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: 14321
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:42 pm

TallDave wrote:OK great, what's a safe gamma radiation level from such a device, given in watts? It sounds like you're saying it's much less than 470KW / 1000 = 470 watts. I'm thinking more in the range of milliwatts, so we're talking maybe 5 or 6 orders of magnitude too small to be producing the power they claim safely? Does that sound right?

I think this would be a good question to ask Defkalion's forum, they seem open to inquiry. I will give it a shot over there.

The material used for shielding (as long as it is above atomic number 15 (or is it 10?) hardly matters except for volume required
This is where I started wondering about graded-Z shielding and x-ray flourescence. Not sure it's applicable here, though.


I haven't run the numbers but that sounds about right. Within a few OOM. Close enough for the discussion.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Crawdaddy
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:53 pm

TallDave wrote:
To explain the 18 hour Levi test the argument immediately degenerates into absurdity.
That may be true, but I haven't yet seen much more than handwaving to that effect. What I'd really like to see is a comparison to the highest known chemical potential, assuming (yes, very optimistically) no engineering constraints.


The 18 hour test generated 1000MJ of excess heat. The reactor volume was 1 liter. 0.4g of hydrogen was added to the reaction vessel. The reported excess heat is equal to the energy you would get from burning 6.5kg of hydrogen with 105kg of oxygen.

Very few reactions release more heat than the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen (by mass).

MSimon
Posts: 14321
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:06 pm

The 18 hour test generated 1000MJ of excess heat.


According to who's measurement?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

JoeP
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Postby JoeP » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:07 pm

Re: TallDave's questions...

I thought there was some numbers on the 10KW E-Cat in the original thread for an upper bound on the amount of energy that could be produced in that small volume. I took a cursory look, but couldn't find it. (Any way to easily search a specific thread?)

Anyway, the NASA slides showed the minimum times they needed to run an E-Cat for to rule out chemical means. I presume they ran the numbers for chemical reactions and then added some kind of insurance to come up with those runtime figures. Crawdaddy stated that a chemical process is ruled out by the tests if honestly performed (such as the purported 18 hour one). If you don't like it then you should try to show otherwise?

As you said, using some high explosive like TNT might be a good starting point, although other reactions are probably more energy dense. I seem to recall from my high school chemistry class (if I remember right) that explosives aren't always more energy dense than other slower reactions...but it is a start. I'm not a chemist, but it probably isn't hard for anyone mathematically inclined to run the figures for common explosives and combustibles. There is probably plenty of figures available you can simply take and plug and play into the dimensions you like. Probably even an applet somewhere you can use.

If Rossi is running a scam, then he simply is feeding power to his device through a hidden wire, or some simple trick like that. No need to generate heat through secret chemicals.

Crawdaddy
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:24 pm

MSimon wrote:
The 18 hour test generated 1000MJ of excess heat.


According to who's measurement?


Prof. Levi of course.

MSimon
Posts: 14321
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:41 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:
MSimon wrote:
The 18 hour test generated 1000MJ of excess heat.


According to who's measurement?


Prof. Levi of course.


Independently verified? Replicated? Or is he part of the sales team too?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Crawdaddy
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:49 pm

MSimon wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:
MSimon wrote:
The 18 hour test generated 1000MJ of excess heat.


According to who's measurement?


Prof. Levi of course.


Independently verified? Replicated? Or is he part of the sales team too?


He has a spotless record for honesty. Never been accused of any wrong doing ever.

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:53 pm

Thanks Crawdaddy, that's helpful.

Joe -- I don't really object to that characterization per se, but what I'd really like to do is plot cumulative e-cat energy release against theoretical maximums. Then we could point to a period of time and say "OK, if it runs this long as a chemical reaction, they would have to have this level of chemical potential energy density." Eventually we would get to the point on the graph where we could say something like "after x days, a volume of hydrogen needed to produce this energy chemically within an E-Cat/Hyperion would have to have been compressed to the point it became degenerate matter!" which, if nothing else, would be fun.

And to Simon's point, we could draw larger and larger error bars, to say things like "At this point, if it produced even 5% of the heat claimed, it would still have to have this (ridiculous) chemical potential energy density."
Last edited by TallDave on Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:03 pm

Simon -- looks they are using the out you mentioned.
Question wrote:OK, slightly more serious question:

One of the more persuasive criticisms I've seen of these devices is that the gamma shielding seems insufficient for the energy produced. The shielding provided looks like it would reduce gammas by a factor of about a thousand, but if the heat is mostly produced by the gammas then the gamma radiation that would escape the device (in the range of watts or tenths of watts) seems too high to be safe.

