10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:31 am

Well, Defkalion's hand tip says they have figured out the run time issue, so they claim...

I guess we will see.
Another run week in E-Cat world ahead! Best Soap Opera EVER!

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:43 am

ladajo wrote:Giorgio,
Rossi di dove? Lo sai?

Milano.
Is father was owning a metal workshop for light structures.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:23 am

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/ ... of-claims/

According to two people who attended a lecture by Sven Kullander on Nov. 23, Rossi is now starting to talk about even smaller energy gains, the same level of energy production scientifically demonstrated and reported by Focardi when he previously worked with biophysicist Francesco Piantelli.

According to Patrik Lind, who attended the Kullander lecture, Kullander said that Rossi told him that his device now “works without a catalyst.”

According to Hampus Ericsson, who also attended the Kullander lecture, Kullander’s message was that “you could get a small effect without any catalyst, just like Focardi did in his 1994 paper.”

Well, that's interesting, no catalyst. Slip of the tongue...

cg66 · Post by **cg66** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:06 am

Brian Ahern's patent application - interesting info on powder composition.

http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/A ... 23338.html

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:16 pm

Giorgio wrote:
ladajo wrote:Giorgio,
Rossi di dove? Lo sai?
Milano.
Is father was owning a metal workshop for light structures.

Goodness, he acts more like a hard core Pugliese. The whole, "Who is going to invade me next" mentality...

I would not have pegged him from Milan. Hmm.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:31 pm

Re meeting in Massachusetts

Tamarin (MIT guy) said the meeting was mostly used to discuss the possibility of setting up manufacturing, rather than the validity of the science.

“Rossi said he was not ready for a full academic investigation of his technology because he doesn’t yet have full patent protection,’’ Tamarin said. “That’s consistent with it not working, but it’s also consistent with it working very well.’’

Still waiting for definitive proof but it continues to sound promising.
Note Tamarin doesn't complain about Rossi not having a patent yet. He understands why better that most posters on this thread.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:10 pm

JoeP wrote:James Randi predicts Rossi is likely scamming for big profits for selling stock. Interview video link

If so he's doing a crappy job. Inquiries about investment have not been returned.

parallel wrote:The argument against BLP is "I don't believe the measurements because they don't they sell product." The argument against Rossi is "Selling the product means nothing, where are the measurements?"

Heh. The funniest part is, they are almost certainly selling the same reaction, be it quantum, nuclear, or chemical in nature.

tomclarke wrote:There in principle can be many effects in which binding hydrogen into lattices releases energy which is not accounted by a standard reaction.

Still the most likely contender imo, even with the runs of hours, though I hope Rossi is right! I won't really believe it's not chemical until I see credible reports of a reactor running without refuelling for the six months Rossi claims they can.

ladajo wrote:I guess we will see.
Another run week in E-Cat world ahead! Best Soap Opera EVER!

Yep, it's going to be a fun year! Hyperions and E-Cats everywhere? Or lawsuits and embarassment?

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:41 pm

TallDave wrote:
tomclarke wrote:There in principle can be many effects in which binding hydrogen into lattices releases energy which is not accounted by a standard reaction.
Still the most likely contender imo, even with the runs of hours, though I hope Rossi is right! I won't really believe it's not chemical until I see credible reports of a reactor running without refuelling for the six months Rossi claims they can.

There are no possible chemical reactions that can account for the observed effects. This is a hand waving argument. As a materials chemist I stake my decades of experience in the field on it.

The only explanations are non-chemical or fraud.

polyill · Post by **polyill** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:41 pm

from S.Krivit's blog

Kullander says that Rossi usually refers to his invention as “me and my cats.”

Bats.
In the belfry.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:46 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:
TallDave wrote:
tomclarke wrote:There in principle can be many effects in which binding hydrogen into lattices releases energy which is not accounted by a standard reaction.
Still the most likely contender imo, even with the runs of hours, though I hope Rossi is right! I won't really believe it's not chemical until I see credible reports of a reactor running without refuelling for the six months Rossi claims they can.
There are no possible chemical reactions that can account for the observed effects. This is a hand waving argument. As a materials chemist I stake my decades of experience in the field on it.

The only explanations are non-chemical or fraud.

Known reactions, or possible? And within what range of claimed effect? I suspect some blend of measurement error and chemical reaction could account for a few hours' worth of run.

I don't know the theoretical limits of possible chemical reactions (i.e given the mass of Rossi's device, the max kwh that could possibly come from chemical means), but I'd love to see them if anyone would like to move this beyond handwaving.

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:00 pm

TallDave wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:
TallDave wrote: Still the most likely contender imo, even with the runs of hours, though I hope Rossi is right! I won't really believe it's not chemical until I see credible reports of a reactor running without refuelling for the six months Rossi claims they can.
There are no possible chemical reactions that can account for the observed effects. This is a hand waving argument. As a materials chemist I stake my decades of experience in the field on it.

The only explanations are non-chemical or fraud.
Known reactions, or possible? And within what range of claimed effect? I suspect some blend of measurement error and chemical reaction could account for a few hours' worth of run. I don't know the theoretical limits of possible chemical reactions (i.e given the mass of Rossi's device, the max kwh that could possibly come from chemical means), but I'd love to see them if anyone does.

If you assume that the reactor runs by a chemical means other than those that involve the stated materials then the device is a fraud.

Once the device is determined to be a fraud then speculation is irrelevant since rossi controls both the device geometry AND the data recording. Once it is possilbe to fake the data recording, the possibilities for fraud are limitless.

There are no possible chemical reactions between a small mass of nickel and an even smaller mass of hydrogen that could explain the result.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:11 pm

There are no possible chemical reactions between a small mass of nickel and an even smaller mass of hydrogen that could explain the result.

Again, known or possible? (If not possible, please show your work.) Experts ridiculed quasicrystals until there was too much experimental evidence. And what about the possibility of other reactants? Not quite ready to dismiss this possibility yet.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:28 pm

TallDave,

The best data showing the reaction is not chemical is from the earlier demo with the two Swedish professors, when the E-Cat was only 50cc. There aren't any chemicals that contain that much energy let alone nickel & a gram of H2.

On the BLP side, there were several chemistry professors involved in the replications. Unless you know more about chemistry than they do, it is probably safe to accept their verdict. They knew of the claims of it being a possible chemical reaction and went to extensive lengths too show it was not possible.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:32 pm

There are no possible chemical reactions that can account for the observed effects.

That would be reported effects. "Observed" is a little loose with the facts.

There is a chemical reaction that could account for everything. It occurs in the brain.....

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:01 pm

MSimon wrote:
There are no possible chemical reactions that can account for the observed effects.
That would be reported effects. "Observed" is a little loose with the facts.

There is a chemical reaction that could account for everything. It occurs in the brain.....

I disagree. While the observations may be the result of fraud, they are still observations.

An observation has no inherent quality. In this case, and as always, further observations are required to establish a testable hypothesis.

You object to the term observed because you fail to take a truly objective approach to cold fusion, something that makes your posts less useful.