The Playground

    Quote from bang99

    Nah, it's just his ususal nonsense :)
    Remember, he told his disciples some time years ago, that he will control some E-Cat incarnation via Internet from his condo in Florida.
    Military safety grade IT geeks stuff, ya know.

    AR was recently unaware of the IOT, although it also runs the secret ecat still climatizing a warehouse at 20000 something or others of heatness.

    Andrea Rossi has explained that his plan for the creation of electricity generators of all sizes is to combine single 10 W E-Cat MiniSKLeps to achieve the desired power. So far he has shown only a single MiniSKLep in operation in the livestream video, but I was curious about how many he had been able to combine, and so I asked about it on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

    Another reader followed up with further questions:

    Axil,


    Can I ask:


    (1) Do you think Rossi's claim that this device delivers 10W output power even remotely feasible? It generates a small amount of light (which has never been measured) from a high efficiency LED. Rossi claims this is 10W.


    (2) Do you believe Rossi's claims that the input power is < 1mW?


    (3) Given Rossi's claims that the output can drive an LED at a power 100s of time larger than the input can you understand why Rossi does not loop-back output to input via a large capacitor an suitable (simple) controller? I understand that Rossi is a technical genius who is harnessing sophisticated AI control logic. Let me tell you, as someone who understands DC-DC and DC-AC conversion, that generating the supply Rossi claims to measure from a DC output averaged is trivial - no AI needed here. And security can easily be provided (better than is available from mains) by a suitable capacitor.


    1, 2 require common sense and a little bit of Order of magnitude calculation.

    3 requires common sense and a little bit of real-world knowledge about what would convince the world and deliver to Rossi plaudits as large as the Nobel Prize he longs for.


    I note your curiosity - and wonder whether it extends to these questions. These and similar ones early in Rossi's career piqued my curiosity - I can't say I have much left now though.

    I don't trust Rossi. If you look back over years with the perspective of time, you can see how his answers contradict what was going on at the time. However, this is the age of alternate facts, and one must develop the ability to discern fact from fiction. This ability is very useful especially in the analysis of the considerations of the various theories of the LENR reaction.


    On that account, Rossi's theory's are correct in major part but wrong in their detail. He said that the coherent cluster is the source of the reaction and that cluster is the EVO. This I agree with. He also said that the source of the energy for the reaction is the vacuum, and here again I agree. He says the the reaction comes from a High Dv/Dt spark; right again. In general, Rossi comes to the correct technical conclusions, but his details in the origin of these conclusions have no theoretical depth.


    When you compare these technical aspects of Rossi's theory with that of those theoreticians here, Rossi is far ahead. It is astonishing how wrong the theories that abound here are. In this regard to theory of LENR from a objective viewpoint, I take Rossi's pronouncements as more correctly informed that those who deride Rossi here. There are some here that do not even beleive in the standard model; sad.

    Quote from axil

    I don't trust Rossi. If you look back over years with the perspective of time, you can see how his answers contradict what was going on at the time. However, this is the age of alternate facts, and one must develop the ability to discern fact from fiction. This ability is very useful especially in the analysis of the considerations of the various theories of the LENR reaction.


    On that account, Rossi's theory's are correct in major part but wrong in their detail. He said that the coherent cluster is the source of the reaction and that cluster is the EVO. This I agree with. He also said that the source of the energy for the reaction is the vacuum, and here again I agree. He says the the reaction comes from a High Dv/Dt spark; right again. In general, Rossi comes to the correct technical conclusions, but his details in the origin of these conclusions have no theoretical depth.


    When you compare these technical aspects of Rossi's theory with that of those theoreticians here, Rossi is far ahead. It is astonishing how wrong the theories that abound here are. In this regard to theory of LENR from a objective viewpoint, I take Rossi's pronouncements as more correctly informed that those who deride Rossi here. There are some here that do not even beleive in the standard model; sad.

    Your answer did not address THH's questions at all. Instead, subterfuge, as always

    2017-12-01 13:00 Hank Mills 

    Dear Andrea,

    What you have achieved so far with the Quark seems phenomenally amazing: thank you for all the work you have put into the device! Moreover, I expect that the E-Cat QX has far more potential than mentioned in the presentation.

    Are you familiar with the phenomenon of EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects) intensely studied by Ken R. Shoulders, a holder of many patents, a man who was once named scientist of the year, and is known as the “Father of Micro-electrons” for his earlier work?

    Ken Shoulders

    Charge Clusters: The Work of Ken Shoulders by William Zebuhr

    http://www.keelynet.com/shoulders/pdfs.html

    Paper on Ectons

    https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/255563/filename/ajp-jp4199707C407.pdf

    The same phenomenon he studied is also referred to by other names such as high density charged clusters, ectons (by several Russian teams), micro-ball lightning, condensed plasmoids, and a few others. Basically, they represent a well documented phenomenon in which electrons can overcome their mutual repulsion and cluster together in close proximity. They exist throughout nature and are at the heart of many different phenomena. A simple explanation of one method by which they can be produced is by a discharge between electrodes. The ultra high electrical gradients that occur at surface irregularities and protrusions on a cathode produce very high fields and current densities. A series of events take place, over a precariously short time-frame, that leads to a sudden temperature rise and a micro-explosion of the region of high field density. This releases not only a spray of particles but also a high density of electrons in a small volume. A portion of these electrons can cluster together, overcoming their repulsion, and form an EVO or “charged cluster.”

    These charged clusters can behave quite anomalously. For instance, they often pull in and encapsulate positive ions from the environment or particles from their creation. Ken R. Shoulders and others have been able to document that for no additional input kinetic energy beyond what would be required to accelerate the electron cluster, the “screened” or “shielded” interior heavy ion (such as a number of protons as one example) can be hurled onto a target anode at high speeds. Upon impacting the target, the transported heavy ion can possess millions of electron-volts: enough energy to produce nuclear events and transmutations. Ken Shoulders and other teams were able to document such transmutations. In addition, the passage of the EVO or charged cluster through metals can leave a path in which matter seems to be de-molecularized, as if the electron bonds holding the lattice together had been disrupted. SEM images of these boreholes and resulting slag are available on the net.

    There are two additional mechanisms I’ve came across that could allow these charged clusters to produce nuclear reactions.

    First, is that when these EVOs (which can assume different geometric configurations) orient themselves into torus shapes the electrical attract to pull exterior ions inwards can become intense, to the point that the pull can impart millions of electron volts to the tractored ions. Basically, these torus shaped EVOs could be considered atom grinders as new ions are smashed against those already present in the interior. The very nature of the EVO shields any hard radiation from escaping this electric “singularity” and the KE produced by the interior nuclear reactions is released upon impact on the anode.

    Secondly, is that an EVO (perhaps with a proton at the core) could take the place of an electron in the orbit of a typical atom, reduce the barriers that inhibit nuclear reactions, and trigger LENR.

    I expect that the Quark is producing EVOs via one of many mechanisms: including emission from the cathode during “ecton” explosions, in the plasma itself due to pumping with waveforms, or in the nickel cathode when a high loading of nickel results in the production of interior cracks/fissures in the lattice triggering fracto-emission. Moreover, the bombardment of the cathode by protons and other ions could not only produce the high loading ratios but also the physical impulses required to produce interior cracking. Basically, several of these mechanisms could work together, self re-inforcing each other, to produce the enormous COPs produced by the Quark.

    Then, again, there could very well be other phenomenon at play: there could be more than one energy producing phenomena. But if EVOs are at play, it could explain some issues and yield even more possibilities. For example, the abnormal heating of your power supply (requiring active cooling). Also, if EVOs are being continuously created and destroyed, I expect a great deal of “longitudinal” — rather than traditional transverse — impulses to be emitted from your reactor. Instead of being idealy received by a traditionally oriented antenna, a long antenna positioned coaxially to the vector of propagation would optimally receive them. Or, with an antenna similar to what Nikola Tesla utilized, a circular metal sphere may intercept them. After reception, the power could be rectified in a number of ways and added to the output total.

    My guess is that there’s more of this longitudinal impulse “power” being emitted (which travels through virtually all matter without producing a counter EMF via Lenz Law because of a lack of a magnetic component) than the heat you are able to produce. I expect these impulses may be most intense directly behind the electrodes where EVOs may be impacting, on either side of your reactor.

    Again, if you’re not familiar with EVOs (charged clusters, ectons, charged plasmoids, etc) then please let me know and I can provide you with a multitude of links and papers.

    Thank you and have a wonderful day.

    Hank


    2017-12-01 13:59 Andrea Rossi 

    Hank Mills:

    Thank you for your kind words and for the links to this phenomenon, that I do not know.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Quote from axil

    "I don't trust Rossi" is a direct answer. You wanted me to say that Rossi is a hero, a saint, a martyr, so that you could castigate me endlessly? I know your game plan.

    Not a direct answer


    Specifically, you imply that you believe Rossi's (dramatically inconsistent, always derivative) pronouncements about LENR theory have some value. However unless they inform and are coupled to working LENR devices there is no reason to think that.


    Rossi has no record of engaging with the scientific community about theory - just as he has no record of creating working LENR devices.


    However, he tries hard to give the appearance of both.


    Words are cheap - stuff which works, or predictive theory, is a lot more expensive.

    Re: " working LENR devices there is no reason to think that."


    The definition of a working LENR device is ambiguous. LENR device research as reached a stage where over unity energy production can be demonstrated. This might be considered by some as a working LENR device. Any number of people have produced such a device.


    But others consider a device that can meet the expectations of the customer who would try to utilize such a device to produce power in their homes and/or offices and/or factories.


    This market ready device requires far more development than does a simplistic demonstrator of the LENR reaction. Rossi may have gotten to the reaction demonstrator stage but he is a long way from designing a market ready product. I would not buy any produce that Rossi releases until a large customer base gives that market ready device a 5 star rating.

    Re: "Rossi has no record of engaging with the scientific community about theory - just as he has no record of creating working LENR devices."


    Rossi depends on a few associates that claim to have a professional science background. In his latest paper he states: "I acknowledge, for interesting discussions and collaborations on the subject, Carl Oscar Gullström and Giorgio Vassallo."


    But Giorgio Vassallo gave Rossi the idea that Zitterbewegung is the underlying rationale for the origin of coherent neutral pico-metric aggregates (aka EVO).


    This is total BS. There is no such process as Zitterbewegung that is compatible with quantum field theory.


    The original perspective on zitterbewegung interprets the x in the Dirac equation as the position observable of a particle. But that modern perspective is that that interpretation is a mistake. Zitterbewegung is just one of the consequences of that mistake.


    The modern perspective is that Quantum Field theory (QFT) is the proper foundation for relativistic quantum physics. In QFT, the vaariable "x" in the Dirac equations isn't an observable at all. It's a parameter, basically a continuous "index" that is used together with the spinor index "k" to parameterize the field operators ψk(t,x). Observables are constructed from the field operators, and they are operators that act on a Hilbert space.


    Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the location of the electron cannot be precisely known. In QFT the spacetime location of the electron is properly conceptualized as a indistinct cloud where its position can only be approximated. As such ZBW cannot be determined. The x in the math is therefore undetermined.


    Zitterbewegung is an artifact of mistaking the parameter x as a position observable.

    Relativistic QFT doesn't have a strict position observable.


    In relativistic QFT because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, particle-detection observables can't be both perfectly noise-free and perfectly sharply localized in a finite region of spacetime. We can know one or the other, but we can't have both, and nothing about this statement contradicts anything we know from real experiments.


    In the case of ZBW, theory is mislead by the math and is not real.


    I like the Penrose interpretation of ZBW because it is Higgs field centric.


    Penrose's approach supersedes the (positive & negative) energy states with helicity states that fits much better.


    Penrose considers the Dirac electron being composed of two ingredients α and β′ and gives a physical interpretation of these ingredients. It consists of two particles, one described by αA and the other described by β′B, both massless. Each one is continually converting itself into the other one. He calls one of these the 'zig' particle (described by αA) and the other the 'zag' particle (described by βB′). Being massless both particles travel at speed of light.


    Penrose even calls the jiggling motion of the electron as "Zitterbewegung" which was first described by Schroedinger. However, it is rather a jiggling between to the two helicity states (instead of positive and negative energy states), the zig-particle is supposed to be left-handed whereas the zag-particle is supposed to be right-handed. Both "particles" are supposed to be coupled by the mass term. This transition between these two particle produce the electron mass.

    The Schroedinger mechanism was designed to explain the electron spin and magnetic moment. But electron mass needs to be explained. This has been the goal of science since the mid 1960s. There is room for only only one movement mechanism for the electron and I like the Penrose idea. The Penrose's picture of "Zitterbewegung" fits so well, would it not be a second opportunity to give the so "miscarried" "Zitterbewegung" a new sense?


    The spin of the electron is a quantum property of the electron and is fundamental... not emergent from some unobservable vibration. But the standard model needs a chirality based emergent mechanism to explain mass of all the fermions not just the electron.


    See the particle enigma - Gerald E. Marsh for a more complete description of the Zig Zag Higgs mass generation mechanism.


    https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gemarsh.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FTHE-PARTICLE-ENIGMA.pdf%3AcK4GDOBJq7UDiNPk8MfR_rb6LL0&cuid=2168707


    In a paper more than fifty years ago, Huang22 used the expectation values of r and

    r r #vo in a wave packet representing the electron to show that the zitterbewegung could be

    interpreted as a circular motion about the direction of the electron spin. The radius of the

    motion was '/2m, the Compton wavelength divided by 2π. The intrinsic spin was then

    the “orbital angular momentum” of this motion, and the current produced gives rise to the

    intrinsic magnetic moment. This is derived from Dirac theory and is not a classical

    interpretation of the results. However, implicit in his discussion is the assumption that

    the electron is a point particle. This is also an assumption made by many others who

    have attempted to formulate classical models of fermions based on the zitterbewegung

    phenomenon. The implication, since the eigenvalues of the velocity operator are !c , is

    again that a point particle carrying both mass and charge can move in a circular orbit at

    the velocity of light. Clearly, there is a problem.


    Rossi is like any number of other cold fusion acolytes that have invented their own science. At least Dr. Mills attempts to explain issues in his own terms that come up in standard science. But it is difficult to have a conversation with alternative scientists. It is a lot of work to understand so many different modes of thought. It may be that it is a lot of work to stay current in accepted science so it is just easier and far less work to invent your own world. It may be best to just leave the alternative scientists all alone and let them succeed or fail on their own terms. Reality is a brutal taskmaster. Just like so many others here who believes in the old guard cold fusion meme, Bob Greenyer who believes the Russian inspired electronuclear gravity and the neutrino EVO catalyst, and Rossi who believes in the Zitterbewegung electron model. Without a common worldview, communication is difficult so let us just have fun and see who turns out to be correct in the long run if ever.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.



    Pons and Fleischmann Interview on KSLTV - 1989

    Another indirect answer!

    Quote from axil

    Your preferred response: "I agree with you completely" from any troll who attempts to provoke a response. I have no interest in impressing or appeasing you in the least.


    I don't actually understand what you mean here - except that you are I think disagreeing with me.


    Axil - perhaps I was too concise (unusual for me) for which I apologise.


    You said you were commenting on whether there was reason to think Rossi has working devices.


    You said a whole load of stuff not relevant to any evaluation of whether Rossi has working devices.


    Hence, as I said, an indirect answer.


    I am sorry if you feel this was me being a troll.


    THH

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.