant biological background whereas I think of wizkid’s control and treatment groups as being from orangutans and parrots. The difference due to treatment seems to be the least of the worries.

    • Scientist

      Well, I certainly don’t see how I was being pretentious, but that’s not really the point here anyway.
      And I’m afraid you’re completely wrong about what constitutes an experiment. An experiment is a series of tasks performed to provide evidence for or against a hypothesis. When you only have one N, the experiment is not finished, as there is no way of calculating the statistical significance of your results. And when you can’t do that, you don’t have any evidence.

      And this is why posting incomplete data sets is problematic. You think you see an effect, but this could easily be an error. Asking for advice on how to proceed in that situation can easily lead you down dead ends. As someone who has spent hundreds of hours on similar mistakes, believe me when I say it’s a waste of time. Repeating the experiment until you can say that there is an effect within a defined certainty allows you to get advice that is based on actual evidence, and that is a thousand times more valuable.

      And I clearly said I thought there was a problem with the range of the thermocouples, so I really don’t know what you are talking about regarding that.

      • Ged

        There isn’t a problem with the range of the thermocouples, that is what I linked to show you.

        You are working from a different meaning of “experiment”, so to firm up the ground, here is the definition supplied by Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/experiment

        It is “a test”, not tests–any time you take a series of actions to test an idea, that is an experiment, and an N of one. Statistics require multiple repeated N, so the same experiment must be repeated several times till. Necessary statistical power is achieved (N of 3 being the minimum, and he provided an N of 2 for control and experimental here). See how the definition you are using for your argument is flawed and incorrect?

        You want a tidy, published paper, and all papers have many experiments and repeated experiments contained within to reach a defensible conclusion. But where you go off the rails is thinking erroneously that sharing current progress from several experiments done already is somehow in error–when that could not be further from the truth. And no where does he say he is done or that conclusions can be reached or that analysis is complete. Yet you argue like that is the case, wrongly.

        I am also dismayed when you say, “Asking for advice on how to proceed in that situation can easily lead you down dead ends.” That is completely against the scientific method, because “dead ends” are observations and all observations are essential to scientific understanding. You also cannot know what will or won’t work until you try and run an experiment, so it is complete investigator bias to fear “dead ends”. All observations are equal in science, positive or negative are concepts created by humans based on desired outcome or perspective, but reality is as it is and that is what we are investigating.

        You see repeated experiments here, and you see past repeated experiments from Wizkid, and you see he is going to continue repeating and refining his experiments until they are sufficient to allow conslusions, so your arguments are pointless to disengenuous. Meanwhile you see several folks actually helping and providing useful insights to assist in improving the experiments and getting us closer to a conclusion on the hypothesis–you should be more like them.

        • Scientist

          Christ. Calm down.
          First of all, you said yourself that the thermocouples only go up to 1260 degrees, and that he had to cap it at 1200. Since the temperature evidently reaches the cap, there is clearly not enough range in the measurment. This is not rocket science.

          Second, I am obviously talking about experiments from an empirical science point of view. Simply out, one experiment is one way of test a certain hypothesis. Without a certain statistical significance, you can say exactly nothing about the hypothesis.
          The reason for this is that there is such a thing as false positives. In the present case, Tom posten some data from an unfinished experiment. I think you would also agree that if we all knew whether or not his experiment worked, we could give more accurate and valuable input. As it stands right now, there is no way of knowing the probability of these results being false positives.
          This is VERY imporant and not something to shrug off because you happen to have some weird comtempt for scientists.

          And sure, wasting time in dead ends can teach you valuable lessons, but if you think that is the way science is OUGHT to be done, you’re beyond delusional.

          The ACTUAL reality here is that not one single DIYer here or anywhere else, as far as I’m aware, has performed experiments with enough scientific rigor to say with any certainty that the effect they are seeing is not an artifact. And that’s just sad. And you should spend less time telling people how they should be and more time educating yourself about the topic you’re discussing.

          • Ged

            No no, by capping it, he stated his controller keeps power input from pushing the temperature past 1200 C. It isn’t that he isn’t measuring past 1200 C, it is that he is not allowing heating to push past 1200 C so that it doesn’t exceed the thermocoupler’s limits. That is a proper way to do it, and one doesn’t want to heat past 1200 C regardless as it causes high probability of reactor tube failures pretty quickly after that point.

            Also, I am a peer-review journal published and publishing research scientist, so once again you doth presume too much (illogically too as I have shown no “contempt” for science–my job–while you arguably have). I am telling you all these things from actual successful experience in a paid career to do research. I also provide you with references to give you a larger point of view and not just my own view–something you do not do.

            Simply put, you are apparently misusing and misapplying scientific concepts; the definition of an experiment is not what you attempt to pawn it off as (as I linked you; what word you are looking for is “research”, which is a collection of experiments aiming at elucidating a particular concept), while you try to disparage data sharing (the central core of science). That is a matter of language, but if one can’t accept the conventions of communication then discussion is impossible.

            Asking for input to improve the experimental procedure based on data gathered from this system does not depend on any way on statistical analysis (you -can- run statistics on this N of 2, so try it), that is unrelated to helping find solutions here. There are no false positives yet as no conclusions are being drawn; this is about experimental design improvements, which requires the current raw data. You seem to be confusing concepts and making random leaps without connective tissue between them, which is… interesting.

            You also currently argue in a way that suggeats a lack of experience with actual research, such as not understanding that one cannot know what is a “dead end” or not (how do you claim what is a “dead end” anyways when data is data? That requires an unscientific bias) until one does the work to find out. I do not see how that is a hard concept, unless you are unfamiliar with the fact that most research experiments do not yield the results people “look for” or “expect”. And that is where a lot of the greatest discoveries come from, that serendipity of things not working like you “wanted” and opening whole new avenues for you to explore. There are no “dead ends” in science. Engineering maybe, but not research science. If refining the current experimental designs do not yield support to the hypothesis under test, that is a vitally important result, and the work here is on going.

            Also, you may lack a great deal of knowledge about the LENR field to make the claims you do. Even the recent academic news out of Japan shows fine scientific rigor so far. And you know what? The whole point of wizkid sharing his data and asking for input here has been to… guess what… help to increase his scientific rigor and yet you argue he shouldn’t share results. That is crazy and anti-scientific. These results are not claimed as conclusive yet, and wizkid himself labels them properly as preliminary, just like the data you see on any poster at a scientific conference, though I guess you may not have been to a national conference if talk as you do?

            Data should always be shared and because it is shared we can see this research needs more; and no one is surprised or unexpectant of that except you it seems.

          • Scientist

            Maybe you should spend a little less time being condescending and more time actually trying to understand what I am telling you.
            If he has to cap anything to avoid going out of range, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RANGE IN THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM. Try to understand that.

            Furthermore, the “reference” you provided states “a test done in order to learn something or to discover whether something works or is true”. As a working researcher, you should know very well that you can NOT learn the truth of a hypothesis with any certainty with N=1 (or 2, unless you are extremely lucky).
            And you should also know, through your years of experience, that if you show up at a lab meeting with incomplete data sets and present them as results, your PI will promptly direct you back to the lab floor.
            And since you mentioned confecerences, I have been to many (INTERnational conferences), and I have never in my life seen a poster with experiments with an N of less than 3.
            To put it simply, since you don’t seem to understand anything else I am writing: you’re dead wrong.

            Conclusions about this kind of data is being drawn ALL the time here, just look through the comments of the posts on this site. People take non-reproduced data as truth as start making assumptions based on inconclusive evidence. Maybe YOU don’t, but that’s unrelated.

            Let me give you a hypothetical scenario to make it more clear, since you obviously didn’t fully understand my last post:
            Tom posts a dataset which could very well be entirely wrong, since he hasn’t, and can’t, analyse it properly. The people here look at his data, think there is an effect when there actually is none, and suggest he alters parameter A (which would make sense, if there was an effect). Tom alters paramter A, and the observed effect goes away (in reality, it was never there to begin with). Or does it? Maybe this is another artifact, and altering parameter A actually made it work! Regardless, people here, who take the incomplete data set as actual results, instead advice him to change parameter B. Repeat ad nauseum. No new knowledge has been generated, no trustworthy data is collected, and Tom is back to square one.
            If Tom spend a day to repeat the experiment WITHOUT changing any paramteres, he may have been given different advice which would have saved him a lot of trouble. And as a bonus, the people he shared the results with will know – with a defined certainty – what the result of performing the experiment would be.

            And contrary to what you’re saying, an opposing viewpoint to this would betray a severe lack of scientific experience.

            Of course Tom can ask for help with the engineering, but as you well know, that is not what we are talking about.

            You are also totally misrepresenting what I have said; of course there is usually no way of knowing what will be a dead end or not, but that doesn’t mean one should not try to avoid them. Or do you suggest that running around like a headless chicken, waiting to bump in to some amazing discovery is the proper way to conduct research? In that case, good luck with your career – you’re going to need it.

