10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Image
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Post by Crawdaddy »

MSimon wrote:Image
I wish I had been at that talk.

Excuse me, what chemcial mechanism could produce the observed output from the small e-cat for 3 days? Please draw a schematic of the proposed chemical reactor.

Ummmmmm....

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Crawdaddy wrote:I wish I had been at that talk.

Excuse me, what chemcial mechanism could produce the observed output from the small e-cat for 3 days? Please draw a schematic of the proposed chemical reactor.

Ummmmmm....
None. That is the point of doing a 3 day test. Sheesh.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Obviously, you need to go to NASA and fix them.

In any event, Krivit may not be your popular boy, but he certainly is posting some damaging things for Rossi.

Be interesting to see how Rossi responds to the NASA bit. Of course, there are many US Agencies that begin with the letter "N".

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Post by Crawdaddy »

MSimon wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:I wish I had been at that talk.

Excuse me, what chemcial mechanism could produce the observed output from the small e-cat for 3 days? Please draw a schematic of the proposed chemical reactor.

Ummmmmm....
None. That is the point of doing a 3 day test. Sheesh.
The point is that there is no chemical reactor design that can explain the existing 4 hour result, unless all the external measurements are faked. In that case the reactor could run for 3 days or 3 million days and be just as fake.

Putting such an arbitrary number as 3 days in a slide presentation like this is poor practice. Perhaps the other slides in the presentation could shed some light on this obviously flawed slide.

Lets not even bother to talk about the requirement of months on the 1MW reactor which is plainly dead wrong.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Crawdaddy wrote:Lets not even bother to talk about the requirement of months on the 1MW reactor which is plainly dead wrong.
It may be dead wrong. But it would be more convincing.

Fortunately Rossi need not convince me. Just people willing to give him money. A much lower standard.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Craw, per my previous post, I couldn't find any mention of zinc in the CERN paper, but did note they used 3 cells with different cores (Copper, Nickel, Stainless Steel), none of which produced anomalous heat. From what I've read they did so to detect the hydrogen absorption effect and confirm it wasn't based on a the materials of the device.

If you have a link saying otherwise, I'd be interested to read it.

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Post by Crawdaddy »

ScottL wrote:Craw, per my previous post, I couldn't find any mention of zinc in the CERN paper, but did note they used 3 cells with different cores (Copper, Nickel, Stainless Steel), none of which produced anomalous heat. From what I've read they did so to detect the hydrogen absorption effect and confirm it wasn't based on a the materials of the device.

If you have a link saying otherwise, I'd be interested to read it.
Search for brass in the pdf document. As someone who makes microelectronic devices for a living I can tell you that zinc contamination is like a plague and can ruin interfaces in an instant when heated under vacuum. This is why the 1994 Focardi paper specifically states that ceramic contacts are required in the apparatus. This alone is enough to make this negative replication useless as proof that Focardi's original experiment was inaccurate.

The second very troubling aspect of this poorly done paper is that they cannot reproducibly load hydrogen into their device. This is the most basic preliminary step in any experiment of this kind. Reproducibly loading hydrogen in this experiment is not some mysterious effect it is something that people have been doing for more than a century. A monkey could reproducibly load hydrogen into this device if it wasn't a hopelessly flawed design.

In summary this paper is proof of nothing but that the experiment was poorly done. I wouldn't be surprised if this experiment was the result of some undergraduate honors project or something. No experienced experimentalist would produce such trash.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

What's an Ottoman reactor look lie? It sounds kind of interesting.

Like a padded seat with an E-cat built into it? ... Like those early Cray supercomputers ... mmmm bum warmers.

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by Maui »

Yeah, I think this about sums it up:
Brian Ahern, a researcher with expertise in LENR, wrote to New Energy Times with a concise summary of the recent Oct. 28 Rossi demo:

“Rossi has been clever enough to change the trick on each successive demo. Using a secret customer is a great way to allow him to fulfill his promise to demo the 1 MW unit in October. He then evaded conducting the demo transparently by saying that the customer demanded the demo conditions. The “customer’ signed off when Rossi gave him the wink and he shut things down without any measurements by anyone except the shill.

“Occam’s Razor, on the other hand, says that 12 inconclusive demos in succession are not random. It is well planned and orchestrated. He has used the journalists like a team of puppets.”

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Who wants to run a skeptical eye over these ultra-dense deuterium claims?

Sounds interesting angle for fusion afficianados like you guys around here.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5414.pdf

I mean at 130,000 kg/m^3 D2 you can get stuff done ... surely? High temp. BEC, quantum tunnelling, laser ICF, lots of things become more likely.

I'm partial to the power of the vortex force so I may be biased in my assessments.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

icarus wrote:Who wants to run a skeptical eye over these ultra-dense deuterium claims?

Sounds interesting angle for fusion afficianados like you guys around here.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5414.pdf

I mean at 130,000 kg/m^3 D2 you can get stuff done ... surely? High temp. BEC, quantum tunnelling, laser ICF, lots of things become more likely.

I'm partial to the power of the vortex force so I may be biased in my assessments.
Page 2:
If such a state of deuterium should exist at the reported density of about 130,000 g/cm3, it would greatly facility the ignition of a thermonuclear detonation wave in pure deuterium.
Based on the above I postulate that :
If such a state of deuterium does not exist than it will not facilitate the ignition of said thermonuclear reaction.


The issue of making speculations not supported by experimental evidences is that they can be twisted at pleasure.

sparkyy0007
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
Location: Canada

Post by sparkyy0007 »

Crawdaddy wrote:
ScottL wrote:Craw, per my previous post, I couldn't find any mention of zinc in the CERN paper, but did note they used 3 cells with different cores (Copper, Nickel, Stainless Steel), none of which produced anomalous heat. From what I've read they did so to detect the hydrogen absorption effect and confirm it wasn't based on a the materials of the device.

If you have a link saying otherwise, I'd be interested to read it.
Search for brass in the pdf document. As someone who makes microelectronic devices for a living I can tell you that zinc contamination is like a plague and can ruin interfaces in an instant when heated under vacuum. This is why the 1994 Focardi paper specifically states that ceramic contacts are required in the apparatus. This alone is enough to make this negative replication useless as proof that Focardi's original experiment was inaccurate.

The second very troubling aspect of this poorly done paper is that they cannot reproducibly load hydrogen into their device. This is the most basic preliminary step in any experiment of this kind. Reproducibly loading hydrogen in this experiment is not some mysterious effect it is something that people have been doing for more than a century. A monkey could reproducibly load hydrogen into this device if it wasn't a hopelessly flawed design.

In summary this paper is proof of nothing but that the experiment was poorly done. I wouldn't be surprised if this experiment was the result of some undergraduate honors project or something. No experienced experimentalist would produce such trash.
Zinc / brass + vacuum = contamination at anything above room temp.
No bakout or clean vac is possible. I tried to get away cheap on a few experiments, never again.

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Post by Crawdaddy »

sparkyy0007 wrote:[

Zinc / brass + vacuum = contamination at anything above room temp.
No bakout or clean vac is possible. I tried to get away cheap on a few experiments, never again.
I hear you brother.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

According to Sterling Allan at PESN, Rossi has signed an agreement with National Instruments to provide the instrumentation for the E-Cat plants. Interesting.

http://pesn.com/2011/11/10/9601953_Nati ... _controls/
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Post Reply