10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote: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.
Ok
Number density of hydrogen for:
Liquid hydrogen (20 K) - 4.2E22 atom/cm3
Solid hydrogen (4.2 K) -- 5.3E22 atom/cm3
LiH ------------------------- 5.9E22 atom/cm3
TiH2 ----------------------- 9.2E22 atom/cm3
Etc.
And in hydrid form not only hydrogen but also metal is burning and releasing comaparable with hydrocarbons heat.
Are you taking into consideration such numbers?

These numbers provided by Libowitz from Corporate Research Center of Allied Chemical Corp., Morristown, New Jersey

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

I think we can easily agree on skipping Liquid Hydrogen and Solid Hydrogen from this discussion :)

The reaction chamber is pretty small and you can have only a fixed amount of reactants inside it because is sealed. This limits a lot the amount of energy that can be generated inside.
If it was open and connected to the Hydrogen bottle than I could agree with you that a chemical reaction could explain his claims, but I do not see this possibility at the moment.

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

Post by JoeP »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
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.
You bring up the mass change issue as if it was unexplained. The reason Rossi gave for that was that it was due to residual water in the E-Cat after the test. Perfectly reasonable answer, fraud or not.

A chemical reaction as the basis for a scam, even if one ignores the capacity for energy release in the given volume, is very unlikely.

How do you suppose he gets rid of the products if he is burning a fuel, as you think may be the case? Venting it out with the steam? Through a small hole or valve that may make sound? Any backflow issues that could quench the reaction? How does he control the reaction rate so carefully over several hours? How is oxygen input to the reactor core (and hidden) if he is burning the hydride? With an unexplained supply line tube? Where is the compressor or compressed air or oxygen bottle located, and how do you hide the supply line going into the E-Cat that works with the evidence we have on videos and photographs?

I'm sure all the above could be managed...with enough ingenuity. But...

It seems quite stupid to have to bother with the above when Rossi controls the data gathering devices, as well as having an electric heater in the core that can be manipulated.

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

Post by bk78 »

Giorgio wrote:If it was open and connected to the Hydrogen bottle than I could agree with you that a chemical reaction could explain his claims, but I do not see this possibility at the moment.
In WW2 they used an aquaeous solution of 80% hydrogen peroxide to generate a mixture of 480 deg C steam and oxygen as propellant.
So a few permille of H2O2 mixed in the water feed would be enough for the 18h test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moCyUxbH ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_MPU2mg8CA

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Putting aside Mr. Rossi's claims for the moment.

Cold fusion (LENR) denial is completely a belief system, it is grounded in nothing else. Here's why.

Experiments demonstrating conclusive excess heat have now been well documented by respected researchers (Arata in particular). The theory is not well developed but the current experimental art (I call it that for good reason) is almost at the point where 100% repeatability in experiments demonstrating excess heat is possible. The lack of a sound theory goes hand in glove with the artful nature of the experiments. It is bleeding edge science at its finest. Not for the institutionalised, incrementalist, taxpayer-funded, plodding jobsworths that fill most of the world's Universities.

To state "I don't believe in cold fusion" is close-minded at best and backward-looking, pessimistic, moronic denialism at its worst. Any real scientists, that first make it through the group-think, need to explain the excess heat. Most likely it is of a nuclear origin.

Science will be playing catch-up in this field for a long, long time if it cannot broaden it's view outside the strictures of the current models and techniques of applying them (they are merely imperfect human theories after all). For me, it is likely we are going into another era where the engineers, experimentalists and artisans/crafters are going to be forging ahead again (like the the late 1800 early 1900 period). It is simply that the tools and techniques of the trade have developed to the boundaries of the theory/understanding once again.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Icarus,

While I disagree about the level of documentation and repeatable experimentation on LENR, I don't deny it's potential existence. Quite the contrary, I'm hoping it's very real and I'm hoping that it truly is just a matter of creative engineering.

It's this thought that there's a potentially technology opening infront of us that could lead to so many dreams thought to be in the realm of scifi only. I don't know any scientist who doesn't get a kick out of potential advancements. Hell, I read an article the other day about using lasers for a tractor beam. I don't know much about the science behind it, but if well researched, peer-reviewed, and shown to work, I'm all for it.

Science should be exciting, but it should also well informed, researched, reviewed, and replicated. That's all any of us are really asking for at this point. Word of mouth and verbal assurances are not evidence and just can't be taken as such. We need empirical data, review, and independent replication, or else we're just raising our hopes up for a potentially hard fall.

I like the approach of quizzicle awe, but healthy skeptiscism.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

bk78 wrote:
Giorgio wrote:If it was open and connected to the Hydrogen bottle than I could agree with you that a chemical reaction could explain his claims, but I do not see this possibility at the moment.
In WW2 they used an aquaeous solution of 80% hydrogen peroxide to generate a mixture of 480 deg C steam and oxygen as propellant.
So a few permille of H2O2 mixed in the water feed would be enough for the 18h test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moCyUxbH ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_MPU2mg8CA
Can't see Youtube from here, but I guess you are referring to the classic H2O2 dissociation with a silver mesh catalyst.
It could be one of the possibilities.

Edit:
On a second thought is not a possibility. H2O2 dissociation creates more than 450 times it's volume in air, and all this gas can hardly be hidden in a simple system like this.
Last edited by Giorgio on Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Cancelled, duplicated post.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:I think we can easily agree on skipping Liquid Hydrogen and Solid Hydrogen from this discussion :)
These data quoted only for comparison - for showing how densily hydrogen atoms are packed in hydride. And this hydrogen can be burnt together with metal.
As Rossi is mentioning conditions in his device typical for forming nickel hydride: nickel nanopowder (so, chemically activated) in rather high pressure hydrogen environment.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

JoeP wrote:How do you suppose he gets rid of the products if he is burning a fuel, as you think may be the case? Venting it out with the steam? Through a small hole or valve that may make sound?
Due to its properties metal hydride can be oxidized very easily in oxygen air environment even at room temperature. No ignition is required for burning. Air may input into the chamber very slowly. As I recall here was a talk about 1000MJ energy release in 18 hours. We will have two reaction products: nickel oxide which remains in the chamber and steam exhausting out very slowly without shock wave and, so, without sound.
I think that this is more likely scenario for Rossi's latest "1MW plant" show.

For his earlier "5 kW" plant he could only to keep cooling jacket empty having small drain valve at the bottom. And wrongly stating that water mass flow is equal to steam's mass flow.
JoeP wrote:It seems quite stupid to have to bother with the above when Rossi controls the data gathering devices, as well as having an electric heater in the core that can be manipulated.
You are right but if someone will ask Rossi not to switch on electric heater he can scam him with described trick too. As I remember for “1 MW” there was such requirement – not to switch on heater but with keeping of “self-sustained mode”. Rossi said: Ok, get it. You get it too

One circumstance. If mass of device after reaction is more than mass before reaction, only this is rational explanation of scam method. As for nuclear reaction these two masses are almost equal, but final mass less and not more with very little difference.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:I think we can easily agree on skipping Liquid Hydrogen and Solid Hydrogen from this discussion :)
These data quoted only for comparison - for showing how densily hydrogen atoms are packed in hydride. And this hydrogen can be burnt together with metal.
As Rossi is mentioning conditions in his device typical for forming nickel hydride: nickel nanopowder (so, chemically activated) in rather high pressure hydrogen environment.
I know what you mean but, given the reactor volume and reactor being sealed, a reaction with a metal hydride cannot account for the claimed heat. I made that check before.

My whole point was just to clarify that if the reactor chamber is considered to be sealed, than any known chemical reaction inside the reactor can be excluded.
Outside of this condition I agree that we can find many different chemical reactions to justify the heat claimed, but than there is also more easy way to falsify the heat data as JoeP pointed out.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:I know what you mean but, given the reactor volume and reactor being sealed, a reaction with a metal hydride cannot account for the claimed heat. I made that check before.

My whole point was just to clarify that if the reactor chamber is considered to be sealed, than any known chemical reaction inside the reactor can be excluded.
Outside of this condition I agree that we can find many different chemical reactions to justify the heat claimed, but than there is also more easy way to falsify the heat data as JoeP pointed out.
I have not seen how and where you checked all possible chemical reactions possibility.
And that's true that claimed heat causes doubts and easiest explanation of Rossi’s miracle is only simple electric heating.
Mention by me of metal-hydrides burning has been caused by Kiteman's statement that 1GJ of energy release is impossible from chemical.
"Possible" - I answered.
As 1GJ releases via burning of only 21 kg hydrocarbons.
This number causes doubts but that is possible. May be not from 1 liter but from 3. But who measured device’s internal volume? And how? Visually?
I saw how here the power of steam has been measured. Was very funny.
Then I showed that number density of hydrogen atoms in metal-hydrides is much higher than even for frozen (solid) hydrogen. And the fact that metal of metal-hydrides also burns with rather high calorific value is well known.

I am not competing with Mr. Joe in thinking on best or easiest scam schemes. And only Rossi knows how he makes a fool people. Yes, in recent show there was rather powerful diesel-generator. But also there was mention that there was not connection with device.
Also why you do not take into account that in one of “experiments” final mass exceeded initial? And how can explain that if you have not external mass flow?

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:I think we can easily agree on skipping Liquid Hydrogen and Solid Hydrogen from this discussion :)
These data quoted only for comparison - for showing how densily hydrogen atoms are packed in hydride. And this hydrogen can be burnt together with metal.
As Rossi is mentioning conditions in his device typical for forming nickel hydride: nickel nanopowder (so, chemically activated) in rather high pressure hydrogen environment.
I know what you mean but, given the reactor volume and reactor being sealed, a reaction with a metal hydride cannot account for the claimed heat. I made that check before.

My whole point was just to clarify that if the reactor chamber is considered to be sealed, than any known chemical reaction inside the reactor can be excluded.
Outside of this condition I agree that we can find many different chemical reactions to justify the heat claimed, but than there is also more easy way to falsify the heat data as JoeP pointed out.
so the question is (was): how many Kg of fully loaded metal-hydride would it take to run 1 (100kW?) unit for ( 18 ) hours?

i'm assuming he could probably pack a couple of kG in there somewhere - in and around the reactor volume.

btw: i don't seriously think he is faking it in this manner, principally because:

a) as others have suggested, there are 'easier' ways

b) one of those 'easier' ways is if there IS a real LENR type reaction going on inside, as Rossi claims - albeit in this scenario my suspicion is that Rossi is 'over-selling' the actual performance, and has rushed to market with something he doesn't really understand and that doesn't really work properly (yet).

ps. the second scenario above, would put a slightly different complexion an the current state of affairs and Rossi's current state of 'dissassembly', and 'panic' - if, one assumes also, that some 12 months ago or so, Rossi became aware that some other companies/individuals were planning already to launch such a product - similar in technology to his.

such a combined scenario would certainly explain why Rossi does seem to be in such a mess, trying to manage everything himself, rushing against the clock to try and stake a claim. notwithstanding his innate 'pathology', ('mania','psychosis'?) obviously.

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

Post by seedload »

icarus wrote:Putting aside Mr. Rossi's claims for the moment.
Finally. Coming around, I see.
icarus wrote:Cold fusion (LENR) denial is completely a belief system, it is grounded in nothing else. Here's why.

Experiments demonstrating conclusive excess heat have now been well documented by respected researchers (Arata in particular). The theory is not well developed but the current experimental art (I call it that for good reason) is almost at the point where 100% repeatability in experiments demonstrating excess heat is possible. The lack of a sound theory goes hand in glove with the artful nature of the experiments. It is bleeding edge science at its finest. Not for the institutionalised, incrementalist, taxpayer-funded, plodding jobsworths that fill most of the world's Universities.

To state "I don't believe in cold fusion" is close-minded at best and backward-looking, pessimistic, moronic denialism at its worst. Any real scientists, that first make it through the group-think, need to explain the excess heat. Most likely it is of a nuclear origin.

Science will be playing catch-up in this field for a long, long time if it cannot broaden it's view outside the strictures of the current models and techniques of applying them (they are merely imperfect human theories after all). For me, it is likely we are going into another era where the engineers, experimentalists and artisans/crafters are going to be forging ahead again (like the the late 1800 early 1900 period). It is simply that the tools and techniques of the trade have developed to the boundaries of the theory/understanding once again.
Your basic contention that doubting something is possible or being skeptical about the likelihood of something contrary to your current understanding makes you closed minded is wrong.

It is very possible to strongly believe something to be unlikely yet still be open to the potential of being wrong. Since when does being open minded mean that you can't give your opinion.

Imagine all of these physics professors in the world that you are accusing of "moronic denialism" for doubting LENR while you simultaneously claim that Levi must be beyond reproach because he is a physics professor.

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

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

Post by seedload »

[0070] This demonstrates that, in addition to fusion, the
inventive reaction also provides a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon
generating lighter stable atoms.
[0071] Moreover, it has been found that, after having generated
energy the used powders contained both copper and
lighter than nickel atoms (such as sulphur, chlorine, potassium,
calcium).
[0072] This demonstrate that, in addition to fusion, also a
nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable
atoms occurs.
Right, nickel is fissioning to create sulpher, chlorine, potassium, and calcium. They can't even count protons!

Maybe they didn't notice the EVEN lighter fission products that would be necessary. But the products are STABLE? Oh shit, now they can't even count neutrons!

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

Post Reply