parallel wrote:ScottL wrote:As objective thinkers, scientists, engineers, physicists, and hobbyists, our goals are not to defend Rossi's work but to punch holes in it. ............
I don't agree with your premise that the only objective is to punch holes in Rossi's work. How about explaining how it might work?
The objection I have to the pathological skeptics here is that they are so boringly repetitive. The demos with steam obviously leave much to be desired and I won't repeat the problems. The main concern I raised a long time ago is that without controlling either the water flow or the heat output from the reactor with a feedback loop it seems unlikely that one could maintain a constant steam/exit temperature..........
First off, maintaining a constant temperature does require a feedback. In this case that feedback is the boiling water. So long as it does not run dry or the pressure change, the temperature will be constant. This simply means the the input flow rate must match or slightly exceed the output. It would be extremely difficult to perfectly match the input to the output, so having a slight to modest excess water input is the easy approach. This is an engineering issue. The question is how much excess water input there is. A well engineered boiler will have baffles, etc that minimizes (not eliminates) hot water being entrained into the steam flow. By Rossi's claim this liquid water entrainment is very small or zero. Demonstrations by chrismb and others suggest this entrainment may be considerable. This is critical because the claim of excess energy is mostly, if not entirely dependent on this ratio. Some have claimed that other 'demos' have had input heating currents that would not heat the water flow to boiling if there was not excess energy. The presence of any steam would thus prove Rossi's claim. This argument is faulty though, because steam is produced by water well below boiling- (it is a Maxwellian distribution after all). Again quantitative measurements of heat and mass is required to resolve the issue. Also remember that out gassing will contribute to some vapor volume. Then there are the questions of input water and input energy rates over time. All of this requires accepted, time dependent recordings. Admittedly if the imput heating will only heat the water flow to eg: 70 degrees C, and the thermometer reads 100 Degrees C. Something is going on, either the water flow, heating input or water flow is invalid, or Rossi's claim is difficult to discount. Again , the reliability of the various conditions and measurements are the issue. You must accept Rossi's claims, adopt a wait and see attitude, of disbelieve based on the body of the evidence-contradictions in other areas/ tests, history, evasiveness, theory, etc. If Rossi was really interested in proving his claims, as opposed to ego, or financial motives, he would do these reasonable and very easily corrected and witnessed demos.
All of this does not necessarily disprove Rossi's claims, but with his refusal to do / reveal very easy tests that eliminates the steam issue, the skepticism is reinforced.
In general terms keeping an open mind is also pertinent. On this Polywell forum, there has been considerable arguments about measurement accuracy, and assumptions. Much of the arguments are thus a matter of interpretation and attitude. WB 7 results would go a far way towards resolving this. Alas, we are forced to use hearsay and innuendo to support our opinions.
The difference , from my viewpoint, is that the theory seems reasonable for the Polywell. The multiple varied test results also seem reasonable based on known physics (at least based on my hard earned but limited understanding). Nebel's and Bussards claims have always been based on the acceptance that further research was needed to eliminate uncertainties concerning measurements and assumptions.
Most are probably aware of my skepticism about the possibility of exothermic reactions by adding nucleons to nickel. This is completely different from ' more reasonable' Cold Fusion' claims that light nucleii fusion can occur in certain metals and produce excess energy. Neutron nucleosynthesis arguments are improbable. Where do the neutrons come from?. He uses hydrogen, not deuterium. What reaction produces neutrons that might be emitted or consumed in subsequent steps?
Radiation measurements are inconsistent and improbable. Initial gamma production at apparent large scale that penitrated into another room, yet none later when the claimed steady state heat output would result in huge gamma fluxes by any reasonable nuclear reaction involving gammas. That the startup produced claimed gammas (the measurement may be valid, but what was the source? The witness and meter were outside the room at the time (this smells fishy to me)). That these gammas were penitrating and detected, yet the steady state claimed gammas were not detectable ( except if the 1.5 background claim is valid, in which case the heating from these gammas would in the nano watt range). This implies not one, but two unexplained sources for the gammas. Gamma ray radiation that is claimed, but not measured. Lead shielding that would be totally inadequate to stop any but the most feeble gammas.
The secret catalyst is also a magic wand that is hard for me to accept. A catalyst does not change the energy yield from a reaction, what it does is change the speed of a reaction. If protons , or mysterious neutrons, combine with nickel (especially Ni62) an produce excess energy (impossible in my opinion) the catalyst might speed it up/ increase the probability, but if so, where is the baseline. Ignoring the energy balance question, a proton has a certain statistical probability of merging with a nickel nucleus that is temperature dependent. It is extremely rare even in most stars.. Much more rare than P-P fusion in stars.
Using comparisons with know fusion energy outputs from light nuclei, like the Polywell, the claimed fusion rate of ~ 1 billion fusions of D-D per second produced ~ 1 milliWatt. To get 10,000 Watts the fusion rate would need to be ~ 10^16 fusions. Actually probably ~ 10^17, or 10^18 fusions, as the energy yield per reaction would be less (again rejecting my argument ( and multiple physics sources) that the reaction is endothermic anyway.
Roughly, this implies that the secret catalyst speeds up the reaction by a conservative factor of ~ 10^60 X or much more. I use the fusion rate of P-P fusion in stars as the beginning baseline (~ 10^-45 M^2- ~ 10^-20 times smaller than D-D fusion crossections) Outside the huge volume, temperature and pressure conditions within a stars core the rate is so slow that it is essentially impossible to measure it. This would represent the ~ rarity of non catalyzed P-Ni fusion that has not been measured at near room temperature and pressure conditions (give or take a few million degrees and a few dozen atm's of pressure).
That is one busy catalyst that increases the reaction rate by a conservative factor of ~ 10^ 60.
Nuclear synthesis by neutron absorption is a different process. It is much easier, but is dependent upon thermal neutrons (or near thermal). Where do they come from, and in such huge numbers (~10^16-18 per second)? In stars they come mostly from Supernova, there the temperatures are in the billions, the pressure is considerable, and there is a whole mess of nuclear reactions occurring that produce free neutrons. For a few seconds there is density and neutrons enough to produce a lot of elements heavier than iron or nickel. Note that many, if not almost all of these heavy element nuclear synthesis processes are endothermic and actually cool the the expanding supernova fireball. In a sense you are charging the batteries of the uranium, thorium, etc that subsequently release energy through radiative decay or fission.
To error is human... and I'm very human.