10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby Ivy Matt » Fri May 13, 2011 7:45 pm

I see AcesHigh understands why I'm waiting for an Alberto Santos Dumont (or maybe a Glenn Curtiss) to show up. :wink:

seedload wrote:With Rossi, we are expected to believe a result with no theory, no relationship to known physics, and no evidence of nuclear products or radiation - except some claim of 'transmuted" nickel.

And no evidence of nuclear transmutation (e.g., unusual percentages of isotopes) in the supposedly transmuted nickel.

...But at least there's excess heat. Where it's coming from...?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby Giorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 7:59 pm

Ivy Matt wrote:...But at least there's excess heat. Where it's coming from...?

Is there?
Remember that until now it has not yet been measured. All what they did has been to calculated it.

Quite a difference IMHO.

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

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby parallel » Fri May 13, 2011 8:15 pm

Giorgio wrote:
Ivy Matt wrote:...But at least there's excess heat. Where it's coming from...?

Is there?
Remember that until now it has not yet been measured. All what they did has been to calculated it.

Quite a difference IMHO.


Sure. Measuring water flow, temperature and steam produced doesn't count. It is their DUTY to buy and install a special meter, vetted by chrismb, that measures kW directly.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby rcain » Fri May 13, 2011 8:23 pm

parallel wrote:... It is their DUTY to buy and install a special meter, vetted by {chrismb} INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONALS, that measures kWH {directly} CORRECTLY.


correct.

how does it feel trying to defend the indefensible parallel? ;)
Last edited by rcain on Fri May 13, 2011 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Fri May 13, 2011 8:34 pm

AcesHigh wrote:
rcain wrote:This whole Rossi-Focardi business is starting to make me quite angry. If they have something worthwhile, I believe they have a DUTY to show CREDIBLE evidence, and save us all this useless speculation.


if the internet existed back in 1900, people would be saying exactly the same thing about the Wright Brothers, from 1903 (when SUPPOSEDLY they flew for the first time) until around 1908, when they did their FIRST public flight.


very probably, and rightly.

but please cut the 'history of aviation' lessons - we can all access wikipedia.

when Focardi and Rossi start behaving in an open and honest fasion, i'll start regarding them as such.

until then no amount of 'good will' is going to prove their case, nor cure the gullible. 'caveat emptor'.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby Giorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 8:41 pm

parallel wrote:Sure. Measuring water flow, temperature and steam produced doesn't count. It is their DUTY to buy and install a special meter, vetted by chrismb, that measures kW directly.

Is their interest to do it to validate their claims.
They never measured the real steam production or the quality of it.
They simply estimated water inlet and considered it transformed 100% in pure steam. Reality does not work in this way.

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

Postby parallel » Fri May 13, 2011 8:54 pm

Georgio & racain.

1. No such meter exists, as described, so it can hardly be "correct."
2. You know more about their business than they do that you can pontificate?
3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.
4. The water flow was measured. Maybe not as well as possible. Can't you read?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby KitemanSA » Fri May 13, 2011 9:15 pm

Giorgio wrote: They never measured the real steam production or the quality of it.
Hmmm. This is an interesting assertion. I know I read that they measured the quality (liquid content) of the steam and published it. I don't recall exactly what the number was but it was quite small (<10%?) and no-where near enough to throw the conclusions off.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 9:20 pm

parallel wrote:Georgio & racain.

1. No such meter exists, as described, so it can hardly be "correct."
2. You know more about their business than they do that you can pontificate?
3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.
4. The water flow was measured. Maybe not as well as possible. Can't you read?

None of your points is relevant or replies to the objections I moved.
If you want to convince me you can't just say "they say they did it so we must believe them".

The only clear thing for me is that there are too many holes in their testing setup to take them seriously for now.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby Giorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 9:28 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: They never measured the real steam production or the quality of it.
Hmmm. This is an interesting assertion. I know I read that they measured the quality (liquid content) of the steam and published it. I don't recall exactly what the number was but it was quite small (<10%?) and no-where near enough to throw the conclusions off.

They did measure it at the end of the 3 meters long plastic tube
This gives no indications about the quality of the steam that is leaving the reactor.

The correct way to make this test is by avoiding the steam phase altogether.

Edited to add:
To be more clear, the steam could leave the reactor with a good percentage of water and in the 3 meters of line most of the water could simply condense. At the outlet of the line you will have mostly dry steam.
Of course no one can be sure that this is what is really happening, but also no one can be sure that this is not happening.
And this is but one of the possible issues that they did not consider.
Last edited by Giorgio on Fri May 13, 2011 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Fri May 13, 2011 9:34 pm

parallel wrote:Georgio & racain.

1. No such meter exists, as described, so it can hardly be "correct."
2. You know more about their business than they do that you can pontificate?
3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.
4. The water flow was measured. Maybe not as well as possible. Can't you read?


your points, where they are actually points, are besides the point.

try suspending 'BELIEF' for one moment, why dont you?

Focardi and Rossi's 'methods' are, so far, significantly flawed. i hope you can see that. (and before you ask, 'yes' i have read it, ALL).

i am sure most here, are in some way 'excited' by the prospect that Focardi and Rossi might be on to something; and yes, they have presented 'some substantive evidence' of 'some anomaly'.

but their whole behaviour so far (not to mention their previous 'criminal' form!) - has been to 'obstruct' proper, independent, scientific scrutiny.

now maybe that will change. for the better. i hope so.

but until then, please dont bleat on. you are wasting your words.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby rcain » Fri May 13, 2011 9:38 pm

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: They never measured the real steam production or the quality of it.
Hmmm. This is an interesting assertion. I know I read that they measured the quality (liquid content) of the steam and published it. I don't recall exactly what the number was but it was quite small (<10%?) and no-where near enough to throw the conclusions off.

They did measure it at the end of the 3 meters long plastic tube
This gives no indications about the quality of the steam that is leaving the reactor.

The correct way to make this test is by avoiding the steam phase altogether.


iirc, they 'inferred' the quality/drynes of the steam (given temperature and (condensed mass? - i cant recall).

agreed, why not avoid steam altogether. closed circuit system, also.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby Giorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 9:49 pm

rcain wrote:iirc, they 'inferred' the quality/drynes of the steam (given temperature and (condensed mass? - i cant recall).

I remember that they actually measured it, but they did so at the end of the 3 meter lines. Is not really a meaningful measurement.



rcain wrote:agreed, why not avoid steam altogether?

Too easy to verify I presume :wink:

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

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby Warthog » Fri May 13, 2011 9:50 pm

Giorgio wrote:The correct way to make this test is by avoiding the steam phase altogether.


Which statement basically proves to me that you have NOT bothered to read or investigate closely the actual evidence. In the 18 hour test, they did PRECISELY that....."avoided the steam phase altogether".

"parallel" specifically pointed that out to you:

3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.

I've been more or less lurking on this thread all along, and my opinion is one of sheer disgust at the laziness of the naysayers. A bunch spouting off without having bothered to look at the evidence. And evidence is a precisely the correct term. The gentleman who likened this to a jury trial was right on target. These were DEMONSTRATIONS, made to credible WITNESSES, not a scientific paper. In order to get a complete picture, you have to look at ALL the evidence from ALL the witnesses, which can be gotten at only by reading ALL the various writeups and looking at ALL the videos, and not a cursory look at one or two. If you do that, then pretty much EVERY objection from the naysayers falls away.

"I" find the evidence very encouraging. Not absolutely conclusive, but certainly not nearly as nebulous as is being claimed here. My credentials: PhD chemist, forty years practicing science, 24+ patents, and two R&D100 awards. I'm no physicist, but I'm a damned good experimentalist, and the setups and methods given aren't nearly as full of holes as you seem to think. "Low budget", definitely. But having worked for both large and small companies, I can tell you that I've done some pretty good science with rigs no more complex than exhibited here.

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Postby cg66 » Fri May 13, 2011 9:57 pm

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: They never measured the real steam production or the quality of it.
Hmmm. This is an interesting assertion. I know I read that they measured the quality (liquid content) of the steam and published it. I don't recall exactly what the number was but it was quite small (<10%?) and no-where near enough to throw the conclusions off.

They did measure it at the end of the 3 meters long plastic tube
This gives no indications about the quality of the steam that is leaving the reactor.

The correct way to make this test is by avoiding the steam phase altogether.

Edited to add:
To be more clear, the steam could leave the reactor with a good percentage of water and in the 3 meters of line most of the water could simply condense. At the outlet of the line you will have mostly dry steam.
Of course no one can be sure that this is what is really happening, but also no one can be sure that this is not happening.
And this is but one of the possible issues that they did not consider.


Since Rossi seems content to release information at his own pace I think of this as an engineering forensics effort (I don’t dare say experimental forensics :wink:). Focusing strictly on the April 28th test (where water from the outlet hose was collected in a bucket and weighed) and using tomclarks 40% number for how much the controller/heater power was underestimated.
I suggested the following :
1) tomclark's 40% error in power measurement = an additional 151W
2) collected water in output bucket – 5.4 kg – if never converted to steam means only 52% of the water was converted to steam (out of 11.16kg total). This would reduce net energy by around 1142W.
This leaves a little over 1kW net (2327 – 151 – 1142).
FRAUD ASIDE (so no batteries, chemical trickery) – what other measurement errors could account for 1kW?
Does the water collected in the bucket address the steam issue? (I agree steam doesn’t make sense other than perhaps weighing the water flow associated with all water was too cumbersome for one person to manage).


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests