10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

Axil wrote:
Kahuna wrote:In the video of the NyTeknik demo, it gives a nice closeup of the front of the blue control box which clearly has some up/down buttons. Presumably these provide the control that Rossi claims to have over the E-Cat reactor intensity. In this case it would be the only control since the H is not even hooked up (presumably to avoid claims of H combustion). In the running commentary Mats says that the controller is hooked up to two (2) resistive heaters and shows the two wires (one is set to 3 and the other to 9). I would assume that one is for the external collar heater and the other for the internal reactor heater.

Here is the NyTeknik video reference again:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 166552.ece

Also Rossi's E-Cat has appeared on Italian TV here:

http://202020assoc.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... catalyzer/

Not speaking Italian, I have no idea what they are saying, but there are some interesting diagrams shown at around 8:30 - 8:45 in the video. One appears to be a cross-section of the reactor although Rossi has repeatedly said that was a secret so who knows if it really is. Perhaps Giorgio can take look.
www.rainews24.rai.it/canale-tv.php?id=23074


Now available in English:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/video.php?id=23096
Axil,

I know you have puzzeled over the E-Cat control mechanism a bit.

Now that it appears likely that there are an internal and external heater, I'm thinking back through some of Rossi's comments and trying to make sense of their relative roles in the process. Rossi has said that one mechanism for quenching a reaction (in a safety discussion) is to increase water flow to effect cooling. I'm thinking that conversly, it might be important to heat the water flow to facilitate start-up (ignition). Could this be the main purpose of the external collar heater? I would assume that once the reactor is going and the water is being heated by the reaction itself, that the external heater would be superfluous and the internal heater would be the main control mechanism. Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts/comments on this.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

Kahuna wrote:
Axil wrote:
Kahuna wrote:In the video of the NyTeknik demo, it gives a nice closeup of the front of the blue control box which clearly has some up/down buttons. Presumably these provide the control that Rossi claims to have over the E-Cat reactor intensity. In this case it would be the only control since the H is not even hooked up (presumably to avoid claims of H combustion). In the running commentary Mats says that the controller is hooked up to two (2) resistive heaters and shows the two wires (one is set to 3 and the other to 9). I would assume that one is for the external collar heater and the other for the internal reactor heater.

Here is the NyTeknik video reference again:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 166552.ece

Also Rossi's E-Cat has appeared on Italian TV here:

http://202020assoc.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... catalyzer/

Not speaking Italian, I have no idea what they are saying, but there are some interesting diagrams shown at around 8:30 - 8:45 in the video. One appears to be a cross-section of the reactor although Rossi has repeatedly said that was a secret so who knows if it really is. Perhaps Giorgio can take look.
www.rainews24.rai.it/canale-tv.php?id=23074


Now available in English:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/video.php?id=23096
Axil,

I know you have puzzeled over the E-Cat control mechanism a bit.

Now that it appears likely that there are an internal and external heater, I'm thinking back through some of Rossi's comments and trying to make sense of their relative roles in the process. Rossi has said that one mechanism for quenching a reaction (in a safety discussion) is to increase water flow to effect cooling. I'm thinking that conversly, it might be important to heat the water flow to facilitate start-up (ignition). Could this be the main purpose of the external collar heater? I would assume that once the reactor is going and the water is being heated by the reaction itself, that the external heater would be superfluous and the internal heater would be the main control mechanism. Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts/comments on this.
From the last test of the Rossi reactor (Norwegian ?) in the documentation, the structure of the reactor must get to 60C before the internal heater can jumpstart the reaction.

The small heater in the 2.5 kw unit cannot get the reactor structure along with the associated water coolant up to 60C on its own so a secondary more powerful heater was added to the 2.5 kw reactor.

By the way, this sort of design detail is unnecessary in a scam. The bells go off in my head saying it’s got to be real.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

Thanks for posting this (even though it was actually your recent link to New Energy Times that led me to it). I just finished watching it. I was particularly interested to hear a little more of the back stories of the personalities involved in this. Much to ponder.

Another interesting point is that Defkalion Green Technologies intends to produce a 10-kilowatt heater, which they will lease to individual households. They say they can produce as many as 300,000 units per year. They also say they have the 10-kilowatt device, and it works.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

It's most likely not real. I've been following via friends in Italy and there are too many holes. Here's a good site which lists many of the possible scams:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/
Many are still possible.

The key here is the physics is not patentable. If they have new physics, there is no reason to keep it secret (other than weapons in which case we wouldn't be discussing this). So let's look at the physics we know - Nickel has a magic number of protons which means the protons form a complete nuclear shell, just like Nobel gasses are complete electron shells. That means adding a proton takes a lot of energy - which is not available at anything less than stellar temperatures. One of the professors working with Rossi (name is Focardi) even pointed out that the probability of tunneling is on the order of 10^-1000 - but he still thinks it's possible!!
They also claim there is no gamma production - if these are nuclear reactions there has to be gamma production because of the beta decay from unstable copper down to nickel isotopes (also claimed by Rossi and Focardi as taking place). No gamma production has been measured - and Rossi refuses to let anyone measure the bare reaction of the device uncoverd.

This has all the attributes of a scam and no attributes of real science. The holes outweigh any evidence. There is plenty of chemistry with nickel and hydrogen (NMH batteries for example) but that is not the claim here.

Nuclear reactions that give phonon reactions (heat) without photon reactions (gammas)? We may not know everything about nuclear physics, but what we know now sure makes that seem ridiculous.

drmike

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

From all experimental indications from the Rossi development no matter what Rossi says, multi-proton fusion is what makes the Rossi reactor go.

To put some conceptual meat on this bone, at least 60 some odd protons and maybe many more are packed into a small (sub nanometer?) hole in the lattice of nickel.


These protons are comprised of two ups quarks and a down quark. There is no anti matter clustering (allowed?) inside the hydrogen nucleus.


Some trigger event happens to this collection of protons that convert some substantial fraction of these many protons to neutrons comprised of one up quark and two down quarks. Some ultra low energy based factor in nature can transform up and down quarks into each other. This is beyond the pale of today’s physics.


Even thinking that this mechanism of transmutation is even possible is a burning offence at CERN.

But this cold fusion reaction is not solely reserved to the Rossi reactor. It is ubiquitous throughout cold fusion. You can create iron form just carbon and water in your kitchen if you are interested.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Axil wrote:From all experimental indications ....
This is an outright fantasy. No 'experiments' have occurred. If you think otherwise, then you demonstrate you know nothing about modern science. An experiment contains [amongst other lesser criteria] an objective, a hypothesis and a null hypothesis, and objective methodology sufficient to demonstrate both in enough detail that anyone can reproduce it.

These 'demonstrations' contain not even one of these several required features of 'an experiment'.

Do you really, simply, not get it!?!?!?

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

chrismb wrote:
Axil wrote:From all experimental indications ....
This is an outright fantasy. No 'experiments' have occurred. If you think otherwise, then you demonstrate you know nothing about modern science. An experiment contains [amongst other lesser criteria] an objective, a hypothesis and a null hypothesis, and objective methodology sufficient to demonstrate both in enough detail that anyone can reproduce it.

These 'demonstrations' contain not even one of these several required features of 'an experiment'.

Do you really, simply, not get it!?!?!?
I do not mean to cause you a nervous breakdown. Calm yourself. To ease your pain, let me rephrase experiments to engineering trails.

When things are observed that don’t fit the existing theories, exotic models are proposed; for example, dark energy and mater in cosmology and high energy physics. There is also the proposed Higgs boson; hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics, and attempts are being made to confirm the existence of the particle by experimentation, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN and the Tevatron at Fermilab.

What happens to the standard model when they don’t find the Higgs. Keep and open mind to the unknowns in the universe.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

So long as you recognise these cannot be more than engineering trials, then the point is made. I am unsure if they actually meet such criteria either, but such a term is clearly less specific than what is understood to be 'an experiment'.

But the issue then is that there is no 'theory' either called for or required in an 'engineering trial'. There may be speculations, of course, but you have missed the hypotheses against which you make an objective test, so the whole notion of 'theory' then becomes moot and beyond what is worth talking about...

...especially if you somehow draw it out into discussing the SM! Where did that come from?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Axil wrote: ... To ease your pain, let me rephrase experiments to engineering trails.
Is that like "happy trails"? Oh, trials, never mind. :lol:
How bout "media demo"? :wink:

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Axil wrote:A cold fusion full proof test where everything is done correctly
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conference ... dation.pdf
What is reported in the paper is exactly what I have been stating since the start on this thread.
Take a good look also on page 21 to understand how things can go wrong during phase change experiments.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Axil wrote:The small heater in the 2.5 kw unit cannot get the reactor structure along with the associated water coolant up to 60C on its own so a secondary more powerful heater was added to the 2.5 kw reactor.
Where did you get this info?
If there was a second heater the power absorption should be higher.
During the tests they clearly give a constant 330-350W of consumed power, that is equal to only a single 300W heater plus ancillaries.
Do you have a source for the second heater claim?

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

drmike wrote:It's most likely not real. I've been following via friends in Italy and there are too many holes. Here's a good site which lists many of the possible scams:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/
Many are still possible.

The key here is the physics is not patentable. If they have new physics, there is no reason to keep it secret (other than weapons in which case we wouldn't be discussing this). So let's look at the physics we know - Nickel has a magic number of protons which means the protons form a complete nuclear shell, just like Nobel gasses are complete electron shells. That means adding a proton takes a lot of energy - which is not available at anything less than stellar temperatures. One of the professors working with Rossi (name is Focardi) even pointed out that the probability of tunneling is on the order of 10^-1000 - but he still thinks it's possible!!
They also claim there is no gamma production - if these are nuclear reactions there has to be gamma production because of the beta decay from unstable copper down to nickel isotopes (also claimed by Rossi and Focardi as taking place). No gamma production has been measured - and Rossi refuses to let anyone measure the bare reaction of the device uncoverd.

This has all the attributes of a scam and no attributes of real science. The holes outweigh any evidence. There is plenty of chemistry with nickel and hydrogen (NMH batteries for example) but that is not the claim here.

Nuclear reactions that give phonon reactions (heat) without photon reactions (gammas)? We may not know everything about nuclear physics, but what we know now sure makes that seem ridiculous.

drmike
"E pur si muove"
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

The existence of 2 heaters (vis-a-vis the "e-kitten") seems evident from multiple sources.

In this (linked) picture there are wires entering the apparatus from the end and "auxiliary" is the relevant notation.

A heater internal to the reactor would be most consistent with the diagram included with the patent application, would it not?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nMtNwAYjpSM/T ... vealed.jpg
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

raphael wrote:
drmike wrote:It's most likely not real. I've been following via friends in Italy and there are too many holes. Here's a good site which lists many of the possible scams:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/
Many are still possible.

The key here is the physics is not patentable. If they have new physics, there is no reason to keep it secret (other than weapons in which case we wouldn't be discussing this). So let's look at the physics we know - Nickel has a magic number of protons which means the protons form a complete nuclear shell, just like Nobel gasses are complete electron shells. That means adding a proton takes a lot of energy - which is not available at anything less than stellar temperatures. One of the professors working with Rossi (name is Focardi) even pointed out that the probability of tunneling is on the order of 10^-1000 - but he still thinks it's possible!!
They also claim there is no gamma production - if these are nuclear reactions there has to be gamma production because of the beta decay from unstable copper down to nickel isotopes (also claimed by Rossi and Focardi as taking place). No gamma production has been measured - and Rossi refuses to let anyone measure the bare reaction of the device uncoverd.

This has all the attributes of a scam and no attributes of real science. The holes outweigh any evidence. There is plenty of chemistry with nickel and hydrogen (NMH batteries for example) but that is not the claim here.

Nuclear reactions that give phonon reactions (heat) without photon reactions (gammas)? We may not know everything about nuclear physics, but what we know now sure makes that seem ridiculous.

drmike
"E pur si muove"
Interesting that the link drmike provides seems to come to the opposite conclusion that he does.
SUMMARY
Since the December/January experiments only recorded the inputs and outputs for a short time (30 minutes), almost ANY of the fakes could have produced the result.

For the February experiment Levi was allowed to inspect everything, EXCLUDING only the 1-liter reactor chamber. If you accept all of Levi's February report, then all chemical fakes are conclusively ruled out. Neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake.

The March report DOES rule out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes.

None of the experiments can rule out a Heat Pump which exceeds known efficiencies by a factor of 100 (or even higher, if the 130kW peak output could be sustained). An eCat doing this would be as important an engineering breakthrough as an LENR device. Similarly, a previously-unknown chemical reaction which can produce 10kW for 6 months from a 1 liter source would be an equally important discovery in chemistry. As Sherlock Holmes said in Silver Blaze:

... and improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still.

Therefore, at present, we cannot conclusively rule out ALL possible fakes, so it is not yet PROVED that the Rossi device is real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that.
OTOH, you can never conclusively say you have ruled "out ALL possible FAKES" as that is unkowable.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

raphael wrote:The existence of 2 heaters (vis-a-vis the "e-kitten") seems evident from multiple sources.

In this (linked) picture there are wires entering the apparatus from the end and "auxiliary" is the relevant notation.

A heater internal to the reactor would be most consistent with the diagram included with the patent application, would it not?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nMtNwAYjpSM/T ... vealed.jpg
No, actually the best indication that there is not a second heater is coming from the power-meter data.

If there was a second meter we would have seen a spike in the absorbed power, and this was not reported.

Post Reply