First results from LUX dark matter detector rule out some candidates

Oct 30, 2013
The Large Underground Xenon experiment installed 4,850 ft underground inside a 70,000 gallon water tank shield. The experiment is a 370 kg liquid xenon time projection chamber that aims to detect the faint interactions between WIMP dark matter and ordinary matter.

In its first three months of operation, the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment has proven itself to be the most sensitive dark matter detector in the world, scientists with the experiment announced today.

"LUX is blazing the path to illuminating the nature of ," Rick Gaitskell, professor of physics at Brown University and co-spokesperson for LUX. The 's location, more than a mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, offers a "supremely quiet" environment to detect the rare, weak between dark matter particles and ordinary matter, Gaitskell said.

The first results from the experiment's initial 90-day run were announced today during a seminar at the Sanford Lab in Lead, S.D.

"What we've done in these first three months of operation is look at how well the detector is performing, and we're extremely pleased with what we're seeing," said Gaitskell, one of the founders of the LUX experiment. "This first run demonstrates a sensitivity that is better than any previous experiment looking to detect dark matter particles directly."

With LUX's initial run complete, the team will now make a few adjustments to fine-tune the device's sensitivity in anticipation of a new 300-day run to begin in 2014.

Dark matter is thought to account for as much as 85 percent of the matter in the universe. But because it rarely interacts with other forms of matter, it has yet to be detected directly. The leading candidates for dark matter particles are called weakly interacting massive particles—WIMPS.

Theory and experimental results suggest that WIMPs could take either a high-mass or low-mass form. In the search for high-mass WIMPs weighing 40 times the mass of a proton, LUX has twice the sensitivity of any other dark matter direct-detection experiment, according to these new results. LUX also has greatly enhanced sensitivity to low-mass WIMPs, and new results suggest that potential detections of low-mass WIMPS by other dark matter experiments were likely the result of background radiation, not dark matter.

"There have been a number of dark matter experiments over the last few years that have strongly supported the idea that they're seeing events in the lowest energy bins of their detectors that could be consistent with the discovery of dark matter," Gaitskell said. "With the LUX, we have worked very hard to calibrate the performance of the detector in these lowest energy bins, and we're not seeing any evidence of there."

In the upcoming 300-day run, the LUX researchers hope either to detect dark matter definitively or to rule out a vast swath of parameter space where it might be found.

"Every day that we run a detector like this we are probing new models of dark matter," Gaitskell said. "That is extremely important because we don't yet understand the universe well enough to know which of the models is actually the correct one. LUX is helping to pin that down."

Elusive particles

Though dark matter has not yet been detected directly, scientists are fairly certain that it exists. Without its gravitational influence, galaxies and galaxy clusters would simply fly apart into the vastness of space. But because dark matter does not emit or reflect light, and its interactions with other forms of matter are vanishingly rare, it is exceedingly difficult to spot.

"To give some idea of how small the probability of having a dark matter particle interact, imagine firing one dark matter particle into a block of lead," Gaitskell said. "In order to get a 50-50 chance of the particle interacting with the lead, the block would need to stretch for about 200 light years—this is 50 times farther than the nearest star to the Earth aside from the sun. So it's an incredibly rare interaction."

Capturing those interactions requires an incredibly sensitive detector. The key part of the LUX is a third of a ton of supercooled xenon in a tank festooned with light sensors, each capable of detecting a single photon at a time. When a particle interacts with the xenon, it creates a tiny flash of light and an ion charge, both of which are picked up by the sensors.

To minimize extraneous interactions not due to dark matter, the detector must be shielded from background radiation and cosmic rays. For that reason, the LUX is located 4,850 feet underground, submerged in 71,600 gallons of pure de-ionized water.

But even in that fortress of solitude, occasional background interactions still happen. It's the job of LUX physicists to separate the signal from the noise.

Watching interactions, one by one

During its initial run, the LUX picked up xenon flashes in the energy region of interest for dark matter at a rate of about one per day. By looking carefully at the nature of each interaction, the researchers can tell which ones are from residual and which could be due to dark matter.

