Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: genesisi just wonder....how canhetype so much and so fast? it will take years for me to read this crap.

    P.S reminds me of one old fella named "vibratroll" here, not sure why though.
    Skilled typist, uses Dragon, or some combination are all possible.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: joshsSkilled typist,

    Much of it is regurgitation too. It isn't like he's producing a paper with each post...well okay some papers do this too.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: E-Man
    Posted By: joshsSkilled typist,

    Much of it is regurgitation too. It isn't like he's producing a paper with each post...well okay some papers do this too.
    Yes, there is a finite possibility that he has precanned and indexed paragraphs for all occasions. Mark Goldes was one who seemed to cut and paste from a library of less than 100 paragraphs.
  1.  
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
    (A. Einstein, presumably)
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: bloodymedia"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
    (A. Einstein, presumably)
    Or the MiB are suppressing you.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    "I didn't have time to make this a short letter." Mark Twain, or Blaise Pascal, or Voltaire, or somebody
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    @Angus - that is genius.

    Anyone who understands a great idea can, at great length explain it to even a great fool. Anyone who greatly understands a great idea can concisely explain it to even a great fool. A great fool explains at great length an idea which he does not greatly understand.

    Brevity isn't just the soul of wit.
  2.  
    Posted By: TrimIf getting more helium involves building bigger more 'dangerous' cells then why not there are loads of cynics who would be happy to shake them up and say look no bang.


    Have I missed something? Where's the danger? There are no neutrons or gammas so no rad hazard. Why not build a 50kW one?
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    We should start a club, or perhaps a banner, or maybe just an award, for people who have made an original post (not a reference) that exceeded the space limit.

    Would we have more than two members at this point?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: TrimIf getting more helium involves building bigger more 'dangerous' cells then why not there are loads of cynics who would be happy to shake them up and say look no bang.


    Have I missed something? Where's the danger? There are no neutrons or gammas so no rad hazard. Why not build a 50kW one?


    You have to lasso a palladium asteroid.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: enginerdWe should start a club, or perhaps a banner, or maybe just an award, for people who have made an original post (not a reference) that exceeded the space limit.

    Would we have more than two members at this point?
    There was Mr. Torrance:
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: enginerdWe should start a club, or perhaps a banner, or maybe just an award, for people who have made an original post (not a reference) that exceeded the space limit.

    Would we have more than two members at this point?


    Not terribly significant. I have personally exceeded it in _original poetry_. 'Course that was the old space limit.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: TrimIf getting more helium involves building bigger more 'dangerous' cells then why not there are loads of cynics who would be happy to shake them up and say look no bang.

    Have I missed something? Where's the danger? There are no neutrons or gammas so no rad hazard. Why not build a 50kW one?

    You have to lasso a palladium asteroid.
    Well, a *tad* exaggerated, but, yes. From the Arata effect, which seems fairly reliable and stable, and which has been confirmed to a degree, I figured that you could make a home hot water heater with $100,000 worth of palladium. Not terribly practical. That was assuming that the effect would not become less reliable at higher temperatures. It might. Yes, the reaction generally seems to increase with temperature, but .... the material also "burns out." I.e, the nanoparticle palladium sinters, eventually stops working. You'd get all your palladium back and it could be reprocessed, but ... it's still way too expensive. This is a reason why the PdD FP Heat Effect is unlikely to be a basis for practical energy generation. But maybe someone will figure out a way. Swartz, with his Nanor, seems to have some decent power that might be scalable. But I haven't followed his work closely.

    The basic problem, as I"ve mentioned before, is that the effect is ureliable, which can mean great variation in heat output. A cell that has been "dead" can fairly abruptly start working, generating heat, sometimes, that outputs more energy than was put in, i.e., COP greater than 2. Or it does nothing, and predicting that, so far, has been hit-or-miss. So to get large power levels, and large sustained power levels are needed to make much helium, requires taking the risk of *very* large power levels. Vaporize your palladium, which is what happened to Pons and Fleischmann in 1984, you lose it, probably. Expensive. And vaporize your whole lab, which is not impossible, would mean that you'd lose your credibility, too.

    "Oh. You had an explosion. You must be desperate!"

    No, modest experiments with results clearly above noise are adequate for *science,* if confirmed. If you are not convinced on the science, you would not be convinced by an explosion, unless *everything * was extensively witnessed and validated by multiple observers. And ... those observers might be dead. It's a really poor trade-off, eh?

    We may *never* see large-scale palladium-deuterium power production. Before even attempting it, the mechanism must be understood, and there is a lot of work to be done to manage that, theorists are suffering from lack of adequate data, there are many basic questions that remain unanswered.

