LENR Is Real

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: LENR Is Real

Post by Axil »

LENR has a new sponsor.



DEBATE. We do not know if the results of the latest tests with the energy catalyzer may be repeated and explained. But now we are getting responses and initiates a Swedish research initiative, writes Magnus Olofsson, CEO Elforsk.



Yesterday it was announced startling results from a month-long series of measurements on a so-called energy catalyst. The report was written by researchers from Uppsala University, KTH and the University of Bologna. It describes a development of heat that can not be explained by chemical reactions. Clear isotope changes in the analyzed fuel indicates instead that in the case of nuclear reactions at low temperatures. It suggests that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy.Probably without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could eventually become very important for the world's energy supply.

The central part of the reactor is narrow and two inches long. In the experiments, the reactor was at a temperature up to about 1400 degrees Celsius. Net developed 1,500 kWh energy as heat. The heat energy released was three to four times the electrical energy input. This with approximately one gram of the fuel consisting of hydrogen charged with nickel additives in powder form.

Elforsk in recent years has followed the development of what has come to be called nuclear reactions at low energy, LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.Elforsk include published a compilation of knowledge about LENR. Elforsk has also co-funded the current measurements and earlier measurements. While the earlier measurements showed an unexplained excess energy.

If it is possible to safely achieve and control the now indicated nuclear reactions waiting probably eventually a fundamental transformation of our energy system. It can open for decentralized energy supply. Electricity and heat can then be produced with relatively simple components. Climate Efficient energy would be very cheap.

In the current situation we do not know if all this is too fantastic to be true. The measurement results indicate that a new way of extracting nuclear power may have been discovered. A small group of Swedish scientists are deeply involved in trying to understand the underlying physics. Sweden thus has a unique chance to be involved in leading research and development in the LENR area.

Elforsk now taking the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then explain how it works.

Magnus Olofsson, CEO Elforsk
Last edited by Axil on Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

JoeP
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by JoeP »

Something about the Magnus Olofsson staring pic that freaks me out a little. Anyone else with me on this? :)

If you want to get rid of it Axil, molte grazie in advance.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by birchoff »

Skipjack wrote:So, I read the paper and I am still not convinced, but I have to say that it has gained some credibility with this testrun. 32 days is a long time to run the reactor on. What annoys me is that the Null test is essentially worthless since it was done at a different input power among other things. A real double blind test with two reactors, one filled and one empty with the testers not knowing which is which, would have been the real way to do it, in my book.
Not sure how you can characterize the dummy run as worthless. IT is clear in the paper that the whole point of the dummy run was to collaborate their chosen method of measuring power out. I suspect the perspective of the testers was, to focus on trying to prove that the device is generating more energy than any known chemical reaction and that the reaction inside the reactor is nuclear in origin. It was not from my reading about characterizing what the max power out you can get out of the thing.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by Skipjack »

birchoff wrote: Not sure how you can characterize the dummy run as worthless. IT is clear in the paper that the whole point of the dummy run was to collaborate their chosen method of measuring power out. I suspect the perspective of the testers was, to focus on trying to prove that the device is generating more energy than any known chemical reaction and that the reaction inside the reactor is nuclear in origin. It was not from my reading about characterizing what the max power out you can get out of the thing.
Their dummy test run was not a Null test. I was talking about it being worthless as a Null test.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by birchoff »

Skipjack wrote:
birchoff wrote: Not sure how you can characterize the dummy run as worthless. IT is clear in the paper that the whole point of the dummy run was to collaborate their chosen method of measuring power out. I suspect the perspective of the testers was, to focus on trying to prove that the device is generating more energy than any known chemical reaction and that the reaction inside the reactor is nuclear in origin. It was not from my reading about characterizing what the max power out you can get out of the thing.
Their dummy test run was not a Null test. I was talking about it being worthless as a Null test.
In that case I agree. but I do not believe that was what they were attempting to do with the dummy test. They needed a way of making sure their readings and calculations from the camera were accurate. So it was more of a Collaboration test. Not sure what a null test would give you that hasnt been answered in this report, assuming your not looking to show the testers are apart of some fraud/scam.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by tomclarke »

It is fascinating deconstructing these Rossi tests - every one has different issues!

First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash, and natural (20% 62Ni) in the fuel. It is clear evidence of fraud, which Rossi could easily do even under observation by switching a sample at either end of the test.

The point is that 58->62 Ni conversion would release energy and the graphs of claimed power vs time don't show any tailing off (a point made by the authors). Therefore the chances of 99% fuel depletion are very low, especially given that the end point was fixed in advance not dependent on reactor conditions.

The power In measurement uses the right equipment and is sound if we can trust that one of the profs knows how to use the instruments (not simple) and distinguish between phase power and total power. I can imagine Rossi saying, look that shows the power, when in fact it is phase power (1/3) that is indicated. There may be somone competent and independent, but I have no evidence of this so it must be a question mark.

The power out measurement is very funny. It was so complex I avoided it for a while. Glad now I did not.

(1) the control test is at a claimed power 1/10th of the real test hence it cannot be used to validate techniques. At higher temperatures they have to use a camera with different filter, again at higher temperatures laminar convective flow can become turbulent.

(2) the whole calculation involving emissivity of Al2O3 is WRONG.

Al2O3 at lower wavelengths is translucent, as shown by the lower than 1.0 emissivity. That means that the actual emissivity of a thinnish section is undefined - it depends on the emissivity of whatever layer underneath is opaque.

Data here showing dramatic change in emissivity between reflective and conductive heating due to semi-transparent nature of Al2O3.

So the use of "book" emissivity (report ref [3]) is wrong twice over:

(a) It does not take into account the filter of the thermographic camera - which changes between the control and the real measurements (see report). We need emissivity qualified by filter response relative to BB, not total emissivity relative to BB.

(b) It does not apply at all inasfar as the Al2O3 is translucent.

That gives a factor of X2.5 overestimate of infrared flux. How that translates into a temperature, and therefore a calculated power out, is unclear.

(3) The convective power out is about 50% of total but relies on calculations that assume laminar flow. Under turblent flow conditions everything is more complex. The chnage, at higher temperatures, can be abrupt and will alter convective loss. That can be the reason for the relatively large temperature difference measured on the active reactor stepping from 800W to 900W. Of course the temperature measurements are unsound as well as in (2) above.

I'd like to thank Rossi and these profs for giving me this entertainment - though if I were working on LENR and believed it could be possible I'd be very very angry at somone so discrediting the field.

(4) Notice the slightly surprising lack of checks that would close these loopholes. No higher power test of the dummy reactor - with the excuse that it might break. No thermocouple test of the active reactor temperature, with the excuse that the thermocouples did not give accurate readings due to the fins. I bet they tried, got lower temperature than expected, and dismissed the data as error!

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by birchoff »

Love the effort you put into analysing the report, much better use of everyones time I think than reading yet another statement, calling Rossi or the Testers a fraud.
tomclarke wrote: ...
First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash, and natural (20% 62Ni) in the fuel. It is clear evidence of fraud, which Rossi could easily do even under observation by switching a sample at either end of the test.
...
That said I have some questions about your summary of the isotopic analysis.

When I read the following statement "First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash" I interpret that to mean that 99% of the atomic elements in the entire sample is 62Ni. After reading both Appendix 3 and 4 again to make sure I didnt miss anything. That is not what is reflected in table 1 on appendix 3, page 42 or the table on page 53. From the table in appendix 3 it says that the measured abundance of 62Ni was 98.7% while the measured abundance of 6Li was 92.1%. Now if measured abundance meant purity of something in relation to all the elements in the entire sample we would have a really interesting problem because I would like to know how a given sample can be 98.7% 62Ni and 92.1% 6Li. After some googling it occurred to me that measured abundance really meants that for the sample that was measured of all the NI atoms in the sample 98.7% of those NI atoms were of the 62NI persuasion. This is backed up by looking at how the table on page 42 is grouped and a little arithmetic. which shows that when you sum up the measured abundance for all the Li isotopes you get 100% and the same with Ni.
tomclarke wrote: ...
The point is that 58->62 Ni conversion would release energy and the graphs of claimed power vs time don't show any tailing off (a point made by the authors). Therefore the chances of 99% fuel depletion are very low, especially given that the end point was fixed in advance not dependent on reactor conditions.
...
Finally how do you know that the fuel was 99% depleted by the end of the test? From my reading of the paper no reason is given for why the test was only ran for what seems to me like an arbitrary 32 days. Your critique is only valid if the reactor was only loaded with enough fuel for the 32 days. Now that is a possibility but they did not elaborate in the paper if that was the case, and as a result I interpreted their statement about not tailing off to mean that it was possible for the test to run for more than 32 days; but they didn't because they agreed for some unspecified reason to only do 32 days.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by tomclarke »

I meant that the natural isotopic mix (20% 62Ni, the rest mostly 58Ni) turns into 99% 62Ni in the ash. The Nickel is only one element in the chemical composition. I think this is what you conclude.

That transmutation releases (a lot) energy. So if you view the 58N etc as fuel, turned to 62Ni ash, as Rossi clearly hopes will be concluded, the fuel depletion is almost complete with < 1% left at end of test.

You'd not expect any reaction to remain at the same rate when the reactant reduces in concentration by a factor of 100. Also the coincidence is surprising. If the reaction tails off why is their no decrease in output power?

The last time Rossi gave ash up for testing it had isotopic concentration natural. That caused hin grief. Looks like he decided to remedy it this time round - but it is just as problematic because the ash is now too purely Ni62.
birchoff wrote:Love the effort you put into analysing the report, much better use of everyones time I think than reading yet another statement of fact calling Rossi or the Testers a fraud.
tomclarke wrote: ...
First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash, and natural (20% 62Ni) in the fuel. It is clear evidence of fraud, which Rossi could easily do even under observation by switching a sample at either end of the test.
...
That said I have some questions about your summary of the isotopic analysis.

When I read the following statement "First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash" I interpret that to mean that 99% of the atomic elements in the entire sample is 62Ni. After reading both Appendix 3 and 4 again to make sure I didnt miss anything. That is not what is reflected in table 1 on appendix 3, page 42 or the table on page 53. From the table in appendix 3 it says that the measured abundance of 62Ni was 98.7% while the measured abundance of 6I was 92.1%. Now if measured abundance meant purity of something in relation to all the elements in the entire sample we would have a really interesting problem because I would like to know how a given sample can be 98.7% 62Ni and 92.1% 6Li. After some googling it occurred to me that measured abundance really meants that for the sample that was measured of all the NI atoms in the sample 98.7% of those NI atoms were of the 62NI persuasion. This is backed up by looking at how the table on page 42 is grouped and a little arithmetic. which shows that when you sum up the measured abundance for all the Li isotopes you get 100% and the same with Ni.
tomclarke wrote: ...
The point is that 58->62 Ni conversion would release energy and the graphs of claimed power vs time don't show any tailing off (a point made by the authors). Therefore the chances of 99% fuel depletion are very low, especially given that the end point was fixed in advance not dependent on reactor conditions.
...
Finally how do you know that the fuel was 99% depleted by the end of the test? From my reading of the paper no reason is given for why the test was only ran for what seems to me like an arbitrary 32 days. Your critique is only valid if the reactor was only loaded with enough fuel for the 32 days. Now that is a possibility but they did not elaborate in the paper if that was the case, and as a result I interpreted their statement about not tailing off to mean that it was possible for the test to run for more than 32 days; but they didn't because they agreed for some unspecified reason to only do 32 days.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by birchoff »

tomclarke wrote:I meant that the natural isotopic mix (20% 62Ni, the rest mostly 58Ni) turns into 99% 62Ni in the ash. The Nickel is only one element in the chemical composition. I think this is what you conclude.

