-
NASA Langley confirms they are working to confirm the Widom/Larsen LENR theory
by
jimgagnon
on 18 May, 2011 17:43
-
New Energy Times Dr Dennis Bushnell (chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center) wrote “We [NASA Langley] are NOT doing a Rossi Replication attempt although we are using/ had planned to use H2 and Nickel. We are doing experiments to verify, or not, the W-L [Widom Larsen] theory.”
Widom Larsen LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) is a technique designed to use low momentum neutrons to join nuclei and generate energy from the weak nuclear force, as opposed to fission/fusion which generates its power from the strong nuclear force. Advantages are scalable high density energy sources with little or no need for radiation shielding.
Good overview here:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/nasa-confirms-widom-larsen-theory.html
-
#1
by
johncarpinelli
on 18 Oct, 2012 05:55
-
-
#2
by
douglas100
on 18 Oct, 2012 08:47
-
This is an interesting idea. I hadn't heard of it before. It appears that no new physics is needed to make it work (a very big point in its favour.) But there's always a big step from theory to use.
Would this enable cheap supersonic flights?
Far to soon to say. Let's not get carried away just yet by the promise of amazing applications. Any questions about using this as a source of energy in aviation or space are premature (but fun to speculate about.) It will interesting to see how this develops.
-
#3
by
bad_astra
on 20 May, 2013 19:02
-
3rd Party review of the "Rossi Device." is now available. I was and remain extremely skeptical, but the paper is interesting reading
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
-
#4
by
deltaV
on 20 May, 2013 21:31
-
-
#5
by
guckyfan
on 20 May, 2013 22:17
-
Here are some (apparent) physicists who think it's bogus:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43138/widom-larsen-theory .
I don't read it that way. They are discussing controversely, what happens but seem to agree, something really happens which is not just chemical.
With all scepticism this is exciting. But I am not a physicist and am not entitled to my own opinion at this point. This review is very strong in claiming something out of the normal happens. I don't know how credible they are though.
-
#6
by
grondilu
on 23 May, 2013 16:08
-
-
#7
by
xanmarus
on 23 May, 2013 16:50
-
-
#8
by
guckyfan
on 23 May, 2013 17:15
-
This test is not independent and use strange testing methods.
More here http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/
Maybe I should repeat, that I am quite sceptic myself. Something that sounds too good to be true usually is.
But about strange testing methods. Why not? They gave a reason why and in their paper described that they made sure during the experiment that they err on the cautios side and the excess heat can be and probably is higher than they measured but certainly not lower.
And as this is a commercial venture by Rossi it is only natural that he keeps some secrets. No problem with that as long as the test is on the heat phenomenon and not on a theory what actually happens.
One wonders though why Rossi is not taking a patent. Obviously he does not want to reveal what exactly he is doing. Does he believe, nobody can duplicate his success?
-
#9
by
ChrisWilson68
on 27 Oct, 2013 01:04
-
(bringing an off-topic discussion from another thread here)
well OK then i will reserve Rossi stuff for a future thread after this; but Rossi has been his own worse enemy credibility wise. this turning it over to a corporate third party as well as kind of going with an NDA for Rossi is most likely an attempt to distance Rossi and his baggage from the device. and i doubt that a serious U.S. corporate or government entity would take such steps if they did not view the device as credible enough to pay for and entangle themselves legally and reputation-wise.
in other news that could be applicable to advances space propulsion as a power source Rossi has shipped three LENR reactors to the U.S for evaluation by a Corporate or possibly government interest. This happened in April. Also Rossi's organisation says that from now on the PR and news point of contact will be this unnamed interest and not his group.
Since Rossi's device are allegedly capable of scaling to at least the multi-megawatt range these things are very topical for space propulsion as they could easily power something like a VASIMR engine or act as a starter motor for a fusion drive or act as power for deep space probes rather than using an RTG.
A claim by Rossi that a mysterious unnamed entity in the U.S. is evaluating Rossi's device doesn't strike me as any reason to take Rossi more seriously. Instead, it sounds like more reason than ever to be skeptical. This is just the kind of thing a con artist does.
First of all, the claim is conveniently completely unverifiable. Rossi could just be making it up and nobody would ever be able to find any evidence to disprove it.
Secondly, even supposing Rossi actually shipped a device to some U.S. entity, all that shows is that some U.S. company or government group wanted to test Rossi's device. There are hundreds of thousands of such organizations -- finding one that is willing to test it is hardly a difficult task.
Finally, what kind of reputable organization behaves this way? Has there been even a single case of an invention being publicly touted but refused independent testing, then claimed to be shipped to a mysterious unnamed third party for testing that turned out to really work? I've never heard of one.
With real inventions, either it is kept entirely secret or once it is announced, it is publicly demonstrated and available for independent testing by multiple independent reviewers.
Only pseudoscience works by publicly claiming results while keeping anyone from actually being able to verify them.
-
#10
by
Stormbringer
on 27 Oct, 2013 03:13
-
-
#11
by
cordwainer
on 27 Oct, 2013 04:54
-
I'm pretty skeptical of LENR and E-Cat considering Rossi's personal past. Con-artist would be a close description for his past activities. That being said even if LENR proves to possible it would only be applicable as an electrical power generation system. The heat produced would be anywhere close to what one would need to produce a thermal propulsion system for a monopropellant rocket like an NTR.(Even if it were the system would still weigh quite a bit) It might work to increase the efficiency of a jet engine so cheap supersonic flight, maybe?
-
#12
by
Stormbringer
on 27 Oct, 2013 05:07
-
i just had a passing thought. i remember reading articles about a (too smart for his own good) american boy who used low speed neutrons from hoarded smoke detector americium to breed fissile uranium for a back yard garden shed nuclear reactor (which worked.) the process evidently worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahnand
http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout/2/(If I recall correctly this article details his work with americium derived neutrons to enrich uranium.)
it strikes me that that would be a low energy neutron nuclear change similar to what is being discussed here. also it seems to be a pretty big proliferation/terrorism and environmental threat too. but anyway it's not like LENR has no recognized confirmation. looking for a chemical explanation given that low energy nuclear transformation has been demonstrated seems to be uncalled for.
-
#13
by
Cinder
on 27 Oct, 2013 14:11
-
Can't see why keeping Rossi out of LENR discussion is not a good thing. He is nothing but distraction.
-
#14
by
JasonAW3
on 01 Nov, 2013 18:30
-
Wait a minute.
If I'm reading this right it means that the guys who THOUGHT they'd discovered "Cold Fusion" had instead stumbled across another type nuclear reaction utilizing teh Weak Force rather than Fusion.
Those poor guys... All these years they were ridiculed as frauds and hoaxters and it looks like they'd just misinterprated their data. Oh my...
This would be the definition of tragidy...
Jason
-
#15
by
QuantumG
on 01 Nov, 2013 23:59
-
-
#16
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 02 Nov, 2013 23:25
-
The guys over at
http://www.quantumheat.org have been trying to replicate LENR for about a year now without seeing any excess heat so far. Just saying.
-
#17
by
Nilof
on 05 Nov, 2013 10:42
-
So if you assume you can make infinite neutrons you can use them to make abitrary ammounts of energy? What a shocker!
Either way, the obvious flaw in the scheme posted by the OP is that bombarding protons with relativistic electrons won't generate neutrons. It'll mostly result in loads of Bremstrahlung and some pair production.
-
#18
by
flymetothemoon
on 05 Nov, 2013 11:54
-
I think if NASA are committing funds to working on this we can't write it off yet just because we don't yt understand the science.
There are many, many reports of enormous excess heat and transmutation. Brillouin claim to be the only ones who can genuinely control it, but who knows if government labs are making progress in silence. The Japanese are definitely very interested in pursuing it - for obvious reasons.
-
#19
by
flymetothemoon
on 05 Nov, 2013 21:51
-
-
#20
by
Robert Thompson
on 02 Mar, 2014 10:05
-
-
#21
by
cordwainer
on 03 Mar, 2014 12:13
-
I am skeptical of LENR but I think it is a shade more likely that some as yet unexplained phenomena is happening here that might be useful as opposed to Blacklights "hydrinos". More research should be made, at the very least it will put the cold fusion camp at rest if nothing pans out.
-
#22
by
Raj2014
on 07 Aug, 2014 19:37
-
Any new news on the low energy nuclear reactions?
-
#23
by
sparkymark79
on 08 Oct, 2014 11:30
-
Yep, a multi million dollar buyout from Industrial Heat with Rossi staying on as Chief Scientist.
I 1MW plant now in operation in a clients premises making usable heat (although no disclosure)
A 6 month report being published within the next week or so with many peer reviewers and apparently full disclosure. rumours are circulating that it's positive. Next few weeks should be very interesting. I recommend you look at
http://www.e-catworld.com/
-
#24
by
sparkymark79
on 08 Oct, 2014 13:49
-
-
#25
by
Star One
on 08 Oct, 2014 14:56
-
There's a thread for this over on Talk Polywell that in the past has caused a lot of heat.
-
#26
by
bad_astra
on 08 Oct, 2014 19:27
-
Is E-Cat from now on a forbidden subject at NSF? I noticed the entire thread was removed.
-
#27
by
aceshigh
on 08 Oct, 2014 19:37
-
Is E-Cat from now on a forbidden subject at NSF? I noticed the entire thread was removed.
I don´t think the mods liked you creating a new ECAT thread for something that you could very well have posted on this topic.
-
#28
by
bad_astra
on 08 Oct, 2014 19:39
-
I did not create a thread.
-
#29
by
aceshigh
on 08 Oct, 2014 19:52
-
I did not create a thread.
well, someone had. And there was this one already.
-
#30
by
RotoSequence
on 08 Oct, 2014 20:05
-
In light of the FTL neutrino debacle, I'm going to wait and see what other labs have to say before getting my hopes up.
-
#31
by
aceshigh
on 09 Oct, 2014 01:45
-
Is there a FTL neutrino debate? I thought that had already been solved and the result was no FTL neutrinos, just measurement errors. We know neutrinos escape a supernova much earlier than the light from the supernova explosion, because they just get through all those layers of dense mass as if nothing existed.
-
#32
by
Cinder
on 09 Oct, 2014 05:21
-
Debacle, not debate.
-
#33
by
sghill
on 09 Oct, 2014 15:43
-
So for anyone who doesn't follow LENR news (bear with me if you do- or chime in), here's a little summary of the E-Cat saga.
One of the central P.T. Barnum figures in the LENR world, Andrea Rossi, may have captured the lightning in a bottle. His "E-Cat" technology has been at the forefront, but he's such a shady character, that no one has been taking him seriously. Anyhoo, fast forward a few years, and he's got a little factory setup in Italy making Megawatt-scale direct to electricity fusion reactors. He's building them in shipping containers, and offering them for sale for $1.5 million for a 1 MW reactor (my last solar project was 455kW for $8 million). Still no one takes him seriously because he won't allow 3rd party testing of the system. Finally, a known Research Triangle investment firm-Cherokee Investment Partners- buys into the concept and buys Rossi's technology earlier this year, and then sets up a company called Industrial Heat to exploit it, finally bringing it out of the shadows.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html They then allow one of the units' performance to be verified in Switzerland by a 3rd party. The results were published yesterday afternoon.
I'll note that even though 3rd party testing was conducted, the guys sponsoring the report are friends with Rossi, and he wasn't entirely out of the picture during the setup and analysis phases. So don't go short selling oil futures just yet.
-
#34
by
Damon Hill
on 09 Oct, 2014 16:24
-
What I'm seeing so far is lots of heat, but not light. Nor electricity, nor motion. Electricity in, heat out. Maybe net heat out, but the tyranny of thermodynamics is still not broken.
This would be bigger news if some kind of direct conversion to electricity, or motion, were involved.
But I'm not seeing any evidence for that. Just invested energy being turned into low grade heat.
-
#35
by
Damon Hill
on 09 Oct, 2014 16:42
-
Thermodynamics. Is no one paying attention to practical application? We've already got nuclear energy, but what does it take to turn nuclear energy into useful energy, at what cost?
I see invested energy being turned into low grade heat. But that's not the whole story.
-
#36
by
AdrianW
on 09 Oct, 2014 16:59
-
So for anyone who doesn't follow LENR news (bear with me if you do- or chime in), here's a little summary of the E-Cat saga. [...]
That was a very balanced summary, well done! Most comments on the Internet are either irrationally dismissive or irrationally optimistic.
What I'm seeing so far is lots of heat, but not light. Nor electricity, nor motion. Electricity in, heat out. Maybe net heat out, but the tyranny of thermodynamics is still not broken.
This would be bigger news if some kind of direct conversion to electricity, or motion, were involved.
But I'm not seeing any evidence for that. Just invested energy being turned into low grade heat.
What?! If the results of the experiment are valid – and you don't voice any doubts – then this goes way beyond generation of heat! Just because the tested device doesn't already have a power outlet where you can plug in your waffle iron, doesn't mean that it doesn't have practical and commercial uses.
It seems to me that you have watched too many movies in which theoretical physicists make a world-changing breakthrough, build a generator, and power their lab with their new invention – all on their own, and in their garage.
Besides, the experiment was not about how much electricity could be generated, and it was not about optimizing the heat output (the authors explicitly stated that they throttled the reactor to ensure a stable run).
-
#37
by
sghill
on 09 Oct, 2014 17:14
-
Thermodynamics. Is no one paying attention to practical application? We've already got nuclear energy, but what does it take to turn nuclear energy into useful energy, at what cost?
I see invested energy being turned into low grade heat. But that's not the whole story.
You're missing the point. Anything that generates Watts is an energy source. Some are more efficient than others.
Here's a great little chart showing energy densities of various fuel sources, including the E-cat results from the 2013 and now 2014 testing from the "LENR FTW" forum. It's
reported energy density is just below plutonium, but more importantly the specific power output over time is second only to TNT.
-
#38
by
JasonAW3
on 09 Oct, 2014 17:29
-
I'm not really sure what is happening, but I don't know of ANY chemical process that can change the isotopic make up of particular materials.
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.
Assuming that this is not some sort of fakery, the reason that the team seem so cagey about allowing closer examination of their system may be due to the fact, that, it may be working on some sort of simple principle that these folks may have stumbled across, that they are trying to see if they can patent how they are making use of this principle. My guess, is that if this is purely on the up and up, that when physicists are allowed to fully examine the system, that they'll be thumping themselves on the heads, because the principle will be so obvious, that everyone overlooked it.
From the descriptions, it seems like whatever the reaction is, requires the addition of a small amount of electron flow to catalize the reaction. Cut the electricity, and the reaction stops. The closest example I can think of off the top of my head is the electrical seperation of hydrogen and oxygen from water. While this does produce a small amount of heat and a combustible fuel, the overall reaction is energy negative. You put more energy into the process than you get out.
-
#39
by
Damon Hill
on 09 Oct, 2014 19:22
-
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.
-
#40
by
sghill
on 09 Oct, 2014 19:41
-
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.
-
#41
by
ChrisWilson68
on 09 Oct, 2014 20:06
-
-
#42
by
MP99
on 09 Oct, 2014 20:07
-
Is there any way the device could be putting out only neutrinos as radiation?
Cheers, Martin
-
#43
by
ChrisWilson68
on 09 Oct, 2014 20:10
-
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.
-
#44
by
ChrisWilson68
on 09 Oct, 2014 20:14
-
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.
-
#45
by
khallow
on 09 Oct, 2014 21:40
-
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.
-
#46
by
bad_astra
on 10 Oct, 2014 14:26
-
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
-
#47
by
Zardar
on 10 Oct, 2014 18:34
-
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.
-
#48
by
sghill
on 10 Oct, 2014 18:47
-
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
).
-
#49
by
IslandPlaya
on 10 Oct, 2014 19:08
-
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.
-
#50
by
Zardar
on 10 Oct, 2014 19:10
-
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.
-
#51
by
aero
on 10 Oct, 2014 19:22
-
I don't trust Rossi.
From the report, Rossi's only involvement was
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.
-
#52
by
Zardar
on 10 Oct, 2014 19:31
-
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. "
-
#53
by
IslandPlaya
on 10 Oct, 2014 19:35
-
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.
-
#54
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Oct, 2014 03:32
-
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.
-
#55
by
Stormbringer
on 24 Nov, 2014 16:27
-
-
#56
by
bad_astra
on 29 Dec, 2014 15:53
-
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.
-
#57
by
bad_astra
on 30 Dec, 2014 14:54
-
Correction, MFMP starts the fueled test today.
-
#58
by
bad_astra
on 01 Jun, 2015 14:57
-
-
#59
by
birchoff
on 09 Jun, 2015 21:54
-
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.
-
#60
by
Comga
on 09 Jun, 2015 22:42
-
-
#61
by
bad_astra
on 11 Jun, 2015 14:19
-
The google DOC is from the MFMP experimenters. That's the raw data. Go with that.
-
#62
by
bad_astra
on 25 Aug, 2015 17:05
-
-
#63
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 30 Aug, 2015 22:37
-
-
#64
by
bad_astra
on 05 Oct, 2015 18:59
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
-
#65
by
tchernik
on 05 Oct, 2015 20:45
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
Very nice document.
It very much looks like this is for real.
-
#66
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Oct, 2015 00:06
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
Very nice document.
It very much looks like this is for real.
