Author Topic: NASA Langley confirms they are working to confirm the Widom/Larsen LENR theory  (Read 67982 times)

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • United States
  • Liked: 1533
  • Likes Given: 2221
Couple of questions;  Is the net heat being put out higher than the amount of power being put into the system.
   Next; Is the net heat output higher than any electrically catalized chemical reactions known to science?
   Next; Is the net heat output higher than any known chemical reaction but lower than any known nuclear reaction?
   Next; is there ANY radiation output of anykind.  One would expect that any sort of nuclear reaction of any known type would put out at LEAST a slightly higher than background radiation level.
   And last: Using a baseline radiation reading before activation of the E-Cat system, is the radiation detected during its' operation more, equal to or even less than normal background radiation?
Assuming fakery;  is there any way that the system could be getting fed excess heat, either via an electrical or chemical means.

As the story rattles around the Internet, some more analysis is coming out.  Here's a very nice article: http://fcnp.com/2014/10/09/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-a-new-report/  There's a lot of background info in this article that will answer some of the questions here.

To answer your questions in order:
#1 and #2, time plays a role in answering that.  The answer is "yes, but" to both.  Look at the chart I attached.  TNT is lower density, but faster, uranium and plutonium are higher density, but slower.  They generated 1.5MWh during the 32 day test (running below peak power input) using a gram of fuel.  The reactor operated between 1,200 C and 1,400 C.  That output is higher than a chemical reaction can match for the amount of time it ran with the amount of fuel they had is the simple answer.
#3 and #4, I assume you mean ionizing radiation- it generated lots of heat!  This is kind of the million dollar question.  Fusion the way we expect it to occur should have generated ionizing radiation, but the researchers are all still alive, and they claim there was no radiation.  Keep in mind that the test was a performance validity test, useful for investment purposes, kind of like the EMDrive tests.  They wanted to show the device performed as claimed, and not what was behind the black curtain.
#5, This was a critique of earlier tests conducted by Rossi himself, and then by these researchers in a previous test.  This second test was conducted out of his hands by a 3rd party.  If it is fraud, you have to ask why these independent professors would risk their careers and reputations to help some Americans they've never met.  The technology is now owned by an American venture capital company, and not the Italian working out of his private lab.  That company has wild risks if they are lying, including criminal liability.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 07:49 PM by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3700
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2277
  • Likes Given: 2913
In the comment section of this page (an article about this new report), GoatGuy has some well-reasoned criticism of the heat measurement reported in the new paper.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html

Offline MP99

Is there any way the device could be putting out only neutrinos as radiation?

Cheers, Martin

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3700
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2277
  • Likes Given: 2913
The comments that this test was done by a "3rd party" aren't quite true.  The lead author is a long-time friend of Rossi, and Rossi was personally there to do some of the setup.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3700
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2277
  • Likes Given: 2913
Is there any way the device could be putting out only neutrinos as radiation?

My understanding is that current physics says all known nuclear reactions people have thought of that might be going on here wouldn't be putting out only neutrinos, they would also be generating other radiation that would have been detected.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
The comments that this test was done by a "3rd party" aren't quite true.  The lead author is a long-time friend of Rossi, and Rossi was personally there to do some of the setup.

For me, this is the uncomfortable problem. If this process works, it should be easy to demonstrate without interference from Rossi or requiring people with a connection to him. Basically, you should be able to construct a box with no connection to the outside world which generates power.
Karl Hallowell

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1854
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 296
Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.”

-taken from  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12239416.htm
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Online Zardar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Limerick, Ireland
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 222
The isotopic tests are explained by the ole switcheroo technique. Both testing teams complained about the minimal amounts they had to test.
"There is one born every minute!" my old Granny used to say...

That is my conclusion too.
Although I-Am-Not-A-Nuclear-Physicist, the isotropic measurements don't make sense to me.
I am a test engineer, and I always look for what's missing, not just what's there.
Even disregarding the total absence of neutrons and gammas (since I am willing to test the conjecture that the proposed reactions are non-radioactive):

1) they ran this thing for a month.
2) apparently steady-state for the last 3 weeks or so, delivering ~2.3KW
3) This is supposedly a relatively low-power level for the device.
3) Output power was very flat for those 3 weeks, with no sign of dropping off. (plot 6)
4) Then afterwards they measured the isotopic ratio of the 'ash' - which showed the Li-7 and Ni (non-62) was almost all gone.

So, what would have happened if they had ran the thing for another week?
Would it have kept going steady-state at 2.3KW, and, if so WHAT WOULD IT HAVE USED FOR FUEL?

So, the 'ash' must have been switched  (probably at insertion since observer's tend to be more diligent when doing post-run checks).
The mistake was switching it for a isotopically fully depleted pre-prepared ash sample instead of a partially-depleted one.

QED.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 08:00 PM by Zardar »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • United States
  • Liked: 1533
  • Likes Given: 2221
The isotopic tests are explained by the ole switcheroo technique. Both testing teams complained about the minimal amounts they had to test.
"There is one born every minute!" my old Granny used to say...

That is my conclusion too.
Although I-Am-Not-A-Nuclear-Physicist, the isotropic measurements don't make sense to me.
(I am a test engineer, and I always look for what's missing, not just what's there.)

1) they ran this thing for a month.
2) apparently steady-state for the last 3 weeks or so, delivering ~2.3KW
3) This is supposedly a relatively low-power level for the device.
3) Output power was very flat for those 3 weeks, with no sigh of dropping off. (plot 6)
4) then afterwards they measured the isotopic ratio of the 'ash' - which showed the Li-7 and Ni (non-62) was almost all gone.

So, what would have happened if they had ran the thing for another week?
Would it have kept going steady-state at 2.3KW, and, if so WHAT WOULD IT HAVE USED FOR FUEL?

So, the 'ash' must have been switched  before measurement.
Their mistake was switching it for a fully depleted pre-prepared isotopic sample instead of a partially-depleted one.

QED.

OK, I'm only bringing this up because the ash problem bugs me too.  Couldn't they have loaded in the expected amount of fuel to be burned over the 30-ish day period, and the thing simply ran out of gas when it got to the end?  That'd explain the fully depleted sample, and we don't know enough about the internal process to determine how much of a drop off is to be expected.  My car doesn't slow down to 30 when it runs out of gas.  It just stops, and the tank is empty (actually, I have an electric car, and it will drop off, but that's beside the point  :)  ).
Bring the thunder!

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
The isotopic tests are explained by the ole switcheroo technique. Both testing teams complained about the minimal amounts they had to test.
"There is one born every minute!" my old Granny used to say...

That is my conclusion too.
Although I-Am-Not-A-Nuclear-Physicist, the isotropic measurements don't make sense to me.
(I am a test engineer, and I always look for what's missing, not just what's there.)

1) they ran this thing for a month.
2) apparently steady-state for the last 3 weeks or so, delivering ~2.3KW
3) This is supposedly a relatively low-power level for the device.
3) Output power was very flat for those 3 weeks, with no sigh of dropping off. (plot 6)
4) then afterwards they measured the isotopic ratio of the 'ash' - which showed the Li-7 and Ni (non-62) was almost all gone.

So, what would have happened if they had ran the thing for another week?
Would it have kept going steady-state at 2.3KW, and, if so WHAT WOULD IT HAVE USED FOR FUEL?

So, the 'ash' must have been switched  before measurement.
Their mistake was switching it for a fully depleted pre-prepared isotopic sample instead of a partially-depleted one.

QED.

OK, I'm only bringing this up because the ash problem bugs me too.  Couldn't they have loaded in the expected amount of fuel to be burned over the 30-ish day period, and the thing simply ran out of gas when it got to the end?  That'd explain the fully depleted sample, and we don't know enough about the internal process to determine how much of a drop off is to be expected.  My car doesn't slow down to 30 when it runs out of gas.  It just stops, and the tank is empty (actually, I have an electric car, and it will drop off, but that's beside the point  :)  ).
There is no 'fuel' burned. It is a trick to fool the monitoring of the input power.

Online Zardar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Limerick, Ireland
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 222

So, the 'ash' must have been switched  before measurement.
Their mistake was switching it for a fully depleted pre-prepared isotopic sample instead of a partially-depleted one.

QED.

OK, I'm only bringing this up because the ash problem bugs me too.  Couldn't they have loaded in the expected amount of fuel to be burned over the 30-ish day period, and the thing simply ran out of gas when it got to the end? 

