10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[polyill]

Then there's the Department of Defense and Thermoelectric generator fiasco-- which , shell we say, was rather convenient for Rossi. It's also rather odd that he never returned to the concept, given that he was claiming levels of conversion efficiency that even today haven't been equaled.

And do not forget that Rossi's TEG prototype AND the lab that tested it was destroyed by fire....

Obviously, that was God's wrath upon the naysayers. Beware!

[Betruger]

Skeptical fire

[seedload]

SImon,

It is strange how you and many others here, are so certain the E-Cat is a fraud. LENR is real as you posted. The evidence we have (a couple of dozen reliable witnesses) leans towards it being real, but no one can tell for certain until until there is independent proof. There seems no way he can make money from this without the customer checking first. So, what drives you to take such a firm position?

Look, parallel. You believe that anyone who thinks Rossi is a fraud must necessarily be a "pathological skeptic" - a catch phrase that you love to trot out. You fail to acknowledge that there are people who don't believe Rossi with good reason.

Do you even know what Rossi is claiming?

First, in his patent, he says that three reactions are occurring, Nickel and Hydrogen fusing to make Copper, Nickel and two hydrogens to make Zinc, and other Fission reactions that create stable products. This is IN HIS PATENT! He also claims that unstable isotopes of Nickel and Copper are formed that undergo decay over a short period of time, so short as to not matter because the radiation is shielded. He claims that he had the ash analyzed to show the appropriate products for both the copper formation AND the fission! Stable elements popping out from fission! Again, in his patent.

Second, he published a paper on his website saying that the reaction is between Nickel and Hydrogen forming copper and other isotopes of Nickel and Copper that are radioactive but undergo quick decay, again stating that shielding protects against the radiation. He goes into detail regarding the isotopes and the energy gain from both the initial reactions and the decay processes. He is claiming decay happens and produces some if not most of the energy. There are also some long lived radioactive isotopes produced. This is in the paper, clearly stated. He again claims to have isotopically analyzed the ash. Fission has disappeared from his claims.

Third, on his blog, under questioning about isotopes, he begins claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react forming stable copper. Meanwhile Focardi continues to claim unstable isotopes of copper and nickel are formed that decay to also produce heat. Rossi's story has changed dramatically. Focardi's is staying close to the same.

Finally, Rossi begins talking about doing safety testing on his reactor by intentionally causing it to "explode". Assuming that what Focardi continues to say and what Rossi originally said, that there are unstable isotopes created that undergo quick decay, then this poses a problem. In an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be shot outside of the containment (boron and lead shielding) and would create a significant radiation event. I asked him about this directly. He said that there is NO RADIATION in an explosion but that he can't go into details. This answer NECESSARILY means that there are not radioactive isotopes in the reactor at any time.

So, he originally claimed radioactive isotopes and decay heat but now claims none. He originally claimed fission events but now claims none. He originally claimed fusion of all isotopes of Nickel to both Zinc and Copper but now claims only NI62/64 fuse. He originally claimed energy from the decay heat and now claims no radiation when the reaction chamber is spontaniously opened. He said he tested the ash specifically for isotopic ratios in his patent and in his white paper and now makes claims counter to that testing.

Now, I ask you, why would you term someone like me, who actually takes the time to read his claims and research his claims, and actually ask him about his claims a "pathological skeptic" when I am taking steps to try to understand his ridiculousness? When you add in all the other evidence regarding his caginess, his claims of isotopic enrichment, his claims of customers, his ploys to get credibility without actually commissioning tests, his history, and his apparently impotent production capabilities, a skeptical opinion is fully justified.

Sorry, you are wrong. There is nothing pathological about my skepticism. Nor is there anything pathological about Georgio's or Msimon's or most of the other skeptical opinions on this board.

This is reasonable skepticism, not pathological.

FYI:

Andrea Rossi
November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Charlie Zimmerman
November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay.

1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here?
2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion?
3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers?

A concerned fan,
Charlie Zimmerman

[cg66]

Apprently Defkalion got their hands on spectroscopy made by the University of Siena and was able to figure out Rossi's "formula"...

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 353181.ece

...this story gets jucier and jucier.

[parallel]

MSimon,

Rossi reports he has now reached 450°C with 4 E-Cats in series.

I can understand why you have doubts, but not why you are so certain before the jury returns. You are the real believer.

[Giorgio]

And do not forget that Rossi's TEG prototype AND the lab that tested it was destroyed by fire....

Rumors are that the fire was generated by a snake that shorted an electrical power outlet of the warehouse.
Hence Rossi hate for snakes.

[Giorgio]

What I'd really like to see is the calculated energy density of a test run and then a comparison with the highest-density chemical reactions known to Man. That would be a good starting point, then we could work back to assumptions about errors in the measurements, and maybe we'd be able to say some interesting things about the plausibility of such a chemical reaction.

In the case of the rossi reactor, the reported data is easily 100 times any theoretically possible chemical reaction between nickel and hydrogen.

These calculations are easy to do.

TallDave was not referring to Ni-H reactions, but to the highest-energy possible reaction that could be realized inside the reactor volume.

Mind you, we do not have any idea what is inside the reactor till now.
We discuss about Ni and H only because Rossi is stating it, but it could as well be that the reactor chamber is full of Iron Beads and Coca Cola for what we "really" know.

[cgray45]

MSimon,

Rossi reports he has now reached 450°C with 4 E-Cats in series.

I can understand why you have doubts, but not why you are so certain before the jury returns. You are the real believer.

Was that with or without the 750KW generator needed for the heat-er, my mistake, the testing equipment?

