LENR Is Real

[tomclarke]

Like I said before when someone else made this argument. There are (Huge) assumptions in this argument.

• Is the Fuel distribution uniform?
  Is the distribution of ash uniform before a sample was taken?
  Why was the test limited to 32 days?

The first one isnt too big of an assumption but without knowing how the fuel is prepared only Rossi/IH knows. The second one is the biggest because no mention of whether or not they extracted all the remnants mixed everything together then pulled a sample. Without this information your left with assuming that yes the fuel as an equal distribution of hydrogen throughout, and that the burn was uniform throughout the entire burn chamber. Those seem like pretty big assumptions to me. Also, inferring that the fuel was entirely consumed is based on the assumption that 62NI is the end of the reaction chain.

You cannot be absolutely sure of anything, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. I think sometimes I'm living in a looking glass world where instead of Rossi having to 100% prove he has something miraculous, people commenting on the tests based on a report have to 100% prove it is fraudulent!

It is however, if this is real, difficult to understand how it could happen. The point is that 1g of fuel converting from 58Ni to 62Ni makes a lot of energy - roughly (if I remember the report) half what was claimed observed. I should maybe check tis. But there is no sign of reduction in power out over the time of the test. Which means the 58Ni->62Ni conversion must be uniform throughout the test. That beggars belief. There is no way that (one of the) fuels could be so exactly depleted and yet there is no loss of power.

I agree the length of the test and indeed the temperature may well have been guided (roughly) by Rossi to make the total energy out comparable with the Ni reaction. Rossi will know from last time the critical importance of isotopic changes. It is just that when you examine in detail what we have got it falls to bits, like all of Rossi's stuff.

[birchoff]

Like I said before when someone else made this argument. There are (Huge) assumptions in this argument.

• Is the Fuel distribution uniform?
  Is the distribution of ash uniform before a sample was taken?
  Why was the test limited to 32 days?

The first one isnt too big of an assumption but without knowing how the fuel is prepared only Rossi/IH knows. The second one is the biggest because no mention of whether or not they extracted all the remnants mixed everything together then pulled a sample. Without this information your left with assuming that yes the fuel as an equal distribution of hydrogen throughout, and that the burn was uniform throughout the entire burn chamber. Those seem like pretty big assumptions to me. Also, inferring that the fuel was entirely consumed is based on the assumption that 62NI is the end of the reaction chain.

You cannot be absolutely sure of anything, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. I think sometimes I'm living in a looking glass world where instead of Rossi having to 100% prove he has something miraculous, people commenting on the tests based on a report have to 100% prove it is fraudulent!

It is however, if this is real, difficult to understand how it could happen. The point is that 1g of fuel converting from 58Ni to 62Ni makes a lot of energy - roughly (if I remember the report) half what was claimed observed. I should maybe check tis. But there is no sign of reduction in power out over the time of the test. Which means the 58Ni->62Ni conversion must be uniform throughout the test. That beggars belief. There is no way that (one of the) fuels could be so exactly depleted and yet there is no loss of power.

I agree the length of the test and indeed the temperature may well have been guided (roughly) by Rossi to make the total energy out comparable with the Ni reaction. Rossi will know from last time the critical importance of isotopic changes. It is just that when you examine in detail what we have got it falls to bits, like all of Rossi's stuff.

I agree that we cannot be absolutely sure of anything, I cannot be absolutely sure that Rossi didn't fake the entire report, and pay off the people whose names are on the paper to go along. But similarly you cannot be sure that you would see a power trail off, since we do not have answers to the questions I previously stated. The second question being the most important. The isotopic analysis was carried out on 10mg (not much more or less than that, don't have the paper with me now to double check). so there is about 990mg of mass left that we do not know about. Doesn't mean you cannot make assumptions but one should at least state the assumptions being made if they are critical to their argument.

[tomclarke]

Like I said before when someone else made this argument. There are (Huge) assumptions in this argument.

• Is the Fuel distribution uniform?
  Is the distribution of ash uniform before a sample was taken?
  Why was the test limited to 32 days?

The first one isnt too big of an assumption but without knowing how the fuel is prepared only Rossi/IH knows. The second one is the biggest because no mention of whether or not they extracted all the remnants mixed everything together then pulled a sample. Without this information your left with assuming that yes the fuel as an equal distribution of hydrogen throughout, and that the burn was uniform throughout the entire burn chamber. Those seem like pretty big assumptions to me. Also, inferring that the fuel was entirely consumed is based on the assumption that 62NI is the end of the reaction chain.

You cannot be absolutely sure of anything, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. I think sometimes I'm living in a looking glass world where instead of Rossi having to 100% prove he has something miraculous, people commenting on the tests based on a report have to 100% prove it is fraudulent!

It is however, if this is real, difficult to understand how it could happen. The point is that 1g of fuel converting from 58Ni to 62Ni makes a lot of energy - roughly (if I remember the report) half what was claimed observed. I should maybe check tis. But there is no sign of reduction in power out over the time of the test. Which means the 58Ni->62Ni conversion must be uniform throughout the test. That beggars belief. There is no way that (one of the) fuels could be so exactly depleted and yet there is no loss of power.

I agree the length of the test and indeed the temperature may well have been guided (roughly) by Rossi to make the total energy out comparable with the Ni reaction. Rossi will know from last time the critical importance of isotopic changes. It is just that when you examine in detail what we have got it falls to bits, like all of Rossi's stuff.

I agree that we cannot be absolutely sure of anything, I cannot be absolutely sure that Rossi didn't fake the entire report, and pay off the people whose names are on the paper to go along. But similarly you cannot be sure that you would see a power trail off, since we do not have answers to the questions I previously stated. The second question being the most important. The isotopic analysis was carried out on 10mg (not much more or less than that, don't have the paper with me now to double check). so there is about 990mg of mass left that we do not know about. Doesn't mean you cannot make assumptions but one should at least state the assumptions being made if they are critical to their argument.

Yes. All is balance of probabilities. There are low probability ways in which the 62Ni could happen. The issue is that it is very difficult to think of a better explanation for this than fraud (by Rossi). That does not apply to the other authors. the likelihood of them all being in cahoots with Rossi is I reckon very small indeed. Though, as Joe said above, there could maybe be one of them in cahoots with Rossi - or they could all be taken in by him.

We do not know, the point is that the scenarios with Rossi fraudulent now look a lot more likely than those with him honest. Though to tell the truth we have prior information on the side of Rossi at very least not honest, so this is not surprising.

[Axil]

Like I said before when someone else made this argument. There are (Huge) assumptions in this argument.

• Is the Fuel distribution uniform?
  Is the distribution of ash uniform before a sample was taken?
  Why was the test limited to 32 days?

The first one isnt too big of an assumption but without knowing how the fuel is prepared only Rossi/IH knows. The second one is the biggest because no mention of whether or not they extracted all the remnants mixed everything together then pulled a sample. Without this information your left with assuming that yes the fuel as an equal distribution of hydrogen throughout, and that the burn was uniform throughout the entire burn chamber. Those seem like pretty big assumptions to me. Also, inferring that the fuel was entirely consumed is based on the assumption that 62NI is the end of the reaction chain.

You cannot be absolutely sure of anything, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. I think sometimes I'm living in a looking glass world where instead of Rossi having to 100% prove he has something miraculous, people commenting on the tests based on a report have to 100% prove it is fraudulent!

It is however, if this is real, difficult to understand how it could happen. The point is that 1g of fuel converting from 58Ni to 62Ni makes a lot of energy - roughly (if I remember the report) half what was claimed observed. I should maybe check tis. But there is no sign of reduction in power out over the time of the test. Which means the 58Ni->62Ni conversion must be uniform throughout the test. That beggars belief. There is no way that (one of the) fuels could be so exactly depleted and yet there is no loss of power.

I agree the length of the test and indeed the temperature may well have been guided (roughly) by Rossi to make the total energy out comparable with the Ni reaction. Rossi will know from last time the critical importance of isotopic changes. It is just that when you examine in detail what we have got it falls to bits, like all of Rossi's stuff.

There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is wrong.

In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor is in a maximum power configuration.

Tom, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as supported by the boson condensate.

This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is participating in a boson condensate.

Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina.

The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat.

This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a nuclear source.

We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source.

The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to protest is from oxidation.

The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was LENR active.

[Axil]

Samples obtained from Sven Kullander in December have been analyzed. The samples consisted of two bottles with approximately 1 gram in each bottle. One bottle is called “NEW” and contained the nickel powder Rossi used in the reactor, taken before any activity has occurred. The second bottle is called “OLD” and it contained powder used in one of Rossi's reactors for about 6 months. This bottle also contained approximately 1 gram of powder.




Fresh Rossi nickel with tubercles.



On the grain that contained Ni in the “old” sample measured no Cu whatsoever. The detection limit for Cu is lower than 1%, but to safely determine, the level should be about 1% Cu present.