Nope. According to the Lugano Report,
1) They changed the power level to an arbitrary setting after 10 days. "We therefore decided to increase the power"
2) And "The shutdown date had already been decided when organizing the test"

So, the exact amount of  fuel, or the expected duration of that fuel, could not have been pre-determined.




Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
  • 92129
  • Liked: 793
  • Likes Given: 281
I don't trust Rossi.

From the report, Rossi's only involvement was
Quote
charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction.

A little slight of hand could have easily substituted a fully depleted charge for the one extracted.

Why do something like that? Well, to avoid disclosing the total energy available per gram of charge. To avoid disclosing small amounts of quickly decaying radio activity in the recently used charge. I'm sure Rossi could think of other reasons. As I said, I don't trust him.

But that said, the careful work and reporting of the research convinces me that there must be something viable about the e-Cat. And, with no radiation detected during operation, any radio active elements in the used charge would be very - uninteresting.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 07:27 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Zardar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Limerick, Ireland
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 222
I don't trust Rossi.

But that said, the careful work and reporting of the research convinces me that there must be something viable about the e-Cat.

Any indications of interference with the running of the test completely invalidates any "careful work and reporting of the research" and therefore there is no logical basis for being convinced that "there must be something viable about the e-Cat. "


Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
I don't trust Rossi.

But that said, the careful work and reporting of the research convinces me that there must be something viable about the e-Cat.

Any indications of interference with the running of the test completely invalidates any "careful work and reporting of the research" and therefore there is no logical basis for being convinced that "there must be something viable about the e-Cat. "
Quite so.
The delta config triac is the one thing that is constant across Rossi's ever changing devices.
His scam depends on being unable to accurately determine input power into his device.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28376
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8238
  • Likes Given: 5444
Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.”

-taken from  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12239416.htm
Sounds like an engineer. I love engineers, but... They usually aren't trained on just how devilishly tricky Mother Nature is in concealing her secrets and the general scientific discipline of Skepticism. That's okay, so long as you stay within the realm of know physics. Stray outside that realm, and it is SO easy to fool yourself or (as may be the case here) allow yourself to be fooled. One must be armed with skepticism and (ideally) armored by experience wrangling with Mother Nature.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
cold fusion-----------.LENR----------------------->experiment labs blowing up and windows melting.

http://donalfagan.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/nasa-widom-larsen-and-lenr-infighting/

« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 04:28 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1854
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 296
Alexander G. Parkhomov of People's Friendship University in Moscow is reporting he has replicated the LENR results from the Lugano test earlier this year. As the article has not been properly translated from Russian I will refrain from anything further.

And to keep the the thread from being killed, this is posted in relation to theoretical studies, the application to spaceflight is clear enough,  though I do not know if Parkhomov is using Larsen's theory, or simply replicating the "Dog Bone" reactor of Rossi. MFMP will also attempt to replicate their own "dog bone" on January 30.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1854
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 296
Correction, MFMP starts the fueled test today.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin


Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
I'm trying to be a practical person, and I'm just not particularly impressed.  People see energy generated, but I don't see electricity or motion being generated.  Most of that heat gain goes up the stack or out radiators and that bugs me, a lot.

Aneutronic fusion might be a true revolution as it generates highly charged helium nuclei, which charge could be neatly captured at double the efficiency of any heat engine.  You see 40% electricity with a complex of turbines and heat exchangers; I see 60% heat that's mostly a liability with some limited application.  With polywell-based p-B11 fusion, that's up to around 80% electricity and just20% lost heat that has to be dissipated.  Thermodynamic's tyranny hasn't been totally broken, but the chains are a lot looser.  Polywell's still a complex technology that has yet to be mastered, but it'd be revolutionary.

I'm being difficult, but I'm being practical.

Oh well, let's see where LENR actually takes us.  Maybe it's more practical than I think it is.

I honestly felt and to some extent still feel the same way. A true revolution in energy generation would be if we had a reactor that did direct generation of electricity or at the very least generated energy in a form that we had the ability to convert to electrical energy without loosing so much to waste heat.

Then it occured to me that there are alot of manufacturing and mining processes that can make use of Thermal energy. And to a lesser extent, space is a bloody cold place. So being able to circulate a working fluid that would be heated by that waste heat through an entire ship or station in deep space is a plus.

Tags: