10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
parallel wrote:seedload,
Try not to make juvenile jumps to conclusions so often.
Where did I say I believed it?
Not a jump.
seedload wrote:
parallel wrote:The experiments are reported to have been replicated several times.
Do you really believe that stuff?
See the "?". It is a question. Do you really believe this stuff? I notice that you didn't answer. Also, see your quote about replication. It is strong indication that you do.
Seedload,
Just to provide an outsider's view on this, your phraseology was such that I took your question to be rhetorical, not actual. "Stuff" , especially when combine with "that", as in "that stuff" is almost ALWAYS a purjoritive and such a question implies a lack of belief on your part that anyone COULD believe "that stuff". In the future, if you have a REAL question along those lines, you might phrase it more along the lines of "How much of that information do you find credible?" or something like that. Just a suggestion! :)

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

Post by KitemanSA »

rcain wrote: btw - just taken a quick read though the WL-theory paper provided by Giorgio, and whilst most of it is well over my head, theres lots still to chew over. is anyone interested in starting a new thread over on general on its merits/demerits?
I'd love to see a thread where someone could explain it to me!! :oops:

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

tomclarke,

At least you are willing to admit a mistake.

You wrote:
"We started this because I asked for replicable results. Well theses results, whatever they mean, may be replicable."


I recall when BLP first reported their results, the argument then was "I won't believe it until it has been replicated by a university." Now it seems any old university won't do. Well, BLP's process for excess heat has been replicated. So has LENR from the other two links I gave earlier. There are other examples.

You said you had not heard of a single LENR experiment being replicated, well now you have several. I think your difficulty in accepting the possibility is because it seems to conflict with the known physics you have assimilated over the years. I find it exciting because I have some trouble believing the standard model.

For what little it is worth, I find it impossible to believe biological transmutation at present, but I'm trying to keep an open mind and reserve judgement until I have found out more about it. I have been persuaded for some time that LENR is real so it was not so difficult to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt for now.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

MSimon wrote:
I swear that the couches burned a little hotter than they should have.
I always preferred to drop the couches from a 3rd floor balcony to precondition them.
Ah, but do they land harder than they're supposed to?

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

Post by KitemanSA »

MSimon wrote:Let us look at another rather difficult chemical process and see how it moved from demonstration to production.

Bell Labs was building transistors in 1948. By 1954 there was a transistor INDUSTRY.

So let us look at Cold Fusion. P&F disclose in 1989.
In February 2002, the U.S. Navy revealed that researchers at their Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989, by releasing a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
So where is the industry? We are now 21 years on.
Please MS;
If you are going to use the history of transistors as your model, use the WHOLE history!
wikipedia wrote:Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed the first patent for a transistor in Canada in 1925, describing a device similar to a field-effect transistor or "FET".[1] However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices,[citation needed] nor did his patent cite any examples of devices actually constructed. In 1934, German inventor Oskar Heil patented a similar device.[2]

From 1942 Herbert Mataré experimented with so-called duodiodes while working on a detector for a Doppler RADAR system. The duodiodes he built had two separate but very close metal contacts on the semiconductor substrate. He discovered effects that could not be explained by two independently operating diodes and thus formed the basic idea for the later point contact transistor.

In 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain at AT&T's Bell Labs in the United States observed that when electrical contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, the output power was larger than the input. Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in this, and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors. The term transistor was coined by John R. Pierce as a portmanteau of the term "transfer resistor".[3][4] According to physicist/historian Robert Arns, legal papers from the Bell Labs patent show that William Shockley and Gerald Pearson had built operational versions from Lilienfeld's patents, yet they never referenced this work in any of their later research papers or historical articles.[5]

The first silicon transistor was produced by Texas Instruments in 1954.[6] This was the work of Gordon Teal, an expert in growing crystals of high purity, who had previously worked at Bell Labs.[7] The first MOS transistor actually built was by Kahng and Atalla at Bell Labs in 1960.[8]
So:
Transistors: First 1925, industry 1954. Delta = 29 year (without government cronyism science to deal with).
LENR-CF(?): First 1989, Today, 2011. Delta = 22. They seem to be tracking reasonably well. AND they have had to deal with government favored folks who spout things they cannot know as if they have the writing from God's own finger; folks who seem bound and determined to quash any possible investigation of this phenomenon. Please don't be one of them.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

MSimon wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote: Does that explain my position?
Yet folks around here say "Dr. Bussard says" and anyone who calls them on it is chided. Goose, gander?
Data are lacking, judge not yet.
Well Bussard uses known physics in a novel way. He requires no special and previously unobserved particles or special sauce and finally I know Tom Ligon and trust him.

Even Art Carlson after much disagreement and much back and forth says, "maybe" about Polywell.
But a number don't.

And harking back to your transistor analog, it took many years to develop an understanding of the SOLID STATE physicts that let hunks of silicon replace plasma devices called vacuum tubes. Might it be that eventually there will be a similar understanding of the SOLID STATE physics behind this "measured" but not understond phenomenon? A physics that uses hunks of Nickel to replace plasma devices called X and Y and Z and...

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:
Well Bussard uses known physics in a novel way. He requires no special and previously unobserved particles or special sauce and finally I know Tom Ligon and trust him.
And IIRC Bussard said "we should check it out and give it a chance, I BELIEVE IT WILL WORK". He never tried selling his call for more testing as a finished, working reactor.
And it seems that Rossi has said, "I have checked it out and it works, semi-controllably". :lol:

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

MSimon,

Bussard sure as hell did try to "sell" it. How do you suppose he got those grants? I assume your saw his plea at Google too.

Apart from the history of the transistor being a bit murkier than you suggested, major reasons for the delay in LENR development were because:

1. It seemed to contradict the standard model and if you've spent your life believing that, teaching it to others and based your career on it, obviously most people would fight it.

2. There was a huge amount of grant money riding on hot fusion research so MIT and other interested parties set out to destroy it. MIT apparently fudged their experimental results to do so.

Academia was only too pleased to see it relegated to "pathological science" the same year Pons and Fleischmann announced it. In passing, like the transistor story, P & F were not the first.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

I think the news about Ampenergo is possibly the strongest proof yet that the E-Cat is real. As others have pointed out, the personnel there are anything but stupid and will surely have checked out the E-Cat more thoroughly than the tests at Bologna before investing really large amounts of money. Consider too, this was before Rossi even got his first patent.
Ampenergo is in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies, because it’s not just a technology we’re creating in the industry here.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/interv ... yzers.html

ltgbrown
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Post by ltgbrown »

If it is difficult it may not be commercial i.e. do you ever get your input energy back when you account for processing the materials for operation?
How about a battery? I can think of a "small" industry that would embrace a small 10Kw energy source that lasts 6 months. Auto.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

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

Post by Kahuna »

parallel wrote:I think the news about Ampenergo is possibly the strongest proof yet that the E-Cat is real. As others have pointed out, the personnel there are anything but stupid and will surely have checked out the E-Cat more thoroughly than the tests at Bologna before investing really large amounts of money. Consider too, this was before Rossi even got his first patent.
Ampenergo is in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies, because it’s not just a technology we’re creating in the industry here.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/interv ... yzers.html
Good point about the first patent not being issued when the deal was made. More importantly, most here think that a U.S. patent for a LENR device is DOA. Since the U.S. has to be Ampenergo's biggestes potential market, is it a forgone conclusion that they are prepared to go forward without IP protection? If not, it could be a long wait unless they think the 1MW demo plant will help their cause with the USPTO.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

If you are going to use the history of transistors as your model, use the WHOLE history!
If you have evidence Lilienfeld was BUILDING transistors I'd like to see it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by Ivy Matt »

KitemanSA wrote:folks who seem bound and determined to quash any possible investigation of this phenomenon. Please don't be one of them.
In MSimon's case I believe your apprehension is misplaced. In my case your apprehension is about as far from the truth as is possible.
parallel wrote:Bussard sure as hell did try to "sell" it.
In the sense that he was asking for funding to continue his research. Not quite the same as claiming to have a working reactor ready to go on the market. Which is essentially what Skipjack (not MSimon) said in the first place.
Kahuna wrote:More importantly, most here think that a U.S. patent for a LENR device is DOA.
I don't know about most people here, but most cold fusion enthusiasts, who by and large seem to accept that Rossi's device works as well as he claims, also seem to think the USPTO will never change its policy on granting cold fusion patents. I'd think the one would follow the other, though the wheels at the USPTO may grind slowly.
Kahuna wrote:Since the U.S. has to be Ampenergo's biggestes potential market, is it a forgone conclusion that they are prepared to go forward without IP protection? If not, it could be a long wait unless they think the 1MW demo plant will help their cause with the USPTO.
Maybe not a foregone conclusion, but at least they could legally stamp "patent pending" on the E-Cats they sell.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

vasimv
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:20 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Post by vasimv »

About possible Rossi's motives in case IF this is scam:

He is targeting for something big, that is why he isn't asking money right now. Defkalion's plant may be just bigger fraud installation to make a someone with big money believe in his claims. It is even easier to hide power sources on big site than in previous demonstrations. Defkalion's owners may be just friends of him or really misinformed guys (they will know someday in this case but probably too late).

Also possible that Rossi is playing on stock market and this is his real aim, not "investors" as in case of blacklight power. That may explain needment of defkalion's plant and why he isn't asking money. In case if the plant will start "working" and look like real thing - stocks of many energy companies may go down a lot. Even if that downturn will be short (before the fraud will get uncovered) - short sales of energy companies stocks will make good money.
Last edited by vasimv on Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Bussard sure as hell did try to "sell" it. How do you suppose he got those grants? I assume your saw his plea at Google too.
Of course he was selling it. And I did a fair amount to promote what he was selling. So much so that I (and several other bloggers) got a personal thank you from him.

And back when things were hot and heavy I got an offer about every three months to replicate Bussards work from various companies. Sadly the deals all fell through for various reasons. But I'm not aware if any of them made side deals with EMC2. I was never interested in doing something behind their backs. Even if it would take me out of my genteel poverty.

I always told the people who asked that it was no sure thing. With odds varying from 10% to 90% depending on my mood/understanding at a particular time. These days my confidence is in the 50% to 80% range.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply