10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Tech]

Slightly off topic but funny, this video was posted on Rossis blog and his FB site:
Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ

[ScottL]

Ahhh the Hitler videos, done a million times for every game out there, and now for Rossi. If only the information in it were true

[Aero]

Slightly off topic but funny, this video was posted on Rossis blog and his FB site:
Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ

That is funny, but as I recall, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Italy were allies at the time. Don't you think that maybe Hitler's SS would have simply squished Rossi? That would have stopped the research and inhibited people from talking about it.

And it is not as far off topic as this thread has ventured in the past. I recall "200," which was "off topic" IMO. But a little funny.

[Giorgio]

Slightly off topic but funny, this video was posted on Rossis blog and his FB site:
Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ

That is funny, but as I recall, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Italy were allies at the time. Don't you think that maybe Hitler's SS would have simply squished Rossi? That would have stopped the research and inhibited people from talking about it.

And it is not as far off topic as this thread has ventured in the past. I recall "200," which was "off topic" IMO. But a little funny.

Franco was in Spain, in Italy we had Mussolini.

[JoeP]

Slightly off topic but funny, this video was posted on Rossis blog and his FB site:
Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ

That is funny, but as I recall, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Italy were allies at the time. Don't you think that maybe Hitler's SS would have simply squished Rossi? That would have stopped the research and inhibited people from talking about it.

And it is not as far off topic as this thread has ventured in the past. I recall "200," which was "off topic" IMO. But a little funny.

Franco's Italy? You are thinking of Mussolini. It was due to Mussolini that half of my family came to the USA to get away from that guy (fortunately for me)

[Axil]

Ah yes, the "It has been reported..." gambit. Combining the passive voice with unattributed yet authoritative sources.

In the scientific literature, this construction is followed either by immediate attribution or a footnote.

So sorry…I stand corrected…

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 44879.html

The device does not produce gamma rays except for a slight increase over background (Rossi, SL) The device produced a large burst of gamma rays when it started up. (Celani) CONTRADICTION

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 42665.html

Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation.

As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were
saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The
following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to "delete overrange," which was >7.5 icrosievert/hour,and later switched on again.

About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway.

[Joseph Chikva]

Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation.

As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were
saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The
following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to "delete overrange," which was >7.5 icrosievert/hour,and later switched on again.

About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway.

If reaction characterized with radiation, variation of intensity of that radiation shows variation of intensity of reaction.
E.g. DT fusion intensity counted by neutron flux.
No neutrons - no fusion.
But if neutrons - not obligatory occurrence of fusion.
So, tale of those radiation counters behavior is only the current bubbling of Mr. Rossi.

[Kahuna]

Here is an email Defkalion is putting out to insterested parties:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40 ... 48955.html

Some say this is further evidence of a scam (a way to actually extract the funds from the marks) and others that it is the expected way a multinational with promising black-box tech would act. I can see merit in both points of view. IMO, the scam view would have all the Defkalion folks as co-conspirators however, which would be a very big scam indeed.

As usual for this whole Rossi/E-Cat saga, nothing is clear-cut either way yet and I suspect the waiting game continues.

[KitemanSA]

Andrea Rossi
May 4th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Dear Mr Ivan Mellen:
Thank you for your glance in the future possible applications: for now I am earthly attached to the present necessity to arrive with a good 1 MW plant in October, to make heat.
Maybe your previsions are right.
About your questions:
a- the temp inside the reactor reached the 1,600 °C
b- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
====
I have two questions:
a) How close to the nickel melting point (1455 C) can reactor temperature be? (This is important for rocket engine efficiency.)
b) If output power is significantly reduced, is refueling period extended proportionally? (This has impact on the long term system heating.)

In context, it is clear that Rossi is claiming reactor OPERATION at 1600 C.

Your clarity differs markedly from mine. To me he is answering precisely as I suggested, "it has reached", not "it operates at".

And as for confusing Celsius and Fahrenheit, well, you don't need to be a scientist to know the difference - just an engineer.

Well, he ain't one of those either!

[Am]

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... rorUzZ18Jw

Sorry for the long link.

Conference about the-cat, organised by someone from the University of Pisa.

The appointment is therefore in Viareggio (LU) Saturday, July 23, 16.00-19,30 time, in the conference room of Villa Borbone, located in the address labels that leads from Viareggio to Torre del Lago Admission free

[DancingFool]

So sorry…I stand corrected…

The device does not produce gamma rays except for a slight increase over background (Rossi, SL) The device produced a large burst of gamma rays when it started up. (Celani) CONTRADICTION

Axil, thanks for the links.

So the production of gammas at start-up is a presumption, rather than an observation. Celani was not able to verify exactly when the reaction started, only that it occurred during a few minutes window.

The claim by Rossi of only a slight radiation level could be a simple misunderstanding if he was referring to an operational (therefore shielded) unit. More entertaining is the claim from http://www.babelation.com/content/inter ... chn?page=2 , an interview with Rossi:

In a nutshell for very nicely measuring the range of radiation we should create a 360 degree hole in the reactor to allow the meter to read what's happening there.

In other words, Rossi is claiming that the gamma radiation from a quantity of powder has an anisotropic, directional spectrum variation. I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation for _that_ one.

KitemanSA -

Your clarity differs markedly from mine. To me he is answering precisely as I suggested, "it has reached", not "it operates at".

As I specified, my "clarity" comes from context. Ivan Mellen was asking about reactor temperatures with an eye to creating a rocket. A brief period of high temperature followed by self-destruction does not seem to me to be any way to design a rocket, and it's hard to believe that Rossi thinks it is, either.

