10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[cg66]

Giorgio -
You hear any news/rumors regarding what the Piantelli group is up to?

[KitemanSA]

@Kiteman: Good luck collecting enough Karma to change the laws of the universe, but as long as there are asholes like me, I fear, you wont be successful. I find this so funny that I compensate at least 10 of your kind :p.

Which particular law needs to change? Be specific please. I keep asking but no-one has been able to tell me.

phi = (1/4*pi*e0)*q/r

Nice equation. Who's is it and how does LENR violate it? From the form I take it to be something like the Coulomb's Law? In which case you are either WILLFULLY ignorant or you just can't read. There are any number of theoretical ways that Coulomb law can be overcome including
Muon Catalysis
WL neutron synthesis
Kim's BEC
Stremmenos' mini-H and
My Konjecture.
All of them include some form of shielding of a proton with a closely coupled negative charge (electron or muon). This effectively neutralizes the proton so no Coulomb repulsion. Don't change the law, go around it.

Still looking for that law that needs to be changed. Anyone?

[Joseph Chikva]

This effectively neutralizes the proton so no Coulomb repulsion.

How effectively? As all mentioned are only assumptions of possibility. But as I understand nobody has proved yet that shielding of Coulomb barrier is possible. Besides may be Muon Catalysis which also has shown extremely low energy balance about 2GeV of input (energy really required for creation of 1 muon) vs. 200-400MeV of output (energy releases from 50-100 D-D fusion events)

[Giorgio]

Giorgio -
You hear any news/rumors regarding what the Piantelli group is up to?

I do not have connections with them, so I only know what others report.
They are stating to have a device working continuously with few Watts overunity since many weeks.
No data released and no planned demo, so take it with a grain of salt

[Ivy Matt]

By the way, Talk-polywell is again visible from China

Oops, sorry. I suppose I could have told you that before you left.

[Giorgio]

@Ivy Matt
No prob, but internet connection from China is becoming really a nightmare.
Using Google and the related services like G-Mail has been almost impossible last week.

Fortunately I am back to Hong Kong for a couple of days now.

[KitemanSA]

This effectively neutralizes the proton so no Coulomb repulsion.

How effectively? As all mentioned are only assumptions of possibility. But as I understand nobody has proved yet that shielding of Coulomb barrier is possible. Besides may be Muon Catalysis which also has shown extremely low energy balance about 2GeV of input (energy really required for creation of 1 muon) vs. 200-400MeV of output (energy releases from 50-100 D-D fusion events)

At this point, the subject is "a little bit pregnant". Muon catalysis proves it CAN be done. Without any doubt. Just not very well. If one way exists, then obviously there is no need to change any law of the universe so the statement that I needed to save up a lot of Karma to change it is absurd. The only real question is do those other methods (or unknown other methods) really work?

I dislike the Rossi circus, but my dislike does not make it a scam.

[Joseph Chikva]

At this point, the subject is "a little bit pregnant". Muon catalysis proves it CAN be done. Without any doubt. Just not very well.

If so, we also can say that we know how to produce conventional "hot" fusion too. And much better than via Muon catalysis. As there are some types of neutron generators in the market.

And Rossi makes circus because his method is scam. You do not like circus and you are right in it.

[Kahuna]

Looks like there is an interesting verbal escalation among the previous partners. Rossi, Defkalion and Stremmenos

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 3#comments

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... ?f=4&t=297


I find this of interest for our discussion:

You will safely recall that payment is based on the successful demonstration according to protocols and procedures that have been supplied to EFA, whose conditions have not been met yet.

Yes, I don't get this whole Defkalion relationship. They say they won't pay Rossi because he has not done the contractually required demonstration of the E-Cat yet they are on version 7 of their design, ready for production and claim that Rossi is using an earlier Defkalion design (wrongly) in his demonstrations. None much of this makes sense to me. Can someone offer some rationality to the claims and behavior of these parties.

[ladajo]

I wonder where Krivit will go with this. It seems he is in an operational pause after his weekend updates.

Hmmm.

[Giorgio]

Yes, I don't get this whole Defkalion relationship. They say they won't pay Rossi because he has not done the contractually required demonstration of the E-Cat yet they are on version 7 of their design, ready for production and claim that Rossi is using an earlier Defkalion design (wrongly) in his demonstrations. None much of this makes sense to me. Can someone offer some rationality to the claims and behavior of these parties.

Don't worry, all this story till date makes no sense whatsoever, period.
I suggest you do not put too much effort in trying to follow it or to understand it, else it will permanently hurt your synapses.

Just like the last three Star Wars movies

[tomclarke]

This effectively neutralizes the proton so no Coulomb repulsion.

How effectively? As all mentioned are only assumptions of possibility. But as I understand nobody has proved yet that shielding of Coulomb barrier is possible. Besides may be Muon Catalysis which also has shown extremely low energy balance about 2GeV of input (energy really required for creation of 1 muon) vs. 200-400MeV of output (energy releases from 50-100 D-D fusion events)

muon catalysed fusion is possible, but muons are v expensive to create. I would agree that a cheap muon source would imply easy fusion. People have been trying to find this for a long time, no success.

Otherwise nothing has the right structure to shield protons in a way that negates Coulomb barrier. Electrons are too light.

