10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[ScottL]

Last time I checked, the thread title didn't say BLP so arguing the perpetually "in-progress" merits of BLP doesn't really belong here any more. Back on topic please.

[303]

or to put it another way , from no cohesive theory plus magic box gives excess power, but no proof; back to rossi's no cohesive... deja vu

[ScottL]

or to put it another way , from no cohesive theory plus magic box gives excess power, but no proof; back to rossi's no cohesive... deja vu

Yes everyone sees the similarities but now they're breaking down the BLP story for the Nth time and really we should be breaking down the Rossi story.

[GIThruster]

Says you. From what I can see, the real story is about the critics in both cases.

I'm not saying I believe Rossi or Mills. I don't believe or disbelieve. I do believe there is sufficient data to show the Rowan BLP reactor experiment generated anomalous heat well in excess of what could be generated by conventional chemical means. I also believe that experiment can be repeated by anyone who wishes, and that they have been so invited for years. Tom's protestations fly in the face of the facts--that a fair replication has been done, the paper published, the way shown for anyone else who wants to do their own replication.

[tomclarke]

Thanks for this link.

I've looked at the report. The good news, the calorimetry seems pretty well done and the results well above calorimetry error. Let us suppose that is all good - although as always with experiments an unreplicate result may have unknown errors.

My concern is with the statement that the energy produce is well beyond that which could be chemical.

Let us look at the big reactor (which has better results). This consists of a container with 1.5kg of reactants.

The container is heated, and what is clearly a chemical reaction occurs. The heat produced is approx 1MJ making 650kJ/kg. Now this is low. The heat from burning 1.5kg of coal would be 30MJ, or hydrogen would be 210MJ.

So the heat produced is low compared with possible chemical reaction heat, we need to look carefully to see how this is calculated.

Rowan claim that the material is R-NI and by testing samples of this they think they likely contaminiation is Al(OH)3. Using the amount of this they have found in samples of R-Ni they have tested, they note the observed production of water on heating to be due to:

• 3 Na + Al(OH)3 ==> NaOH + NaAlO2 + NaH + ½ H2, deltaH = -325.1 kJ/mole Al(OH)3
  
  2 Al(OH)3 + 2 Al => 2 Al2O3 + 3 H2, deltaH = -382.7 kJ/mole Al(OH)3

From which, taking the concentration of Al(OH)3 found in their tests, they get an expected chemical energy release of 130J/g of reactant or total of 195kJ, only 20% of the observed heat release.

That's it.

Now, the carful experimenter will want some more questions answered:

• (1) is the R-Ni sample in the reactors identical to the ones they have tested? They do not say anything about how the reactor sample is prepared. Do they prepare it, or does BLP?
  
  (2) does the reactor contain any contaminants? Small quantities of an oxidising agent would have no effect until high temperatures when it would have a large effect, see below.

Note that from the expected reactions H2 is released. They assume this stays unreacted. The combustion heat from this H2 per gram of sample is:

2.79mmol/g* 286J/mol = 800J/g, or 1.2MJ for the 1.5kg of reactants.

Hey presto - this beats the observed heat excess! We now have a total of 0.2MJ + 1.2MJ >> 1MJ. We have 40% more chemical energy than is measured. Of course, the H2 reaction may be less exothermic than combustion, so this matches well.

That makes me suspicious. And would make any good investigator equally suspicious. Here are some possible ways the generated H2 could combust, or otherwise react with an oxidising agent:

(1) H2 leaks out of the reactor (it is very difficult to contain H2, and the reactor is designed to hold solids). It then reacts with oxygen on the outside.

(2) H2 in the reactor reacts with oxygen gas inside teh reactor. We know nothing about how the reactants are prepared.

(3) H2 in the reactor reacts with some unknown oxidant oin the reactor

(4) H2 in the reactor reacts with some contaminant on the (metal?) wall of the reactor.

etc, etc.

