10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[cgray45]

Which is all very nice. But this isn't that event-- that event would be like this is the Wrights held tehir "Flight" in a big building to which they invited only a very few close friends.

Also, and you seem to be consistently unable to grasp this-- every event you've mentioned was easily verifiable. Easily verifiable by external, unaffiliated viewers.

This is not, because to be blunt, they could be lying through their teeth. A demonstration as they've given it worthless, worthless, for verifying what's going on. Maybe the heater is miscalibrated-- or maybe it's deliberately set up. Even people there mentioned that their might be difficulties with measuring the output.

That's lousy, shoddy science. That's the sort of "Science" that raises the hackles of other scientists and makes the accusation of fraud to be honest a whole hell of a lot more credible, because the methods needed to measure that reaction-- the methods you'd need to determine if that mysteriously never seen "heater" that supposedly has been operating for 2 years is really doing anything of the kind are well known and are not hard to put together.
And yet they didn't.

[Axil]

Also at the demonstration(LENR home heating systems) was a representative of Defkalion Energy, based in Athens, who said that the company was interested in a 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. For the Rossi and Focardi, this kind of interest is the most important.

“We have passed already the phase to convince somebody,” Rossi wrote in his forum. “We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.”

He directed commercial inquiries to info(at)leonardocorp1996.com .

[chrismb]

Axil, I don't know what you are trying to peddle here, but it is a total fiction because if it does work and he goes and sells it without IPR coverage, then someone will simply reverse engineer it and he'll be left with squat. Whether there is a reality to some energy coming out of Ni+H, by whatever mechanism you care to deal with, it is not something patentable because Rossi has already said that he isn't too hung up on the theory and it works, but that isn't a strong enough understanding to be able to claim a patentable method or apparatus, because he'll have failed to show enablement.

[Axil]

Here is a patent issued to Larson and Windom for their device.

http://www.google.com/patents/download/ ... ew_r&cad=0

There is lots of theory in there. I wonder if it works.

If it does not work maybe a deal can be worked out where Larson can give Rossi some of his theory.

[chrismb]

Here is a patent issued to Larson and Windom for their device.

http://www.google.com/patents/download/ ... ew_r&cad=0

There is lots of theory in there. I wonder if it works.

If it does not work maybe a deal can be worked out where Larson can give Rossi some of his theory.

Nope. This is a patent application.

A non-final rejection was issued on 5th October 2009, and no reply was received from the applicant so the patent was declared abandoned, April 2010.

The general reasons ... as always in these cases... appears to follow the same lines of "a failure to disclose an enabling description" - viz. it don't work.

[parallel]

I haven't checked to see if this link has been posted already, but it seems to answer a number of questions.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... _paper.pdf

Various other groups have seen the device demonstrated.
Rossi continues to work on the patent.
He gives his theory for how he thinks it works but admits it has holes in it.

Edit added.
It is reported elsewhere that Cu has been found in the used Ni fuel, which somewhat supports his theory.

[tomclarke]

Well mass of papers isn't important by itself-- I mean, I can trot over to any of the Young Earth Creationism groups and finds lots of papers.

That's the problem with saying that main stream scientists aren't "interested" in it-- because most of the time, there's a pretty good reason for that.
They have badly damaged their cause by the way they've handled this, because their demonstration and claims are rife with the potential for fraud, and the way they're talking...not to inspire confidence. (In a lot of frauds, the "we'll be starting production in a year!" often is coupled with "And you want to be on the ground floor of this cure for cancer/new computer/fusion technique.).
They have a very small window to start coming upt with verifiable proof-- and that means a unit that can be handed to someone else, sit in a lab, without Rossi&co anywhere near it, and continue to work even while inputs/outputs are being monitored by skeptical people who are *trying* to prove it won't work.

There are always respectable attemts to replicate whenerver a cold fusion result looks robust and unusual. unfortunately when this happens the robust and unusual result either does not happen or is found to have some mundane explanation.

