10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[tomclarke]

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/LENRMain.pdf

Here is the only properly written account of the experiment I have seen. Results are conclusively negative for beta expected by the hypothesised LENR. Lead shielding included (it would not be enough if this reaction ws happening).

Energy output is not fully considered except to point out that for 30kg (observer gesstimate) reaction vessel weight, unknown contents, you would need several weeks output to rule out chemical causes.

Best wishes, Tom

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/ ... 9269v1.pdf

Here is the Windom-Larson rebuttal attempting to prove that nuclear gamma radiation is absorbed by heavy (fast moving unbound) electrons on metallic hydride surfaces.

Do you see any flaws in this argument?

The gamma Ray absorption issue:
In [1] a mechanism is proposed to explain a puzzling observation made in the field of LENR: the absence of γ Rays emission when nuclear reactions occur. The interaction of the γ Rays with the heavy electrons present in the lattice (following a neutron capture nuclear reaction), could lower their path to less than a nanometer, thus preventing them to escape from the lattice.

Indeed, it is stated in [5] p.634, that no γ Rays emission was observed during the runs, despite the expectation of an intensity of some 10 13 Bq. This seems to be in accordance with the Widom/Larsen working hypothesis: heavy electrons and protons producing ultra low momentum neutrons that in turn react with elements present in the cathode, yielding transmuted products and γ Rays, their emission being not detectable because absorbed by the lattice. But γ Rays should be detectable after dismantling the experiment: the Widom-Larsen process resembles NAA analysis in terms of γ Rays emission, and at least for NAA elements, some sizeable and lengthy emission should be observed. This not the case, no emission being detected after dismantling of the experiment [5] p.635

This is a third aspect in which the Widom-Larsen working hypothesis is not confirmed by experiment.

from
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/ ... itique.pdf

Which comments on the rest of the Widom Larsen ideas as well.

[Nik]

Uh, if gammas were adequately blocked by such a device, it would be very, very handy in other applications, such as medical gamma cameras, spacecraft, 'hot' isotope handling etc etc...

Perhaps they just haven't thought of trying...

[Enginerd]

Uh, if gammas were adequately blocked by such a device, it would be very, very handy in other applications, such as medical gamma cameras, spacecraft, 'hot' isotope handling etc etc...

Not only that, if this device is indeed perfect at blocking gammas, it means it is perfect at absorption of gammas... Sounds like a, quite literally, perfect solution for Bremsstrahlung energy loss. Just use stick some metallic hydride surfaces in your fusion device and you can perfectly reclaim all Bremsstrahlung energy as heat.

Much simpler, and far more efficient, than the many layers of thin foil proposed by the Focus Fusion folk for gradually absorbing Bremsstrahlung energy. I should patent the idea and make a bundle.

[Axil]

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/LENRMain.pdf

Here is the only properly written account of the experiment I have seen. Results are conclusively negative for beta expected by the hypothesised LENR. Lead shielding included (it would not be enough if this reaction ws happening).

Energy output is not fully considered except to point out that for 30kg (observer gesstimate) reaction vessel weight, unknown contents, you would need several weeks output to rule out chemical causes.

Best wishes, Tom

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/ ... 9269v1.pdf

Here is the Windom-Larson rebuttal attempting to prove that nuclear gamma radiation is absorbed by heavy (fast moving unbound) electrons on metallic hydride surfaces.

Do you see any flaws in this argument?

The gamma Ray absorption issue:
In [1] a mechanism is proposed to explain a puzzling observation made in the field of LENR: the absence of γ Rays emission when nuclear reactions occur. The interaction of the γ Rays with the heavy electrons present in the lattice (following a neutron capture nuclear reaction), could lower their path to less than a nanometer, thus preventing them to escape from the lattice.

Indeed, it is stated in [5] p.634, that no γ Rays emission was observed during the runs, despite the expectation of an intensity of some 10 13 Bq. This seems to be in accordance with the Widom/Larsen working hypothesis: heavy electrons and protons producing ultra low momentum neutrons that in turn react with elements present in the cathode, yielding transmuted products and γ Rays, their emission being not detectable because absorbed by the lattice. But γ Rays should be detectable after dismantling the experiment: the Widom-Larsen process resembles NAA analysis in terms of γ Rays emission, and at least for NAA elements, some sizeable and lengthy emission should be observed. This not the case, no emission being detected after dismantling of the experiment [5] p.635

This is a third aspect in which the Widom-Larsen working hypothesis is not confirmed by experiment.

from
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/ ... itique.pdf

Which comments on the rest of the Widom Larsen ideas as well.