"Dark matter will interact with the nucleus of xenon atom, while most forms of radioactive background tend to interact with the outer electrons," Gaitskell explained. "Each of those interactions produces a recoil, either of the nucleus or the electrons. So at the rate of about one a day, we see these interactions and test to see if they are consistent with a nuclear recoil or an electron recoil. So far every event we have seen has looked like a conventional electromagnetic background event."

But as the detector runs for longer periods, the odds that a dark matter interaction will be captured increase. And the LUX, says Gaitskell, has the sensitivity to catch it.

"LUX is a huge step forward. Within the first few minutes of switching it on, we surpassed the sensitivity of the first dark matter detectors I was involved with 25 years ago," he said. "Within a few days, it surpassed the of sum total of all previous dark matter direct search experiments I have ever worked on. This first LUX run is more sensitive than any previous search conducted and now sets us up perfectly for the 300-day run to follow."

Collaborative effort

The LUX scientific collaboration includes 17 research universities and national laboratories in the United States, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Russia. The work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the State of South Dakota. At Brown, 18 postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, and undergraduates have worked on the project.

Brown University research associate Simon Fiorucci, postdoctoral researcher Monica Pangilinan, and graduate students Jeremy Chapman, David Malling, and Carlos Faham have been working on the LUX project since its inception. Fiorucci is now the science coordination manager for the project and has been instrumental in delivering the new science. Chapman and Malling's Brown University theses contain the primary analysis used for this latest result. "We are very excited that our thesis work has culminated in this world-leading result," Chapman said.

"Support from the administration at Brown was instrumental in the LUX getting the experiment off the ground and enabling us to maintain a leading position in the experiment." Gaitskell said. "The Brown group has been extremely important to making this experiment be the success that it is."

Explore further: In former gold mine, scientists lie in wait for dark matter

Related Stories

Mining for dark matter

Apr 23, 2008

While much of the attention in the world of high-energy physics is focused on the Large Hadron Collider nearing completion at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva, Switzerland, other physicists, including ...

Recommended for you

Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

14 hours ago

The Daya Bay Collaboration, an international group of scientists studying the subtle transformations of subatomic particles called neutrinos, is publishing its first results on the search for a so-called ...

Novel approach to magnetic measurements atom-by-atom

18 hours ago

Having the possibility to measure magnetic properties of materials at atomic precision is one of the important goals of today's experimental physics. Such measurement technique would give engineers and physicists an ultimate ...

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

21 hours ago

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.4 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2013
Caution is warranted before applying these results too broadly. Remember in the year or two leading up to the Higgs Boson announcement that a number of mass windows were being closed out as exclusionary zones. Finding nothing in one place doesn't mean there's nothing anywhere
theon
1.2 / 5 (23) Oct 30, 2013
Great plot, tension built up into the heavens. Need more than one hour to say they found completely nothing. Let's abolish theater, we now have science. And we go on, repeating the same ceremony over more than three decades, just send the money. I couldn't live without, "Never never gonna give you up" (you wimpy WIMP).
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 30, 2013
. And we go on, repeating the same ceremony over more than three decades, just send the money.

I don't think you undertsand what science is: It is a serach at the very frontier of the unknown. let that sink in for a second: the unknonwn.
If every experiement would always succeed it wouldn't be the unknown but simply measuring the known (and hence wouldn't advance knowledge one bit).

Demanding that only those scienctific endeavours be funded of which you know a priori that they're going to succeeed is completely nonsensical. And even NOT finding something gives us information - as the article quite plainly points out.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2013
More made up gafternast from Zephyr. Every article about physics draws a comment from this pretender about his stupid theory. This is the only forum that allows him to spout his nonsense, and he spouts it endlessly.

Ridiculous!
pepe2907
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2013
Franklins, did you miss quantum mechanics completely? Or how do you understand the particle-wave idea? Probability of position in phase space? Smearing?
DonGateley
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2013
Franklins just enjoys abuse and trolls for it endlessly and prolifically.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (16) Oct 30, 2013
More made up gafternast from Zephyr. Every article about physics draws a comment from this pretender about his stupid theory. This is the only forum that allows him to spout his nonsense, and he spouts it endlessly.

Ridiculous!


The AWT also explains Obama's troubles with the Tea Party, the increased frequency of hurricanes, the major earthquakes in the Pacific Rim, and my very favorite: Global warming. Now that is a TOE.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2013
Or how do you understand the particle-wave idea?

He thinks of it like water waves - as a physical up-and-down motion. Kinda explains why he gets everything so utterly wrong.
So according to you it's better to spend billions in futile research?

Sometimes research is futile. That's just the nature of research. But that's far from saying its totally random whether some research pans out or not. There is such a thing as 'best guess' which is investigated first. Sometimes the best guess is still wrong (e.g. as when people funded cold fusion research). But when you're dealing with the unknown occasional failure can't be avoided.
Ducku
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 31, 2013
[There is such a thing as 'best guess' which is investigated first. Sometimes the best guess is still wrong (e.g. as when people funded cold fusion research). But when you're dealing with the unknown occasional failure can't be avoided.


Not funding cold fusion research is probably the largest blunder ever made in modern science. However, some researchers refused to budge, and have continued ever since Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons gave their famous press conference on budgets to low to make fast progress. But with time progress have been made anyway, and in the next few years actually working products based on this research will hit the market place. Hopefully those who did all the damage back then are still with us and will get their deserved treatment for destroying the lives of two of our best chemists.
LarryD
2 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2013
I'm with the pholosophical side on this on. No pain, no gain! That principle is pretty much what antialias_physorg posted, sometimes you get it wrong but if you don't try, you don't know!
It looks to me that DM/DE are accepted problems in the mainstream so if these researchers keep looking for DM (along with others around the wolrd) and still get zero then either the method is not right or...that will be a decision that scientists will have to make.
However, if the results are zero it means that we are no nearer to explaining the mass discrepancy and this is bound to raise an eyebrow or two with those who provide funding. But we humans are resilient and I'm confident that someone will find a clue, perhaps even by mistake or luck. I mean, surely the potential here is enormous and the 'spin-offs' could be equally so.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2013
Not funding cold fusion research is probably the largest blunder ever made in modern science.

It was funded. Amply. This has been pointed out to you.
(And since there are people who claim to have working machines reday for sale there is no more funding needed.)

Cold fusion was one of those best guesses (at the time) that just didn't pan out. It was perfectly valid to fund research in that areaback then. It is not valid to do so now (or at the very least at a very reduced level).

However, if the results are zero it means that we are no nearer to explaining the mass discrepancy and this is bound to raise an eyebrow or two with those who provide funding.

If the results remain zero then it's just "back to the drawing board" (which is - believe it or not - happens in 90% of the cases. Getting it wrong is FAR more common than getting it right. Especially the first few tries.)
TimESimmons
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 31, 2013
... dark matter has not yet been detected directly...

... because there is no dark matter. The universe contains a thin atmosphere of antigravity matter.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
LarryD
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
antialias_physorg, yes but what I meant was funding isn't infinite. Ha! only got to look at projects like the old fashioned Bristol Brabazon, we 'Brits' got it wrong that time and in fact some Londoners still use 'Bristol Brabazon' for experiments instead of 'it won't off the ground'.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2013
what I meant was funding isn't infinite.

Sure. That's why we have comissions that decide how to allot funds. These comissions are advised by scientists. You have to appreciate that before science is done NO experts on the subject exist. Only experts in related fields. So their best guess is naturally not perfect (though still much better than a layman's guess)

'Bristol Brabazon'

That's engineering - not science. (And the engineering part wasn't a failure, as the plane actually flew). In commercial ventures the technical aspects are only of minor import when the determining factors when it comes to success (For example: Beta vs. VHS, Apple products vs. real computers, etc. ).