I have no idea which of these are true, or whether there is some other error I have not considered. (You do not need a lot of unconsidered contaminant etc to make the extra energy). My point is that the calorimetry here is quite well done. The chemical analysis of R-Ni appears competent.

What is grossly inadequate is the assumption that the given reactions are the only available chemical source of heat.

When you have an experiment like this claiming something extraordinary, the evidence needs to be very good. Experimental error is awfully easy. In this case even small contamination of the reactant or the reactor vessel could result in the excess reaction heat. I've suggested it is teh h2 reacting, but the required extra heat is small, so it could be many other things.

To deal with these possibilities you would need a lot more testing. In fact it is pretty difficult to rule out extra chemical energy being produced in theis system - how do you prove there are no contaminants anywhere?

If this was an experiment where the result was nmot extraordinary, you would say - well, itcould be Ok, or it could be in error, we don't know. Given the extraordinary result the likelihood is error and I've given one neat example of possible error.

There is no information in the report which leads me to think this has been even considered by the experimenters.

[tomclarke]

Says you. From what I can see, the real story is about the critics in both cases.

I'm not saying I believe Rossi or Mills. I don't believe or disbelieve. I do believe there is sufficient data to show the Rowan BLP reactor experiment generated anomalous heat well in excess of what could be generated by conventional chemical means. I also believe that experiment can be repeated by anyone who wishes, and that they have been so invited for years. Tom's protestations fly in the face of the facts--that a fair replication has been done, the paper published, the way shown for anyone else who wants to do their own replication.

We disagree that any of the experiments are worth it. All that I have seen have rather obviosu flaws. Of course, if this were LENR etc it is overwhelmingly likely that completely unambiguous heat could be found, as well as unambiguous otehr signs of nuclear activity.

BLP have been chasing their hypothesised effect for many years and have never got anything aboove experimental error (go look at the newer electrochemical cell, it is just as bad).

I don't disagree with the replication, it just does not show what BLP want, and further were I repeating it myself I'd find it difficult to rule out extraneous reactions. I could probably with enough work (were I a good experimentalist) work out what the reaction was and so solve it completely. Can you really be surprised no-one wants to do this?

BLP are in a bad position because they have zero theoretical justification for their claims, so all rests on the experimental data which is thoroughly inconclusive.

LENR have WL theory which does not solve the problems but sounds good and goes some way to doing this. So they are not quite as badly off.

[GIThruster]

We disagree that any of the experiments are worth it. All that I have seen have rather obviosu flaws.

Perfect example of what I'm saying about the critics. Everyone who has read the report knows you're being disingenuous here, Tom. The apparatus at Rowan was advised by places like Earthtech who had done the same study before, and the controls in the system clearly demonstrated the calorimetry was 99.97% accurate. There is no way experimental error could be masquerading as real data and anyone who has read the report knows this. And this is my point, people like you will never be convinced by facts. You have already made up your mind and you're quite willing to slander others and misrepresent the situation to support your intellectually dishonest position.

BLP have been chasing their hypothesised effect for many years and have never got anything above experimental error (go look at the newer electrochemical cell, it is just as bad).

You believe this is true because you want to believe this is true. This is a completely counterfactual statement, however.

Tom, I can see you're now pretending to be a chemist and going to try to analyze the experiment despite you say it is not worth your time, that you cannot trust the people involved, that the explanations must be wrong, that there must be experimental error masquerading as results, etc. It's pretty obvious that no matter what you find you're so to believe what you want. Why would anyone think your analysis worth the time to read? You have zero credibility and have had none since you decided to slander Peter Janssen.

[tomclarke]

We disagree that any of the experiments are worth it. All that I have seen have rather obviosu flaws.

Perfect example of what I'm saying about the critics. Everyone who has read the report knows you're being disingenuous here, Tom.

Everyone who reads my detailed comments above will be able to draw their own conclusion as to that.

You have already made up your mind and you're quite willing to slander others and misrepresent the situation to support your intellectually dishonest position.

With respect. I read the report, and commented, on its specific details. You asume I am wrong without reading my comments?

Tom, I can see you're now pretending to be a chemist and going to try to analyze the experiment despite you say it is not worth your time,

No, it was worth my time to check this report. It is always interesting. But not worth the much larger amount of time to replicate.

that you cannot trust the people involved,

No I'm not saying that. See below.

that the explanations must be wrong,

Not wrong, just incomplete, and making assumptions.

that there must be experimental error masquerading as results, etc.

No, that there could easily be such error. What makes error very likely is the inherent implausibility of the claims.

It's pretty obvious that no matter what you find you're so to believe what you want.

I would hope we all believe what we want. In my case I look at facts and get beliefs from that - I just do it differently from you in this case.

Why would anyone think your analysis worth the time to read? You have zero credibility and have had none since you decided to slander Peter Janssen.

I expect most people can separate looking at the experiment from concerns about Janssen's independence. I have seen nothing wrong in the report (there might be of course, I am not, as you point out, an expert chemist). I am just pointing out the obvious possible class of errors which is left out. Anyone with good high school chemistry can see this same as me. There are maybe other errors too that I've missed. It is pretty likely.

More general point.

I've noticed many people just don't respect experimenters. I would have through you, especially, would do this. It is really difficult to work out all possible errors in an experiment and get it right. It is very commen for experiments to give weird results, because of some error.

That does not mean experimenters who make errors are dishonest. Not even when they leap to conclusions about hydrinos.Though that is not good science - they should be more suspicious of their results.

It is just when it is BLP, LENR etc that the weird results are accepted by some as new physics, rather than checked, cross-checked, controlled etc until either the experiment is cast-iron solid, or the error is found.

I'm quite sure there are likely more errors here than I can find.

So instead of criticising me for knowing how easy it is to make mistakes doing experiments, you could celebrate the good experimenters who do their best to avoid that, and voice their doubts in the areas they have not been able to sew up tight. I've read papers like this. You have, 'cos Jim does it quite a bit (though not quite as much as I would like given his hypothesis) still 100X more than these people.

Experiments are just difficult, awfully easy to make mistakes and never see them. Equally, looking at a write-up you can detect things left out - but you cannot know which of the possible errors, if any, is real. What you can say is that the experiment is highly unsafe if error sources larger than results have been left uninvestigated.

Scientists don't accept even good experiments as evidence of something new. They require inependent replication. Because even good experiments can have subtle errors.

FTL neutrinos, anyone?

[parallel]

My reply (georgehants)—-
Mr. Rossi I fully understand what you say.
What is now needed is clear conformation from one of you customers or
certifiers etc. stating their testing results of the original E-Cat
unit.
Rossi’s reply
It will be published together with the validation of the high temp
reactor.
We are making all in one.
Warm Regsrds,
A.R.

Looks like the results will not be available for 2 - 3 months.
Five will get you ten that tomclarke won't believe them.

[ladajo]

And, five will get you ten that you will believe them.

[ladajo]

And are you going to comment on the Hydrofusion press release Parallel?

They say they went to 6 September Hot Cat Demo that was a fail.

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417

And have since halted investment.

Serious drama as the Rossiworld turns. Giggle.

[Stubby]

*eats more popcorn

[Skipjack]

And are you going to comment on the Hydrofusion press release Parallel?

They say they went to 6 September Hot Cat Demo that was a fail.

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417

And have since halted investment.

Serious drama as the Rossiworld turns. Giggle.

Whow!!
This does NOT look good for Rossi! If he always undermeasured his input power by a factor of 3...
Have no popcord, but fingernails will do fine

[Betruger]

So....... Can we look into Rossi's black box yet?

[GIThruster]

I'm sure you can look in now, so long as you sign the NDA. Otherwise you'll need to wait for patents to be granted.