10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Ivy Matt
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:21 am

Kahuna wrote:In an earlier post, I mentioned that NyTeknik was sponsering a Q&A session with Rossi today. Here is the transcript:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 124146.ece

Besides, consider that: all the money spent up to now has been my money.

Furthermore: we are not searching venture capital, we want to sell our energy, taking upon us all the risks, we are paying for all the R&D activity, we are not asking money from anyone. Our Customers pay money only after successful testing of our E-Cats: the money, in case of plants sale, remains in the Customer´s escrow account until successful testing is made. So any stupid trick could only damage ourselves, not the Customers.

Interesting.

For the moment we maintain the industrial secret upon the issues that improve the efficiency (nature of catalyzers for example). But the text of our patent will allow, before or later, somebody to replicate the effect and make what you say. But this is normal in the history of technology and I have to accept it.

"Will allow." I hope that means there is an amended patent application waiting in the wings.

We do not use radioactive material and we do not produce lasting radioactive materials. After a few hours all the radioactivity produced inside the E-Cat is turned into heat.

Time to revise your hypothesis, Axil.

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:28 pm

parallel wrote:Georgio,
You lack critical thinking.

I lack critical thinking because you say so?

No, because of the way you express your opinions.
If you think that the reason why Ing. Rossi is right is because otherwise "All the gentlemen involved in the tests are idiots or liars" than you are neglecting the plethora of possibilities that lies in between these two hypothesis and hence you are not thinking it in a critical way.


parallel wrote:Rossi’s E-Cat has been shown to generate heat.

Again no. Ing. Rossi is telling us so, but no one that is critic about this system has been allowed to actually verify his statements.
In addition the experimental set-up was ridiculous if he hoped to support the claims he is making with this demonstration.


parallel wrote:So we don’t know how it works and I think it likely that these recent demonstrations have been partly to persuade the patent office that he really has something.

We do not know IF it works. It is quite different.
And if you think that the Patent Office does care about any type of demonstrations where they are not personally involved than it means that you have little ideas about how a patent office works.


parallel wrote:Like others here, you don’t have a clue about whether it is real or not. Just idle speculation about him being guilty until being proven innocent.

Actually no, I am stating since the start that there is not enough evidence to support Ing. Rossi claims for now, and that we should wait until October to see if the 1 MW experiment will support his claims or he will end in the list of the others wishful thinkers.

Care to quote me where I stated something different?

parallel wrote:My critical thinking says there is not enough information to judge.

Welcome to the rationale world.

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:39 pm

The following links to an interesting exchange between Jed Rothwell and Abd ul-Rahman Lomax regarding past, current and potential testing of the Rossi E-Cat and whether Rossi is likley a con-man or the E-Cat is probably for real. Many of the arguments mirror those being made here. These guys seem well informed, so I thought their arguments worth the read.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 42843.html

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:47 pm

Giorgio wrote:
parallel wrote:Georgio,
You lack critical thinking.

I lack critical thinking because you say so?

No, because of the way you express your opinions.
If you think that the reason why Ing. Rossi is right is because otherwise "All the gentlemen involved in the tests are idiots or liars" than you are neglecting the plethora of possibilities that lies in between these two hypothesis and hence you are not thinking it in a critical way.


parallel wrote:Rossi’s E-Cat has been shown to generate heat.

Again no. Ing. Rossi is telling us so, but no one that is critic about this system has been allowed to actually verify his statements.
In addition the experimental set-up was ridiculous if he hoped to support the claims he is making with this demonstration.


parallel wrote:So we don’t know how it works and I think it likely that these recent demonstrations have been partly to persuade the patent office that he really has something.

We do not know IF it works. It is quite different.
And if you think that the Patent Office does care about any type of demonstrations where they are not personally involved than it means that you have little ideas about how a patent office works.


parallel wrote:Like others here, you don’t have a clue about whether it is real or not. Just idle speculation about him being guilty until being proven innocent.

Actually no, I am stating since the start that there is not enough evidence to support Ing. Rossi claims for now, and that we should wait until October to see if the 1 MW experiment will support his claims or he will end in the list of the others wishful thinkers.

Care to quote me where I stated something different?

parallel wrote:My critical thinking says there is not enough information to judge.

Welcome to the rationale world.


Quote
If you think that the reason why Ing. Rossi is right is because otherwise "All the gentlemen involved in the tests are idiots or liars" than you are neglecting the plethora of possibilities that lies in between these two hypothesis and hence you are not thinking it in a critical way.


You are being an idiot. I wasn’t suggesting Rossi was right there, but merely pointing out you were wrong in saying there was not even a hint that his device worked. Hell if there were no hint this thread would not exist.

Further, Rossi’s E-Cat has been demonstrated before a number of technical people and the demo was run by Dr.Levi (who is not directly connected to Rossi)

Your logic fails again. We don’t know how Rossi’s device works. It may be by some elaborate hoax, it might even be chemical by some stretch. There is no doubt it generated heat.

I appear to know more about patents than you. I have some (eg the ATM card: UK patent #959,713.) If there is a dispute about whether something actually happens, one way of persuading the patent office is by a demonstration.

Earlier you did infer Rossi’s device did not work and you certainly made statements that what he said should not be believed. That is idle, malicious speculation. No I’m not going to go back and find your quote: I have no desire to reread what you wrote.

I have been a member of the rational world (not rationale) much longer than you I suspect.

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:45 pm

parallel wrote:You are being an idiot.

Typical of people like you. When you do not have any logic argument to oppose to one reasoning you start insulting. Pathetic.

parallel wrote:I wasn’t suggesting Rossi was right there, but merely pointing out you were wrong in saying there was not even a hint that his device worked. Hell if there were no hint this thread would not exist.

So, the existence of this thread is sufficient to prove that there are hints that his device works as stated? Your statement is really meaningless.

parallel wrote:Further, Rossi’s E-Cat has been demonstrated before a number of technical people and the demo was run by Dr.Levi (who is not directly connected to Rossi)

And who is stating this? Dr. Levi? Ing. Rossi? This is not enough if you want to be credible.


parallel wrote:If there is a dispute about whether something actually happens, one way of persuading the patent office is by a demonstration.

Yes, but you need to demonstrate it to the patent office. Any type of demonstration will not be considered by the patent office if they are not involved into it.


parallel wrote:Earlier you did infer Rossi’s device did not work and you certainly made statements that what he said should not be believed. That is idle, malicious speculation. No I’m not going to go back and find your quote: I have no desire to reread what you wrote.

So, in your opinion "I certainly made statements" but you are not going to check back?
Another typical attitude of blind believers with no arguments.


parallel wrote:I have been a member of the rational world (not rationale) much longer than you I suspect.

Thanks for correcting the spelling. Too bad this was the only correct statement you have been able to make in your whole reply.


But the part I liked more was this:

parallel wrote:Your logic fails again. We don’t know how Rossi’s device works. It may be by some elaborate hoax, it might even be chemical by some stretch. There is no doubt it generated heat.


And your point is?
As long as it generated heat we should be happy?
Be it chemical, be it an Hoax be it cold fusion it does not matter?

I really believe you are confused as to what we are discussing here.

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:50 pm

You are arguing past each other.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Axil » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:10 pm

Edmund Storms said:

Rossi was using a nickel catalyst to explore ways of making a fuel by combining hydrogen and carbon monoxide and apparently, observed quite by accident, that his [apparatus] was making extra energy. So then he explored it from that point of view and, apparently, over a year or two, amplified the effect.

He’s exploring the gas loading area of the field. This is also a region, a method used in the heavy water, or the heavy hydrogen, system. But in this case, it was light hydrogen, ordinary hydrogen and nickel and what happens is quite amazing.

You create the right conditions in the nickel, and he has a secret method for doing that, and all you do is add hydrogen to it and it makes huge amounts of energy based upon a nuclear reaction.”


Using this info as a clue to narrow the possible Rossi secret catalysts as follows:

Background

In order to convert hydrogen and carbon monoxide to methane, the preferred set of catalytic materials for this purpose is fairly small. These materials are transition metals (particularly nickel, cobalt, osmium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium and rhenium) typically coated on metal oxide supports. In the case of nickel and cobalt, the metal is present in a relatively high concentration on the support due to a lower activity level (>5 wt-%), while the more active but much more expensive ruthenium and rhodium catalysts use lower levels of metals (<1 wt-%).

A new nano-particle based technology is replacing substrate supports, where two or more types of pure nano-particles are mixed. This mixture is either configured in a bed or is coated on the walls of tubes within a reactor.

Application

These “spill over” catalyst materials are in the platinum family: osmium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium and rhenium are most reactive in a hydrogen reforming roll (hydrogenolysis) and the ones that I would look at to identify the Rossi secret catalyst. It is of interest to note that the carbon oxides can also readily be converted to methane over the same catalyst and conditions described for the hydrogenolysis reaction. This would have been Rossi’s goal in his survey of biofuel forming technologies. Rossi would have explored ways of making a fuel by combining hydrogen and carbon monoxide using these materials in combination with nickel.

In this set of platinum family of materials, the material that is the most reactive in a hydrogen reforming roll (hydrogenolysis) and the one that I would look at first as the Rossi secret catalyst is ruthenium.