That transmutation releases (a lot) energy. So if you view the 58N etc as fuel, turned to 62Ni ash, as Rossi clearly hopes will be concluded, the fuel depletion is almost complete with < 1% left at end of test.

You'd not expect any reaction to remain at the same rate when the reactant reduces in concentration by a factor of 100. Also the coincidence is surprising. If the reaction tails off why is their no decrease in output power?

The last time Rossi gave ash up for testing it had isotopic concentration natural. That caused hin grief. Looks like he decided to remedy it this time round - but it is just as problematic because the ash is now too purely Ni62.
birchoff wrote:Love the effort you put into analysing the report, much better use of everyones time I think than reading yet another statement of fact calling Rossi or the Testers a fraud.
tomclarke wrote: ...
First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash, and natural (20% 62Ni) in the fuel. It is clear evidence of fraud, which Rossi could easily do even under observation by switching a sample at either end of the test.
...
That said I have some questions about your summary of the isotopic analysis.

When I read the following statement "First the 62Ni. That was found 99% pure in the ash" I interpret that to mean that 99% of the atomic elements in the entire sample is 62Ni. After reading both Appendix 3 and 4 again to make sure I didnt miss anything. That is not what is reflected in table 1 on appendix 3, page 42 or the table on page 53. From the table in appendix 3 it says that the measured abundance of 62Ni was 98.7% while the measured abundance of 6I was 92.1%. Now if measured abundance meant purity of something in relation to all the elements in the entire sample we would have a really interesting problem because I would like to know how a given sample can be 98.7% 62Ni and 92.1% 6Li. After some googling it occurred to me that measured abundance really meants that for the sample that was measured of all the NI atoms in the sample 98.7% of those NI atoms were of the 62NI persuasion. This is backed up by looking at how the table on page 42 is grouped and a little arithmetic. which shows that when you sum up the measured abundance for all the Li isotopes you get 100% and the same with Ni.
tomclarke wrote: ...
The point is that 58->62 Ni conversion would release energy and the graphs of claimed power vs time don't show any tailing off (a point made by the authors). Therefore the chances of 99% fuel depletion are very low, especially given that the end point was fixed in advance not dependent on reactor conditions.
...
Finally how do you know that the fuel was 99% depleted by the end of the test? From my reading of the paper no reason is given for why the test was only ran for what seems to me like an arbitrary 32 days. Your critique is only valid if the reactor was only loaded with enough fuel for the 32 days. Now that is a possibility but they did not elaborate in the paper if that was the case, and as a result I interpreted their statement about not tailing off to mean that it was possible for the test to run for more than 32 days; but they didn't because they agreed for some unspecified reason to only do 32 days.

So not sure what you mean by "natural isotopic mix". According to the analysis in appendix 3 (the analysis in appendix 4 is similar) the fuel starts off with 3.9% 62Ni, with the remaining 96.1% spread between 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 64Ni; where 58Ni is 67% and 60Ni is 26.3%. At the end the ash is 62Ni is 98.7% with 58Ni down to 0.8% and 60Ni down to 0.5% with the others down to zero (in appendix 3, appendix 4 is also similar). so if one was to assume his reactor is simply transmuting nickel then yes It looks like that's what would be concluded. However, the mix of Li also changed. It went from 91.4% 7Li and 8.6 6Li to 92.1% 6Li and 7.9% 7Li in the ash (according to appendix 3 appendix 4 shows sufficiently different percentages for 6Li and 7Li, but the same overall trend). In addition there are a few things we do not know, at least I have not found any trace of evidence in the paper so far
  • Did they mix up the all the ash (average out) before drawing the sample?
    Why the hell did they only run for 32 Days?
The first question is most important because while the results in appendix 3&4 make it look like their are two primary reactions 7Li eventually to 6Li and (58, 60, 61, 64)Ni to 62Ni. Its hard to say if the analysis is representative of all the matter in the reactor vessel when they decided to stop the experiment. Which makes me reticent about assuming that the reactor had consumed all its fuel or to assume that the reactor had gotten through enough fuel to prevent it from maintaining the output temperature it had attained.

That said it is within the realm of possibility that Rossi or someone else "salted" the fuel/ash or both. that is why my personal perspective on this report is that it is at most signs that it is possible to carry out nuclear reactions at significantly lower energy levels than we have become accustomed to. I take this stance because of the research carried out by Mitsubishi Heavy industries and independently replicated by Toyota. As for whether or not Rossi has a reactor that can generate more energy out than in, the jury is still out. For me to accept that as proven fact as a result of this report they would have needed to run a null test with the same input energy level and for the same duration as the loaded test(preferably before the loaded test, as that would be with a completely clean and empty reactor). But the researchers seem to be more interested in proving that their are clear signs of nuclear reactions going on in the reactor and honestly it looks like they have enough evidence to support that conclusion.

Torulf2
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by Torulf2 »

You are right birchoff.
There is serious LENR research and it may take damage from this.

JoeP
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by JoeP »

birchoff wrote:...But the researchers seem to be more interested in proving that their are clear signs of nuclear reactions going on in the reactor and honestly it looks like they have enough evidence to support that conclusion.
I completely agree that the supposed nuclear transformation evidence shown here is far more important than verifying whether the heat output calculations and methods used are correct at this stage.

But without more information on Rossi's role in loading the initial fuel, and how the initial samples were taken, handled, and observed by the test team, the possibility of fraud is very high, much, much higher than a new nuclear based energy technology. Rossi could have prepared his "fuel" mixture and left that on top of the sample without mixing, and just let one of the researchers take a small scoop from the fuel source vial first, then loaded the rest from the very same vial, the future "ash," into the reactor. These are the kinds of things a James Randi would see, and trained scientists miss.

Anyway...the fact that the authors detailed his involvement in the initial setup is a small point in favor of them, perhaps, not being directly complicit in scam. This makes some sense since I could never reconcile how a group of established professionals, even these that are Rossi-friendly, are so willing to throw away their reputations completely and for nothing, which is beyond stupid. So it sucks to be them I think, at least if the odds play out the way that I see them. Sad.

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

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by Axil »

Page 28:
The ash has a different texture than the powder-like fuel by having grains of different sizes, probably developed from the heat. The grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us didn’t make that possible. The main result from our sample is nevertheless clear, that the isotopic composition deviates dramatically from the natural composition for both Li and Ni.


It is hard to accept the necessity that just a handful of particles were provided for isotopic analysis.

Just two or three of these grains were nickel particles. It is unwise to draw any type of pattern from such a small sample.

The testers got everything that they could from industrial heat and that wasn't near enough for a decent scientific report.

The audience that the testers were aiming their spin at was Elforsk and their CEO. Why, they want to get up to their ears in well funded LENR research. Their presentation of data was not for Rossi's benefit or that of industrial heat; it was for their own benefit and the good of LENR as they view it through their own interests. For this game of the century, everybody wants their own seat at the table.

JoeP
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by JoeP »

Axil wrote:Page 28:
The ash has a different texture than the powder-like fuel by having grains of different sizes, probably developed from the heat. The grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us didn’t make that possible. The main result from our sample is nevertheless clear, that the isotopic composition deviates dramatically from the natural composition for both Li and Ni.


It is hard to accept the necessity that just a handful of particles were provided for isotopic analysis.

Just two or three of these grains were nickel particles. It is unwise to draw any type of pattern from such a small sample.

The testers got everything that they could from industrial heat and that wasn't near enough for a decent scientific report.

The audience that the testers were aiming their spin at was Elforsk and their CEO. Why, they want to get up to their ears in well funded LENR research. Their presentation of data was not for Rossi's benefit or that of industrial heat; it was for their own benefit and the good of LENR as they view it through their own interests. For this game of the century, everybody wants their own seat at the table.
Axil, good points, especially the section you quoted and your first comment on it.

I was just looking at the paper again, and in the setup section we have:
After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to
allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. The powder had been previously
placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could
perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents
of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team. The
leads were reconnected and the cap sealed with a mixture of water and alumina powder cement.
So Rossi did all this work and powder handling, and was apparently observed by only a single member of the test team during the final loading.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by KitemanSA »

birchoff wrote: The first question is most important because while the results in appendix 3&4 make it look like their are two primary reactions 7Li eventually to 6Li and (58, 60, 61, 64)Ni to 62Ni.
Neither of those reactins are necessarily so. For example, the 7Li could be this reaction

7Li(p,alpha)4He . . . leaving only the 6Li behind. So my question is, was there an indication of the TOTAL Li before and after or was it just %ages?

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Post by tomclarke »

I agree that isotopic transmutation (of such a clear nature) would be much stronger evidence for LENR than any calorimetry - especially something as flaky as here.

Rossi will find supporters on the strength of this report. It is sad, but people want to believe, and are unwilling to think others fraudulent. That is how frauds can operate.

It is very difficult to think of any way the Ni transmutation to 99% 68Ni can happen here with the stated power out vs time graph. Even if there are other reactions (say 7Li -> 6Li) the nickel reaction (with whatever else is needed to make it happen) would be highly exothermic. How could power out possibly stay stable between this happening and it not happening? That rules out a fast transmutation to the end product as an incidental reaction, and something else providing the main power out. If the Ni transmutation is the driving exothermic reaction it beggars belief that it should exactly be exhausted at the time the test stops, given that this was arbitrarily chosen before the start.

The chemical analysis is as follows:
Ni 231nm % Ni 232nm % Li 670nm % Al 396nm % Al 394nm %
1 ash 2,13mg 50ml 95.9 95.6 0.03 0.00 0.05
2 fuel 2.13 mg 50ml 55.4 55.0 1.17 4.36 4.39

decoding:
Ash is: 95% Ni, 0.03% Li, 0.05% Al, 5% other elements
Fuel is: 55% Ni, 1.17% Li, 4.39%Al, 39% other elements

The Ni & Al measurements use two lines (and they are consistent). the Li measurement uses only one line.

You can see that with such a small qty of Li the chances of contamination or cross-talk is much higher. The Li isotopic analysis of the ash (with a very small qty of Li) disagreed wildly, two methods giving 47% and 6% 7Li (if I remember right).

However the Ni transmutation is clear, and the loss of 5% Al is clear.

the fuel is chemically as you'd expect: Ni, Al, Li. (there is some suggestion that an Li/Al.H compound is used as a hydrogen source).

the ash is almost pure Ni. Rossi just took a bought sample of 62Ni and substituted!

So the evidence is very strongly for Rossi fraudulently substituting some other fuel, on this evidence alone.

You might also question Rossi's engineering. we have claimed a highly unstable exothermic reaction with high COP stabilised by varying the drive heat in. It does not make sense having drive heat in since, for example, by reducing the convective and radiative losses a little here the reaction could be made self-sustaining, and therefore suitable for electricity production, with the same parameters used in this test.

The stabilisation via drive power gives at COP 3.6 a 25% safety factor. Stabilisation by varying cooling gives a much higher safety factor.

There are so many little scientific and engineering indicators that this is not for real. You do not need the (also clear) evidence of Rossi repeatedly lying on his blog.

Post Reply