Finally, slow neutrons also catalyse nuclear reactions, but again no-one has found an energy efficient way to generate slow neutrons. W-L leaves out crucial steps in its argument, and no experimental evidence of generated slow neutrons has been found. It would not be difficult to get it if they existed.

So the Coulomb barrier remains.

PS - my equation was for electric potential, which is the Coulomb barrier.

[stefanbanev]

This effectively neutralizes the proton so no Coulomb repulsion.

How effectively? As all mentioned are only assumptions of possibility. But as I understand nobody has proved yet that shielding of Coulomb barrier is possible. Besides may be Muon Catalysis which also has shown extremely low energy balance about 2GeV of input (energy really required for creation of 1 muon) vs. 200-400MeV of output (energy releases from 50-100 D-D fusion events)

muon catalysed fusion is possible, but muons are v expensive to create. I would agree that a cheap muon source would imply easy fusion. People have been trying to find this for a long time, no success.

Otherwise nothing has the right structure to shield protons in a way that negates Coulomb barrier. Electrons are too light.

Finally, slow neutrons also catalyse nuclear reactions, but again no-one has found an energy efficient way to generate slow neutrons. W-L leaves out crucial steps in its argument, and no experimental evidence of generated slow neutrons has been found. It would not be difficult to get it if they existed.

So the Coulomb barrier remains.

PS - my equation was for electric potential, which is the Coulomb barrier.

tomclarke>"Good luck collecting enough Karma to change the laws of the universe,"

tomclarke>"but again no-one has found an energy efficient way to generate slow neutrons."

You basically admit that it does not contradict to the "laws of the universe" you essentially state that you just do not see the way how it may be technically done to get above a breakeven. Well, apparently the limitation of your engineering ingenuity hardly sets the limits on the "laws of the universe" otherwise you get in the line with masters of Karma. Anyway, the majority of nuclear scientists share your point of view and it is exactly what keeps this domain not well explored and worth to explore it a little better.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

At this point, the subject is "a little bit pregnant". Muon catalysis proves it CAN be done. Without any doubt. Just not very well.

If so, we also can say that we know how to produce conventional "hot" fusion too. And much better than via Muon catalysis. As there are some types of neutron generators in the market.

PLEASE stop misstating me. My statement was that the laws of the universe don't necessarily need to be changed for LENR. At least one method exists to overcome the coulomb barrier at low energies. Nor, OBVIOUSLY do we need to change the laws of the universe to allow "hot" fusion either. The fact that we are not real good at either of them is immaterial.

And Rossi makes circus because his method is scam. You do not like circus and you are right in it.

Rossi makes a circus cuz he doesn't care what you think or what I think, or what a bunch of other circus freaks on this board think. You make the circus because you insist on judging without valid data.
Let us put some meat into the issue. Do you promise to hang yourself until you are dead if Rossi's machine proves to be able to produce ANY LENR? If not, you are just shooting off your mouth.

[D Tibbets]

I have not been following this thread much, at least partially because the enthusiasts are so entrenched. So, some of my comments may be inappropriate. First off adding a proton or a neutron to 62Ni will lose kinetic energy and increase the potential energy of the isotope. Several months ago I repeatedly tried to explain this. The binding energy per nucleon charts and texts from multiple links reenforces this. The concept that adding (decreasing above Ni62) binding energy per nucleon X the number of nucleons always results in more energy is flawed from two aspects. It ignores the competing strong force and electromagnetic force that makes up the total binding force. Also, it ignores the mass difference of the nuclei. Basically 63 grams of one explosive is claimed to be stronger than 62 grams of another explosive. This may be true for the compared explosives, but that does not mean that 62 grams of the first explosive is stronger than 62 grams of the second explosive. This is like saying that nuclear fission of uranium 235 releases more energy than fusion of D-T. In one perspective it is (one mole of uranium fission makes a bigger bang than one mole of D-T), but 235 grams of D-T makes a much bigger bang than 235 grams of uranium. Bombs are not described in terms of moles but in weight.

Also ignored is that both fusion and fission can release kinetic energy with appropriate feuls. For this to be possible there has to be some turning point, which is well accepted as occuring at 62Ni.

So, for the Rossi device to work as described by adding a proton or neutron to 62Ni new physics do indeed need to be supplied.

As far as the Coulomb barrier penetration, Muons work well, Tau particles would work even better. Of course the cost of obtaining them and keeping them around long enough is even more forbidding. The other methods of circumventing the Coulomb barrier are speculative at best as they have not been proven, or even projected to exist based on accepted physics. I don't know if accepted physics only needs to be expanded or if established physics need to also be discarded for these concepts to be reasonable.

Rossi has a history of fraud, and his dry steam claims were mostly debunked by Chris MB and others simple demos.
Have I missed a Rossi demonstration which used reasonable calorimetry(ie no boiling water), at least witnessed if not verified?

And finally, claims of institutional support is nearly meaningless. As has been mentioned on various threads about different topics, this has been a defense of validity. In most situations this is probably a hedge by some company. A meaningless input of effort and or money secures rights if something (no matter how improbable) works. The claim of support in this case may be even less significant. Assuming the company and arrangements are real, it seems like a promise of support was given, but no or very little money was exchanged. Only proof of concept to the satisfaction of the potential investor will change things and this apparently has not occurred.

Dan Tibbets