Rossi: The E-Cat X Does Produce Electricity Directly

Quote

I just wonder why Yugo and Clarke tirelessly continue their constant sceptic replies to all people here on this blog. Why are they doing this? We know what their point of view is and if we are wrong they can say: 'we have told you over and over again'. If they were clever than it would suffice to copy just on every argument: 'I do not believe it' and do nice things for the rest of the day. It seems that they are not clever or that some other thing drives them. Maybe they just want to play the Devils Advocate? Or maybe they are payed for doing this? The latter would be stupid, because it serves no purpose. Especially being rude like Yugo often has a tendency for, is totally unproductive, so I would qualify Yugo just as being stupid. However, I like Clarke's arguments, because that keeps us sharp and we should be open for other views. Just some questions to Clarke: If at some day LENR proves to be true, would you admit? What kind of proof do you need to be convinced?

Gerald. I deplore this type of argument, which is an ad hom. You are saying that you don't understand the motives of those here arguing opposite to you - and sort of implying that they must have some moral defect.

Pots and kettles come to mind, given what many people would think about people who are internet fans. But more importantly your speculation here destroys real debate - because people become focussed on characters (since we are all different there are no easy generalisations and this is highly unreliable) rather then the arguments themselves.

Furthermore, if a master-criminal posts a correct proof of a maths problem on the internet it does not become less correct because of his other criminal activities.

I think, in particular, that anyone thinking they can second guess the opinion of most scientists on this issue should be confident that they themselves can scrutinise arguments in detail, and therefore are in the happy position of being able to treat arguments on their merits rather than first guessing the motives of the arguer.

That, anyway, is what I do as a matter of course. And I believe it makes for more productive communication.

Re proof. I've said this a number of times, and I don't differ from most people in this. Also, I find it weird that this question is so often asked of skeptics when the obvious anomaly is that those who support LENR go on doing so no matter what the negative evidence...

(1) a bulletproof scientific paper - where the measurements were carefully described and controlled - and the results extraordinary (heat excess 10X chemical say). Getting such a paper first time round in any experiment is almost impossible, but one lab repeating work could do it fairly easily if the effect were real.

this would not be proof - but it woukd be highly interesting - cause lots of replication - and it would alter my views of what is likely.

(2) Black box testing of any LENR device by independent and reputable testers. That means a high quality university, NASA, etc lab - working within its area of competence - not just an individual working at such an institution. A team from a decent institution would carry a lot of weight.

(3) working commercial products (where they clearly have extraordinary properties).

(4) [This is generous] MFMP find a bulletproof experiment they think is replicable. OK, MFMP are amateur but they started with very good intentions, have had some experience now of discovering their own false positives, and I'd view a positive result from them that stayed positive for 6 months as significant. (Apart from anything else MFMP will respond to criticism from third parties, there are enough skilled who would criticise such a test). MFMP are the best model for LENR research sanity given that most LENR researchers opt out of the normal review process by not writing adequately careful papers. Mostly this is because they just do not do adequately controlled and instrumented experiments, or when they do the results are not of interest. MFMP have a better attitude - at least they are trying to do proper experiments!

For example:
BLP Rowan test. Institution is not reputable. Testing was by individual. Results were not clearly above chemical.
MIT/NANOR. Results are not clearly above chemical + error. Individual experimenter without backing of team qualifies in calorimetry and able to critique anomalies etc.
Lugano test. Scientists working unofficially and without relevant expertise. Previous "independent" test shares thes eproblems and also was in lab of inventor using his apparatus.

----------------------------------

You will see I am quite easily convinced. Now: let me turn this round. What will convince you that LENR is highly likely not real?

Incidentally this matter is one where I differ from MY. I'm not as comfortable as she is dismissing apparently obvious crooks because of their bad behaviour. Rossi has behaved badly in many ways - but I'm more comfortable noting his actions that directly relate to his work than traducing his character - easy though that may be to do.

Quote from Gerard McEk

Especially being rude like Yugo often has a tendency for, is totally unproductive, so I would qualify Yugo just as being stupid.

I think you mistake the audience MY is targeting.

Tom,

I will necessarily have to defer to your knowledge of electronics -- mine extends to a class I took in college, most of the content of which I've forgotten! Nonetheless I think people outside of a field can sometimes identify key assumptions. As I read through the following, I often get a sense that a possibly unwarranted assumption has been made, unnecessarily restricting possibilities. That does not mean that you're not correct, of course.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The issue is not the current - high or low - but the voltage. High currents would mean extraordinary powers and the heat dissipation (because of the low efficiency) becomes very problematic. Thus: 1A -> 10MW total of which most will be dissipated as heat.

Also (as I said above) getting 10MV insulation requires a considerable gap - in air it would be 300m, but you can maybe do better in vacuum - the issue there is direct electron emission from the boundary field.

From here, for 10MV, I get a breakdown of 10kV/cm => 10m gap needed. This is not impossible but would make such a generator rather large!

As I read this, some of the questions that go through my mind are:

* Are the current and voltage independent variables in this instance? At higher currents would you have high voltages? How fixed is the 10MW assumption?
* It's unthinkable that one of these things would need 300m gap of air for insulation; that leads to me to suspect the reasoning that got us here. My intuition tells me (quite strongly) that it should not be that difficult to rig up a workable power source using a radioisotope whose decay rate can be modulated.
* What design compromises were made in the original atomic batteries that do not apply if you can replace the charge (i.e., it's not going into outer space) and can induce the decay to get as much current as you like?

Etc.

Rossi is prototyping a reactor that could be powered by its own output. Even though the Papp engine was such a over unity device and that device did receive a US patent, the US patent office says that such a device is impossible. When Rossi shows the world that he has created a perpetual motion machine, Mary Yugo et al, will say that the device is still impossible. She will need to come up with a reason to reject the evidence of ones own eyes. There will be the hidden wire argument and the wireless power transmission mechanism to debunk. Poor Mary's work has just begun; when will this torment ever be over for poor Mary.

Quote from axil

When Rossi shows the world that he has created a perpetual motion machine,

It would not be perpetual motion; it would be a machine with a fuel source. Eventually the fuel source runs out.

Quote from axil

There will be the hidden wire argument and the wireless power transmission mechanism to debunk.

Yes -- the black ops helicopter stuff; lasers beaming energy into the E-Cat, etc.

Quote from Mary Yugo

I'd like to jump in and point out that if this does not rapidly become a self-running, no heat or electrical input, machine, this will be definitive proof that Rossi is lying through his teeth.

High efficiency electricity, high COP which one can presume means high heat output... runs for 42 days 24/7... so WHY is this not self running? It had better be and soon and someone who can be relied upon needs to see it and test it properly. Why do I think this will NEVER happen? Must be only because I am such a pathological skeptic. It couldn't be because Rossi is a serial liar. So get ready for the Nobel Prize.

Again, M.Y., your reading comprehension is lacking. Rossi doesn't claim to have produced electricity for 42 days, he claims to have figured it out "last night".

When asked today if he would be able to make self sustaining e-cats, he said "maybe".

I agree with you that trying to self-run it a pretty obvious thing to do. However Rossi will do it under his own terms. He might have different priorities than closing the loop asap. And given that the electricity generation is not covered by his patent, he most likely won't show it to anyone outside of his organization/circle.

Quote

Are the current and voltage independent variables in this instance? At higher currents would you have high voltages? How fixed is the 10MW assumption?*

The voltage is fixed by the decay energy.

Quote

It's unthinkable that one of these things would need 300m gap of air for insulation;
that leads to me to suspect the reasoning that got us here.

You don't need it - just you lose a lot of power if you don't use it. In a practical large-scale system dissipating the power not output is a big issue.

