10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by Giorgio »

Betruger wrote:
rcain wrote:STOP! LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! can't you see what is happening? Rossi has caused you all to destroy yourselves by your own (lack of) arguments. the forum is EATING ITSELF ALIVE!

it is all part of his evil plan! RESIST!
SNAKES ON A FORUM!
:lol:
:D

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

Post by Giorgio »

UoB released this morning a press release:
http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/N ... nvolta.htm


Quick translation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Bologna - in reference to the report published on FoxNews.com and several other articles published in recent weeks - wants to claify that it has not been involved in the experiments conducted on the E-Cat by the Leonardo Corp. company owned by Andrea Rossi.


The University also states that:

1) no experiment concerning E-Cat was held at the University of Bologna on October 28, 2011, or earlier dates, nor was conducted by researchers of the University;

2) the University of Bologna (Department of Physics) is ready to start the experiments on the apparatus e-Cat as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Italian society of Andrea Rossi) will be made active: because of this reason researchers at the University of Bologna were present at the experiments in quality of observers.


The University continues to pay close attention to the evolution of the situation.

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

Post by Ivy Matt »

Giorgio wrote:...
The University also states that:

1) no experiment concerning E-Cat was held at the University of Bologna on October 28, 2011, or earlier dates, nor was conducted by researchers of the University;
...
Wait, is the UoB saying that Levi's 18-hour test never happened, or was that just an oversight?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Ivy Matt wrote:Wait, is the UoB saying that Levi's 18-hour test never happened, or was that just an oversight?
wants to claify that it has not been involved in the experiments conducted on the E-Cat by the Leonardo Corp. company owned by Andrea Rossi.
So, may be happened and may be not, but with there involvement. As MSimon said, secret souse, secret calorimetry, secret but happy customer, secret mentioned but not shown test.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

MSimon wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote:
So you were qualified to be an RO? Or just a nuke MM?
Neither? Not sure what a "nuke MM" means (machinist mate I think). The job entailed first learning the specifics of the system(s) then teaching. I was just a BSME at the time. But remember, these were the middle of the Jane Fonda years and anti-nuke sentiment was high. Anyone interested in (not repulsed by) nukes was a potential employee.

My current interests lie more in the LFTR (MSR) arena now.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

MSimon wrote: Rossi is almost as bad as religion. Or Drugs.
ROTFLMAO. Ok , it was really just a strong chuckle, but it was one of the best so far. :D

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Ivy Matt wrote:
Giorgio wrote:...
The University also states that:

1) no experiment concerning E-Cat was held at the University of Bologna on October 28, 2011, or earlier dates, nor was conducted by researchers of the University;
...
Wait, is the UoB saying that Levi's 18-hour test never happened, or was that just an oversight?
Actually, due to the questionable translation, I suspect a pronoun mis-match.

I suspect the meaning is more like this:
1) no experiment concerning E-Cat has been held at the University of Bologna on October 28, 2011 or any earlier dates, nor was (it, the 28Oct11 experiment) conducted by researchers of the University;

Conversely, they may just have as a basic definition the case that professors doing research on their own time and place are not considered "researchers of the University". I.e., they may not officially "know about" the 18hour demo.

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

Post by Giorgio »

Ivy Matt wrote:
Giorgio wrote:...
The University also states that:

1) no experiment concerning E-Cat was held at the University of Bologna on October 28, 2011, or earlier dates, nor was conducted by researchers of the University;
...
Wait, is the UoB saying that Levi's 18-hour test never happened, or was that just an oversight?
My apologies for the rough translation, I made it in a hurry before leaving. Anyhow is very clear in Italian. Any experiment held to date was done out of their premises and without the direct involvement of UoB personnel. If Levi made that test than he made it in his private form and without the approval or knowledge of UoB.

In short words, we have a contract with them, but stop using our name to support any claim whatsoever because to date we never looked into the subject.

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

Post by Giorgio »

KitemanSA wrote:I suspect the meaning is more like this:
1) no experiment concerning E-Cat has been held at the University of Bologna on October 28, 2011 or any earlier dates, nor was (it, the 28Oct11 experiment) conducted by researchers of the University
See my previous post for this point.
To me this news release of UoB was made just to clarify that they do not wish to be involved in the whole e-Cat issue until the contract with Rossi is finalized (i.e. he pays the first installment) and he delivers an e-cat to them).