The Work Function of ruthenium is 4.71eV

There are reports that two elements are used besides nickel in the Rossi reactor and are secret. This second material might be a catalytic promoter. Both Barium (work function: 2.11) and/or Cesium (work function: 1.81) are used as catalytic promoters to increase the effects of ruthenium in a hydrogen environment by increasing electron density on the surface of the catalyst.


Since Rossi would be using less than one hundredth of a gram of this platinum family based precious metal catalytic promoter, its cost per unit would be minimal.


Ruthenium is seldom used in biorefining because its effectiveness is reduced by impurities in the hydrogen feed stock. In the Rossi reactor the hydrogen feed stock is very pure so this limitation is not a problem.


PS: rhenium is identical in its chemistry to technetium but it’s not radioactive.
Last edited by Axil on Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:18 pm

Axil,

Yes, I have read in a couple places that the catalyst contains two elements.

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:02 pm

Axil,

FYI, there are some E-Cat catalyst theories being kicked around at TheEEStory.com:

http://www.theeestory.com/topics/8057

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:02 am

A few more details about the 18 hour test from http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

Duration of test: 18 hours
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.
Cooling water input temperature: 15°C
Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours

The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.

3,000 L/h is 793 gallons/h, which is the output of a medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump.

The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for tests before Jan. 14. Input power was high on that day because there was a problem with cracked welding, according to the Levi report.

18 hours * 16 kWh = 288 kWh = 1,037 MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26 kg of gasoline (7.9 gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.

Levi et al. are expected to write another paper about this test. We will upload it when it becomes available. NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130 kW.


This does appear to rule out any chemical reaction and would make fraud more than ingenious. A peak at 130kW is interesting. That's a lot of heat from a 1 liter container. Easier to understand why Rossi proposes to use a lot of small units rather than scaling up before the dangers are known.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:14 am

If these numbers are true, then even with a perfect heat pump, the output power (given max Coefficient of Performance and 80W input) could only be ~4.6kW.

CoP ~ T/ΔT ~300/5 = 60
60*80 = 4800 = 4.6k

So unless there is significant measurement error or fraud, this isn't a heat pump device either.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:19 am

Actually...

if the room was at typical room temperature, which is ~21 ºC, the theoretical CoP would be infinite, so it COULD be a fancy heat pump.

HMMMM.

Enginerd
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:29 am

Postby Enginerd » Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:26 pm

parallel wrote:18 hours * 16 kWh = 288 kWh = 1,037 MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26 kg of gasoline (7.9 gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.


A Zinc-Air battery can store 0.21 kWh/kg. So if they were hiding some of the very best batteries available inside their device, they would have to be hiding at least 1371 kg worth to handle running at that level for 18 hours. It might be a challenge to hide that quantity of batteries within their power cell. While suggestive, this still proves nothing until they allow the device to be tested by some skeptical and possibly hostile independent scientists.

I think it would be cool if this somehow magically works. But what they are NOT doing and NOT showing makes me very skeptical. They have done very little thus far to demonstrate the device in a way that would eliminate even the most trivial of methods by which this could be a fraud. For example, they might be dissolving H2 or methane or acetylene or some other fuel in the the input water and using that to heat the device. They have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that the input H2 is not in fact being used as fuel, and has not been switched to a tank of acetylene or whatever else, which is simply being burned inside. We know there is an electric heating element inside. They might simply have a hidden electric wire feeding the heating element. Or they might have a wire wound coil hidden inside for inductive wireless electrical power transfer from a coil hidden in the table. They need to be especially careful to prove they are demonstrating something other than an electric space heater.

Would it be so hard to have the input water independently supplied and verified as pure? Would it be so hard to have the input H2 independently supplied, and independently weighed before and after the test run? It certainly would not hurt to place the device on an all glass table at some independent location (not on their table in their lab) to prove there are no independent power sources. And it would help to run the device for, say, an entire week or two at this independent location. Heck, it would be nice to know how long they expect their device to keep running at full power using their "nickel nano-powder" before needing to be refueled.

RobL
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:14 pm

Postby RobL » Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:43 pm

Enginerd wrote:
parallel wrote: Heck, it would be nice to know how long they expect their device to keep running at full power using their "nickel nano-powder" before needing to be refueled.


Supposedly 6 months 10kW on 0.1kg of Nickel. 1million tonnes a year of nickel currently produced would supply about 7kW for every human on earth.

Add to your above potential cheats: xrays, dodgy thermocouples, misreading flow meters.

Need to do a mobile rig with an onboard radiator and circulation pump that can be run in the carpark. Air flow calorimetry through the radiator would be an easy check using an anemometer and thermocouples.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Postby Torulf2 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:13 pm

Regarding the theory of relativistic electrons. This Ukrainian laboratory say they make transmutation and threw implosion of metals from bombardment of electron rays.
http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests