10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Giorgio]

EDIT: Also, posted by a Defkalion representative in one of their website forums:

Both test Reactors will be measured (weight and all their dimensions) before and after their testing. Testers/evaluators may inspect the inner of both reactors during their "role change" preparation procedure (before second run).

Way too many times there has been similar announcements from these type of companies.
I will be judging their experimental setup only after I see the report, till then i will give them the benefit of doubt, but I won't be holding my breath for any exceptional result.

[Skipjack]

Way too many times there has been similar announcements from these type of companies.
I will be judging their experimental setup only after I see the report, till then i will give them the benefit of doubt, but I won't be holding my breath for any exceptional result.

Yeah, I see it that way as well.

[parallel]

till then i will give them the benefit of doubt

You guys must be weakening. Or has the backpedaling started?

Before you were all so certain it was fraudulent, fake, criminal or any other insult you could make up, without any proof.

[tomclarke]

till then i will give them the benefit of doubt

You guys must be weakening. Or has the backpedaling started?

Before you were all so certain it was fraudulent, fake, criminal or any other insult you could make up, without any proof.

I guess it is because, unlike Rossi, Defkalion are a good deal cleverer and not proven serial liars.

[Crawdaddy]

I don't find excess heat to be a the best evidence for cold fusion. Transmutation is much more compelling. Here is a paper where the transmutation of various metals is observed in situ in an XPS instrument.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf

I consider it a "well done" experiment.

OK, these people use 5kV ion bombardment to build up a thin film of Pt. They infuse it with D2. After this, they observe various spectral peaks which (they think) indicate isotopic comprosition of Pr & Sm. They also find a |Mossbauer resonance that is indicative of Pr.

The levels observed of these elements are incredibly low, a few atoms.

Their own claim is that Pr is definitely observed (because of the Mossbauer effect observed), and Sm possibly.

The paper states that the Pr is formed because of the D2 loading of the Pt film.

No evidence is provided for this conclusion. No controls are done to see which elements of the experimental setup correlate with the observed results (e.g. substituting D2 for H2, or nothing).

In fact, there are other possible reasons for the stated results which are not even mentioned:

(1) That the Pr was not contamination already present on the Pt

(2) that the Pt deposition did not generate Pr (since 5000V and +50 ions gives ionic energy of 250keV, maybe enough for some nuclear stuff? I don't know about this, so may be completely wrong.

(3) I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I suspect somone who was would know about false positives etc in the spectral methods used to identify incredibly low quantities of these elements. The authors themselves think the Sm result bis ambiguous so I imagine tehre are many different ways in which the observed spectral [peaks could happen.

If this is a "well-written paper" with its unsubstantiated leaps of fantasy, and complete lack of critical analysis, god help the bad ones!

I don't know if it has been published, but any decent reviewer would require the uncritical statements in the paper to be substantiated or deleted.

I suggest you read the paper again.

To summarize:

1. There is no Pt involved in this experiment

2. There is no Mossbauer spectroscopy involved

3. there is no 5kv bombardmend of Pt (your calculation of 250kev is very strange and incorrect). The measurements before the exposure to D2 showed no transmutation so this convoluted argument is doubly wrong.

4. They observed the effect on 60 samples.

5. When they replaced the CaO lattice matching/barrier layer with MgO the effect disappeared.

6. The isotopic ratio of the transmuted element was different from the naturally occurring ratio.

I can only conclude that you either did not read the paper or did not understand it.

To summarize the discussion:

You link me an experiment you consider "well done" that tried to replicate an effect observed on tungsten cathodes that did't even use a tungsten cathode and looks like it was conducted in about a week by amateurs. I link you a paper that represents years of work and a few hundred thousand dollars of research that utilized the most advanced spectroscopic instrumentation available and you don't even read and understand it before dismissing it.

[parallel]

Despite all the cries about Rossi renigging on a contract with Bologna U. the outcome is not clear. B.U. write:

However, the Department of Physics has made available its experience and its equipment to carry out independent measurements on the production of heat by equipment called E-cat in order to provide an answer to the entire scientific community and the general public about the phenomenon. RESULTS OF MEASURES WILL BE PUBLISHED.

So possibly Rossi is going to supply both B.U. and Uppsala in Sweden(?) with E-Cats in order not to be upstaged by Defkalion's third party testing now open to all.

[stefanbanev]

till then i will give them the benefit of doubt

You guys must be weakening. Or has the backpedaling started?

Before you were all so certain it was fraudulent, fake, criminal or any other insult you could make up, without any proof.

I guess in many cases some "Sceptics" are looking for the excuses why it is not them. The irony is that the "reword" is so minuscule if LENR saga is failed and it only comforts the "Sceptics", needless to say the benefits of "Sceptics" be wrong. So far, the marketing of the LENR ideas are very different from other "breakthrough e-tech" looking for the long term investments with "probable" return in 30+ years. It really sets LENR apart and it clearly undermines the prospects to get founding for traditional R&D in this area; apparently it is one of another source of resistance to LENR.

[Joseph Chikva]

I guess in many cases some "Sceptics" are looking for the excuses why it is not them. The irony is that the "reword" is so minuscule if LENR saga is failed and it only comforts the "Sceptics", needless to say the benefits of "Sceptics" be wrong. So far, the marketing of the LENR ideas are very different from other "breakthrough e-tech" looking for the long term investments with "probable" return in 30+ years. It really sets LENR apart and it clearly undermines the prospects to get founding for traditional R&D in this area; apparently it is one of another source of resistance to LENR.

Wrong. My "source of resistance" (more correct I think is to talk about "source of scepticism") to LENR is in absence of repeatability of results of first Fleishman and Ponce experiment. I was very young man that time but remember very well that time agiotage.
And if you speak about "probable return in 30+ years", so, you are agree too that at least notification on sale of one "1 MW plant" is lie. As the device can't be marketable today. Even if all other Rossi's claims all are true. But seeing how he made calorimetry for 5 kW demo I have well-founded doubts both in his honesty and in his qualification as well. All the more I never heard about chemical catalyst for nuclear reaction.

[stefanbanev]

I guess in many cases some "Sceptics" are looking for the excuses why it is not them. The irony is that the "reword" is so minuscule if LENR saga is failed and it only comforts the "Sceptics", needless to say the benefits of "Sceptics" be wrong. So far, the marketing of the LENR ideas are very different from other "breakthrough e-tech" looking for the long term investments with "probable" return in 30+ years. It really sets LENR apart and it clearly undermines the prospects to get founding for traditional R&D in this area; apparently it is one of another source of resistance to LENR.

Wrong. My "source of resistance" (more correct I think is to talk about "source of scepticism") to LENR is in absence of repeatability of results of first Fleishman and Ponce experiment. I was very young man that time but remember very well that time agiotage.
And if you speak about "probable return in 30+ years", so, you are agree too that at least notification on sale of one "1 MW plant" is lie. As the device can't be marketable today. Even if all other Rossi's claims all are true. But seeing how he made calorimetry for 5 kW demo I have well-founded doubts both in his honesty and in his qualification as well. All the more I never heard about chemical catalyst for nuclear reaction.

The accidental finding does not require you to be a honest or qualified person, the last quality enhances the probabilities the "honesty" helps to gain the support; the dificite of both qualities can be compensated by persistence. Pls ignore my posts, my English is bad so I can not help you with English besides it seems yours is getting better... all the best

[Joseph Chikva]

The accidental finding does not require you to be a honest or qualified person

I understand what you are saying. But more likely that he found shit thinking that found gold by wrong measurement. And correct measurement needs some basic qualification (skill).

I assume that then he has wanted to make money trying to sell shit as a gold. This is about his honesty/dishonesty.
Good English will not help if to believe to scam artist.

Good luck you too.

