LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (cold fusion - it just wont go away)

[kristopher]

I'm throwing this out because it has the report of two credible observers** available for download. The detail the process and to some extent the apparatus. For myself, I'll still go with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and for me, this isn't it. YMMV


*Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and member of the board (chairman until April 2) of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

*Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee

From their pdf writeup:
Discussion. Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments. The central container is about 50 cm3 in size and it contains 0.11 gram hydrogen and 50 grams nickel. The enthalpy from the chemical formation of
nickel and hydrogen to nickel hydride is 4850 joule/mol <6>. If it had been a chemical process, a maximum of 0.15 watt-hour of energy could have been produced from nickel and 0.11 gram hydrogen, the whole hydrogen content of the container. On the other hand, 0.11 gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one proton for each nickel atom) are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per reaction can be liberated as free energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen would give 25 kWh through chemical burning. Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.

Which you will find at the link in the text.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

And from the text of the article:

A phenomenon that Kullander and Essén noted was that the curve for the water temperature at the output showed a steady increase up to about 60 degrees centigrade, after which the increase escalated.

“The curve then became steeper, it clearly had a new derivative. At the same time there was no increase in power consumption, it rather decreased when it got warmer,” said Essén.

In their report they note that it took nine minutes to go from 20 to 60 degrees centigrade, which corresponds to the heating from the input electrical power. Going from 60 to 97.5 degrees centigrade, by contrast, just took four minutes.

Throughout the experiment Kullander and Essén had the opportunity to examine the equipment.

“We checked everything that...

[pnwmom]

1. There is also at least one MIT professor who takes this seriously.

But he says the government funding agencies are populated by people who have a vested interest in this not being studied.

http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq09.html

[bananas]

2. Yes - it's not as black-and-white as some people would like it to be. nt

[TheWraith]

3. God, not this bullshit again.

Let me summarize:

They cannot provide any scientific evidence that their machine works.

They don't even claim to know HOW their machine works.

They won't provide one for study by credible scientists.

They won't provide diagrams and details for patent purposes.

And yet they're selling it over the internet, trying to get money out of people who don't know better.

This is pure, 100%, unadulterated snake oil.

[kristopher]

4. Explain the observations.

The observers gave a report, perhaps you can explain it.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Don't know how Magicians do their Magic either

That doesn't mean I believe his/her assistant de-materialized or had a sword sever their head.

Full disclosure of their design would produce multiple attempts to independently recreate the results just as happened last time. If they have stumbled across something regardless of bey design or accident they are set for life if independently verified. Nobel prize and floods of research grants and facilities await the celebrities.

[kristopher]

7. Unfortunately you are right.

IT would also produce a flood of competition if it is a real breakthrough. I read a couple of different articles before I posted this one and the comments by defenders assert that the secrecy is because the patent office refuses them patent protection on the same principle you are using, that it can't work. Therefore, they claim, if they make the "secret" public it would be the equivalent of Coke publishing their recipe. (my comparison)

I don't know enough about patent law (virtually nothing actually) so I can't evaluate that argument. However I was struck by their invited observers:

*Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and member of the board (chairman until April 2) of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

*Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee

I would think that between the two of them, they had total access and it seems to me they would very likely spot any hoax.

[TheWraith]

8. That's not how science works. I'm not required to disprove a claim.

They're required to prove it--and to provide major, solid proof, since they're making a pretty outlandish claim that goes against current scientific understanding. Just observing someone "experimenting" isn't proof. Give one of these to MIT, let them dissect it and prove that it really does work as advertised, rather than being some kind of sleight of hand.

[kristopher]

9. You are right about the proof; you are mischaracterizing what the situation is.

The issue of intellectual property is still hanging there unaddressed by anyone that's a patent expert.

I don't think they've proven their case, but they haven't been caught cheating either. The observers are pretty clear- they've narrowed it down to either there is something happening or we need the Amazing Randy in on it. The way that sentence in the report reads it is either they have something or they are pulling a world class hoax - and while I'm not ruling hoax out, it is becoming a lot less likely if the observer's actual quality as academics match their credentials.

Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011.

Participants: Giuseppe Levi, David Bianchini, Carlo Leonardi, Hanno Essén, Sven Kullander, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi.
Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011.

"Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."

[CJvR]

10. Provided...

...the test rig wasn't deliberately set up to fake the readings. It is not proof until all steps of the process is transparent and verifiable. Have they even applied for a patent, and even if they have is there any way the Chinese are not going to pirate it? They can apply for a patent and submit to scientific examination and get all of the glory and much of the cash, if it works. Or they can sell it online without any rights at all and get nothing. Since they seem so intent on avoiding examination how credible can the patent concerns be if they have started selling this snakeoil, eh, reactor online? Cash up front no doubt.

[kristopher]

12. The patent was denied for the same reasons physicists have said it will not work

As I understand it (and I'm not sure I have it right at all) the device relies on either an unproven theory of physics or something going on in an unknown area of physics. IOW, the inventor has a theory, but it is not accepted as true; however the device is apparently producing energy.

If the device works that puts them in a Catch 22, doesn't it? Show the "secret sauce" and lose what could be hundreds of billions of dollars in profits or find a way to convince a rightly skeptical public that what they have is real.

According to your standard and from what I read about the multiple demonstrations, your standard has been met; you wrote, "It is not proof until all steps of the process is transparent and verifiable".

To my knowledge, the observers were there this time specifically to identify a hoax it it existed. They were able to examine everything except the inside of the small central fuel container which couldn't have held enough energy of any conventional type to do what was demonstrated. The observers also said they wanted information on the lead shielding and the cooling water system. This is a 4kg tabletop system that is able to be examined from every exterior angle.

I get the impression that you haven't read the remarks of those who observed the demonstration. You should; it is far better than having their statements filtered through me. They also provide photos that give a sense of how difficult fraud would be.

Discussion
"Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments. The central container is about 50 cm3 in size and it contains 0.11 gram hydrogen and 50 grams nickel. The enthalpy from the chemical formation of nickel and hydrogen to nickel hydride is 4850 joule/mol <6>. If it had been a chemical process, a maximum of 0.15 watt-hour of energy could have been produced from nickel and 0.11 gram hydrogen, the whole hydrogen content of the container. On the other hand, 0.11 gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one proton for each nickel atom) are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per reaction can be liberated as free energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen would give 25 kWh through chemical burning. Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Essén+(pdf

[TheWraith]

11. I'd love to believe this is true, but there is still no scientific proof for it.

The idea that "something's happening, therefore it has to be cold fusion" is scientifically unjustifiable. To prove something that is supposed to be impossible, you need more than just a black box of "power goes in, more power comes out." Observation is only good for so much when you can't control the circumstances of the test. Intelligent, rational people have been convinced that they've seen all sorts of things more outlandish than cold fusion.

Intellectual property arguments don't hold water. If these are so simple and cheap to make that knockoffs would be a concern, then the Chinese are going to be building them anyway, whether they get the thing patented or not. And that doesn't change the fact that they could still sell it, if real, to some company or other for enough money that they and their descendants to the tenth generation would never have to work again. Not to mention a Nobel Prize. If they were really worried, they could draw up a non-disclosure agreement for a team at MIT, saying no release of schematics or technical details, just test reports and a report on whether it's real or not.

Of course, the irony in this conversation is that the anti-nuke guy is trying to convince someone who believes in the need for nuclear power to believe in a form of nuclear power.

[kristopher]

13. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything

I'm not convinced myself yet.

But the rationale you and some others have given for rejecting the evidence provided is dogmatic, not reasoned. Take for example your hand-waving dismissal of the value of the IP rights if this is valid.
"Intellectual property arguments don't hold water. If these are so simple and cheap to make that knockoffs would be a concern, then the Chinese are going to be building them anyway, whether they get the thing patented or not. And that doesn't change the fact that they could still sell it, if real, to some company or other for enough money that they and their descendants to the tenth generation would never have to work again. Not to mention a Nobel Prize. If they were really worried, they could draw up a non-disclosure agreement for a team at MIT, saying no release of schematics or technical details, just test reports and a report on whether it's real or not."

