10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[tomclarke]

KitemanSA - in case you think my highlighting Rossi as cherry-picking. Give me one phenomena which is repeatable and clearly indicates LENR?

I am new to this subject and have not read many papers on it so I can't answer that. But when a few folks make absolutist statements about "NO repeatable results"... while a review by a panel of scientists from a competing branch of research having half the reviewers saying the evidence is compelling, I will question the absolutist statements.

"Question Authority" (expecially those who unsupportedly CLAIM to be authority!!! ) That is my motto and I'm sticking to it. I admit that I don't apply it in a totally balanced manner. I seldom prick the absolutist bubble of someone I feel is unable to learn.

I have noticed that those who are most virulent in their support of a particular position tend to be least secure in their belief of it while simultaneously being convinced that they SHOULD believe in it. It is rather sad, but human nature I suppose.

I would point out however that the general tenor of the arguments around here have shifted from the virulent "physically impossible" kind to the "there is no repeatable evidence because XYZ didn't repeat a valid experiment" type. Progress? Digression? Only time will tell.

I look at it quite simply. I would love CF/LENR to be real. Every time there is some new interesting phenomena I wonder. But I have never yet seen anything even remotely that stands up. And I read whatever I can find that looks like it might have merit.

Logically, if anything did stand up you would expect it to be very big news. No?

Physics for this sort of thing is more like "very unlikely" rather than impossible. But my quarrel is not the physics, it is the lack of evidence. You don't believe the sun rises in the West, not because you can absolutely rule out some phenomena which would make this happen, but because there is zero evidence.

[seedload]

To be honest, I am not sure what you even think I am ignorant of. The theory? What theory? WL? He says it's not WL? Your theory? So what. I don't know. I am more familiar with these things than you realize.

Wonderful. I have no idea and didn't intend to imply that I had any idea of your level of familiarity with this. Just that I suspect you aren't God and not omniscient so may learn something buy study and positive discussion.

But, as I watch you get sucked further and further into this, using your superior intellect to get to the bottom of things, to the point of inventing your own theory to explain "what is going on here" (mini-axil) , I like to think that maybe you are right about one thing.

"Sucked" in... interesting choice of words. Suggesting "sucker". Was that your intent? No matter. "Superior intellect" is usually used as an insult about others who are too full of themselves. "(mini-axil)" now that is obviously just plain rude, I believe I know what your opinion of Axil is.
I fail to see why you insist on being rude.
I do want to understand the science behind this. If the science says it can't be I hope one day to understand why. Despite many proclaimations by folks on this forum that it "can't be" I have found repetedly that the universe MIGHT allow it after all.
I hope to understand it one day. I invited you to participate and you declined with snide words. So be it. None-the-less I would welcome any CONSTRUCTIVE discussion you wish to have.

Unlike you, I am simply too dumb and ignorant to be fooled.

Again the insults?

Yes, you got my intent correct, except that 'sucked' is as in being sucked into a whirlpool rather than relating to 'sucker'.

At least I can admit my intent. You on the other hand. I mean, come on, "SOME things" "ALL men" blah blah blah. You meant to call me stupid and uninformed. Not buying your BS. Sorry.

And then this stuff about "nothing left to learn". What the heck. Your just inventing stuff that I am supposed to be thinking. Make up a claim and then say "If that is your claim, then I feel sorry for you". You can't be serious. You are actually lecturing me about learning and then being oddly surprised that I find your tone to be self important.

You call me ignorant and then protest when I am rude in response. I was not at all rude to you prior to your calling me ignorant.

So funny.

As a bit of an aside. "I seldom prick the absolutist bubble of someone I feel is unable to learn" is just about the most condesending thing I have ever heard. Still confused about what it is you think I don't know.

Here is the deal. There is nothing to learn. Yes, you can gain ancillary knowledge by exploring possible theories to explain the unlikely results of these claims and weak demonstrations and that may serve to make you more rounded blah blah blah.

But, if the main issue is whether Rossi is a scam or not, we can't use the theory or even the demonstrations thus far as 'evidence' one way or another. If the demonstrations can be staged tricks, then they mean nothing. If the theory is secret then it means nothing. If similar theories are unproven then they mean nothing.

To be clear, I am saying they mean nothing in context of the effort to determine whether he is a fraud or not.

What does mean something then? The other stuff. His history. The exceptional nature of his claims. Probabilities of simultaneous momentous discoveries. Unexplained, too coincidental, potential mistakes in his claims. Lack of evidence of solvency of companies and defensiveness when questioned in that regard. Etc.

These are the areas that I choose to focus on, because it is what I believe to be of substance in my own determination that he is likely a fraud.

Now, I do not begrudge you for wanting to use this as a learning opportunity. Your choice. Just don't call me ignorant for not wanting to join you. I don't feel the need to study nuclear physics in depth to find a solution to enable LENR reactions. It is not within my capabilities. If it were, I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to explain Rossi's toy. I would be patenting one of my own.

Regards

PS - I am not absolutist. I previously gave Rossi's invention 3 chances in a 1000 to be legit. That is not absolutist although it might have been a little high.

[bhl]

Why can't we work to build one of those? Instead of all this useless bickering. Requires no new theories.

I am assembling parts to build some simple Rossi reactors. I am in contact with others who are also building replications.

My tests will be with two units operating side by side with Ni+H in one and Fe+H in the other. They will use the same power supply, heaters, pressures, etc. My goal is to see what kind of temperature delta is attainable and how the temp difference corresponds to changes in pressures/temperatures.

Once I have a baseline, I'll report them and take suggestions for testing different catalysts.

[chrismb]

You make statements of FACT similar to Axil's with as little back-up for your statement. Why should I listen to you any more than Axil?

eh!? Why would I need to when the 'inventor' si saying he needs to make his device self-destruct to stop people copying it. If there was already enough information to repeat the experiment, why whould he say such a thing!?!?

Chris, I read your prior posting which contained that small extract I quoted as a condemnation of the entire subject of LENR. I called you on it and you respond with mockery about one specific incident. This practice is intellectually dishonest. It amounts to "bearing false witness".

You seem to have an ulterior motive in your general and apparent universal condemnation of LENR and if so you would be perpetrating a fraud. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettel black?

Mockery? What are you talking about? I am afraid I really don't understand your point!?

I am making a statement that there is insufficient description of the experiment that someone can come along and say 'Ah! I will try this out and see if I get the same result'. I have evidenced this because Rossi says that he HAS withheld this information, and will continue to strive to incorporate self-destruct mechanisms in anything he might sell to prevent this.

WHAT is 'intellectually dishonest' about THAT statement given Rossi's position!?!

Can someone else please explain what Kite means? I think he is beginning to lose his marbles in this thread. Even the Axil-Axis would not claim that there is enough information for an independent to be able to reproduce the experiment, would they? Please, someone else chime in here!? Maybe I am presenting Kite a case that is simply too clear?

[chrismb]

I am new to this subject and have not read many papers on it so I can't answer that. But when a few folks make absolutist statements about "NO repeatable results"... while a review by a panel of scientists from a competing branch of research having half the reviewers saying the evidence is compelling, I will question the absolutist statements.

These two points ARE compatible, Kite. Just because someone finds evidence compelling does not mean that they could reproduce the means of delivering that evidence?

Also, no-one has claimed that some 'LENR researcher's results are nor repeatable, but I am claiming that they cannot be repeated BY SOMEONE ELSE because there is insufficient description of the equipment.

If you claim that I am in error, then just tell me the recipe for the catalyst Rossi is claiming to use, so that I can go make some!

[seedload]

This device will have more impact on civilization than a hot water heater:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -wave.html


Why can't we work to build one of those? Instead of all this useless bickering. Requires no new theories.

I am surprised this has received this much attention. I would have expected the evil oil companies to have bought him out already and suppressed this. At this point, the threats and blackmail is probably started in earnest. I just hope that this device can whether the storm of corruption, collusion and conspiracy.

[D Tibbets]

Dan, Kiteman - you're both wrong. But Dan is wronger.

When you add a proton to nickel-62, it is true that the proton's binding energy decreases dramatically. It is also true that the binding energy of every other nucleon involved increases slightly, which offsets the former much more than the graph seems to imply, due to the 62:1 number ratio.

It just so happens that the balance is still exothermic - by about 6 MeV, not 9. This is because the difference in binding energy per nucleon between nickel-62 and copper-63 is smaller (about three times smaller) than 1/63 of the difference between copper-63 and hydrogen-1.

Frankly, Dan, I don't see how you can possibly maintain that 62Ni + p -> 63Cu is endothermic, when the nuclear mass comparison has been done before your very eyes and conclusively proves that it is exothermic.
....

I had to think about it for a few days, but I think I can counter your argument.
Adding a proton to Ni62 does result in the release of some binding energy and this portion of the reaction is exothermic. But, to get to this point you have to overcome the Coulomb repulsion of 62 protons in the nickel nucleus to the extent that the incoming proton can be grabbed by the Strong Force. To do this, my contention is that the KE of the proton must exceed the ~ 6.49 MeV energy of the strong force energy release. Otherwise the reversal of the slope of the binding energy graph would never happen. And by extension there would be no limit on the maximum size that an atom might attain (up until ~an AN of ~ 206 at least). The binding energy change is the difference between the strong force energy release minus the electromagnetic force that is stored in the nucleus as the protons are added.
The idea that this proton KE (assuming the Ni62 nucleus is at rest, or any combination in between) is conserved in the Kinetic energy of the product (Cu63) is wrong. If the KE was preserved, then the nucleus and proton could not have the same velocity- ie: they could not stick together. If they stick together (fuse) then the KE has to be converted to potential energy- this is stored in the new nucleus and thus represents a endothermic process.
My argument is that during fusion the strong force mediated energy release with proton addition to heavy nuclei past Ni62 continues , but it's magnitude becomes less than the stored- potential energy added to the nucleus as mediated by the kinetic energy needed to overcome the coulomb barrier.

If this does not represent what is going on, then explain to me why fission of heavier elements can release energy. If you are limiting yourself to only strong force considerations, then gaining energy by fission and fusion without another factor is impossible.. If a nucleus + proton yields excess energy and a nucleus - proton releases excess energy, how do you explain this. The above explanation does it quite well, and I have found it described in several texts and papers, just not couched in a format directly addressing this argument. The increasing missing mass of nuclei as they grow also fits. Just the nature of the missing mass- energy changes. It is the sum of the opposing strong force and electromagnetic force effects. The ratio of these two forces determine the energy output (+/-).

As I understand it, there are two ways to avoid this limit at Ni 62. Somehow manage to eliminate or greatly reduce the Coulomb barrier. -ie: Rossi's claimed secret catalyst.
Or by using neutron capture followed by beta decay. This may remain net exothermic to much larger nuclear sizes, because there is no Coulomb barrier that has to be overcome before the strong force can take over. Does this occur,? Certainly, and I believe it is a major source of heavy element nuclear synthesis in old or exploding stars.
But you have to consider where you are getting your neutrons, they have to be delivered by some other reaction as they do not hang around for long on their own.

Dan Tibbets

[ladajo]

This device will have more impact on civilization than a hot water heater:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -wave.html


Why can't we work to build one of those? Instead of all this useless bickering. Requires no new theories.

I am surprised this has received this much attention. I would have expected the evil oil companies to have bought him out already and suppressed this. At this point, the threats and blackmail is probably started in earnest. I just hope that this device can whether the storm of corruption, collusion and conspiracy.

It looks like a cross between a rotary engine and a gas turbine with a Bombadier Rotax inlet valve.