First off, the secret is in the nano-powder as follows:

Steven B. Krivit:
My confidence in the Rossi-Focardi work comes not only from Celani’s report but also, in large part, from my lab visits with Piantelli in 2007 and 2009 and my examination of his documentation. I remember that Piantelli let me take pictures of anything I wanted; he was not concerned that I might photograph anything proprietary. He explained to me that the proprietary aspects were the secret formulation of the nano-particle reactants and this was all in his head, he said, so there was no risk that I would reveal anything confidential.

Next:
From a newenergytimes comment to and article.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/ ... piantelli/

Dufour Jacques says:

January 21, 2011 at 10:23

This article quotes one of the papers I wrote on the ‘Journal of Nuclear physics’ last May. Indeed, the expected radiations are not in line with the thermal effects observed. I wrote a second paper in the same journal (July) ‘Is the Rossi amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor.’ This paper describes an elegant way to explain the discrepancies observed. I shall give a detailed presentation on this concept in Chennai next month, with experimental results.

I am interested in reading and understanding this Dufour article. I have not done that yet:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=275

[tomclarke]

I am interested in reading and understanding this Dufour article. I have not done that yet:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=275

I am not sure that Rossi's self-publicised prose is worth very much. In this case he appears to hypothesise a lower energy state orbital than QM allows, by using a semiclassical model and making unwarranted assumptions. Indeed his assumptions break Heisenbergy uncertainty.

Mills' "hydrino theory" is no worse supported than this!

Now, if he actually had high energy output from his device it would make sense to work hard to find a solution, nuclear or otherwise. But he does not have this, he had not even made precise claims, just vague ones.

This article does not even vaguely help his case, because his theoretical arguments are contrary to physics and have no other experimental confirmation.

Best wishes, Tom

[Axil]

In order for hydrogen nuclei to become highly attracted to the Rossi nano-particles, the surface energy of the particle must be maximized. Nature always seeks to minimize the energy of a system. One goal in the design of a nano-particle is to keep the reactivity on the surface of a nano-particle as high as possible. The issue becomes how to keep surface reactivity maximally high.

One clue to doing this surface reactivity maximization was found during various improvements made to the Raney-nickel catalysts done since 1946.

The effects of foreign bulk metals: chromium, cobalt and molybdenum exerted separately on Raney-nickel catalysts have been investigated by Paul (Bull. Soc. Chim. France 13, 208 /1946/).

In these experiments the amount of the foreign metal related to nickel varied between 1 and 10 % by weight. According to the observations of the author these foreign metals, introduced separately into the catalyst, increase the activity of Raney-nickel in all of the three model reactions investigated. But Paul did not try various combinations of these foreign metals.

In 1968, some Russians tried adding two foreign metals simultaneously to Raney-nickel. According to their account no improvement to the Raney-nickel catalyst was found. These two metals were selected from the group consisting of titanium, manganese, vanadium and molybdenum.

But recently it has been found, unexpectedly, that the activities of Raney-nickel catalysts can be increased to a great extent when at least two metals selected from the group consisting of chromium, cobalt, molybdenum and manganese are added as promoter to these catalysts. The activity-increasing effects of these promoters, when used in combination with each other, exceeds the sum of the effects exerted by the individual promoters.

It appears that certain metal combinations increase the reactivity on the surface of the catalyst.

Different metals of the same crystal type will stick more readily to each other then would two chunks of the same metal.

A combination of multiple different face centered cubic fcc metals will exhibit high (maximized) adhesive bonding force.

The next turn on the road to solve the Rossi nano-particle secret is to find a way to extend the principle of maximizing surface reactivity through the alloying various different bulk metals on the dimension of the macro-scale to the atomic dimensions of the nano-particle.

[chrismb]

Axil,

Your thread [as it now appears to have become] got to the point of you saying that you weren't partisan and were only looking to understand the outcome. I reacted instinctively and accused you of partisanship.

The more posts you make acclaiming 'pro' papers and references and deferring on those that are against makes you appear to be very partisan, as per my critique further up.

Are you going to dig up and discuss any materials that dismiss these wild claims that you appear to be in full support of, thereby demonstrating that what you said to me above was true (that you are only looking to understand either way), or do you already have shares in this Rossi thing?

Go learn a little more about Raney Nickel and tell me how much H2 it can store, per cubic centimeter. This, I think, will explain an awful lot more [in the world of reality] than you are doing at the moment.

[icarus]

Pico-fusion?

[chrismb]

Pico-fusion?

More like pick-o any-old random idea and just badge it 'fusion'.

[Axil]

Axil,

Your thread [as it now appears to have become] got to the point of you saying that you weren't partisan and were only looking to understand the outcome. I reacted instinctively and accused you of partisanship.

