10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:36 pm

And it is fair to say that DGT is further along in that than Rossi.

I will need to pay more attention to Rossi now, as I am sure his reaction is going to be comical. The entertainment value is worth it.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:43 pm

Not much we can do but wait.

which is what we have been doing for a long time now...

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:29 pm

I took another closer look at the DGT report and it seems lacking.
For one, they ran the test, and were observed. They did not give any clear data. Mike Nelson was an interesting choice given his background.
He signed "for" Melich who is another interesting choice/background.

So what did they really do? They seem to have run a limited test set, and not really released anything other than they had someone else there to watch it. And the choice of the someone is intersting in itself. It does not appear that Nelson was there on behalf of NASA, regardless of T-shirts worn...Hmmm.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:30 pm

And the above said, they still put on a better showing than anything Rossi has done.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:24 pm

ladajo wrote:And the above said, they still put on a better showing than anything Rossi has done.

Doesn't Mike Nelson also moonlight as a comic....(seriously I think he does)
found out its a different mike nelson my bad.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:54 am

I have noted (you can check) that the more realistic and well-checked the testing the lower the COP from any LENR device.

The obvious case is replication, which nearly always results in COP ~ 1.

With a COP of 1.5 DGT are obviously a long way along the road to realism. Rossi so far has avoided this. Every time his COP seems to be getting real he works out a new and more bizarre way to measure power out which ups the COP again.

ladajo wrote:And it is fair to say that DGT is further along in that than Rossi.

I will need to pay more attention to Rossi now, as I am sure his reaction is going to be comical. The entertainment value is worth it.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:38 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2 ... more-real/

Nelson was not there as "NASA". It is also of note that he used the word and contextual content of "appears", and not "is".

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:24 pm

Evidently, Michael A. Nelson (NASA) prepared another more detailed document regarding his testing of DGT LENR tech. It appears that the disclosure of this presentation-style document was either inadvertant or a leak. Here is the link:

http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... kalion.pdf

JoeP · Post by **JoeP** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:52 pm

However, in the bullet list at the end of the doc:

"...Even though I did not see a demonstration of this
technology I do feel that they have engineered this
beyond anything Rossi showed us or Piantelli."

What am I missing?

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:26 pm

This presentation pre-dates the other DGT docs posted earlier and seems like it was from an earlier visit. I think the main vlaue is in the fuel description including the reference to potassium as a catalyst.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:15 pm

JoeP wrote:However, in the bullet list at the end of the doc:

"...Even though I did not see a demonstration of this
technology I do feel that they have engineered this
beyond anything Rossi showed us or Piantelli."

What am I missing?

Also claims no isotopic enrichment for NI62 and NI64 and participation of NI58 and NI60 in reaction.

1) Questions credibility of Rossi's claims. If Rossi is uncredible then why would DK's derivation of Rossi's invention be credible?
2) If NI58 and NI60 participate in transmutation, then they have a problem of radioactive byproducts - probably exactly why Rossi began claiming that they didn't participate.

Either you have to explain why NI58 doesn't react (Rossi did this by claiming enrichment and then later only NI62 and NI64 'reacting') or you have to explain why you don't end up with nasty NI59.

Enginerd · Post by **Enginerd** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:26 pm

seedload wrote:Either you have to explain why NI58 doesn't react (Rossi did this by claiming enrichment and then later only NI62 and NI64 'reacting') or you have to explain why you don't end up with nasty NI59.

They mix 1 part nickel powder with 1 part randonium and 1 part of unobtainium. That special mixture neutralizes all radiation and all short lived isotopes while leaving no trace whatsoever of their existence and releasing no additional energy or radiation. This ensures the final reaction products retain the exact same mass and exact same ratio of nickel isotopes as the nickel powder used to start the reaction.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:47 pm

The other part in this goes back to Rossi's claim that there was no gamma.
Hmmm.

I wonder what Florida BRC would think now?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm

So Rossi is spinning up his repost to DGT's latest it seems. In a comedic way he has pretty much patently ignored any of DGT's latest. The closest hint to any acknowledgement was a comment he made when deleting some guys post that may have asked about it. He used the term "clowns", which historically (I think) he reserved for DGT. Funny how he has not launched another round of "Lawyer Up" threats as has been his hostroical penchant when "challenged".

I poked around a bit, and saw this:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... ent-369428

Rossi is claiming another "big deal" news...

Of note is in the recent exchanges, Rossi goes back to saying only 1 Ecat 1MW unit has been sold to the ever secret "military" customer. What happened to the other sale(s) he previously stated had occured???

Beh... in the aggregate, it seems to be more BS from him...

In the mean time, I will watch him a bit more for some comedy, and also await some real data/analysis from DGT.

pbelter · Post by **pbelter** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:20 pm

seedload wrote:
1) Questions credibility of Rossi's claims. If Rossi is uncredible then why would DK's derivation of Rossi's invention be credible?

I thought that was pretty obvious. There are either both fraud on neither is. Public relation skills have nothing to do with facts and the fact is that whatever DK have got, they got it from Rossi.