That is pure dogma where you are fabricating a set of irrational motives and circumstances to enable your pre-existing belief. It is nonsense of the first order and demonstrates (again) a behavior you seem to specialize in with your incredible claims in support of fission.

To show how your reasoning is so short-sighted, why would you believe the MIT crew if the inventor did as you suggest? They wouldn't be able to do any more than has already been done to PROVE the device works.

I'd still like to hear from a patent expert. Accurate information about the validity of the motive for secrecy would go a long way towards settling this im my mind.

[TheWraith]

14. But it HASN'T been proven that the device works. That's the point.

MIT (or Cal Berkley, or another well regarded scientific institute) is a venue where they could test that the machine performs as advertised without the creators being in control of the whole experiment and environment. As it is, some outsiders being invited to a "test" completely under the control of the machine's inventors isn't a true objective opinion any more than it would be to have someone watch ballot counting if you didn't know where the ballots come from.

The inventors have a clear motive to fabricate test results. While that doesn't automatically mean that they ARE doing so, it also means that any tests conducted under their auspices alone are suspect. Just having someone there to watch, and see the results that the creators have produced, isn't scientifically valid. And since they won't allow tests to be conducted while not under their control...

It's rather like if someone claimed to have invented a cure for cancer, but that they wouldn't tell anyone how it works, or allow it to be tested in labs other than their own. We would rightly assume that their "cure" is questionable at best.

[kristopher]

15. Again you disregard the Catch 22 with the patent office. Why?

According to experts as good as any at MIT or Berkly, it is doing exactly what the inventor said it would; that is why this thread was started. If you deny that then you are disconnected from reality. Did you investigate who the observers were to determine their qualifications?

You want to claim that an unknown, unable to be discovered mechanism is being used to commit fraud because they are not revealing the proprietary design of a breakthrough (if true) that is potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, you have not even established whether they have a valid reason for their secretive approach so you have absolutely no basis for judging the validity of your claim.

So I say again, your objections are dogmatic, not reasoned. I am not convinced yet either, but instead of calling them frauds, I'd rather see 1) an answer about their motive - IOWs a summary of their position re getting patent protection; and 2) if the problem is a Catch 22 with the patent office, then I'd like to see it addressed with policies that rectify the perverse incentive this inventor claims to be following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[TheWraith]

16. Observers are not the same thing as testers.

Having two people there to say that everything LOOKS like it's working as advertised is not the same thing as a lab running a complete battery of tests outside the control of the inventors. Period.

"You want to claim that an unknown, unable to be discovered mechanism is being used to commit fraud"

No, I'm suggesting that rigged tests and sleight of hand are being used to commit fraud. By definition, if it's a fraud, it's because the "unknown mechanism" doesn't exist. As long as they're running the testing, there's no way to conclusively prove that it's not based on rigged testing.

"because they are not revealing the proprietary design of a breakthrough (if true) that is potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars."

And yet, we're supposed to believe that selling these over the internet somehow presents LESS of a risk of their secret being stolen than a well secured test rig being loaned to MIT for a few weeks under strict non-disclosure terms?

[kristopher]

17. Do you understand how often you use strawman arguments?

You literally can't seem to get through even two posts without at least one.

In this case no one says you are supposed to believe anything, and no one is "selling these over the internet" in any sense like you are trying to convey.

If they have a point about the patent and you know that, then admit it.
If they don't and you know that, let me know how they are able to get protection for their intellectual property rights.
If you don't know, then say that and let it go until we find out something new.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Because any human being worth their salt would not hold out for 'hundreds of billions of dollars'

for such an important invention. They'd just describe the device in full, let others reproduce it, work out what's going on, and then they could accept the Nobel prize, the university chairs, and the adoration of the world for fixing the most intractable problems we have. There is no problem with the Patent Office.

As one might say: "Share the Cure".

[CJvR]

5. It would be nice...

...if it could actually work, but it just reaks of fraud.

[miyazaki]

18. Livin' up to your Bologna credibility as usual. nt