It is a shame. I would like cold fusion to exist. But Couomb is a hard task master.

i haven't heard of any examples of skeptics trying to replicate the experiments and having it not happen or finding a mundane explanation. except for the first pons and fleshman one of course where it didn't happen for all of them, but that's pretty trivial and we all know that one wasn't robust.

and i've done a considerable amount of research. so to be more blunt i think you're saying something that maybe sounds right but you don't really know to be true.

well in cold fusion case the replicators are not VERY skeptic, but enough so to find alternate explanations for the claimed results.

e.g.:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/DZ/report.htm

http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html

[Axil]

The reference experiments were not effective demonstrations of heat production using Lenr.

In these excess heat experiments, there is a catch 22 at play where heat buildup kills the reaction. The LENR reaction can happen in both the water within the cavitation bubbles or on the surface of the electrodes. Cavitation does not function when the water is close to or at boiling or the pressure is above ambient as in a closed reactor.

The electrodes must be formed in a way that the crystal structure in the metal supports nano-sized areas where entangled atomic hydrogen coherent assemblages can be formed. If the surface corrodes or is contaminated with reaction ash formed through element transmutation then the reaction will greatly decrease.

What Rossi did was greatly/massively increase the surface area of the reactive metal by using nano-powder, got rid of the water support within the reaction and optimized the metallurgy of the reactant. For this he deserves credit.

[Ivy Matt]

Piantelli used hydrogen gas, not light or heavy water, in his experiments beginning over two decades ago. Steven Krivit also claims he used nano-particles in his experiments (in 2007 and/or 2009) in his January 19th blog post, but I haven't yet found any source from before Rossi's demonstration that mentions Piantelli's use of nano-particles. However, a glance at the same issue of New Energy Times that mentions Piantelli's work shows that nanopowder was in the air at the time.

Rossi's best claim for originality may be in the "catalyzer materials" he mentions in his patent application, but he has given no evidence for this. He shut down Celani's attempt to identify the spectra radiating from the device, which suggests there's some "secret sauce" (or some other kind of secret) inside. However, if the catalyzer materials are necessary to the useful functioning of his device, then the fact that he has failed to disclose their composition in his patent application means he's going to have to rely on trade secret protection, even if the patent (in its present state) is granted—if I understand patent law correctly. To that I can only say: good luck! Once he starts distributing his ECat devices, he'll have a lot more to worry about than one nosy physicist with a gamma ray counter.

[cgray45]

Yap-- ther eis no way to keep this secret-- "trade secrets" almost never apply to actual natural processes, which is what this would be. The thing is, that the other possibility is he shut down the gamma counter because it might show something hinky.

Again, this entire demonstration wouldn't be planned better to raise questions-- and not the good sort of questions.

[Giorgio]

Also at the demonstration(LENR home heating systems) was a representative of Defkalion Energy, based in Athens, who said that the company was interested in a 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. For the Rossi and Focardi, this kind of interest is the most important.

This really means nothing. That company is a completely unknow one, so it does not add any support to their claims.
I can have 50 companies attending to a presentation and showing interest in mine product, but if these companies are completely unknow it does not add more credibility to the whole project.

A "real" live presentaton for a full week, open to the general pubblic and in a transparent box (like someone else suggested before) is the real demonstration you need to make if you want to have anyone at your feets begging to get a licence.
Getting money will not be any more an issue at that point.

[tomclarke]

The reference experiments were not effective demonstrations of heat production using Lenr.

In these excess heat experiments, there is a catch 22 at play where heat buildup kills the reaction. The LENR reaction can happen in both the water within the cavitation bubbles or on the surface of the electrodes. Cavitation does not function when the water is close to or at boiling or the pressure is above ambient as in a closed reactor.

The electrodes must be formed in a way that the crystal structure in the metal supports nano-sized areas where entangled atomic hydrogen coherent assemblages can be formed. If the surface corrodes or is contaminated with reaction ash formed through element transmutation then the reaction will greatly decrease.

What Rossi did was greatly/massively increase the surface area of the reactive metal by using nano-powder, got rid of the water support within the reaction and optimized the metallurgy of the reactant. For this he deserves credit.

Rossi - specifically - has a patchy record, self-publicises, has theories which don't get past peer-review, and is completely untransparent. Not good signs, but not of course necessarily bad.

LENR community has been trying for 20 years to put together coherent mechanisms which stand up to scrutiny. It has not yet suceeded. You read them, they sound good. You (or others better placed) analyse them carefully they are full of holes. Further experiments do NOT give results consistent with the theories. Again, not definitive, there may be weird lattice mediated effects we have not a clue about because they are too complex, but it means we have a low prior belief in any weird results - they must be very well proven

Finally - and most importantly - the experimental results have never yet, when presented openly, stood up. There are indications, but nothing that cannot be explained in other ways. The experiments are very complex and it is easy for there to be unexplained factors. For example in 2003 a spate of experiments showing Pr ash. If this were really the case it would be definitive. But the experiments analysed ash without analysing composition before the reaction! We have heard little recently, with better experimental technique, about nuclear transmutation.

Rossi is right of course. If there LENR the clearest most definitive proof would be heat beyond that available chemically. So far all those who claim this with figures released make assumptions about what are the possible chemical reactions which are very conservative. And they get energy out which is within the range of chemistry. If it is really nuclear that can be beaten, and the world will sit up & take notice.

Till then, demos like Rossi raise naive hopes but seem like a money-raising scam. If he has what he claims, for sure, he can do much better. If he has some effect, but it can't do better than he has demonstrated, he should be working as a scientist to clarify precisely what chemical reaction is causing the heat - not conning investors with stories of LENR. There are enough people in the LENR community to help turn a real LENR effect into something provably real. After which money is not an issue.

The best you can hope for is that he has some genuine effect, is honest. The chances, based on all prior info and the inherent difficulty of getting over Coulomb barrier, are vanishingly small this is LENR.

I know LENR looks more scientifically respectable than UFOs, but the same lack of rigour and selective attention to partial evidence is why people (me included I'm afraid) tend on first examination to favour LENR solutions to complex experiments with unexplained results.

[tomclarke]

The reference experiments were not effective demonstrations of heat production using Lenr.

In these excess heat experiments, there is a catch 22 at play where heat buildup kills the reaction. The LENR reaction can happen in both the water within the cavitation bubbles or on the surface of the electrodes. Cavitation does not function when the water is close to or at boiling or the pressure is above ambient as in a closed reactor.

The electrodes must be formed in a way that the crystal structure in the metal supports nano-sized areas where entangled atomic hydrogen coherent assemblages can be formed. If the surface corrodes or is contaminated with reaction ash formed through element transmutation then the reaction will greatly decrease.

What Rossi did was greatly/massively increase the surface area of the reactive metal by using nano-powder, got rid of the water support within the reaction and optimized the metallurgy of the reactant. For this he deserves credit.

Wow - he uses nanoparticles in a complex system, and we are surprised that some novel, not immediately explainable, exothermic chemical reaction occurs?

[cgray45]

Also, from the Celani Report:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/ ... ni-report/

The energy gain is a factor of 15-20, which is really large!

They also had a twin gamma ray detector assembled in order to detect e+e- annihilation. In this run, almost no such results were detected.

Focardi was confident that they were going to get large amounts of such signal, as in previous experiments. This time, the counts were close to background for coincidences, and only some uncorrelated signal was over background.

I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background.

I decided to change the gamma detector from “counts” to “spectra” mode. After a few minutes, Rossi realized that I was trying to identify something secret inside the reactor. I was forced to stop the measurements.

Uh-huh. Yeah. The previous experiments, which were not observed, produced large amounts of Gamma ray signal.
In this one, with outside observers, no such signal. When Celani started trying to get more information, suddenly he's ordered to stop because his detector might reveal.... du-du-DUH! SECRET's about the reactor.
Minor quibble. We do not have start trek tricorders. He wasn't going to wave it around and discover everything about the device-- far less any chance of dpulicating it with that.
So the question begs itself-- why is trying to get an accurate read suddenly such a dangerous thing, especially after the inital examination indicates that the test unit isn't putting out the radiation claimed for it?

[Giorgio]

Report should be online on the 24th.
We will see if there is anything interesting inside, but I doubt it will add any usefull info that will help to clarify if the experiment was a set up or was genuine.