While I am on the side of the sceptics, it is worth adding that
separation does not equal enrichment
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
tomclark says: yet somehow out of all this Professor Kullander has a new LENR theory Ekstrom is excited about...raphael wrote:According to Ekstrom:
"I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of a proton in the nickel is unlikely. Kullander has proposed an alternative possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to nickel to do)."
From another source:
Ekström has been so critical of the whole thing... I think its really really fascinating that he regards Kullanders explanation as "physically possible and therefore interesting"
"Min åsikt är att det är fysikaliskt möjligt, och därför intressant..."
May 19, 2011 6:39 PM
From another source:
"Nickel, like the palladium used by Fleischmann, is not directly involved in the fusion process, but "merely" provides the environment ( a very flat effective potential landscape for the protons/deuterons, by virtue of its lattice band electrons).
....
I understand why you have got this impression, because it is what Rossi and Focardi themselves tend to believe. However, they are not theorists, admit they haven't the slightest notion of what is going on, and have absolutely no evidence to support Widom's or any other proposed mechanism. Focardi (Rossi is really only the backer) has taken a entirely pragmatic suck-it-and-see approach to this since he first published in 1994. He just claims to produce heat at 400 celsius - lots of it - from a miniscule consumption of H2 and Ni nanopowder.
(circa 250 KWh from a consumption of 0.25g H2 and 2.5g Ni each and every day for around six months)
Having met him a couple of times, I am completely convinced by his honesty. Of all the possible interpretations, this is NOT a scam. For one thing, R&F wouldn't have invited the boss of the physics dept of Bologna from whom they lease the lab space to the public demonstrations in February. Needless to say, he left the meeting entirely convinced by the huge exothermy, in common with all other 50 participants, many of whom are highly qualified scientists.
I have every sympathy with people who see this as yet another free energy scam. Thermodynamics-violating free energy scams annoy me more than most, probably because I studied, researched and taught quantum physics at Oxford University from 1978-1999. However, for a number of reasons that I find compelling, ... I remain convinced that: Its Different This Time."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hopefully, Kullander's "explanation" will be forthcoming in the near future.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner
Actually i said thatraphael wrote: tomclark says: yet somehow out of all this Professor Kullander has a new LENR theory Ekstrom is excited about...
- I appreciate your thoughts. I found it difficult to follow Ekstrom's line of thinking on the translated forum. He definetly isn't any more convinced about Rossi - acutally a serious critic - but seems excited by what Kullander is proposing.Rossi does say he knows what is going on...raphael wrote:I understand why you have got this impression, because it is what Rossi and Focardi themselves tend to believe. However, they are not theorists, admit they haven't the slightest notion of what is going on,
...and with no new physics.Dear Mr Raul Heining:
After ripetitive tests we are making on our modules, I think I reached a good theoretical explication about what happens, and I do not think a new Physic is necessary. It is enough to study better the existing one.
Warm regards,
A.R.
1) Working Cold Fusion Deviceraphael wrote: I have every sympathy with people who see this as yet another free energy scam. Thermodynamics-violating free energy scams annoy me more than most, probably because I studied, researched and taught quantum physics at Oxford University from 1978-1999. However, for a number of reasons that I find compelling, ... I remain convinced that: Its Different This Time."
2) Cheap Isotopic Enrichment
3) Leonardo Corporation has a factory - actually two.
4) No new physics.
What is easier to believe.
a) Rossi invented a new form of isotopic enrichment to produce nickel powder in the right isotopic consistency to enable his world saving cold fusion device that works on unknown implications of standard physics and that he is producing the devices at a factory that doesn't seem to exist (two factories actually).
or
b) Rossi invented a scam capable of fooling a few scientists and you.
Oops. The words are indeed yours and not tomclark's. I regret the error.cg66 wrote:Actually i said thatraphael wrote: tomclark says: yet somehow out of all this Professor Kullander has a new LENR theory Ekstrom is excited about...
Regarding Ekstrom: If he's interested in an explanation then to infer that he believes there's something there that warrants the explanation seems not unreasonable.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner
The sample Rossi gave to Kullander was supposedly from a device that operated for 2.5 months. It contains 10% copper in natural isotope ratios. This should represent 40% spent fuel (6.9g Cu-63 and 3.1g of Cu-65). So after 6 months you would have 16.6g Cu-63 and 7.4g Cu-65. Speculating based on Rossi’s comments that Ni-62 and Ni-64 are required in similar rations. The starting fuel would contain around 80g of natural NI and require and additional 13g of Ni-62 and 6g of Ni-64. Nickel costs around 38$ a kilo. I’m not sure how much the isotope version cost but even at $2000/kilo for Ni-62 and $4000/kilo for Ni-64 (reasonable based on natural ratios?)– the cost for 100g of a Nickel powder blend in the right rations would be around $55. Is this reasonable? It is at least consistent with Rossi’s claim of a 100$ to “recharge”. (yes I know this implies that Rossi isn’t lying or running a scam – just thought it was fun to look at )
)MSimon,
You can see a schematic of the device (1 MW?) according to Defkalion at 21:37 into this Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Ea92OViZw
Assuming 2/3 of the weight is lead shielding this means 3.8 cu.ft of lead.1 m^3 full of water (density = 1 by definition) = 1 metric ton.
3 X 2 X 2 = 12 m^3 or 12 metric tons density = 1. Getting 2 tons of stuff in such a container is going to be tough.
/sarc
You can see a schematic of the device (1 MW?) according to Defkalion at 21:37 into this Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Ea92OViZw
seedload,
You seem to be suffering from Pathological Skepticism. How many black swans does it take to prove black swans exist?
It will be fun to watch you back pedaling near the speed of light should Rossi provide the 1 MW plant by the end of the year.
What content? Setting up straw men to knock down with repetitive explanations, all are already familiar with, doesn't count and just shows you didn't understand the point being made.Oh, and Parallel, stop asking me for content when you ignore the content I provide.
You seem to be suffering from Pathological Skepticism. How many black swans does it take to prove black swans exist?
It will be fun to watch you back pedaling near the speed of light should Rossi provide the 1 MW plant by the end of the year.
tomclarke,
Does this paper make sense?
H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals
By J.S.Brown
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/ ... 3715v4.pdf
It is beyond my knowledge of nuclear physics.
Does this paper make sense?
H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals
By J.S.Brown
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/ ... 3715v4.pdf
It is beyond my knowledge of nuclear physics.
I have provided plenty of content even before your post that said I have not. And, plenty since. And, again you fail to respond to any of it except to say that it is not worth your time and something about black swans.parallel wrote:seedload,What content? Setting up straw men to knock down with repetitive explanations, all are already familiar with, doesn't count and just shows you didn't understand the point being made.Oh, and Parallel, stop asking me for content when you ignore the content I provide.
You seem to be suffering from Pathological Skepticism. How many black swans does it take to prove black swans exist?
It will be fun to watch you back pedaling near the speed of light should Rossi provide the 1 MW plant by the end of the year.
1) Rossi claims a new cheap process of isotopic enrichment of NI. This represents another unreasonable leap forward by him.
No response.
2) Leonardo Corporation doesn't have a factory but Rossi claims to be in it and to be manufacturing from it. Instead it is a rancher and an apartment.
No response.
3) Rossi HAS received investment money and Rossi IS soliciting more as evidenced by the new company formed and it's stated objectives -seeking investors and selling licenses!
No response.
4) Logical argument that the probability of Rossi inventing a good scam is much higher than that of him inventing the device he claims to have invented.
No response.
5) Evidence that the main office of Leonardo Corporation does not exist at the location on the web site.
No response.
6) Evidence that the main office of Leonardo Corporation is some guys house in the woods.
No response.
7) Evidence that the Miami factory of Leonardo Corporation is an apartment.
No response.
Evidence that Leonardo Corporation claims to have a cargo package perfectly acceptable for the transport of the completed power plant - even though the claim is probably false since they don't seem to have actually ever made anything. No response.
9) Rossi is now claiming to know the physics behind his device and that it requires no new physics.
No response.
These are all things that you personally have not responded to. So, please address them rather than just sitting there saying I am not contributing anything with substance.
And, to be fair, I will answer your question. Yes, if there is one black swan then they exist. Rossi is neither black nor swan like.
No I am not. I am not skeptical of Rossi at all. Being skeptical implies a slight doubt (chance that I am wrong). No, I just flat out don't believe him, one hundred percent.You seem to be suffering from Pathological Skepticism.
Now, if I AM wrong as you say, I will NOT do any back peddle. I will just be wrong. Besides, I will be a lot more happy than I will be worried about having been wrong.
The pathological part most definitely doesn't apply to me, but with your sample size of one you can't know that can you.
regards
It's also been asserted, IIRC, that a lot of the nickel in a "spent" reactor is recoverable....cg66 wrote:The sample Rossi gave to Kullander was supposedly from a device that operated for 2.5 months. It contains 10% copper in natural isotope ratios. This should represent 40% spent fuel (6.9g Cu-63 and 3.1g of Cu-65). So after 6 months you would have 16.6g Cu-63 and 7.4g Cu-65. Speculating based on Rossi’s comments that Ni-62 and Ni-64 are required in similar rations. The starting fuel would contain around 80g of natural NI and require and additional 13g of Ni-62 and 6g of Ni-64. Nickel costs around 38$ a kilo. I’m not sure how much the isotope version cost but even at $2000/kilo for Ni-62 and $4000/kilo for Ni-64 (reasonable based on natural ratios?)– the cost for 100g of a Nickel powder blend in the right rations would be around $55. Is this reasonable? It is at least consistent with Rossi’s claim of a 100$ to “recharge”. (yes I know this implies that Rossi isn’t lying or running a scam – just thought it was fun to look at
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner
I am pretty sure that he is just saying that enrichment is short of full separation. Both are separation. Only the terminology I used would imply getting isotopically pure results.raphael wrote:Skipjack, some elaboration would be appreciated......Skipjack wrote:While I am on the side of the sceptics, it is worth adding that
separation does not equal enrichment
A minor point to call out a mistake by me.
If you web search "Isotopic Enrichment" the first result is "Isotope Separation" on wikipedia for what it is worth.
Assumes that for some reason you want to arrive at the natural isotopic ratio of copper in the end. What that reason would be is beyond me?raphael wrote:It's also been asserted, IIRC, that a lot of the nickel in a "spent" reactor is recoverable....cg66 wrote:The sample Rossi gave to Kullander was supposedly from a device that operated for 2.5 months. It contains 10% copper in natural isotope ratios. This should represent 40% spent fuel (6.9g Cu-63 and 3.1g of Cu-65). So after 6 months you would have 16.6g Cu-63 and 7.4g Cu-65. Speculating based on Rossi’s comments that Ni-62 and Ni-64 are required in similar rations. The starting fuel would contain around 80g of natural NI and require and additional 13g of Ni-62 and 6g of Ni-64. Nickel costs around 38$ a kilo. I’m not sure how much the isotope version cost but even at $2000/kilo for Ni-62 and $4000/kilo for Ni-64 (reasonable based on natural ratios?)– the cost for 100g of a Nickel powder blend in the right rations would be around $55. Is this reasonable? It is at least consistent with Rossi’s claim of a 100$ to “recharge”. (yes I know this implies that Rossi isn’t lying or running a scam – just thought it was fun to look at
Rossi has said that only NI62 and NI64 actually react. Other isotopes do not react. He has also said that you don't need to enrich it to get reactions. So, assuming he is only adding NI62 and NI64 to get more reactions, the idea that he would need to do this in a ratio that matches natural ratios for copper is odd, unless, I suppose, he intended to mislead. But, if that was his intention, then why admit to being able to enrich?
It doesn't make any sense. Sorry.
seedload - i agree it doesn’t make much sense (certainly one strange coincidence for sure). I just used the natural copper isotope values to back into the amount you would have to enrich the nickel if NI-62 -> Cu-63 and NI-64->Cu-65 were the reactions in the device.seedload wrote:Assumes that for some reason you want to arrive at the natural isotopic ratio of copper in the end. What that reason would be is beyond me?raphael wrote:It's also been asserted, IIRC, that a lot of the nickel in a "spent" reactor is recoverable....cg66 wrote:The sample Rossi gave to Kullander was supposedly from a device that operated for 2.5 months. It contains 10% copper in natural isotope ratios. This should represent 40% spent fuel (6.9g Cu-63 and 3.1g of Cu-65). So after 6 months you would have 16.6g Cu-63 and 7.4g Cu-65. Speculating based on Rossi’s comments that Ni-62 and Ni-64 are required in similar rations. The starting fuel would contain around 80g of natural NI and require and additional 13g of Ni-62 and 6g of Ni-64. Nickel costs around 38$ a kilo. I’m not sure how much the isotope version cost but even at $2000/kilo for Ni-62 and $4000/kilo for Ni-64 (reasonable based on natural ratios?)– the cost for 100g of a Nickel powder blend in the right rations would be around $55. Is this reasonable? It is at least consistent with Rossi’s claim of a 100$ to “recharge”. (yes I know this implies that Rossi isn’t lying or running a scam – just thought it was fun to look at
Rossi has said that only NI62 and NI64 actually react. Other isotopes do not react. He has also said that you don't need to enrich it to get reactions. So, assuming he is only adding NI62 and NI64 to get more reactions, the idea that he would need to do this in a ratio that matches natural ratios for copper is odd, unless, I suppose, he intended to mislead. But, if that was his intention, then why admit to being able to enrich?
It doesn't make any sense. Sorry.