So is it that
1) the major source of heat is not gammas
2) the shielding provides more protection than 1000x
3) ??? something else.

Thanks.
Defkalion GT wrote:@ Tall Dave
A complete answer to your questions needs us to explain all mechanisms of the so called, in page 21 of Hyperion specs (About the reaction), dynamic system of multi-stage set of reactions.
This is quite difficult in a forum space. As we have stated in the same section

...It is our intention to publish all relative measurements in scientific journals and events, when our tests are finally concluded.

So, at present, pick #3 from your choices as the more correct answer.
Thanks
Hmmm. Have to look at the specs later. For now, I should really write some SQL.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:38 pm

Wow, the stench of groupthink around here has gotten worse ... didn't think it was possible.

So Prof. Levi is less reliable than Nebel's and Park's claim to 3 (or was it 4?) neutrons.

The position that parallel and I are somehow "emotionally invested" in Rossi being right is absurd .... sometimes the facts that he is onto something just beat you over the head.

I think you will find that the sceptics have become emotionally invested in Rossi being wrong, hence these mob-style disgusting personal attacks against the man. (Thus the valid claim of pathological scepticism).

All I'm saying is whether he is right or wrong, give him a fair break. What did he ever do to all of you?

Anybody asked EMC2 for a fair, open, public, third party testing for the Polywell so we can all see it is all kosher and is really containing electron plasmas as claimed (don't mention the non-existent fusion)?? They are just creaming it off the tax-payer.

MSimon
Posts: 14321
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:48 pm

I think you will find that the sceptics have become emotionally invested in Rossi being wrong, hence these mob-style disgusting personal attacks against the man. (Thus the valid claim of pathological scepticism).


Have you discussed this with your mommy?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14321
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:56 pm

BTW EMC2 is not claiming any new unexplored science. Just a different configuration of known principles.

OTOH Rossi has a jumping story problem. He needs to get it under control so it is not continually contradicting its self. First there was no radiation, then some, then none (or was it the other way around?). Doesn't he know what he is doing? Can he measure?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Crawdaddy
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:25 am

TallDave wrote:
And to Simon's point, we could draw larger and larger error bars, to say things like "At this point, if it produced even 5% of the heat claimed, it would still have to have this (ridiculous) chemical potential energy density."


This is the part where the discussion degenerates to absurdities, like I mentioned before.

Skipjack
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:52 am

This is the part where the discussion degenerates to absurdities

I thought that happened already over 300 pages or so ago in another thread ;)

ScottL
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Postby ScottL » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:54 am

As cordially as I can put my view about Rossi, I've written just a few issues I have with the device.

First, we have a black box with "secret sauce" so to speak. This is not a mechanism for installing trust in the device or the experimentation. This places the largest question mark on the whole situation and now we're receiving reports that the catalyst isn't needed. This should raise some doubts, but should not lead to dismissing Rossi yet.

Second, the numbers have been run several times about shielding claims for gamma radiation and general certification in such devices. Assuming Rossi has certified his device, which is a real requirement if it produces gammas, the shielding he claims is not sufficient to block even low level gammas. This is a very real concern if it his claims are to be believed. That brings into question however; the claim reversals of "yes it produces gammas", "no it produces none", "yes it produces", "maybe it produces." I think it's reasonable based on the measurements previously taken that its unlikely to produce any.

Thirdly, the numbers don't always add up. People make mistakes in math and I assume Rossi does too from time to time. His claimed amount of water pumping through his system is easily enough to fill his work area in the Krivit video. If his claims of complete conversion to steam are true, not only would the area of those 2 very small rooms be saturated in steam, but it'd be exceedingly difficult to breath in. The escape here is that Rossi was hoping Krivit wouldn't apply due diligence and accept the claims while running the device at the minimal of power. IE: He purposely trashed the demo.

Finally, there are the claims of big name organizations discussing doing business with Rossi. First it was NASA until NASA's report came out stating Rossi didn't have what he claimed. Then it was the Navy, followed by them denying any involvement with Rossi. Recently it was MIT and a possible testing only to be turned away by Rossi. I can understand avoiding organizations like these completely, but to meet with them wreaks more of a desire to have a name association in news.

My conclusion is that there is not enough information to make a 100% correct decision on whether he has something or not, but that from experience and these large gaps/faults, it is highly unlikely. I would however; but overjoyed to be proven wrong....that just hasn't happened yet.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests