10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

krellkraver
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:33 am

White House Petition to Investigate E-Cat

Post by krellkraver »

Any US citizen interested in shedding more light on this E-Cat business might want to sign this White House online petition:

Code: Select all

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-usefulness-energy-catalizer-creation-italian-inventor-andrea-rossi/xwlqqgww
or using the White House's own link shortener:
http://wh.gov/j3P

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.
TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue :)
Again I think it a language difference. "Logical" doesn't mean true. Things can be VERY logical and VERY false if the propositions are false. :wink:

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I thought it was funny that several people jumped on NI as being the customer, which never really made much sense. The US Navy taking a shot on an application for mobile heaters made a lot more sense.

I think at this point it's fair to say NI and the USN have been convinced there is something here. I'm not quite fully in the Rossi camp, but I do not think Rossi is clever enough to have fooled these people. I think it is more likely Rossi, quirks and all, has stumbled into some kind of LENR, which may or may not be as efficient as he claims.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.

They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
Link? It would be interesting to read what they ACTULLY wrote first hand.
Amazing. You didn't even read their seminal paper (LOL) on the device before you began Konjecturing. You need a link? You are complaining to me that you didn't get an opportunity to ACTUALLY read what they wrote?!?!

This would explain why you never understood the flat out weird contradictions of Rossi's enrichment and reactivity claims, both towards what they originally proposed and to what Focardi is still claiming.

And I am ignorant... shakes head.

Anyway, here is the link.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Source.pdf

Or you can find it on Rossi's blog divided between a few posts. Did you know he had a blog?

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?m=201002

FYI, before you correct me on my original statement, it was based on table 3 and was actually related to natural composition ratio times energy. Although the energy claims without the ratio multiplier still favor NI58 by almost an order of magnitude.

And they are depleting the NI58... go figure.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

TallDave wrote:I thought it was funny that several people jumped on NI as being the customer, which never really made much sense. The US Navy taking a shot on an application for mobile heaters made a lot more sense.

I think at this point it's fair to say NI and the USN have been convinced there is something here. I'm not quite fully in the Rossi camp, but I do not think Rossi is clever enough to have fooled these people. I think it is more likely Rossi, quirks and all, has stumbled into some kind of LENR, which may or may not be as efficient as he claims.
To your point, this may be (and probably is) totally bogus but perhaps some here with Navy connections can check it out.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40 ... 55366.html
Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.
TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue :)
Again I think it a language difference. "Logical" doesn't mean true. Things can be VERY logical and VERY false if the propositions are false. :wink:
Giorgio,

Remember that you are talking to a man who believes that if you take a series of postulations that have "low probability" and rename them to be "unlikely" then they lose their multiplicative implications.

Regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Kahuna wrote:Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
Yes, very flimsy, but still interesting, thanks for sharing.

Rossi's certainly right about one thing: commercial success will be res ipsa loquitur, and nothing less will suffice. It will be interesting to see if he is hoist on that petard of his own making.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

TallDave wrote:
Kahuna wrote:Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
Yes, very flimsy, but still interesting, thanks for sharing.
Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
I agree, but thought that since we seem to have some strong connections to the Navy here that one short call to an old buddy might put this to rest one way or another.

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

Post by MSimon »

Kahuna wrote:
seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
I agree, but thought that since we seem to have some strong connections to the Navy here that one short call to an old buddy might put this to rest one way or another.
He is playing with fire by making such claims.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

FYI
Andrea Rossi
November 16th, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- no
2- no
3- yes
4- no
5- no
6- no
Sorry, I can’t be fluent in confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Charlie Zimmerman
November 16th, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

Congratulations on a growing contingent of customers! The future is bright indeed.

I just re-read your paper, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. The paper indicates reactions of all isotopes of NI. On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Regarding this paper:

1) Do all isotopes react?
2) This paper does not acknowledge depletion of NI58. Did the idea to deplete the NI58 come later?
3) Table 3 shows NI58 to be much more energetic. This seems inconsistent with the depletion of NI58. Do you agree?
4) Is the lower COP in the production device relative to the experimental results in the paper a result of depleting NI58?
5) If so, can it be assumed that NI58 is depleted as a matter of adding control?
6) Or, is NI58 depleted to reduce long half lived NI59 production?

I am thinking that your ideas regarding the process have changed dramatically from the original writing of this paper. You mentioned that you will be publishing the theory after the 1 MW reactor demonstration.

Will you publish your theory soon?
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

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

Post by ladajo »

seedload wrote:
TallDave wrote:
Kahuna wrote:Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
Yes, very flimsy, but still interesting, thanks for sharing.
Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
This is the point I raised previously. There is in fact no chance given the way aquisistions works.
Espescially with budgetary issues these days, NOBODY is going to go out on a limb for an unknown.

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

Post by Giorgio »

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.
TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue :)
Again I think it a language difference. "Logical" doesn't mean true. Things can be VERY logical and VERY false if the propositions are false. :wink:
Yes, I agree, and that's why I said I didn't find it logical.
As I said, the issue relies in the IF you place in support of your logic.
Too many IF and your logic (and hence the chances of it being true) just crumble.

In Rossi case I personally feel there are too many uncleared "IF" to give it any chance. IMBW, but with every new info we get I get more convinced of it.

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

Post by Giorgio »

ladajo wrote:This is the point I raised previously. There is in fact no chance given the way aquisistions works.
Espescially with budgetary issues these days, NOBODY is going to go out on a limb for an unknown.
I strongly second this and I find amusing that there are still people that do not understand (and question) such a basic issue.

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

MSimon wrote:
Kahuna wrote:
seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
I agree, but thought that since we seem to have some strong connections to the Navy here that one short call to an old buddy might put this to rest one way or another.
He is playing with fire by making such claims.
To clarify, this statement was just made by some anonymous blogger on the 22 Passi site which is rich with E-Cat yarns. Some have proven to be true, others not.

Post Reply