61–70 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep, denial mode. there is no proof. no one is credible. it's a scam. there is no theory. things didn't happen before we had theory for them. what a bunch of scientific bigots.
Yes, or it is a conspiracy or people is in denial. How luck we are for having people like you that can see the light. Time to move on and stop wasting time with such nonsense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey Mike, a few things. First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. The science is in an early state, but looks to be very promising! http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21... Here's a pithy excerpt: "Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics…
The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works . Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available. Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. , is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about airc…
Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real" is entirely accurate.
More than that, there is substantial, rigorous scientific evidence that LENR is real.
===========================================================
From the SPAWAR materials:
Experimental Results Since 1989
– Excess Heat >> chemistry (F&P, SRI, CL, Bockris, Storms, Energetics, ENEA, Miley, Swartz)
– 4He, commensurate with excess heat (SRI, China Lake (CL), ENEA)
– Low intensity, soft X-rays (0.5-20 kev), (SRI, CL, SPAWAR, Karabut)
– Tritium Production; a species of nuclear ash (BARC, Bockris, Storms, Claytor, SPAWAR, SRI)
– CR-39 tracks suggest MeV neutron emission. (SPAWAR, BARC, Takahashi, Jones, Mizuno)
– Many nuclear transmutations, ΔZ = +2, +4, +6 (MHI, Mizuno, Bockris, Dash, SPAWAR)
– Sensitivity to radio freq & near IR stimulation (Bockris, Letts/Hagelstein, NRL).
– Emission of strong RF signals near 85 GHz (ENEA) and 1-5 MHz (NRL).
From the NASA materials (slide 5):
Current LENR Technology (LENR reactor 12/12 and 3/13 respectively):
- Energy Produced (Wh): 62,000 / 160,000
- Power Density (W/Kg): 530,000 / 7,000
- Thermal Energy Density (Wh/kg): 61,000,000 / 680,000
- Reaction mass: 1g / 1g
- Test duration (h): 96 / 116
- Max. Temp. (deg C): 496 / 308
===========================================================
Those results could only be from nuclear phenomena - chemistry is entirely unable to explain the power output, transmutations, and radiation.
Links:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IE... https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcs...
Get a clue - I'm trying to help you here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works . Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available. Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. , is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about airc…
"The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available." Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that th…
It doesn't matter whether the paper you linked is discussing the phenomenon in general or a specific device. The fact remains that it is clearly a hypothetical exercise in which it assumes that the device works, and sees how it could be used if that were the case. That doesn't mean they think the device actually works, only that there's enough potential to have a few people think about it for a little while.
Same deal with the NASA presentation you posted in this comment. From the Objective slide: "Explore the application of LENR technology not the technical aspects and feasibility." "Assumed device existed with these parameters." It's a hypothetical exercise. Nothing here supports your assertion that NASA thinks this is real.
In any case, my main point remains: why hasn't anyone done the obvious test to prove that this device is real? We're not talking about some delicate scientific experiment producing subtle mysterious phenomena. We're talking about a concrete physical device which the creators claim is a megawatt nuclear reactor. Isolate it and make it produce power and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what it says. Why is that so hard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available." Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that th…
If you want to help, maybe don't tell people to "get a clue," because that just turns them against you, and also read what your sources are actually saying. It doesn't matter whether the paper you linked is discussing the phenomenon in general or a specific device. The fact remains that it is clearly a hypothetical exercise in which it assumes that the device works, and sees how it could be used if that were the case…
The main controversy around LENR has been whether or not there's a real phenomenon. Clearly there is. Given the experimental results so far, as well as Rossi's work, it seems pretty clear to me there'll be practical reactors in the future if there aren't already. The first principles need to be better understood for best results.
Time will tell, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available." Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that th…
If you want to help, maybe don't tell people to "get a clue," because that just turns them against you, and also read what your sources are actually saying. It doesn't matter whether the paper you linked is discussing the phenomenon in general or a specific device. The fact remains that it is clearly a hypothetical exercise in which it assumes that the device works, and sees how it could be used if that were the case…
BTW, to this point:
In the information I linked was data from the 12/12 LENR NASA run which produced 62 KWh of excess energy over the course of a 96 hour run - using one gram of material.