    Once the mechanism is understood, then it becomes more possible to engineer the effect. *Then* PdD power *might* become practical. Storms has concluded that there is only one mechanism, and that it will explain both PdD and NiH results. I've warned against that as any kind of firm conclusion, because it's entirely possible that there is more than one mechanism. Rather, if a mechanism explains, say, PdD results, but not NiH, it should not be rejected on that basis. Another mechanism that equally well explains PdD and NiH would obviously be superior, but if the "universal" explanation of PdD is *weaker* than the particular one, Occam's Razor does not apply, because that weakness will require additional explanation!
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Abd
    Once the mechanism is understood, then it becomes more possible to engineer the effect. *Then* PdD power *might* become practical. Storms has concluded that there is only one mechanism, and that it will explain both PdD and NiH results. I've warned against that as any kind of firm conclusion, because it's entirely possible that there is more than one mechanism. Rather, if a mechanism explains, say, PdD results, but not NiH, it should not be rejected on that basis. Another mechanism that equally well explains PdD and NiH would obviously be superior, but if the "universal" explanation of PdD is *weaker* than the particular one, Occam's Razor does not apply, because that weakness will require additional explanation!


    In the film, I think Abd will be played by David Brent.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: hairykrishnaHave I missed something? Where's the danger? There are no neutrons or gammas so no rad hazard. Why not build a 50kW one?
    They heat up and break up violently. Apparently nobody in cold fusion understands *cooling* systems and heat exchangers. Except Rossi of course. He understands them all too well.

    I've always said they need a big bang, so to speak. But they refuse to do it. Just take a cell to the desert and have a huge explosion, measure the yield, voila!
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdWell, a *tad* exaggerated, but, yes. From the Arata effect, which seems fairly reliable and stable, and which has been confirmed to a degree, I figured that you could make a home hot water heater with $100,000 worth of palladium. Not terribly practical.
    Maybe not but very convincing. If properly tested. And long running without fresh fuel.

    Posted By: AbdStorms has concluded that there is only one mechanism, and that it will explain both PdD and NiH results.


    There are NiH results worth explaining? Whose are those? Where are they published?
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdI've warned against that as any kind of firm conclusion, because it's entirely possible that there is more than one mechanism. Rather, if a mechanism explains, say, PdD results, but not NiH, it should not be rejected on that basis. Another mechanism that equally well explains PdD and NiH would obviously be superior, but if the "universal" explanation of PdD is *weaker* than the particular one, Occam's Razor does not apply, because that weakness will require additional explanation!


    P(PdD) | P(NiH) < P(PdD+NiH) unless P(PdD+NiH) < P(PdD) | P(NiH)

    That was totally worth 78 words...From there he takes the square root of potato and multiplies it by Pepsi
  3.  
    Posted By: Abd]Well, a *tad* exaggerated, but, yes. From the Arata effect, which seems fairly reliable and stable, and which has been confirmed to a degree, I figured that you could make a home hot water heater with $100,000 worth of palladium. Not terribly practical. That was assuming that the effect would not become less reliable at higher temperatures. It might. Yes, the reaction generally seems to increase with temperature, but .... the material also "burns out." I.e, the nanoparticle palladium sinters, eventually stops working. You'd get all your palladium back and it could be reprocessed, but ... it's still way too expensive. This is a reason why the PdD FP Heat Effect is unlikely to be a basis for practical energy generation. But maybe someone will figure out a way. Swartz, with his Nanor, seems to have some decent power that might be scalable. But I haven't followed his work closely.

    The basic problem, as I"ve mentioned before, is that the effect is ureliable, which can mean great variation in heat output. A cell that has been "dead" can fairly abruptly start working, generating heat, sometimes, that outputs more energy than was put in, i.e., COP greater than 2. Or it does nothing, and predicting that, so far, has been hit-or-miss. So to get large power levels, and large sustained power levels are needed to make much helium, requires taking the risk of *very* large power levels. Vaporize your palladium, which is what happened to Pons and Fleischmann in 1984, you lose it, probably. Expensive. And vaporize your whole lab, which is not impossible, would mean that you'd lose your credibility, too.

    "Oh. You had an explosion. You must be desperate!"

    No, modest experiments with results clearly above noise are adequate for *science,* if confirmed. If you are not convinced on the science, you would not be convinced by an explosion, unless *everything * was extensively witnessed and validated by multiple observers. And ... those observers might be dead. It's a really poor trade-off, eh?


    What do you mean by home hot water heater? 15kW? Even if you suddenly get 3x that power by some miracle that's still manageable. Risk of death is ridiculous. Put the thing behind a few feet of concrete if you're worried. What's the most power anyone's supposedly managed?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    We've now got a poster called Abd
    -ul Rahman Lomax. To the Blab
    He's addicted it seems,
    For he types it by reams
    In a style that is more drab than fab.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: Abdd+d->4He, your example, isn't actually possible.

    That is *probably* correct. However, there are *conceivable* mechanisms. The big problem with dd fusion is that we already know what is likely to happen if you single-body cold-catalyze dd fusion, you get the same branching ratio as hot fusion, it's demonstrated by muon-catalyzed fusion. To be more precise, d-d fusion would be expected to generate neutrons and He-3, which are not observed. But we do not necessarily know all possible *mechanisms* for d-d fusion, which is why we cannot rule out d-d fusion with certainty. It's unlikely, though, hence other possibilities are explored, including multibody fusion in various forms, plus, for some -- very unlikely also -- neutron formation and activation.

    Nobody has demonstrated 4D fusion. It may well also be impossible - I haven't actually looked at it in any detail.

    Well it is *not* impossible and the real question is rate. Takahashi originally thought of mutlibody fusion as a possibility, but there was no evidence that it could occur at a significant rate. It does occur in stellar fusion, at a low rate. If the rate for 2-body fusion is 1/r, the rate for 3-body fusion might be roughly equivalent to 1/r^2. However, what would be more accurate would be a calculation of the probability of a second fusion within the lifetime of the nuclear excited state from the first fusion. Then, from this thinking, 4-body fusion would be very low in rate.

    So Takahashi decided to look for experimental evidence for multibody fusion. He bombarded PdD with deuterons at below the normal energies that can generate d-d fusion, and he studied the products, and found evidence for 3D fusion elevated above naive expectation by a factor of 10^26. That work, by the way, has not been replicated, and there is no sign that anyone has tried. I've seen the reaction of people in the field: "That's hot fusion, it has nothing to do with cold fusion."

    But it does. It shows that condensed matter conditions are very different from the plasma, drastically different. Encouraged, he started to examine the quantum field theory for multibody interactions. He started, apparently, with a symmetrical situation, a tetrahedral arrangement of two deuterium molecules, apparently at very low relative momentum. Basically, these are conditions for a Bose-Einstein condensate to form, a very small one. Physicists I"ve discussed this with seem to think that BECs might form at higher temperatures than expected, at low rate, Kim has published a BEC theory in Naturwissenschaften, so it's not considered *ridiculous* by physicists.

    Takahashi's finding is unique, to my knowledge, in that he predicts, from a physical configuration that might be *possible* under cold fusion conditions, fusion, and he predicts rate and time. 100% in a femtosecond after collapse ("condensation"). The collapse process takes about a femtosecond itself. Be-8 would result. Be-8 is known to decay to two alpha particles in a femtosecond or so.

    I looked at Takahashi's theory, and noticed that it requires the electrons be present and involved. His original work placed the fusion site as a "octahedral" lattice site. That's contained in the cubic palladium lattice. In the lattice, there is apparently no presence of the molecular form. So Takahashi's theory *requires* a surface reaction, where some level of confinement exists, but D2 is present, and I started to assert that. Takahashi started to assert the surface possibility, it's a small influence I had on this work.

    The theory is quite incomplete. I think he's working on the correct approach though. First of all, I think he studied the tetrahedral 4D case because the math is within reach. There is some ground for suspecting 6D fusion instead. Kim suspects larger BECs. Etc. But instead of looking at how the 4D tetrahedral configuration could arise, he's looking at what happens with predicted Be-8, and it's not necessarily a simple problem. He is studying possibe halo states, that might allow the Be-8 to remain without fissioning for longer than a femtosecond. More time is likely necessary to allow radiation of energy as low-energy photons, leaving a ground state decay to two alphas at a tolerable energy (45 KeV each).

    Bottom line, though *we do not know what mechanism is involved.* What we know, established beyond a reasonable doubt, is that helium is being produced with heat at roughly the deuterium fusion ratio. And if someone doubts that, the way is open to *once again* replicate that work, and to do it without simply wasting time, one would do it even more carefully, using special techniques to capture all the helium. (That's what's difficult, about half the helium is initially retained by the palladium, probably by ion-implantation from the surface reaction.)

    If CF is real, why not build a big one?

    For what purpose? It will not be more reliable because it is larger, it will simply be more dangerous. It will be impractical as a commercial application, so there is no motive there. The only reason to do it is to convince dodo-head skeptics, which is not enough of a motive to spend the several hundred thousand dollars that would be risked. And from what I've seen, skeptics would *still* not be convinced, quite likely. Especially if it exploded.

    If someone could produce helium in convincing quantities then maybe people would take it all a bit more seriously.

    Probably not. What's a "convincing quantity?" The ratio is 23.8 MeV/He-4. So to produce a mole of helium, 4 grams, would generate about 100 megawatt-hours, if I did the math right. If we can generate that much energy, we don't care about the helium. In what period of time do we want to generate this energy?

    When the quantities involved are below what most people consider sensible detection limits they're not all that convincing.

    The detection limits are *far below* what is detected. This is nuts. The difficulty is not in detecting the helium, it is capturing all of it. So results are above the 23.8 MeV level, as much as double it or so, depending on measures taken to capture and measure all the helium.

    A more reasonable argument, on the face, is that the helium is often below ambient levels, so it's an easy charge that the helium is leaked from ambient. However, two facts:

    1. The levels in some experiments rise above ambient, and enough energy has been released to explain and expect that. Generally, where helium levels have been continuously plotted, they do not slow in rise as ambient levels are approached, but remain proportional to generated energy. ("anomalous heat")
    2. There is no anomalous helium detected in otherwise identical experiments that don't generate heat, so-called "dead cells." That includes hydrogen controls. (That's a fact that was missed in the 2004 DoE report, they assumed that *all cells were generating energy.* It was a blatant misreading. There were hydrogen controls, no heat and no helium.)

    Leakage from ambient does not explain the correlation.