10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[KitemanSA]

That said, the day it will happen I'll be really happy as it means we moved our knowledge one step further.

The Focardi machine looks simple enough. Anyone interested in trying to replicate it's results? I'll kick in some $, as long as the effort is done in a not-for-profit, open publication mode. Indeed, if someone would propse a viable study, I might make a "matching funds" pledge in the several $k range. Anyone?

[cg66]

That said, the day it will happen I'll be really happy as it means we moved our knowledge one step further.

The Focardi machine looks simple enough. Anyone interested in trying to replicate it's results? I'll kick in some $, as long as the effort is done in a not-for-profit, open publication mode. Indeed, if someone would propse a viable study, I might make a "matching funds" pledge in the several $k range. Anyone?

If we had access to one of these it would be a cinch!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/mike-r ... -into.html

[Giorgio]

That said, the day it will happen I'll be really happy as it means we moved our knowledge one step further.

The Focardi machine looks simple enough. Anyone interested in trying to replicate it's results? I'll kick in some $, as long as the effort is done in a not-for-profit, open publication mode. Indeed, if someone would propse a viable study, I might make a "matching funds" pledge in the several $k range. Anyone?

Focardi machine was replicated several times in the past, but results has always been inconclusive.
I am now following a couple of groups here in Italy that are replicating again Focardi experiments as well as trying the Rossi experiments.
They are especially trying all sort of combinations, from pressure, to vacuum treatments of the Ni powder before using it, to adding oxides to the Nickel powder and so on.
They are not amateur, most of them are daytime researchers and one of them has actually been able to convince his Uni to sponsor the tests.

As you said, building the reactor is pretty easy, and can be done with less than 200 Euro worth of material. The problem is that the reactor is simply not giving those results, and all you end up with is a nice paperweight.

If we want to believe that Rossi's results are indeed real, than the trick must lie completely in the catalyst. This is the reason why the people I am following are now trying different materials and mixtures, to see if there is any indications of extra energy from any one of these combinations that could indicate the road.

The results to date:
Some claim 5% increase in thermal power out (well within the limits of statistic error), some claim nothing. No one even gets near to what Rossi is claiming.

Either Rossi has been very very lucky in his experiments or he is being very very optimistic of his results. I would like the first to be real, but everyday I am getting more convinced of the second.

[seedload]

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!

Self confidence is fine. Not sure on ego. It is exceptionally hard to be self aware of ones own level of ego, IM(H?)O.

The fact is that I just was taken aback by your suddenly calling me ignorant when I cannot think of a single instance when I insulted you in any way. Not one.

However...

Since you and others feel that I have contributed nothing to this discussion, I will interpret your "bye" as "leave" rather than the more likely intended "I ain't gonna talk to you any more".

This interpretation works better for me anyway since I am tired of this topic, surprised that people just ignore the inconsistencies in the story, and disappointed that when I try to bring any of this up, I get no response.

So, in parting, I will summarize the story of Rossi's claims as I see them.

Every fusion reaction is a tiny miracle of improbability. For Rossi to have perfected cold fusion would be the equivalent of one of these tiny miracles in my mind. But Rossi's actual claims are more like a three body fusion reaction. Two tiny miracles happening at exactly the same moment and the same place. Rossi has perfected cold fusion. Rossi has perfected cheap isotopic enrichment. Two miracles.

These two miracles transmute only some isotopes of Nickel, with one ratio, into copper, with a completely different ratio, and the results just happen to match the natural isotopic ratio of copper.

Add to these claims the fact that he is producing these devices in an apparently impotent company, Leonardo Corp., which has no apparent facilities and has a web site that has a bogus phone number and address on it. Rossi refuses to provide any details on Leonardo's capabilities claiming concerns over espionage and sabotage. Further, Leonardo Corp has finished production but apparently didn't think about shipping. They are now working out this issue even though their own web site gives the specs and a picture of a perfectly acceptable shipping container.

On the theory side, Rossi's invention only converts NI62 and NI64 to Copper. It does not convert Cu63 or Cu65 to Zinc. It does not touch NI58, NI60, or NI61. There are apparently no side reactions with anything else in the system. Conveniently, only NI62 and NI64 reacting explains why only stable isotopes of Copper come out - but not the natural ratios. However, the idea that only these two isotopes react means that whatever theory he has must explain two things (1) that some unusual particle can form (ie slow neutron or super proton) and that (2) this unusual particle will only be sucked in by NI62 and NI64. Finally, the process that sucks in this particle must be exothermic AND it must produce energy that is either not radioactive or produces radioactivity that is easily captured by surrounding structures.

None of this conforms with any other previous LENR research/theory that I am aware of.

Additionally, Rossi has said that he both depletes the NI58 and enriches the NI62 and NI64 in the powder (via second miracle). This is mostly opinion, but, there is no apparent reason for enrichment since he also claims that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react. His final story, of enrichment and only some isotopes reacting, appears to me to be a conglomeration of mistakes he made answering questions when cornered on the issue of natural copper isotopic ratios in his blog(read that area to be enlightened). He had no legitimate answers on the issue of isotopes so he punted using another secret invention.

Finally, Rossi conducted some demonstrations. Since the demonstrations were controlled demonstrations, they cannot be considered as evidence any more so than a magic trick can be considered evidence of real magic. The demonstrations being scientific in nature does not make them science. Being scientific does not rule out a trick. Proof requires independent evaluation and replication to remove elements of control.

Given the improbability of the above story being true, even if I have made some small mistakes in my recounting, I choose not to investigate it any further. My understanding is complete enough in my mind to have reached a conclusion. My conclusion is that this is a scam. For the demonstrations, this scam potentially involved transporting a chemical (hydrogen peroxide?) in the stream of water flowing to the device. I say this because I see no reason for flowing water in the first place, something that chrismb pointed out on the first few pages of this thread.

I also humbly submit that it is not ignorant to logically look at evidence as you see it, draw conclusions, and abandon stuff that you think no longer warrants your consideration. If I am wrong, it is not because I am ignorant. Potentially stupid, but not ignorant.

Good luck to you all.

regards

[breakaway]

[quote="Giorgio"][quote="Kahuna"]
As we discussed earlier, if they even get the R&D funds and an E-Cat, that will be a good sign, but if delays ensue long a red flag. Hopefully your source will have some insights to share next week.[/quote]
I agree, yet another not good sign. I really dislike the way this story is developing.
If he had already decided not to divulge the UoB results, why the hell did he spread the news and used it to bolster his claims? Really, this guy amazes me.

Every time he speaks I am getting more convinced that he still does not have a repeatable process in hand. Either that or he has no idea of how to make a proper business strategy, and I do not know which one of the two scenario is worst....[/quote]

You should not be surprised. It was clearly mentioned that it was an R&D proposition back in March and he has stated many times no new public tests till October/Greece.

Frankly, if I was running a business I would not do any public demos at all until production is ready. I would keep the entire business in stealth mode until ready. I never see Apple criticized for holding secrets until near a release date.

[Giorgio]

Frankly, if I was running a business I would not do any public demos at all until production is ready. I would keep the entire business in stealth mode until ready. I never see Apple criticized for holding secrets until near a release date.

I completely agree.
So why did he come out now, when not ready?
Why did he say "I am not going to give any info nor public demonstrations, but I will let UoB look into it" and than he says "But UoB results will not be public, they will be private and proprietary".

Maybe he is following his own logic that we do not understand, but business wise all these contradictions makes little to no sense IMHO.

[Axil]

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?

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf

Development of Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor
Using Solid Pycnodeuterium as Nuclear Fuel
Yoshiaki Arata and Yue Chang Zhang



This 12 year series of experiments demonstrates cold fusion at least in my mind. The authors created something called .Pycnodeuterium. It is various nano metal powders with deuterium forced into the center of the crystal matrix of the metal molecule.

When stimulated by low power laser excitation, it produces He4. Only fusion can make He4. When hydrogen is used instead of deuterium, no He4 is generated upon stimulation.(see figure Fig. B in the document.)

In their conclusion, the authors state as follows:

Our Laser implosion system used only 300 watt and generated about 10e19 to 10e20 particles per 10 seconds. It is concluded that solid Pycnodeuterium. with stimulation energy is by far the more excellent fusion fuel as compared with gaseous deuterium as used in thermonuclear fusion.

That is a lot of neutrons.

Since I challenged Kiteman earlier, i should take this is an answer from you.

These Arata + Arata replication experiments are difficult to analyse. I've tries to do this but all I've found so is powerpoint style writeups with a lot of data but little analysis, no conclusions, from rata specifically a large number of unsupported assertions of the form "Nuclear fusion is happens inside the vessel" or "Pycnodeuterium lumps form with 3 atoms inside each lattice cell".

The possibly positive data appears to be:

small differences in heat output between H2 & D2 in same system.

Excess He out observed when mixed gasses (He & H2 & D2) are input but not when H2 & D2 are input.

Analysis of the excess heat out is very difficult because of possible chemical reactions, and the fact that reaction rates may be significantly different for H2 & D2.

The excess He out seems suspicious to me, maybe it is an artifact caused by poor experimental protocol and in fcat is just what should be expected given He in?

Now I am not dismissing this vast & confusing dataset. But I can't properly analyse it without either;
(1) a lot of work - more than I am prepared to give
(2) a properly written paper making it clear what was done, under what conditions results were obtained, what appears anomalous, why, etc.


I don't mind whether such a writeup is peer-reviewed, as long as it is written carefully enough for me to read it and understand what is going on.

Similarly with the replications, they do not sem to give He ash, nor gammas, but small amounts of excess heat. These are extremely difficult indicators, requiring great experimental care and good writeups. It is very very easy to get false positives with the best will in the world.

I am afraid extracted headlines from this data which appear good are not enough for me to reach any conclusion. You just can't evaluate them without carefully looking at all the conditions. Having done that you can see what are the anomalies, begin to generate hypotheses, and test them.

This work is what I expect replication to have done. But I cannot find good write-ups of the replications either.

So, help me out, have you found anywhere a serious writeup of this stuff, or if not have you spent a lot of time yourself working out what is what?

Best wishes, Tom

Being marginal, the Pycnodeuterium demo is suggestive but not conclusive.

Cold Fusion development has been chasing the wild goose of palladium and deuterium for way too long a time now with minimal results.

Rossi major among others has shown the way toward the very productive Ni-H reaction.

However being the first to use it in a major developmental step, Yoshiaki Arata deserves credit for introducing nano-powder into the world of cold fusion experimentation.

Arata was the first to use oxides of both nickel and zirconium which as it turns out is an absolute requirement for a successful reaction to occur, IMHO.


What Rossi did that Arata didn’t was to weld the nano-powder to the stainless steel hot walls of the reaction vessel to get excellent phonon conduction to the active nuclear sites on the surface of the nano-powder.

In the Rossi reactor, the surface boundaries of this welded Nano-powder are where phonons are reflected.

These grain boundaries and defects reflect and concentrate phonon energy at the points of constructive photonic interference. The intersection of enough of these reflections supplements the “Heisenberg confinement energy “to the point where nuclear reactions can start. With this gross photonic loading mediated by the transmission provided by the stainless steel substrate, the first bonding events gives off more phonons, causing more reactions in the immediate grain or boundary area which tends to perpetuate the chain reaction.

If the walls of the reaction vessel and the nano-powder were not photonically tightly coupled, cooling the reaction vessel would not immediately shut the chain reaction down.

Best wishes, Axil

[Kahuna]

Frankly, if I was running a business I would not do any public demos at all until production is ready. I would keep the entire business in stealth mode until ready. I never see Apple criticized for holding secrets until near a release date.

I completely agree.
So why did he come out now, when not ready?
Why did he say "I am not going to give any info nor public demonstrations, but I will let UoB look into it" and than he says "But UoB results will not be public, they will be private and proprietary".

Maybe he is following his own logic that we do not understand, but business wise all these contradictions makes little to no sense IMHO.

The story on this is that Focardi had a recent near death scare with cancer and convinced Rossi to go public early as he thought that they (together) had a monumental discovery to share with the world. Rossi says that going public before commercialization was not his preference, but he agreed to it as the "price of freindship" (with Focardi).

[Kahuna]

What Rossi did that Arata didn’t was to weld the nano-powder to the stainless steel hot walls of the reaction vessel to get excellent phonon conduction to the active nuclear sites on the surface of the nano-powder.

In the Rossi reactor, the surface boundaries of this welded Nano-powder are where phonons are reflected.

You have mentioned this welding of the Hi Powdwer to the reactor walls several times now (one of your theories that seems to persist). Others seem to beleive that the powder is just packed in the reactor chamber. Do you have a reference for the wall-weld assumption or is it just a theory of yours alone based on circumstantial "evidence?"

[Axil]

What Rossi did that Arata didn’t was to weld the nano-powder to the stainless steel hot walls of the reaction vessel to get excellent phonon conduction to the active nuclear sites on the surface of the nano-powder.

In the Rossi reactor, the surface boundaries of this welded Nano-powder are where phonons are reflected.

You have mentioned this welding of the Hi Powdwer to the reactor walls several times now (one of your theories that seems to persist). Others seem to beleive that the powder is just packed in the reactor chamber. Do you have a reference for the wall-weld assumption or is it just a theory of yours alone based on circumstantial "evidence?"

The evidence is strong but circumstantial. Powder welding is one of Rossi’s secrets.

First, the nano-powder fills only 1% of the volume of the reaction vessel: 100 grams of nickel in one liter. This small amount of powder cannot be packed in such a large volume.

Second, the ash of the Rossi reactor contains 10% iron that Rossi said was not produced through the action of transmutation from the reaction but was produced by “scrubbing”.

[Giorgio]

The story on this is that Focardi had a recent near death scare with cancer and convinced Rossi to go public early as he thought that they (together) had a monumental discovery to share with the world. Rossi says that going public before commercialization was not his preference, but he agreed to it as the "price of freindship" (with Focardi).

You are right, I was not remembering that part.
Anyhow, we can but wait to see how all this drama will evolve.

[Kahuna]

The evidence is strong but circumstantial. Powder welding is one of Rossi’s secrets.

First, the nano-powder fills only 1% of the volume of the reaction vessel: 100 grams of nickel in one liter. This small amount of powder cannot be packed in such a large volume.

Second, the ash of the Rossi reactor contains 10% iron that Rossi said was not produced through the action of transmutation from the reaction but was produced by “scrubbing”.

If the Fe resulted from “scrubbing" of the SS, wouldn't the ash have contained Cr as well?

If you are right about the wall-welding, I guess that the ash would have to have been scaped from the reactor before being provided to the swedes.

[Axil]

The evidence is strong but circumstantial. Powder welding is one of Rossi’s secrets.

First, the nano-powder fills only 1% of the volume of the reaction vessel: 100 grams of nickel in one liter. This small amount of powder cannot be packed in such a large volume.

Second, the ash of the Rossi reactor contains 10% iron that Rossi said was not produced through the action of transmutation from the reaction but was produced by “scrubbing”.

If the Fe resulted from “scrubbing" of the SS, wouldn't the ash have contained Cr as well?

If you are right about the wall-welding, I guess that the ash would have to have been scaped from the reactor before being provided to the swedes.

Yes the ash would have contained Cr. Remember, the swedes did not provide a full list of elements found in the ash.

[KitemanSA]

Focardi machine was replicated several times in the past, but results has always been inconclusive.
I am now following a couple of groups here in Italy that are replicating again Focardi experiments as well as trying the Rossi experiments.
They are especially trying all sort of combinations, from pressure, to vacuum treatments of the Ni powder before using it, to adding oxides to the Nickel powder and so on.

Do you know if any of these groups has attempted to get Focardi involved?
It almost seems that the efforts have been sort of "shot-gun" in their approach.

They are not amateur, most of them are daytime researchers and one of them has actually been able to convince his Uni to sponsor the tests.

As you said, building the reactor is pretty easy, and can be done with less than 200 Euro worth of material. The problem is that the reactor is simply not giving those results, and all you end up with is a nice paperweight.

Kind o neat paperweight, though.

If we want to believe that Rossi's results are indeed real, than the trick must lie completely in the catalyst. This is the reason why the people I am following are now trying different materials and mixtures, to see if there is any indications of extra energy from any one of these combinations that could indicate the road.

Suggest to them that the "catalyst" is a UV laser used to "add" polaritons to the matrix. Also, suggest that the internal "heater" is that same UV laser used to add energy (heat) the polaritons to the degree they will oscillate far enough to interact with BOTH the H and the Ni. Just a suspicious mind, I guess.
Still working on the "Kiteman Konjecture"!

The results to date:
Some claim 5% increase in thermal power out (well within the limits of statistic error), some claim nothing. No one even gets near to what Rossi is claiming.

Relying on simple thermal inputs may in fact result in negligable results.

Either Rossi has been very very lucky in his experiments or he is being very very optimistic of his results. I would like the first to be real, but everyday I am getting more convinced of the second.

OR... he has been VERY cagy in his descriptions of his units. Or all three!!!

[D Tibbets]

If I'm confused, so are others.

I'm not sure what you are pointing to here. Everything you quoted supports MY position. Dan you are very confused about something. I wish I could figure it out to help.Let us do some simple combinations.

"You can't fuse iron". True
Fe + Fe = Te = ENDOthermic... the anti-fission.

"Fusion combines lighter elements". True
D + T = He + n = EXOthermic classical fusion

But what happens when you combine lighter and heavier elements? Depends on which ones!.

Mn + Co = Te? Endo; because the BOTH Mn&Co have higher binding energy than Te.
H + Ni = Cu? Exo. Becasue H has ZERO binding energy and BOTH Ni and Cu have about the same high binding energy.

How many times do you need to read that Ni62 is the most highly bound nucleus? How many times do you need to have it pointed out that the binding energy trends reverse at Ni62, as is clear from the graph.
If you could fuse carbon to manganese or some other isotope that is lighter than nickel, and have a product that is a little heavier than Ni62- could you have net excess energy released- perhaps, within limits. It depends on the specifics. But, this is not the issue being discussed. Here we are talking about adding nucleons to Nickel 62. . The outcomes can be estimated simply by taking the binding energy of the relative nuclei. Is the binding energy higher or lower than Nickel62? You are stuck on the binding energy difference between a proton or neutron and your comparative isotope. This is irrelevant here. What you are comparing is a Ni62 nucleus and a copper63 nucleus. Which has the higher binding energy?
Also, considering the mass deficit as a pure energy that is added or subtracted from a nucleus is not the same as the binding energy. It is a combination of several different energies. Not all of this energy is released in the same way as nuclei are built up or dissasembled. As nucleons are added, the strong force mediatred energy increases within range limits. As charged protons are added, the Coulomb repulsion mediated energy also increases within extended range limits compared to the strong force). But these two energies oppose each other. One is trying to hold the nucleus together, the other is trying to disperse it. The mass deficit is the sum of these two energies without consideration of the effect on the nucleus. The nuclear diameter, along with the range of the two forces, and the relative strengths determines the results between these two forces. The binding energy is the difference between these two forces. This is two separate considerations. The Mass deficit does not equal the binding energy. The mass deficit = total energy. The binding energy = net energy. If you draw the force vectors of each, they point in opposite directions. If one points in a defined positive direction, the other points in the opposite or negative direction. Thus my convenience of calling one positive energy and the other negative energy. This may have misled some. The force vectors are positive and negative, and the net energy field is the sum of these vectors, as it is in any energy or force field (I'm not sure which is the more proper term).
A good comparison is a plasma containing an equal number of protons and electrons. The net field is the sum of the vectors of these charges which equals 0 in a neutral plasma. If one species is in excess then a net force is exerted. Unbalance it further and the field becomes stronger. This is my impression of you understanding. The relationship is linear. The field can grow until some consideration limits it.
Nuclear binding energy is different though . Not because of the the difference is the strengths of the competing forces, this only changes the angle of the slope of the linear relationship. The important point is the relative ranges of the forces and the size of the nucleus over which both are acting. Both forces fall off exponentially with distance. The electric force at the rate of distance squared. The strong force falls off more rapidly. Since protons and neutrons have a finite size, the distance between nucleons on opposite sides on the nucleus quickly become less tightly bound to each other. This would result in a graph with an exponential slope starting off steep and gradually leveling off.
The electromagnetic repulsive force is much weaker on a per nucleon basis, but it also builds with the addition of protons. The longer range would result in a graph slope that started out small but increased more linearly upwards. As these two forces oppose each other there must be some point where they cross each other and they switch dominance. It turns out that this point is at ~ 206 nucleons.
But at Ni62 the maximum difference between the strong force and electromagnetic force is reached. Beyond that point the electromagnetic repulsion is growing more rapidly and the difference between the two forces begins to decline. It is this difference that represents the energy that can be extracted. The difference between say carbon and Ni62 represents the exothermic energy that can be obtained by fusion to Ni62. The difference between Cu63 and Ni62 represents the exothermic energy that can be obtained by fission to Ni62. In both cases you are moving towards the the highest binding energy nucleus.
The link below shows the mathematical relationships. It is much easier to just use the graph.



You used the Semi- emperical mass formula as an explanation of what is occurring with nuclear binding energy, and claimed that electromagnetic (Coulomb) considerations were irrelevant. I gave a quote and the link (do you wish others?) where the contribution of Coulomb repulsion to the total binding energy is quantified. I also linked to a well respected physics reference site that states in no uncertain terms the exothermic and endothermic relation of nickel to fusion and fission. I have provided other physics links that provide similar information. You seem to ignore these authoritative references (I have similar descriptions from a nuclear plasma text if you wish to see it). Yet you stick to your narrow view that the mass deficit is the only relevant consideration. You seem unwilling or unable to consider, despite multiple references clearly spelling out this, that multiple competing energies makes up the total.


Again, this link that develops the Semi Emperical Mass Formula, and the various considerations (including the strong force and the electrostatic force) that yields the final results.

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

Dan Tibbets