A great little MIT video

A small (under 10 minute) video about the MIT course has been put up.   I like it because it is short enough, and it really summarizes some of the reasons that others have had so much trouble getting LENR going.

BTW, if you want the whole video footage of the course, please follow the following links:

January 27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVoxxcEWkAo (MS at 2:01:29)
January 28: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_PZh79zliI (MS at 2:06:10)
January 29: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFmzKVkgFtM (MS at 2:02:40)
January 30: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkPxOhjNlgM (MS at 2:03:30)
January 31: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7NMQLvATo (MS at 2:14:50)

Thanks, of course, to e-catworld.com for putting me on to this — again.

Don’t worry, Craig, MIT is just an institute of technology, its not a real scientific facility or anything.

<— To main blog

About these ads

7 Responses to “A great little MIT video”

  1. Roger Bird Says:

    One of the best videos on LENR

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – true, and a nice understated sense of humour too. I’ll need to get the time to watch the 15 hours of video, as well.

      I’m trying not to sound pompous here, but this does look to be a historic moment, though in reality that was last year when Mitch Swartz ran a Stirling engine from a NANOR device. Somehow that seems to have been missed by the mainstream physicists, government etc.. Can it be ignored now?

  2. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Yes, it is sort of understated and humorous, but it also oversimplified and biased. Hundreds of scientists tried to duplicate Pons and Fleishman’s results; not just the ones at MIT. There was real enthusiasm and great expectation. Pons and Fleishman themselves continued working for years in France at a Toyota laboratory where they were well supported. The fact that their results could not be replicated was neither due to any scientific narrow-mindedness nor to any conspiracy. Has something changed now? Perhaps the materials have improved or perhaps the required conditions are better understood. I don’t know but it would be wonderful.

    • brucefast Says:

      Hello Peter. Nice to have you comment again. Based on what you have said in the past, I do believe that you and yours gave Pons and Fleischmann a good hard try. I have also watched the the Pons, Fleischmann memorial project (quantumheat.org) struggle to reproduce the effects. They have had the advantage of direct access to Celani’s work, yet getting reproduction has been very hard come by.

      Until recently NASA had been claiming that they had reproduced Pons and Fleischmann back in 1989. While it is obvious that reproducing this effect is not easy, it has always puzzled me that the positive reproductions were dis-considered in light of the negative findings.

      I was in the middle of commenting about NASA continuing to report that they had produced positive results back in 1989. I went off to get references for it. The page I had linked to earlier (see: http://nickelpower.org/2011/11/16/skepticism-a-cost-benefit-analysis/) stated that NASA was saying:
      “Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat … such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals” (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm)

      However, when I examine the reference link, it now reads:
      Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability.

      The reference to the date of 1989 has been removed. Interesting.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Peter – as I understand it the best success was achieved with a particular batch of Palladium from Engelhardts that was not up to their normal standard of purity, and even from this batch there were variations among the samples. Another source of difficulty was that P+F did not really specify that you needed to run the experiment at least 3 months 24/7 before starting to see any anomalies. In hindsight it’s obvious that there would have been major problems in replicating.

      Although there are quite a few theories as to the why, you probably appreciate better than I do that so far none of them really hit the mark. To get to a good theory, we really need something that works every time – switch it on and it goes. It looks to me that even the NANORs have a fair degree of variation as to response, and possibly not all the ones Dr. Swartz makes actually work. He might give details as to yield in the course, but I haven’t yet watched the videos. A good theory as to why it happens would also help in making something that works every time, of course. Still, Dr. Swartz has done a lot of work to improve the knowledge of what is needed to make something that works.

      Whereas with Rossi and the others it is easy to discount the measurements as puffery and bad measurements (and this may in fact be true) you can’t do the same with Dr. Swartz’s data. You can even buy one from him and measure it yourself. Probably costs a lot of money (figure of $30K mentioned?) but any Skeptic could in fact go buy one and test it. For myself, I’ll just have to assume that it works as specified since it’s pretty inconceivable that MIT would allow the continued association if there was any doubt about the veracity of the NANOR experiments.

      Noting the solid work that has gone into the characterisation of the NANOR ingredients and the regime for running it, and that there is still a variation between individual units (and likely some that don’t work), I’d think that the conditions for running still depend on some unknown parameter. This could be a precise size of particle, or shape, or plating-thickness, or could be something we haven’t thought of yet. If you then extrapolate that difficulty in getting a fuel that will run every time to the other LENR/CF players such as Rossi, DGP, etc. then we can expect that they would be seeing the same difficulties in fuel manufacture. Possibly such problems extend further, and within a batch some samples work and some don’t. This will likely remain the case until we know exactly what conditions are required on the nano scale.

      We need a lot more theoreticians thinking about the problem. While it was Rossi et al doing dubious demonstrations it was not unreasonable to believe it was just a fraud, but by now the experimental evidence looks to me to be unassailable. It happens. Why?

  3. Roger Bird Says:

    Ce vrei să spui? Ce este NTR?

  4. Craig Binns Says:

    NTR este “nimic de raportat” (Nothing To Report)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: