10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

Unnnhhh, wha???
I are a mechanical engineer. Do you have a mechanical analog?

That's a tough one, especially at 3 AM in the morning

You can imagine as if they are trying to induce a cavitation effect into a fluid squeezed between two plates, with the hope that the cavitation will induce a fusion between the fluid and a part of the plates.

Uhm.. is not really a nice analogy. I will sleep over it and try to get some better example tomorrow morning.

[Giorgio]

Tom - how do you suggest W-L is inconsistent with Rossi's work?

The theory requires a to have a metal hydride with a high potential difference (normally obtained through Laser radiation) to form the heavy mass renormalized electrons that "might" produce the low energy neutrons which are at the base of the theory.

I really think Tom is right in stating this is inconsistent with the Rossi device.

Well actually I nwas thinking that isotopic measurements on the before & after reactor powder provided by Rossi were not consistent with W-L LENR.

I also can't see how the W-L high energy electrons can be created - but that is another issue.

Best wishes, Tom

I see. I didn't even consider the isotopic issue because I also do not see how they could the create the heavy electrons.
What considerations did you make on the isotopes?

[Giorgio]

I haven't given up all hope on EEStor

I wonder what it will take to convince you than.
A scam more clear than this is hard to be find.
That is if we exclude BLP and Steorn of course, they are at the top.

[parallel]

MSimon,

Again, as far as I know, others have not had the purity that EEStor claims. That and the Al2O3 coating to keep out O2 and possibly the plastic matrix used may effect the DC. Others have recently shown considerable improvement of DC at high voltages with Barium Titanate: nowhere near Weir's claim of course, but much better than you suggest.

Rossi has stated he will apply for a patent for the catalyst after he has one for the reactor. I don't know whether the Italian patent is enough for him to go ahead. As I've written before, the protection by patents is limited and expensive to enforce. If I were him, I wouldn't risk it until shortly before the planned 1 MW plant. There is little hope of him getting a patent in less than 2 years anyway. Why give it away to your competitors?

It's going to be a long Summer waiting...

[MSimon]

Why give it away to your competitors?

If he has no patent he will be giving it away eventually.

Prediction: About the time the plant is supposed to go into operation technical difficulties will be delaying the start-up by about 6 months. These delays will continue until folks lose interest.

========

EEStor:

As to "high purity" - you think Murata and the rest of the capacitor makers haven't looked into that? After all they have plenty of funds to do that sort of thing. Jut think of what it would mean in terms of smaller electronics. The first to the market would make more than enough to cover the research plus a good profit.

It is a scam for the the uninitiated. i.e. no background in electronics.

[GIThruster]

Given that Sandia National Labs is examining the EEStor issue, that third parties have had FOIA filed for several months, and that DOE has utterly failed to respond in timely fashion to these filings (they are more than 7 months behind the statutory requirement) ; it seems to me the vast balance of warrant for belief ought to be to agree that the issue is complex, difficult to judge, and requires a great deal more time than one would normally guess.

There are still excellent reasons to hope EEStor has what they say they have, and we will most certainly have an answer. Since EEStor offered AFRL and DOE to do this examination, we have been assured the truth will come out. One question to ask yourself is, why would EEStor have done this if they had anything less than what they say?

The discovery at Sandia is ongoing, and as soon as they have a finding, expect the FOIA filings from more than half a year ago to splash that finding all over the web.

[MSimon]

One question to ask yourself is, why would EEStor have done this if they had anything less than what they say?

Keep the scam going for a while longer.

[tomclarke]

The heart of Rossi's "find" is his secret sauce. The fact that he isn't locking the IP by patents is a tell. Because this is a trade secret he will not be able to keep if his device works. If the device doesn't work of course he will be keeping the secret forever.

It is difficult to see how it could not be patentable. No-one else has demonstrated working CF. And if there is conflict with Piantelli, if his stuff works, he clearly does something different to get higher power.

As with many of these things when you unpick what is possible you have to suppose the inventors idiots or the inventions bust.

Best wishes, Tom

[tomclarke]

The theory requires a to have a metal hydride with a high potential difference (normally obtained through Laser radiation) to form the heavy mass renormalized electrons that "might" produce the low energy neutrons which are at the base of the theory.

I really think Tom is right in stating this is inconsistent with the Rossi device.

Well actually I nwas thinking that isotopic measurements on the before & after reactor powder provided by Rossi were not consistent with W-L LENR.

I also can't see how the W-L high energy electrons can be created - but that is another issue.

Best wishes, Tom

I see. I didn't even consider the isotopic issue because I also do not see how they could the create the heavy electrons.
What considerations did you make on the isotopes?

The original was nickel, trace qtys other stuff.
The ash was nickel with significant admixture of copper & iron.

Before you think Ni->Cu note that the tubing was copper & iron!

The isotopic concentrations were found to be as in nature, very difficult to see how that would be the case.

