10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

Certain polaritons require an EXTERNAL EM signal to interact with the surface for it to be generated so it MAY be that the heater is providing a certain IR frequency to create the polariton which continues on for a while after it is created. Just a plausibility.

[JoeP]

<snip>The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.

If the heat of the 'reactor core' is hotter than the control heating, then it would promptly enter a thermal runaway situation.

The above two points are those that particularly bugs me about the validity of Rossi's device and keep me from ever getting truly interested or excited about him having a new energy source.

If the device is real (Big IF): There may be some dynamics that could contribute to a need for period inputs of heating and cooling in order to control such a reaction. High temperatures may cause the metal to be depleted of hydrogen? Thus heating and cooling cycles could be integral to the operation. Sort of a cyclical reloading and burn cycle.

If Rossi could eliminate the resistance heaters from his unit, it obviously would be much more convincing and lead the way to a real black-box test that most people could accept. No input wires any funny business. And yet, every test must have electrical input into the system. His 1MW "plant" had that enormous generator going the entire time.

He has claimed the risk of a runaway reaction is too dangerous without his controlled and periodic input of heat to moderate the reaction. But it always seems very flaky to me which is why I wanted to see a real self-sustained version generating power with no input. As an easier alternative, I think someone on this forum (or another) suggested a bank of batteries, with known limits, included to supply the energy for the input and thus isolate the E-Cat and the controls from external inputs. If that entire system put out significantly more energy than the batteries could supply then I can see some validation of the device.

In fission, you add neutrons or take neutrons away to control the reaction. Does this disturb you too?

The analogy you are making is incorrect: In fission, the neutrons source is from the fuel directly, and the control rods moderate them. In the Rossi device, the reaction makes heat ("somehow"), but requires an external source of energy that is also converted to heat inside his E-Cat "reactor."

To my knowledge, fission reactors do not require an external source of neutrons to be fired into the fuel.

I am not completely dismissing Rossi's claims on the basis of needed input of thermal energy (or electrical, or EM, or whatever) as my above post points out. But it is something that allows for a great deal of potential fraudulent trickery, self-delusion, or measurement error. The E-Cat system is not isolated.

[ladajo]

To be clear, standard fission reactors/fuel do not need external neutrons to get going.
And for the record, once again, critical means neutrons produced are equal to neutrons burned. Stable.
If you make excess, you are supercritical.
Not enough made, subcritical.
If you are supercritical, power is going up.
Subcritical, power is going down.
Critical means power is the same.

A spark plug adds energy to a reactant to initiate a further chemical reaction. You can not regulate with a spark plug per se. It kicks off or it doesn't. It is an ignition source. Just like a fuse for a stick of dynamite.

What Rossi says makes no sense at all. If it is hot, it is hot. End of discussion. Making more hot, will only make it hotter. Rossi does not understand the idea of positive/negative feedback loops. He would not well grasp the concept of a moderator in a fission plant. His argument is essentially, by adding neutrons, I can control power... and his claimed safety mechanism is that the fuel melts and loses neccessary geometry. What a load of crap.

[Axil]

To be clear, standard fission reactors/fuel do not need external neutrons to get going.
And for the record, once again, critical means neutrons produced are equal to neutrons burned. Stable.
If you make excess, you are supercritical.
Not enough made, subcritical.
If you are supercritical, power is going up.
Subcritical, power is going down.
Critical means power is the same.

A spark plug adds energy to a reactant to initiate a further chemical reaction. You can not regulate with a spark plug per se. It kicks off or it doesn't. It is an ignition source. Just like a fuse for a stick of dynamite.

What Rossi says makes no sense at all. If it is hot, it is hot. End of discussion. Making more hot, will only make it hotter. Rossi does not understand the idea of positive/negative feedback loops. He would not well grasp the concept of a moderator in a fission plant. His argument is essentially, by adding neutrons, I can control power... and his claimed safety mechanism is that the fuel melts and loses neccessary geometry. What a load of crap.

In the Defkalion reactor, a spark plug fires for 12 seconds then stops for 6 minutes in a cycle. The sparks stimulates the LENR reaction that then proceeds without any stimulation for these 6 minutes.

According to the rules of believability I understand is stated here, the Defkalion LENR reaction is believable.

[ladajo]

Axil,
This is what they claim. Not what they have had independently verified.

I could believe that there is a non-sustaining process that could be triggered by an external energy "smack", that then dampens out due to lack of positive feedback.

I can not believe Rossi's take that if you do not add heat, it will run out of control and overheat, then melting the fuel. This is his explaination on why he must heat it. Don't get me started on Rossi's varied explainations on "self-sustaining mode".

Rossi has also never explained why he can not use excess heat from one Ecat to drive another Ecat. But he has said he could use varied heat sources, like gas.

[Ivy Matt]

Interesting paper submitted to nature about a successful cold fusion experiment featuring a lithium tantalate crystal.

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

From the paper:

The electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate a deuteron beam (>100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a deuterated target, produces a neutron flux ove 400 times the background level.

What is "cold fusion"? Whatever we want it to be?

Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.

[Axil]

Interesting paper submitted to nature about a successful cold fusion experiment featuring a lithium tantalate crystal.

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

From the paper:

The electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate a deuteron beam (>100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a deuterated target, produces a neutron flux ove 400 times the background level.

What is "cold fusion"? Whatever we want it to be?

Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.

The definition of cold fusion is archaic. The current term is Low energy nuclear reaction (LENR).

The referenced experiment is more closely related to the proton-21 experiment or exploding foil experiments.


In these types of experiments, high electron energies are involved in the reaction.

More correctly in the future , LENR, will stand for Low Energy Nanoplasmoic reactions.


In my opinion, LENR is centered on the action of vortex EMF currents as the underlying causation as I have explained in previous posts as follows:


◦Examples of a Whispering Gallery. The Dome of St Paul's Cathedral, London(left) and the Gol Gumbaz in Bijapur (right);

The whispering gallery is located in the dome of St Paul's Cathedral, London, and has the curious property that if two people stand at opposite sides of the gallery, at a distance of 42 meters, and one whispers into the wall of the dome, then the other person can hear what is being said. If the two individuals face one another and continue the conversation across the expanse of the dome they can no longer hear the words and have to resort to shouting. The reason for this strange effect is that the sound bounces along the wall of the gallery with very little loss, and so can be heard at a greater distance than if the curved wall had not been present. It can be viewed that there is a narrow region near the edge of the dome where the waves propagate most efficiently, and this is known as a 'whispering gallery mode' in honor of the gallery where it was discovered.


In recent times whispering gallery modes have found new fame with the development of nano-optics. In the modern version of this effect light is made to bounce around the edge of a glass sphere. This setup appears to be very similar to that already depicted, although there are some subtle differences. Under normal conditions when light reaches an interface some of it will be reflected and some will be transmitted. However, if the light is in glass and is travelling back into air there is an angle at which the light can no longer be transmitted and it suffers total internal reflection - exactly 100% of the light is reflected, a very useful effect to reduce losses. When light is travelling around the edge of a sphere it will be total reflected at each bounce, and so propagate with little loss (in fact a very small amount of light leaks out with each bounce due to the curved surface, but this get very complicated so it will be ignored for now.





It involves the hydrogen nanoparticle/structure surface interface layer). Since the light will make many millions of circulations of this interface before being absorbed, it will undergo interference with itself. This means that only whole numbers of wavelengths of light can 'fit' around the edge of the sphere. This selectivity causes discrete modes, known as whispering gallery modes, to exist in the cavity, and these modes are of the lowest loss anywhere in existence.

The problem when engineering whispering gallery modes, it is that the low loss makes it very hard to get light into- or out of- these modes. From the spectra of this light we discover that only certain wavelengths are strongly present, as expected, each corresponding to a different number of bounces around the spheres circumference.



In a Ni/H reactor, infrared light goes into the whispering galleries and goes around and around with little attenuation. But light is lost and strengthen because of self-interference and resonance. What remains in these carefully engineered nano-resonators (AKA nuclear active environments) is ultra-strong blue light but this light is far more than just light. This hybrid EMF is plasmons. Plasmons are light and electrons whose waveforms have joined together because of heat driven dipole excitations.

The ring of light becomes an intense plasmoid of electric charge that emits anaopole magnetic radiation, a very special type of magnetism right on the atoms of the nano-resonators. This magnetism which keeps the nucleus together or can tear it apart is what produces the LENR effects of quark recombination inside the nucleus of the atoms.


also see:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=5955#p102451

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=5970#p102511

[Axil]

With compliments to blaze spinnaker and to RenzoB for the corrections to Google Translate.




http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/52396/20 ... oistad.htm



There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party test on the E-Cat high temperature seemed to represent a turning point in the story starring the Italian engineer and his creature, which promises to revolutionize the world of energy.

But even the new test came in the middle of strong controversy, carried out by an article made by Professors Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp, nuclear physicists at the University of Uppsala, which is highly critical of the test and openly questioned the results.

The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp -published on arxiv.org, the platform of Cornell University on which also the E-Cat tests were made public, in their report Ericsson Pomp and question the real independence of the testers noting that some of them had already participated in previous demonstrations organized by engineer Rossi. It ss also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for a “black box” test.

Ericsson and Pomp wonder how the testers could be assured that inside the reactor there is nickel and hydrogen if they have not been able to open.

Furthermore, the same reference to “trade secrets” about the “fuel” of the reactor brings a veil of shadow over the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be using a second source of energy.

This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson and Pomp do not agree on the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation made available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by personnel authorized by engineer Rossi and not by the testers themselves.

Regarding the measurements, according to Ericsson and Pomp, the December test must be invalidated because no data have been reported on emissivity. For the test in March, the two critics claim to have been able, through the COSMOL (a simulation tool used in physics) to replicate the same results without the involvement of any abnormal heat. The two critics consider that there is no data were provided on the unloaded dummy (“dummy”).

The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: they accuse their colleagues to have made to prevail their hopes above the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations prior reported, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson and Pomp therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never proven that there’s an “abnormal production of energy.”

The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very harsh report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also on the reliability of the same scientists who have carried out two tests in December 2012 and March 2013 so as to explicitly accuse them of having followed a typical method of “pseudo-science”, that is to skip to extraordinary conclusions without first having sought explanations in traditional physics.

We therefore decided to contact Professor Bo Höistad, a nuclear physicist and professor at the University of Uppsala and one of the authors of the famous independent test, to allow him to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp.

IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson and Pomp bring into question the independence of the testers, especially Professor Levi and Petterson. How do you respond to this charge?

Bo Höistad: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a very negative provision towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our tentatively positive results. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome i.e. if our results are correct within the errors estimated. Furthermore they attribute to us different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.

On the question of independence, it is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know each other. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships.

IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson and Pomp it is also said that neither you nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so?

Bo Höistad: As researchers in experimental physics, chemistry and radiology with a long experience in advanced techniques of high precision our expertise is evident. It should be noted that both Ericsson and Pomp are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science.

IBTimes: We come to “technical” criticisms, the fact that the tests were carried out in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation puts into question in any way the results published by you and your team?

Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory that we have carefully inspected before testing. Rossi was not involved in the test in any way. One of his technicians helped us to operate the E-Cat, but then he did not take part in any way to the measurements.

IBTimes: I report some questions that are addressed in the study. How do you know that inside the reactor there are nickel and hydrogen since you could not open it? Why was the reactor put into operation by technicians assigned by Rossi?

Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor. But strictly speaking we can not be 100% sure that the fuel that we have analyzed is the same that was present in the reactor. However, this has no relevance to the main result of the measurement that it has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance.

IBTimes: What can you tell us about the “fuel” and “trade secrets” that surround him? Is it really possible – as suggested in the study by Ericsson and Pomp – that a second source of energy has been used ?

Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made every effort to unmask an trick of this kind.

At this point of our investigation it does not make sense to make assumptions about the nature of the excess heat produced by the reactor fuel. In particular, any hypothesis on the prevalence of a nuclear reaction is understandable only if a nuclear transition can be localized, and so far it has not been so.

Note that we communicated it in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder”, and our results should certainly be repeated by more comprehensive studies. Our current results are interesting enough to continue these studies. Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor (I made this observation to the Swedish newspaper Ny Tekink, New Technology, and Ericsson and Pomp know).

IBTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?

Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our paper.

IBTimes: Finally Ericsson and Pomp argue that in the tests you made you find a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is moving quickly to extraordinary conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to wicked and mischievous comments. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics to be sold to pseudo-science is simply a severe insult and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.

[chrismb]

Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made every effort to unmask an trick of this kind.

That's simply not good enough.

Ask another question - could that experiment be set up in a way that could reproduce what was observed?

A truly inquisitive scientist might say [just for example] "I could set this experiment up by connecting the frame the device is mounted to to an electrical supply, so when current on the wires is measured, this contribution of power is missed."

The properly inquisitive person would ask 'is there no other, possible, way that this experiment could be made to run, given the observations made', NOT "we have made every effort to find a trick".

It is for the observer to suggest a way in which the trick is being executed, and for the demonstrator to prove that it is not so. Rossi knows full well that the psychology of his 'believers' is such that they are happy to reverse that logic, so he can execute his tricks and they are not questioned in this way.

It might well me that they are tricks he plays even on himself, and he has now deluded himself to believing in it. That is a real possibility, that he truly believes in what he is doing.

[seedload]

Certain polaritons require an EXTERNAL EM signal to interact with the surface for it to be generated so it MAY be that the heater is providing a certain IR frequency to create the polariton which continues on for a while after it is created. Just a plausibility.

If plausible meant highly doubtful then, yes, plausible.

I got to say that I am still confused by all of this quasiparticle discussion. Again, my understanding is that quasiparticles aren't real things. They are emergent phenomena resulting from other particles behaving in coordinated ways. The emergent phenomena behaves in ways that are particle like and can be characterized and studied as if it were an actual particle with actual properties, but there is no real thing there. A quasiparticle is not a license for the underlying particles in the system to disobey the laws of physics. Rather, it is a multi-body solution/simplification based on those physics.

Kinda like a stadium of people doing the wave. The wave itself can be imagined as an actual real entity propagating around the stadium with properties that can be characterized and studied, but it doesn't exist in any physical sense. And, the individual people coordinating with each other to create the wave aren't going to suddenly start falling through the concrete floor. Nor is a beachball being pushed around the stadium on the hands of the wave going to suddenly wink out of existence.

So, when I hear that a polariton is escorting a proton into a nucleus, I just shake my head because I don't understand what the f'ck is being said. And then when surface plasmon polaritons terminology is thrown out there, I just think of coupled electron oscillations, and I don't really get beyond the fact that a proton approaching a nucleus couldn't give a flying f'ck about oscillating electrons. It only hopes it is going fast enough to fuse or that it will be lucky enough to tunnel. I fail to see how some emergent behavior of the entire system is entitling that proton to just defy the coulomb barrier.

I guess what I am getting at is that just saying a polariton is formed and then a miracle happens isn't enough for me.

Regards

[Axil]

Certain polaritons require an EXTERNAL EM signal to interact with the surface for it to be generated so it MAY be that the heater is providing a certain IR frequency to create the polariton which continues on for a while after it is created. Just a plausibility.

If plausible meant highly doubtful then, yes, plausible.

I got to say that I am still confused by all of this quasiparticle discussion. Again, my understanding is that quasiparticles aren't real things. They are emergent phenomena resulting from other particles behaving in coordinated ways. The emergent phenomena behaves in ways that are particle like and can be characterized and studied as if it were an actual particle with actual properties, but there is no real thing there. A quasiparticle is not a license for the underlying particles in the system to disobey the laws of physics. Rather, it is a multi-body solution/simplification based on those physics.

Kinda like a stadium of people doing the wave. The wave itself can be imagined as an actual real entity propagating around the stadium with properties that can be characterized and studied, but it doesn't exist in any physical sense. And, the individual people coordinating with each other to create the wave aren't going to suddenly start falling through the concrete floor. Nor is a beachball being pushed around the stadium on the hands of the wave going to suddenly wink out of existence.

So, when I hear that a polariton is escorting a proton into a nucleus, I just shake my head because I don't understand what the f'ck is being said. And then when surface plasmon polaritons terminology is thrown out there, I just think of coupled electron oscillations, and I don't really get beyond the fact that a proton approaching a nucleus couldn't give a flying f'ck about oscillating electrons. It only hopes it is going fast enough to fuse or that it will be lucky enough to tunnel. I fail to see how some emergent behavior of the entire system is entitling that proton to just defy the coulomb barrier.

I guess what I am getting at is that just saying a polariton is formed and then a miracle happens isn't enough for me.

Regards

I am pleased that you are showing some interest.

Even through I gave you a good chunk of theory in this Post:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&p=102594#p102568

You haven't read this post or if you have, you don't understand it yet(I can understand that). No matter, being of exceeding good nature, ask questions and I will answer.

Here is some material to get you started.

I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression for the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974.

A slide show by Stochman

http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/da ... 60_min.pdf

An associated document

http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/fil ... cation.pdf

FYI: Surface plasmon polaritons are mentioned in chapter 5

Stockman own article from physics today

Stockman_Phys_Today_2011_Physics_behind_Applications
http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/da ... ations.pdf

[Axil]

Thread: Defkalion Europe : some comment about Defkalion reactors from french Agoravox

http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.ph ... h-Agoravox

[chrismb]

my understanding is that quasiparticles aren't real things. They are emergent phenomena resulting from other particles behaving in coordinated ways. ... So, when I hear that a polariton is escorting a proton into a nucleus, I just shake my head ....

Spot on.

The worst of it is that these quasiparticles are conceived of to be a quantised representation of bulk behaviour, just like phonons are to bulk thermal behaviour, yet it is well known/blindingly obvious that fusion is not a bulk property reaction but is a particle collision mechanism.

Wheeling out new fancy quasiparticles is all part of the 'post-modern science' ... not content with the essential laws of physics, fundamental forces and elementary particles, the post-modern scientist is left with little more to do than to create new particles to describe interactive behaviours! That is fine, as it goes, if it helps explain certain phenomena in simpler terms. But it also serves to re-create the pre-modern science mentality of there being higher, more mystical planes of scientific almost-unknowable things that only a few, select, people may be chosen to properly comprehend.

[bhl]

A truly inquisitive scientist might say [just for example] "I could set this experiment up by connecting the frame the device is mounted to to an electrical supply, so when current on the wires is measured, this contribution of power is missed."

The frame of the e-cat in the tests is clearly free-standing and was not bolted to the floor. http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content ... -frame.jpg
To use that as example is insinuating that the testers were all stupid, which they are not.

[KitemanSA]

my understanding is that quasiparticles aren't real things. They are emergent phenomena resulting from other particles behaving in coordinated ways. ... So, when I hear that a polariton is escorting a proton into a nucleus, I just shake my head ....

Actually, I believe I said that an electron may escort a proton to the nucleus. For example, one type of polariton is an exciton polariton where electron/hole pairs form the polariton. Might it be possible for a proton to substitute for a hole in one or more of the pairs in the matrix and be moved along with it? If so, can the electron/proton pair (not an atom of fermionic nature, but a bosonic pair) get close enough to a Nickel nucleus for the strong force to pull the proton in? If so, how does that effect the electron in the pair and the rest of the polariton? Just some thoughts.