A portion of this fragment can be oxidized, hence the presence of oxygen. Cu and P occur in a very common alloy used in brazing. Lod with CuP at these proportions are particularly common in plumbing jobs. Is it possible that this fragment is derived from such solder joints? The reactors constructed by Rossi seems to have consisted, among other things, of a brazed copper details.


See the entire report

http://pesn.com/2014/10/13/9602545_Leak ... on_Closer/

[birchoff]

Like I said before when someone else made this argument. There are (Huge) assumptions in this argument.

• Is the Fuel distribution uniform?
  Is the distribution of ash uniform before a sample was taken?
  Why was the test limited to 32 days?

The first one isnt too big of an assumption but without knowing how the fuel is prepared only Rossi/IH knows. The second one is the biggest because no mention of whether or not they extracted all the remnants mixed everything together then pulled a sample. Without this information your left with assuming that yes the fuel as an equal distribution of hydrogen throughout, and that the burn was uniform throughout the entire burn chamber. Those seem like pretty big assumptions to me. Also, inferring that the fuel was entirely consumed is based on the assumption that 62NI is the end of the reaction chain.

You cannot be absolutely sure of anything, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. I think sometimes I'm living in a looking glass world where instead of Rossi having to 100% prove he has something miraculous, people commenting on the tests based on a report have to 100% prove it is fraudulent!

It is however, if this is real, difficult to understand how it could happen. The point is that 1g of fuel converting from 58Ni to 62Ni makes a lot of energy - roughly (if I remember the report) half what was claimed observed. I should maybe check tis. But there is no sign of reduction in power out over the time of the test. Which means the 58Ni->62Ni conversion must be uniform throughout the test. That beggars belief. There is no way that (one of the) fuels could be so exactly depleted and yet there is no loss of power.

I agree the length of the test and indeed the temperature may well have been guided (roughly) by Rossi to make the total energy out comparable with the Ni reaction. Rossi will know from last time the critical importance of isotopic changes. It is just that when you examine in detail what we have got it falls to bits, like all of Rossi's stuff.

There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is wrong.

In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor is in a maximum power configuration.

Tom, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as supported by the boson condensate.

This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is participating in a boson condensate.

Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina.

The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat.

This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a nuclear source.

We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source.

The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to protest is from oxidation.

The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was LENR active.

No offense axil, but I am going to need much more than whats currently in the last published report to accept what your saying as true.

[Axil]

Rossi describes the meltdown of his reactor

James Bowery

December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Dr. Rossi,

When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you mean they actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely destructively over-heat? (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this photograph during the prior validation test:)



-----------

Andrea Rossi

December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM

James Bowery:

Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature (from 1,000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

[Carl White]

Is it known that the nickel is strewn as a powder throughout?

What if it's a pellet instead, and furthermore, placed in some recess so that only one facet is showing?

Or what is it is a powder, but packed into grooves or so?

The idea is that, even as it's consumed (converted to a Ni-62 powder, which presumably is somehow removed), the surface area of exposed Ni-58 remains the same. Thus a constant output until fully consumed.

Is the interior described sufficiently to discount this?

EDIT: by consumed I mean converted from Ni-58 to Ni-62, which is putatively what happened.

[303]

thats one big ugly resistor

[Axil]

Is it known that the nickel is strewn as a powder throughout?

What if it's a pellet instead, and furthermore, placed in some recess so that only one facet is showing?

Or what is it is a powder, but packed into grooves or so?

The idea is that, even as it's consumed (converted to a Ni-62 powder, which presumably is somehow removed), the surface area exposed remains the same. Thus a constant output until fully consumed.

Is the interior described sufficiently to discount this?

A reactor that can run for 6 months cannot be designed to consume the nickel particles that drive it. I interpret the pictures of these particles to represent EMF field emitters that gradually deteriorate over time. Rossi packs these particles too closely together so that they gradually destroy each other. This is a design problem in the Rossi reactor. When these field emitters are supported properly and separated, they will last for years.


By the way, a guy who is setting up a scam need not go through the effort to generated micro particles that nobody else can replicate. Such scamming detail is over kill.

[tomclarke]

Axil, buying 62Ni is hardly difficult. Nor heating it up to make an ash substitute.

More difficult by far would be mixing Ni62 with natural nickel at microscopic level so as to simulate half-depleted nuclear fuel.

Is it known that the nickel is strewn as a powder throughout?

What if it's a pellet instead, and furthermore, placed in some recess so that only one facet is showing?

Or what is it is a powder, but packed into grooves or so?

The idea is that, even as it's consumed (converted to a Ni-62 powder, which presumably is somehow removed), the surface area exposed remains the same. Thus a constant output until fully consumed.

Is the interior described sufficiently to discount this?

A reactor that can run for 6 months cannot be designed to consume the nickel particles that drive it. I interpret the pictures of these particles to represent EMF field emitters that gradually deteriorate over time. Rossi packs these particles too closely together so that they gradually destroy each other. This is a design problem in the Rossi reactor. When these field emitters are supported properly and separated, they will last for years.


By the way, a guy who is setting up a scam need not go through the effort to generated micro particles that nobody else can replicate. Such scamming detail is over kill.

[tomclarke]

Tom, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

Reactor surface (claimed) temperature, for several days 1400C
at 2.8kW flux, Al2O3 heat capacity, cylinder 4mm ID/ 20mm OD heat difference is 200C

So temperature of powder must be 1600C continuous at least - more if thermal conductivity to Al2O3 is not large.

T = P*ln(d1/d2)/(2*pi*L*k) where k is the thermal conductivity, d1,d2 are outer and inner cylinder diameters, L is length of cylinder, T is temperature difference.

The melting point of pure nickel is 1455C. Any admixture of other elements decreases this.

So if the claims here are correct all nickel grains in ash should be melted.

[Axil]

Tom, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

Reactor surface (claimed) temperature, for several days 1400C
at 2.8kW flux, Al2O3 heat capacity, cylinder 4mm ID/ 20mm OD heat difference is 200C

So temperature of powder must be 1600C continuous at least - more if thermal conductivity to Al2O3 is not large.

T = P*ln(d1/d2)/(2*pi*L*k) where k is the thermal conductivity, d1,d2 are outer and inner cylinder diameters, L is length of cylinder, T is temperature difference.

The melting point of pure nickel is 1455C. Any admixture of other elements decreases this.

So if the claims here are correct all nickel grains in ash should be melted.

This is good grist for deductive reasoning. If this condition did exist then….

This is what leads me to the suspect that the heat flow is isothermal: caused by superfuildity through the auspices of a boson condensate in which the infrared photons produced by the reactor participate. Having condensed, all the photons are at the same energy level thus resulting in a singular infrared photon wavelength. Any new energy input into the condensate is shared equally among the members of the condensate providing a unitary thermal state.

In this way, the boson condensate thermalizes the gamma radiation through super-absorbtion.


The standard theory is based on the fact that heat is assumed to come from the nickel particles. This theory might not be true. I believe that heat comes from the alumina and the Ni particles provide field emitters to cause fusion at a distance far from the nickel particles.

The Ni particles might be located in the coolest part of the reactor and must be heated by induction provided by the integral coil to keep their field emission's going.

[tomclarke]

The central hole of the reactor must be hotter than the surface, if the heat comes from the central hole.

BTW how are the conditions for a boson condensate met at 1400C+?

There comes a point when whatever prior belief in a hypothesis - and I can see yours is high - you add up implausibilities and abandon it.

Tom, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

Reactor surface (claimed) temperature, for several days 1400C
at 2.8kW flux, Al2O3 heat capacity, cylinder 4mm ID/ 20mm OD heat difference is 200C

So temperature of powder must be 1600C continuous at least - more if thermal conductivity to Al2O3 is not large.

T = P*ln(d1/d2)/(2*pi*L*k) where k is the thermal conductivity, d1,d2 are outer and inner cylinder diameters, L is length of cylinder, T is temperature difference.

The melting point of pure nickel is 1455C. Any admixture of other elements decreases this.

So if the claims here are correct all nickel grains in ash should be melted.

This is good grist for deductive reasoning. If this condition did exist then….

This is what leads me to the suspect that the heat flow is isothermal: caused by superfuildity through the auspices of a boson condensate in which the infrared photons produced by the reactor participate. Having condensed, all the photons are at the same energy level thus resulting in a singular infrared photon wavelength. Any new energy input into the condensate is shared equally among the members of the condensate providing a unitary thermal state.

In this way, the boson condensate thermalizes the gamma radiation through super-absorbtion.


The standard theory is based on the fact that heat is assumed to come from the nickel particles. This theory might not be true. I believe that heat comes from the alumina and the Ni particles provide field emitters to cause fusion at a distance far from the nickel particles.

The Ni particles might be located in the coolest part of the reactor and must be heated by induction provided by the integral coil to keep their field emission's going.

[pbelter]

Axil, buying 62Ni is hardly difficult.

That depends what you call "difficult". At $ 10 million per kg, I would not call it easy. This stuff is 30 times more expensive than gold.