And, if it comes to that, how does Rossi know what maximum temperature has been reached? None of the demo E-Cats actually senses reactor capsule temperature, and this makes less than no sense from a control system standpoint. It is, in fact, the datum which made up my mind about Rossi's credibility (none) and honesty (ditto).

[tomclarke]

Here is an email Defkalion is putting out to insterested parties:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40 ... 48955.html

Some say this is further evidence of a scam (a way to actually extract the funds from the marks) and others that it is the expected way a multinational with promising black-box tech would act. I can see merit in both points of view. IMO, the scam view would have all the Defkalion folks as co-conspirators however, which would be a very big scam indeed.

As usual for this whole Rossi/E-Cat saga, nothing is clear-cut either way yet and I suspect the waiting game continues.

You need to be wearing very opaque glasses to see nothing as clear cut.

I've never been cold e-mailed by a genuine multinational with $40m black-box tech because of forum posting. Surely if genuine all they'd do would be to quietly arrange demo with competent big utility etc.

Nor have I ever before known revolutionary tech to be introduced via a non-technical blog masquerading as a peer reviewed e-journal.

[D Tibbets]

DancingFool, you are reading between the lines too much. Why would the start up of the reactor be unshielded? Al that he could do is turn on the water, open or close the hydrogen flow, turn on or adjust the heater- all done with valves/ controls outside the shielding, minimal as it is.

As far as the gamma ( or other radiation) being non isotropic, there are serous problems with such assumptions. Even in a device like the Dense Plasma Focus where the charged fuel/ fusion products may be directed in a beam, the x-rays/ gamma rays / neutrons are emitted isotropically. There may be some variation in speed/ energy if the birth interacting ions/ atoms are traveling in one direction, but this would only cause a variation in energy (like doppler shift effects), but the emission is still isotropic(in all directions).
There was mention in one post about trying to measure reverse Beta + (positron) decay. If a positron was emitted, it would be isotropic. When it hit an electron, it would annihilate along with the electron. The ~ 511 gammas (two) apparently rebound in opposite directions. , but these opposite directions originate from a randome orentation of the reaction. The average emmision would be recorded as isotropic. With paired detectors positioned on opposite sides of the machine you could detect these two gammas simutaniously, and deduce that they came from this reaction. But, it doesn't matter where you place the first detector, so long as the other is on the opposite side.. There is no preferred overall gamma radiation direction, when more than one event is considered, even in this specal case.

PS: Even if the lead shielding was thick enough to shield 99.999% or more of the supposed gamma radiation, there are a lot of holes along the pipe lengths, valves, etc. There would be presumed dangerous unshielded or comparatively poorly shielded areas. That raises another point. I donty know how much lead shielding there is. The only observation I know of is a picture of the Swedish scientists inspecting the machine. The insulation is peeled back to show the metal. It looks like a bunch of cotten like insulation, with a surface of thin metal foil. Granted, this observation could be dismissed by claiming that the led shielding had not yet been applied. But, it does illustrate that much of the bulk you see is thermal insulation, not gamma ray shielding.
Simplifying some (ignoring mild scattering), the shielding should surround as much of the reaction can as possible. The pips would not require much shielding except those areas where there is a direct line of sight into the can (at the ends or an elbow in the pipe). There should be thermal insulation, but only localized radiation shielding is manditory if there is significant gamma radiation.
This vagueness and seemingly haphazard handling of claimed gamma radiation is another reason I am skeptical.

Dan Tibbets

[DancingFool]

DancingFool, you are reading between the lines too much. Why would the start up of the reactor be unshielded?

DT, I'm sorry, but you've lost me. Could you please quote the statment you're referring to?

As far as the gamma ( or other radiation) being non isotropic, there are serous problems with such assumptions. Even in a device like the Dense Plasma Focus where the charged fuel/ fusion products may be directed in a beam, the x-rays/ gamma rays / neutrons are emitted isotropically. There may be some variation in speed/ energy if the birth interacting ions/ atoms are traveling in one direction, but this would only cause a variation in energy (like doppler shift effects), but the emission is still isotropic(in all directions).

Agreed. You see the problem I'm having. And I believe it's a pretty straightforward reading of Rossi's statememt. He claims that there was no gamma radiation detected because he positioned the detectors so as to miss certain emitted energies (which could be used to identify his catalyst). But he was "too conservative" in his placement, and missed the output altogether. This only makes sense if some energies are emitted at certain angles, i.e. anisotropically.

There is no preferred overall gamma radiation direction, when more than one event is considered, even in this specal case.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Even if the lead shielding was thick enough to shield 99.999% or more of the supposed gamma radiation, there are a lot of holes along the pipe lengths, valves, etc. There would be presumed dangerous unshielded or comparatively poorly shielded areas.

I have to disagree with you there. Since gamma radiation propagates line of sight, it's just a matter of geometry. Shielding can be in segments, at differing distances from the source, as long as all 4 pi steradians are blocked.

That raises another point. I donty know how much lead shielding there is.

30 kg / module

This vagueness and seemingly haphazard handling of claimed gamma radiation is another reason I am skeptical.

Dan Tibbets

Dan, you're preaching to the choir, here.

[Kahuna]

In the past, their has been some speculation here (Axil I think) that part (all?) of the E-Cat Hi preprosing included isotope separation. Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-ross ... highlights

Question: Your fuels are both Hydrogen and Nickel if I have understood you correctly, but can we suppose that all the Nickel isotopes participate in the Ni+H reaction or only a particular isotope of Nickel make the reaction and the other isotopes are useless?

Answer: We think that all the Ni participates in the reactions, even if some isotopes should be more efficient. Anyway, we use regular Ni, because the isotopes separation is too expensive, at least right now.

Some of the other highlights included in the summary may be of interest as well.