The more posts you make acclaiming 'pro' papers and references and deferring on those that are against makes you appear to be very partisan, as per my critique further up.

Are you going to dig up and discuss any materials that dismiss these wild claims that you appear to be in full support of, thereby demonstrating that what you said to me above was true (that you are only looking to understand either way), or do you already have shares in this Rossi thing?

Go learn a little more about Raney Nickel and tell me how much H2 it can store, per cubic centimeter. This, I think, will explain an awful lot more [in the world of reality] than you are doing at the moment.

What is “being partisan” mean? Am I somehow saying something you don’t want to hear?


Figure 3 and 4 in the Rossi patent shows that transmutation of nickel is occurring. I believe these figures are valid. The production of heat not withstanding or important how can this happen without residual gamma radiation from follow-on beta decay? Tomclarke is right, it’s impossible. That lack of residual gamma radiation is hard to believe within the confines of current nuclear theory. If Figure 3 and 4 are real then something new and important may be out there in nature and I really want to know what that might be.


This may be a trifle in the broader perception of the Rossi saga but this small transmutation issue has me intrigued. If being both puzzled and fascinated by this unexplained trifle with the intense desire to get to the bottom of it is being partisan, whatever that means; then there it is.


Is it your opinion that Figure 3 and 4 in the Rossi patent are fraudulent?


It’s possible. Fraud is always with us. It happens all the time; Enron, TRW, bank derivatives; and we live on. We must not be afraid of fraud. The perpetrators get their just due in the end. Look what happened to Bernie Madoff. We cannot be afraid, We cannot be afraid to put money in the bank.


I have noticed recently, the means and methods of energy production have taken on the guise of region. Do you think I am spreading scientific heresy to the faithful at the altar of energy theory, and subject to excommunication?


If Rossi, Piantelli, and the other Italians are all conspirators in fraud and how could these men risk such a threat to their reputations, then the consequence that will befall us are small. We will lose no money or reputation. But I will know much more about catalysts, nano-technology and metallurgy and that is not bad at all.


Be patient and tolerant. It won’t be long now. If things don’t work out for Rossi et al in a few months, if they are defrocked and cast out into the dustbin of cold fusion history; If they are found to be just the latest in the long parade of false energy prophets; Well, I think we ought to let them just hang there. Let them twist slowly, slowly in the wind.


From my perspective, I can always sneak back into the Church of the Standard model suffering only from a bit more education.

[nextbigfuture]

I think it is useful the research that Axil is doing.
I think Axil is on the right track

Nanoparticles and the activation of Raney Nickel.

btw- Axil can you share what is your education and nuclear background ?

thanks

Brian Wang

[george]

Andrea Rossi
January 27th, 2011 at 5:37 PM
Dear Mr Sandhu:
We do not use Raney Ni.
Warm regards,
A.R.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 1#comments

[Axil]

I think it is useful the research that Axil is doing.
I think Axil is on the right track

Nanoparticles and the activation of Raney Nickel.

btw- Axil can you share what is your education and nuclear background ?

thanks

Brian Wang

My dear nextbigfuture

I bask in your encouragement and am extremely gratified that you once again stand beside me in support. On these sparkling and all too rare occasions, I feel less alone in my opinion. I have grown to feel that our thinking, opinions, curiosities, and interests, have wondered along the same roads over these many years even if my humble perspectives are diminished in comparison to yours.

The natural state and right of a human being is anonymity and privacy. The problem with losing your anonymity is that you can never go back. I enjoy lurking unobtrusively in the nooks and crannies of the connected world were ideas hold sway against the tyranny of the textbook.

[chrismb]

What is “being partisan” mean? Am I somehow saying something you don’t want to hear?

It means taking certain things as true which others claim but have no evidence for it on one particular interpretation of a thing, whereas you choose not to accept as claimed things that the doubters of that thing say.

In this case you are taking it one step beyond that, which is to actually start trying to construct what could possibly be in this 'reactor' of Rossi's. You'll probably end up designing something which he did not. Anyway, you are in full unmitigated support for whatever Rossi has done in that 'reactor' as if it were a true innovation, rather than thinking about what it could be that it isn't a true innovation.

Rossi says [paraphrase] "I'm generating power from an unknown reaction" and I say "He may be generating power from a known reaction that may not be fully understood", and you are choosing the former and have yet to make a comment as to why it might be the latter.

So what you are doing isn't researching the subject, because it is unbalanced nor has a disprovable null hypothesis.

[Jboily]

Actually you can publicly disclose all the information without having a patent. Then you have 1 year to file a patent.

You must be cerfull here, Not all countries have the same rules. Some regions will not allow a patent even if previously disclosed by only a single day!