Science - at least at the fundamental stage where you still don't know whether something works at all - isn't a commercial venture.
Ducku
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2013
Not funding cold fusion research is probably the largest blunder ever made in modern science.

It was funded. Amply. This has been pointed out to you.
(And since there are people who claim to have working machines reday for sale there is no more funding needed.)


Yes, there is more funding needed since the physical processes behind are not fully understood although bits and pieces beginning to be pieced together. (keywords such as nanoplasmonics, bose-einstein condensates and similar topics are imo the best trail to follow at the moment, and research into these areas will eventually converge onto this target if the trail is the right one) Targeted research into the cold-fusion aspect of these topics are mostly privately funded.
Ducku
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2013
Continued:

Another reason for publicly funding cold fusion research is that even if working devices are soon on the market, a broad investigation of the phenomena will give better implementations faster. Even if the Wright Brothers made the first flight in 1903(?) it was not exactly an optimized design.
Ducku
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2013
Continued once more:

Remember also that this is a technology which, if properly implemented and understood, can replace all existing energy sources, is non polluting, and will bring the price of energy down to almost nothing. Global warming will be a non issue, there will be no more need for research into billion dollar fusion power plants, and there will be no more need for countless billions of dollars being spent on oil exploration and so on.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2013
Yes, there is more funding needed

Maybe more funding is needed - bit no more will be allotted. The research failed to produce anything with the funding it got. At some point you have to call it quits and move on to more promising areas of research given that funds for research aren't unlimited.

If the research areas you indicate will 'naturally converge' to that then no extra funding is neede in any case. (Though I doubt it, as they have absolutely nothing to do with cold fusion. Just throwing out buzzwords without knowledge isn't going to argue your case)

Remember also that this is a technology which, if properly implemented and understood, can replace all existing energy sources

A technology that doesn't work replaces exactly one other technology: a paperweight
Ducku
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2013
Yes, there is more funding needed

Maybe more funding is needed - bit no more will be allotted. The research failed to produce anything with the funding it got. At some point you have to call it quits and move on to more promising areas of research given that funds for research aren't unlimited.


Tell that to the guys building billion dollar tokamaks.

If the research areas you indicate will 'naturally converge' to that then no extra funding is neede in any case. (Though I doubt it, as they have absolutely nothing to do with cold fusion. Just throwing out buzzwords without knowledge isn't going to argue your case)


Some info can be found here for those interested. This is absolutely not the last word though. http://www.physic...re-1.pdf

bluehigh
1 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
Why don't we search for pink unicorns at Pluto?


Some of us know pink unicorns don't like Pluto. I'm told that the probability of focusing the phase smear for unicorn detection requires enormous energy. You start by spending billions of tax payers money to eliminate particular probabilities thereby establishing limits of nonexistence. Then you conduct an experiment that due to its expense is unlikely to be replicated.

Pink unicorns require Higgs bosons and dark matter for sustenance and there's none on Pluto.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2013
Tell that to the guys building billion dollar tokamaks.

The difference is that tokamaks aren't completely without a basis. Tokamaks have been built before and fusion has been demonstrated to work in them since 1969. It's always easier to get funding for something that has
a) previous demonstration of feasibility
and
b) a solid theoretical background

Cold fusion lacks both and so it's (unsurprisingly) hard to get funding for it. (It did get funding for a while because Pons and Fleischmann seemingly had demonstrated a) but had to withdraw that when it wasn't reproduicible)
bluehigh
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2013
... And there's the brain dead stumbling down the sidewalk ... You gotta believe me I'm a Scientist, I know the truth, BELIEVE me, repent ignorant ones, Dark Stuff is real.