I remember that this has come up a couple of times already. What is new now? Is it that ARPA(E) tossed him a bone? I thought he had been trying for more funding for a couple of years...

Edit: Added looks like comment

[KitemanSA]

Yes, you got my intent correct, except that 'sucked' is as in being sucked into a whirlpool rather than relating to 'sucker'.

At least I can admit my intent. You on the other hand. I mean, come on, "SOME things" "ALL men" blah blah blah. You meant to call me stupid and uninformed. Not buying your BS. Sorry.

I pity you. Your ego and self confidence level must be this big. Take it how you wish. You are not sufficiently important for me to waste any time on it. If you insist on being "stupid and uninformed", that is your choice. Bye!

[KitemanSA]

If you claim that I am in error, then just tell me the recipe for the catalyst Rossi is claiming to use, so that I can go make some!

Seems I didn't make my point clear enough. I don't claim that you are in error. I don't claim there is "repeatability data". I stated, I thought quite clearly that I don't know about this field much at all. I do decline to accept the implication by some that "this stuff must be a fraud because they don't themselves know of any repeatability data".
Unlike some, I do not allow my ignorance of such matters to cause me to reject the possibility of LENR. I don't know enough about it. I doubt seriously anyone else knows enough about it either. I seek to find ways that it MIGHT be happening. If I can find ways, then I suspect othes may have too.

I do however point out that once again, you seem to be using the explicit example of Rossi and his known refusal to publish scientific information to condemn a whole field. I find that questionable, logically speaking.

[chrismb]

I do however point out that once again, you seem to be using the explicit example of Rossi and his known refusal to publish scientific information to condemn a whole field. I find that questionable, logically speaking.

I have no conception of how you have formed that opinion of me.

I object to the crap people come out with about LENR. I have never 'condemned the whole field'. I've never even passed an opinion about it!!!

I have repeated this time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time again here.

Once people stop pontificating about bad demonstrations things unknowable, then I'll stop complaining about them.

You really need to read these 100 pages. It is the LENR proponents that are making "definitive" claims. No one I recall (apart from an invervention by Chicknva) has said Rossi is a scam. No one has said that LENR doesn't happen. What has been objected to are the statements that the Rossi 'experiments' prove this, or did that, when all it is is hearsay.

So, go check your sources [like you've suggested to me!] and note that *I* surely have never stated anything about the possibility of LENR. I've only commented on the non-science of the discussions.

[KitemanSA]

I had to think about it for a few days, but I think I can counter your argument.

Dan, please go take a class. Your self study and cogitation has lead you far astray.

If the kinatic energy needed to overcome the coulomb repulsion somehow effected that released by the binding energy, it would wind up in the final value. See the "Semi-Empirical Binding Energy Formula" for all the included factors. So in the end, it would still be that published value for ground state nuclei. Any excess would obviously be released with the excitation energy. In the end, the Ni:H reaction would RELEASE those many MeV. Highly exothermic.

You have it wrong. Deal with it.

[Carl White]

Has anyone heard more of this man's work (Yoshiaki Arata, Professor Emeritus at Osaka University)? He claimed to be able to demonstrate anomalous heat reliably.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nex ... 6.08d.html

---------

I found this interesting reading:

"McKubre isn't the only respectable researcher to tackle cold fusion in recent years, Duncan added. Osaka University physics professor emeritus Yoshiaki Arata, who in 2006 received Japan's highest honor, the Order of Culture, reported excess heat effects with palladium nanoparticles.

Particularly remarkable was the (decidedly chilly) cold fusion journey of Julian Schwinger, who with Richard Feynmann and Shinichiro Tomonaga won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for one of the greatest ever physical theories, quantum electrodynamics or QED.

After studying the Pons-Fleischmann experiments, "Julian had a theory that a process tantamount to cold fusion was occurring, but even as a Nobel laureate, he couldn't get reputable journals to publish it," Duncan told TechNewsWorld.

"My first attempt at publication was a total disaster," Schwinger recalled during lectures and seminars. He had devised a hypothesis about the effect "to suggest several critical experiments," but because cold fusion had become what Duncan calls a "pariah science, poison to all who touched it," Schwinger -- graduate advisor to four other Nobel laureates who also won the U.S. National Medal of Science -- was summarily ignored.

"What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?" he wondered."

Source is:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold ... 1307584888

----------

Also, concerning reproducibility, didn't Piantelli and Focardi publish all the details necessary to reproduce their work, which apparently involved consistently producing very mild levels of anomalous heat? I.e. the design that NASA is now investigating? Why isn't there more interest in this bit of work which is just waiting to be independently reproduced?

[D Tibbets]

I had to think about it for a few days, but I think I can counter your argument.

Dan, please go take a class. Your self study and cogitation has lead you far astray.

If the kinatic energy needed to overcome the coulomb repulsion somehow effected that released by the binding energy, it would wind up in the final value. See the "Semi-Empirical Binding Energy Formula" for all the included factors. So in the end, it would still be that published value for ground state nuclei. Any excess would obviously be released with the excitation energy. In the end, the Ni:H reaction would RELEASE those many MeV. Highly exothermic.

You have it wrong. Deal with it.

If I'm confused, so are others.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/hframe.html
Also look at the graph and labels on the preceding slide.

"Nuclear Binding Energy Curve

The binding energy curve is obtained by dividing the total nuclear binding energy by the number of nucleons. The fact that there is a peak in the binding energy curve in the region of stability near iron means that either the breakup of heavier nuclei (fission) or the combining of lighter nuclei (fusion) will yield nuclei which are more tightly bound (less mass per nucleon).
........

"The iron limit:
The buildup of heavier elements in the nuclear fusion processes in stars is limited to elements below iron, since the fusion of iron would subtract energy rather than provide it. Iron-56 is abundant in stellar processes, and with a binding energy per nucleon of 8.8 MeV, it is the third most tightly bound of the nuclides. Its average binding energy per nucleon is exceeded only by 58Fe and 62Ni, the nickel isotope being the most tightly bound of the nuclides."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-empir ... ss_formula

"Coulomb term

The term a_{C} \frac{Z(Z-1)}{A^{1/3}} is known as the Coulomb or electrostatic term.

The basis for this term is the electrostatic repulsion between protons. To a very rough approximation, the nucleus can be considered a sphere of uniform charge density. The potential energy of such a charge distribution can be shown to be

E = \frac{3}{5} \left( \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_{0}} \right) \frac{Q^{2}}{R}

where Q is the total charge and R is the radius of the sphere. Identifying Q with Ze, and noting as above that the radius is proportional to A1 / 3, we get close to the form of the Coulomb term. However, because electrostatic repulsion will only exist for more than one proton, Z2 becomes Z(Z − 1). The value of aC can be approximately calculated using the equation above"

.....

"By maximizing B(A,Z) with respect to Z, we find the number of protons Z of the stable nucleus of atomic weight A. We get

Z \approx {1\over 2} {A\over 1 + A^{2/3} {a_C\over 4 a_A}}.

This is roughly A/2 for light nuclei, but for heavy nuclei there is an even better agreement with nature.

By substituting the above value of Z back into B one obtains the binding energy as a function of the atomic weight, B(A). Maximizing B(A)/A with respect to A gives the nucleus which is most strongly bound, i.e. most stable. The value we get is A=63 (copper), close to the measured values of A=62 (nickel) and A=58 (iron)."

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

Has anyone heard more of this man's work (Yoshiaki Arata, Professor Emeritus at Osaka University)? He claimed to be able to demonstrate anomalous heat reliably.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nex ... 6.08d.html

---------

This from 2008 (three years ago) claimed fusion of deuterium (not Rossi's claim of nickel and hydrogen).

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci ... 53182.html

D. Tibbets