10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Skipjack]

Also, I think that that much chemical energy stored in that little space would be quite revolutionary in itself. IIRC the device only weighs a 3 Kg (or maybe I remember that wrong?) and is rather small.
Therefore I think that it is either a fraud, or it is real. The propability of Rossi and co being simply misguided is small.
Still, I do think that we do not have quite enough information yet to say anything with certainty.

[chrismb]

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

Why do you come to that conclusion? How much chemical energy is there in the reactor before the hydrogen is added? The hydrogen might simply have a higher reactivity than other chemicals in the 'device', so is merely a 'starter motor' for chemical reactions in the device.

Are you saying that they can definitely rule out 'unknown chemical reactions' within the reagents already in the device in favour of an unknown nuclear reaction!!!???

If my car has a flat battery, I can jump start it with just a few 100's of joules then turn the electrical juice off, yet it'll drive for several hundred miles after that!

Fancy that... my car will do 500 miles on just 100 J of input energy!!!!

Imagine I made a claim that my car ran on just a 100J of electrical energy, treated it as a 'black box', then invited my buddies to tell me how clever I was and I said 'look at this test everyone! Trust that my friends are telling you how clever I am!!!'

[chrismb]

Also, I think that that much chemical energy stored in that little space would be quite revolutionary in itself. IIRC the device only weighs a 3 Kg (or maybe I remember that wrong?) and is rather small.
Therefore I think that it is either a fraud, or it is real. The propability of Rossi and co being simply misguided is small.
Still, I do think that we do not have quite enough information yet to say anything with certainty.

Question is, did it release that much energy? A flow of steam carrying 10kW is a stream of gas at 10's of kph - all through that tiny tube at the top!!! Didn't even seem to be vented externally, but just into the room space.

You go boil a kettle (1 to 2 kW) and tell me how much steam it makes!!!

[Skipjack]

Question is, did it release that much energy? A flow of steam carrying 10kW is a stream of gas at 10's of kph - all through that tiny tube at the top!!! Didn't even seem to be vented externally, but just into the room space.

Did you even read the article on the second test?
In that second test it allegedly(!) heated 300l/h by 5 degrees C over a period of 18 hours on 4g of hydrogen.
No steam was produced in that test- setup:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/ossi-l ... tions.html

All of this is allegedly of course.
As I said, it could still be a fraud.

A source close to the recent 18-hour test of the Rossi device gave me the
following figures. These are approximations.

Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = 833 ml/s.

Input temperature: 15°C

Output temperature ~20°C

Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W
for 6 hours

Notes from Jed

5°C temperature difference * 833 ml = 4,165 cal/s = 17,493 W

For comparison a kg of Zip- fuel which has a mich higher energy density than say normal jet fuel, has only about 20 kWh/kg.
I can not quite remember anymore where I read it, but IIRC the device allegedly only weights 3Kg. That would only be some 60 kWh....
The device allegedly(!) produced more than 5 times as much energy over those 18 hours.

[Kahuna]

I can not quite remember anymore where I read it, but IIRC the device allegedly only weights 3Kg.

In the last NyTeknik article, Levi is quated as saying: “I have also seen inside the reactor device itself – most of the volume is isolation, and most of the weight of about 30 kg is due to lead.”

[parallel]

Skipjack,

My memory says ~30kg (most of it the lead shielding.)

The actual reaction chamber is only ~ 1 liter and several people have seen inside of the rest of the equipment.

I wonder if chrismb can think of a chemical that would fit inside that volume that could produce 18 * 15kW (270kW) with a weight change of 0.4 grms at such a steady rate? Remember there is no air inlet or exhaust port with hot gases coming out.

Edit Posted before seeing Kahuna's post above.

[Skipjack]

Ok, 30 Kg would work then. At that weight it could still be some sort of chemical reaction in there doing its thing.
Thanks for clarifying. I must have not remembered correctly.
Anyway, one always has to say "allegedly"...

[parallel]

chrismb,

Imagine I made a claim that my car ran on just a 100J of electrical energy, treated it as a 'black box', then invited my buddies to tell me how clever I was and I said 'look at this test everyone! Trust that my friends are telling you how clever I am!!!'

Don't you think the total weight would have changed after driving 500 miles? Gasoline weighs nothing?

[CherryPick]

..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 ?

Rossi has numbers and the others do not. This is that simple. One liter size reactor that generates 15 kW net energy for 18 hours. How do you explain that ?

Simplest answer is that these are outright lies - but why. Where is the money? A venture capitalist will assign an accountant who assures that Mr Rossi does not use the money to buy a Ferrari. He will also have a scientific review group who has full access to the lab and who oversees the risks of the research. Betraying buyers of the device is also quite hard if they can demand their money back.

Cheap energy is important, not whether it is chemical or nuclear. Chemical would be better because people are afraid of nuclear. I assume that Mr. Rossi has evidence like measured transmutations and radiation that support the conclusion of energy's nuclear origin.

ITER is an example case of wasting lots of money just because it is a solid theory. Building a net energy device is still to be done 50 years after the first thermonuclear bomb.

[Skipjack]

Where is the money?

Someone suggested that there might be stock speculation involved with this. Some people could be trying to cause certain stocks to increase/decrease value temporarily based on the appearance of a new, disruptive energy player on the market. A clever scammer could be using this to his advantage. That is one indirect way of making money that avoids the problems you mention.
The perfect scam makes the scamed person feel saved because the scamed does not notice he is actually a part of the scam already.

[chrismb]

I wonder if chrismb can think of a chemical that would fit inside that volume that could produce 18 * 15kW (270kW) with a weight change of 0.4 grms at such a steady rate? Remember there is no air inlet or exhaust port with hot gases coming out.

I thought there was water running through it!?! Where does this 0.4g come from?

[chrismb]

Rossi has numbers and the others do not.[/b][/size] This is that simple. One liter size reactor that generates 15 kW net energy for 18 hours. How do you explain that ?

It is simple - the energy calculation was false. The presumption that the same water flow rate continued throughout the experiment is a wild assumption. What needed to be done is the steam released should have been re-condensed to demonstrate the quantity of water heated.

Besides, chuck 2 kg or water into my hypothetical device (a potassium lined reaction vessel) and throw out 1 kg of warm water and 1 kg of potassium hydroxide solution - zero mass change, yet go tell me how much energy that'd make!.... and BINGO hydrogen used!!!

In any case, no mass measurements were taken (except of the hydrogen bottle itself - which was done wrongly to boot!!!)

There are so many holes in the whole silly saga. It falls so far below any standard of what could possibly pass as a 'scientific' discussion it isn't worthy of any classification of 'news' whatsoever. It remains a fantasy story. I've seen more convincing magic acts by clowns. I'm not saying there is nothing in it, as I have repeated, there may be nickle chemical reactions that remain outside current understanding, but I'm just saying that I have seen more convincing clowns do stage acts that are far more 'water-tight' that this lash-up test.

[parallel]

I thought there was water running through it!?! Where does this 0.4g come from?

Weight before and after the experiment was the way I read it.

[chrismb]

I thought there was water running through it!?! Where does this 0.4g come from?

Weight before and after the experiment was the way I read it.

They measured the mass of the hydrogen cylinder. That was all. They didn't bother to measure the mass of the reaction cell. We discussed this earlier. Go take a look about 20 pages back.

[parallel]

chrismb

Dr Levi stated that he checked the water flow a number of times and 15kW is a conservative number. He measured 20kW for several hours at night.

If you can't be bothered to read the links before posting there is not much point in having a discussion. Are you trying to become a professional debunker or something?