10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Giorgio]

So, now we are on the threshold of finding out whether the E-Cat really works, how many of the earlier critics who were so vocal about their certainty that Rossi was a fraud and LENR never happens, have the guts to now confirm their earlier positions?

You are still mixing critics of the tests we have seen to date (and behavior of Rossi) with a plain negation of the possibility of Cold fusion reactions.

I stand on my position.
Rossi made a whole bunch of mistakes in his experimental set up to date and HIS results are most probably just wishful thinking.

At least Rossi has provided us with much entertainment that makes a pleasant change from the lack of news about the Polywell.

It could provide a more pleasant entertainment with a properly executed experiment.
For what I have read also the coming experiment will be prone to potential mistakes in heat calculations unless the COP will be extremely high.

[KitemanSA]

On Sept. 5 and 6, a team comprising representatives from an investment group
and NASA visited Andrea Rossi’s showroom in Bologna. The team went there with an explicit
agreement about test parameters and opportunities to observe and evaluate Rossi’s claims.
They did not observe any positive results.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/ ... -research/

Having pulled out one quote that MAY have been negative to Rossi but may just have been a non-event, you then fail to provide the following quote from the same article.

On Sept. 22, NASA conducted a LENR Innovation Forum workshop at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Speakers included NASA scientists Joseph Zawodny, Gustave Fralick, Michael Nelson, Jim Dunn and Dennis Bushnell and retired University of Illinois professor George Miley.

At the meeting, Bushnell said that LENR has a strong potential for a new source of energy. He was optimistic about nickel powder LENR solutions.

“The temperature you can get out of [LENR] is interesting,” Bushnell said. “We’ve had to be careful [in our research in] terms of the energetics. I don’t think there is a power [limitation] problem.

“I think the problem now is of raw courage to look into something that is new. We’ve been fortunate to have a center director at Langley that has the courage to support us to do this. We’ve been at it for three or four years.

“The U.S. efforts on this, for reasons I don’t understand, haven’t gone to the Widom-Larsen theory. They also haven’t gone to try to understand the 18 years of hydrogen-nickel [work] with really superb intellectual content. We need to get off of the Pons-Fleischmann electrochemistry and get into flow systems.”

Isn't Rossi the only Ni POWDER group?

[Skipjack]

I read on newenergytimes that NASA allegedly is working with Piantelli and his group who also claim Ni + H LENR reactions. However their alleged excess heat output is quite a bit less (10s of Watts instead 10s of kilowatts)

[Joseph Chikva]

So, now we are on the threshold of finding out whether the E-Cat really works, how many of the earlier critics who were so vocal about their certainty that Rossi was a fraud and LENR never happens, have the guts to now confirm their earlier positions?

At least Rossi has provided us with much entertainment that makes a pleasant change from the lack of news about the Polywell.

So, you make some progress if you too have doubts on Rossi asking too

whether the E-Cat really works

Last splash in discussion between me and you has arisen owing to your complaint to “idiocy” of people of DOE. You quoted some papers from which I have found that DOE has considered various approaches of cold fusion and hasn't found any evidences of excess heat production.
As we see, till at least now Mr. Rossi hasn't provided required evidences too.

[parallel]

1. DoE never made that statement.
2. DoE's attitude reflects more about themselves than the science.
3. NASA is now actively pursuing it.

[ScottL]

Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio

Oh a nifty place, my father used to work at their Space Power Facility in Sandusky, OH as an assistant.

So, now we are on the threshold of finding out whether the E-Cat really works, how many of the earlier critics who were so vocal about their certainty that Rossi was a fraud and LENR never happens, have the guts to now confirm their earlier positions?

I am open minded, but based on his failure to peer-review and his shady past, I remain skeptical. Unfortunately you haven't brought anything new along with your latest post to make me question my current stance other than Rossi can get pretty defensive. I wonder if things don't pan out with Nasa whether he'll take his ball and go home.

[Joseph Chikva]

1. DoE never made that statement.

That statement was in provided by you link: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Report

The DoE asked 18 experts in various fields of science to evaluate the reality and value of cold fusion (LENR). A person outside of science, but concerned about the possible value of such an ideal energy source, would expect the evaluation to be done with competence, objectivity and a concern for the benefits the claims would give if true. Instead, the effort was flawed by an obvious lack of interest by most reviewers. This indifference is evidenced by serious flaws in their justification for rejecting many of the claims. Competent people can disagree about the meaning of observation and can even choose to reject claims. However, only an indifferent and sloppy reviewer comes to such conclusions based on an incomplete or false understanding of the observations. For example, most reviewers, "did not find the production of excess power convincing."

[KitemanSA]

Joe,

This statment:

DOE has considered various approaches of cold fusion and hasn't found any evidences of excess heat production.

and this statement:

For example, most reviewers, "did not find the production of excess power convincing."

Are VERY different statements.

the first says flat out "no" and the second says ... "well, maybe, but not yet".

DoE did NOT say "No". Some folks at the MIT HEP lab would have you believe it did, if only to cover their a$$es. But so far it remains "not yet".

By the way, I'm not quite sure where you found your quote, but the conclusion of the DoE study in 04 stated:

Conclusion
While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

[Joseph Chikva]

the first says flat out "no" and the second says ... "well, maybe, but not yet".

DoE did NOT say "No". Some folks at the MIT HEP lab would have you believe it did, if only to cover their a$$es. But so far it remains "not yet".

Yes, "not yet" but most probable that never.
At least Rossi could not provide any evidence too. His calorimetry shown till now is lower any criticism. And nobody knows what he will show in the future with 1MW. As it is not difficult to measure 5kW but he could not.
And, so, I do not understand from where people have such expectations regarding him.
As very dubious statement that "nuclear reaction is possible in crystal lattice" absolutely does not mean that Rossi has discovered how to do that.

[sparkyy0007]

On Sept. 5 and 6, a team comprising representatives from an investment group
and NASA visited Andrea Rossi’s showroom in Bologna. The team went there with an explicit
agreement about test parameters and opportunities to observe and evaluate Rossi’s claims.
They did not observe any positive results.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/ ... -research/

Having pulled out one quote that MAY have been negative to Rossi but may just have been a non-event, you then fail to provide the following quote from the same article.

On Sept. 22, NASA conducted a LENR Innovation Forum workshop at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Speakers included NASA scientists Joseph Zawodny, Gustave Fralick, Michael Nelson, Jim Dunn and Dennis Bushnell and retired University of Illinois professor George Miley.

At the meeting, Bushnell said that LENR has a strong potential for a new source of energy. He was optimistic about nickel powder LENR solutions.

“The temperature you can get out of [LENR] is interesting,” Bushnell said. “We’ve had to be careful [in our research in] terms of the energetics. I don’t think there is a power [limitation] problem.

“I think the problem now is of raw courage to look into something that is new. We’ve been fortunate to have a center director at Langley that has the courage to support us to do this. We’ve been at it for three or four years.

“The U.S. efforts on this, for reasons I don’t understand, haven’t gone to the Widom-Larsen theory. They also haven’t gone to try to understand the 18 years of hydrogen-nickel [work] with really superb intellectual content. We need to get off of the Pons-Fleischmann electrochemistry and get into flow systems.”

Isn't Rossi the only Ni POWDER group?

Had there been a POSITIVE Rossi result I would have posted it as well.
I am not skeptical of LENR as you imply (or I wouldn't have posted the link to the complete story)
but there is No data to back Rossi's excess energy claims.
If you find some please post a link.

[KitemanSA]

but there is No data to back Rossi's excess energy claims.
If you find some please post a link.

Sure there is data, but there is debate about the quality and validity of said data. Heck, there seems to be more data on the Rossi reactor than the Polywell.
Your post seems to be akin to Joe's. He read "not convincing enough for the DoE to start a program" and wrote effectively "the DoE says it doesn't work".
Stay honest with yourself. Recognize that there is data. Reserve judgement until it can be replicated or proves to be invalid. Neither, IMHO, has happened.

[sparkyy0007]

but there is No data to back Rossi's excess energy claims.
If you find some please post a link.

Sure there is data, but there is debate about the quality and validity of said data. Heck, there seems to be more data on the Rossi reactor than the Polywell.
Your post seems to be akin to Joe's. He read "not convincing enough for the DoE to start a program" and wrote effectively "the DoE says it doesn't work".
Stay honest with yourself. Recognize that there is data. Reserve judgement until it can be replicated or proves to be invalid. Neither, IMHO, has happened.

Sure there is data, but that's not what I said, read carefully.
Several months ago I was of the belief that this couldn't possibly be false, so many acclaimed scientists
have backed it, how could they all be fooled. I think they were looking for nuclear signatures, taking for granted the claimed heat production due to their inexperience with steam.
I posted an analysis shortly after the Krivit video giving Rossi's setup a huge margin of error for parasitic thermal losses. This analysis shows the absolute minimum steam enthalpy coming from the hose end would need to be 2602W.
viewtopic.php?p=64818&highlight=#64818

The video indicates less than 1m/s steam velocity.

How in the heck did you come up with this?

Does anyone know how to extract sequenced stills from a video? Can someone to a photogrametry study on the output? It looked WAY more than 1 m/s to me.

I have experience building custom laboratory steam generators, so I know what 100 or 1000 W of steam looks like. I used them for lab scale water gas shift reactors.
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2672/img0049hhh.jpg
This video convinced me and many others the demo was bull. Rossi stated in the demo 4.906 kw,IMHO he lied or is fooling himself.
And then the NT data.
viewtopic.php?p=69913&highlight=#69913
This proves more energy is being stored in the unit before boiling occurs (7.3 MJ) than used to heat 22.4 liters of water to boiling! Do the numbers yourself, 7.3MJ of stored heat, where is this energy, why is it being stored and by what??
I am however keeping an open mind, maybe some excess is produced but I have seen no convincing evidence thus far.

[Joseph Chikva]

Your post seems to be akin to Joe's. He read "not convincing enough for the DoE to start a program" and wrote effectively "the DoE says it doesn't work".
Stay honest with yourself. Recognize that there is data. Reserve judgement until it can be replicated or proves to be invalid. Neither, IMHO, has happened.

Certainly you better than me speak English as English is your first language and my only third or fourth.
But as I understand the phrase "not convincing enough for some scientific claims" (anomalous heat in Rossi's case) means that Rossi does not produce heat exceeded input electric together with heat by chemical reaction.
And evidences in science should be provided by them who claims and not by people for whom those assertions are made.
And following this logic "no evidence" means "does not work". At least yet.

As if the man shows me some device claiming that device produces 5kW heat power with 750W of electric input, I would ask:
please, show me how you measure flow
Please, show me input temperature
please, provide me evidence that input flow is equal to output (jacket is full)
Then the question that Mr. Kvirit has put: humidity of steam? (percentage of liquid phase)
Then very simple calculations.
That's all.
But the fact that Rossi do not want to use higher flow for avoiding phase transition already raises the doubts

[Giorgio]

Sure there is data, but there is debate about the quality and validity of said data.

Come on Kite, the data we have now do not have any scientific value, there is no debate about that. We can discuss if there can be a possibility that his claims are true, but on the available data there is really no discussion to be done.

Heck, there seems to be more data on the Rossi reactor than the Polywell.

Random generated data?
But really guys, in a week all these discussions will be forgotten in a way or the other, so let's just wait and see what happens on the 6th.

[Giorgio]

And following this logic "no evidence" means "does not work". At least yet.

Me and Joseph that agree on something?
Either hell has frozen over or the end of the world is near!
Let me go and check my Mayan calendar....