I wish I had been at that talk.MSimon wrote:
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.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....
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.MSimon wrote:None. That is the point of doing a 3 day test. Sheesh.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....
It may be dead wrong. But it would be more convincing.Crawdaddy wrote:Lets not even bother to talk about the requirement of months on the 1MW reactor which is plainly dead wrong.
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.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.
Yeah, I think this about sums it up:MSimon wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/ ... os-failed/
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.”
Page 2: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.
Based on the above I postulate that :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.
Zinc / brass + vacuum = contamination at anything above room temp.Crawdaddy wrote: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.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.
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.