10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:36 am

Re-read my post: Rossi put up everything required to make significant (multi-million euro) sales of his product.

Not verified.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:47 am

ScottL: Apologies about that editing, was musing on-line real-time.

No worries, questions are welcomed, blanket statements on what constitutes proof is where you and I disagree.

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:52 am

bhl wrote:Besides derision, Talk-Polywell hasn't "put up" anything to conclusively disprove or discredit Rossi. On the contrary, I'm starting to see a lot more qualifiers used when when attacking his technology.

Against "proved" are a couple possible alternatives, "disproved" and "not proven". Both "proved" and "disproved" demand a higher burden of proof than "not proven". Given the evidence I've seen so far, I would say that, however much any of us may want a conclusion one way or the other (or either way) to the E-Cat saga, the October 28th demonstration, despite Rossi's assurances, did not provide it as far as most of us are concerned.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:56 am

Does anyone (here) know if the cooling fans on the heat exchange were running during the inital warm up phase (B4 boiling) ?

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:28 am

icarus wrote:ScottL: Apologies about that editing, was musing on-line real-time.

Now, who knows anything about nickel mono-layers? (or any transition metal mono-layers).

A portion of this nickel nano-particles powder maybe exists in the form of a mono-layer, i.e. "flakes" (no crackpot jokes here pls ).

After evacuating and baking the nickel powder for several cycles to remove oxide and then with application of high pressure H to infuse the mono-layer flake with hydrogen ions (it will disassociate at the "surface") and you have some interesting quantum possibilities. The layer of hydrogen that is within the mono-layer lattice and enveloping it (on the surface either side) will be quite mobile as if for an electron cloud in a conductor. Any kind of coherence in the hydrogen cloud enveloping the mono-layer that allows for close approach of the hydrogen atoms swarming the nickel then may increase the probability for quantum tunnelling fusion ....

.... just speculating here of course.

I was making some monolayers of organosilanes earlier today. unfortunately, metal monolayers are very unstable, any metal that you could successfully make into a monolayer would be unlikely to remain stable when heated in the presence of hydrogen.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:53 am

ladajo wrote:
Skipjack wrote:I think that IMHO neither has happened. Nothing is conclusively proofing Rossi, nor disproving Rossi.
I am still waiting...
I agree.

I also remain 60/40 against Rossi, with a negative trend. This trend is fueled by Rossi's irrational behaviour.

Rossi latest behaviour made me slip my personal slide almost to 0% in his favour. We really have nothing new to discuss today in respect to the last month.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:02 am

icarus wrote:After evacuating and baking the nickel powder for several cycles to remove oxide and then with application of high pressure H to infuse the mono-layer flake with hydrogen ions (it will disassociate at the "surface") and you have some interesting quantum possibilities. The layer of hydrogen that is within the mono-layer lattice and enveloping it (on the surface either side) will be quite mobile as if for an electron cloud in a conductor. Any kind of coherence in the hydrogen cloud enveloping the mono-layer that allows for close approach of the hydrogen atoms swarming the nickel then may increase the probability for quantum tunnelling fusion ....

.... just speculating here of course.

A stable mono layer of hydrogen in a heated chamber..... right......

As if Axil was not enough.......

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:16 am

Giorgio wrote:
icarus wrote:After evacuating and baking the nickel powder for several cycles to remove oxide and then with application of high pressure H to infuse the mono-layer flake with hydrogen ions (it will disassociate at the "surface") and you have some interesting quantum possibilities. The layer of hydrogen that is within the mono-layer lattice and enveloping it (on the surface either side) will be quite mobile as if for an electron cloud in a conductor. Any kind of coherence in the hydrogen cloud enveloping the mono-layer that allows for close approach of the hydrogen atoms swarming the nickel then may increase the probability for quantum tunnelling fusion ....

.... just speculating here of course.
A stable mono layer of hydrogen in a heated chamber..... right......

As if Axil was not enough.......

Enough with the patronising eye-rolls already ... how old are you? 5?

If you read what I wrote correctly I was simply musing about nickel mono-layers .... what would a hydrogen monolayer even be in your mind?

Do you have anything constructive to add about nickel mono-layers on the outside chance?

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:45 am

Crawdaddy wrote:
icarus wrote:ScottL: Apologies about that editing, was musing on-line real-time.

Now, who knows anything about nickel mono-layers? (or any transition metal mono-layers).

A portion of this nickel nano-particles powder maybe exists in the form of a mono-layer, i.e. "flakes" (no crackpot jokes here pls ).

After evacuating and baking the nickel powder for several cycles to remove oxide and then with application of high pressure H to infuse the mono-layer flake with hydrogen ions (it will disassociate at the "surface") and you have some interesting quantum possibilities. The layer of hydrogen that is within the mono-layer lattice and enveloping it (on the surface either side) will be quite mobile as if for an electron cloud in a conductor. Any kind of coherence in the hydrogen cloud enveloping the mono-layer that allows for close approach of the hydrogen atoms swarming the nickel then may increase the probability for quantum tunnelling fusion ....

.... just speculating here of course.
I was making some monolayers of organosilanes earlier today. unfortunately, metal monolayers are very unstable, any metal that you could successfully make into a monolayer would be unlikely to remain stable when heated in the presence of hydrogen.

Thnx. So by my reckoning nano-particles of nickel having min. dimension of order 30 nanometre, with crystal structure lattice dimension around 352 picom, gives particles of about 80-100 atom thickness in one dimension at least.

Would you agree with that?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:53 am

icarus wrote:Enough with the patronising eye-rolls already ... how old are you? 5?

I wish I was, so I could really read much of the nonsense being written here without caring too much.

icarus wrote:If you read what I wrote correctly I was simply musing about nickel mono-layers .... what would a hydrogen monolayer even be in your mind?

Oh I see now, you are right, I read it too quickly, my apologies.
The problem is that it does not make any sense anyhow, so the situation is not really improved.

Nickel monolayer (but also Cobalt, Iron, copper and others) are under scrutiny since more than 20 years for Hydrogen absorption and release.
There is little we do not know of the main chemical and physical behavior of films of few atomic layers of these material from 0K all the way up to 1000 K and more.

Guess how many reported anomalous heat generation or anomalous hydrogen storage? None........ (would love to put a rolling eyes here, but I don't want to get scolded again.....)

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:21 am

Nickel monolayer (but also Cobalt, Iron, copper and others) are under scrutiny since more than 20 years for Hydrogen absorption and release.
There is little we do not know of the main chemical and physical behavior of films of few atomic layers of these material from 0K all the way up to 1000 K and more.

That sounds like an impressively broad statement of knowledge, care to back it up with citations? There should be thousands by this account, a textbook even?

Are you referring to mono-layers on a backing substrate or freely occurring in a nano-particle powder?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:16 pm

Rossi latest behaviour made me slip my personal slide almost to 0% in his favour. We really have nothing new to discuss today in respect to the last month.

Had the opposite effect on me. The last test was designed by the customer. So he had no hand in it. So you cant blame him for that.
Of course for that you would have to assume that the customer was real.
I still think that this is the case and I have seen no evidence to think otherwise.
The test before that was as the ones before very flawed, though it was clearly attempting to adress some of the concerns people had about previous tests (e.g. no steam and therefore no dryness of steam had to be measured).

I think that Rossi is a manic. That means, he is paranoid and is sometimes acting like a complete idiot. I know people like that. They can achieve a lot because they are so intense and try really hard, but they can also annoy the heck out of you and appear confused, paranoid and disorganized.

That said, I am 60/40 on the whole thing now. So sligthtly more in favor or Rossi. Nowhere near convinced though.
For me the proof is at the universities of Bologna and Upsala. Once they start their research, I can savely rule out fraud. That would only leave self (or mass?) delusion.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:33 pm

the customer

Is there really one?

The guy went to jail for fraud. I'm going to need more proof that the customer is real than Rossi's say so.

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:43 pm

icarus wrote:
Thnx. So by my reckoning nano-particles of nickel having min. dimension of order 30 nanometre, with crystal structure lattice dimension around 352 picom, gives particles of about 80-100 atom thickness in one dimension at least.

Would you agree with that?

That is reasonable. One thing that most people don't realize about metal nanoparticles is that they are much less stable than bulk material. Because nickel confined in such small dimensions has a large "surface energy" the nickel atoms of the particle will be much more mobile at the surface and the particles themselves would tend to "melt" together at much lower temperature than the melting point of the bulk material.

I think I remember reading that the rossi material is supposedly has dimensions in the microns, which would make them more stable at high temperature. Especially after reduction in hydrogen.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:31 pm

Is there really one?

Well that is the question, isnt it?
I do have to wonder though, that if you were to invent a customer, who is the only one checking your results, why conduct the experiment and present results in a way that adds fuel to the doubters.
E.g. why have less than 500kW output?
Why have a heat measurement table that fuels the doubters?
Why not have the machine running in an alleged self sustainig mode for days (if there was no real customer then nobody was checking up on that anyway)?
All that just does not quite add up for me.
That does not mean that there is no room for fraud, but the "invented customer" theory seems to be a really far stretch with absolutely no evidence.

As I said earlier, I think that the proof will be in the UoB and UoU testing. If the customer is real, then Rossi should have the money for the tests and he will be running out of excuses for why the reasearch is not done.
All that will be interesting to see in the coming weeks/months.