Sorry also to you if I created confusion, but I had the taxi driver that was getting nervous for me being still in the hotel hall posting on Talk-polywell.org and not on his car ;)

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

MSimon wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote: Impressive. But what would you have been teaching? ME or reactor physics.
Teaching Sailors how to run naval reactors. Might have taught you.
You would have remembered me. My instructors told me that I had the top qual scores they had seen in 2 or 3 years. Despite the fact that my Machinist interrogator never gave a non machinist better than a 3.20 in plant mechanicals. I got a 3.20 from him.

Normal final orals ran about an hour from who ever was handy. For me they assembled 12 or so top Navy and civilian people and grilled me for 3 1/2 hours. It took them that long to find something I hadn't studied well. After I got done I was debriefed by my instructors and they were all beaming.
....
Wow, it's quite pathetic...

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

stefanbanev wrote:Wow, it's quite pathetic...
As far as I understand it is memoirs of US Navy, which is much less pathetic than Bulgarian Navy, Georgian Navy or even Russian Navy. :)

bk78
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:53 am

Post by bk78 »

KitemanSA wrote:
bk78 wrote: Do you know what background radiation is?
OMG!
Please oh omniscient one, regale us with your wisdom and technical knowledge. :roll:
Look it up on wikipedia, then read my comments again and explain why you don't agree that 100 times detection limit does not mean 100 times background radiation for anyone near the reactor.
KitemanSA wrote: What was your question? Not that it really matters, since YOU are the one making the statements about the way things ARE. You need to provide the data to support YOUR statements, not me.
It was YOUR estimation that Rossi deenriched Ni-58 by a factor 2-3. It was one of YOUR theorys that he did this for radiation issues. It was YOUR theory that the radiation is not proportional to Ni-58 content, but nonlinear (in a sense that makes a notable difference in our discussion). Thus YOU need to provide the data. Note that you can't even explain that there is no radiation from Ni62/64. Explaining the difference between Ni62/64 and Ni58 comes after that.
KitemanSA wrote:What, BECs are new physics? Cooper pairs are new physics? What part is new? Do the math, which Dr. Kim has done, and you get those values. I did it and I got those values, so I figure he did it about right.
What part is new? That you combine two phenomena, cooper pairs and BEC, which will only appear at very low temperatures for particles with mass, apply them to a high temperature, and imply the will function as a means to thermalize high energetic nuclear power of several kWs (meaning that the BEC is even HOTTER than the nickel lattice). Even if such a stuff existed, you can't explain how it reduces radiation by several orders of magnitude. If you can, give NASA a call, they need it for their space vessels.
And please give me a link for the maths "Kim has done".
KitemanSA wrote:
bk78 wrote: Do you understand why the electron for internal conversion usually comes from the K-shell? Do you understand any cooper pair would immediately break apart at such a distance, let alone when beeing heated with MeVs?
Yes. Do you? Did you notice that you said USUALLY?
Then explain it for me.
The expression "usually" implies that this is not a perfect process. Sometimes, it is a different electron. Sometimes it does not happen at all. But to explain the lack of radiation, we are looking for a process that works in at least 99.9999999% of all cases. In your opinion, for "cooper electrons", which can't exist that close to the nucleus.
KitemanSA wrote:What MeV? Can you say "strawman"?
The 6 MeVs from the Nickel + Hydrogen ->Copper reaction.
I am about 90% sure that you are trolling.
KitemanSA wrote:Well this seems to indicate that you (or I) have a fundamental miss understanding of internal conversion.
IIUTC, IC invloves ONE shell electron and accelerates it to relativistic or even hyper-relativistic velocities, dumping MOST (if not all) of the excitation energy. If you have a different understanding, link? Reference?

I have exactly the same understanding, and I already posted that before.
When you, for no reason, scolded me that I also posted the interpretation for chemical IC, remember?
Your "fundamental miss" is not IC itself, but that it produces high energetic beta radiation (you seem to prefer a different expression, maybe "fast electrons"?), that will produce high energetic bremsstrahlung. The calculation I did a few pages before was based on this. You should read it again.
KitemanSA wrote: (Decay of instable copper)
"Fine, if you want to be anal about it, "gone before it HAS been isotopically investigated. Why don't we see it? WE HAVEN'T LOOKED. Simple enough for you? "

WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING. There was a GM tube next to the reactor. Why didn't it pick up anything?
KitemanSA wrote: So what you seem to be saying is that you don't have ANY data except hearsay. I thought that was your problem with this whole subject, only hearsay data.
Do you have REAL data about the radio-output of the ecat beyond the view of the meter in the Krivit video?

I am really too lazy to look this up now, the point is: Even the Krivit video is more than enough. If IC was occuring in the ecat, there would be so much radiation that the gamma scout couldn't even display the number anymore. Btw, the 10uCi source of Cs-137 in the gamma scout video produces only about 40 nW of gamma radiation.
If you want to use only Rossis gamma scout, take off 2 or 3 of the 9's I posted earlier - it does not make a difference.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

[/quote]
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
bk78 wrote: Do you know what background radiation is?
OMG!
Please oh omniscient one, regale us with your wisdom and technical knowledge. :roll:
Look it up on wikipedia, then read my comments again and explain why you don't agree that 100 times detection limit does not mean 100 times background radiation for anyone near the reactor.
100x "no obvious increase" in background can be a VERY obvious increase in background. As a simple observation, AR was saying that there was no radiation output but when he moved the detector away the counter moved from ~15 to ~12. Thus, perhaps, 3 units. X100 = 300 units. SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. At least enough that it might be unsellable. Simple enough for you?
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: What was your question? Not that it really matters, since YOU are the one making the statements about the way things ARE. You need to provide the data to support YOUR statements, not me.
It was YOUR estimation that Rossi deenriched Ni-58 by a factor 2-3. It was one of YOUR theorys that he did this for radiation issues.
No, it was a guess about one possible reason. It remains a guess. Then again, it may be 10x not 3.
bk78 wrote:It was YOUR theory that the radiation is not proportional to Ni-58 content, but nonlinear (in a sense that makes a notable difference in our discussion). Thus YOU need to provide the data. Note that you can't even explain that there is no radiation from Ni62/64. Explaining the difference between Ni62/64 and Ni58 comes after that.
Again, I have not theories. I have made some unsubtantialed guesses. YOU are among the ones stating that "new physics" is required. I just asked "what new physics"? YOU are making the theories, not me. Support them or acknoledge that you are spouting cr@p.
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:What, BECs are new physics? Cooper pairs are new physics? What part is new? Do the math, which Dr. Kim has done, and you get those values. I did it and I got those values, so I figure he did it about right.
What part is new? That you combine two phenomena, cooper pairs and BEC, which will only appear at very low temperatures for particles with mass,
BECs are groupings of bosons. Cooper pairs are bosons. They are subject to condensation like any other boson. Nothing new. The Tc for dueterons is ~7K, IIRC. It would be much higher for for cooper pairs. About 148 times higher I think.
bk78 wrote:apply them to a high temperature, and imply the will function as a means to thermalize high energetic nuclear power of several kWs
"Thermalize"? Sorry, not sure what you mean here. The assumption, IIRC, is that the pairs somehow escort protons to sufficiently close to Nickel nuclei to allow the strong force to bring them in.
bk78 wrote:(meaning that the BEC is even HOTTER than the nickel lattice).
Interesting assumption. Why?
bk78 wrote:Even if such a stuff existed, you can't explain how it reduces radiation by several orders of magnitude. If you can, give NASA a call, they need it for their space vessels.
Actually, I have provided a very plausible reason for that. IC.
bk78 wrote: And please give me a link for the maths "Kim has done".
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501
In the same general area he did the math for D-D fusion in a metal matrix.
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
bk78 wrote: Do you understand why the electron for internal conversion usually comes from the K-shell? Do you understand any cooper pair would immediately break apart at such a distance, let alone when beeing heated with MeVs?
Yes. Do you? Did you notice that you said USUALLY?
Hmmm, seems I answered too hastily last time. I do NOT know that a cooper pair would immediately break apart "AT SUCH A DISTANCE". What distance are YOU talking about?
bk78 wrote: Then explain it for me.
The expression "usually" implies that this is not a perfect process. Sometimes, it is a different electron. Sometimes it does not happen at all. But to explain the lack of radiation, we are looking for a process that works in at least 99.9999999% of all cases. In your opinion, for "cooper electrons", which can't exist that close to the nucleus.
IF the Kim hypothesis is correct, then the cooper pairs escort a proton to the Ni nucleus. Given that the electron pair is there, it might serve as the electron (or even a PAIR of electrons to allow "IC" without a shell electron at all. Usually means under those conditions that were usual when the phenomenon was identified. New conditions, new results, same physics.
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:What MeV? Can you say "strawman"?
The 6 MeVs from the Nickel + Hydrogen ->Copper reaction.
Sorry, it didn't seem to be used correctly for that purpose. I will have to re-read.
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Well this seems to indicate that you (or I) have a fundamental miss understanding of internal conversion.
IIUTC, IC invloves ONE shell electron and accelerates it to relativistic or even hyper-relativistic velocities, dumping MOST (if not all) of the excitation energy. If you have a different understanding, link? Reference?

I have exactly the same understanding, and I already posted that before.
When you, for no reason, scolded me that I also posted the interpretation for chemical IC, remember?
Your "fundamental miss" is not IC itself, but that it produces high energetic beta radiation (you seem to prefer a different expression, maybe "fast electrons"?), that will produce high energetic bremsstrahlung. The calculation I did a few pages before was based on this. You should read it again.
But Brem is X-ray and X-ray can be shielded by a bit of lead. Rossi has repeatedly said that the e-cats are shielded with lead.
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: (Decay of instable copper)
"Fine, if you want to be anal about it, "gone before it HAS been isotopically investigated. Why don't we see it? WE HAVEN'T LOOKED. Simple enough for you? "

WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING. There was a GM tube next to the reactor. Why didn't it pick up anything?
I saw it change from ~15 to ~12 when the probe was moved away, or are you talking about something of which I am not aware? If so, LINK PLEASE! I keep asking for REAL data upon which to think and decide. No one helps.
bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: So what you seem to be saying is that you don't have ANY data except hearsay. I thought that was your problem with this whole subject, only hearsay data.
Do you have REAL data about the radio-output of the ecat beyond the view of the meter in the Krivit video?

I am really too lazy to look this up now, the point is: Even the Krivit video is more than enough. If IC was occuring in the ecat, there would be so much radiation that the gamma scout couldn't even display the number anymore. Btw, the 10uCi source of Cs-137 in the gamma scout video produces only about 40 nW of gamma radiation.
Since we have just identified that the main radiation could be X-ray, and that IMHO said X-ray can be shielded by lead, why would you pick it up, beyond some small leakage?
bk78 wrote: If you want to use only Rossis gamma scout, take off 2 or 3 of the 9's I posted earlier - it does not make a difference.
Sorry, you still seem to be making assumptions that are as yet unproven.

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

Post by Kahuna »

Interesting new WIRED article here:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... -up?page=2
WIRED wrote:"So what new clues do we have to settle whether it's the breakthrough of the century or the scam of the decade?"

...

"Following his first sale, Rossi now says he has orders for thirteen more megawatt-class E-Cat power plants."

...

"Meanwhile, the media coverage has been shifting away from the possibility of fraud, and some mainstream commentators are toying with the idea that this might just be the big breakthrough that Rossi claims."

...

"AP science reporter Peter Svensson flew from New York to attend the demonstration, and live coverage of the event was curtailed to give AP the exclusive. But Svensson has so far not written a word about it. This led to a campaign encouraging people to contact Svensson about the story via his Twitter feed. At first he simply replied with variations of "Sorry, there's nothing I can tell you at this point", but later changed to "All I can say is 'stay tuned'"."

"Our guess is that AP does not want to publish anything until it can verify the reality and perhaps the identity of the customer. This in itself suggests a degree of optimism: it's gambling that there will be a big story at the end, and it has accepted being scooped by Fox and MSNBC on the smaller story of the demonstration in order to get it."
Last edited by Kahuna on Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Maui »

That article is pure speculation and adds no new evidence or speculation that has not already been bandied about in here many times over. (EDIT: Okay, outside of the fact that Rossi now alleges he has 13 more customers.)

As with many in here, the author is also biting on the fact that the demo was not that convincing as strong evidence that the e-cat is real. This cracks me up. Apparently allowing independent parties use their own equipment to verify the machines does what it is advertised to do pales in comparison to having Rossi claim that the test worked only half as well as promised all the while being hooked up to a generator and without having any independent verification.

He also goes on to say of the alleged 13 customers:
These are people with good lawyers to write contracts and deal with any complications. They are not easy targets.
He doesn't even know who the customers are let alone if there are really 13 customers at all! How the hell can a responsible journalist write something like this?
Meanwhile, the media coverage has been shifting away from the possibility of fraud, and some mainstream commentators are toying with the idea that this might just be the big breakthrough that Rossi claims.
The only such commentator I can figure that he is referring to is the MSNBC piece. The Fox News piece certainly wasn't shifting away from the idea that it might be a fraud-- the entire article revolved around that possibility.
Our guess is that AP does not want to publish anything until it can verify the reality and perhaps the identity of the customer. This in itself suggests a degree of optimism.
Really? I would say it could just as well suggest Rossi doesn't have a customer and when the piece finally does come out, it will go a long way toward uncovering the whole thing as a fraud.

Post Reply