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
-
#67
by
birchoff
on 06 Oct, 2015 02:01
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
Very nice document.
It very much looks like this is for real.
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
guess I would love to understand your definition of "real". Because my definition of real doesnt mean it has to be immediately useful. By your definition nuclear fission shouldn't exist since there was a period of time that it wasnt doing anything useful, much less generating electricity.
LENR/Cold Fusion's problem has always been every academic investigator treating it like a gold mine. In a way it would have been better if it wasnt so easy to forsee a commercial use case for it. Because then it could actually get the proper research treatment, with methods publicly released and a focus more on sharing knowledge and less on making a quick buck.
-
#68
by
MP99
on 06 Oct, 2015 08:11
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
Very nice document.
It very much looks like this is for real.
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
They claim to have a customer using the heat in a commercial process.
Cheers, Martin
-
#69
by
bad_astra
on 06 Oct, 2015 16:14
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
Very nice document.
It very much looks like this is for real.
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
"They" have over fifty million dollars in combined funding from Woodford Equity and Cherokee Investment Funds after two years of dilligence. "They" are not really trying to impress Joe Schmoe
-
#70
by
Comga
on 06 Oct, 2015 19:07
-
If you google NSWCDD-PN-15-00408 you can find the NAVSEA presentation presented at an IEEE meeting by Dr. Louis DeChiaro.
The presentation seems fairly up to date. The images of some sort of LENR powered shuttle on slide 21 is new to me, though.
Very nice document.
It very much looks like this is for real.
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
"They" have over fifty million dollars in combined funding from Woodford Equity and Cherokee Investment Funds after two years of dilligence. "They" are not really trying to impress Joe Schmoe
Referencing the investment of venture capitalists is the worst form of
"appeal to authority", a logical fallacy.
By definition, venture capitalists try to find endeavors in fields outside of their expertise, which is monetary, in which to invest. Even the best have poor batting averages, although there are many reasons for that more common than that the physics doesn't work.
-
#71
by
bad_astra
on 06 Oct, 2015 19:50
-
Woodford Equity Income Fund is not venture capital. On the other hand, the US Navy is also testing (see the NAVSEA presentation). More information on that is apparently forthcoming, and will probably be more interesting than anything yet mentioned, including a way to replicate Pons and Fleischman.
I'm not interested in this thread getting into the whole debase on Andrea Rossi. There have been persons with agenda's who have tried in the past to derail conversations regarding LENR on here, and succeeded. Rossi is by far not the only person working on this, and his group is not even working on space related applications.
NASA is clearly continuing to work on this, as is NAVSEA, and that is worth discussing.
My guess is the effect is from quantum tunneling in metal hydrides requiring a Ni, Pd, or Pt catalyst.
-
#72
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 06 Oct, 2015 22:14
-
I agree with Robotbeat and remain skeptical. Rossi and his invention have been around for a while. His stories often contradict each other over time. There is still no accepted theory to fully explain the function of the device.
-
#73
by
AdrianW
on 07 Oct, 2015 07:30
-
There is still no accepted theory to fully explain the function of the device.
Independent of everything else, this is by far the weakest of all arguments. You don't need a theory to observe or reproduce an effect. We could observe and reproduce electrical sparks before we could explain them; heck, we could observe and reproduce fire
tens of thousands of years before we could explain it.
There are good reasons to be skeptical of Rossi, but this is not one of them.
-
#74
by
Star One
on 07 Oct, 2015 12:56
-
I agree with Robotbeat and remain skeptical. Rossi and his invention have been around for a while. His stories often contradict each other over time. There is still no accepted theory to fully explain the function of the device.
You're attempting to drag it back to one person when there are more involved in this than just him.
-
#75
by
sghill
on 07 Oct, 2015 14:07
-
And to be clear. Cherokee Investment owns the technology and the company Industrial Heat, and has so for a few years now. Rossi was assigned the US patent and he is a technical advisor to Cherokee. It's not Rossi who is claiming to have a working fusion reactor at a commercial customer's site, it's Cherokee. Cherokee is a US company based in NC. They are subject to U.S. fraud laws, and they are making some very specific performance claims at this time (such as the patent application data) that would destroy them if it were willingly fraudulent.
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.htmlThey are still playing things close to the vest, as are all the other fusion players because the competitors and thieves are circling. I imagine they are working on reliability, long term testing, and manufacturing so that when they do go "general availability" with a product they can consistently deliver it.