[Giorgio]

till then i will give them the benefit of doubt

You guys must be weakening. Or has the backpedaling started?

Before you were all so certain it was fraudulent, fake, criminal or any other insult you could make up, without any proof.

You do the fanboy work in an excellent way Parallel.
Too bad that Rossi is not as good as you are in supporting his claims.

[tomclarke]

I don't find excess heat to be a the best evidence for cold fusion. Transmutation is much more compelling. Here is a paper where the transmutation of various metals is observed in situ in an XPS instrument.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf

I consider it a "well done" experiment.

OK, these people use 5kV ion bombardment to build up a thin film of Pt. They infuse it with D2. After this, they observe various spectral peaks which (they think) indicate isotopic comprosition of Pr & Sm. They also find a |Mossbauer resonance that is indicative of Pr.

The levels observed of these elements are incredibly low, a few atoms.

Their own claim is that Pr is definitely observed (because of the Mossbauer effect observed), and Sm possibly.

The paper states that the Pr is formed because of the D2 loading of the Pt film.

No evidence is provided for this conclusion. No controls are done to see which elements of the experimental setup correlate with the observed results (e.g. substituting D2 for H2, or nothing).

In fact, there are other possible reasons for the stated results which are not even mentioned:

(1) That the Pr was not contamination already present on the Pt

(2) that the Pt deposition did not generate Pr (since 5000V and +50 ions gives ionic energy of 250keV, maybe enough for some nuclear stuff? I don't know about this, so may be completely wrong.

(3) I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I suspect somone who was would know about false positives etc in the spectral methods used to identify incredibly low quantities of these elements. The authors themselves think the Sm result bis ambiguous so I imagine tehre are many different ways in which the observed spectral [peaks could happen.

If this is a "well-written paper" with its unsubstantiated leaps of fantasy, and complete lack of critical analysis, god help the bad ones!

I don't know if it has been published, but any decent reviewer would require the uncritical statements in the paper to be substantiated or deleted.

I suggest you read the paper again.

his is going to be one of those days, I can tell. I probably made a few mistakes reading quickly but not that many, so let's see shal we? Maybe we are reading different papers, because I sure can't tell what WAS in the paper from your list of negatives.

To summarize:

1. There is no Pt involved in this experiment
[/quote]
OK - Pd not Pt. And your point is?

2. There is no Mossbauer spectroscopy involved

My mistake, that is suggested future work. So neither Pr nor Sm is certain, both are deduced.

3. there is no 5kv bombardmend of Pt (your calculation of 250kev is very strange and incorrect).

Mea culpa. i realised this after my post but was busy all day till now. If is bombardment by Ba or Cs ions (not Pd) hence total energy (Ba) is 56*5000eV ~ 250keV. My previous calculation should have been 80*5kEv ~ 400keV so I apolpogise.

Also, as I indicated, I am not sure that this is relevant, maybe it is energy per nucleon which is relevant because at this voltage these ions can never be split, and this much lower.

The measurements before the exposure to D2 showed no transmutation so this convoluted argument is doubly wrong.

They do say that they perform XRF before and after D2 but unless I have missed something the only XPS spectra they show are after. There is no comparison with before? Nor is there any statement of what is the Pr, Sm contamination before.

I apologise oif I've mised something but this seems to me a critical omission.

4. They observed the effect on 60 samples.

That is not the point, the issue is taht the levels at which Pr,Sm were detected are so low that contamination, or other error, is likley.

5. When they replaced the CaO lattice matching/barrier layer with MgO the effect disappeared.

6. The isotopic ratio of the transmuted element was different from the naturally occurring ratio.
[/quote]
Only for the Sm where they claim the identification is not clear.

I can only conclude that you either did not read the paper or did not understand it.

Don't be so ready with conclusions, and how about arguing my points, rather than picking holes. It is always better to engage in argument than ignore it.

I agree 5kV deposition of Ba etc is probably no way sufficient to create nuclear reactions of any kind, though others here will perhaps know, and were i as creative as the LENR community I am sure I would find fission from 5keV/proton ot 250keV more easy to justify than what (+8 mass number change???) from D2 no extra energy.

To summarize the discussion:

You link me an experiment you consider "well done" that tried to replicate an effect observed on tungsten cathodes that did't even use a tungsten cathode and looks like it was conducted in about a week by amateurs.

It is better conducted than the original

I link you a paper that represents years of work and a few hundred thousand dollars of research that utilized the most advanced spectroscopic instrumentation available and you don't even read and understand it before dismissing it.

I think the cost of equipment has no relationship to the quality of argument a research paper. I hope you do too. Using the most advanced instrumentation is great, because it allows detection of ever smaller quantities of contaminants. In this case that detection is not clear (even the authors admit not clear for one of the possible results). I'd want somone who knew this stuff well to comment before believing that the other result was clear.

BTW, they said they were verifying the Sm result with Mossbauer. have they?

Summary:
No control
No before/after comparison
No theory for why +8 (and nothing else) should happen
v expensive eqpt

[Carl White]

Concerning the timing of the tests:

As it was announced in our November 30th Press Release, a series of third party tests on Hyperion products have been scheduled to be performed within the first months of 2012, immediately after our product’s certification. The present announcement does not refer to such product tests.

With this announcement, PDGT welcomes further requests from internationally recognized and reputable scientific and business organizations interested to conduct their independent tests on “bare” Hyperion Reactors. Such independent tests have already been scheduled.

Then:

1. Our availability for such testing is from today, any day, within the next two months.

2. This series of tests will be performed in one of our labs in Athens, Greece.

Concerning reporting:

The detailed test protocols will be published by PGDT before any third party test is performed.
Test results may be published by the independent evaluators in the media they choose and in our site, jointly.

So hopefully we'll hear something in the next couple of months.

Here's another interesting statement:

5. We announced expected reactor's COP far more than 20, not 20. The reactors to be tested will be of the same version as the ones referred in our spec sheet. We will leave their exact COP to be calculated by the independent testers.

[D Tibbets]

T. Ohmori and T. Mizuno, Catalysis Research Center, Hokkaido University

Strong Excess Energy Evolution, New Element Production, and Electromagnetic Wave and/or Neutron Emission in the Light Water Electrolysis with a Tungsten Cathode

Abstract: Strong heat evolution enough to incandesce the electrode was observed by applying a high electric power. The excess energy amounts to 183 W which is 2.6 times the input power. At the same time strong electromagnetic wave and/or neutron emission reaching 60,000 counts/sec by a neutron counter was observed. During the electrolysis, considerable amounts of new elements, i.e. Pb, Fe, Ni, Cr and C were produced. The distributions of Fe, Cr and C on/in the electrode were overlapped. The isotopic distribution of Pb deviated greatly from the natural isotopic abundance. These results show that the nuclear transmutation reaction took place on/in the tungsten electrode during the electrolysis.

Briefly, this paper describes excess heat and transmutations from tungsten run at high voltage at 85 to 100°C. I like this experiment because it is quick. The control run goes from 85 to boiling in two minutes, and the main experiment, with the same power input, the same mass of water, and the same stirring boils in 45 seconds. The experiment is quick, but the analysis takes weeks.

A quick , lazy interpretation of the above quoted study. I've not seen the actual article so take this analysis with caution. Mostly it is just reality checks as I understand them.
~70 Watts input power and 183 watts of excess heat. And the solution was heated to ~ 100 degrees C. Unless the electrode was fairly well insulated from the solution how did it become incandescent- that implies a local temperature of near a thousand degrees. A hot water warmer may use more watts (total of ~ 253 Watts). I have seen aquarium heaters glow, but these are wires inside an isolating and insulating glass vessel. That would preclude electrolysis.

The statement of different isotopes abundances in the post expirement electrode compared to natural abundances may or may not be relavent. What is needed is the actual isotope abundances in the specific wire/ electrode before and after the expirement. Also of course the statical significance of the measurements also is needed- standard deviation and other statistical tests.

And, neutron counts of 60,000 per second. This is an extremely trivial amount of neutrons. It is a number that while significantly high enough to have confidence in the count (well above background), it still leaves questions about instrumentation and possible noise. Electronic neutron counters are vulnerable to a lot of false noise if not carefully set up- not Tom Ligon's comments about the efforts to manage the neutron counters in EMC2 experiments. Accepting the counts as real and accurate, the amount of heat this amount of neutrons would produce is extremely small, perhaps on the order of ~ 0.01 microwatts. The neutrons producing reactions could not be producing more than a very tiny fraction of the excess heat. An arguement might be made that these are cold neutrons that are produced (which makes a difference in the measurement method and values) and most of them are absorbed before escaping the reaction vessel, perhaps many are absorbed in the electrode itself- thus the transmutations. Lets assume that only 1/ billion neutrons are reaching the detector. That would result in ~ 6 * 10^13 N/S. If hot neutrons that could be compared to the heat output in a Polywell or other reactor. ~ 10^20 D-D fusions per second may produce ~ 100MW. That means ~ 10 Watts would come from reactions that produce ~ 10^13 hot neutrons per second. So the numbers work out. But there is a problem . For the neutrons to act in this way in this cold fusion expirement they have be born with very little KE (cold). In an accepted D-D fusion, the nuetron that is released in 1/2 of the reactions has a KE in the range of ~ MeV, , in this expirement the KE would need to be much less (0.1- several thousand?), thus a proportionate less heat production by the neutrons. Perhaps ~ 1000 to 1,000,000 times less heat. So the neutron contributed heat generation is again reduced to a few milliwatts maximum. This means that the heat has to be comng almost entirely from other reactions, perhaps where a high energy proton or He nucleus is released.

Another consideration, if ~ 10^13 low energy neutrons are being released per second, this could produce ~ the same number of new isotopes per second. These multiple isotopes reported would at most be ~ 10^13 seperate isotopes/ s. That is ~ 1/10^10 moles/ s. That works out to be ~ 200 g/ mole for the heavier isotopes , which is 200g * 0.0000000001 = ~ 10 nano grams of isotope produced per second.
Now comes some lazy, uncertain considerations. If these new isotopes are stable the only way to distinguish them from other isotopes of that element would be through mass spectroscopy. If they are radioactive then they could be quantified by radiation detectors. I don't know the sensitivity of mass epectrometers, but detecting the difference of perhaps 1 microgram may be possible but uncertain (assumeing the machine ran with excess heat for 10,000 seconds). Radiation detection may allow for more sensitivity, but if the half life of the isotope is too long, then the counts will be in the background noise. If the half life is too short, the isotpe will reach steady state (after ~ 4-5 half lives). Running the machine longer than this number of half lives will not increase further because the isotopes are decaying as fast as they are being created. This again limits the detectability of the isotopes by radiation detectors (Geiger, scintillation, photographic plate, etc).

There are a lot of assumptions here, but this illustrates the complex and interactive considerations that need to be addressed to have confidence in results as claimed in the abstract above.
This is why issues of transmutations, helium production, etc are so problematic in these cold fusion experiments. The calorimetry issues is a seperate consideration, except that it limits the different maximum isotope values you could obtain with any considered physics.

In the Rossi claims , this ambiguity is completely different. At 10,000 or even 100,000s of thousands of watts of heat output, the isotope measurements should be less ambiguous (signal to noise ratio) by a factor of ~ >1000. Any claimed longer lived isotope (see above) should be very easy to detect, both due to the magnitude of the heat output, and also the duration of operation at claimed excess heat output of weeks instead of a few minutes at a time that is claimed for most CF experiments.

Dan Tibbets

[Torulf2]

LENR DIY.
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=95