Just trust the new high priests or burn in um er .. Hell.
pepe2907
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2013
"...spending billions of tax payers money.."
Tax payer's money are for spend, get it? :) And they will be spend. Always. The only question is how to be spend better.
Or - are you against taxes at all? If yes, then are you against, let say - the law - in general - let just abolish it completely /anyway without taxes it cannot be enforced which will turn it in a nonsense from the juridical point of view/.
But let's don't turn it completely to politics...
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2013
antialias_physorg, 'That's engineering - not science...' Well, okay but you have missed my point. No matter.
I am not sure what the debate is about here and I agree with most of your posting. There is always risk in any venture and science at the cutting edge depends on what those around the table feel is worthwhile. With DM & DE it's even more difficult for obvious reasons. It would be great if life was 'perfect' and we could simply research whatever we wanted but that's an impossible dream. Our knowledge is in some ways, just like the Universe, expanding (or has expanded) and with that so many more questions to be answered.
I am all for research in DM,DE etc but then I'd like to see more research on diseases. Well, I can't have it every way and some things will get funding and others won't...and today I don't envy those that have to choose. I have been around the 'political' table and I know what it feels like to have a science project outvoted by a social one.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2013

I am all for research in DM,DE etc but then I'd like to see more research on diseases.

Well, that's the old argument about "we shouldn't be spending money on sattelites/space stations until we've solved all problems here on Earth"

But we can't do 'infinite science' in one area just by throwing infinite money at it. Reasons being:
1) There is only a limited number of scientists in any one specialty. You can't just tell a dark matter scientist to "go research better cures for cancer". That's not how it works. Scientific training takes a decade (at least) - and then you're a specialist in one small area with competence in one or two others and passing knowledge of a few more. Scientists are NOT rennaissance men.
2) Science is a cumulative effort. Knowedge builds upon previous knowledge. Doing a lot in parallel (with infinite resources) is not as effective as one might think in getting profound results. It's one step at a time and step after step.
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2013
Though dark matter has not yet been detected directly, scientists are fairly certain that it exists. Without its gravitational influence, galaxies and galaxy clusters would simply fly apart into the vastness of space. But because dark matter does not emit or reflect light, and its interactions with other forms of matter are vanishingly rare, it is exceedingly difficult to spot.


This is clearly conjecture, as there is no good reason to believe "Dark Matter" is actually "Matter" at all.

In fact, it may be nothing at all, except an error in existing theories, or an error in observation.

Maybe it's Pixie Dust, for lack of a better term, and by God, Pixie doesn't need to be matter or energy. It can be something completely unknown or incomprehensible to man.
Zephir_fan
Nov 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
1 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2013
On infinite funding- We have the printing press, duh.
Ask Ben Bernanke. He prints up $85 billion for his friends on wall street. Every month. Month after month. QE to Infinity and Beyond.
Don't give me this "we haven't the funds" claptrap. We just choose to spend it supporting the lifestyles of the ignorant.
Rant over.
My money is on the "Constants" not being as constant as we would like to believe. For instance the speed of light varied between 1908 and 1949. This embarassment was fixed by defining the meter in terms of the speed of light.- Problem sorted. So now your tape measure shrinks an expands.
The things we do to protect our egos!
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2013
This is clearly conjecture, as there is no good reason to believe "Dark Matter" is actually "Matter" at all.

There is a reason. We observe a gravitational influence and currently we know of only one thing that can do that: matter.
So it's natural to have a form of matter as the first theory to test. If that fails we'll look somewhere else.

We can test for matter. if it's 'Pixie dust' then we'll have to come up with a test for that before seriously contemplating that conjecture.

He prints up $85 billion for his friends on wall street.

You may have heard of something called 'inflation'. Just printing more money does not create more resources.
Pkunk_
1.4 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2013
I think it's funny how the article says how the detector has "ruled out some canidates". The real meat of the article is the phrase - "So far every event we have seen has looked like a conventional electromagnetic background event."
Which means they were searching for Dark Matter and they found nothing, nada , zilch. Perhaps they are looking in the wrong dimension ?
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2013
What? Inflation is caused by printing money? How would I know:-I'm from Zimbabwe.
Money printing devalues the currency.
The money printing by the private organization, the FED, is a transfer of wealth from everybody to the receivers of the printed cash- The Banks on Wall Street.
So now you know why you are feeling poor, and why we squabble over crumbs from the table.

Can you think of any reason why the Big End of Town might not not want the Mighty Petro-Dollar to be undermined by a cheap source of energy?- such as Cold Fusion.
It is all very simple.
A conspiracy? Not really. But a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2013
antialias_physorg, yes sure...one only has to look at what happened in the African states where people were taking taking a bag full of notes just buy a loaf of bread...but then I have never worked or been to, Wall St. If Egleton had suggested a political influence on where the money goes (from Wall st.) then that might be more plausible.
Well since Halloween has passed then perhaps we'll need to wait till next year for pixie dust test?
I have seen a lot of AWT posts on this site but very lacking in SString ideas and I wonder why that is.
Is there a place for compactified dimensions/M-theory in DM/DE. Could p-Branes fit...just a thought? (have to look up my maths on this one though)
Benni
1 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2013
There is a reason. We observe a gravitational influence and currently we know of only one thing that can do that: matter.


Not so: energy fields also have "gravitational influence", Einstein predicted & proved gravitational lensing occurs as light passes massive bodies. In other words "energy" has it's own gravity field or such fields could not be attracted to massive bodies. In fact most of the measured excess gravity is not attributed to Dark Matter but rather to Dark Energy.

So it's natural to have a form of matter as the first theory to test. If that fails we'll look somewhere else.


You bet we may need to look elsewhere, to Dark Energy.

Zephir_fan
Nov 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bee_farms_7
1 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2013
i dont know anything, so thought i'd write a post. i have no math skills beyond very basic.
i read about these dark matter and dark energy and expanding universe ideas. since i don't understand it, i thought it might be a plus to guessing at some possible ideas about the extra gravity and the extra energy. something is pulling on the world from the outside of the world ?
OR maybe
Here goes: what if there is some way the world is actually gaining some sort of "form" as we might think of it (lack of a better word). -- a form or structure is being gained -- like when synergy occurs == where 1+1 = 3 ===== this could even be something like "God" (again, lack of better word).....the way that 3 dimensions can have a 4th dimension affixed to it somehow --
likewise "thought" seems to be some sort of added something ---- maybe dark matter and dark energy is due to the emergence of things in the world like "thought" --- exerting somehow some influence --- adding extra form sort of -- or extra
bee_farms_7
1 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2013
--- maybe matter it isn't really speeding away -- maybe it's more like getting less amorph (i forgot the word) --- and getting more formed or structure by things like thought --
"Thought" has no reason to be here --- but it is here -- we are thinking --- (well, at least you guys are thinking haha). Thought comes to some avail somehow -- it creates something somehow
bee_farms_7
1 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2013
so maybe you could say - just like there isn't any physics for dark matter or dark energy ---
so too there isnt any physics for thought --- what is the physics of thought? thought itself could have an added sort of affixed extra dimension too --- maybe -- who knows i dont know.
it's something else besides just what we think --- we cant understand it because we cant think of it --- without thought, there maybe would be no gravity --- something like that maybe.
how do you know it isnt god? (lack better word)
LarryD
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2013
bee_farms_7 think you missed one out. What if DM/DE are Time Accumulative Transtions, TAT (deliberately meant to confuse you with the use of 'AT'). Maybe if we add up all the past unverse states would they account for the 71%+ of DE? On second thoughts, what would define one state from the next....mmm better do some more thinking on that.
Ducku
1 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2013
Remember also that this is a technology which, if properly implemented and understood, can replace all existing energy sources

A technology that doesn't work replaces exactly one other technology: a paperweight


The excess heat effect from various metals and hydrogen or deuterium is well documented and those who have actually investigated it (instead of relying on faulty consensus) know that it's real. The imho best proof to date is this report: http://www.elfors...3913.pdf

For some reason I have been forbid to post more than once an hour, thats what happens when you disagree with mainline theory, you get shut down. (Just like Pons and Fleischman was, read - http://www.infini...port.pdf )
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2013
The excess heat effect from various metals and hydrogen or deuterium is well documented

If you mean the latest 'demonstration' where they had a huge power feed connected to the apparatus at all times...yeah..that was sooooo convincing. (And the people pulled in to witness it were not physicists for some reason. One was a friggin' med tech!)
Ducku
1 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2013

If you mean the latest 'demonstration' where they had a huge power feed connected to the apparatus at all times...yeah..that was sooooo convincing. (And the people pulled in to witness it were not physicists for some reason. One was a friggin' med tech!)


Thats right, there where no obvious flaws with the setup or measurements, so attack the messenger. You got your "facts" wrong about them too.

Full bios here: http://www.mail-a...825.html

Hanno Essén: associate professor of theoretical physics and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society
Torbjörn Hartman: Senior Research Engineer - essentially a radiation specialist.
Bo Höistad: Professor Nuclear Physics
Lars Tegnér: Professor Emeritus Electrical engineering
Giuseppe Levi: Physicist at the University of Bologna.
Evelyn Foschi: X-ray specialist
Roland Pettersson: Senior lecturer Analytical Chemistry, Metallurgy

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2013
Thats right, there where no obvious flaws with the setup or measurements

The obvious flaw was that they said they need no more power feed to it after it was started - yet did not disconnect the power cable.

Now I don't know what that tells you - but to me that spells 'fraud' in sky-high neon colors.
Zephir_fan
Nov 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ducku
1 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2013
Thats right, there where no obvious flaws with the setup or measurements

The obvious flaw was that they said they need no more power feed to it after it was started - yet did not disconnect the power cable.

Now I don't know what that tells you - but to me that spells 'fraud' in sky-high neon colors.


Could you please supply a reference where they (or anyone else) have said that? The e-cat needs power for control and keeping the reaction going, and always have. I have newer heard anyone report otherwise, and I have been keeping a very close eye one the development for last 1.5 years. The input power was measured with state of the art equipment and was obviously much lower than what was needed to keep the temperature at the measured level.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2013
The you didn't catch the last demo by Rossi - where they had someone 'measure' that no power was flowing through the control cable (which also didn't control anything since it was only hooked up to a standard power outlet - and not to any kind of 'control'.)

Despite supposedly not supplying any power it wasn't disconnected. Doesn't that strike you as odd at all?
Ducku
1 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2013
The you didn't catch the last demo by Rossi - where they had someone 'measure' that no power was flowing through the control cable (which also didn't control anything since it was only hooked up to a standard power outlet - and not to any kind of 'control'.)

Despite supposedly not supplying any power it wasn't disconnected. Doesn't that strike you as odd at all?


Did you read the report at all? ( http://www.elfors...3913.pdf ) This is the report from a test of Rossi's device, the last one known to the public. I know well what the critics against the measurements was, and yours is not one of them since the power was monitored continuously for the whole test on all phases. If you can give me one of the real arguments against the measurement I will discuss them, if not, you are not serious.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Nov 04, 2013

I have seen a lot of AWT posts on this site but very lacking in SString ideas and I wonder why that is.
Is there a place for compactified dimensions/M-theory in DM/DE. Could p-Branes fit...just a thought? (have to look up my maths on this one though)


Kudos if you are able to cook up string maths for this dark matter thing.
No kudos for comparing utter crackpot bull AWT with well respected theoretical physics.

I don't know if the very silent M-theory/String camp is silently calculating or interest had run at a halt after not detecting the eagerly awaited signs of supersymmetry at LHC.

As far as I know, string theory coughed up WIMP's, supercold neutrons and other dimensional branes as candidates for DM. Apart from the yet improvable extra dimensions, the first 2 also have a place in the standard model.

So with my limited knowledge I assume that strings would just make things unnecessarily complicated.

Zephir_fan
Nov 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LarryD
Nov 05, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.