Quote

My intuition tells me (quite strongly) that it should not be that difficult to rig up a workable power source using a radioisotope whose decay rate can be modulated.*

You can get a workable power source anyway. But, for a real "high power" system a lot of teh cost is cooling. the afdvantage of direct conversion disappears when it is only 10% efficient in this case. (But not in the case that you need a lower power output that lasts for 20 years without refuelling, as on a spacecraft).

Quote

What design compromises were made in the original atomic batteries that do not apply if you can replace the charge (i.e., it's not going into outer space) and can induce the decay to get as much current as you like?

the issue is not about current, which can be modulated, but voltage, which is fixed by the reaction used.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The voltage is fixed by the decay energy.

This is an interesting detail. Can you elaborate on it for an electronics newbie?

Thomas,

I doubt there are any evidence that ever will convince you of the existence LENR, or wathever name we may call it.

Like when you say that "anything" can affect results in CR39. Which is wrong. And as proven by SPAWAR, Dr. Swartz and others energetic particles is produced when LENR occurs.

But we may try again, not with CR39, but energy measurements.

Another recent paper by Japanese scientists have proven high energy yields in Nano Nickel composites loaded with hydrogen and deuterium.

They proved an excess heat accumulated energy of 800 electron volts pr Ni atom or 600 eV pr hydrogen atom.

In comparison for chemical energy: There are only 4-5 electron volts pr combustion of a hydrogen or Carbon atom.

So there you have a 200 times higher energy in LENR than chemical energy documented in this study.

Ref. Takahashi et.al, paper from 2015, Page 30+:
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol15.pdf

But there is also another Ni-H paper I'm reading now, which is fascinating. Back from the earlier days before Rossi appeared om stage. I'll come back to that one

Oystla - perhaps you'ld like to reread this, previously posted on this thread, and then either retract your comment or state clearly that you consider me dishonest?
Rossi: The E-Cat X Does Produce Electricity Directly

Eric - this is basic physics. A (+ pr - 1) charged particle emitted with a kinetic energy of 10MeV will need 10MeV potential difference to decelerate it and change the K.E. to electrical energy. (It is actually better given a +2 or -2 charge - only 5MeV).

So voltage required scales with reaction product energy/ reaction product charge. Both are fixed by the reaction.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Eric - this is basic physics. A (+ pr - 1) charged particle emitted with a kinetic energy of 10MeV will need 10MeV potential difference to decelerate it and change the K.E. to electrical energy. (It is actually better given a +2 or -2 charge - only 5MeV).

So voltage required scales with reaction product energy/ reaction product charge. Both are fixed by the reaction.

Your mental model does not seem correct to me. For the present purpose let us go with an alpha emitter. The stopping of the (highly) energetic alpha is not what I understand to create the voltage. The units of MeV are confusing here. What that's saying is that to accelerate an alpha particle to that 10 MeV energy you'd need a potential difference of 10 MV.

My understanding of what creates the voltage in the scenario we've been considering is the appearance on the far side of the gap of a new particle with +2 charge at a certain rate (i.e., the current). Now there are two electrons left over on the lefthand side and two holes on the righthand side, and the need for the system to regain equilibrium sets up a potential. The stopping of the alpha only produces (lots of) heat (and some ionization in the bulk, yielding photons). Perhaps I'm mistaken. Do you have further reading to support your description?

Thomas,

To doubt you ever will be convinced is not the same as saying you are dishonest !
I don't think you are dishonest

But I see you want 10x excess energy prof. Now I gave you another paper with 200x excess

regards
O.

Why the downvote of my legitimate question?

Quote

Thomas, To doubt you ever will be convinced is not the same as saying you are dishonest

True, I too doubt I will ever be convinced. Glad you've joined the club.

However you implied there was nothing that would convince me after I had stated there were things that would. As you can see from the link, if I am honest, these are quite easily achievable if LENR is real and on the verge of commercialisation as claimed (or even if it is real but not yet commercialisable).

I'd like you to note that.