10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[ladajo]

According to Ekstrom:

"I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of a proton in the nickel is unlikely. Kullander has proposed an alternative possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to nickel to do)."

From another source:

Ekström has been so critical of the whole thing... I think its really really fascinating that he regards Kullanders explanation as "physically possible and therefore interesting"

"Min åsikt är att det är fysikaliskt möjligt, och därför intressant..."
May 19, 2011 6:39 PM

tomclark says: yet somehow out of all this Professor Kullander has a new LENR theory Ekstrom is excited about...

From another source:

"Nickel, like the palladium used by Fleischmann, is not directly involved in the fusion process, but "merely" provides the environment ( a very flat effective potential landscape for the protons/deuterons, by virtue of its lattice band electrons).

....

I understand why you have got this impression, because it is what Rossi and Focardi themselves tend to believe. However, they are not theorists, admit they haven't the slightest notion of what is going on, and have absolutely no evidence to support Widom's or any other proposed mechanism. Focardi (Rossi is really only the backer) has taken a entirely pragmatic suck-it-and-see approach to this since he first published in 1994. He just claims to produce heat at 400 celsius - lots of it - from a miniscule consumption of H2 and Ni nanopowder.

(circa 250 KWh from a consumption of 0.25g H2 and 2.5g Ni each and every day for around six months)

Having met him a couple of times, I am completely convinced by his honesty. Of all the possible interpretations, this is NOT a scam. For one thing, R&F wouldn't have invited the boss of the physics dept of Bologna from whom they lease the lab space to the public demonstrations in February. Needless to say, he left the meeting entirely convinced by the huge exothermy, in common with all other 50 participants, many of whom are highly qualified scientists.


I have every sympathy with people who see this as yet another free energy scam. Thermodynamics-violating free energy scams annoy me more than most, probably because I studied, researched and taught quantum physics at Oxford University from 1978-1999. However, for a number of reasons that I find compelling, ... I remain convinced that: Its Different This Time."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hopefully, Kullander's "explanation" will be forthcoming in the near future.

So you post this diatribe. And you do not think it indicates your faith in Rossi? ANd if we roll back 30 or so pages, all your posts and childish exchanges are not positions defending Rossi where the counter posters are saying they want concrete evidence, not showmanship.

Dude.

[raphael]

Ladajo, my posts are what they are. Characterize them as you please.

I will point out one minor item. To wit, I recently attributed the words of one of the participants here to another of the participants. The mistake was called to my attention and I immediately acknowledged it. Moreover, I expressed my regrets for the error....

[MSimon]

Ladajo, my posts are what they are. Characterize them as you please.

I will point out one minor item. To wit, I recently attributed the words of one of the participants here to another of the participants. The mistake was called to my attention and I immediately acknowledged it. Moreover, I expressed my regrets for the error....

OK. So you correct errors. Commendable. Expected. But commendable.

But you seem to have left your sceptic hat off when it comes to Rossi.

[KitemanSA]

But you seem to have left your sceptic hat off when it comes to Rossi.

When a sceptic points out a fallacy in a NON-believer's argument, that does not make the sceptic a "believer", just even handed.

[raphael]

But you seem to have left your sceptic hat off when it comes to Rossi.

Not at all. But, high skepticism is not what's in short supply here. Thoughtful high skeptics and rabid high skeptics (who believe, mistakenly, that their rabidity equates to something commendable) are the rule...

[D Tibbets]

.......
As far as turning off the hydrogen- in an interview, the professor said that Rossi had figured out how to turn off the heat production- by turning off the hydrogen supply.

In the demo, that would amount to releasing the pressure, no?

I'm uncertain. But if a charge of ~ 5 liters of hydrogen gas (at STP) was introduced into a ~ 1 litter can (minus the volume occupied by the nickel (or what ever) powder). Means that there would be ~ 5 atmospheres of pressure of hydrogen gas in the reaction chamber.
And if this charge is only provided initiallly, then this trapped hydrogen maintains the reaction for extended periods, then shutting off the valve and disconnecting the tank would be reasonable. But it is inconsistent with the second hand comment by Rossi that he stopped/ prevented runaway heating by shutting off the hydrogen supply- this comes from an interview linked earlier in this thread where the recruited professor's main comments seemed to be - paraphrased-"I don't know how it works, and I don't want to know, but Rossi told me it works". Opening a valve to bleed off the pressure would make more sense, but where is the relief valve, and it was not mentioned.


Also, if 0.4 g of hydrogen gas at STP is ~ 5 liters, and this was compressed into a 1 liter can then heated to ~ 400 degrees C, then the pressure would be increased ~ 20X for a final pressure of ~ 100X or more. This would be ~ 1500 PSI. Similar to pressure gas tanks- I hope the reaction can was more robust than it appeared.

[EDIT] Enter here arguments about how metals can concentrate hydrogen by forming metal hydrides- just like in car hydrogen tank proposals. But, this process is temperature dependent. As the temperature raises, the gas is released from the metal lattice. At 4oo degrees I doubt that nickel is retaining much hydrogen, so the above pressure arguments still apply.

Dan Tibbets

[Axil]

.......
As far as turning off the hydrogen- in an interview, the professor said that Rossi had figured out how to turn off the heat production- by turning off the hydrogen supply.

In the demo, that would amount to releasing the pressure, no?

I'm uncertain. But if a charge of ~ 5 liters of hydrogen gas (at STP) was introduced into a ~ 1 litter can (minus the volume occupied by the nickel (or what ever) powder). Means that there would be ~ 5 atmospheres of pressure of hydrogen gas in the reaction chamber.
And if this charge is only provided initiallly, then this trapped hydrogen maintains the reaction for extended periods, then shutting off the valve and disconnecting the tank would be reasonable. But it is inconsistent with the second hand comment by Rossi that he stopped/ prevented runaway heating by shutting off the hydrogen supply- this comes from an interview linked earlier in this thread where the recruited professor's main comments seemed to be - paraphrased-"I don't know how it works, and I don't want to know, but Rossi told me it works". Opening a valve to bleed off the pressure would make more sense, but where is the relief valve, and it was not mentioned.


Also, if 0.4 g of hydrogen gas at STP is ~ 5 liters, and this was compressed into a 1 liter can then heated to ~ 400 degrees C, then the pressure would be increased ~ 20X for a final pressure of ~ 100X or more. This would be ~ 1500 PSI. Similar to pressure gas tanks- I hope the reaction can was more robust than it appeared.

Dan Tibbets

I think the startup hydrogen pressure is up to 20 BAR maximum at room temperature.

The reaction can be made more robust, but then the reactor might explode.

[D Tibbets]

20 Bars at room temperature (~20 degrees C). Then with heating to ~ 400 degrees C, by the Ideal Gas Law, the pressure would be ~ 400 Bars or ~ 6,000 PSI pressure. The reaction can must be very robust!

Dan Tibbets

[DancingFool]

Couple of interesting bits -
1.) Fe was found in the ash Rossi gave to Kullander - he believes it isn't related to the reaction - however if you look at some of the LERN transmutation literature, Fe is usually produced. in the case of the paper Fe was produced to within ~5% of natural ratios (Fe-56/Fe57)

2.)In the paper Cu is produced within 1% of the natural isotopes - this is also consistent with initial data from Kullander.

Makes me wonder if Rossi is really enriching in the traditional sense or because he doesn't completely understand the theory behind his reaction (e.g. the appearance of Fe and the assumption of Ni-62->Cu-63 and Ni-64->Cu65) he believes his preparation techniques are enhancing the reaction rates and therefore must be enhancing isotope levels.

From his blog:

Andrea Rossi
April 20th, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Dear Mr Ivan Aquino:
1- we know the theory on the base of which our E-Cat work. We will release it as soon as out patent will be granted. Safety issues have been addressed and certificated after thousands of tests

So, Rossi claims to know what's happening.

He is also adamant that no iron is produced. And, since he claims more than 3 years of industrial-scale experience, he ought to know.

Alan DeAngelis
April 24th, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Dear Ing. Rossi:

More than likely the majority of iron that is found with the nickel is just coming off the wall of the reactor (as was mentioned before).


Andrea Rossi
April 24th, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Dear Mr Alan De Angelis:
I insist: Fe comes from the walls.
Warm regards,
A.R.


Of course he also says in an interview http://pesn.com/2011/02/14/9501766_Ross ... interview/

"ROSSI - With the University of Bologna we will proceed to do in-depth work on the range of radiation. "

[DancingFool]

[EDIT] Enter here arguments about how metals can concentrate hydrogen by forming metal hydrides- just like in car hydrogen tank proposals. But, this process is temperature dependent. As the temperature raises, the gas is released from the metal lattice. At 4oo degrees I doubt that nickel is retaining much hydrogen, so the above pressure arguments still apply.

Dan Tibbets

And, from Rossi's blog,

Andrea Rossi
May 4th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Dear Mr Ivan Mellen:
Thank you for your glance in the future possible applications: for now I am earthly attached to the present necessity to arrive with a good 1 MW plant in October, to make heat.
Maybe your previsions are right.
About your questions:
a- the temp inside the reactor reached the 1,600 °C

At 1600 C, I'm sure you'll agree there won't be much hydrogen in the metal.

Of course, there won't be much metal in the metal either, since nickel melts at 1450 C.

[cg66]

Couple of interesting bits -
1.) Fe was found in the ash Rossi gave to Kullander - he believes it isn't related to the reaction - however if you look at some of the LERN transmutation literature, Fe is usually produced. in the case of the paper Fe was produced to within ~5% of natural ratios (Fe-56/Fe57)

2.)In the paper Cu is produced within 1% of the natural isotopes - this is also consistent with initial data from Kullander.

Makes me wonder if Rossi is really enriching in the traditional sense or because he doesn't completely understand the theory behind his reaction (e.g. the appearance of Fe and the assumption of Ni-62->Cu-63 and Ni-64->Cu65) he believes his preparation techniques are enhancing the reaction rates and therefore must be enhancing isotope levels.

From his blog:

Andrea Rossi
April 20th, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Dear Mr Ivan Aquino:
1- we know the theory on the base of which our E-Cat work. We will release it as soon as out patent will be granted. Safety issues have been addressed and certificated after thousands of tests

So, Rossi claims to know what's happening.

He is also adamant that no iron is produced. And, since he claims more than 3 years of industrial-scale experience, he ought to know.

Alan DeAngelis
April 24th, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Dear Ing. Rossi:

More than likely the majority of iron that is found with the nickel is just coming off the wall of the reactor (as was mentioned before).


Andrea Rossi
April 24th, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Dear Mr Alan De Angelis:
I insist: Fe comes from the walls.
Warm regards,
A.R.


Of course he also says in an interview http://pesn.com/2011/02/14/9501766_Ross ... interview/

"ROSSI - With the University of Bologna we will proceed to do in-depth work on the range of radiation. "

Yes based on his comments, thats what Rossi believes. My point is that a separate study of Ni-H reaction shows Cu and Fe - perhaps Rossi is overlooking the Fe because it doesn't match his theory. And its not just the Ni-H reactions - many of the Pd-D reactions produce Fe also. (see the transmutation papers linked below.)

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/Se ... pers.shtml

[MSimon]

we know the theory on the base of which our E-Cat work. We will release it as soon as out patent will be granted.

Why? Why not give it out since theories are not patentable.

And if his patent is never granted? I guess we will never know.

[breakaway]

My first post is a contribution and question.

It appears seedload was wrong about what Google says about 116 South River Road Bedford, N.H. 03110. If you go to http://www.whitepages.com/reverse_address and do a reverse address and reverse phone for 603 668 7000 which is found on Rossi's site it gives you the guys from LTI. Perhaps Rossi is subletting an office from them or some other arrangement.

So far the skeptics arguments posted in this board is not conclusive. I do not believe it is fraud. If it is not real it is more likely that the measurements were not done properly and the results are not as they appear.

For those of you who believe it is fraud what is your best idea on how this could be accomplished.

[chrismb]

Having met him a couple of times, I am completely convinced by his honesty.

...amateur psychology being the only 'science' in evidence here...

Of all the possible interpretations, this is NOT a scam.

No repeatable scientific experiment has yet been demonstrated and no theory has been released. Do you sit in a magician's show and keep saying to yourself "Of all the possible interpretations, this is NOT a trick."

What on earth is your basis for that? I am totally bemused. Please give a concise, <50 word paragraph.

the boss of the physics dept of Bologna...left the meeting entirely convinced by the huge exothermy

Thermodynamics-violating free energy scams annoy me more than most, probably because I studied, researched and taught quantum physics at Oxford University from 1978-1999.

I didn't want to dive into this thread again, but this made me gag. Are you serious? If this is the standard of Oxford Academics then perhaps it says something about why ITER gets pushed along by chaps at Culham without any recognition whatsoever that their experiment at JET has chucked out a load of neutrons but is an experimental failure - the hypothesis was that a magnetic field can continuously confine a net-energy output thermonuclear fusion plasma, and there is still no evidence for this after 60 years!! [even for more than a few seconds]

If people like you at Oxford pick this up, they can do so in the solid expectation that they will be dead before anyone gives up on the idea! That's just NOT science.

At least I'm happy to descirbe JET as a scientific experiment , for any failings it might have. [Oddly, ITER is now described as 'just engineering'. ] If you [taking it as read that you have such a background] are prepared to make such fawning comments over a whole debacle of events without any scientific merit, then you have totally stumped me and my proposition that modern science is in terminal decline is proven true.

[Carl White]

There is a distinction between "healthy skepticism" and "destructive skepticism".

In the absence of strong data one way or another, people who display healthy skepticism will simply admit that they are not convinced, but do not have all the facts of the matter, either.

People who display destructive skepticism are so aggressively closed to a particular idea that, if it were left to them, they'd deny it any resources, even if those resources cost them nothing. They'd deny it any publicity, such as in mainstream journals or the media. They are incensed by public discussion of the idea. They would gladly take the idea into a back room and shoot it, without trial.

Which are you, chrismb? A healthy skeptic or a destructive skeptic?

Personally, I'd say that there is certainly not sufficient reason to be convinced, of yet, but definitely reason to be hopeful.