10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[chrismb]

I found this. Maybe this is what Rossi is using?

http://silviahartmann.com/books-affirmations.php

[Giorgio]

I prefer your previous theory, the one of Tinkerbell and the pixie dust.
It makes more sense.

[ladajo]

Well, if we use Pixie Dust, then we don't need to worry about the engineering to get it to fly.

[Giorgio]

Well, if we use Pixie Dust, then we don't need to worry about the engineering to get it to fly.

Good point

[chrismb]

I'll say one thing about these kind of books covering positive thinking - many many years ago I sent off for one of these "This Book Will Change Your Life" types, with a guarantee of returning the money if it didn't work. I seem to recall it was quite expensive as well.

But once I got it, actually I really liked it! I felt it was actually good enough to keep! It did make you feel that if you think about something hard enough then you can make it happen. It was very convincing - some of these books are good studies in positive thinking.

My father took it to read for himself - and I never saw it again!!!...

[Kahuna]

Looks like Prof. Kullander and Prof Hanno (Sweden) are going to get their own E-Cat to play with according to a post by Rossi today:

This is why, after the tests we made with the University of Bologna and with Prof. Kullander and Prof Hanno from Sweden ( they are considered worldwide as scientists of the maximum level in the field) we will not make further tests. We will, of course, continue our R&D with the University of Bologna. We will give to the University of Uppsala and to the University of Stockolm our devices to allow them to use the same devices 24 hours per day, to get data regarding the energy production. We trust them, and we know they are really neutral, without binds with competitors of any kind. I personally knew them and I have in them total trust.

In addition, the Unviersity of Bologna gets access for their contracted R&D effort.

[Kahuna]

Another curious answer by Rossi that does not seem to jive with Axil's theory as I recall:

QUESTION:

Is it in general possible to regulate the power output of the E-cat in a continous way and if yes in what limits about? Is it done by regulating the H2 – pressure or can it be achieved by adjusting the preheating input? I could imagine that this is an important feature of a technical application since the power demand will normally not be a constant over time.


ANSWER:

1- Yes, from 0 through 100%
2- Adjusting the preheating input

[chrismb]

How the hell does adjusting the preheating affect the power out put? Surely this was described as a self-sustaining reaction? It makes NOOOOO sense whatsoever - if you have to regulate the heat to cause a thermal output then that means EITHER it never gets hotter than the initial thermal level OR it gets hotter than the initial heat input, in which case it should run away to some point where loss rate=max thermal power, just like any 'burning' reaction.

My bullshyte-o-meter is going haywire!......

[Kahuna]

I agree this does not make much sense.

Also, the heating resistor is located outside the copper pipe through which the water flows around the interior stainless reactor cell. You would think the water jacket would mess with any regulating effect the heating resistor could possibly have. Perhaps there is some kind of a thermal bridge which conducts heat to the reactor cell.

[Axil]

Another curious answer by Rossi that does not seem to jive with Axil's theory as I recall:

QUESTION:

Is it in general possible to regulate the power output of the E-cat in a continous way and if yes in what limits about? Is it done by regulating the H2 – pressure or can it be achieved by adjusting the preheating input? I could imagine that this is an important feature of a technical application since the power demand will normally not be a constant over time.


ANSWER:

1- Yes, from 0 through 100%
2- Adjusting the preheating input

Let us generalize the discussion about the two catalysts involved in the Rossi reaction in terms of there functional requirements to see if a reaction control mechanism can be derived.

Let us get into the details on this point as follows:

Under the assumption that the nuclear active area in the Rossi process is within large numbers of nanoscopic crystal defects in catalyst N (for nuclear) and catalyst C (for control) is somehow the controlling mechanism, what can that mechanism be?

The nuclear heat comes from catalyst N. To transfer that nuclear heat to the stainless steel reaction vessel, the catalyst N must be in surface contact with the wall of this stainless steel vessel.

Adjusting the preheating input adjusts the power output of the reactor. How can this be.

The catalyst C must be in surface contact with the preheating input. The catalyst C must not be in surface contact with the catalyst N since the nuclear heat produced by catalyst N does not affect the catalyst C.

There must be a space between the catalyst N and catalyst C and that space is filled with hydrogen as an insolating material.

Catalyst C is a Mott insulator that produces electrostatic charge. This charge increases as the temperature of catalyst C increases since all the atomic distances in catalyst C increase with temperature. Catalyst C must also be mounted on a type of material that can conduct input heat to catalyst C.

When preheating input is applied to the catalyst C, its production of electrostatic force increases. This force travels across the insolating gap to the Catalyst N and increases the nuclear reaction.

A decrease in the preheating input reduces the electrostatic force impinging on the nuclear active areas in the catalyst N. This reduces the nuclear reaction.

Preheating input changes electrostatic force from 0 to 100%. This is the adjusting mechanism.

If the catalyst C and catalyst N were physically mixed the reaction would be self sustaining.

Reducing the pressure of the hydrogen increases the insulation value between the catalyst N and the catalyst C thereby reducing nuclear activity, since some small part of the nuclear heat travels across the insulation gap from the catalyst N to the catalyst C thereby supplementing the preheating input.

What chemical compounds can catalyst C and catalyst N be. What catalyst is associated with nickel and what element is associated with catalyst N (a Mott insulator). Catalyst N must be highly porous with many nuclear defects in its crystal structure and beside nickel only two other elements are involved. One must be oxygen to form a Mott insulator.


Catalyst N must be an element that can form a oxide with high levels of defects in it crystal structure. All compounds must survive for years in a hot hydrogen environment.

I assumed that Iron was involved as a catalyst because of the reference to US patent 20010024789 = Methods for generating catalytic proteins.

On its face, this is a strange subject of interest for a nuclear reactor.

But this is a standard method of producing Iron oxide catalysts of the form Fe2O3.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Par ... 0010024789

[Axil]

Also, the heating resistor is located outside the copper pipe through which the water flows around the interior stainless reactor cell. You would think the water jacket would mess with any regulating effect the heating resistor could possibly have.

I thought that the heating coil that provides regulating heat was enclosed inside the stainless steel reaction vessel.

[Kahuna]

Also, the heating resistor is located outside the copper pipe through which the water flows around the interior stainless reactor cell. You would think the water jacket would mess with any regulating effect the heating resistor could possibly have.

I thought that the heating coil that provides regulating heat was enclosed inside the stainless steel reaction vessel.

Nope, its on the outside. It is pretty clearly visible as an external jacket in the pictures associated with the last demo. I'm told the one he is using is a standard commericial item designed for use with plastic extrusion nossels.

Here is some Rossi Q&A that seems to confirm the placement of the heater:

QUESTION: I’m confused about the caption on the closeup picture on the NyTeknik article on the 4.5 KW demo. It says “Close view of the main resistor surrounding the copper tube, which in turn surrounds the steel reactor.” How can the resistor heat the nickel up to 500C through the water?

ANSWER: To answer to your question I should give you information regarding the design of the reactor. I can’t.

[D Tibbets]

Concerning catalyst N and C

Perhaps I've missed something as I am only half following this thread. , but...
Where does the the hydrogen come from. Generally LENR efforts use electrolysis to split the water and drive the hydrogen (or deuterium) into the metal. Does this bypass this step? Is catalyst C actually an electrolysis step? If so, by changing the resistance (in this case inappropriately called a heater), very the electrolysis output and thus the hydrogen available to catalyst N?

I could see such a system, seeming to produce a lot of excess heat. With careful placement of insulation and water flows, you could power the catalyst C (electrolysis element) to produce hydrogen and oxygen, and down stream catalysist N could catalytically burn this (fuel cell) to produce plenty of heat measured by a local or down stream thermometer. Of course catalyst C would be consuming more energy, so it boils down to how you hide this power input. 10-21 KW would be a challenge, A couple of bottles of hydrogen and oxygen gas or liquid hidden in the test stand would be a more direct method. Would a gallon of liquid oxygen and 5-6 gallons of liquid hydrogen last overnight? Or perhaps an efficient metal hydride storage tank that is smaller than the equivalent low density liquid hydrogen tank? Perhaps there is no LENR here, just a revolutionary hydrogen storage tank!

[EDIT] Opps, I looked at the picture. There appears to be a hydrogen gas cyclinder next to the wall. No other hydrogen would be needed. So only a much smaller liquid oxygen tank would be needed.
Also, it looks like a couple of water hoses. are running. It would be obvious to anyone closely examining the machine, but the thermometer could be sampling only a small fractional flow of the water (a small sub diameter pipe with an internal heater. This would allow the same amount of apparent heating while the actrual volume and input heating power is much less. So long as you were not allowed to look inside, or grasp the water hoses to feel if one was indeed much hotter, you would have no way of knowing.

Dan Tibbets

[Axil]

This control of the Rossi reactor has caused a dozen questions on Rossi’s blog. People can not understand how a small input of external heat applied to the catalyst can control the output of a large amount of heat and avoid a meltdown.

IMHO, this failsafe control mechanism is the most perplexing question that the Rossi conundrum poses.

[Giorgio]

Looks like Prof. Kullander and Prof Hanno (Sweden) are going to get their own E-Cat to play with according to a post by Rossi today:

I wonder if the University of Uppsala and the University of Stockolm do have some spare flow-meters to finally make a test as it should be done.