self looped motor generator in the Philippines

[JouleSeeker]

I am not claiming this works but will go through the motions of testing it and reporting back
The history as you know is 100% fail. However a lot of people are interested in devices like this. I like to nip them in the bud early before they end up like a Noble gas engine or Yilditx.
The inventor has honorable intentions at least.
Mark

You mean, except for the NRL data showing anomalous "excess heat" production in gas-loaded metals and in electrolytic cells, right?  Anomalous heat accompanied by RF generation but (so far) no nuclear products.

To be reported on at the upcoming ICCF-18 in nine days... 

Dr. David Kidwell et al.:

Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research at the Naval Research Laboratory
D.A. Kidwell1, D.D. Dominguez1, A.E. Moser2, J.H. He2, K.S. Grabowski1, G.K. Hubler1 C.A. Carosella1, C. Cetina2 and D.L. Knies1 1Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375 USA 2NOVA Research, Inc., Alexandria, VA
We have explored the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) for about eight years focusing on transmutation, electrochemistry, and gas loading with the latter two being the most fruitful. In electrochemistry, palladium foil is loaded with deuterium in a closed electrochemical cell contained in a calorimeter. Occasionally, excess energy is produced that is much larger than can be accounted for by chemistry or the electrical input into the system. Unfortunately, the poor reproducibility (<6%) prevented discovery of the trigger for this excess heat. In gas loading, palladium nanoparticles are pressurized with deuterium. While the resultant heat is very reproducible, it is much lower than from electrochemical experiments and therefore harder to characterize as unconventional chemistry. In both approaches to LENR only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established.

     Science is data driven. Once a hypothesis is formed, the most important scientific task is to disprove the hypothesis. Only after failure to find conflicting data is a hypothesis accepted as likely correct, but that acceptance can change on a moments notice when new data arises. Although simple in concept, LENR experiments have subtle pitfalls to trap the more casual researcher, and much of our effort has gone into uncovering these pitfalls. Through a historical perspective, I will discuss the application of the scientific method to selected results and how incorrect conclusions could have been easily made. In contrast, we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention.

What do you think of this, Mark, TK, MH, everyone:

"only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established.....  we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."

This is Dr Steven Jones and I have spoken to one of the co-authors (Graham Hubler) and he has shared data with me that looks compelling - their earlier data even looks darn solid!  Just wait 9 days more.

[markdansie]

@JouleSeeker
I was referring to self looped motor/generators.
I believe their is something to LENR and have seen experiments first hand. Over 100 million dollars has been spent on LENR research in the last two decades. However as I have been stating in the last 3 years that although many institutions and companies have been demonstrating events and data supporting LENR, no one has managed to self loop it or engineer it into a worthwhile device.
I hope these engineering issues are sorted soon and we see something useful.
Mean time other alternative energy technologies are booming and gaining momentum in many countries around the world. So I am not sure, apart from heating applications where LENR will have a role given current output levels. No one is buying Rossi machines at the moment because hey are not economically feasible,


PS Steven Jones...show me the data?
Mark

[JouleSeeker]

@JouleSeeker
I was referring to self looped motor/generators.
I believe their is something to LENR and have seen experiments first hand. Over 100 million dollars has been spent on LENR research in the last two decades. However as I have been stating in the last 3 years that although many institutions and companies have been demonstrating events and data supporting LENR, no one has managed to self loop it or engineer it into a worthwhile device.
I hope these engineering issues are sorted soon and we see something useful.
Mean time other alternative energy technologies are booming and gaining momentum in many countries around the world. So I am not sure, apart from heating applications where LENR will have a role given current output levels. No one is buying Rossi machines at the moment because hey are not economically feasible,


PS Steven Jones...show me the data?
Mark

Fair enough, Mark.  I quoted from the abstract: the talk will be in 9 days and hopefully I'll be able to show the latest data after that talk. 

A few clarifications:
1.  JouleSeeker = that's me, Steven Jones
2. The abstract says ""only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established....."  which means the anomalous heat may NOT be NUCLEAR in origin, at all.  Not fusion, not LENR. 
3.  Note the way they word the last sentence: "
  "we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."
An "unknown source of energy", not claiming LENR/nuclear you see, although they refer to LENR research.
4.  My opinion -- its a slow progression, from "cold d-d fusion" which the heat was clearly not, to LENR, and now to "unknown source of energy."

[markdansie]

@Jouleseeker
Thanks you raise some interesting points. Lets wait and see
Mark

[TinselKoala]

What do you think of this, Mark, TK, MH, everyone: Quote
"only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established.....  we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."

Really? You really want to know what I think of that statement? I think it's a remarkable logical fallacy.

They cannot explain their results, having not found "artifacts" that could explain them,  therefore they "must" conclude that an unknown source of energy exists.

NO.... they WANT to conclude that, so they do. But in actual fact, they cannot explain their results, therefore they cannot conclude ANYTHING except that they have unexplained (not unexplainable) results. They cannot use results whose causes they cannot understand to support their hypothesis !!

The street is wet outside my house; I know this because the dog is wet and the newspaper she just brought in is also soaked. Since I cannot find any other reason for the street to be wet, I must conclude that it is raining outside, or has done so quite recently. Right?

Of course this is not right. Perhaps I didn't actually go outside to look, and so I failed to notice that the sky is blue, the sun is hot and the kids have opened the fire hydrant and the street is wet for that reason.

I don't know what the evidence indicates, it's not my speciality nor is it my particular area of interest. I've read enough scientific reports to know that they frequently err, even in describing the actual data generated, so for unusual claims, if it is "big science" that I can't approach personally I have to wait for good replications and the test of time, before I can decide upon the reality of what is claimed. However, I know a bogus conclusion when I see one, and whether the actual case IS or IS NOT that CF/LENR exists, this "must conclude" thing is a fallacy and should be withdrawn, as it presents an entirely false view of what the data even _could_ indicate, much less what it does indicate.