10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[rcain]

don't know whether anyone caught this before:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... -collapse/

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

happy new year to you all

[JoeP]

don't know whether anyone caught this before:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... -collapse/

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

happy new year to you all

No metal lattice in stars. Does not address condensed matter physics most CF theories seem to require. Maybe the author felt it too ridiculous to even mention, eh?

[rcain]

don't know whether anyone caught this before:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... -collapse/

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

happy new year to you all

No metal lattice in stars.

- does not affect his arguments.

...Does not address condensed matter physics most CF theories seem to require. Maybe the author felt it too ridiculous to even mention, eh?

- does not mention 'green goblins' either - perhaps they are responsible for Rossi's claim

[rcain]

ps:

CF/LENR/Rossi - also gets a mention in Dec 2011 edition of Materials Today, vol14, no12, page 622. - www.materialstoday.com (you will need to register (free) to view archive).

somewhat skeptical, as you might imagine, and seems to have some of his facts wrong - confusing Mill's 'hydrino' theory with Rossi's theory (which doesnt even exist, afaik).

still, good to see the topic being aired at all in the mainstream.

[JoeP]

don't know whether anyone caught this before:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... -collapse/

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

happy new year to you all

No metal lattice in stars.

- does not affect his arguments.

...Does not address condensed matter physics most CF theories seem to require. Maybe the author felt it too ridiculous to even mention, eh?

- does not mention 'green goblins' either - perhaps they are responsible for Rossi's claim

So condensed matter conditions are irrelevant, and this is a fact?

[Maui]

don't know whether anyone caught this before:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... -collapse/

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

I had seen that before. I don't give any weight to any of Rossi's claims, but it seemed to my untrained eye that the article was based on the assumption that the eCat supposedly produces energy through standard, well understood processes (hot fusion).

But with the eCat (and other recent LENR experiments), we have no idea what is going on (if there is anything). There may be something to it without being fusion at all. So I guess its fine to rule out "normal" hot fusion in the eCat as this article does, but since no one was really claiming that's what was happening in the first place, does that really get us anywhere?

[stefanbanev]

No metal lattice in stars.

- does not affect his arguments.

...Does not address condensed matter physics most CF theories seem to require. Maybe the author felt it too ridiculous to even mention, eh?

- does not mention 'green goblins' either - perhaps they are responsible for Rossi's claim

So condensed matter conditions are irrelevant, and this is a fact?

The answer depends on whom you ask ;o) 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 it really depends on some defaults. There is no an established condense matter mechanism behind CF just some ideas are considered by someone as viable. It likely involves an assembly quantum effects and it is really a messy domain... no surprise that "CF" experiments are ahead of theory....

[JoeP]

- does not affect his arguments.
- does not mention 'green goblins' either - perhaps they are responsible for Rossi's claim

So condensed matter conditions are irrelevant, and this is a fact?

The answer depends on whom you ask ;o) 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 it really depends on some defaults. There is no an established condense matter mechanism behind CF just some ideas are considered by someone as viable. It likely involves an assembly quantum effects and it is really a messy domain... no surprise that "CF" experiments are ahead of theory....

Right, my question was rhetorical Mainly objected to the green goblin characterization of condensed matter having relevance. Hot fusion in a star is will not occur in the same environment as the supposed CF effects in a solid metal lattice. The jury is still out.

[KitemanSA]

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

Yet again a baseless strawman. AFAICT, Rossi never claimed "cold fusion". LENR is plausibly a totally different subject.

[D Tibbets]

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

Yet again a baseless strawman. AFAICT, Rossi never claimed "cold fusion". LENR is plausibly a totally different subject.

Different subject?
Um, LENR is cold fusion, or cold fusion is LENR if you prefer. It was a decision to use LENR as a title. Partly due to the bad press for cold fusion, and partly to use a more appropriate descriptive title.. An even more appropriate title may be LEHPR ( Low Energy (excess)Heat Producing Reactions) It implies legitimate if poorly understood heat production without prejudicial assumptions of only nuclear reactions. Do you suppose it will catch on?

PS: in my opinion, Rossi's device would fit into the LEHPS definition.
(Low Energy Heat Producing Scams (or Stupidity- as his claims are of a magnitude that would be very easily verifiable if some simple experimental rules were followed- no steam, closed system, etc.)).
It is one thing to have subtle effects that are difficult to verify and duplicate. It is an entirely different matter when you are talking about Ross's claimed results. Is he lying? is he delusional, perhaps, or perhaps not. What is certain is that he has not demonstrated his claims against even very basic criticisms. If he has a black box that produces excess heat, he has failed miserably to prove it. Whether standard model or other physics hand waving could provide numbers that support his claims are irrelevant (except from a financial backing perspective) until such time as his 'experiments' are accepted as valid.

You can ask, but who judges the validity? Anyone, of course. If a person or organization invests in his scheme, then hopefully they accept his claims as valid. Or perhaps they are purely gambling on very long odds that they might get a positive return on investment, if not from a successful product, then as part of a Ponzi like scheme, tax deduction, etc. But do not assume that a subset of believers validates a position merely by their existence. If you accept that the scientific method is the rules you play by, then you cannot draw any positive conclusions from what has been presented.

Dan Tibbets

[ScottL]

LENR and Cold Fusion aren't really the same thing at all. LENR requires no fusion process while cold fusion most certainly does.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... rsus-lenr/

For a brief explanation.

[JoeP]

LENR and Cold Fusion aren't really the same thing at all. LENR requires no fusion process while cold fusion most certainly does.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... rsus-lenr/

For a brief explanation.

LENR is CF re-branded and is likely the same reaction (whatever that is, assuming there is anything actually happening that is non-chemical and nuclear).

[ScottL]

LENR and Cold Fusion aren't really the same thing at all. LENR requires no fusion process while cold fusion most certainly does.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/ ... rsus-lenr/

For a brief explanation.

LENR is CF re-branded and is likely the same reaction (whatever that is, assuming there is anything actually happening that is non-chemical and nuclear).

LENR is all about neutron capture, fusion is not. The term cold fusion was a misnomer because they didn't have an adequate way to define it. We really should get our terms straight, this is not cold fusion. There is no overcoming of the CB nor any form of additional charge.

[JoeP]

LENR is all about neutron capture, fusion is not. The term cold fusion was a misnomer because they didn't have an adequate way to define it. We really should get our terms straight, this is not cold fusion. There is no overcoming of the CB nor any form of additional charge.

I'll grant you the misnomer. However, the certainty of your last statement is interesting. I did not know all doubt has been resolved regarding the lack of fusion in these experiments.

[KitemanSA]

good summary of why Rossi's isotopical claims simply 'cannot be'.

Yet again a baseless strawman. AFAICT, Rossi never claimed "cold fusion". LENR is plausibly a totally different subject.

Different subject?
Um, LENR is cold fusion, or cold fusion is LENR if you prefer. It was a decision to use LENR as a title.

Depends on how you define "fusion". The way YOU seem to define it, then LENR is NOT fusion. Others allow for a broader definition and so to them it may still be.

But first you define it as "fusion", then you condemn it because it doesn't follow the path of "HOT fusion".

Dan, IF the Widom Larsen hypthesis were proved true, would you consider that reaction "fusion"?