10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Axil » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:26 pm

The engineering game is a difficult place to set up a successful fraud. Most con-men enter banking, the stock market, hedge funds, the money management industry, or the Federal Reserve. As Bernie Madoff often purred to his billionaire pals, “and the great whore will suckle us... until we are fat and happy and can suckle no more.”

If you want to steal lots of money, you go were the money is. Unrelentingly, with the full throated collusion of government, Big Money remorselessly extracts the meager savings of the common working man, and these poor oblivious marks never even know it or even suspect it. So why fear fraud; it is everywhere, and of all times; it is like an ever-present all encompassing swarm of mosquitoes on the scent for blood.

Do you pay your taxes; do you put money in the bank; do you have a mortgage, do you give to charity; do you contribute to church; do you have any money in your wallet? I bet you are being defrauded this very minute; don’t know about it; and are not concerned about it in the least.

R.Nkolo
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:34 am

washingtontimes.com

Postby R.Nkolo » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:39 pm

:arrow: From washingtontimes.com:
PERLEY: Nuclear future beyond Japan
Purported cold fusion advance aimed at energy woes


By Frank Perley -The Washington Times-6:43 p.m., Thursday, March 17, 2011 wrote:Just as Japan's earthquake raises fears of catastrophe from a nuclear meltdown and Mideast turmoil jeopardizes the world's supply of conventional energy, along comes word of a possible scientific breakthrough that holds out the hope of cheap, abundant power. Cold fusion - discredited and vilified in the past - is back in the news. The potential benefits are great enough that, despite past failures, the technology deserves a fair hearing from the scientific community this time.

In January, two Italian scientists announced they had invented a reactor that fuses nickel and hydrogen nuclei at room temperature, producing copper and throwing off massive amounts of energy in the process. Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi demonstrated their tabletop device before a standing-room-only crowd in Bologna, purportedly using 400 watts of power to generate 12,400 watts with no hazardous waste. They told observers that their reactors, small enough to fit in a household closet are able to produce electricity for less than 1 cent per kilowatt hour


Cold fusion is the holy grail of energy generation. Achieving it would constitute a breakthrough of epic proportions, but wishing it won't make it so. In light of Japan's nuclear woes, the scientific community should approach the Focardi-Rossi enterprise with both healthy skepticism and a wary eye toward naysayers who would suppress rational inquiry. Let science be science and the chips fall where they will.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:54 pm

So the answer to nuclear gaffes like Fukushima (cf Onagawa running fine) isn't to improve designs and operation so they're reliable as e.g. Onagawa, but to support unproven energy cycles like "cold fusion" as Rossi is supposed to be an example of?

That's a non sequitur.

nferguso
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 3:43 am

Postby nferguso » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:06 am

The Focardi-Rossi epic has featured a substantial undertone of humbuggery, particularly the January public demonstration. The methods and equipment were so embarrassing that the experimenters were compelled to perform a (non-public) redo in February.

The description of the February test, with an 18 hour duration and claimed 15 kW output, could be exciting, except that the nominal independent observer, Dr. Joseph Levi, has not released a report or even a description with any details of the procedure used.

We don't know how either the flow or temperatures were measured. What we are told is that water flow rate was set so that the difference in temperature between input and output was 5 C. Why not 25 C or 50 C? I'm not sure that 5 C is a big enough delta that an observer could feel the difference simply by putting his hand on input and output pipes (as a sanity check).

I'd very much like to learn how they measured water flow. Did they use a reliable in-line flow meter? Did they do something as credible as pointing the exhaust hose into a measured bucket? Or did they measure water coming out of the input tap before connecting it, so that when they hooked up the device for the test, a constriction in the device could reduce the flow without detection?

I'd also like to learn how they measured the temperature. It would be great if they simply held a reliable thermometer on the input tap and in the exhaust stream. Or did they use thermocouples inserted into the device assembly? In that case we would have to worry about possible heat contamination from the housing.

Notwithstanding all of that, I am hopeful. Mr. Rossi claims that they are manufacturing production units right now and will demonstrate a 1 MW system in October, but I am hoping we will see signs sooner. If the true story is anything like what Mr. Rossi says, physicists at the University of Bologna are studying this technology, using $500,000 provided by him out of his own pocket. If that claim is hot air, surely the university won't allow the myth to continue to percolate. It would embarrass them deeply. Moreover, if the technology is real I can't imagine information this electrifying can be kept secret until October. Surely rumors will start to emerge.

If a media circus transpires, the pressure may force Focardi & Rossi's hand before October. If not, I'd keep an eye on indirect indicators, coal mining stocks, for example. Check out the KOL EFT. It has been outperforming the market for some time. If it tanks for no particular reason...

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Axil » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:09 am

From an on-line Q&A:

Johnny: Dear Mr Rossi. Why did you choose to go out public at this point in time, since you plan to demonstrate a 1MW plant within a few months?

Rossi: very good question, I would have preferred not to go public before the 1 MW operation. But my friend Focardi was getting mad at exiting now, so I did. Friendship has a price.


I get the impression the Rossi did not have his heart into those first two demos. For his own reasons, Focardi forced Rossi into those demos before Rossi was ready.

The MegaWatt demo will demonstrate the “real product” that he wants to sell. He never intended to sell the 10 KiloWatt unit into the domestic market; in fact he could not sell the small unit because of a lack of permits.

He just did not care about those first two demos; he never thought they would be convining, so why should he devote his energy into improving them.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:25 am

Axil wrote:He just did not care about those first two demos; he never thought they would be convining,
If so, we can conclude that he's got at least one thing right.

