10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by vasimv »

Rossi (and some of his predecessors with CF/LENR/etc) could just build small electric plant and run on just reaction's power to stop these discussions about a wrong measurements.

So, idea is simple. As Rossi's device could generate steam - why not plug it into a small turbine of some sort? Pre-heating stuff could get energy from strictly limited source (capacitors, batteries with measured charge).

Problem is to get good efficiency from low-temperature steam. What modern generators can do with that? If Rossi claims high energy coefficient - i think, it is enough to have 10-20% of steam's power converted to electricity. This is possible or steam should have much higher temperatures to obtain that?

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

Post by KitemanSA »

This is kind of what I was thinking except I thought he should use a small free-piston Stirling cycle engine. Better efficiency.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

GIThruster wrote:Simon, anyone who reads the paper can see the study was done very carefully. Again, the only argument against that has the slightest possibility to obtain is the attack on the man--the slander against Jansson in particular--which is why I am focused on it.

I have passed a total of about half a dozen notes with Dr. Jansson over the years. He seems a completely above board gentleman. It steams my britches that simply because he's had an abiding interest in BLP that is easy to date back a decade, and because BLP paid Rowan a total of IIRC $70k for apparatus, that people like Tom think they have cause for slander. They do not.

The report says much more heat, between 2-7X as much heat came out of the system than can be explained by conventional means. There is no reason to believe there is trouble with the way the heat was measured, nor the claim that conventional means cannot explain that heat. Tom can wave his sophistry wand all he likes, and attack Dr. Jansson all he likes, but these remain the facts.
If that is a challenge to deconstruct Jansson results I accept. I don't assume people are liars. In CF field there are very many genuine people trying to advance science some of whom are very capable. That does NOT mean that their experiments with positive results provide useful verification.

My point is that it is very difficult to eliminate errors in these experiments. And implicit assumptions often turn out untrue.

Give me a link to just one paper from Jansson describing results which cannot be explained, and I will critique and suggest, I expect, why said results can be explained conventionally. (Not that the precise mechanism for results is understood. It is rather like evolution, it does not fall because no-one has yet worked out a plausible mechanism with genetic or fossil evidence for the eye to evolve - tho actually I believe this has now been done).

BTW - in Jansson papers that I have read he does not make strong claims for anomalous energy. Just says there is excess heat subject to some (questionable) assumptions.

I am pretty confident it will be possible for me to do this since scientists like anomalous results - if real and clearly not explainable they represent a challenge that many will find interesting.

Best wishes, Tom

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

Post by vasimv »

KitemanSA wrote:This is kind of what I was thinking except I thought he should use a small free-piston Stirling cycle engine. Better efficiency.
Possible. But problem is to get efficient ready-to-use power generator. Just checked some manufacturers websites, they don't offer steam turbines less than 100 kW power (and these ones require steam at 350+ degrees). Will try to check some other options, but in general - more than 3-4% from peltier modules is not reachable without building your own complex electric power generator from scratch. :( Although i'm not engineer, may be someone knows better. :)

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

Post by Giorgio »

tomclarke wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
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?
Merits:
Different than usual approach.

Demerits:
Too many assumptions.

That more or less sums up all what there is to say until they will actually try to verify some of the assumptions they made and feed us some data.
I think the big gap in their paper is how they propose the slow neutrons are generated. They need relativistic electrons and blithely asume that these can exist in a lattice, without considering quantitatively what would need to happen for their mechanism (SPPs) to do this. they have never revistied this initial weak point in their argument.

Tom
Are you referring to their theorized coherent proton oscillation mode?

marvin57
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 2:16 pm

Post by marvin57 »

vasimv wrote:Possible. But problem is to get efficient ready-to-use power generator. Just checked some manufacturers websites, they don't offer steam turbines less than 100 kW power (and these ones require steam at 350+ degrees). Will try to check some other options, but in general - more than 3-4% from peltier modules is not reachable without building your own complex electric power generator from scratch. :( Although i'm not engineer, may be someone knows better. :)
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/04/cycl ... the-cheap/

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cyclone-engine.htm

http://www.cyclonepower.com/works.html
http://www.cyclonepower.com/better.html
"Additionally, we have built engines that don’t burn any fuel at all. Instead, we can recycle the heat from other sources such as ovens, furnaces, exhaust pipes or even solar collectors – thermal energy that would otherwise be wasted into the environment. Our Waste Heat Engine harvests this external heat to produce mechanical energy which, in turn, can run an electric generator. "

http://www.cyclonepower.com/whe.html

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

Post by raphael »

The devices that produce excess heat in slight, subtle and/or intermittent manners are interesting in their own realm.

Even under best-case scenarios, however, don't they basically pale to insignificance vis-a-vis the excess heat that the RossiFusion devices have been observed to produce?

One thing does seems very likely. If the highly positive reviews for RossiFusion keep coming in, a lot of the wind will be going out of BLP's sails in short order.

http://www.genistra.com/wp-content/uplo ... gRoom2.jpg
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
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: 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! :)
Yep, I clearly implied that I thought the notion of biological transmutation was ridiculous. I meant it. I did so in response to Parallel's clear implication that he believed in it by referencing the 'paper' and implicitly mentioning replication of results.

"Not a Jump" was in reference to Parallel's claim that he never said he supported biological transmutation, which, IMHO, is the same word smithing that you are claiming that I was making.

We both implied. I admit it. He doesn't.

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

Post by vasimv »

marvin57 wrote: "Additionally, we have built engines that don’t burn any fuel at all. Instead, we can recycle the heat from other sources such as ovens, furnaces, exhaust pipes or even solar collectors – thermal energy that would otherwise be wasted into the environment. Our Waste Heat Engine harvests this external heat to produce mechanical energy which, in turn, can run an electric generator. "

http://www.cyclonepower.com/whe.html
"WHE" requires 260C steam. Although there are many other steam engines which can operate at lower temperatures, like this:

http://www.reliablesteam.com/RSE/RSEengines.html

Or even fully assembled solar-to-power convertors with promized 24% peak efficiency (have to replace solar dish with heat exchanger from steam/hot water):

http://thepowerdish.com/index.html#content=specs


So, Rossi (or his device's tester) is able to build small powerplant from existing components without much efforts. :)

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

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
They have paid money to Rossi - his claim that it is all his money is false.
They are selling licenses - mechanics for a scam.
They are looking for additional investors - mechanics for a scam.

Further, they claim space applications which seems to indicate a lack of understanding of even the claimed nature of the 'discovery'.

I do not agree that this is strong proof. Your claim that this is 'proof' because they are 'not stupid' seems somewhat lacking to me.

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

Post by Giorgio »

GIThruster wrote:I have passed a total of about half a dozen notes with Dr. Jansson over the years. He seems a completely above board gentleman. It steams my britches that simply because he's had an abiding interest in BLP that is easy to date back a decade, and because BLP paid Rowan a total of IIRC $70k for apparatus, that people like Tom think they have cause for slander. They do not.
Make it more like Half a million, but that's not the point for me.

BLP has been making amazing claims for the past 20 years.
BLP made announcements 2 years ago claiming to be ready to cover the world energy needs with their hydrino power plants.
YET I still have to read a report from anyone claiming more than few% excess heat.
YET I still see no power plant being delivered or EVEN announcing their construction.

You know what's the only thing that is coming out from BLP in these days?
Is stuff like this:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/rr/offer-an ... sale-4.pdf
I applaud your efforts to restore America's competitive advantage by changing the number of shareholders that a private company may accept before being forced to be a public reporting company. 
This, gentlemen, is a pure example of a Big Bunch of Crap.
Last edited by Giorgio on Tue May 17, 2011 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Giorgio »

MSimon wrote:GIThruster,

I notice you spent a lot of time with the least important of Tom's criticisms.

The most important (possible evidence of experimental error) got no attention from you. Curious.
Not curious, convenient.

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

Post by Giorgio »

vasimv wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:This is kind of what I was thinking except I thought he should use a small free-piston Stirling cycle engine. Better efficiency.
Possible. But problem is to get efficient ready-to-use power generator. Just checked some manufacturers websites, they don't offer steam turbines less than 100 kW power (and these ones require steam at 350+ degrees). Will try to check some other options, but in general - more than 3-4% from peltier modules is not reachable without building your own complex electric power generator from scratch. :( Although i'm not engineer, may be someone knows better. :)
You will probably find this interesting:
http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/2007GRCPaper.pdf

Efficiency is low thought, around 8 to 10%.

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

Post by parallel »

tomclarke,

You have provided enough reading material that it will take me a while to get back to you on some of it.

The replication paper http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/In ... /index.htm was much too well written to have been penned by a PhD.

I see Puthoff, the founder of EarthTech, is such a colorful character (to put it mildly) you would certainly darn him, as you did Jannson, but for EarthTech coming up with results you like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff

Edit Very strange. I write "dee ay mn" (have to mangle it or it gets changed) but when posted it comes out "darn"

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Ivy Matt wrote:
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.
IIRC the closest he got in the Google talk was roughly "the physics are mostly done, engineering is what remains".

Either way, Bussard versus Rossi. Pretty disparate pedigrees, personally and professionally and experimentally. Also, pointing to a major industrial Co partnering, that took a shot in the wing as evidence or credibility with the EEStor droop.

Post Reply