63Cu is a possible product from a chain starting with 58Ni. However 65Cu is not a possible product from any Ni isotope naturally occurring (you need 63Ni as starting point). The fact the 63Cu, 65Cu are found in the ash with natural abundance ratio just does not make sense.

[Giorgio]

The original was nickel, trace qtys other stuff.
The ash was nickel with significant admixture of copper & iron.

Before you think Ni->Cu note that the tubing was copper & iron!

The isotopic concentrations were found to be as in nature, very difficult to see how that would be the case.

Yes, that was my first objection too. I thought you had some extra data that made you reach that conclusion.

I rely on others for a more detailed analysis:
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Comments- ... 29164.html

See comments 2 & 3.

Thanks, I will give it a look.

[tomclarke]

The original was nickel, trace qtys other stuff.
The ash was nickel with significant admixture of copper & iron.

Before you think Ni->Cu note that the tubing was copper & iron!

The isotopic concentrations were found to be as in nature, very difficult to see how that would be the case.

Yes, that was my first objection too. I thought you had some extra data that made you reach that conclusion.

I rely on others for a more detailed analysis:
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Comments- ... 29164.html

See comments 2 & 3.

Thanks, I will give it a look.

Sorry - I posted the above, looked at it more, decided it was unclear. I have edited the original!

Best wishes, Tom

[marvin57]

Are you suggesting that Rossi has found a way to create Leptons on demand?

Last time I checked Muons requested energy in excess of 100 MeV to be created in lab.
And that's a lot of energy.

I suggested no such thing. I merely said that there was a actually way to overcome the Coulomb Barrier that worked at room temperature.

[marvin57]

marvin,

You are aware that there are some problems with muon catalyzed fusion? Like the limited lifetime of muons. Not to mention the energy required to create them.

Or maybe Rossi has figured out how to summon Maxwell's Demons. That could work. If they were devoted to producing nuclear reactions by concentrating the locally available thermal energy.

In the limited lifetime of muons they still have ample time to be involved in hundreds to thousands of fusion events. The muons are catalysts, they are not destroyed by any given fusion event, and they can go on to catalyse further events. It is most decidedly not one muon to one fusion event.

Now if there was some radioactive-decay-style way for an atom of an isotope of nickel to self-destruct and as part of that breakdown produce a muon ... don't we have the vague beginnings of a theory here?

The common nay-sayer's claim is that no theory at all for Rossi-style cold fusion is in any way possible ... and yet with uCF we actually have a way that fusion events at room temperatures are in fact possible, one which has been observed, documented in peer-reviewed papers, independently verified and quite extensively studied.

Just saying ...

[MSimon]

Are you suggesting that Rossi has found a way to create Leptons on demand?

Last time I checked Muons requested energy in excess of 100 MeV to be created in lab.
And that's a lot of energy.

I suggested no such thing. I merely said that there was a actually way to overcome the Coulomb Barrier that worked at room temperature.

So can we rule out muons?

And if not muons then what? Very high density pixie dust?

I have a theory that explains how the device actually works:

1. Issue a lot of press releases explaining the fantastic promise of the device. The potential is unlimited.
2. Collect cash from suckers.

[tomclarke]

Isotopic concentrations in Rossi experiments.

I'm doing this myself - please ignore other stuff above.

Rossi claims to use 64Ni, 62Ni enriched nickel, says that these work, 58Ni, 60Ni do not.

This is from comments on the Rossi blog
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 2#comments
April 8th Rossi unambiguously states that he enriches.

Frankly, reading these comments, you get the impression Rossi is a major BSer, and says this because it is what he needs to get stable Cu from proton capture, his claimed mechanism. But leave that aside. If he is not lying, then this is what he has found.

Enriching for 64Ni (1%) & 62Ni (3%) will make his powder a good deal more expensive - leave that aside.

it seems implausible that slow neutron capture would be much higher cross section for 62Ni, 64Ni when compared with 58Ni, 60Ni - leave that aside. Perhaps someone has these cross sections?

If slow neutron capture is the mechanism, as proposed by W-L:

64Ni + n -> 65Ni + gamma
65Ni -> 65Cu + beta (2.5 hour lifetime)

62Ni+n -> 63Ni +gamma
63Ni -> 63Cu + beta (100 year lifetime)


Natural abundance (also ratio found in measured Rossi ash)
63Cu (70%)
65Cu (30%)

There is no way the 63Cu ash can appear over 3 months due to the long lifetime of 63Ni.

Also, these reactions would make ash highly radioactive after 5 hours (Rossi claims not)

Also, the residual 63Ni would make the ash radioactive even after months. this was not detected by the Swedish people who were given an ash sample.

It is what I mean about CF holes. When you look in detail about what might happen given some miracle nuclear mechanism you find nothing like what you should have. On contrary, you find no radioactivity, isotopic concentrations as naturally ocurring, etc.

Best wishes, Tom