A 1mW/ $1 million fusion reactor sitting in a shipping container and generating heat for an industrial customer is a big f-ing deal, and the applications for space flight and the world in general can't be overstated. It's because the possibilities are so huge that we're all getting worked up whenever that sometimes-crook, sometimes-inventor Rossi shows up in the news.
-
#76
by
bad_astra
on 07 Oct, 2015 14:11
-
Well, in this case I think the possibility that NRL has been replicating Fleishman and Pons repeatedly is a far bigger matter. There just isn't information yet, to do anything but speculate.
-
#77
by
WBY1984
on 07 Oct, 2015 14:24
-
Another thread discussing fringe topics with a whole load of fuzzy data? I lurk here mostly, but I hope topics like this isn't a sign of where this site is headed.
-
#78
by
flymetothemoon
on 07 Oct, 2015 15:01
-
Another thread discussing fringe topics with a whole load of fuzzy data? I lurk here mostly, but I hope topics like this isn't a sign of where this site is headed.
This is the advanced concepts forum.
-
#79
by
flymetothemoon
on 07 Oct, 2015 15:06
-
-
#80
by
bad_astra
on 07 Oct, 2015 15:27
-
-
#81
by
Comga
on 07 Oct, 2015 15:30
-
Some mighty find this interesting.
Naysayers, probably not.
https://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/m/35303
(snip)
I remain intensely skeptical but these are respectable scientists being hosted by an established and respectable organization.
It would have been interesting to hear.
Can anyone get a transcript or presentation package from it?
-
#82
by
sghill
on 07 Oct, 2015 19:05
-
Another thread discussing fringe topics with a whole load of fuzzy data? I lurk here mostly, but I hope topics like this isn't a sign of where this site is headed.
Then go read the mainstream articles on it instead and please loose the attitude. Here's a lovely update on LENR efforts from August by a Lawrence National Lab scientist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/post_10010_b_8052326.htmlOr if you simply want hard information on why the e-cat reactor doesn't work as advertised go here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-PatentHonestly, I am still scratching my head over what changed between March when USPTO issued a "final rejection" letter to Rossi and August when they accepted the application and granted the patent, but I go do some primary research before shooting my mouth off.
-
#83
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 07 Oct, 2015 19:25
-
Or if you simply want hard information on why the e-cat reactor doesn't work as advertised go here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-Patent
Honestly, I am still scratching my head over what changed between March when USPTO issued a "final rejection" letter to Rossi and August when they accepted the application and granted the patent, but I go do some primary research before shooting my mouth off.
Different patent. The new patent does not mention LENR in any way.
I want to add that while there are a lot of "notes" from respectable scientists floating around, I have yet to see a peer reviewed paper in a physics publication that actually confirms the whole thing. So far, all I see are reviews by "believers" and nothing from skeptics. You need to convince the latter and not the former in order to convince me.
-
#84
by
flymetothemoon
on 07 Oct, 2015 21:09
-
Another thread discussing fringe topics with a whole load of fuzzy data? I lurk here mostly, but I hope topics like this isn't a sign of where this site is headed.
Tell you what, when Airbus gives their presser later this month dealing with this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259591568/Airbus-LENR-Patent-Google-Translation
we can talk in greater detail. Fair enough?
Oh now that's a biggie. Woah.
-
#85
by
Star One
on 08 Oct, 2015 06:29
-
-
#86
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Oct, 2015 00:44
-
-
#87
by
Comga
on 18 Oct, 2015 05:00
-
All the Papers From Airbus LENR Conference:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/17/all-the-papers-from-airbus-conference/
OK. I only read part of one paper but it is a doozy.
"But, for sure, we can say two things about that."
Who writes like that in a professional paper?
The paper seems to say that because the LENR camp is having difficulty generating a proof that convinces "orthodox physicists" of the validity of LENR, they can say "Oh yeah, smarty pants. Well you can't prove that it doesn't exist to OUR satisfaction!"
With this as an example, I don't intend to read another unless someone can point me to one with substance.
Edit: Fixed the acronym
-
#88
by
savuporo
on 18 Oct, 2015 05:32
-
All the Papers From Airbus LENR Conference:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/17/all-the-papers-from-airbus-conference/
I think this kind of seals the thread
6 Conclusion
We have described the basics of the theory of some kind of games which are general enough to represent an important class of existing games. We proposed that Nature mimics such games for energy creation. We showed that such a point of view englobes all known kinds of energy today. But we also showed that this gives room for much more subtle schemes, some of which could be at stake in the experiments of cold fusion. In fact, there are so many possibilities for games, that probably, even if a small fraction of the games was playable for creating energy, we still probably have infinitely many ways to create such energy.
That's from the esteemed scientist who is the only strenuous link to Airbus Group Innovations ( not Airbus ) here, and also the apparent organizer of the 'conference'. I'm sorry, maybe i'm just an engineering dude but this does not resemble a scientific paper.
-
#89
by
alexterrell
on 02 Dec, 2015 12:55
-
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
That's the crux of the matter. Measuring energy in and out is not difficult. Your average high school lab and physics teacher could do this, beyond all reasonable doubt.
It's now been several years since it was claimed to be producing, but still no repeated, fully verifiable experiments.
So either it's a hoax, or there's something there, but no one's quite figured it out yet.
These guys think there's something there, but are being a bit more cautious:
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-scalability-of-lenr-power-generation-systems-nov-29-2015
-
#90
by
sghill
on 04 Dec, 2015 17:00
-
Here's some 3rd party validation news this week on a US LENR company- Brillouin Energy.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/12/prweb13108198.htmThese guys just testified to Congress too. They are using hydrogen and nickel in their tabletop reactors to generate heat.
http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2015/11/24/congress-views-brillouin-energys-lenr-hht-bolier-reactor-system-generating-thermal-energy#axzz3tNNhepxwBERKELEY, CA (PRWEB) DECEMBER 02, 2015
Brillouin Energy Corp., developer of renewable energy technologies capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy (heat) based on controlled low energy nuclear reactions (“LENR”), announced today that its Hydrogen Hot Tube™ (HHT™) Boiler System reactor core modules, were the subject of a recently completed independent Technical Validation Report.
The 35-page Report was prepared as technical due diligence by Michael Halem, a third party technical investigator. The Technical Validation Report summarizes the investigation into Brillouin Energy's HHT™ single tube core prototypes at Brillouin's Berkeley laboratory and at its research partner SRI International. The results are drawn from a series of calibrated tests of both systems. Mr. Halem personally designed tests on the HHT™ systems and then directed the technical staff of Brillouin Energy and SRI to execute the test plans. The tests, in which 95 channels of data were recorded and then investigated, included multiple technical changes to validate the thermodynamic results.
In all cases, the results were consistent: the data demonstrate with very high confidence that the Brillouin Energy HHT™ prototype repeatedly produced lab-scale excess heat from LENR.
"I was given full access to the experiments," said Mr. Halem. "I was able to confirm, with a high degree of confidence, excess energy output above chemical and likely due to a nuclear reaction." The Technical Validation Report affirms that Brillouin Energy’s HHT™ technology "is scalable by assembling multiple HHT™ tubes" in a reactor system. The Report was peer reviewed by Mr. Halem’s technical colleague, Dr. Antoine Guillemin who holds his Masters in Nuclear Physics and Ph.D. in Building Physics. Brillouin Energy’s Technical Validation Report is available upon request to qualified interested parties under a customary non-disclosure agreement.
About Brillouin Energy
Brillouin Energy is a clean-technology company based in Berkeley, California, which is developing, in collaboration with Stanford Research International (SRI), an ultra-clean, low-cost, renewable energy technology that is capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy from LENR.
Brillouin Energy’s technology includes a proprietary method of electrical stimulation of nickel metal conductors using its unique Q-Pulse™ control system. The process stimulates the system to generate LENR reactions, which generates excess heat. The excess heat produced is a product of hydrogen and a nickel metal lattice. Other than the heat output, there are no (zero) toxic or CO2 emissions of any kind.
-
#91
by
Paul451
on 05 Dec, 2015 21:14
-
It's probably worth pointing out that Halem and Guillemin are partners in a company called LENR Invest, which is financially involved with Brillouin. Hardly an "independent" validation, and certainly not a "peer review".
(Annoyingly, this stuff seems to happen a lot in the LENR field. We get promised independent validation by external expert researchers, but it always seems to turn out to be some combination the same dozen guys who are already committed LENR believers.)
-
#92
by
sghill
on 07 Dec, 2015 16:53
-
It's probably worth pointing out that Halem and Guillemin are partners in a company called LENR Invest, which is financially involved with Brillouin. Hardly an "independent" validation, and certainly not a "peer review".
(Annoyingly, this stuff seems to happen a lot in the LENR field. We get promised independent validation by external expert researchers, but it always seems to turn out to be some combination the same dozen guys who are already committed LENR believers.)
