10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:01 am

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


According to who's measurement?
I think that is his point. Such a claimed energy cannot be fulfilled chemically. It must be, fraud, delusion, or nuclear.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:13 am

JoeP wrote: Re: TallDave's questions...
As you said, using some high explosive like TNT might be a good starting point, although other reactions are probably more energy dense.
TNT is not very energy dense. H2 + Fl2 has the highest specific impulse if memory serves (~400 vice ~380 for H2-LOX; sea level values).

Hmmm, but you were talking density, not specific energy. Never mind.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:25 am

icarus wrote: So Prof. Levi is less reliable than Nebel's and Park's claim to 3 (or was it 4?) neutrons.
IIRC, Neither Nebel nor Park has made ANY statement about neutron count. It was Bussard that reported neutron count for WB6 in his retracted final report. I think he also mentioned it in the Valencia paper but ICBW.
icarus wrote: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.
WB7 was all about independant third party review. WB7.1 was all about answering minor issues that arose during said review.
WB8 however is anyone's guess since it was a "here, spend this hunk o cash fast" kind of project.
The prime distinction between EMC2 and Rossi is the difference in publicity seeking.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:53 am

KitemanSA wrote:Such a claimed energy cannot be fulfilled chemically.
1000MJ=1GJ ?
Pyrotechnic initiator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_initiator
Metal hydride-oxidizer
Metal hydride-oxidizer mixtures replace the metal with its corresponding hydride. They are generally safer to handle than the corresponding metal-oxidizer compositions. During burning they also release hydrogen, which can act as a secondary fuel. Zirconium hydride, titanium hydride, and boron hydride are commonly used.
I have no data how much heat can be released by burning of nickel hydride (Calorific Value). But think that not less than by burning of gasoline. At least comparable number.
Gasoline has Calorific Value 47.3 MJ/kg
For releasing of 1000 MJ you should burn only 1000/47.3=21.1 kg of gasoline. Can you say that "reactor" does not contain 25 kg of nickel hydride? Electric input? Formation of hydride (also exothermic reaction)?
We do not know the volume of Rossi's "reactor", we do not know does air enter into the "reactor", heat has been measured disgustingly. Etc.

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:48 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Such a claimed energy cannot be fulfilled chemically.
1000MJ=1GJ ?
Pyrotechnic initiator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_initiator
Metal hydride-oxidizer
Metal hydride-oxidizer mixtures replace the metal with its corresponding hydride. They are generally safer to handle than the corresponding metal-oxidizer compositions. During burning they also release hydrogen, which can act as a secondary fuel. Zirconium hydride, titanium hydride, and boron hydride are commonly used.
I have no data how much heat can be released by burning of nickel hydride (Calorific Value). But think that not less than by burning of gasoline. At least comparable number.
Gasoline has Calorific Value 47.3 MJ/kg
For releasing of 1000 MJ you should burn only 1000/47.3=21.1 kg of gasoline. Can you say that "reactor" does not contain 25 kg of nickel hydride? Electric input? Formation of hydride (also exothermic reaction)?
We do not know the volume of Rossi's "reactor", we do not know does air enter into the "reactor", heat has been measured disgustingly. Etc.


The total mass of the reactor in the 18 hour test was 30kg. Levi examined it and determined that the volume of the sealed "black box" portion of the reactor was around 1 liter. He accounted for the material composition of the rest of the device.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:04 am

Crawdaddy wrote:The total mass of the reactor in the 18 hour test was 30kg.
With mass of having 1 liter of internal volume structure of 0.5kg? :)
How well heat has been measured?
In any case 1 GJ energy can be released from chemical reaction with such or comparable quantities of reactants.

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:47 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:The total mass of the reactor in the 18 hour test was 30kg.
With mass of having 1 liter of internal volume structure of 0.5kg? :)
How well heat has been measured?
In any case 1 GJ energy can be released from chemical reaction with such or comparable quantities of reactants.


Sorry i don't understand what this means.

The vast majority of the weight of the reactor was accounted for. A 1 litre sealed vessel (as reported by professor levi) contained the reactor material. Please share your calculations that account for the heating chemically.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:56 am

Crawdaddy wrote:Sorry i don't understand what this means.

The vast majority of the weight of the reactor was accounted for. A 1 litre sealed vessel (as reported by professor levi) contained the reactor material. Please share your calculations that account for the heating chemically.
1 liter of internal volume hollow vessel may weigh 0.5 kg. The rest 29.5 kg may be chemical reactants. Nobody measured that volume and that may be 1 liter or 3 liters.
29.5 kg of metal-hydride is quite enough for producing 1 GJ of heat if you input into the chamber the air for slow burning. Plus electric power input by resistive heater. Etc.
"As reported Prof. Levi"?
I saw many Proffesors during my life.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Postby Luzr » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:14 am

icarus wrote:I think you will find that the sceptics have become


I am just looking forward you start calling people "deniers".

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

Postby seedload » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:50 pm

icarus wrote: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?


Whether WE give him a fair break or not will have no effect on the outcome of this circus. So, relax.

You are obviously more emotionally invested than all of these pathological skeptics which you are lecturing.

Odd that.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Postby Crawdaddy » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:26 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:Sorry i don't understand what this means.

The vast majority of the weight of the reactor was accounted for. A 1 litre sealed vessel (as reported by professor levi) contained the reactor material. Please share your calculations that account for the heating chemically.
1 liter of internal volume hollow vessel may weigh 0.5 kg. The rest 29.5 kg may be chemical reactants. Nobody measured that volume and that may be 1 liter or 3 liters.
29.5 kg of metal-hydride is quite enough for producing 1 GJ of heat if you input into the chamber the air for slow burning. Plus electric power input by resistive heater. Etc.
"As reported Prof. Levi"?
I saw many Proffesors during my life.


Sorry this post betrays a lack of understanding of hydride chemistry as well as an unwillingness to gather information on the test work that has been done to date.

I have no interest in discussing this topic with you unless you spend some effort backing up your claims with data.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:34 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:Sorry this post betrays a lack of understanding of hydride chemistry as well as an unwillingness to gather information on the test work that has been done to date.
First is not quite true. Certainly, I am not guru in this field. But know that inputting air into the chamber with metal hydride we will release a lot of energy. With remaining of metal oxide in reactor and exhausting of steam. Released energy will be at least comparable with burning of hydrocarbons. And in one "test" resulting mass of reactor exceeded initial mass. How this is possible?
Second is true. If you call "test work" all what has been done regarding cold fusion. As I do not believe that cold fusion possible.
But also I am ready to change my mind if anybody would provide corresponding evidence. But that evidence should be repeatable by independent and skilled people.
And I can not help you if you do not understand such simple things.

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

Postby JoeP » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:45 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:[SNIP]
But know that inputting air into the chamber with metal hydride we will release a lot of energy. With remaining of metal oxide in reactor and exhausting of steam. Released energy will be at least comparable with burning of hydrocarbons.
[SNIP]


As an "interested observer" in this exchange, it would be nice of you to back this up with valid calculations -- especially since you admit you do not know the energy output of such a reaction? :)

Also, if you think Rossi is burning the hydride to fake "excess heat," that is pretty unlikely...almost worthless to consider IMO. He has an electric heater in the unit already! Just conceal a wire to power that heater and that is all that needs to be done to fake heat output. No need to burn anything in there at high temperature, with all the complexities of burn time, reactant product waste, venting, etc, which makes everything that much more detectable.

Edit: fixed quotation

Giorgio
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:10 pm

I will save all of you some valuable time.

In the previous thread I went through all the possible chemical reactions in Air or H2 and, given the volume of the reactor, the most energetic ones were not enough to validate even 1 hour of his claims.

It's near to impossible that he is using a known chemical reaction.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:12 pm

JoeP wrote:As an "interested observer" in this exchange, it would be nice of you to back this up with valid calculations -- especially since you admit you do not know the energy output of such a reaction? :)
Not knowing numbers for specific reaction does not mean that we can not see the whole picture. As for example if you know that for improving of calorific value of propellant powder people add metals there. E.g. aluminum powder.
So, statement that calorific value of burning of hydride is calorific value of hydrocarbons corresponds to true. Because those two numbers have the same orders of magnitude.
Statement that 1000MJ can not be got by chemical reaction does not correspond to true.
Reading that in one test final mass exceeded initial mass I thought that it is possible if instead of Nickel being there before reaction finally there was some quantity of much heavier nickel oxide.
That's all.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests