LENR Is Real

[JoeP]

As I said before on this thread, only a working commercial product will prove LENR to the skeptics. Such a product will be available shortly. DGT released this data before they realized that its release would put them at a possible competitive disadvantage. You will not see this data again unless you are covered by an NDA. The means and methods of LENR will remain a mystery to most for very long time to come.

I don't follow how you can state this unequivocally. Rossi, DGT, and BLP have been promising products for a while now. I don't doubt that at least one of these (generously, maybe all of them?) are trying to make something that actually works with the idea that they can sell it. But how do you know that a product will in fact be released, and will work as advertised, and prove LENR? You also do not know for sure that these supposed devices, if ever released, get their excess energy from "LENR" processes until proven.

I guess I get hung up a bit on statements of fact instead of things that should be stated as opinions. I think most people are guilty of this to some extent, but in your posts, Axil, you state a lot of things as facts, e.g. X=Y, when you should say, I think X could = Y if this theory I cited holds water.

[Axil]

As I said before on this thread, only a working commercial product will prove LENR to the skeptics. Such a product will be available shortly. DGT released this data before they realized that its release would put them at a possible competitive disadvantage. You will not see this data again unless you are covered by an NDA. The means and methods of LENR will remain a mystery to most for very long time to come.

I don't follow how you can state this unequivocally. Rossi, DGT, and BLP have been promising products for a while now. I don't doubt that at least one of these (generously, maybe all of them?) are trying to make something that actually works with the idea that they can sell it. But how do you know that a product will in fact be released, and will work as advertised, and prove LENR? You also do not know for sure that these supposed devices, if ever released, get their excess energy from "LENR" processes until proven.

I guess I get hung up a bit on statements of fact instead of things that should be stated as opinions. I think most people are guilty of this to some extent, but in your posts, Axil, you state a lot of things as facts, e.g. X=Y, when you should say, I think X could = Y if this theory I cited holds water.

Yes Joe, I have my doubts also. Blacklight power (BLP) might never produce a working system because of the theory behind their development. If they discount quantum mechanics as valid when they are developing an optical system, their thinking is fundamentally flawed. No good or success can come out of that kind of situation.

Rossi also has fundamental problems. At this juncture, Rossi cannot control his system to the level required to produce a commercial product. His strategy involving the developments of an industrial product springs from a need to have an expert operator who is dedicated to controlling this system 24/7. At this juncture, neither he nor the people who have taken over his R&D functions really understand how his reactor works in detail.

Defkalion Green Technologies DGT is in the best position to release a product in the short term. Their system is designed from day one to be controllable and it is more powerful than Rossi’s system with a potential for a higher COP. But their intent to produce an in home power unit is born out of a misplaced idealism. They would best be served in producing a commercial system where their system flaws are a lot less impactful. The huge magnetic fields produced in the DGT reactor produce intense Radio frequency (RF) emissions. Shielding this emission is apparently ineffective because of its nature since it must be non-alternating.

They cannot field a home product that will destroy all the electronic equipment within a quarter mile radius from the reactor. A naval or rail application is probably their best bet to break into the commensal market place. They may solve their issues by removing the NMR active material from their system. The problems that they have had with reliable testing have it foundations in their massive RF emissions that disrupt the measurement equipment that they use. Rossi’s use of a remote temperature camera to take temperature readings was IMHO caused by disruptive RF emission from his system. The National Instrument (NI) suite that NI developed for Defkalion that they wanted to use for demos was made inoperable by then newly revealed RF emissions and this kept Defkalion out of the recent ICCF-18 conference as well as the NI conference. DGT did not want to put NI into a bad light at the NI conference by publicly exposing this testing equipment failure.

IMHO, the development of a zero nuclear spin iron and/or nickel based alloy might be required for the reactors structure. But such isotopic selection is expensive. Their challenge is rooted in material selection, not one of control or theoretical ignorance. I expect that a maritime reactor will be the first application of DGT technology where lots of iron in a ship's engine room could possibly shield the disruptive influence of the RF emission from their reactor. Building a failsafe reactor is no mean feat. But I suspect that a whole dark transnational engineering infrastructure is currently at work to address those challenges.

If I had my druthers, I would try to convert all that RF directly into electric current via some sort of antenna/shield mechanism.

The lack of any recent info from DGT...they are now black...the remove of Kim's ICCF-18 theory/experimental paper from the Purdue paper site, the suspension of their website, the failure to do a demo of their R6 reactor to drum up interest is a public stock offering, and the failure to make a public stock offering speaks to the possible existence of a robust corporate and/or government support structure. But this might be just wishful thinking on my part. I cannot counter the belief from direct knowledge that DGT is just out of business that many here will make.

I have a distinct feeling that because of the "David Daggett" connection discussed below, the proximity of Seattle Washington to Vancouver BC, the prominence of Boeing in the Seattle/Vancouver engineering ecosystem network, and the spate of recent Boeing LENR based patent applications. that Boeing is one of the DGT's new sugar daddies. But this is just a gross and unfounded speculation on my part.

I am interested to see the results of the six month test of Rossi’s system to understand how far along he has come in addressing his control and RF issues.

In regards to the development of a home LENR based boiler, here below might be found a reference to some insights on that effort.

See:

New LENR Organization Working with US University

http://coldfusion3.com/blog/new-lenr-or ... university

[tomclarke]

Defkalion Green Technologies DGT is in the best position to release a product in the short term. Their system is designed from day one to be controllable and it is more powerful than Rossi’s system with a potential for a higher COP. But their intent to produce an in home power unit is born out of a misplaced idealism. They would best be served in producing a commercial system where their system flaws are a lot less impactful. The huge magnetic fields produced in the DGT reactor produce intense Radio frequency (RF) emissions. Shielding this emission is apparently ineffective because of its nature since it must be non-alternating.

The National Instrument (NI) suite that NI developed for Defkalion that they wanted to use for demos was made inoperable by then newly revealed RF emissions and this kept Defkalion out of the recent ICCF-18 conference as well as the NI conference. DGT did not want to put NI into a bad light at the NI conference by publicly exposing this testing equipment failure.

The lack of any recent info from DGT...they are now black...the remove of Kim's ICCF-18 theory/experimental paper from the Purdue paper site, the suspension of their website, the failure to do a demo of their R6 reactor to drum up interest is a public stock offering, and the failure to make a public stock offering speaks to the possible existence of a robust corporate and/or government support structure. But this might be just wishful thinking on my part. I cannot counter the belief from direct knowledge that DGT is just out of business that many here will make.

You are forgetting the clearly scammy behavior exposed by the DGT Europe report. Which also showed that their apparently solid demo was not solid.

It is no surprise they have gone dark.

[Axil]

There are two sides to every story.

In terms of this DGT Europe guy, I don't trust his account or his take on things because he has gone into the LENR business himself. It is natural for the various potential venders’ of LENR reactors to bad mouth each other. Rossi says bad things about DGT and DGT says bad things about Rossi. This new guy is just doing what they all do. His company paid a million dollars in the vain hope to look under the dress of DGT, but DGT was too modest or too smart to show their goods.

Did Luca Gamberale want to setup his new company in the same way that Deflation was started? We might never know who stole what from who but Italians are notorious for their lack of business ethics. I am surprised that DGT did not go after Luca Gamberale's NDA violation. I guess they did not want to waste precious money on layers. After all, DGT Europe was in the Ni/H reactor application business not in the development of the Ni/H technology itself.

Luca Gamberale bemoans that DGT never left him alone with an R5 reactor unattended. Why would that bother this man? Maybe Gamberale wanted to take some nefarious advantage in the dark of night to look inside that R5 reactor, or even better to remove some selected parts for reverse engineering opportunities thereby supplying him with a huge technical head start for his own company.

It is not in the interest of any company to admit that key parts of their technology are compromised. This degrades the value of their intellectual property in the market place. Ask Rossi about this vis-à-vis DGT. Rossi swears that DGT never got anything of value from their brief partnership. Rossi also says he never got anything from Piantelli. This all might be true but it also might not be.

You can bet the farm that what Luca Gamberale is saying is solely calculated to advance the interests of Luca Gamberale himself. DGT customer base is a prize plum and a potential source of R&D funding for his new company. But this is all gross speculation based on my observation of human nature at play doing business.

Luca Gamberale's Experience

CEO, Scientist

LD-Brane srls

March 2014 – Present (7 months) Milan Area, Italy

LD-Brane is a startup operating in two main fields:

1) R&D in the field of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). LENR is a most promising powerful source of energy, safe, clean an cheap. It has the potential to supply humanity of heat, electricity and fresh water for the next decades. What is still missing is a full understanding of the physical principles at the basis of the reactions and an efficient and reliable industrial implementation. LD-Brane has a scientific programme for the experimental and theoretical study of LENR and for the realization of prototypes for the production of energy running using LENR. LD-Brane participates to the research program of the most prominent research centers in Italy and Europe, both public and private.

2) development of highly techological cloud solutions:

routing and planning optimization for fleets of trucks http://www.speedyplan.com
integrated platform for the quality Assurance of Echotomographs for medical use in hospitals

Independent Scientific Consultant

September 2013 – Present (1 year 1 month) Milano

CTO

Defkalion Europe

January 2013 – September 2013 (9 months)

PhD - Scientist

Pirelli Labs

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; Automotive industry

January 2001 – July 2010 (9 years 7 months)

Project Leader on experimental physics.
study of coherent optical properties of crystals subjected to nuclear magnetic resonance

scientist

Pirelli Cables

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; Automotive industry

2000 – 2001 (1 year)

[tomclarke]

There are two sides to every story.

In terms of this DGT Europe guy, I don't trust his account or his take on things because he has gone into the LENR business himself. It is natural for the various potential venders’ of LENR reactors to bad mouth each other. This new guy is just doing what they all do. His company paid a million dollars in the vain hope to look under the dress of DGT, but DGT was too modest or too smart to show their goods.

That does not fit the facts here. The report (very detailed) shows how and why the test setup used in the demo was faulty. The requests to add better water flow instrumentation, or to control the testing, do not in any way compromise IP. They do however allow the claimed heat production to be checked. Not to allow this in one form or other is tantamount to saying you think your device does not work. DGT Europe were a genuine technically savvy customer, who lose a lot if the DGT technology does not work. They had no interest in trashing the technology.

[Axil]

There are two sides to every story.

In terms of this DGT Europe guy, I don't trust his account or his take on things because he has gone into the LENR business himself. It is natural for the various potential venders’ of LENR reactors to bad mouth each other. This new guy is just doing what they all do. His company paid a million dollars in the vain hope to look under the dress of DGT, but DGT was too modest or too smart to show their goods.

That does not fit the facts here. The report (very detailed) shows how and why the test setup used in the demo was faulty. The requests to add better water flow instrumentation, or to control the testing, do not in any way compromise IP. They do however allow the claimed heat production to be checked. Not to allow this in one form or other is tantamount to saying you think your device does not work. DGT Europe were a genuine technically savvy customer, who lose a lot if the DGT technology does not work. They had no interest in trashing the technology.

DGT admitted that the demo was not accurate. To compensate, the calculation of COP was understated in the demo software. The reactor produced steam. The COP calculation was calculated as if the steam was water at 100C.



To compensate for the problems of the demo, The energy needed to produce a phase change of state between water and steam (539 cal/gram) was neglected from the calculation of COP. That works out to and underestimation of COP by a multiplication factor of about 8 times. The demo showed a COP of about 3.5. It rightfully should have showed a COP of about between 20 and 25. The intent of the demo was to show that the Ni/H reactor produces gainful energy production, not to accurately quantify that gain.

The ridiculous claim by Luca Gamberale that this demo constituted a criminal deception is an overreaction to the difficulties in testing the Ni/H reactor.

IMHO, the Ni/H reactor will be accepted as real when a commercial Ni/H product is released to the marketplace with a money back guarantee on satisfaction of the service they provide. These types of demos are too easily discredited due to their inherent complexity. But their performance should not be considered a criminal act. Like any demo, the validity of this type of demo is subjectively judged by the people who witness them.

[GIThruster]

The demo showed a COP of about 3.5. It rightfully should have showed a COP of about between 20 and 25. The intent of the demo was to show that the Ni/H reactor produces gainful energy production, not to accurately quantify that gain.

Careful calorimetry doesn't permit phase changes because it is so difficult to measure how much of the working fluid has changed phase. If you heat until all of the liquid changes, then of course you have a minimum value, but in general things like water start to change phase in large numbers before they're hot enough, and some doesn't change phase until well after it statistically should.

And just saying, its pretty easy to validate a calorimetry method. Anyone seeking to do a calorimetry demo should have referenced the work at Rowan since it was widely held as above reproach. So why do we seem to see a string of excuses and half-way attempts here, when the resources are so readily available to do this right?

[Axil]

The demo showed a COP of about 3.5. It rightfully should have showed a COP of about between 20 and 25. The intent of the demo was to show that the Ni/H reactor produces gainful energy production, not to accurately quantify that gain.

Careful calorimetry doesn't permit phase changes because it is so difficult to measure how much of the working fluid has changed phase. If you heat until all of the liquid changes, then of course you have a minimum value, but in general things like water start to change phase in large numbers before they're hot enough, and some doesn't change phase until well after it statistically should.

And just saying, its pretty easy to validate a calorimetry method. Anyone seeking to do a calorimetry demo should have referenced the work at Rowan since it was widely held as above reproach. So why do we seem to see a string of excuses and half-way attempts here, when the resources are so readily available to do this right?

You have a point.

All the tests and demos run by Rossi must also have been invalid because of RF interference. One of the major challenges in the NiH reactor business is running well designed tests of the reactor and getting valid results.

"You cannot tell where the problem is, but anyway, you cannot do flow calorimetry without a stable flow."

I have always thought that heat capacity calorimetry was better suited to LENR. Not that I am an expert but I still have an opinion; calibrating heat capacity calorimetry properly is a problem, but this type of heat measurement is less equipment intensive and therefore less complicated in a disruptive RF environment. It is also less sexy and impressive than flow calorimetry All that you need is a thermometer and that piece of test equipment could be analog. The simpler that the test is, the more believable that it will be. Get rid of the computers, the data acquisition boards and computer programs, and the remote sensors. Keep it simple.

I am interested in how the science team tests the Rossi system. After all these years, I wonder if Rossi has learned his testing lessons yet.

[Asterix]

I seem to remember back in 1989, when P&F were conducting their "show" that someone from Caltech pronounced their little experiment a failure of calorimetry and even offered a prize of his own money to anyone who was able to prove otherwise.

To the best of my knowledge, said prize was never claimed. So now we have a whole field whose scientific basis is shaky still being the subject of investigation. Heck, for that matter, some think that Keeley and Bessler both had something.

Didn't Dick Smith also offer a substantial prize some years ago--and have it go unclaimed?

[tomclarke]

Maybe you should check the report? The issue is that due to water flow measurement inaccuracies variable flow rates with overall flow 0 can spoof non-zero flow rates. Which means that without care COP infinity can be spoofed.

DGT did not allow the level of inspection needed to determine whether they were spoofing it.

In that situation any "demo" is worthless. And it is easily mended - by using better flow measurements.

LENR demos are two a penny. However there is not one LENR demo that has been checked properly for experimental issues and remains valid. DGT are either (scamming or deluded) conning investors out of money due to bad measurements, or they have a Nobel Prize winning discovery.

