If You Were in Andrea Rossi’s Shoes, What Would You have Done? (Andy Kumar)

I know little about A. Rossi other than he may be a little deaf, judging from the photo of him using a stethoscope to listen to the boiling water in his reactor.

George, do you hear voices saying LENR is real as well as LENR does not exist? If so you are suffering from schizophrenic paranoia instead of simple paranoia and is treatable. Although your symptoms suggest simple paranoia with a very dreary prognosis. Electroshock therapy may work to some extent in either case though.

George, I apologize for the personal off subject comments. I'm having dementia problems and will stop posting unless directly related to LENR.

Quote from Mary Yugo

If I were you, I'd worry more about how to prove that LENR is real and less about what it might be used for. If it's real, the uses will be developed rapidly and there is no way to know exactly what they will be.

The problem right now, is that proponents of LENR can't even prove *properly* that it exists. There all sorts of ways to make errors. Some of the participants in searching for LENR, for example Rossi and Defkalion, are clearly frauds. Sorry to disillusion you but be sure to browse through these web sites and a forum:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

http://ecatnews.com/

And ask yourself why none of the claims to LENR has been tested by one or more national laboratories (in the US, Sandia or Oak Ridge for example) or a major university, officially by a department, rather than isolated professors. Ask yourself why LENR devices claimed to make output/input power ratios of 6 have not been looped back so they supply their own input heat. Ask yourself why not a single one has been properly tested by accurate and *calibrated* calorimetry.

If you get into this field, watch out for scammers, crooks, and overly optimistic enthusiasts.

I suggest you study fluid flow and heat transfer physics and engineering so that you really understand what you are looking at with your experiments. And it will also be good to have some professional area to fall back to when, as is likely, you find out that low temperature nuclear fusion does not occur to any significant extent and is not a practical source of power.

Display More

Oh yeah I'm pretty sure Rossi is 95% BS and 5% real, and lots and lots of holes in the field at the moment. I've never claimed that cold fusion is real, just that the ramifications of it are so immense that it deserves to be further investigated. Besides, I'm only 14 and if worse comes to worse and my experiment fails it'll have been fun away. Not like I have a professional career on the line.
I'm planning on being an aerospace engineer, so don't worry I'm not devoting my life to the cause. Merely interested in performing an experiment and seeing results for myself.

I too wonder why no-one has looped the power back around... that would be the very first thing I would try if I got positive results high enough to do that.

Quote from Mary Yugo

I think I can read and from what I read, Rossi is a crook. You're the one who doesn't understand what I write. I don't care about small levels. You are entitled to have orgasms about them if you like. I don't care. It's claims like Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin and Miley which are EASY to evaluate and so far none has proven valid.

So once more:

100W or more
Sustained to rule out chemical energy or stored energy by a factor ten
If power is required to run (it shouldn't be) power ratio out/in of at least 3 (6 is better)
Repeated by at least one reliable and credible investigator at a major institution using the SAME method as the original

Lots of luck finding that in LENR/cold fusion. And for sure, it's not Rossi!

Display More

Your list at the bottom I think is a very very good checklist. I wouldn't say power shouldn't be required to run, as we don't properly understand the reaction therefore we can not make the assumption it shouldn't be required.

All other items in that list should be taken as the criteria for all experimenters. Especially that last one, which is what I am planning to do once I get back to sydney (only 2 weeks to go until i can get started).

There is not only Rossi, there are many real scientists all around the world that are success. And the count is growing. This is real.

As I can see from behavior of Rossi on the patents, he really do not want to help society at all.
He just want to earn money, nothing more.
I guess that he is feeling as god now as the impact of his research is really big. He want to make sure, that absolutely nobody else can make similar devices as he.
From this point our views are totally different.

So we have something fantastic, but commercial usage/development of this will be virtually not allowed.

Fortunately we can do this thing still open so everybody can replicate it.

"As I can see from behavior of Rossi on the patents, he really do not want to help society at all.
He just want to earn money, nothing more."

Rossi is certainly no fool. Yeah, give his invention away to help society so it can be stolen by others to make money. The inventor deserves the money not thieves.

All discussions tangential to the question of nanoscale fusion.

Instead of discussing, why not assemble a NiO reactor and personally observe hydrogen fusion. Fifty years ago I initiated hydrogen fusion and had sudden thermal output at hydrogen dissociation temperature. Realized that this energy source would not be acceptable economically and did not patent. The same rationale applies now.
Unless qualified as an experimentalist I do not recommend doing this test, working with hydrogen is dangerous.

Quote from Mary Yugo

@backyardfusion

You seem mature and level headed for your age. Having been 14 once, what I'd like to stress with you is SAFETY. And the need for good adult supervision, preferably from someone versed in chemistry and electricity. Explosions are a real possibility when you heat anything. Always wear safety glasses, put your experiment behind solid and thick polycarbonate sheets, and if it's expected to run very hot, stay away from it when it's running. Look with a camera and your measuring instruments. And don't do it in a home or anywhere starting a fire could endanger people or property. After all, you're looking for a power source, weight for weight, a million times more powerful than dynamite. That needs a lot of respect. And please do real calorimetry, not point temperature measurements and use forced cooling. Here is an excellent example of a suitable calorimeter which works over a wide temperature range.

http://tinyurl.com/kx4opjq
This is a Google translation from Italian to English of an article by Giancarlo and his associates and should be mandatory reading for anyone venturing into cold fusion/LENR experiments.

If you want to discuss why a heater is or is not needed for a highly exothermic reaction, let me know. It would only be needed if the "COP" is small -- very small and then only enough to compensate for heat losses to the environment.

Sorry I got carried away but like I say, I remember when I was 14. Good luck and report your results, even if negative.

Display More

True with the exothermic reaction part. I don't particularly care at this stage how the reaction works (I know I probably should, but I don't), as long as it is there. Once it's been identified and been reputable at COP of over 6 then once again whether there's a bunch of fairies shitting out energy inside the reactor or if it is true LENR, it won't really matter. It'll be a miracle energy source, whether it needs power or not.

I will be sure to report my results the moment they come through. Negative results are in every bit as important as positive results.

Yeah safety is a big one, I'll be very careful. My science teacher and my granddad will both likely be helping me with this (science teacher chemistry, granddad electrician since 15). Although so far no explosions haven't been reported, I come from a background of making rocket fuel so I'm well aware that explosions can happen whether you want them to or not. I'll keep all of those precautions in mind, thanks for the tips.

Yes I have re-re considered my calorimetry methods from what I was going to do originally. I think that the first step in my tests should be to do an exact 1:1 replication of Parkhomovs experiment. I do not want to change any variables in that, not even the calorimetry. Then, whether the results are negative or positive, I can move on to using a much better and more accurate calorimetry set up.
Ideally, seeing as the fuel is so low cost (it's hazardous, so I will be extremely cautious) and so is the reactor I will run both versions of the experiment 3, possibly 5, times each. I won't stop at negative results until I have enough qualitative data to reach a conclusion. That's something I feel these guys need to work on; they do an experiment, if it fails, they then go and change a whole bunch of stuff. 5-pages of results, whether everything was negative or not, will be helpful. It is a reasonable assumption to make that after 10 runs of an experimental reactor it doesn't produce the required stats, then the reactor does not work. Maybe it would work in a different form, but not that particular reactor setup.

Nice comparison you dragged there, saying it's a million times more powerful than dynamite... Potent stuff hey

Quote from AlainCo

so you deny LENr reality.
it is clear now that you don't accept scientific evidence, that you are a crackpot defender..
the rest you say lose much credibility , as it is clear you are in total delusion.

any clown that state LENR is sure wrong, or even not proven, is simply deluded and his opinion have no more value than the one of a creationist.

about why a heater is need for an exothermic reaction, it is a shame that you hide your competence. it is agan a fallascious argument for any engineer reading.

there is a clear problem of stability of the reaction.
if the reaction is exploiting fully the produced heat to increase temperature, to can goes in runaway at the least change in efficiency of cooling.
anyway Rossi get around that problem with SSM which exploit different efficiency (open loop gain) at different timescale.

I'm tired of ever repeated bad argumenst. please be honest.

Display More

While I consider myself 'pro cold fusion', I wouldn't go so far as it say he is delusion. Far from it. Mary Yugo has been very level headed actually, unlike you. He has suggested many very useful things. You know the expression 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'? Well something like 'listen to your friends but your enemies more' might be suitable in this situation. By listening to the arguments of the skeptics you can often gain valuable insight into how you might prove things to them.
Mary is a skeptic, but a very useful one. No one person is right here, it's science remember. You're being far too biased Alain. LENR, at the moment, is just as wrong as it is right. That's because we don't have a theory that has been backed up by experiments, and experiments do not have a success rate even approaching 90%. The few 'big players' seem to also be very secretive.

Stop making yourself seem insufferably rude and ignorant and open your eyes. As scientists, you need to keep an open mind to all possibilities whether you like them or not.
I might not be reading correctly, but you seem to be saying that a constant input of power, produced from the output of the reactor, will cause an increase of temperature? No sense made there.

Saying 'LENR Reality', BTW, is just as bad as saying it's fake. Surely as a scientist you must understand that. Remember even a law of physics is just an hypothesis with a serious amount of experimental evidence....

Quote from me356

As I can see from behavior of Rossi on the patents, he really do not want to help society at all.
He just want to earn money, nothing more.
I guess that he is feeling as god now as the impact of his research is really big. He want to make sure, that absolutely nobody else can make similar devices as he.
From this point our views are totally different.

So we have something fantastic, but commercial usage/development of this will be virtually not allowed.

Fortunately we can do this thing still open so everybody can replicate it.

Display More

I have to say that while I'm fairly certain Rossi is conning us, maybe even conning himself to some extent, that if he wasn't I would consider him the most insufferably selfish person I've ever heard of. He's had a fair go; hell he's had 8 years or something to bring something to market in any form. But he hasn't. He is trying to file patents so broad that they would put the entire LENR market in a death lock before it even exists.
Now assuming that he's actually legit, as in 100% legitimate, then he has to give it up. Obviously he can't bring it to market. He needs more people, but no one is investing.

This E-Cat Reactor, if it really does have a COP of 8 is literally the most groundbreaking development in energy production ever.
When you've got a technology that has the potential to change the lives of everyone around the globe and advance every possible industry 35 years into the future and even turn spaceflight (electric propulsion and EM Drive) into an everyday event, Why the hell would you be worried about money? This guy needs an upper cut if what he has is real.
But I highly doubt it is.

I think that if you are a prisoner your priorities and view on the world changes a lot. So you can behave abnormal in some cases.

@backyardfusion

So you think Rossi is conning us, but you intend to replicate Parkhomov, whom essentially has replicated the Lugano device which is Rossi's reactor? While doing so you feel content to follow the advice George Hody aka Mary Yugo?

I wish you the best in your endeavors and safe passage, but where is the logic?

Quote from Mary Yugo

@backyardfusion

If you want to discuss why a heater is or is not needed for a highly exothermic reaction, let me know. It would only be needed if the "COP" is small -- very small and then only enough to compensate for heat losses to the environment.

Nice video. Silly comment. Why is an atomic bomb necessary for igniting a thermonuclear device (H-bomb)? The latter is highly exothermic, as are many reactions that are not spontaneous. Since Mary / George is pretending to know some physics here, let me point our young scientist's attention to "activation energy". It is very appropriate in the discussion of LENR and other variations on CF..... Look at a nuclear reaction from the standpoint of the "curve of binding energy". Those reactions that will work (and accomplish work!) have negative binding energies, that is they give up energy on reaction. So fission works because the products are more thermodynamically stable than the reactants (U, Th, Pu etc), and fusion works similarly, that is the fused atoms (p, d, t, Li etc.) are able to give up energy to their environment ("negative delta H" in this context) to become He, Be etc. What keeps things from fissioning or fusioning at will? For fusion it is ctivation energy, which can be very high in the case of an H-bomb or in the "lab" as D-T as we have seen now for well over 50 years of well funded attempts to do "hot fusion in a bottle". Fission of course has the simplicity of neutron chain reactions, easy to moderate by dilution and to initiate by assembling enough suitable fissile material.

But, activation energy is not an inherent trait of any reaction, nuclear or chemical. It can be "tunneled" under. The method is generally referred to as catalysis. Catalysis is done all the time at the chemical (electronic) level, the only requirement is that the overall series of reactions have a collective negative delta H, that is they give up energy or to put it simply "they can do work" , or put another way they can produce power over time that is kilowatt hours or watt seconds (also known as joules). Fusion of small atoms is generally exothermic, the only problem is the activation energy, the "barrier" in this case is mostly due to coulombic (like charge) repulsion, and in many chemical reactions the barrier is similar, but generally of a much lower absolute magnitude. However, the activation energies for many practical fusion reactions are measurably (by collisional physics) much lower than the exothermic work such a reaction can produce, so the relative magnitude is not unlike a good chemical reaction. The ratios for D-D and D-T are impressively good. Activation energy of a fusion reaction such as D-T, even without catalysis should be no more than 5% of the expected energy yield-- of course that is still a huge amount of energy to concentrate onto one pair of atomic nuclei. But there are ways to do this, as there are many known ways to bypass activation energy in chemistry, that is there are many types and configurations of catalysts. Before too long we will see that there are many ways to accomplish this for nuclear reactions as well. The key is funding, and as Planck pointed out long ago, http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/107032.Max_Planck

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”