And do we have anyone other than Rossi's word for this? A scientist, Yogi Bear, or perhaps tinkerbell?

[cgray45]

Why do I take a firm position? The man has not one but TWO fraud convictions. He refuses to do the obvious - heat a very large bucket of water.

And then there is the SMELL. I smell EEStor type emanations. And yet on this very board there were those who were SURE - the k value was measured and conformed to the prospectus. Not much has changed around here except the names of most of the players.

This. If Rossi is so paranoid about his secret sauce that he refuses to reveal anything to others, or get a patent, then he is on a time limit because he has no-- absolutely NO, protection should someone else develop his system. Even if someone were to steal his unit and publlish the information, while he could have recourse against the robber, he would have absolutely none against anyone who took that information.

In that case you have one option-- make money, start sellingt stuff and obtain a commanding market position-- in other words, be the first out of the gate so everyone knows there's your product-- and a cheap knock off.

And the way to do that quickly is not to have secret clients who never close the deal, and "tests" that would result in undergraduate students getting an "F" for their measurement standards, but to allow at the very least black box tests by independent scientists who can verify, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the process is what is being claimed.

That's why I believe, firmly that Rossi is a fraud, full stop-- because his actions make no sense in any other context.

[JoeP]

Apprently Defkalion got their hands on spectroscopy made by the University of Siena and was able to figure out Rossi's "formula"...

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 353181.ece

...this story gets jucier and jucier.

Sounds like Defkalion just put multiple heat elements throughout the reaction chamber instead of a central one. Also, are they admitting to a 48-hour runtime max? They mention Rossi's device had a 24-hour limit. If so, this is more and more like BLP.

With the Rossi vs. Defkalion fight, we will probably see a device get into someone's lab for a real test -- sooner rather than later.

[Kahuna]

Sounds like Defkalion just put multiple heat elements throughout the reaction chamber instead of a central one. Also, are they admitting to a 48-hour runtime max? They mention Rossi's device had a 24-hour limit. If so, this is more and more like BLP.

I think that the Defkalion/Rossi contract called for Rossi to run stable for a minimum of 48 hours and he could not do it. Therefore, DGT would not pay and the rift between Rossi and DGT ensued. At least that is my understanding.

In any case, it will be interesting to see what kind of claims and schedule DGT comes up with tomorrow. Since neither Rossi nor DGT has any IP protection (except perhaps in Italy for Rossi), I suspect DGT is in a big hurry to get their brand into the game.

[Crawdaddy]

What I'd really like to see is the calculated energy density of a test run and then a comparison with the highest-density chemical reactions known to Man. That would be a good starting point, then we could work back to assumptions about errors in the measurements, and maybe we'd be able to say some interesting things about the plausibility of such a chemical reaction.

In the case of the rossi reactor, the reported data is easily 100 times any theoretically possible chemical reaction between nickel and hydrogen.

These calculations are easy to do.

TallDave was not referring to Ni-H reactions, but to the highest-energy possible reaction that could be realized inside the reactor volume.

Mind you, we do not have any idea what is inside the reactor till now.
We discuss about Ni and H only because Rossi is stating it, but it could as well be that the reactor chamber is full of Iron Beads and Coca Cola for what we "really" know.

Because Rossi controls the data collection apparatus as well as the reactor itself, if the device is a fraud, then there is no need to actually generate output from a chemical reaction. Speculation of this kind is not useful or informative. Just faking the input and output data is much easier.

The point of my comment was that there is no possibility of honest error arising from an unknown chemical effect.

There is only the possibility of fraud or of legitimacy.

[parallel]

Doubters should see this lecture by Mike McKubre of SRI, http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
The first two videos cover the history and then McKubre goes on to explain why the early replications of Pons & Fleischmann failed.
He lists many later experiments that show generation of anomalous heat.

Pathological skeptics like Giorgio and cgray45 should probably give this one a miss as I would hate to spoil their day.

[tomclarke]

In the case of the rossi reactor, the reported data is easily 100 times any theoretically possible chemical reaction between nickel and hydrogen.

These calculations are easy to do.

TallDave was not referring to Ni-H reactions, but to the highest-energy possible reaction that could be realized inside the reactor volume.

Mind you, we do not have any idea what is inside the reactor till now.
We discuss about Ni and H only because Rossi is stating it, but it could as well be that the reactor chamber is full of Iron Beads and Coca Cola for what we "really" know.

Because Rossi controls the data collection apparatus as well as the reactor itself, if the device is a fraud, then there is no need to actually generate output from a chemical reaction. Speculation of this kind is not useful or informative. Just faking the input and output data is much easier.

The point of my comment was that there is no possibility of honest error arising from an unknown chemical effect.

There is only the possibility of fraud or of legitimacy.

I don't think so.

Most of the experiments suffer from potential temoerature effects due to conduction from metal reactor to thermometer. These effects are always difficult to quantify, and easy for somone optimistic to dismiss as insignificant. But they could in princoiple produce an arbitrarily high misreading of energy out.

Rossi would have to be pretty ignorant not to be a fraud. But so he appears to be.

[tomclarke]

Doubters should see this lecture by Mike McKubre of SRI, http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
The first two videos cover the history and then McKubre goes on to explain why the early replications of Pons & Fleischmann failed.
He lists many later experiments that show generation of anomalous heat.

Pathological skeptics like Giorgio and cgray45 should probably give this one a miss as I would hate to spoil their day.

But all of the anomalous heat experimebts are all one of:

(a) within range of weird lattice chemical effects
(b) not replicatable
(c) done using methodologywhich is unclear, so that the claimed output has many other explanations.

Which is probably why they don't get published much. Just not very interesting.