10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[MSimon]

The muons are catalysts, they are not destroyed by any given fusion event, and they can go on to catalyse further events. It is most decidedly not one muon to one fusion event.

Great!!!!!!!!!!!! I can see the potential already.

Just one little stinker in the ointment. Muons have a limited lifetime (on the order of 2.2 us).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

And despite the fact that muon catalyzed fusion has been known for decades no one has yet figured out how to make a net energy device with them. Of course Rossi may have stumbled on to something.

Or it could be a scam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. Although it can be produced reliably with the right equipment and has been much studied, it is believed that the poor energy balance will prevent it from ever becoming a practical power source. However, if muons (μ−
) could be produced more efficiently, or if they could be used as catalysts more efficiently, the energy balance might improve enough for muon-catalyzed fusion to become a practical power source.

Muons are unstable subatomic particles. They are similar to electrons, but are about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207 times closer together than they would be in a normal molecule. When the nuclei are this close together, the probability of nuclear fusion is greatly enhanced, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create large numbers of muons efficiently; moreover, the existence of processes that remove muons from the catalytic cycle mean that each muon can only catalyze a few hundred nuclear fusion reactions before it decays away. These two factors limit muon-catalyzed fusion to a laboratory curiosity, although there is some speculation that an efficient muon source could someday lead to a useful room-temperature fusion reactor.

Muon decay should give off a definite signature.

The dominant muon decay mode (sometimes called the Michel decay after Louis Michel) is the simplest possible: the muon decays to an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino.

So a neutrino detector (difficult that) should pick up an excess of neutrinos.

[marvin57]

Are you suggesting that Rossi has found a way to create Leptons on demand?

Last time I checked Muons requested energy in excess of 100 MeV to be created in lab.
And that's a lot of energy.

I suggested no such thing. I merely said that there was a actually way to overcome the Coulomb Barrier that worked at room temperature.

So can we rule out muons?

I didn't say that, either.

And if not muons then what? Very high density pixie dust?

Show me the peer-reviewed papers, and the repeatable experiments, wherein very high density pixie dust catalyses fusion at room temperatures.

I have a theory that explains how the device actually works:

1. Issue a lot of press releases explaining the fantastic promise of the device. The potential is unlimited.
2. Collect cash from suckers.

1. Press releases unfortunately don't provide demonstrations yielding 4 hours * 4.5 kW = 18 kWh of energy.

2. Rossi is not asking anyone for any cash.

[chrismb]

The common nay-sayer's claim is that no theory at all for Rossi-style cold fusion is in any way possible ... and yet with uCF we actually have a way that fusion events at room temperatures are in fact possible, one which has been observed, documented in peer-reviewed papers, independently verified and quite extensively studied.

Just saying ...

This is nonsense. No one has said such a thing.

But you have gotten science all back-to-front and higgledy-piggledy, which seems to be a common characteristic of all those who are less than scientifically critical.

Let me try ( ) to explain;

In the ooold days when no-one had ever heard of 'fusion', some clever and observant folks spotted 'ionising radiation'. Further exploration revealed radioactivity and the structure of the atom, fission, fusion, and all the rest.

Let's say that hadn't happened. Let's say we, today, are still ignorant of nuclear matters, and Rossi (or any other CF researcher) goes on and does this 'demonstration'. OK, now what are we to make of it? Now, IF there were ionising radiations coming from it, then further explorations may reveal exactly as before, all that nuclear stuff.

So the question here with Rossi, and any CF, is that there are NO theories that cover this behaviour. So to jump to conclude it is some nuclear behaviour is an entirely corrupted sequence of muddled-thinking.

The process of this dummed-down science is rather than look for an explanation, the dumb researcher, like Rossi, goes trawling through a rubbish-bin of thrown out theories to look for one. Then says, like you 'WHY NOT'.

I say, no, no and NO again, a zillion times. This is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT how to form a theory. One starts with ALL the information inputs, then draws conclusions ON THOSE.

The totally exact and unchallengeable point is that, even from a stand point that Rossi's data is OK, why jump to a conclusion of nuclear origin. Maybe it is neither chemical nor nuclear.

The total 'scientific-desert' that is the only offerings that folks like you seem to be able to make is so annoying and depressing for anyone who has been involved in trying to get scientific teachings into someone's skull seems to have been rendered virtually inevitable given the current state of comfortable ignorance that people on this planet seem to enjoy so much these days.

The best way to prove CF is to petition your politician to have it written up as a law that everyone has to believe in CF, upon prosecution of being burned at a stake. I mean, that's how this kind of stuff got an audience in the past, so I think y'all CF advocates should seek this procedure, because clearly you are not capable of following scientific procedures.

[marvin57]

The muons are catalysts, they are not destroyed by any given fusion event, and they can go on to catalyse further events. It is most decidedly not one muon to one fusion event.

Great!!!!!!!!!!!! I can see the potential already.

Just one little stinker in the ointment. Muons have a limited lifetime (on the order of 2.2 us).

As already stated ... that limited lifetime of 2.2 us is long enough for the muon to be involved in hundreds to thousands of fusion events.

And despite the fact that muon catalyzed fusion has been known for decades no one has yet figured out how to make a net energy device with them. Of course Rossi may have stumbled on to something.

Or it could be a scam.

In order for it to be a scam, the scammer has to be asking for money. This is in the nature of an essential pre-requisite for any scam.

[tomclarke]

marvin,

You are aware that there are some problems with muon catalyzed fusion? Like the limited lifetime of muons. Not to mention the energy required to create them.

Or maybe Rossi has figured out how to summon Maxwell's Demons. That could work. If they were devoted to producing nuclear reactions by concentrating the locally available thermal energy.

In the limited lifetime of muons they still have ample time to be involved in hundreds to thousands of fusion events. The muons are catalysts, they are not destroyed by any given fusion event, and they can go on to catalyse further events. It is most decidedly not one muon to one fusion event.

Now if there was some radioactive-decay-style way for an atom of an isotope of nickel to self-destruct and as part of that breakdown produce a muon ... don't we have the vague beginnings of a theory here?

The common nay-sayer's claim is that no theory at all for Rossi-style cold fusion is in any way possible ... and yet with uCF we actually have a way that fusion events at room temperatures are in fact possible, one which has been observed, documented in peer-reviewed papers, independently verified and quite extensively studied.

Just saying ...

if you have any mechanism to produce muons cheaply I agree you have CF.

Just as if you can produces slow neutrons cheaply you have CF (LENR - same creature).

But remember, muons are 200 X heavier than electrons. unlike chemistry, where a vast range of reactions is possible, there are only so many nuclei, and the decay reactions are known. It is not possible to get muons from normal fusion or fission because the required energy 100Mev is too high:

Since the production of muons requires an available center of momentum frame energy of 105.7 MeV, neither ordinary radioactive decay events nor nuclear fission and fusion events (such as those occurring in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons) are energetic enough to produce muons.

muons are expensive.

[marvin57]

I say, no, no and NO again, a zillion times. This is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT how to form a theory. One starts with ALL the information inputs, then draws conclusions ON THOSE.

The totally exact and unchallengeable point is that, even from a stand point that Rossi's data is OK, why jump to a conclusion of nuclear origin. Maybe it is neither chemical nor nuclear.

Does it matter, if it produces energy?

Does it matter if the theory is unknown if a machine works?

Belay that ... sure it matters for the advancement of science, but that is not the thrust of it is it? We don't know the science, and neither I would suggest does Rossi.

But IF it works, and produces energy, it still works, and we still have the energy ... even if no-one does happen to know the science of it.

[MSimon]

Show me the peer-reviewed papers, and the repeatable experiments, wherein very high density pixie dust catalyses fusion at room temperatures.

Show me any peer reviewed papers showing Rossi has produced any muons with his device. Show me a paper of any kind that indicates his device COULD produce muons. i.e. a method, a pathway. Like where is the 100 MeV coming from? How does it get converted to a muon?

Scammers primarily operate in the money realm. But not always. Sometimes they are just looking for fame. Not often. But it does happen.

[tomclarke]

The common nay-sayer's claim is that no theory at all for Rossi-style cold fusion is in any way possible ... and yet with uCF we actually have a way that fusion events at room temperatures are in fact possible, one which has been observed, documented in peer-reviewed papers, independently verified and quite extensively studied.

Just saying ...

This is nonsense. No one has said such a thing.

But you have gotten science all back-to-front and higgledy-piggledy, which seems to be a common characteristic of all those who are less than scientifically critical.

Let me try ( ) to explain;

In the ooold days when no-one had ever heard of 'fusion', some clever and observant folks spotted 'ionising radiation'. Further exploration revealed radioactivity and the structure of the atom, fission, fusion, and all the rest.

Let's say that hadn't happened. Let's say we, today, are still ignorant of nuclear matters, and Rossi (or any other CF researcher) goes on and does this 'demonstration'. OK, now what are we to make of it? Now, IF there were ionising radiations coming from it, then further explorations may reveal exactly as before, all that nuclear stuff.

So the question here with Rossi, and any CF, is that there are NO theories that cover this behaviour. So to jump to conclude it is some nuclear behaviour is an entirely corrupted sequence of muddled-thinking.

The process of this dummed-down science is rather than look for an explanation, the dumb researcher, like Rossi, goes trawling through a rubbish-bin of thrown out theories to look for one. Then says, like you 'WHY NOT'.

I say, no, no and NO again, a zillion times. This is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT how to form a theory. One starts with ALL the information inputs, then draws conclusions ON THOSE.

The totally exact and unchallengeable point is that, even from a stand point that Rossi's data is OK, why jump to a conclusion of nuclear origin. Maybe it is neither chemical nor nuclear.

The total 'scientific-desert' that is the only offerings that folks like you seem to be able to make is so annoying and depressing for anyone who has been involved in trying to get scientific teachings into someone's skull seems to have been rendered virtually inevitable given the current state of comfortable ignorance that people on this planet seem to enjoy so much these days.

The best way to prove CF is to petition your politician to have it written up as a law that everyone has to believe in CF, upon prosecution of being burned at a stake. I mean, that's how this kind of stuff got an audience in the past, so I think y'all CF advocates should seek this procedure, because clearly you are not capable of following scientific procedures.

Right. The evidence - fragmentary and incoherent, mostly non-replicable as it is (ie not worth a lot) points in the direction of nothing nuclear. None of the easily observed signs exist (transmutation to unstable isotopes, high energy gammas).

So if you think large anomalous heat is being generated and are going to speculate wildly why start off in the wrong direction?

[marvin57]

Show me the peer-reviewed papers, and the repeatable experiments, wherein very high density pixie dust catalyses fusion at room temperatures.

Show me any peer reviewed papers showing Rossi has produced any muons with his device. Show me a paper of any kind that indicates his device COULD produce muons. i.e. a method, a pathway. Like where is the 100 MeV coming from? How does it get converted to a muon?

I'm not saying that muons are involved. It may be something else entirely, it may not even be fusion, and yes it is entirely possible that it is a scam.

My point I suppose is merely to point out that the universe is a strange place, and we know so little about it as yet, so strange things that seem on the face of it impossible may not actually be impossible. If nothing else, uCF illustrates that nicely ... despite all first appearances it turns out that it is NOT actually impossible to overcome the Coulomb Barrier at room temperatures.

Scammers primarily operate in the money realm. But not always. Sometimes they are just looking for fame. Not often. But it does happen.

Well, he has apparently got a contract to supply a one megawatt plant, and he isn't going to get paid until that plant is on-line, producing that one megawatt. Meanwhile he is using his own money to fund the associated activities (I won't call it research because the scientific method is nowhere in evidence). Engineering activities might be a good word.

If Rossi is just going after fame, he has already achieved that to some extent. You and I discussing it here is not going to diminish that in any way. If Rossi is just going after temporary fame, and nothing else, his e-cat is already an outstanding success.

[MSimon]

1. Press releases unfortunately don't provide demonstrations yielding 4 hours * 4.5 kW = 18 kWh of energy.

Readily available at the nearest electrical outlet for under $5. And actually much cheaper if it is experimental error.

As some one pointed out upthread - a flow of .1 l/s would produce an unambiguous signal. All it would take is a faucet (or similar). No doubt budget constraints are preventing him from doing that.

Nice little valve here for under $8:

http://www.homedepot.com/Plumbing-Pipes ... ogId=10053

Under $6:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053

Under $7:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053

[tomclarke]

I say, no, no and NO again, a zillion times. This is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT how to form a theory. One starts with ALL the information inputs, then draws conclusions ON THOSE.