It seems not one of their demos survives having obvious holes. Yes doing bomb-proof calorimetry is not difficult. The integrating water-tank is a pretty good one - you get power out without having to measure flow rate.

Guess which of the above options I think more likely.

There are two sides to every story.

In terms of this DGT Europe guy, I don't trust his account or his take on things because he has gone into the LENR business himself. It is natural for the various potential venders’ of LENR reactors to bad mouth each other. This new guy is just doing what they all do. His company paid a million dollars in the vain hope to look under the dress of DGT, but DGT was too modest or too smart to show their goods.

That does not fit the facts here. The report (very detailed) shows how and why the test setup used in the demo was faulty. The requests to add better water flow instrumentation, or to control the testing, do not in any way compromise IP. They do however allow the claimed heat production to be checked. Not to allow this in one form or other is tantamount to saying you think your device does not work. DGT Europe were a genuine technically savvy customer, who lose a lot if the DGT technology does not work. They had no interest in trashing the technology.

DGT admitted that the demo was not accurate. To compensate, the calculation of COP was understated in the demo software. The reactor produced steam. The COP calculation was calculated as if the steam was water at 100C.



To compensate for the problems of the demo, The energy needed to produce a phase change of state between water and steam (539 cal/gram) was neglected from the calculation of COP. That works out to and underestimation of COP by a multiplication factor of about 8 times. The demo showed a COP of about 3.5. It rightfully should have showed a COP of about between 20 and 25. The intent of the demo was to show that the Ni/H reactor produces gainful energy production, not to accurately quantify that gain.

The ridiculous claim by Luca Gamberale that this demo constituted a criminal deception is an overreaction to the difficulties in testing the Ni/H reactor.

IMHO, the Ni/H reactor will be accepted as real when a commercial Ni/H product is released to the marketplace with a money back guarantee on satisfaction of the service they provide. These types of demos are too easily discredited due to their inherent complexity. But their performance should not be considered a criminal act. Like any demo, the validity of this type of demo is subjectively judged by the people who witness them.

[GIThruster]

In that situation any "demo" is worthless. And it is easily mended - by using better flow measurements.

Too, the system is easy to characterize by using a resistive heater. If you bother to calibrate the system at all, you ought to remove these kinds of troubles.

[paperburn1]

Or just heat up a tub of water. If it heats as claimed the results would not have to be fudged to account for variables.
KISS

[hanelyp]

Heating a tub of water would work great to measure heat production, except for the heat capacity of the other components. Calibration with a resistive heater could help there.

The procedure I recall from many years ago involves establishing a steady flow of water and measuring temperature both before and after the device. Since the device maintained a steady temperature the thermal mass wasn't an issue.

[tomclarke]

Heating a tub of water would work great to measure heat production, except for the heat capacity of the other components. Calibration with a resistive heater could help there.

The procedure I recall from many years ago involves establishing a steady flow of water and measuring temperature both before and after the device. Since the device maintained a steady temperature the thermal mass wasn't an issue.

For Rossi/DGT claimed high power out a standard central heating unvented cylinder with high insulation is about perfect. Just connect a heating coil up to the Rossi/DGT apparatus. Do what you like with flow rate - that lets you stabilise the temperature of the active device. The cylinder water thermal mass will dominate over any other part of the system, and is precisely known.

Such a test would be bomb-proof. Rate of temperature rise translates directly to power out. Losses will cause a small under-reading. If power out > power in over decent length of time I'll become an LENR believer.

Power in:
measure mains input not some "Black box" output.
Use 200MHz scope to check for high or medium frequency rubbish that will spoof meter. If found add a LF filter between the device and the power meter.
Use decent digital power meter (2 or 3 phase) capable of measuring up to 1MHz

All of this is easy enough, would lead to unambiguous validation of any of these systems.

[ladajo]

We have beat this horse so many times.

They will not do a simple bomb proof test. They have been asked over and over.

Occam's Razor says that the most likely reason is that the results won't say what they want.

It amazes me how folks continue to drink the cool-aid.

Rossi is full of shit.