10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Axil »

To gain some perspective on the Rossi affair, it is good to offer a point of comparison. Now it is possible to do this because a new LENR WO patent application got published on May 30 by Etiam OY, a Finnish LENR start-up.


This application has very detailed descriptions of its claimed process methods based on Rydberg matter and many other processes including polaritons.


Link to this PA:


http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicat ... cale=en_EP


From the patent, LENR reactions are cited that produce gamma radiation.

From some experiments that they have performed as follows:

Stating a COP of 10.

[0261] The following non-limiting examples illustrate the present technology.

EXAMPLE 1 [0262] Nickel nanopowder having an average particle size of 10 nm was is mixed with pyroelectric lithium tetraborate L12B4O7 crystallite powder having particle size range of about 100 nm - 1000 nm. L12B4O7 crystallite powder was prepared by mechanically crushing commercial L12B4O7 crystals to powder. The powder mixture is placed to the reaction cartridge. The reaction container was connected to a hydrogen gas line receiving hydrogen gas from a pressurized hydrogen gas bottle. The reaction container was also connected to the cooling fluid circulation. The reaction container was pressurized with hydrogen gas to 20 bar (gauge) and slowly heated to 400 °C.

[0263] It is assumed that the pyroelectric crystallite powder was polarized by the temperature changes within the reaction material. The temperature of the reaction material was altered with external control (cooling fluid circulation) to keep the pyroelectric crystallite powder polarized. The system started to produce gamma radiation that had specific gamma photon energies.

Generated thermal energy was removed by the cooling fluid circulation from the reaction container. The amount of collected thermal energy was much larger than the energy used for pre-heating the reaction container. After the test the reaction cartridge was de-pressurized and let to cool to room temperature for several days. The reaction material obtained from the cooled reaction container contained possibly some helium gas and traces of copper and beryllium that were not present in the original reaction material before the experiment. The construction materials used for the reaction container were originally free of copper and beryllium.

EXAMPLE 2 [0264] The experimental setup was the same as used in Example 1 but nickel nanopowder was replaced with titanium nanopowder and lithium tetraborate was replaced with piezoelectric quartz S1O2 powder. Externally controlled mechanical vibrations (ultrasonic source) provided the original electric field by polarization of the piezoelectric material. A lot of thermal energy was produced during the experiment. The COP was over 10. After the reactions the reaction material obtained from the reaction container possibly contained traces of vanadium isotopes and phosphorus that were not present in the original reaction material, although contamination from the steel used for the construction is not entirely excluded.

[0265] Secondary nuclear reactions forming stable isotopes from non-stable isotopes release more energy along time depending on the half lifes of the non-stable isotopes until the system consists only of stable isotopes. It is not yet certain how far along the titanium isotope chain it is possible to proceed. It is herein hypothesized that lighter titanium isotopes are fused with hydrogen into heavier titanium isotopes via non-stable vanadium isotopes.

[0266] It is not yet known how extensive and fast is the deterioration of the crystal structure of polarizable dielectric materials while operating the system at conditions favorable for fusion. The probability of proceeding further in the transmutation chain from the just created element to the next heavier element (a proton added) is possibly weakened locally after the first fusion reaction but the extent of deterioration that destroys locally the favorable fusion reaction conditions (high local electric field strength) for the transmutation is not yet clear.

EXAMPLE 3 [0267] The experimental setup was the same as used in Example 1 but nickel nanopowder was replaced with zirconium nanopowder and lithium tetraborate was replaced with multiferroic BiFe03 powder. Externally controlled magnetic field provided the local electric field by polarization of the multiferroic material. It is hypothesized that hydrogen was fused with zirconium because quite a lot of thermal energy was released accompanied by noticeable gamma radiation. After the reactions the reaction material obtained from the reaction container possibly contained traces of niobium and molybdenum isotopes that were not present in the original reaction material, although contamination from the steel used for the construction cannot be entirely excluded.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

KitemanSA wrote:If the proton is escorted by a polariton electron member, then there is a possibility of the electron or the entire polariton absorbing the energy without significant EM production. This would be similar to the decay mode known as internal conversion.
This is a fantasy interpretation of a fantasy observation.

A polariton is a quasi-particle to describe a bulk phenomena of electrons in a material, not individual electrons.

It is not remotely conceivable that an electron could carry away 511keV of energy and then settle, comfortably into an electron shell of an atom and thereby impart thermal energy to it.

(Besides, the 511keV is emitted as part of a co-incident pair of hv's in exactly opposing directions, amounting to the annihilation of the anti-electron/electrons' 1MeV excess energy. So it is not possible for one electron to carry away the energy of two photons.)

KSA has now stepped well beyond the supposed 'neither for nor against' interpretation of Rossi by clearly positing an inapplicable scenario defending it.

KSA might as well claim The Pink Turtle God of the Black Sea is causing Rossi's contraptions to work by means of mental powers focussed through The Mystical Orb, and that there is no proof contrary to that.

Rossi has CLEARLY STATED that the heating is by 'thermalisation of X-rays'. That means, by Rossi's claims, the reaction DOES emit X-rays. It cannot mean anything else.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:If the proton is escorted by a polariton electron member, then there is a possibility of the electron or the entire polariton absorbing the energy without significant EM production. This would be similar to the decay mode known as internal conversion.
This is a fantasy interpretation of a fantasy observation.

A polariton is a quasi-particle to describe a bulk phenomena of electrons in a material, not individual electrons.
Perhaps; but this accusation of fantasy is from the guy who at first said that it couldn't happen because the reaction was endothermic. After a bit of thought you changed your tune there. Think on here too.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Axil »

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:If the proton is escorted by a polariton electron member, then there is a possibility of the electron or the entire polariton absorbing the energy without significant EM production. This would be similar to the decay mode known as internal conversion.
This is a fantasy interpretation of a fantasy observation.

A polariton is a quasi-particle to describe a bulk phenomena of electrons in a material, not individual electrons.

It is not remotely conceivable that an electron could carry away 511keV of energy and then settle, comfortably into an electron shell of an atom and thereby impart thermal energy to it.

(Besides, the 511keV is emitted as part of a co-incident pair of hv's in exactly opposing directions, amounting to the annihilation of the anti-electron/electrons' 1MeV excess energy. So it is not possible for one electron to carry away the energy of two photons.)

KSA has now stepped well beyond the supposed 'neither for nor against' interpretation of Rossi by clearly positing an inapplicable scenario defending it.

KSA might as well claim The Pink Turtle God of the Black Sea is causing Rossi's contraptions to work by means of mental powers focussed through The Mystical Orb, and that there is no proof contrary to that.

Rossi has CLEARLY STATED that the heating is by 'thermalisation of X-rays'. That means, by Rossi's claims, the reaction DOES emit X-rays. It cannot mean anything else.


It is well accepted by science that polaritons (a boson) can form Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC). In fact, BEC is the most natural state for polaritons because of their strong interactions through photon sharing. When a global condition of BEC is established in a polariton lattice, gamma quantum mechanical frequency reduction of nuclear emitted radiation is what thermalizes that gamma radiation.


Because polaritons are almost massless, their condensate can tolerate temperatures up to 2300K experimentally demonstrated.

In a point of comparison, Rossi has engineered BEC into his system after a long and difficult R&D process whereas the Finnish startup company Etiam OY has not done this important step yet. As in early Rossi systems, this failure to produce BEC causes gamma radiation to still occur in the Etiam OY system.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

Axil wrote:In a point of comparison, Rossi has engineered BEC into his system after a long and difficult R&D process whereas the Finnish startup company Etiam OY has not done this important step yet. As in early Rossi systems, this failure to produce BEC causes gamma radiation to still occur in the Etiam OY system.
Poppycock!

Here it goes again with the statements of what 'is' or 'is not'. No doubts or caveats whatsoever.

The only thing that can be seen so far is that he has engineered a dozen resistive heating wires into the casing, and the thermal imaging shows each one radiating.

If it was from 'thermalised x-rays' then the heat would be in the middle, not in the ends of the unit!

The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.

If the heat of the 'reactor core' is hotter than the control heating, then it would promptly enter a thermal runaway situation.

It is so barkingly obvious, all it does is to prove that humanity is doomed if crowds of swooning adorers, professors and the like sit there lapping this stuff up as if it were unchallengeable.

'Engineering a BEC'!!! .. :shock: ... oh, give it a break, will you?!

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

KitemanSA wrote:Perhaps; but this accusation of fantasy is from the guy who at first said that it couldn't happen because the reaction was endothermic. After a bit of thought you changed your tune there. Think on here too.
Which guy? chrismb doesn't post here any more.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Axil »

chrismb wrote:
Axil wrote:In a point of comparison, Rossi has engineered BEC into his system after a long and difficult R&D process whereas the Finnish startup company Etiam OY has not done this important step yet. As in early Rossi systems, this failure to produce BEC causes gamma radiation to still occur in the Etiam OY system.
Poppycock!

Here it goes again with the statements of what 'is' or 'is not'. No doubts or caveats whatsoever.

The only thing that can be seen so far is that he has engineered a dozen resistive heating wires into the casing, and the thermal imaging shows each one radiating.

If it was from 'thermalised x-rays' then the heat would be in the middle, not in the ends of the unit!

The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.

If the heat of the 'reactor core' is hotter than the control heating, then it would promptly enter a thermal runaway situation.

It is so barkingly obvious, all it does is to prove that humanity is doomed if crowds of swooning adorers, professors and the like sit there lapping this stuff up as if it were unchallengeable.

'Engineering a BEC'!!! .. :shock: ... oh, give it a break, will you?!

The pace of change through the acquisition of knowledge is non-linear; and in fact, it is approaching exponential.


Those who experience stress at today’s break neck changes will hardly survive when the pace is tripled or magnified one hundred-fold.


Every 30 years or so, a new technology transforms society. In the earlier part of the 20th century, the transforming technology was chemistry (medicines, plastics). Then developments in physics followed (atomic energy, circuits). Now information technology is transforming society. In the 21st century, the change will be biological, quantum mechanical and nanoplasmonic.


With these emerging new technologies it’s not always possible to know the consequences or benefits. Particularly with wikis and blogs here knowledge is exchanged, it’s hard to see the larger effect they will have. When the microchip was first developed, an IBM engineer asked, ”But what . . . is it good for?” (1968).


The history of the computer is full of pessimistic reactions to its importance. In 1977, the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”


Exactly what we’re moving towards isn’t always clear, but it’s intriguing. Christopher Meyer and Stanley Davis explain that “everything is becoming electronically connected to everything else: products, people, companies, countries, everything.”


I see some scientific dinosaurs wallowing and bellowing in the tar pits of obliviousness as they are smothered in stubborn self-imposed ignorance while the new and shining world of enlightenment passes them by.


And be very clear, regardless of all the noise these antiques make, this time of enlightenment is almost here.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

If anyone wonders what the 'post-modern science' sounds like, that chrismb has referred to, then the waffle above is it.

There has only ever been, and only will be, one standard of science: Objective observation, testing of hypotheses and null-hypotheses, independent replication, the experimental method, full disclosure.

The enlightenment has now passed. It is 'gone'. It is not a future event.

It began with an Italian bloke spotting that Jupiter had moons. This is all that is good about science - observation of something that everyone can look at for themselves, proving that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

It pretty much ended with the launch of two probes [which 'closed the circle', so to speak, on that initiating observation that broke forever trust in the supernatural word] as mankind no longer simply observed moons of Jupiter, but finally went to meet Jupiter itself, and beyond, by robotic proxy.

The moon shots and Voyagers 1 & 2 were an end, not a beginning.

RIP The Enlightenment: 10th January 1610 to 31st December, 1989.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Betruger »

Axil wrote:scientific dinosaurs wallowing and bellowing in the tar pits of obliviousness as they are smothered in stubborn self-imposed ignorance
War is Peace!
Axil wrote:the new and shining world of enlightenment passes them by.
And be very clear, regardless of all the noise these antiques make, this time of enlightenment is almost here.
Behold the Rapture Of The Nerds!!
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Axil »

chrismb wrote:If anyone wonders what the 'post-modern science' sounds like, that chrismb has referred to, then the waffle above is it.

There has only ever been, and only will be, one standard of science: Objective observation, testing of hypotheses and null-hypotheses, independent replication, the experimental method, full disclosure.

The enlightenment has now passed. It is 'gone'. It is not a future event.

It began with an Italian bloke spotting that Jupiter had moons. This is all that is good about science - observation of something that everyone can look at for themselves, proving that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

It pretty much ended with the launch of two probes [which 'closed the circle', so to speak, on that initiating observation that broke forever trust in the supernatural word] as mankind no longer simply observed moons of Jupiter, but finally went to meet Jupiter itself, and beyond, by robotic proxy.

The moon shots and Voyagers 1 & 2 were an end, not a beginning.

RIP The Enlightenment: 10th January 1610 to 31st December, 1989.
There has only ever been, and only will be, one standard of science: Objective observation, testing of hypotheses and null-hypotheses, independent replication, the experimental method, full disclosure.
This has been done but your reaction to it without a second thought is

Poppycock!

I am not referencing Rossi here, I am talking about Nanoplasmonic experimentation and the polariton.

I won't give you references because its not worth the work. If you want to join the dawn of the new science, make the effort.

bhl
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by bhl »

chrismb wrote: The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.
Thermal resistive heating isn't controlling the heat, its the electric pulses that are controlling the reaction. Just like a car's spark plug controls the reaction in an ICE. (DGT's reactor clearly shows a spark plug.)

Also, for those looking at the above Example 1, I assume L12B4O7 is an OCR error and should read Li2B4O7.

- Brad

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Axil »

bhl wrote:
chrismb wrote: The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.
Thermal resistive heating isn't controlling the heat, its the electric pulses that are controlling the reaction. Just like a car's spark plug controls the reaction in an ICE. (DGT's reactor clearly shows a spark plug.)

Also, for those looking at the above Example 1, I assume L12B4O7 is an OCR error and should read Li2B4O7.

- Brad
Interesting paper submitted to nature about a successful cold fusion experiment featuring a lithium tantalate crystal.

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

JoeP
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by JoeP »

chrismb wrote:<snip>The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.

If the heat of the 'reactor core' is hotter than the control heating, then it would promptly enter a thermal runaway situation.
The above two points are those that particularly bugs me about the validity of Rossi's device and keep me from ever getting truly interested or excited about him having a new energy source.

If the device is real (Big IF): There may be some dynamics that could contribute to a need for period inputs of heating and cooling in order to control such a reaction. High temperatures may cause the metal to be depleted of hydrogen? Thus heating and cooling cycles could be integral to the operation. Sort of a cyclical reloading and burn cycle.

If Rossi could eliminate the resistance heaters from his unit, it obviously would be much more convincing and lead the way to a real black-box test that most people could accept. No input wires any funny business. And yet, every test must have electrical input into the system. His 1MW "plant" had that enormous generator going the entire time.

He has claimed the risk of a runaway reaction is too dangerous without his controlled and periodic input of heat to moderate the reaction. But it always seems very flaky to me which is why I wanted to see a real self-sustained version generating power with no input. As an easier alternative, I think someone on this forum (or another) suggested a bank of batteries, with known limits, included to supply the energy for the input and thus isolate the E-Cat and the controls from external inputs. If that entire system put out significantly more energy than the batteries could supply then I can see some validation of the device.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Axil »

JoeP wrote:
chrismb wrote:<snip>The whole notion of 'controlling heat by applying heat' is an insanity. If the heat applied is lower than the heat produced, then the, supposed, 'reactor core' is acting as a heat sink, not a source.

If the heat of the 'reactor core' is hotter than the control heating, then it would promptly enter a thermal runaway situation.
The above two points are those that particularly bugs me about the validity of Rossi's device and keep me from ever getting truly interested or excited about him having a new energy source.

If the device is real (Big IF): There may be some dynamics that could contribute to a need for period inputs of heating and cooling in order to control such a reaction. High temperatures may cause the metal to be depleted of hydrogen? Thus heating and cooling cycles could be integral to the operation. Sort of a cyclical reloading and burn cycle.

If Rossi could eliminate the resistance heaters from his unit, it obviously would be much more convincing and lead the way to a real black-box test that most people could accept. No input wires any funny business. And yet, every test must have electrical input into the system. His 1MW "plant" had that enormous generator going the entire time.

He has claimed the risk of a runaway reaction is too dangerous without his controlled and periodic input of heat to moderate the reaction. But it always seems very flaky to me which is why I wanted to see a real self-sustained version generating power with no input. As an easier alternative, I think someone on this forum (or another) suggested a bank of batteries, with known limits, included to supply the energy for the input and thus isolate the E-Cat and the controls from external inputs. If that entire system put out significantly more energy than the batteries could supply then I can see some validation of the device.
In fission, you add neutrons or take neutrons away to control the reaction. Does this disturb you too?

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

Axil wrote:In fission, you add neutrons or take neutrons away to control the reaction. Does this disturb you too?
Most definitely, if the fuel begins to act as its own self-feeding source of neutrons rather than a sink, and that the neutron emission exceeds the neutron absorption.... the reactor goes [edit] super-critical.

It can be said, for sure, that there are fuels that do not in themselves sustain burning, but that can be burnt to generate energy. That's true. But Rossi claims that the units continue to produce heat, after the external heat has been removed. He's having his cake, eating it, putting it back in the cupboard, then eating it again before selling it to someone else.
Last edited by chrismb on Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:49 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Post Reply