The totally exact and unchallengeable point is that, even from a stand point that Rossi's data is OK, why jump to a conclusion of nuclear origin. Maybe it is neither chemical nor nuclear.

Does it matter, if it produces energy?

Does it matter if the theory is unknown if a machine works?

Belay that ... sure it matters for the advancement of science, but that is not the thrust of it is it? We don't know the science, and neither I would suggest does Rossi.

But IF it works, and produces energy, it still works, and we still have the energy ... even if no-one does happen to know the science of it.

Suppose a mystic claims to have witnessed human levitation. He has conducted a number of (flawed because not controlled) demos to friendly scientists. He has a large set of people who believe the levitation is truly happenning, demonstrates it daily in a theatre to the wonder of the audience.

Applying your logic, you would reckon lack of a theory should not make us skeptical.

[tomclarke]

1. Press releases unfortunately don't provide demonstrations yielding 4 hours * 4.5 kW = 18 kWh of energy.

Readily available at the nearest electrical outlet for under $5. And actually much cheaper if it is experimental error.

As some one pointed out upthread - a flow of .1 l/s would produce an unambiguous signal. All it would take is a faucet (or similar). No doubt budget constraints are preventing him from doing that.

Nice little valve here for under $8:

http://www.homedepot.com/Plumbing-Pipes ... ogId=10053

Under $6:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053

Under $7:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053

I go for experimental error. sticking a thermometer in slightly the wrong place through a hole in a sealed vessel looks cheaper and simpler.

[marvin57]

1. Press releases unfortunately don't provide demonstrations yielding 4 hours * 4.5 kW = 18 kWh of energy.

Readily available at the nearest electrical outlet for under $5. And actually much cheaper if it is experimental error.

As some one pointed out upthread - a flow of .1 l/s would produce an unambiguous signal. All it would take is a faucet (or similar). No doubt budget constraints are preventing him from doing that.

Nice little valve here for under $8:

http://www.homedepot.com/Plumbing-Pipes ... ogId=10053

Under $6:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053

Under $7:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053

Oh goody ... fun with links.

Here is another way to get 4 hours * 4.5 kW in a stand-alone device:

http://www.generatorjoe.net/zMQPR-005G105.html

and another one:

http://www.thegreenreaper.co.uk/Generat ... .5KVA.html

Neither of these require a wall socket.

So?

IF Rossi's e-cat doesn't work, it doesn't work. No skin of anyone's nose, we all just get on with life. You and I are both $0.00 out of pocket. Why get so worked up about it?

If it does work ... why did you spend so much energy putting it down? The proof will be in the pudding. Either it works, and produces energy ... then great! or it doesn't work ... no big deal.

[tomclarke]

It is the job of science, and very exciting, to look at anomalous results and explain them.

Sometimes a whole new physics emerges.

But when you look at anomalous results, and they are not replicable, or have mundane explanstions, you do not think "there must be new physics here" just because lots of people over 20 years have generated anomalous results from experiments and believe there must be new physics.

That is the case with CF. The only replicable anomalies look like complex chemical phenomena associated with hydrogen loaded lattices. Nothing obviously non-chemical survives replication.

Rossi is different. If he is on the level there is clear evidence of non-chemical heat generation. Something that might transform the world.

So why are there no clear replicable results?

Best wishes, Tom

[chrismb]

Does it matter, if it produces energy?

Does it matter if the theory is unknown if a machine works?

If you'd written that to start with, then I'd say 'sure thing!' - as you will note I said to Rossi [on his 'blog' of selected comments].

What you said was to do with the theory, and you just can't go there because there is no theory, which in turn is because there is no science.

Rossi, and all those science-deniers that support his work, has a very simple route to passify me:

He should say, "Hey, I'm gonna stop saying this is 'nuclear'. Actually, I haven't got the foggiest how it works! I strapped it together and noticed that it produced energy. I did this by putting {magic mix X - delete and substitute text} into a tube and passing water and hydrogen through it."

At that point, he, and/or other folks, can go away to explore the reaction scientifically and develop a theory.

NO THEORY CAN BE DEVELOPED BASED ON WHAT HE HAS DONE SO FAR - WHICH IS NOT JUST ME SAYING THAT, ROSSI HAS CONFIRMED THIS TO ME.

So, don't go mentioning anything about what 'theory' may or may not be right again, and we'll all get along fine.