Warthog
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: Fox Island, WA

Postby Warthog » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:41 pm

nferguso wrote:
The description of the February test, with an 18 hour duration and claimed 15 kW output, could be exciting, except that the nominal independent observer, Dr. Joseph Levi, has not released a report or even a description with any details of the procedure used.


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

Summarized at LENR-CANR:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

nferguso
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 3:43 am

Postby nferguso » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:25 am

Thank you, Warthog. The first link is to a report of tests through January, with their problematic calorimetrics. The second link gives a little information about the February test. No procedural details. It mentions a report to forthcome - I bite my nails waiting.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:15 am

From the latest NyTeknik article, linked to by Kahuna:

Guest: Dear Rossi, we know that there's a "secret" patent about the catalysts. What's the filing date of the catalyst patent?

Rossi: It is secret. It is still in the phase pre-publication, so I have order from my Attorney not to give any info.

First I've heard of this, but it's good to know. If the thing works, or even if it's just "interesting", it needs to be able to be replicated.

Paul Hangård: Are we talking about The Widom-Larsen Theory in your experiment? (According to the theory the nuclear process is not fusion or fission, but nuclear synthesis. The protons in the hydrogen isotope are changed to neutrons by the weak nuclear force. These neutrons are captured by an atomic nucleus via the strong nuclear force since there is no Coulomb barrier).

Rossi: No, I have a completely different theory, which is taking form out of the empirical experience I am lining every day with the 'E-Cats'. As soon as I will be sure of it, I will write it, for now I need more experience.

Again, if the thing works, or even if it's just "interesting", I believe a theory will eventually come with replication, but I'm interested to see what Rossi and Focardi have to say about it.

He's not talking about the article parallel posted, is he? In that article Focardi and Rossi mention the possibility that electron screening could at least partially explain their purported results, but they don't show at all how their empirical work points to that particular mechanism, and they ultimately dismiss electron screening as "probably not sufficient to interpret our experimental results" anyway.

Skipjack wrote:There are so many way that he could be making money out of a fraud like this. The key to a successful fraud is that people dont figure out that they are being frauded...

The other key to a successful fraud is that money somehow changes hands. It's easy enough to call this a scam, but can you point out who the marks are, and how they are going to be parted from their money? I see about three possibilities:

1) The marks are private investors. This would require Rossi to have been dishonest in a public forum about not having investors, or it would require him to snap up some investors before his claimed results are ultimately disproven.

2) The marks are Rossi's customers. This would require Rossi to have been dishonest in a public forum about keeping the customers' money in escrow until the customers are satisfied with the results of his device.

If Rossi intends to solicit money from private investors, or to offer his device to customers on terms other than he has outlined above, he is expecting them not to engage in basic due diligence. If this is all a scam, I think my third possibility is the most likely.

3) The marks are ordinary investors. This would require Leonardo Corporation and/or Defkalion Green Technologies to announce an IPO within about a year—before Rossi's claimed results are widely shown to be inflated, at any rate. If an IPO happens within that time frame, especially before October, my scammeter will hit 11.

Skipjack
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:14 am

I will add some more to the list:
4. Government funding (e.g. scoop funding for new technology in Greece).
5. Trying to influence the stock market negatively/positively and doing speculation on that.
6. Trying to get a single person to delay or accelerate their investment into something which can then be exploited somehow.
7. It is a distraction, while the real fraud is happening elsewhere (kinda like the sexy assisstant in a magic show).


These are just some (admittedly vague) ideas that come to my mind and this is not really my expertise. As I said, the best fraud is the one where nobody realizes how it works and that it even is one.

Warthog
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: Fox Island, WA

Postby Warthog » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:46 pm

nferguso wrote:Thank you, Warthog. The first link is to a report of tests through January, with their problematic calorimetrics. The second link gives a little information about the February test. No procedural details. It mentions a report to forthcome - I bite my nails waiting.


I think it is safe to assume that the second trial used pretty much the same setup as the first, with the exception of flow control. The key detail here is the use of plaltinum RTD's to measure inlet and outlet temperature. With platinum RTD's, the 5C difference between inlet and outlet temperatures is straightforward to measure precisely.

There are some other details about the second test floating around at different places. I don't have links currently available (I'm away from my home computer), but from memory...in the second test, they used a totalizing flowmeter on the water inlet, and manually recorded readings from it at noted time intervals At night, when no one was in the lab, they focussed a video camera on the meter (I assume with date/time stamp that such cameras usually have, activated).

This seems like a pretty valid approach for a relatively low-budget "quick and dirty" demo.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:12 pm

Skipjack,
It would be easy to speculate about you in a derogatory way, with as much proof as you have for your insulting remarks about Eng. Rossi.

Why do you persist in lowering the tone of this blog with such unprofessional behavior?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:17 pm

parallel wrote:Skipjack,
It would be easy to speculate about you in a derogatory way, with as much proof as you have for your insulting remarks about Eng. Rossi.
He was merely representing possibilities. He has made no derogatory speculations, on this page at least.

Why do you persist in lowering the tone of this blog with such unprofessional behavior?
...could be tricky....

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:36 pm

Sure. Like you, implying Eng. Rossi is a scammer and fraud doesn't count.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:40 pm

parallel wrote:Sure. Implying Eng. Rossi is a scammer and fraud doesn't count.
He implied nothing. He posited it as a possibility. You have inferred it to be an implication, which is therefore your own projection of imagining yourself calling him a fraud but thinking that you shouldn't. He's merely, and perfectly correctly, said it is possible he is a fraud. I would therefore suggest that it is a possibility that you have also considered him a fraud, else you'd not consider it to be a suggestion.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests