10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Kahuna]

Some info on the Greek outfit (Defkalion Green Technologies) that will be distributing Rossi's device can be found here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 091266.ece

It mentions that there is also a U.S. distributor but does not give the name. Evidently Defkalion is not involved in energy generation, only distribution of the Rossi device.

Of note to those evaluating this as a scam is the following from the article:

He also made clear that his company Leonardo Corporation does not seek funding at the moment.

"We are fully funded by our customers," he said.

Nor does Defkalion Green Technologies seem to seek funding.

Defkalion Green Technologies states that it will hold a press confoerence within two months where further questions will be answered.

[Aragosta]

Of note to those evaluating this as a scam is the following from the article:

He also made clear that his company Leonardo Corporation does not seek funding at the moment.

"We are fully funded by our customers," he said.

Nor does Defkalion Green Technologies seem to seek funding.

Defkalion Green Technologies states that it will hold a press confoerence within two months where further questions will be answered.

Interesting.
Half of this yells 'another CF scam', the other half yells 'short oil futures'.

[Axil]

Mae West : "Don't keep a man guessing too long--he's sure to find the answer somewhere else."

[parallel]

Here is a link to an English translation of a discussion set up by Ny Teknik.

Ny Teknik invited Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society to participate in a scientific discussion on the Italian engineer Andrea Rossi’s so-called ‘energy catalyst’.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 111124.ece

I found the comments more rational than many recently on this thread and the question of how elements heavier than iron were formed was interesting.

[Ivy Matt]

Mae West : "Don't keep a man guessing too long--he's sure to find the answer somewhere else."

Well, when it comes to break-even fusion, our options are somewhat limited. I think Rossi can afford to keep people guessing till October, at least.

the question of how elements heavier than iron were formed was interesting.

Interesting, but I was disappointed to find that supernovae were not directly mentioned. Ah, well. I do think that the fusion vs. fission categorization of nuclear reactions is a bit simplistic.

[chrismb]

the question of how elements heavier than iron were formed was interesting.

Interesting, but I was disappointed to find that supernovae were not directly mentioned. Ah, well. I do think that the fusion vs. fission categorization of nuclear reactions is a bit simplistic.

You weren't looking hard enough.

My comment on page 2 of the comments;

chrismb
January 15th, 2011 at 6:28 PM

@Collis William
“If isotopes close to maximum stability could not participate in nucleon capture, there would be no heavy isotopes in the universe at all! Or all our theories on stellar nucleosynthesis are completely wrong!”

Isotopes above nickel and up to bismuth are formed endothermically, in the ‘slow’ process [of adding neutron-by-endothermic-neutron to a nucleus] in red giants.

To make elements above bismuth, up to plutonium*, nucleons pile up in the ‘fast’ process in a super-nova, in which there is plenty of ‘spare energy’ to feed those endothermic reactions. There is as much energy release in a super-nova as there is in several billion years of that star’s ‘normal’ life…Plenty of energy!

So it is from fusion energies of the lighter isotopes that feed the accumulation of nucleons in heavier super-nova products.

In regards the experiment here, I cannot say if there are any initially endothermic reactions that somehow lead, ultimately, to a ‘catalysed’ proton/proton fusion [for example] leaving the nickel behind. Of course I do not know these things for sure. But it is not possible by any nuclear mechanism I understand for an excited 63Cu from a 62Ni+p reaction to generate any heat.

Some possibilities can be excluded, but many cannot. If we do not know precisely what nuclear mechanism can account for anomalous heat, then it seems probable that we also cannot exclude non-nuclear explanations.

Personally, I am skeptical on a nuclear explanation because there is nothing I presently understand that could account for this, and I think there are other more likely possibilities. So I would encourage looking for other, as yet unknown, mechanisms.

But I would not want my skepticism to stop anyone else proving the thermal anomaly is nuclear in origin, if they can do so…. let me be amazed!!….

best regards,

Chris MB.

*[PS; Plutonium is a primordial super-nova element - it's just too short a half-life to find any naturally occurring on earth!]

[EDIT: Apologies, I thought that reference was still to the Rossi discussion, not the Swedish one. Anyhow, I'll leave this in case anyone is interested!]

[Torulf2]

As explained by the Swedish experts there are no problem with Ni in the reaction as long its include a proton.
But there are a problem that there are to little gamma radiation.
There are some conservation laws broken by this,.

[parallel]

There are some conservation laws broken by this,.

Not necessarily because of that alone.

[krenshala]

As explained by the Swedish experts there are no problem with Ni in the reaction as long its include a proton.
But there are a problem that there are to little gamma radiation.
There are some conservation laws broken by this,.

If an actually physically "observed" process appears to break conservation laws then the observer is clearly missing (or overlooking) some part of the process that is happening.

[parallel]

A flock of theoretical explanations for Rossi’s energy catalyzer have surfaced. At least one hypothesis explains why the gamma radiation would be weak. That is “deflation fusion” where the electron of a hydrogen atom could for attasecond periods be located in the nucleus. This would then have no charge and allow breaching the Coulomb barrier – if it happened quickly enough. Should fusion then occur the resulting atom would have less energy than normal. Possibly explaining the apparent problems with energy conservation.

See http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 9#more-179 for more.

[MSimon]

EEStor

[Maui]

EEStor

Really? Whether its bogus or not, it certainly seems to be a much different case than EEStor.

Rossi has more or less done what people have long asked of EEStor, BLP, et al.: provide a "black box" sample to be tested.

Sure, it wasn't done to the degree and standards we'd like it to be, but then again at what degree would we really be all satisfied? If it is real, there will likely still be doubters for years after the first installation. (Barack was born in Kenya, after all)

I admit I don't understand nearly as much as the next guy on this board, but even if I did I feel like the question I would be stuck on is what could produce 270 kWh while losing .4 g in mass instead of gamma radiation. A very clever parlor trick at the least.

I'm willing to treat this case similar to Polywell: Nebel said 2 years, Rossi has said 8 months. Crossing fingers and hoping for the best on both.

EDIT: I suppose with this post I am sweeping the tests Rowan has done under the rug yet trusting Levi. That may not be entirely fair, but at least it appears Levi's tests had other witnesses.

[Skipjack]

Well Rossi has almost done what people have asked from BLP and EESTOR.
1. At the first test, only invited observers were allowed.
2. At the second test it was only one "independend" observer (they are somewhat associated).
3. He never let independend observers have their way with that black box as they wanted (he could have been there to make sure they dont steal his secrets).

All that leaves a lot of doubts in me. It just is all tooo setup. It almost seems like a magic trick to me. A member of the audience is allowed to enter the stage, but he has to stand exactly where he is supposed to and then he is allowed to check the knot, but only when the magician tells him to. You dont agree?
I have said it before, I would love to have fellow sceptic and probably the worlds greatest debunker (though he does not want to be called that) James Randi have his way with it. I am sure that he would be able to uncover a fraud, or even if Rossi is just missguided like Benveniste was (that homeopathy guy).

[chrismb]

..and still this thread rumbles on...

...The thing I am interested in is how this random guy has drawn so much attention, when there are other far more worthy and open experiments going on in science all the time?

Can someone please DEFINITIVELY explain to me why, even if everything is absolutely true about the demonstrations, this is sooo much more likely an unknown nuclear reaction, as opposed to an unknown chemical reaction ?


I mean, I just don't get it!! What is the logical position all here that are promoting nuclear explanations start from? They say "ah, this is not a known chemical reaction, therefore it must be an unknown nuclear reaction!"

C'mon.... duh!!!

[parallel]

chrismb

Can someone please DEFINITIVELY explain to me why, even if everything is absolutely true about the demonstrations, this is sooo much more likely an unknown nuclear reaction, as opposed to an unknown chemical reaction ?

From http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece

“The second thing is that this time we loaded the unit with hydrogen at the beginning, and then the bottle was closed. It then worked for 18 hours with the bottle closed. Quite impressive.”
“I weighed container before and after charging, and including the gas we let out to empty the tube of air, the consumption of hydrogen was 0.4 grams. That’s nothing!”

“Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I calculated it several times. At night we did a measurement and the device then worked very stable and produced 20 kilowatts.”

“Now that I have seen the device work for so many hours, in my view all chemical energy sources are excluded,” said Giuseppe Levi.

So it is either out and out fraud and all the participants are liars, or it is not a chemical reaction.