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.
Is there any way the device could be putting out only neutrinos as radiation?
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.
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...
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/10/2014 06:11 pmThe 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 ~2.3KW3) 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.
Quote from: Zardar on 10/10/2014 06:34 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 10/10/2014 06:11 pmThe 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 ~2.3KW3) 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 ).
Quote from: Zardar on 10/10/2014 06:34 pmSo, 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?
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.
charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction.
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.
Quote from: aero on 10/10/2014 07:22 pmI 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. "
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
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.