10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[rcain]

This is a good rebuttal to Krivit's accusation of fraud

http://pesn.com/2011/10/30/9501941_Rebu ... Fraudster/

it is nothing of the sort. it is shit.

[MSimon]

I would not entirely rule out Steve's accusations of fraud;........

http://pesn.com/2011/10/30/9501941_Rebu ... Fraudster/

[Giorgio]

This is a good rebuttal to Krivit's accusation of fraud

http://pesn.com/2011/10/30/9501941_Rebu ... Fraudster/

What a joke

Who is this Hank Mills anyway?

[Joseph Chikva]

Who is this Hank Mills anyway?

As I understand, the man who have seen alive "happy customer' but nevertheless saying:

I would not entirely rule out Steve's accusations of fraud; but I personally find that extremely unlikely. I give it a 1% probability just because I have fooled before by people I thought were genuine but who turned out to be scammers.

Parallel did not see but sure in Rossi in 100%
But this is 100% scam:

What You Can Do
Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
Join the H-Ni_Fusion technical discussion group to explore the details of the technology.
Once available, purchase a unit and/or encourage others who are able, to do so.
Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
Consider investing in Rossi's group once they open to that in October.
Help us manage the PESWiki feature page on Rossi's technology.

[tomclarke]

I would not entirely rule out Steve's accusations of fraud;........

http://pesn.com/2011/10/30/9501941_Rebu ... Fraudster/

Rossi may well not be a fraudster. But nothing prevents self-delusion. And he sure as hell acts like somone selling snake oil.

EDIT: & the PESN guy sounds a bit delusional himself:

And Steven Krivit -- one of the key go-to guys for cold fusion (he doesn't call it that) -- being a primary opponent, actually accusing Rossi of "fraud", will be another sad commentary on our day. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Krivit ends up being shown to be mind controlled in the least (10% probability), and possibly even knowingly on the payroll of vested interests (2% probability), with a mission to discredit Rossi. But we can't make that kind of accusation without evidence, and I don't know of any yet.

[ladajo]

And Krivit's post today is not pulling any punches.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/ ... ot-enough/

Krivit has a decent history of objectivity, but what ever has happened behind the scenes has certainly pushed Krivit to go all in, betting against Rossi.

[painlord2k]

Rossi may well not be a fraudster. But nothing prevents self-delusion.

I strongly disagree. Self-delusional people are not able to heat water with their self-delusion. It don't matter how much they are deluded.

It is like the end of "Dusk to Dawn" with George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino: psychopathics don't explode when exposed to sun light.

[painlord2k]

What speaks against that is that they reduced the output to 480 KW.

As to why the lower output? To prevent uncontrolled output - all the Nickel reacting at once.

Rossi told that due to an unexpected glitch discovered he would be able to show 1 MW with a COP => 6 power driven or 1/2 MW self sustained.
The client preferred the self-sustained mode to the 1MW with a cop of 6.

The e-cat, he say, is safe because the reaction stop when the nickel melt.
But a broken e-cat is not very useful.

It appears that the devices are safe as long as they are not connected to electrical power. But they need to be connected for start-up.

The self sustained mode is safer with the electric power connected, because they are better able to keep the reaction under control and don't allow it to become self sustained.
Probably they are able to produce positive energy at some temperature but it become self supporting at higher temperatures.

I wonder if they couldn't be started by a natural gas burner and a heat pipe?

Yes they could. I already asked it to Rossi in his blog (JoNP).

My opinion is the geometry of the reactors is the most complex thing to design properly to be able to control the reaction. Small enough to not be able to become really self sustaining but large enough to be able to initiate the reaction.

Maybe small self-sustaining reactors (like pebbles in a pebbles-bed) could do it and be more manageable, just take them one at time and throw them is a pool of cold water.

[TallDave]

I strongly disagree. Self-delusional people are not able to heat water with their self-delusion. It don't matter how much they are deluded.

Or can they? Maybe self-delusion is actually a huge untapped resource. And how can we know, unless we choose to delude ourselves into believing this is true?

Seriously, though, plausible explanations for what we’ve seen are getting harder to come by, and the necessary ingredients to have something go this far are starting to sound implausible, more like the fodder of wild conspiracy theories. (Is Rossi’s customer “in on it?” Is the payment to Rossi fake?)

So, another customer, the two big university tests... pretty soon we're going to have a lot more certainty one way or the other. I won't be shocked if Rossi's managed to somehow fool everyone thus far (I don’t know how David Copperfield does the things he does, either, and I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “magic”) but that outcome seems to be getting less likely.

Krivit, btw, is becoming rather pathetic. Would it really make any difference if the steam had run through a generator to light a bulb? Please, energy is energy.

[icarus]

Krivit's butt-hurt snivelling is pathetic and cringe-worthy, I don't think we'll ever know what his real agenda was, maybe as simple as petty jealousy and bruised-ego envy. The vitriolic accusations of fraud levelled at Rossi, many on this board, have a level of personal animosity that far outweighs any of Rossi's actions thus far. All he has done is self-publish some test data, let people post you-tube clips of his lab set-up and put up a website for alternative nuclear theories. He has actually been very sparse on outrageous claims only admitting on Friday that he thinks it is a breakthrough. Although "tom clarke" would seem to be an expert on snake-oil, (he is a known vociferous pusher of the man-made global warming snake-oil) I think he has got this one wrong.

I think one reason Rossi allows any publicity at all is because it ensures his personal safety. Most corporate tech. developments of possible commercial importance are done in absolute secrecy (witness Polywell) but this one is too big and controversial to risk it being killed into ultimate blackness by vested interests. By being public, yet not completely transparent Rossi negates all lot of that risk but maintains enough IP that he can make some money out of it. Unfortunately, to a cynical eye that makes it look like a clumsy scam .... except he is getting no richer than a tokomak fusion researcher ...

[D Tibbets]

New Physics or incredible accomplishments?

1)Endothermic fusion reactions past 62Ni (I know this is laughed at by some, but I have found literally dozen's of credible references pointing this out and I have found none that counter to this view).
Other LENR claims mostly use reasonable fusion fuels such as D-D reactions. The nickel may have some role, but it is not as a fuel.

....

Dan do not search on Ni and H, I have not calculated from myself but if mass of product is lower than sum of masses of reactants that would be exo and not endo. Certainly, if that occurs.

This the basis of the argument. Of course each suceeding heavier nuclei has more missing mass. What seems to confuse people is that this missing mass is not one homogenous type of energy with one physical effect. The portion of the missing mass represented by the strong force is always attractive. But, the accumulating protons also results in very strong repulsive forces. As this type of energy is repulsive, when it is stored in the nucleus it is potential (endothermic) energy trying to tear the nucleus apart. ie:energy is released when heavy nuclei fission. It is also released when light nuclei fission, but in this case the change in strong force potential energy exceeds that of the electromagnetic mediated decrease in potential energy, so the net effect is endothermic fission of light elements. It is the balance of these two energies that determines whether the end product/s have a lower potential energy than the reactant/s. As you know the only way to extract energy (heat, KE) is to reduce the potential energy. This is explained in several of the links I have provided.

As far as many possible combinations of nucleons being possible with resulting various binding energies (remember that binding energy is actually the sum of two opposing energies). That is why the data for binding energy per nucleon cannot be directly compared to total binding energy per nucleus. The two numbers are not the same. The total binding energy per nucleon is the attractive force (A) minus the repulsive force (R), or by convention the attractive force (strong force) is represented by a negative value. so the equation would be R + A = BE/nucleon. The total binding energy per nucleus is the absolute value of R + the absolute value of A = BE/ nucleus ( at least as used in these arguements). The binding energy per nucleon changes at each step so you cannot simply multiply the BE/nucleon of a selected nucleus by A. A completely different result is obtained.An iterative approach is needed, actually an iterative approach of the subsets of energy (attractive and repulsive)* for each nuclus in the sequence is needed.

Another way is to view it is that adding nucleons always adds to the strong force attraction which always results in more KE released in the system. The potential energy due to the strong force always decreases (becomes more negative) as the nucleus grows. In the same way adding nucleons (protons) always adds potential energy to the nucleus, which means that KE must be extracted from the system. When the rate of repulsive energy (Coulomb repulsion) growth exceeds that of the attractive component there is a turn around point where the energy flow reverses. That is why 62Ni is at the peak of the graph that is widely used. There are all sorts of combinations of protons and neutrons but there can only be one nucleus that is the king of the hill and that is obvious from the graph , tables and text from many sources. There is a graph near the bottom of the Wikipedia article on Nuclear Binding Energy which shows this in a different way and includes presumably all of the possible isotopes.

Note that you can have an excited 63Cu nucleus that releases KE when it decays to stable 63Cu, but this additional potential energy of the excited isomer had to be added in the first place so this does not represent a difference in the energy balance in the system. A portion of energy was just stored in this manner for a while- much like a battery or a higher energy intermediate in a chemical or nuclear reaction. Only the original and final products determine the net energy balance.

* The weak force and Pauli exclusion mediated forces also make up part of the equation but I've ignored them for simplicity. Be certain though that they have been included in careful analysis, and give answers very close to the experimental data, which is that 62Ni is at the top of the hill. Actually, some flip the graph of nuclear binding energy/ nucleon upside down. because this more reasonably represents the nuclei with the lowest potential energy, where KE has to be applied to move to the left or right of this point on the graph.

Dan Tibbets

[Maui]

Krivit's butt-hurt snivelling is pathetic and cringe-worthy, I don't think we'll ever know what his real agenda was, maybe as simple as petty jealousy and bruised-ego envy. The vitriolic accusations of fraud levelled at Rossi, many on this board, have a level of personal animosity that far outweighs any of Rossi's actions thus far.

HAVE YOU NOT SEEN ANY OF ROSSI'S POSTS IN RESPONSE TO VERY LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED? 90% OF THE VITRIOL, ANIMOSITY, NAME CALLING AND CAPS I HAVE SEEN IN THIS DEBACLE HAVE COME FROM ROSSI.

[icarus]

Krivit's butt-hurt snivelling is pathetic and cringe-worthy, I don't think we'll ever know what his real agenda was, maybe as simple as petty jealousy and bruised-ego envy. The vitriolic accusations of fraud levelled at Rossi, many on this board, have a level of personal animosity that far outweighs any of Rossi's actions thus far.

HAVE YOU NOT SEEN ANY OF ROSSI'S POSTS IN RESPONSE TO VERY LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED? 90% OF THE VITRIOL, ANIMOSITY, NAME CALLING AND CAPS I HAVE SEEN IN THIS DEBACLE HAVE COME FROM ROSSI.

It is informative to look for the first offender in name-calling flame wars ... (as if it really matters when you are talking about scientific revolutions??) ... got a peer-reviewed link for your 90% figure and righteous outraged extreme caps-lock certainty? (no, i don't really care ... nor do I really care what you think.)

[KitemanSA]

New Physics or incredible accomplishments?

1)Endothermic fusion reactions past 62Ni (I know this is laughed at by some, but I have found literally dozen's of credible references pointing this out and I have found none that counter to this view).
Other LENR claims mostly use reasonable fusion fuels such as D-D reactions. The nickel may have some role, but it is not as a fuel.

Dan do not search on Ni and H, I have not calculated from myself but if mass of product is lower than sum of masses of reactants that would be exo and not endo. Certainly, if that occurs.

This the basis of the argument. Of course each suceeding heavier nuclei has more missing mass. What seems to confuse people is that this missing mass is not one homogenous type of energy with one physical effect.

Actually, what seems to confuse no one but you is that the "missing mass" between reactants and product is the SUMMATION of all the effects you try to explain as different things. The VERY SIMPLE TRUTH is that E=mc² and that is the final result. Change in mass = change in energy - period.

If you add a proton to a 62Ni, you will release a certain amount of energy. If you add one to a stable Bismuth atom, you will release LESS energy than the 62Ni, precisely because of the Coulohm repulsion you mention (along with other factors). But the strong force energy always exceeds the Coulohm repulsion and other effects in any stable isotope (except 4He).

[D Tibbets]

2) Some apparently secret way of isotopically purifying Nickel62.

As far as I know, he never said he "purified" 62Ni. He merely said he removed enogh of the Ni58 to eliminate radioactive wastes. And in any case, this would be new engineering, not new physics.

3) Some secret catalyst (not the 62Ni)

In what way is this "new physics"?

3) Gamma radiation that is present only at times, and perhaps now is ignored.

Again, what "new physics"? Better shielding, lower Ni58 content... Who knows. But what new physics?

4) Claims (Rossi's or others?) that neutrons might be involved, which would have to be magically supplied.

I don't recall Rossi EVER saying neutrons. I do recall him saying NOT Widom Larsen which suggests NOT neutrons. But..

5) Incredible claims of heat production that is based on incredibly stupid and unreliably controlled steam production and quantifying methods.

Really Dan? Are you claiming that such takes new physics? Stupidity is "new physics"?

What is the difference between purifying and removing contaminates? Natural abundance of 62Ni is about 4% of all nickel. I doubt purifying it to 50% would effect the (real) radiation problem much. But, even that level of purification is difficult, and expensive. And what of the isotopic analysis that someone did?

As far as neutrons, I was not sure if this was a Rossi claim or originated from someone else's speculation, that is why I qualified the statement.

As far as new physics or just incredible engineering or experimental claimes, didn't you read the first line of my post? To remind you I said 'new physics OR unsupported incredible claims.

Dan Tibbets