10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[MSimon]

Half of the scientists asked by the DoE to review the literature ~7 years ago thought there was something unexplained, perhaps nuclear, happening and that further study should be funded.

Of course. What I'm expecting to see is fraud on the part of some and experimental error on the part of others.

Let me start with a list of things that have to be looked at in order to figure out what is going on:

1. Excess heat
2. Neutrons
3. KeV to MeV photons
4. Isotopic composition
5. He4
6. Electrode "hot spots"

What ever is happening it is not happening consistently. There is no standard set of signals (compared to U235 fission say). Some batches of metal (the "catalyst") work - some don't. No one can say why.

Yes it is worth some effort. But an energy panacea? NBL. (ask chris)

All that wouldn't matter if there was a recipe to work with. You could engineer stuff until the physics boys could fit it in to what they think they know. At this point there is no standard design. Everybody is trying stuff at random hoping to find the right combination with neither theory or experience to guide them. Twenty-plus years on. This is not exactly an encouraging state of affairs.

[KitemanSA]

So how about this? Six years from the demonstration of a transistor until there was an INDUSTRY. It is now 20+ years on since P&F. We have better tools than the transistor guys had (a GCMS in every lab, etc.). And we still know nothing.

We've been thru this before and you mis-represented the time lines that time too. EITHER, start your transistor time line from the first announcement of an interesting anomaly like Pons & F... OR start your LENR timeline from the first announced PRODICT like the Rossi reactor. To do otherwise is just plain dishonest.
Please stop speaking out of both sides, Sir Forktongue.

[KitemanSA]

Of course. What I'm expecting to see is fraud on the part of some and experimental error on the part of others.

Entirely plausible. I personally doubt it will be a mistake on the part of Rossi. The claimed effect is just too big. So either it is real or it is a fraud (the big lie?)

I will add my resonse to your list.

Let me start with a list of things that have to be looked at in order to figure out what is going on:

Code: Select all

1. Excess heat                   Universal claim, I think
2. Neutrons                      Not required in NiH, either input OR output.
3. KeV to MeV photons            But if adequately shielded, who would know?
4. Isotopic composition          Ineteresting stude.  Wouldn't any change
                                 without an identifiable source prove NR?
5. He4                           Not required in HiN, in or out
6. Electrode "hot spots"         Why?

What ever is happening it is not happening consistently. There is no standard set of signals (compared to U235 fission say). Some batches of metal (the "catalyst") work - some don't. No one can say why.

Sure we can, there is no standard set of signals because various groups are observing different phenomena. This much should be obvious.

Yes it is worth some effort. But an energy panacea? NBL. (ask chris)

Other than Axil, has anyone else proclaimed this as a panacea? Even Rossi says his process is not very good for electrical generation. Is there ANY panacea? Not Bl@@dy Likely. (no need to ask chris)

All that wouldn't matter if there was a recipe to work with. You could engineer stuff until the physics boys could fit it in to what they think they know. At this point there is no standard design.

Rossi says he has one, he's just not telling YOU what it is. We shall see, no?

Everybody is trying stuff at random hoping to find the right combination with neither theory or experience to guide them. Twenty-plus years on. This is not exactly an encouraging state of affairs.

True, but remember that High Energy physicists who depend on G'mnt largess, especially for the next gen tok, might actually have a reason to try continuously to discredit it. How might that have effected these past 20 years?

[Giorgio]

The claimed effect is just too big.

Even Rossi says his process is not very good for electrical generation.

Don't you find these 2 points to be opposing each other?
We have had indications from Rossi of COP of 20 and up to several 100's, yet he affirms this is not suitable for power (steam?) generation.
This is not something that makes much sense IMHO.

[rcain]

.... Twenty-plus years on. This is not exactly an encouraging state of affairs.

- in much the same state as the rest of fusion science then, including our beloved Polywell.

something will give. soon.

re: 'NBL' - well at least you give it a finite chance. if/when it ever happens there will be substantial egg over the face of much of the scientific establishment. if...

slightly encouraging to me is the confidence with which many of the protagonists are now claiming repeatability (indeed merchandiseability) of results (i think that was really the only legitimate basis of Rossi's claims).

no one seems to care so much about the scientific basis anymore - they are just preoccupied by not being left out of the limelight (/without a stake-claim), if anything real actually starts happening/being acknowledged.

[MSimon]

So how about this? Six years from the demonstration of a transistor until there was an INDUSTRY. It is now 20+ years on since P&F. We have better tools than the transistor guys had (a GCMS in every lab, etc.). And we still know nothing.

We've been thru this before and you mis-represented the time lines that time too. EITHER, start your transistor time line from the first announcement of an interesting anomaly like Pons & F... OR start your LENR timeline from the first announced PRODICT like the Rossi reactor. To do otherwise is just plain dishonest.
Please stop speaking out of both sides, Sir Forktongue. :wink:

The time line starts at the DEMONSTRATION of an anomaly. The transistor anomaly was demonstrated in 1948. By 1954 there was a transistor INDUSTRY. And even if you go with Lilenfield (sp?) as the first device it was never demonstrated until about 5 or 6 years after the BJT. Conceptually a different organization - a current controlled device vs voltage controlled.

My markers have a very useful property. They start with the REAL WORLD and end with the REAL WORLD. Something was seen. Something was done.

Look. The whole difference between the two fields is the difficulty of replication. That is admitted all around. I just stated it another way. I'm glad it offended you. Heh.

So what have we got so far: no theory, no practice. Rossi. And the patent fight. Not a lot to go on. I can't wait until Rossi gets his 1 MW job up and makes a fool out of me.

[Giorgio]

interesting indeed if University of Bologna should put their reputation on the line. though i suspect at best it will make some fairly 'tame' statements like 'anomalous' heat and 'no discernible mistake'. it might yet induce others to investigate further, with a little more fervor.

but that wont satisfy anyone here.

i for one only want to see the lid blown off it and any true science revealed. perhaps the (multitude of) coming patent disputes will eventually oblige. what fun.

The research is sponsored by Rossi and related companies at the tune of 500K Euro. Is not clear "when" they should start the tests on the e-Cat, if immediately or from October after the 1MW plant goes live.
I am waiting some info in the coming days about this point.

[MSimon]

Kiteman,

No amount of journal discrediting will hide an effect that is simple to demonstrate.

I'd say that at the present time there is more than enough effort going into something that even if it works as claimed is basically just a water heater.

And the fact that it took very little effort to unbottle Polywell - even against the best opposition the big fusion guys could bring to bear - shows that your feared opposition is a paper tiger. You may be unaware of this but we have the Internet these days and if you really have something no one can stop you.

[parallel]

Ivy Matt wrote:

Is the patent office putting a muzzle on him?

Why on earth would Rossi want to tell his competition how it works before he has patent protection, or ever, if he doesn't? What an odd thing to say.

parallel wrote:

I can only repeat, for the third time: take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement. There is substantial evidence that he has discovered something, that we all agree is not proof beyond all doubt, and a number of scientists more eminent than you agree it is worth investigating. Have you already forgotten about NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell who said LENR is the most promising answer to our current energy problems?

Ivy Matt replied:

There are too many problems with this paragraph for me to agree with it fully. I believe the response to your arguments can best be summed up by the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba.

Rossi agrees with you. That is why he states that only commercial sales of E-Cats that work will prove the point. Most, like Helius, believe the standard model and argue against any change, or anything not fitting with that, is bogus. If he had been around at the time, he would have believed in phlogiston.

Two things are different about Rossi's E-Cat, compared to earlier LENR work, that make it much more interesting. It seems to produce a useful amount of heat and it seems it can be turned on and off reliably. It is still rather like the Wright's first flying machine rather than Leonardo's drawings and what followed. He has done a lot of experimental work and believes he has a theory of how it works. He has no obligation to tell his critics here how it works.

Eidt added. No matter how much screaming and insults from the critics here, nothing will be resolved until he produces a commercial E-Cat or fails to do so in a reasonable time frame.

[MSimon]

Ivy Matt wrote:

Is the patent office putting a muzzle on him?

Why on earth would Rossi want to tell his competition how it works before he has patent protection, or ever, if he doesn't? What an odd thing to say.

parallel wrote:

I can only repeat, for the third time: take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement. There is substantial evidence that he has discovered something, that we all agree is not proof beyond all doubt, and a number of scientists more eminent than you agree it is worth investigating. Have you already forgotten about NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell who said LENR is the most promising answer to our current energy problems?

Ivy Matt replied:

There are too many problems with this paragraph for me to agree with it fully. I believe the response to your arguments can best be summed up by the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba.

Rossi agrees with you. That is why he states that only commercial sales of E-Cats that work will prove the point. Most, like Helius, believe the standard model and argue against any change, or anything not fitting with that, is bogus. If he had been around at the time, he would have believed in phlogiston.

Two things are different about Rossi's E-Cat, compared to earlier LENR work, that make it much more interesting. It seems to produce a useful amount of heat and it seems it can be turned on and off reliably. It is still rather like the Wright's first flying machine rather than Leonardo's drawings and what followed. He has done a lot of experimental work and believes he has a theory of how it works. He has no obligation to tell his critics here how it works.

He can't get patent protection without explaining how it works. And yet explaining how it works will destroy its commercial value. I think you are on to something.

[MSimon]

- in much the same state as the rest of fusion science then, including our beloved Polywell.

It is my understanding that no one has DEMONSTRATED a net power hot fusion device.

Net power LENR (for want of a better name) has been demoed for over 20 years - well that is the claim.

[rcain]

...The research is sponsored by Rossi and related companies at the tune of 500K Euro. Is not clear "when" they should start the tests on the e-Cat, if immediately or from October after the 1MW plant goes live....

forgive me, but this sounds to me like some very special sort of Italian madness, that is only ever successful on some occasions, in Italy. i shall treat myself to a bottle of whiskey for breakfast if it works.

[parallel]

MSimon wrote:

He can't get patent protection without explaining how it works. And yet explaining how it works will destroy its commercial value. I think you are on to something.

I don't pretend to have the answer as obviously we don't know enough. He claims to have applied for patents and would be foolish to talk about that before they are approved. It maybe there are previous patents that cover part of what he has done. It maybe that parts simply cannot be patented due to the curiosities of patent law.

The only certain thing is that with $trillions involved if it does work, there will be endless patent battles until he dies. I hope he has the good sense to stay out of them.

[Giorgio]

...The research is sponsored by Rossi and related companies at the tune of 500K Euro. Is not clear "when" they should start the tests on the e-Cat, if immediately or from October after the 1MW plant goes live....

forgive me, but this sounds to me like some very special sort of Italian madness, that is only ever successful on some occasions, in Italy. i shall treat myself to a bottle of whiskey for breakfast if it works.

It is in many way.
I do not drink at all, but I'll join you for that bottle of whiskey if this is proven real

[rcain]

- in much the same state as the rest of fusion science then, including our beloved Polywell.

It is my understanding that no one has DEMONSTRATED a net power hot fusion device.

Net power LENR (for want of a better name) has been demoed for over 20 years - well that is the claim.

actually i thought JET held the record still at 15secs or something (i'm sure you knew that). just no longer than that.

re. LENR - too ashamed to show its face, and shunned, and still inconsistent, and still no one knows what they're 'meant' to be looking at.
i agree. but what can you do?

[edit] mea culpa - JET - 1997, Q=0.7 @ 16MW O/P - according to wiki[/edit]