            Regarding LENR, you are again (intentionally?) misunderstanding me. If you read my post, you would see that I wrote that DIYers lack scientific rigor. People with funding agencies breathing down their necks usually keep the standards reasonably high.
            And you write that the point of Tom posting his results here is to increase his scientific rigor. His language and lack of humility kind of points to the contrary. And again, what do you think the point of my original post was, if not to encourage proper conduct? I never said he shouldn’t share results, again you’re putting words in my mouth. I said he should share his results WHEN HE HAS RESULTS TO SHARE, so that people can give advice based on EVIDENCE, and not potential artifacts.

            For the record, I am also a working, paid, published, and publishing scientific researcher. So you can drop the presumptious and condescending tone. And don’t confuse your inability to understand what I am writing as me discouraging the sharing of data – it’s dishonest.

          • Ged

            If he has to cap anything to avoid going out of range, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RANGE IN THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM. Try to understand that.

            No, you completely misunderstand what is going on here and the physics. The measurement system is not the problem, once again, and please pay attention this time. A cap is necessary for physical reasons as the heater plus any reaction combined could heat the device to physical destruction and melting of the sensors. Obviously that is not a good outcome. The measurement range is perfect for the hypothesized reaction in question, and furthermore, if the heater has to cut back to prevent overheating in the Active run versus Control, that is strong evidence of an energy producing reaction.

            This is a simple matter, if one does not understand this basic premise then there is a serious problem with comprehension of the work being done.

            And you should also know, through your years of experience, that if you show up at a lab meeting with incomplete data sets and present them as results, your PI will promptly direct you back to the lab floor.

            I must call Bull. That is completely and flagrantly wrong. Why? Because one will almost never have a “completed dataset” until one is ready for publication, and I would never expect you nor any of my other colleagues to have such at a weekly meeting. Preliminary data is what is presented and the purpose of the meetings to review. If you are doing research, you would understand the time scales it takes and how the data evolves with further experimentation and what people even discuss at a meeting (and how methods get tweaked with feedback from preliminary data, contrary to what you say later). You may have one or two completed experimental N, but not a full dataset until compiled to publish. The ideas you state here are not remotely real.

            I have never in my life seen a poster with experiments with an N of less than 3.
            To put it simply, since you don’t seem to understand anything else I am writing: you’re dead wrong.

            Yeah, I don’t buy that for one second. Particularly since all the conferences I have presented at specifically state not to present finished research, as a conference is looking for preliminary data on the cutting edge. I have seen many posters with N less than 3 and even down to 1 depending on experiment, as that is the reality of where thieir research’s edge was. What you say is not remotely true. There is no way you have not seen the same if you actually went to a conference. There have even been papers published with N of one when dealing with endangered species–so there are such circumstances and realities to deal with, which display how inexperienced your words sound. But here, we are dealing with more N than one.

            Conclusions about this kind of data is being drawn ALL the time here, just look through the comments of the posts on this site. People take non-reproduced data as truth as start making assumptions based on inconclusive evidence. Maybe YOU don’t, but that’s unrelated.

            Then correct them rather than being afraid of them having data. Plenty of incorrect conclusions are made in and from whole papers all the time. For how long did the nutritional world demonize dietary cholesterol? This is something you need to get used to facing rather than running away from. And worst I don’t see you quoting anyone here as doing such, despite your claims.

            Tom posts a dataset which could very well be entirely wrong, since he hasn’t, and can’t, analyse it properly. The people here look at his data, think there is an effect when there actually is none, and suggest he alters parameter A (which would make sense, if there was an effect). Tom alters paramter A, and the observed effect goes away (in reality, it was never there to begin with). Or does it?

            Yeah, see, there is a problem with your example–that is the very process of science! They don’t have to think there is it isn’t an effect, nor does it matter if they do or don’t, you are trying to conflate unrelated events and concepts to marginalize the discussion. Altering a parameter to see what happens to the effect is the process or scientific experimentation. Let’s change the words some so you can see: parameter A = independent variable; observed effect = dependent variable. Look familiar now?

            Every parameter change and resulting effect is new knowledge, and I am sad to see your reply failed that fundamental fact. There is no square one, as all the data is present for all to see.

            Moreover, you wanted the measurement method changed, which is changing a method paramter, just like you bemoan in your hypothetical scenarios. Irony winner indeed.

            If Tom spend a day to repeat the experiment WITHOUT changing any paramteres, he may have been given different advice which would have saved him a lot of trouble.

            He did. Once again, you presume instead of read or ask, and wrongly. Your argument’s premise is based fully on error, he has already repeated the same process, which is why we have multiple experimental N.

            But you also fundamentally fail to ask, why do parameters get changed? You have created this scenario where any changes in parameters is because… I dunno, people just feel like it? Nevermind that that is how science is done, you know, changing the independent variable(s) and seeing the effect on the dependent variable; but your big error here is that parameters are being changed to improve the quality and rigor of the experiment and the quality of the data. We need the data to see where improvements can be made, as without testing of the methods we have no idea if the methods will work as intended or not. Hence, we in science test and refine ad nausium until we are confident enough in the method quality to repeat and draw conclusions.

            Of course Tom can ask for help with the engineering, but as you well know, that is not what we are talking about.

            He did and has been here, and that is what is being talked about in several threads of you haven’t noticed. But why would it matter? How is sharing preliminary data and asking for method insights any different than sharing preliminary data and leaving it at that? It isn’t. His data is important, and so very useful to the community to see the methods and what those methods yield, regardless of any other motives. That is the purpose of science.

            The philosophy in your posts is fundamentally flawed and wrong, if not even dangerous and anti-science.

            You are also totally misrepresenting what I have said; of course there is usually no way of knowing what will be a dead end or not, but that doesn’t mean one should not try to avoid them.

            I am? Well, let’s look at what you said: “Asking for advice on how to proceed in that situation can easily lead you down dead ends” and “And sure, wasting time in dead ends can teach you valuable lessons, but if you think that is the way science is OUGHT to be done, you’re beyond delusional.” Nope, seems I am not misrepresenting you at all.

            Now, let’s look at the logical flaw in your reasoning: you say “dead ends” should be avoided, yet you cannot know what is or isn’t a “dead end” according to your goal bias till you try and find out, so how do you avoid what you do not know and cannot know to avoid till attempts are made? Yeah, see, your logic here is deficient at the core. Understand it now?

            You are also projecting bias, and haven’t even defined what a “dead end” is for your “purpose”, or if even such a concept applies. It doesn’t, as knowing what doesn’t work is a fundamental part of characterizing the system. This is basic scientific method concepts here–making up an undefined “dead end” boogyman to try to disparage and prevent suggestions is dead wrong and anti-productive, in addition to your post’s broken logic (how can you presume to avoid what you do not know to avoid till you test, hm?).

            Showing it works is not a “dead end”, showing it doesn’t work is not a “dead end”. Both are important results. So that “dead end” argument is fictitious and useless.

            Regarding LENR, you are again (intentionally?) misunderstanding me. If you read my post, you would see that I wrote that DIYers lack scientific rigor. People with funding agencies breathing down their necks usually keep the standards reasonably high.

            Ah, so you want to attack DIYers? MFMP has had great scientific rigor open to all on their multiple projects, enough to get them multiple university and other high level sponsors for a taboo’d topic. Obvious has displayed fine scientific rigor from what I have seen. Me365 was great but lately disappeared. Hm, yep, seems you are wrong here again too. The DIYers are doing a great job, and wizkid here is also showing and building quite nice rigor, even if you seem to struggle with cognitive dissonance about it.

            I said he should share his results WHEN HE HAS RESULTS TO SHARE, so that people can give advice based on EVIDENCE, and not potential artifacts.

            he does have results to share, that is what data is, and the methods to go along with them. You are indeed trying to block his sharing of data by “moving the goal posts” erroneously. This –is evidence, as all data is, and the process of increasing confidence in data and post analyzing it, is a separate domain to “HAVING RESULTS TO SHARE” and part of the continuance of research to find and eliminate artifacts if they exist and to what degree. That is, signal to noise.

            All of this you see are results. Did you misunderstand the meaning of experiment and now results too?

            He seems plenty humble to me as well, so your personal opinion of him is meaningless and not shared by others as far as I see here.

            For the record, I am also a working, paid, published, and publishing scientific researcher. So you can drop the presumptious and condescending tone. And don’t confuse your inability to understand what I am writing as me discouraging the sharing of data – it’s dishonest.

            Uh-huh. Let’s look at what you said again: “I said he should share his results WHEN HE HAS RESULTS TO SHARE”. No one but you is putting word in your mouth. You made it clear you didn’t like him sharing his data, so the only dishonesty is your attempt to pretend that isn’t so while still thumping on it at the same time. I won’t make presumption a about your experience, unlike you about me with your remarks like “contempt for science”, so I will leave others to make their own determinations from your words.

  • AbyssUK

    Dear wizkid, As another scientist firstly thank you for your hard work, “Scientist” below was unneedingly cruel but sadly a lot of scientists are slightly eliteist! However he is sort of right..

    Please stop and take a breather. What you are doing at the minute is awesome and great fun for you and it may even show LENR.. however you have forgotten to do the boring stuff first.

    When research is conducted here in my labs we may spend months just researching what to research and how best to show by experiment that we have something. We then take another few months to do full design of experiments (DoE) and extra importantly we then have to convince our peers that they will have trust in the final results, before we even start building anything! We normally do this to get our funding, which is basically being told we trust your experiment will show good data so here have some money.

    I think funding for yourself is not much of a concern. Which is why you are starting like an engineer jumping straight into the experimental and building stage, which sometimes is a good idea yes, but in this case is wrong as people have done that already! LENR has been shown..what we need to do now is prove it beyond any doubt. Else I fear you’ll end up just being another blip in the long line of uncredible LENR experiments whatever your outcome. So please take the time to correctly do the boring starting bits!

    If you are serious about getting this over the rainbow, I suggest using some of your budget to get some advise from a published consulting professor of a physical science, if you can convince them of your experimental design (note not technical design) then it adds even more trust to your work. Even better if you can convince them to put there name on it.

    But be warned scientific research like this takes years for full teams to complete correctly. “Beyond any doubt” is a lot harder to achieve than you realise.. so do not expect to “win” by yourself within such a small time frame. Play the long game, and play it from the start so you don’t burn out.

    • wizkid

      Thank you for your detailed note to me, and very much thank you for your advice, I am certain that it is valid advice, and I respect your opinion, your lab experience, your methods, and I embrace your attitude fully for any serious attempt to go over the rainbow. I am honored by your taking the time to chat with me. Let me preface the next section with, “I am not trying to bring this over the rainbow.”

      For the record, I’ve had successful outcomes from a several other similar situations, including when I visited C G Hill & Sons in 1978 and asked for advice about building a coupler to connect the jet engine starter motor I bought from an army surplus store to a 1969 Fiat Sport Coupe drive train. (I had rewound the coils to series by hand, and re-dipped it at a local service provider.)

      The secretary at the front desk looked at the kid in a T-Shirt and denim with long hair standing in front of her and I asked her if I could talk to somebody to have a part machined for me, and I showed her the drawing I had made and the spec I wrote down to connect the motor to the drive train. She looked very, very puzzled for a moment and then asked me to wait for a moment in the lobby. In a few minutes, a very distinguished looking man appeared with an incredible short white beard, dressed in a $2,000.00 suit with very shiny shoes on.

      He looked at me, and asked to see the drawing I had made. Then he asked me what the part was for. I explained to him briefly that I had everything ready to connect my motor to the drive train, but I was hoping he could help me to just build the coupler please.

      His eyes twinkled when he saw the truth in my eyes, and he said to me, “Yes, I can build this for you.”

      My reply to him was, “Thank you very much, kind sir. I am but a peasant, and I have concerns over the cost of the work you will need to do for me. Can you inform me of the charges I may incur before I proceed?”

      Again his eyes twinkled, as he looked into my eyes. He said to me, “that would be $60” and smiled a big smile.

      Did Mr. Hill validate my design for me? Did he fund my experiment? Did he approve of my DoE?

      The plug in electric car that I built for a total cost of $1972.32 in 1978 (including the custom electronic control system that I built to manage the power to the motor) was road worthy at a speed of up to 42mph, with lights, radio, horn, brakes, a four speed shifter rah rah. It ran on golf cart batteries, and it was just fun for me to build.

      Another build of mine was for a company called “Cargill”. Perhaps you have heard of them. (see http://www.cargill.com/) A middle manager came into a Computerland store in Hopkins Mn that I was managing in 1980, to ask me to review a request for proposal that he had with him. It was a request to review a software development program for rail shipping grain and salt throughout the entire north american continent. He told me that the programming team (composed of almost 100 programmers and management staff) had stated that this project was impossible to complete on a microcomputer, such as an Apple II or a Radioshack TRS-80. He told me that he wanted another opinion. I reached behind me into my drawer and offered him three resumes from programmers that had stopped in to visit. I mentioned that I was a programmer too, but only a novice. Again, he looked me in the eye and just said to me “I want you to do it! I spent a month on designing the arrays, writing a demo version with functional arrays, put the Cargill logo on the front splash screen for fun, and called him back to let him know that I had completed the proposal for them. I was very concerned when he told me that 5 of his senior staff team managers wanted to sit with me to discuss the design in detail. When I asked him to bring a purchase order for $1000 to the meeting please, as I would need to disclose technology to these staff members, he simply said, “no problem”. After the tech review with the senior staff team, which started with a demo of the live software sample I had written and took about an hour in total, I concluded with the meeting and told the executives that I was certain that their developers would be able to use the detailed array and logic design that I had disclosed to them, and wished them well. The Alpha team member looked to his team and there were almost imperceptible nods of their heads, and then he looked me in the eye and said to me, “we would like you to write this for us, Tom”. Oops, another DoE approved, looks like. Funding granted. Oh my! I went later that afternoon and let my wife know that my life had just changed, and that it was time for us to initiate a new project addition in our family. She looked into my eyes and smiled, and another DoE was approved!

      I don’t need to get anything “over the rainbow”, kind sir. I already built my dream house, powered with geothermal power, “under the rainbow” in a beautiful spot that could be called paradise. I have consultants that graciously provide free services to me, whenever I need.

      I am playing with LENR, but I play to win not recognition, not money, not fame, just to win a ticket in the line of blips you talk about that want to see the first showing of the movie. I just want to prove it to ME. I have a “beyond any doubt” rubber stamp in my desk drawer, though, for that particular moment. “Proved beyond a doubt to ME!”.

      Thanks again for your time, I am truly am honored by your comment sir!

      • psi2u2

        Very entertaining account.

        • wizkid

          When the music plays a person must dance. Cheers!

      • Karl Venter

        Wizkid
        Just do it
        Boundries are there to be broken – Ask Jonathan Livinstone Seagull – “There must be more to life than fighting for fisheads”

        • wizkid

          Indeed there must be. Thank you for your encouragement. I agree!

      • Eyedoc

        Wow Wiz…go get ’em…..Stay healthy and keep us informed. Fun stuff indeed

        • wizkid

          Hi Eyedoc, thanks for your encouragement!

      • Omega Z

        ->” I mentioned that I was a programmer too, but only a novice. Again, he looked me in the eye and just said to me “I want you to do it!”

        NASA was very aware of the novice advantage in the early days. People who hadn’t yet been ingrained by academia as to what their limits were. NASA called these employees their can do people.

        The Cargill manager was also aware. His experts had already said it can’t be done. He wasn’t interested in additional programmers with a similar view. He wanted a Novice.

        I read an interview long ago from a NASA Director. NASA employed 3 groups of people in the early days. Dreamers to dream up the impossible, the Novice to Build/Do the impossible and the experts to do the tried and true and that spelled success. By the time they were nearing the end of the moon landing project, the academic system had replaced almost everyone with experts. It’s a prestige/ego thingy. Welcome to “LEO” Low Earth Orbit. for eternity.

        A more recent TV interview of the young experts at NASA today when told they would be tasked with taking humanity back to the moon and beyond are like-

        OMG- We have a single Smart Phone with more capabilities and capacities then ALL of NASA’s computers of the early 60’s combined. The task is so daunting we’re uncertain we can do this. Who were those guys from the past and how did they accomplish this with so little to work with. They are in awe

        Actually, the old guys had a lot to work with. Imagination and no preconceived limits.

    • Stephen

      I think we need both.

      We need pioneers engineers and explorers who break new ground, trail blaze new territory, full fill their desire to see for them selves and create hope and inspire the rest of us.

      We also need those with vigorous methodology and technique to take those new grounds and discoveries and carefully characterize, verify, study and improve them.

      I hope Scientist and others with that approach and skill have the courage to do that some day but first we need the pioneers.

      • Bruce__H

        You have it completely backwards … as have many who participate on this site. It is the scientists who are the explorers and pioneers. Engineering comes into the picture once the basic phenomenon has been investigated and understood to some extent.

        Understanding this matters. The danger is spending tons of time and money engineering phenomena that never existed in the first place..

        • Stephen

          We need both,

          There is a parallel process to some extent and you are right to emphasise the importance of the science aspect. But we shouldn’t try to change explorers into scientists, there are better qualified and skilled people who should be doing and hopefully will be doing exactly that.

          There are also quite well documented discoveries in LENR that can be investigated and I sincerely wish more institutions that have the skill an ability to do so would. For sure you are right what they find can in turn in help inform and guide explorers, experimenters and the like. I agree with you there.

          It also true that sometimes new or unexpected phenomena are found by scientists too in the course of their investigations. But I would say this is also dealt with in the spirit of exploration such as freely gathering data and seeing what comes up. Unexpected heating on Pluto from collecting thermal data would be an example.

          But as well as exploring a known phenomena also initial exploration needs to be done to discover the initial phenomena that then needs to be investigated. Without the phenomena identified to be investigated science has no basis to start or perform it investigation.

          Thats why i think we need the pioneers like Tom. I think they have the approach to find for themselves things that others can later be studied and investigated.

          Looking again at your an my comment maybe we are approaching the problem from opposite ends and saying more or less the same thing in the end.

          I really hope that scientist with the right experience and background to perform the investigations will pick up the baton on some of the LENR discoveries and investigate them too.

    • William D. Fleming

      The science establishment has had twenty seven years to play that long game. How much longer before you get LENR over that rainbow?

  • AbyssUK

    Dear wizkid, As another scientist firstly thank you for your hard work, “Scientist” below was unneedingly cruel but sadly a lot of scientists are slightly eliteist! However he is sort of right..

    Please stop and take a breather. What you are doing at the minute is awesome and great fun for you and it may even show LENR.. however you have forgotten to do the boring stuff first.

    When research is conducted here in my labs we may spend months just researching what to research and how best to show by experiment that we have something. We then take another few months to do full design of experiments (DoE) and extra importantly we then have to convince our peers that they will have trust in the final results, before we even start building anything! We normally do this to get our funding, which is basically being told we trust your experiment will show good data so here have some money.

    I think funding for yourself is not much of a concern. Which is why you are starting like an engineer jumping straight into the experimental and building stage, which sometimes is a good idea yes, but in this case is wrong as people have done that already! LENR has been shown..what we need to do now is prove it beyond any doubt. Else I fear you’ll end up just being another blip in the long line of uncredible LENR experiments whatever your outcome. So please take the time to correctly do the boring starting bits!

    If you are serious about getting this over the rainbow, I suggest using some of your budget to get some advise from a published consulting professor of a physical science, if you can convince them of your experimental design (note not technical design) then it adds even more trust to your work. Even better if you can convince them to put there name on it.

    But be warned scientific research like this takes years for full teams to complete correctly. “Beyond any doubt” is a lot harder to achieve than you realise.. so do not expect to “win” by yourself within such a small time frame. Play the long game, and play it from the start so you don’t burn out.

    • wizkid

      Thank you for your detailed note to me, and very much thank you for your advice, I am certain that it is valid advice, and I respect your opinion, your lab experience, your methods, and I embrace your attitude fully for any serious attempt to go over the rainbow. I am honored by your taking the time to chat with me. Let me preface the next section with, “I am not trying to bring this over the rainbow.”

      For the record, I’ve had successful outcomes from a several other similar situations, including when I visited C G Hill & Sons in 1978 and asked for advice about building a coupler to connect the jet engine starter motor I bought from an army surplus store to a 1969 Fiat Sport Coupe drive train. (I had rewound the coils to series by hand, and re-dipped it at a local service provider.)

      The secretary at the front desk looked at the kid in a T-Shirt and denim with long hair standing in front of her and I asked her if I could talk to somebody to have a part machined for me, and I showed her the drawing I had made and the spec I wrote down to connect the motor to the drive train. She looked very, very puzzled for a moment and then asked me to wait for a moment in the lobby. In a few minutes, a very distinguished looking man appeared with an incredible short white beard, dressed in a $2,000.00 suit with very shiny shoes on.

      He looked at me, and asked to see the drawing I had made. Then he asked me what the part was for. I explained to him briefly that I had everything ready to connect my motor to the drive train, but I was hoping he could help me to just build the coupler please.

      His eyes twinkled when he saw the truth in my eyes, and he said to me, “Yes, I can build this for you.”

      My reply to him was, “Thank you very much, kind sir. I am but a peasant, and I have concerns over the cost of the work you will need to do for me. Can you inform me of the charges I may incur before I proceed?”

      Again his eyes twinkled, as he looked into my eyes. He said to me, “that would be $60” and smiled a big smile.

      Did Mr. Hill validate my design for me? Did he fund my experiment? Did he approve of my DoE?

      The plug in electric car that I built for a total cost of $1972.32 in 1978 (including the custom electronic control system that I built to manage the power to the motor) was road worthy at a speed of up to 42mph, with lights, radio, horn, brakes, a four speed shifter rah rah. It ran on golf cart batteries, and it was just fun for me to build.

      Another build of mine was for a company called “Cargill”. Perhaps you have heard of them. (see http://www.cargill.com/) A middle manager came into a Computerland store in Hopkins Mn that I was managing in 1980, to ask me to review a request for proposal that he had with him. It was a request to review a software development program for rail shipping grain and salt throughout the entire north american continent. He told me that the programming team (composed of almost 100 programmers and management staff) had stated that this project was impossible to complete on a microcomputer, such as an Apple II or a Radioshack TRS-80. He told me that he wanted another opinion. I reached behind me into my drawer and offered him three resumes from programmers that had stopped in to visit. I mentioned that I was a programmer too, but only a novice. Again, he looked me in the eye and just said to me “I want you to do it! I spent a month on designing the arrays, writing a demo version with functional arrays, put the Cargill logo on the front splash screen for fun, and called him back to let him know that I had completed the proposal for them. I was very concerned when he told me that 5 of his senior staff team managers wanted to sit with me to discuss the design in detail. When I asked him to bring a purchase order for $1000 to the meeting please, as I would need to disclose technology to these staff members, he simply said, “no problem”. After the tech review with the senior staff team, which started with a demo of the live software sample I had written and took about an hour in total, I concluded with the meeting and told the executives that I was certain that their developers would be able to use the detailed array and logic design that I had disclosed to them, and wished them well. The Alpha team member looked to his team and there were almost imperceptible nods of their heads, and then he looked me in the eye and said to me, “we would like you to write this for us, Tom”. Oops, another DoE approved, looks like. Funding granted. Oh my! I went later that afternoon and let my wife know that my life had just changed, and that it was time for us to initiate a new project addition in our family. She looked into my eyes and smiled, and another DoE was approved!

      I don’t need to get anything “over the rainbow”, kind sir. I already built my dream house, powered with geothermal power, “under the rainbow” in a beautiful spot that could be called paradise. I have consultants that graciously provide free services to me, whenever I need.

      I am playing with LENR, but I play to win not recognition, not money, not fame, just to win a ticket in the line of blips you talk about that want to see the first showing of the movie. I just want to prove it to ME. I have a “beyond any doubt” rubber stamp in my desk drawer, though, for that particular moment. “Proved beyond a doubt to ME!”.

      Thanks again for your time, I am truly am honored by your comment sir!

      • psi2u2

        Very entertaining account.

        • wizkid

          When the music plays a person must dance. Cheers!

      • Karl Venter

        Wizkid
        Just do it
        Boundries are there to be broken – Ask Jonathan Livinstone Seagull – “There must be more to life than fighting for fisheads”

        • wizkid

          Indeed there must be. Thank you for your encouragement. I agree!

      • AbyssUK

        Then tinker away my friend and godspeed! Your current goal is clear, you want to prove this to yourself. However once you do I hope that isn’t the end and the science can begin 🙂

        • wizkid

          A delight to hear from you again!

          Thank you for your understanding and encouragement, I think we are both sincere in our statements. I do want to re-assure you that I will certainly enable the science you discuss to begin! Steve Jobs did something similar in years gone by, and started a wave of development for small desktop computers. He started Apple Computer in his garage, and the entire world was blessed with PC’s. I was a part of that explosion, on the front line. IBM send me to Boca Raton FL in the first wave of training for the IBM PC. At Computerland I designed and initiated a school for businesses to send their executives to in order to be trained in using Visicalc and Lotus and Wordstar. Computerland replicated my school throughout the USA. When I went to see the movie “Antitrust” about the PC Explosion Era my wife jabbed me in the ribs and giggled, and whispered to me, “That’s your school their showing in the movie!”.

          God bless you sir,
          Tom

      • Eyedoc

        Wow Wiz…go get ’em…..Stay healthy and keep us informed. Fun stuff indeed

        • wizkid

          Hi Eyedoc, thanks for your encouragement!

      • Omega Z

        ->” I mentioned that I was a programmer too, but only a novice. Again, he looked me in the eye and just said to me “I want you to do it!”

        NASA was very aware of the novice advantage in the early days. People who hadn’t yet been ingrained by academia as to what their limits were. NASA called these employees their can do people.

        The Cargill manager was also aware. His experts had already said it can’t be done. He wasn’t interested in additional programmers with a similar view. He wanted a Novice.

        I read an interview long ago from a NASA Director. NASA employed 3 groups of people in the early days. Dreamers to dream up the impossible, the Novice to Build/Do the impossible and the experts to do the tried and true and that spelled success. By the time they were nearing the end of the moon landing project, the academic system had replaced almost everyone with experts. It’s a prestige/ego thingy. Welcome to “LEO” Low Earth Orbit. for eternity.

        A more recent TV interview of the young experts at NASA today when told they would be tasked with taking humanity back to the moon and beyond are like-

        OMG- We have a single Smart Phone with more capabilities and capacities then ALL of NASA’s computers of the early 60’s combined. The task is so daunting we’re uncertain we can do this. Who were those guys from the past and how did they accomplish this with so little to work with. They are in awe

        Actually, the old guys had a lot to work with. Imagination and no preconceived limits.

    • Stephen

      I think we need both.

      We need pioneers engineers and explorers who break new ground, trail blaze new territory, fulfill their desire to see for them selves share their experiences and insights with like minded people and create hope and inspire the rest of us.

      We also need those with vigorous methodology and technique to take those new grounds and discoveries and carefully characterize, verify, study and improve them.

      I hope Scientist and others with that approach and skill have the courage to do that some day. Their work is needed. Maybe they can turn a blip into a symphony. But first we need the pioneers.

      Pioneers are most effective when they follow their own compass.

      • Bruce__H

        You have it completely backwards … as have many who participate on this site. It is the scientists who are the explorers and pioneers. Engineering comes into the picture once the basic phenomenon has been investigated and understood to some extent.

        Understanding this matters. The danger is spending tons of time and money engineering phenomena that never existed in the first place..

        • Stephen

          We need both,

          There is a parallel process to some extent and you are right to emphasise the importance of the science aspect. But we shouldn’t try to change free-er minded explorers into more methodical minded scientists, there are better qualified and skilled people who should be doing and hopefully will be doing exactly that. (Nor would I want a methodical analytical Scientist to give up using his critically important approach to his work and scientific method).

          There are also quite well documented discoveries in LENR that can be investigated and I sincerely wish more institutions that have the skill an ability to do so would. For sure you are right what they find can in turn in help inform and guide explorers, experimenters and the like. I agree with you there.

          It also true that there is an element of exploration in applying scientific methods and also sometimes new or unexpected phenomena are found by scientists too in the course of their investigations. But I would say in the latter case this is also dealt with in the spirit of more open exploration such as freely gathering broad spectrum of data and seeing what comes up. Unexpected heating on Pluto from collecting thermal data or terrain imaging would be an example.

          But as well as exploring a known phenomena also initial exploration needs to be done to discover the initial phenomena that then needs to be investigated. Without the phenomena identified to be investigated science has no basis to start or perform it investigation.

          Thats why i think we need the pioneers like Tom. I think they have the approach to find for themselves things that others can later be studied and investigated.

          About Engineering: I understand your point. There is engineering to make a product. that would or certainly should follow thorough investigation as you say. But I think there is also engineering done in the spirit of exploration that is to make tools and devices to test and better understand what is being seen. In the same way using a rope to climb a tree so you can see your surroundings.

          Looking again at your an my comment maybe we are approaching the problem from opposite ends and saying more or less the same thing in the end.

          I really hope that scientist with the right experience and background to perform the investigations will pick up the baton on some of the LENR discoveries and investigate them too. I think everyone here prays or hopes in their own way, like I do every day, that people with those particular skills would at last have the curiosity and will to do so.

          If they don’t yet then i hope the right spark or picture encourages them. Perhaps in the end people like Scientist are just asking for something in the language that speaks to them. That I can respect and understand.

          • Bruce__H

            I have been reacting to a train of reasoning I see on this site in which people claim that in the LENR field we shouldn’t expect academic peer reviewed papers because after all this isn’t research it is engineering. And, since it is just engineering after all, it is the success of the product in the marketplace that will determine whether of not we should accept LENR as real. Rossi is a big proponent of this view and many people have climbed on board.

            This is a profound misunderstanding of what is going on. Many of the phenomena currently being discussed in the LENR field may not, after all, be real. And there is no underlying theory here which make secure connections to empirical finding. In these circumstances whoever undertakes research in this area, however they choose to think of themselves, is definitely undertaking pure research and not engineering.

            And this has consequences. Empirical academic research has built-in safeguards so that we don’t delude ourselves into thinking something is real when it isn’t. The safeguards are open-minded skepticism, peer reviewed publication, and replication. Engineering doesn’t have these standards because it doesn’t need them. Engineers work with real principles and phenomena to master reality and bring it under our command. Don’t think that I look down on engineers, I don’t (I would have loved to be an engineer!), but people shouldn’t make up narratives for themselves that really just amount to escaping the safeguards that are contingent on doing research.

            As to being explorers/pioneers … scientists, engineers, others can qualify. However creativity is just the first step. After that you have to prove your claims. The problem with the widespread acceptance of LENR as being an engineering game is that if it (LENR) isn’t true then we will never find that out. All we will get is a constant conveyor belt of inventors claiming they have something and then eventually either disappearing or going on to the next ill-documented invention with details unknown due to nondisclosure agreements and claims of “IP” that needs to be protected. I note that this is exactly what we see in the field right now.

          • Stephen

            I dont disagree with you Bruce all of your points and your perspective on them are important.

            We really need good Scientists with good methods to notice LENR, and it a big mistake to push away those ones that do notice and are interested. Hopefully they will be the ones who can effectively apply these methods and convince the wider scientific community to sit up and notice. We only need to see the depth of skill and analysis, richness of data and quantities of papers in related subjects to see what they can potentially bring to LENR. Their contribution could be huge.

            With the ground breaking work being made in condensed matter physics, plasmonics and materials science along with well established more subtle and better understanding of nuclear physics and Quantum mechanics than was generally argued in 1989. It seems to me some new very good scientists are taking notice and we should encourage them to help I think.

            I think the Internet and these forums bring something new though. There is citizen science that follows strong science methods which I think is the method you try to encourage but there is also open discussion and experimentation a kind of brainstorming if you like. Both methods can be a huge resource if used well. They bring together huge numbers of people from all kinds of background and very different points of view with a common interest into one place. This is very powerful if allowed to have open discussion, there are scientists and engineers with all kinds of diciplins and fields of study but also potentially teachers, doctors of medicine, builders, naturalists people of all kinds of back grounds this is a huge knowledge base where perhaps an inspired high school student may find the insight that a Nobel Laureate may use to opens a whole field of study, or a potter using a particular method in an uncontrolled environment might notice something in a glaze that makes a materials scientist think “wow that’s interesting how did that happen”

            Some may say my view is fanciful, I hope some others see its merits both views are ok to me though as it’s precisely the different view points and how they contribute to the mix that is the strength of this approach.

          • wizkid

            I apologize for this post in advance.

            Re: “This is a profound misunderstanding of what is going on. Many of the phenomena currently being discussed …” BS!

            and the Wright Brothers went to France. My work isn’t hidden and is NOT perfect but if men were meant to fly they would have an Iron Man suit. Made in France. LENR is not controversial anymore. Ask the DoE! Scientists are controversial. Scientists are paid to protect the status quo of the 1 percent. Pioneers like the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford created “inventions”, not science. There are THIEVES and scammers out there, but they typically don’t initiate legal action against capitalists.

            Let’s repeat after me … If pigs were meant to fly, Rossi would have a doctorate degree and work for capitalists.

            again a little louder now,
            again again again

          • Bruce__H

            Hi wizkid,

            You think that LENR has been proven to an acceptable level because you are not used to research. In research you try out a lot of speculative stuff just in case it is true but this means that 1) a lot of the stuff you work on turns out to be a blind alley, and 2) just because you are working on it and it has funding (e.g., DoE research) doesn’t mean it is true.

            And it goes beyond this
            – just because something is written up as a formal report doesn’t mean it is true … it has to go in front of skeptical reviewers before it is published
            – just because something has been published as a peer reviewed paper doesn’t mean it is true. A lot of published work cannot be replicated (see http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 )

            My current judgement is that LENR as a field hasn’t yet acquired the density of replicated results needed to distinguish it from a field where the central phenomena are not real. In time this might turn around or it might not … i don’t know. i am skeptical but interested and my skepticism is justified.

            It is worthwhile keeping in mind that because a lot of the more imaginative research projects don’t work, out the public never hears of them. And this creates the false impression in public that scientists are always doing safe stuff. It isn’t true. Nor is it true that “Scientists are paid to protect the status quo of the 1 percent”. I suppose it depends a bit on which scientist etc, but for university scientists with tenure who derive their funding from arms length funding bodies such a claim is just naive. In fact the only way for most researchers to get a result into a high-profile journal is if it is novel or unexpected. The desires of the 1 percent just don’t come into it one way or another.

          • wizkid

            Thank you for your patient and kind reply, Bruce! I will simply state that I have collected my opinions based on personal experience, including working directly with very wealthy people during my software development career.

            As a custom software developer, every day my work was peer reviewed in live interaction with my clients. To me this meant: Cash Flow or Skid Row, so I learned to believe what I saw, based on the environments response to the stimulus. Using that logic, I believe in LENR. This logic has worked for me for 64 years.

            After having a particular client try and fail to exercise his authority over me, claiming ownership of my life, my family, and my IP, I have acquired personal knowledge that the one percent are self centered, and are not above using or breaking the law to make more money. But I survived …

            I am enjoying my current journey with LENR, and the privilege of speaking with souls like yourself, who enrich me with their experiences and opinions.

            We are all naive, relative to God’s thoughts.

            I feel like I’ve been to a week long seminar.

            Thanks again!

    • William D. Fleming

      The science establishment has had twenty seven years to play that long game. How much longer before you get LENR over that rainbow?

    • Ken

      Wizkid,

      While I don’t think you need to go to the extent Abyss UK suggests, he is right in that taking a breather to formulate a scientific plan that you can cross check with someone of his scientific caliber for holes, is a great idea. After 4 years of publishing and studying thousands of attempts to bring things “over the rainbow” per say, one thing is common in all the failures. All those stories were swiss cheese instead of bullet proof.

      It may not be a bad idea to outline every process in your experiment and develop controls for each variable. It’s one thing to build the experiment but if you don’t build the validation of that experiment into the original experiment, then you will get cut apart by skeptics and establishment scientists regardless of the success. As much as it sucks, it’s how things have to be in today’s world.

      Great work so far btw. Keep it up 🙂

      • wizkid

        I appreciate the feedback, Ken. I will indeed keep at at, and Thank you!

        (For the record, I understand scientific method and I am using it to do what I am doing. I pray to God every day, and he corrects me every day with his scripture. Regarding proof of concept, version control, beta releases, updates, it’s air that I’ve breathed all my life. I’m not at proof of concept on this one yet. It took me two years to get anything that looked like a live sample. I love Rossi, but I got tired of waiting. I admit it could be a fluke, or an error. If it develops to proof of concept, great! If not, I had fun. I’m trying to share something, for free. No strings. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla, Bohr, Einstein, wherefore art thou? Nikola, I see lightning when I close my eyes… )

        • Ken

          I love it!! Keep up the great work. I wish i had the time to work on my ideas but gotta feed the family 😛 I have an idea regarding lightning and water if you want to chat some time, perhaps you could run the experiment on my behalf.

          • wizkid

            Thank you for the encouragement Ken. I’m still working on the LENR replications, and also some Tesla patents for generating electricity by harvesting the so called “waste” echo from coils that are pulsed at high frequency. Good luck on your project when you find time, though!

  • wizkid

    I hope this is what I think it might be, a solution for my thermal measuring method. Thank you very very much, DAK. I’m checking your information now.

    • Omega Z

      And this is what Rossi means when he says he learns much in his exchanges of comments on JONP.

      You never know where that pearl may arrive from.

      • wizkid

        I looked all over for that pearl. Had to come here for this one. Many great comments. I’m sewing some rips in my sails.

  • SG

    The scientific method involves hypothesizing and testing, and then modifying the hypothesis. The problem with a subsection of the scientific community today is that they oppose the scientific method in some instances, dismiss out of hand, and vociferously claim that no effort or money should be applied to areas such as LENR, because it would be “wasteful.” I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not fall into that subsection.

    • Scientist

      You’re right to give me the benefit of the doubt, and I think you should extend it to the rest of mainstream science as well. I’ve never met a scientist who “opposes the scientific method”. I’m not sure how anyone could survive in science with that kind of attitude.

      The reality is that there is never unlimited money or a carte blanche from funding agencies. It’s like comparing solid investment to playing the lottery. What would you rather do if you only had a few precious dollars to spend?

      • SG

        I appreciate that you maintain an open stance. Sorry, I can’t extend it to the entire scientific community–at least not many of self-proclaimed “Internet” scientists who go around visiting various forums and communities preaching that all LENR, EmDrive, and other curious phenomena are crackpotish and deserve no attention or funding by the government. None! Even in the face of some curious evidence! And on phenomena, which if proven, have very significant implications to society!

        Where the potential significance to society is high, at least some amounts of funding by the government should be allocated, without question. We aren’t asking for billions, like some big-science projects, but a mere rounding-error of those amounts.

  • artefact

    Maybe it is good not to set the power to 0 when it reaches the “top” temperature but instead set the input to something like 100 W in order to try to support/extend possible ssm periods. Choose a temperature above “top” where it is really set to 0.

    • wizkid

      You read my thoughts last night at 2am. How did you do that? I TOTALLY AGREE. I was thinking using current(OnTime/2). So if it hits Setpoint @ 230ms then reduce to 115ms for the next power loop cycle. 🙂

    • wizkid

      What was I thinking about power control when I need to bump the fusion back to on if temp starts to fall, do you remember? (he he he)

      • artefact

        It was probably to strobe the input at higher frequency.But I’m in so many heads I tend to mix stuff up 🙂

  • artefact

    Maybe it is good not to set the power to 0 when it reaches the “top” temperature but instead set the input to something like 100 W in order to try to support/extend possible ssm periods. Choose a temperature above “top” where it is really set to 0.

    • wizkid

      You read my thoughts last night at 2am. How did you do that? I TOTALLY AGREE. I was thinking using current(OnTime/2). So if it hits Setpoint @ 230ms then reduce to 115ms for the next power loop cycle. 🙂

    • wizkid

      What was I thinking about power control when I need to bump the fusion back to on if temp starts to fall, do you remember? (he he he)

      • artefact

        It was probably to strobe the input at higher frequency.But I’m in so many heads I tend to mix stuff up 🙂

  • psi2u2

    Congratulations on your successful run and thanks for sharing.

    • wizkid

      Thank you for both your comments psi2u2.

  • psi2u2

    Congratulations on your successful run and thanks for sharing.

    • wizkid

      Thank you for both your comments psi2u2.

  • wizkid

    I ordered 2 type S thermocouples and 2 Adafruit Universal Thermocouple Amplifier MAX31856 Breakout interface boards for my system a moment ago, Thanks for your help, Dak!

  • TVulgaris

    So, are you currently, or have you in the past, attempted an “open-science” experiment? If so, can you report exactly how you conducted it, including reporting, collating, and analyzing the data?

    • TVulgaris

      If so, what kind of community participation occurred, and was it according to your selected parameters

      of involvement?

    • Scientist

      I suppose that depends on what you mean by “open-science”. In my view, most science not performed by private institutions is relatively open. Maybe hard to access from the outside, but sharing of data is going on all the time. What do you think research journals and conferences are for?

  • artefact

    OT:
    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi October 13, 2016 at 10:00 PM
    Brokeeper:
    We from the Galaxy know that freedom is not for free and that it is necessary to fight whatever you want: I am not sorry, I am delighted to make this job, I believe in its importance. This year has been great: we ended the exdtremely important test on the 1 MW plant and invented the QuarkX, that is becoming every day more important. You have not idea of what we are going to introduce, not even I was aware of what the QuarkX could become, when I started to work on the intuition of it. Politicians? All the politicians I met have been very kind to our work. Lawyers? God bless them, my Lawyers are saving the work most important of my life. In one word: I’m getting fun. No necessity to find another genus or to get an umbrella and whisper ” I phone home”: my home is here.
    Warm Regards, E.T.”

  • wizkid

    A delight to hear from you again!

    Thank you for your understanding and encouragement, I think we are both sincere in our statements. I do want to re-assure you that I will certainly enable the science you discuss to begin! Steve Jobs did something similar in years gone by, and started a wave of development for small desktop computers. He started Apple Computer in his garage, and the entire world was blessed with PC’s. I was a part of that explosion, on the front line. IBM send me to Boca Raton FL in the first wave of training for the IBM PC. At Computerland I designed and initiated a school for businesses to send their executives to in order to be trained in using Visicalc and Lotus and Wordstar. Computerland replicated my school throughout the USA. When I went to see the movie “Antitrust” about the PC Explosion Era my wife jabbed me in the ribs and giggled, and whispered to me, “That’s your school their showing in the movie!”.

    God bless you sir,
    Tom

  • wizkid

    I want to thank everybody, especially Dak, my Genius buddy, Bruce_H, and Scientist, for pointing out the urgent need to upgrade my thermocouple selection. I have ordered two S-type Platinum Rhodium Thermocouples and also two of the Adafruit Universal Thermocouple Amplifier MAX31856 Breakout boards, that include the software for S-Type Thermocouples, and interfaces to my controller. Comments on these choices are invited.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Tom,

      I suggest that you also use a good millivoltmeter to record the actual measured thermocouple voltage as a calibration cross-check. I am always skeptical when the “linearization” is buried within a chip and not specifically called out. Look up an S-Type thermocouple reference table, or refer to NIST monograph 175 for the equations relating millivolts to degrees C. The equations are simply polynomial fits to the relationship over various temperature ranges.

      Using the tables is simple, but not easily automated. All you do is measure the “cold” junction temperature at the break-out board (any accurate room-temperature thermometer will do), lookup the milivolts for that temperature, and add it to the millivolts Reading that the S-Type thermocouple is producing. Then take the sum of the Reading + “cold” millivolts and look up the temperature from the table.

      A good Thermocouple instrument also typically has filters to reject 60 Hertz (or 50 Hertz) noise from power lines. I am also a bit skeptical about the break out board’s ability to deal with any induced potential on the TC leads. It might fry the chip if there is a significant potential on it. The schematic shows a differential input with no ground reference.

      • wizkid

        Thanks Tom, I’ll check that out!

  • Ged

    He is cutting power to protect his thermocouples. End of story.

    Which is exactly what I’ve been telling you all this time. The 1200 C measurements are not out of range for the thermocouples, and there is no signal chopping issue. The couples can measure the set point just fine, and are appropriate for that set point. That set point is well within the range of temperatures expected to see the effect according to the current hypothesis (going just 200 C higher will melt the nickel), as we have also seen tested by MFMP and others. So, now you finally agree, and disagree with yourself when you said “THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RANGE”.

    You don’t know what a dataset is. Here you go:

    How silly of you. You tried to make an example where “incomplete data sets” was seen as bad, and that was what I was refuting, obviously, since I quoted you. All data, since data is plural, is part of a set. That argument does not support you in any way, as all datasets are “incomplete” while you are gathering data and evaluating it at meetings, unless you are having a meeting about writing the paper with your completed datasets.

    I don’t know how much experience you have, but I have had weekly lab
    meetings for many years and countless other meetings where new data is
    presented in various collaboration projects and noone has ever EVER
    presented an incomplete dataset (i.e. N<3) without explicitly stating
    that that specific experiment is still in progress.
    If you indeed
    have published anything, especially in life science journals (which as I
    understand is your field, that or biology), you know as well as I do
    that you will need probably around 25-50 datasets (~five figures with
    5-10 subfigures) to conclusively prove your point. This is very
    different from a lab meeting.

    Yes, it is very different from a lab meeting, that’s the point. And the data here is being presented as still in progress, so I guess you agree now and disagree with your former position, as data in progress does not have an N of 3. My work and collaborations generally deal with Ns in the 10s and 100s, so an N of 3 is still typically “on going” for us for most experiments. Of course, any new experiment can be an N of 1 complete by the time the meeting rolls round. All of these are those “incomplete data sets” your hypothetical example PI seemed to take issue with.

    By the by, “results” is the outcome of any experiment, so a dataset is always “results”.

    You obviously don’t know what preliminary data means either. You want to
    prove a hypothesis. You perform a study, this study consists of many
    experiments, and each experiment consists of several replications of
    that experiment. Once you have performed enough experiments to
    effectively argue your point, you can publish. If you only have a couple
    of experiments that point you in the right direction, but on their own
    don’t prove anything, you have preliminary data. If you have one
    repetition of one experiment, you have absolutely nothing (except MAYBE
    an idea about whether or not it is worth it to repeat it).

    You were right up until that last part, where you disagree with everything you yourself were just saying. Any dataset you are not finished gathering results for is preliminary data, and the N is unrelated other than part of the benchmark used to determine once preliminary moves to complete.

    Perhaps you are thinking more of “provisional data”, which is a term used in early but incomplete data analysis http://water.usgs.gov/wateralert/provisional/

    And in this case, what do we have with our N of 2 control and active datasets? Preliminary data, is what, as wizkid makes it plain he is working to improve (“beef up” as he says) his set up and that he is not convinced yet. No one has claimed anything else.

    In fact, I was going to answer your entire post, but frankly it is a
    waste of time. You are being absurdly hostile and confusingly defensive
    about things I have never even said. Clearly this is somehow very
    personal to you and I don’t think me lecturing you on scientific
    practice is actually going to make you learn anything. You’ve already
    made up your mind – closed it, so to speak.

    I wish you the best of luck in your work, and the best of patience for your PI.

    I enjoy how you assume I have a PI, rather than I am the PI, when you have no basis for your assumptions.

    I quote you at every turn, so you can’t pull the “I have never even said” card, sorry. And yes, it is personal. I do not take kindly to anyone trying to argue against data sharing, or against making suggestions about methodology, or against the opportunity for peer reviewing information by releasing it; and even organizations like USGS share their data even when it is not reviewed or finalized for digestion yet (as I linked above to their disclaimer about such). But I am encouraged you have walked back your arguments significantly, and are starting to sound more rational and amiable to the scientific process.

  • clovis ray

    good job, whizKid,
    Make us a cup of tea, and i’ll drink to your great work.

    • wizkid

      Thanks, Clovis! Classic quest even after all these years. Cheers!

  • Axil Axil

    DAK:

    “It is not clear why you are using isotopically pure Li7. Can you elaborate? The Li from LAH will contaminate any isotopes.”

    Answer as follows:

    The unrecognized laws of LENR

    There are rules for the creation of the LENR reaction that are not yet recognized. These rules are associated with the formation of Bose condensation. LENR works because of the formation of metalized hydrides that are superconducting. These metalized hydrides are BECs and their formation follows the rules of BEC formation. Unless the LENR experimenter follows these rules of BEC formation, LENR will not happen for them.

    Isotopic purity

    The study of BEC formation began about 2 decades ago and over that time has grown into a major specialty in the study of physics and quantum mechanics. One of the major rules that applies all the time is that since a BEC is a matter wave, that matter that forms the wave must be pure. Any matter that interposes on that pure collection of matter from which the BEC will form is a poison to LENR.

    Protium, the most abundant isotope of hydrogen is poisoned by deuterium and a mixture of protium and deuterium will not condense into a BEC. The gas that forms metalized hydrogen must not be poisoned by any other gases such as air, oxygen, nitrogen, water or deuterium.

    Bosons are required.

    With some exceptions, the matter that produces the Bose condensate must be composed of bosons.

    Reference:

    science.nasa.gov/science-news/…nasa/2002/20mar_newmatter

    Not all atoms can form Bose-Einstein condensates — “only those that contain even numbers of neutrons plus protons plus electrons,” says Ketterle. Ketterle made his BECs from sodium atoms. If you add the number of neutrons, protons and electrons in an ordinary sodium atom, the answer is 34 — an even number suitable for Bose-Einstein condensation. Atoms or isotopes of atoms with odd sums can’t form BECs. Strange, but true.

    As an example, hydrogen is a boson composed of a proton (spin ½) and an electron (spin ½). A boson is formed when the spins of those two sub atomic components of prodium are combined together into a hydrogen atom. A BEC of hydrogen will not form from the H2 molecule or from ionized hydrogen. A BEC will form from water where oxygen 16 is a boson and hydrogen is a boson. Mixtures of heavy water and light water will not work nor will water formed from any oxygen 17 or oxygen 18 contamination.

    The strange case of deuterium and Lithium 7… attractive atoms.

    Lithium 7 is a boson because it has 3 protons, 4 neutrons and 3 electrons. That adds up to 10 ½ spins. Lithium 6 cannot form a BEC because it has 9 ½ spins. Lithium 6 will interfere with the formation of Lithium 7 BEC and poison it. Therefore, it is a requirement to use pure Lithium 7 to produce a successful LENR reaction.

    Deuterium will form a Bose condensate as witnessed by many LENR experiments. But BEC science has not recognized that deuterium BECs are possible, so what is going on.

    Fermion atoms can form BECs if these atoms are attractive.

    Reference:

    atomcool.rice.edu/static/sackett_bjop_1997.pdf

    Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) has been observed in magnetically trapped atomic gases of 87Rb, 7Li, and 23Na. Although the condensates are till very dilute gases, the interactions between atoms have been seen to play a significant role in determining their physical properties. For 87Rb and 23Na atoms, the interactions are effectively repulsive, which causes the volume of the condensates to increase and modifies their excitation spectra. In contrast, the interactions between 7Li atoms are effectively attractive, and are thought to prevent BEC from occurring at all in a homogeneous gas. As recently as 1994, attractive interactions were predicted to preclude BEC in a trap as well, but it is now understood that this is not the case, and that BEC can occur with a limited number of atoms in the condensate. For 7Li in our trap, the predicted limit is about 1400 atoms.

    So like Lithium 7, deuterium must be atomically attractive and able to form BECs. But in hydrogen plasma, prodium will not form a BEC but deuterium will because it will ionize making the deuterium ion a boson.

    But is deuterium atomically attractive?

    The assumption that deuterium is producing the LENR effect in many electrolytic LENR experiments might not be true. Could deuterium’s role in the LENR reaction just be a fantasy born out of the dream that hot fusion is producing He4. The active LENR agent in these experiments could be metallized water as claimed by LeClair. Does the LENR reaction take hold in non-ionizing LENR experiments with deuterium where water is not present?

    I have explained how the cavities in the metal lattice act to cool the hydride through the application of high pressure and the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    See post

    The possible Role of Axions in LENR

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3736-The-possible-Role-of-Axions-in-LENR/?postID=38926#post38926

    Experimentally, superconductivity and the Meissner effect have been detected in room temperature cavities in iron oxide by Holmlid.

    http://phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf

    “These high density clusters have a long life time and with deuterons and – in contrast to protons – as being bosons which should be in a state of Bose-Einstein-Condensation (BEC) at room temperature (Miley et al. 2009,2009a).”

    The issue here is where do the electrons go? Those electrons are tricky little buggers. Does iron oxide play a role at sequestering the electrons so that the fermionic contribution of the electrons do does not interfere with rydberg matter formation?

    Something happens with deuterium condinsation that confounds science; it shouldn’t happen, but it does.

  • Axil Axil

    DAK:

    “It is not clear why you are using isotopically pure Li7. Can you elaborate? The Li from LAH will contaminate any isotopes.”

    Answer as follows:

    The unrecognized laws of LENR

    There are rules for the creation of the LENR reaction that are not yet recognized. These rules are associated with the formation of Bose condensation. LENR works because of the formation of metalized hydrides that are superconducting. These metalized hydrides are BECs and their formation follows the rules of BEC formation. Unless the LENR experimenter follows these rules of BEC formation, LENR will not happen for them.

    Isotopic purity

    The study of BEC formation began about 2 decades ago and over that time has grown into a major specialty in the study of physics and quantum mechanics. One of the major rules that applies all the time is that since a BEC is a matter wave, that matter that forms the wave must be pure. Any matter that interposes on that pure collection of matter from which the BEC will form is a poison to LENR.

    Protium, the most abundant isotope of hydrogen is poisoned by deuterium and a mixture of protium and deuterium will not condense into a BEC. The gas that forms metalized hydrogen must not be poisoned by any other gases such as air, oxygen, nitrogen, water or deuterium.

    Bosons are required.

    With some exceptions, the matter that produces the Bose condensate must be composed of bosons.

    Reference:

    science.nasa.gov/science-news/…nasa/2002/20mar_newmatter

    Not all atoms can form Bose-Einstein condensates — “only those that contain even numbers of neutrons plus protons plus electrons,” says Ketterle. Ketterle made his BECs from sodium atoms. If you add the number of neutrons, protons and electrons in an ordinary sodium atom, the answer is 34 — an even number suitable for Bose-Einstein condensation. Atoms or isotopes of atoms with odd sums can’t form BECs. Strange, but true.

    As an example, hydrogen is a boson composed of a proton (spin ½) and an electron (spin ½). A boson is formed when the spins of those two sub atomic components of prodium are combined together into a hydrogen atom. A BEC of hydrogen will not form from the H2 molecule or from ionized hydrogen. A BEC will form from water where oxygen 16 is a boson and hydrogen is a boson. Mixtures of heavy water and light water will not work nor will water formed from any oxygen 17 or oxygen 18 contamination.

    The strange case of deuterium and Lithium 7… attractive atoms.

    Lithium 7 is a boson because it has 3 protons, 4 neutrons and 3 electrons. That adds up to 10 ½ spins. Lithium 6 cannot form a BEC because it has 9 ½ spins. Lithium 6 will interfere with the formation of Lithium 7 BEC and poison it. Therefore, it is a requirement to use pure Lithium 7 to produce a successful LENR reaction.

    Deuterium will form a Bose condensate as witnessed by many LENR experiments. But BEC science has not recognized that deuterium BECs are possible, so what is going on.

    Fermion atoms can form BECs if these atoms are attractive.

    Reference:

    atomcool.rice.edu/static/sackett_bjop_1997.pdf

    Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) has been observed in magnetically trapped atomic gases of 87Rb, 7Li, and 23Na. Although the condensates are till very dilute gases, the interactions between atoms have been seen to play a significant role in determining their physical properties. For 87Rb and 23Na atoms, the interactions are effectively repulsive, which causes the volume of the condensates to increase and modifies their excitation spectra. In contrast, the interactions between 7Li atoms are effectively attractive, and are thought to prevent BEC from occurring at all in a homogeneous gas. As recently as 1994, attractive interactions were predicted to preclude BEC in a trap as well, but it is now understood that this is not the case, and that BEC can occur with a limited number of atoms in the condensate. For 7Li in our trap, the predicted limit is about 1400 atoms.

    So like Lithium 7, deuterium must be atomically attractive and able to form BECs. But in hydrogen plasma, prodium will not form a BEC but deuterium will because it will ionize making the deuterium ion a boson.

    But is deuterium atomically attractive?

    The assumption that deuterium is producing the LENR effect in many electrolytic LENR experiments might not be true. Could deuterium’s role in the LENR reaction just be a fantasy born out of the dream that hot fusion is producing He4. The active LENR agent in these experiments could be metallized water as claimed by LeClair. Does the LENR reaction take hold in non-ionizing LENR experiments with deuterium where water is not present?

    I have explained how the cavities in the metal lattice act to cool the hydride through the application of high pressure and the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    See post

    The possible Role of Axions in LENR

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3736-The-possible-Role-of-Axions-in-LENR/?postID=38926#post38926

    Experimentally, superconductivity and the Meissner effect have been detected in room temperature cavities in iron oxide by Holmlid.

    http://phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf

    “These high density clusters have a long life time and with deuterons and – in contrast to protons – as being bosons which should be in a state of Bose-Einstein-Condensation (BEC) at room temperature (Miley et al. 2009,2009a).”

    The issue here is where do the electrons go? Those electrons are tricky little buggers. Does iron oxide play a role at sequestering the electrons so that the fermionic contribution of the electrons do does not interfere with rydberg matter formation?

    Something happens with deuterium condinsation that confounds science; it shouldn’t happen, but it does.

  • wizkid

    Thanks, Clovis! Classic quest even after all these years. Cheers!

  • wizkid

    I appreciate the feedback, Ken. I will indeed keep at at, and Thank you!

    (For the record, I understand scientific method and I am using it to do what I am doing. I pray to God every day, and he corrects me every day with his scripture. Regarding proof of concept, version control, beta releases, updates, it’s air that I’ve breathed all my life. I’m not at proof of concept on this one yet. It took me two years to get anything that looked like a live sample. I love Rossi, but I got tired of waiting. I admit it could be a fluke, or an error. If it develops to proof of concept, great! If not, I had fun. I’m trying to share something, for free. No strings. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla, Bohr, Einstein, wherefore art thou? Nikola, I see lightning when I close my eyes… )

  • Stephen

    I dont disagree with you Bruce all of your points and your perspective on them are important.

    We really need good Scientists with good methods to notice LENR, and it a big mistake to push away those ones that do notice and are interested. Hopefully they will be the ones who can effectively apply these methods and convince the wider scientific community to sit up and notice. We only need to see the depth of skill and analysis, richness of data and quantities of papers in related subjects to see what they can potentially bring to LENR. Their contribution could be huge.

    With the ground breaking work being made in condensed matter physics, plasmonics and materials science along with well established more subtle and better understanding of nuclear physics and Quantum mechanics than was generally argued in 1989. It seems to me some new very good scientists are taking notice and we should encourage them to help I think.

    I think the Internet and these forums bring something new though. There is citizen science that follows strong science methods which I think is the method you try to encourage but there is also open discussion and experimentation a kind of brainstorming if you like. Both methods can be a huge resource if used well. They bring together huge numbers of people from all kinds of background and very different points of view with a common interest into one place. This is very powerful if allowed to have open discussion, there are scientists and engineers with all kinds of diciplins and fields of study but also potentially teachers, doctors of medicine, builders, naturalists people of all kinds of back grounds this is a huge knowledge base where perhaps an inspired high school student may find the insight that a Nobel Laureate may use to opens a whole field of study, or a potter using a particular method in an uncontrolled environment might notice something in a glaze that makes a materials scientist think “wow that’s interesting how did that happen”

    Some may say my view is fanciful, I hope some others see its merits both views are ok to me though as it’s precisely the different view points and how they contribute to the mix that is the strength of this approach.

  • wizkid

    I apologize for this post in advance.

    Re: “This is a profound misunderstanding of what is going on. Many of the phenomena currently being discussed …” BS!

    and the Wright Brothers went to France. My work isn’t hidden and is NOT perfect but if men were meant to fly they would have an Iron Man suit. Made in France. LENR is not controversial anymore. Ask the DoE! Scientists are controversial. Scientists are paid to protect the status quo of the 1 percent. Pioneers like the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford created “inventions”, not science. There are THIEVES and scammers out there, but they typically don’t initiate legal action against capitalists.

    Let’s repeat after me … If pigs were meant to fly, Rossi would have a doctorate degree and work for capitalists.

    again a little louder now,
    again again again

  • wizkid

    Thank you for your patient and kind reply, Bruce! I will simply state that I have collected my opinions based on personal experience, including working directly with very wealthy people during my software development career.

    As a custom software developer, every day my work was peer reviewed in live interaction with my clients. To me this meant: Cash Flow or Skid Row, so I learned to believe what I saw, based on the environments response to the stimulus. Using that logic, I believe in LENR. This logic has worked for me for 64 years.

    After having a particular client try and fail to exercise his authority over me, claiming ownership of my life, my family, and my IP, I have acquired personal knowledge that the one percent are self centered, and are not above using or breaking the law to make more money. But I survived …

    I am enjoying my current journey with LENR, and the privilege of speaking with souls like yourself, who enrich me with their experiences and opinions.

    We are all naive, relative to God’s thoughts.

    I feel like I’ve been to a week long seminar.

    Thanks again!

  • wizkid

    Thank you for the encouragement Ken. I’m still working on the LENR replications, and also some Tesla patents for generating electricity by harvesting the so called “waste” echo from coils that are pulsed at high frequency. Good luck on your project when you find time, though!