That is entirely consistent with LENR, and utterly inconsistent with any chemical explanation. It was observed under rigorous experimental conditions by NASA research scientists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to help, maybe don't tell people to "get a clue," because that just turns them against you, and also read what your sources are actually saying. It doesn't matter whether the paper you linked is discussing the phenomenon in general or a specific device. The fact remains that it is clearly a hypothetical exercise in which it assumes that the device works, and sees how it could be used if that were the case…
"In any case, my main point remains: why hasn't anyone done the obvious test to prove that this device is real? We're not talking about some delicate scientific experiment producing subtle mysterious phenomena. We're talking about a concrete physical device which the creators claim is a megawatt nuclear reactor. Isolate it and make it produce power and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what it says. Why…
Edit: to be clear, I'm wondering what the experimental setup was. What sort of device were they testing, how were inputs and outputs measured, etc. Not just the results, but the experiment from which they got those results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In any case, my main point remains: why hasn't anyone done the obvious test to prove that this device is real? We're not talking about some delicate scientific experiment producing subtle mysterious phenomena. We're talking about a concrete physical device which the creators claim is a megawatt nuclear reactor. Isolate it and make it produce power and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what it says. Why…
Can you tell me where to find the original information about this 12/12 LENR NASA run? I must not know what search terms to use. Edit: to be clear, I'm wondering what the experimental setup was. What sort of device were they testing, how were inputs and outputs measured, etc. Not just the results, but the experiment from which they got those results.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
The NASA material is worth reviewing in its own right though - and the Navy has conducted quite a few LENR experiments of its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you tell me where to find the original information about this 12/12 LENR NASA run? I must not know what search terms to use. Edit: to be clear, I'm wondering what the experimental setup was. What sort of device were they testing, how were inputs and outputs measured, etc. Not just the results, but the experiment from which they got those results.
Well it appears I get to eat a little crow. It was not NASA work, but it was a peer-reviewed paper cited in the NASA materials: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 The NASA material is worth reviewing in its own right though - and the Navy has conducted quite a few LENR experiments of its own.
They state that they couldn't weigh the device because it was already running when the test began. Why would they start it before doing basic tasks like seeing how much it weighs?
Oh, because the test was conducted at the company that makes the devices, and I guess the company set up the device and turned it on before the scientists got there.
Then one naturally wonders, who set up the equipment to monitor the electrical power consumed by this device? As far as I see, the paper does not say.
One further wonders, why does it need a continuous input of electrical power at all, if that power is only connected to resistor coils in the device as claimed? The paper says that electric heat is needed to start the reaction, but why doesn't the reaction sustain itself on its own heat after starting? Why can't they just unplug the thing at that point?
Finally, the experiment was conducted with the device sitting out in the open, radiating and convecting into the air. Output power was estimated by pointing an IR camera at it (measuring only half of it!) and calculating power based on the observed temperature. All of this in an environment controlled by the company that makes the device.
I hope you can see how this experiment is 1) nothing like the definitive test I describe and 2) suspicious as all hell.
The test I describe is not difficult to set up and would not be difficult for a real, working device to pass. So again, why don't they do it? That they don't doesn't automatically mean it's a scam, but then what is the answer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone had a nice explanation of this over on Reddit but I don't have a link handy. Basically if momentum is not conserved then you can build kinetic energy without bound on finite power or something like that. Are you referring to this reddit comment by myself? https://reddit.com/r/spaceflight/comments/34ay1c/nasa_resear...
What you say is true but I don't see why people make assumption 1. Does anomalous thrust tell you it can accelerate linearly to power?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you say is true but I don't see why people make assumption 1. Does anomalous thrust tell you it can accelerate linearly to power?
The thrust doesn't need to be a linear function of input power for this argument to work. As long as you can get some constant thrust for some constant power input, kinetic energy will eventually exceed the energy put into the system.