10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

Brian David Josephson, (born 4 January 1940; Cardiff, Wales) is a Welsh physicist. He became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson Effect.

I disagree with your statement that the mechanism is what counts. Take for example aspirin. This was used as a drug long before the mechanism was understood -- what mattered was that it cured your headache or whatever. Similarly with the Rossi reactor, as long as it produces cheap energy, that is what is primarily important.

As far as Josephson is concerned, the proof is in the pudding.

Maybe you are not getting it, but that is exactly what I am stating.

The proof is in the pudding and the problem here is that there is no pudding for now, not even an half baked cake!

That is of course unless you WANT to blindly believe him, but that is not part of my nature, so I will wait until October to judge him the Einstein of the 21st century or yet another failure.

[KitemanSA]

On the other hand, if the pope of condensed matter physics can excuse this mortal sin of science, how come you can’t?

Excuse me. Science? What science? As far as I can tell we have been talking about a technology. There may at some time, now or in the future be science attached, but this "mechanism" is about the what, not the how.

[Torulf2]

"similar to General Fusion's concept"

There is no similarity to General Fusion's concepts!

[Giorgio]

Can this be relevant?
It is LENR or beam-target fusion?

http://webbshop.cm.se/System/ViewResour ... 06_42W.pdf

I am only at a quarter of the paper, but is extremely interesting.
I do not know if it can be considered LENR, but the idea is very smart and completely different from anything I have read until now.

Thanks a lot for sharing it.

[Torulf2]

There is a simellar idea linked in another tread in this forum.
Its about a chipp acelerator. Used for shotting protons on borons.
Its have ben unclear how they tihink getting netto engergy out of beam target fusion but this can be the mecanism they have in mind.

[Axil]

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144827.ece

Another long term test of the Rossi reactor is in the books. It supports my theory that the catalyst uses Iron as the secret catalytic element as per the X2O3 theory. It also supports the Meley[1] theory that a condensate of elements is formed from the fission of a coherent compound super atom (quark soup) formed from a fusion of a feedstock comprised of a particle of many coherent hydrogen atoms and one or more nickel atoms. More later…


1 - Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium

[Giorgio]

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144827.ece

Another long term test of the Rossi reactor is in the books.

And finally we can read a report done in a scientific way.
Here is the link to the report:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... +%28pdf%29.

There are still some points to be cleared, but it removes some of the doubt I had before.

[Maui]

There are still some points to be cleared, but it removes some of the doubt I had before.

So at this point, what is your list of points to be cleared?

[chrismb]

There are still some points to be cleared, but it removes some of the doubt I had before.

It addresses exactly zero of the issues I raised:

A) A correct scientific treatment would be to run false tests first.
Ai) Do not admit hydrogen (or better, actively fill with a noble gas). Heat up to operating temp with the heater. Outcome; nothing should happen. If there is residual H2 from a previous run, wait until the 'anomalous energy production' dies off.
Aii) Once H2 is put in and it is running (which it didn't do without it) run a non-polar fluid through the device to see if that heats up.

B) Weigh the reactor before and after. It is, even, dead easy to mount the whole assembly [and/or whole table +gas bottle] on strain-gauge weight sensors for a continuous readout of mass.

C) What the heck is it with this crazy 'we measured a flow rate [with no back-pressure on the flow] into a measuring vessel, then extrapolated'. I can do this too. What I could do is measure the unimpeded flow rate from a tap, then plug it into a device with a restriction. Oh, look, a lower flow rate! Fancy that! What the heck does this way of measuring flow rate do to remove doubt!!!???

This 'C' point is common to all 3 demonstrations. It is a completely insane way to attempt to measure flow rate when electronic flow rate meters are accurate, plentiful and cheap. It makes no sense whatsoever to me why this method is chosen.

Failure of [at least] these three experimental points is a failure of anyone doing or observing the experiment who did not point these out. This is basic high school physics and if these people have university academic positions and fail to make/perform these most elementary of scientific examinations, then I have to think that I do not see how they deserve to maintain their positions.

[Skipjack]

Chris does raise three very good points here.

[Nik]

I don't know what he's found-- Or thinks he's found-- but I'm glad he's insisting on spending his own money on it...

FWIW, he seems to be doing everything else wrong.

Reminds me of those 'overunity' widgets that have a couple of indifferent DVMs as output where you or I would hook up a string of festoon bulbs...

And let us not forget the eponymous N-rays...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

[Maui]

B) Weigh the reactor before and after. It is, even, dead easy to mount the whole assembly [and/or whole table +gas bottle] on strain-gauge weight sensors for a continuous readout of mass.

Yet the report clearly reads:

The total weight of the device was estimated to be around 4 kg.

How can you argue with that?

[Maui]

This is also pretty amusing:

“Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process,” Kullander said (see further details below).

Translation:
"Provided you don't look behind the curtain, the heat coming from behind it is proof of whatever you want it to be"

[Axil]

In Rossi ash, this correspondence to natural isotopic abundance is also driving the cold fusion community crazy. They all have there pet concepts and undiscovered particles that don’t matchup with experimental reality.

I am surprised that they are not well versed in the work of the LENR team: Dr H. Hora, and Dr. G.H. Miley. From a large volume of LENR experimental results, Dr Miley has developed a theory of LENR transmutation that predicts this natural abundance of isotopes around the magic atomic numbers of

2, 6, 14, 28, 50, 82, 126…

Now, 28 is the atomic number of nickel, and the fission of the super atom formed during the fusion of many atoms will result in an array of elements that cluster around peaks defined by these magic numbers:

2 – helium
6 – carbon
14 – silicon
28 – nickel

There will be many transmutation events producing nickel whose atomic number (A) is 28, but also some lesser amounts producing copper (A = 29) and even less zinc (A = 30).

On the other side of the Boltzmann quark distribution described by the expression N(Z) = N’ exp (-Z/Z’) where Z’ = 10.

You get more cobalt (A = 27) and even less Iron (A = 26).

All these elements have been seen is Rossi ash.

Around the lower order magic numbers carbon (A = 6) and silicon(A = 14) are clustered the following elements:


8 - Oxygen
9 - Fluorine(captured to form fluorides)
10 - Neon (outgased ?)
11 - Sodium
12 - Magnesium
13- Silicon (mentioned as ash)
14 - Phosphorus
15 – Sulfur (mentioned as ash)
16 – Chlorine (mentioned as ash)
17 – Argon (outgased ?)
18 – Potassium (mentioned as ash)
19 – Calcium (mentioned as ash)



A further consequence of the LENR evaluation leads to the ratios R (n) (n = 1, 2, 3…) of the Boltzmann probabilities, namely R (n) = 3n. This suggests a threefold property of stable configurations at magic numbers in nuclei, consistent with a quark property.


It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms together with some other atoms like nickel go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a coherent quark soup. In an instant, when the quark soup fissions, this LENR process produces atoms whose isotopic character is the same as exists in nature. This is to be expected since the inherent properties of quarks define what comes out of the fission process. This LENR fission process is done so gently and at such low energies that no unstable (radioactive) elements are produced.

Emitted X-rays energies correspond to the speeds of these various fission fragments rebounding away from the center of this fission process.

Don’t let the weird nature of quantum mechanics throw you, it’s all so natural.

[tomclarke]

C) What the heck is it with this crazy 'we measured a flow rate [with no back-pressure on the flow] into a measuring vessel, then extrapolated'. I can do this too. What I could do is measure the unimpeded flow rate from a tap, then plug it into a device with a restriction. Oh, look, a lower flow rate! Fancy that! What the heck does this way of measuring flow rate do to remove doubt!!!???

This 'C' point is common to all 3 demonstrations. It is a completely insane way to attempt to measure flow rate when electronic flow rate meters are accurate, plentiful and cheap. It makes no sense whatsoever to me why this method is chosen.

It would not be so difficult, without in any way breaking black box, to reproduce these effects under controlled and believable conditions. So the question is why does this not happen.

I find myself most deeply skeptical based on the reports so far. The point about flow rate seems to be common to all the demos (correct me if wrong). They have never had continuous monitoring of flow rate, and of course this can easily chnage through the course of the experiment. It is such an elementary mistake to reckon high temperature output => higher power without accurate measurement of flow rate.

I am also very highly skeptical because the ash given by Rossi for analysis apparently contains 10% Cu:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144827.ece

Kullander: The powder has reportedly been used for 2.5 months continuously with an output of 10 kW (according to Rossi). It corresponds to a total energy of 18 MWh, with a consumption of up to 100 grams of nickel and two grams of hydrogen. If the production had been done with oil, two tons of oil would have been required.

Ny Teknik: What analyses have you done on the powders?

Kullander: Element analysis and isotopic analysis. At the Ångström Laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden, element analysis has been made using X-ray Fluorescence (XRFS). Dr. Erik Lindahl undertook the investigation. At the Biomedical Center in Uppsala, both element analysis and isotope analysis has been done through Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Associate Professor Jean Pettersson has made the measurement.

Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?

Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.

Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?

Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.

The chances of all isotopic ratios being as found in nature after some sort of nuclear transmutation (as would be required if a powder is really converted from 99%+ Ni to 10% Cu) are very small. Let us be charitable and asume the Cu is contamination from a copper feed pipe or something like.

It smells to high heaven.