Talk-Polywell.org

GIT, It is already known to work for days, for example Elforsk’s test was for 32 days. The output power was several orders of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction for that time. It is not known exactly, but it is reported the 1 WM plant has been working well for several months with a COP 20 -80 depending on the amount of self sustain mode used.
The fuel appears to need Lithium as well as Ni/H2 and possibly trace catalysts too. Some data is now available on the transmutation that took place. Meaning that it is certainly nuclear.

It is NOT the same as conventional nuclear physics, but some presently unknown reaction that does not produce gamma radiation – or very little. The best analogy is radium that produced enough heat to melt its own weightof ice every hour: but how was not discovered for many years after that was discovered.
There is now plenty of proof. Replications and countless papers. It’s just you don’t know about them.

parallel wrote:The output power was several orders of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction for that time.

How can anyone know this is the reaction has not yet run its course?

Some data is now available on the transmutation that took place. Meaning that it is certainly nuclear.

Would you mind summarizing this and then posting a link to this?

It is NOT the same as conventional nuclear physics, but some presently unknown reaction that does not produce gamma radiation – or very little. The best analogy is radium that produced enough heat to melt its own weightof ice every hour: but how was not discovered for many years after that was discovered.

That is not an explanation. You understand it is precisely this kind of pseudo-explaining that has won Rossi so many critics over the years. However, the critics will go silent as the data come in, so long as he has what he says he has.

There is now plenty of proof. Replications and countless papers. It’s just you don’t know about them.

You keep using that word. Why don't you look up what that word actually means? You should not have to be told more than once or twice that science does not prove anything. Science is not in the business of proving anything. This is not what science does. You are horribly misusing that term. If you want to be taken seriously around here, you should stop using the term entirely. It does not mean what you think it means. Rossi is supposedly providing evidence, not proof.

How can anyone know this is the reaction has not yet run its course?

See http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4r ... Submit.pdf

Your comment is so thoughtless it makes me think (again) this site is not worth posting to. Obviously the heat generated was more than could have been obtained by any chemical reaction See the Ragone plot of Energy Storage in the link above.

parallel wrote:The E-Cat has been proven to work. what is not known is for how long and the reliability. Control for high COP is still being worked on. Industrial Heat LLC have a contract based on the 1 MW plant meeting specified output for 350 days. Add ignorant to your other failings

Thank you for supporting your claims with more and more invaluable data.
I am sure that all the engineers on this forum will be impressed (like I am) on the amount of useful information we can extract from your posts to correctly evaluate Rossi claims.
I heard that lately "name calling" was becoming a standard scientific validation method, but I never imagined that such a prominent exponent of this new branch of science was among the fellows members of this community.

parallel wrote:Your comment is so thoughtless it makes me think (again) this site is not worth posting to.

Think less and act more......

GIThruster wrote:

parallel wrote:It is NOT the same as conventional nuclear physics, but some presently unknown reaction that does not produce gamma radiation – or very little. The best analogy is radium that produced enough heat to melt its own weightof ice every hour: but how was not discovered for many years after that was discovered.

That is not an explanation. You understand it is precisely this kind of pseudo-explaining that has won Rossi so many critics over the years. However, the critics will go silent as the data come in, so long as he has what he says he has.

Pseudo explanations AND failing to realize a proper calorimetric test as he should have since day one.
This is a basic scientific test after all, nothing new to be invented, no special machinery needed and plenty of cheap and low error setup has been suggested to Rossi by many people, including me.

One HAS to wonder why such a test has never been done in the last 5 years.......

What to learn from an historical cold fusion conference — ICCF19
http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/0 ... ce-iccf19/

parallel wrote:Some data is now available on the transmutation that took place. Meaning that it is certainly nuclear.

Transmutation, or isotopic shifts? Isotopic shifts aren't necessarily caused by nuclear reactions. Sometimes they're caused by gas centrifuges. But even gas centrifuges consume energy. With the hot cat we have a device that both causes isotopic shifts and produces energy! Clearly there's a big market for energy, but there's also a market for enriched isotopes. And you don't need a 99.999% reliable hot cat to sell >98% pure nickel-62. All you need is the nickel-62, and you can sell it by the milligram. Using the hot cat to produce enriched nickel-62 is like printing money! I assume Darden and Vaughn are interested in getting a return on their investment, so getting into the isotope business should be a no-brainer for them. And if they started making a dent in the nickel-62 isotope business, other isotope suppliers would take notice, and then there would be no way the scientific community could ignore them. If they're really savvy investors, they'll jump on this opportunity to start making money almost immediately.

parallel wrote:

How can anyone know this is the reaction has not yet run its course?

See http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4r ... Submit.pdf

Your comment is so thoughtless it makes me think (again) this site is not worth posting to. Obviously the heat generated was more than could have been obtained by any chemical reaction See the Ragone plot of Energy Storage in the link above.

I read it and I note again, that there is no chemical analysis of the reaction products. What you have are blanket, general claims with no substance. Rossi notes they did all these tests and yet he does not show the test results.

I would just note to you at this juncture that the tests done at Rowan of the BLP process were extremely thorough in this regard. All by itself, the chemical analysis was more complete than this entire report, and was signed off on by 7 individual professors and grad students at Rowan, who put their careers on the line when doing so. Yet no one paid this much notice, and BLP is still fighting for vindication.

This is why you need to actually show the work. We need the analysis of the reaction products. Why does Rossi claim they were tested by half a dozen methods and yet show none of those results? Just saying. . .the guy is just shooting himself in the foot here, again, and again, and again. Lets see the data! Why publish if not to show this very important aspect of the work?

And did you note, the provided Ragone chart does not include the nickel-hydrogen reaction that is at greatest suspect? So how is this useful? This looks like more song and dance. I'd love for Rossi to be correct, but he's not going to win anyone over with work like this.

GIThruster wrote: So how is this useful?

Rossi's pockets seems to have gotten quite a good benefit from this line of action

Giorgio wrote:

GIThruster wrote: So how is this useful?

Rossi's pockets seems to have gotten quite a good benefit from this line of action

That may be, but I doubt he's made anything like he will if he proves his case. And though I do appreciate all the criticism, I hope he has what he says he has. I am habitually hesitant when someone says "I have this but can't explain why", which is what Rossi has been doing all along, as have most of the LENR folks. This doesn't mean they're wrong, they're just not right enough to silence the criticism.
And lets face it, the critics don't matter if you can actually produce energy commercially. Despite the poor reporting, he may have something. Wouldn't it be great if he did? I for one hope he does and he makes millions, but I am not seeing that. . .yet.

GIThruster wrote:And lets face it, the critics don't matter if you can actually produce energy commercially.

Plain truth.

GIThruster wrote: Despite the poor reporting, he may have something. Wouldn't it be great if he did?

Is less than 200 years that we are really starting to understand something about this universe and I doubt that we discovered all what was discoverable in the field of Physics and Chemistry.
I dream of the day that someone will actually come with such a new technology and give humanity a new golden era, but neither Rossi nor BLP will be the one who will open it.
Both of them already proved (at least in my personal opinion) not to have any real product in hand. I'll be the most happy person if they prove me wrong, but I (and I think also you) have seen plenty in the last 25 years following the same cliché......

Yup.
<E certo>

How To Evaluate LENR Theory?
http://lenrexplained.com/tag/cold-fusion/

parallel wrote:How To Evaluate LENR Theory?
http://lenrexplained.com/tag/cold-fusion/

I continue to favor the late Robbert Bussard's hypothesis: metal-deuterium fusion in the deuterium-packed LENR cells, where nickel should work just as well as palladium. SOMETHING nuclear is going on in those cells, the reports of nuclear byproducts despite numerous controls to exclude environmental contamination are too widespread; but DD fusion is unlikely.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote this in 1939, that seems to apply to LENR deniers.
“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority. “