Excellent catch sir!
-
#93
by
mfck
on 07 Dec, 2015 18:04
-
-
#94
by
bad_astra
on 19 Sep, 2016 16:03
-
-
#95
by
Stormbringer
on 20 Sep, 2016 02:16
-
Hopefully the google translate link works: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikkei.com%2Farticle%2FDGXMZO06252800Z10C16A8000000%2F&edit-text=
Tohuku University claims repeatable positive results.
Japanese and machine translation do not go together. *ever*
unless you want a good laugh at some japanese person's expense on twitter. what isn't hillariously wrong is trance inducing or headache inducing or both.
on a related note: Tohuku Zunko is the PR mascot for the Tohuku region. machine translation of her name is Zunko Dung chan. There are human mascots dressed as her around the Tohuku region and an electronic singing synthesis software program with the same mascot.
here is computer program "Dung" chan singing in imitation english using japanese language phonemes:
-
#96
by
bad_astra
on 20 Sep, 2016 05:53
-
Irrelevant.
-
#97
by
Stormbringer
on 20 Sep, 2016 08:22
-
relevant.
machine translation of Japanese is terrible to the point of being useless even for short simple pleasantries let alone scientific papers.
and the poor Tohuku vocaloid's embarrassing name translation illustrates it perfectly.
Also it's a pretty cool coincidence (at least to me) that the university responsible for the paper is in Tohuku province/ward.
-
#98
by
bad_astra
on 20 Sep, 2016 14:16
-
You like anime. Noted. Back to updates.
-
#99
by
Willem Staal
on 10 Oct, 2016 12:29
-
Or if you simply want hard information on why the e-cat reactor doesn't work as advertised go here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-Patent
Honestly, I am still scratching my head over what changed between March when USPTO issued a "final rejection" letter to Rossi and August when they accepted the application and granted the patent, but I go do some primary research before shooting my mouth off.
Different patent. The new patent does not mention LENR in any way.
I want to add that while there are a lot of "notes" from respectable scientists floating around, I have yet to see a peer reviewed paper in a physics publication that actually confirms the whole thing. So far, all I see are reviews by "believers" and nothing from skeptics. You need to convince the latter and not the former in order to convince me.
Rossi's claim is not whats really happening i guess. I think they just made a form of energy transistor, not a fusion reactor.
-
#100
by
Star One
on 27 Oct, 2016 18:36
-
-
#101
by
Willem Staal
on 01 Dec, 2016 10:26
-
3rd Party review of the "Rossi Device." is now available. I was and remain extremely skeptical, but the paper is interesting reading
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
i stil think this is not a cold fusion device, its merely a new form of energy transistor.
-
#102
by
Bob012345
on 01 Dec, 2016 17:27
-
3rd Party review of the "Rossi Device." is now available. I was and remain extremely skeptical, but the paper is interesting reading
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
i stil think this is not a cold fusion device, its merely a new form of energy transistor.
I wish NASA was interested in Mills' SunCell concept and in the hydrino science behind it. Actually, they were over a decade ago but were embarrassed when people found out. The process has advanced so much recently.
The power is in the megawatt range, at least briefly.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/Also, Mills believes the Rossi results are not 'cold fusion' but rather possibly hydrino reactions.
Further, Scientific American has published an article first appearing in Chemical and Engineering news which is positive on LENR and Open to Mills' hydrino (at least far more open than before).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/
-
#103
by
bad_astra
on 18 Oct, 2017 17:51
-
-
#104
by
Star One
on 18 Oct, 2017 17:58
-
-
#105
by
ppnl
on 18 Oct, 2017 19:25
-
Or if you simply want hard information on why the e-cat reactor doesn't work as advertised go here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-Patent
Honestly, I am still scratching my head over what changed between March when USPTO issued a "final rejection" letter to Rossi and August when they accepted the application and granted the patent, but I go do some primary research before shooting my mouth off.
Different patent. The new patent does not mention LENR in any way.
I want to add that while there are a lot of "notes" from respectable scientists floating around, I have yet to see a peer reviewed paper in a physics publication that actually confirms the whole thing. So far, all I see are reviews by "believers" and nothing from skeptics. You need to convince the latter and not the former in order to convince me.
Rossi's claim is not whats really happening i guess. I think they just made a form of energy transistor, not a fusion reactor.
Almost afraid to ask but what is an energy transistor?
).