Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    • Official Post
    Quote from Bob

    If the input was around 800 watts, would this suffice for a general, rather large area meltdown as seemingly described? I am assuming, based upon Mr. Smith's response that this was not a small localized explosive event, but a true temperature based melting over a larger area, thus the "puddle". It seems that insulation is not used in these experiments, so the heat surely comes from interior generated sources that have to reach the level to melt and is not an accumulated event such as an "oven".


    Hi. you cannot melt an uninsulated dogbone with 1kW -otherwise all those old fashioned 1kW per element radiant electric heaters would fail. In fact, I don't think you can melt a dogbone with ordinary NiChrome or Kanthal heater coils at all. They would both fail at around 1500C max, leaving you at least 200C short of a puddle.

    Thank you Allen for your input. Coming from someone who has "done the work" adds significant weight in my opinion! :)


    Gameover and THHuxley,
    What are your thoughts on Mr. Smiths thoughts? Again, I realize that I am not offering much or even "hard specifics" for the parameters, but I am not
    asking for a notarized reply either. Simply, in your opinions, what is the likely hood that 800 watts input could melt a dogbone sized reactor
    made from alumina? I am not talking about tests where the heater coils burned out, but the ones that caused, as Mr. Smith describes, the reactor
    to melt significantly enough to "puddle"! ?(


    While I am all for good calorimetric measuring and the like, for those of us who are not doing actual testing, we can only go by the information presented.
    Meltdowns versus the energy input by the power source should be a fairly reasonable "ball park" indicator if something unusual was going on. IT apparently
    has been reported by several and somewhat often.


    As Mr. Smith stated, it unlikely that you could melt a dogbone with 1kw then 800w certainly is not going too. Therefore additional, yet unknown power source
    must be involved. If so, a little more data supporting a possible LENR theory to chew on! :nuke:

    Quote

    Other responses seem to say there are possibilities of a chemical / electrical source, but not a really defined hypothesis. Heater wires and materials changing into conductive phases can only be considered if the power source is uncontrolled and perhaps the melting locality fairly small. I.E. heat concentration. I am assuming that the power input was controlled to "X" levels. A certain wattage input for example. How else would one be able to calculate excess power if it was not?


    I'd need more information. Most power sources will be constant voltage and the instantaneous power supplied can be very high. Calculating power is not the same as controlling it, and many of these experimental setups will not even be measuring power under transient conditions when heater resistance changes over a small amount of time. You need high time resolution V and A measurement to do that.


    Even if input power is strictly limited (an assumption I'd not make) local heating is common in such systems. It is teh same mechanism as a fuse. As one part of the wire heats up it hogs more power and there is a runaway effect where most of the supplied power is dissipated in one small part of the reactor. That can generate very high temperatures: just as a fuse does. In the process part of the coil melts and then vapourises.


    Mainly though this question is underdetermined. I'm not confident in the above scenario - but without many more details I'd not be confident in attributing "melt-down" to new physics. The whole point about thermal runaway events is that they are difficult to characterise and the high transient temperatures can make unusual things happen.


    My own experience with the real world is that "unusual things happening" is quite common and results that seem incomprehensible can in the end by tied up and understood: but not with limited observation.

    @Bob


    I doubt anyone serious actually considered thermite for the reasons stated above. The easiest ways for Rossi to cheat are to induce mismeasurement errors -- for example with misplaced thermocouples (we know he did this for sure with the heat exchanger device he demoed to Lewan) and probably with the original test Levi conducted on the oldest ecats. There are also flow meter tricks with the liquid cooled ecats and of course, emissivity errors with the hot cats tested with thermal cameras. Finally, there is the cheese video trick with the modified power input wires and probably other tricks and manipulations we have not guessed about yet. Rossi is clever and since he obviously has nothing, he can spend a lot of time calculating and testing the best ways to cheat.


    The whole mess is getting old and the legal case moves at a snail's pace. I never thought I would say this but Rossi is getting boring. I also find little interesting any more about the rest of the claims for LENR. BLP/Mills is a joke.


    Have no respect *ever* for a supposedly high energy output device that requires a power or energy input nearly comparable to what goes in, or is not independently and competently verified. Same with any experiment which does not include blanks and calibrations.


    Ignore those precautions and you will be fooled again and again... for example: Shane. It is just dumb to accept at face value what the inventor or proponents tell you.

    Quote from THHuxley

    My own experience with the real world is that "unusual things happening" is quite common and results that seem incomprehensible can in the end by tied up and understood: but not with limited observation.


    Thanks for the reply and I fully understand and agree that there is little data and fact to go on here.


    This really has nothing to do with Rossi but what other experimenters have reported. I also understand that localized heating can put out some serious local temperatures. You mention fuses for example and they are almost an explosive event. They are built to carry a certain current, then heat and melt in very short time frame, when the current is exceeded. The heating coils in a dog bone reactor could certainly follow a similar event.


    However again, I do not believe what Allen Smith described (and others) is anything near a localized / focused event. That is why the "puddle" description was of interest to me. For a significant amount of a dogbone to melt so that it "puddles", i.e. melting not only the heating coil, but the alumina housing, some of the fuel and even the support mechanism, surely this is more than a heating coil burning out could do. One must consider the temperature required and the time required to melt what is described. The heating coil would have to reach the alumina temperature and hold that temperature for enough time to pass on the power required to melt the mass of alumina. This seems unlikely if what has been described is accurate.


    The scenario of the alumina itself becoming conductive as GameOver suggested might handle the power / time function, but I do not know enough about the alumina phase change property. It may require even more energy for the heat source to change phases to become conductive, thus even making that solution even more unlikely. However, I am totally unqualified to speculate on that. If the power supply was regulated to 800w and the reactor uninsulated, it would not matter. I do not think 800w could "puddle melt" an alumina reactor.


    My point is not to prove anything, but to simply make a logical conclusion based upon what is known. From my limited understanding there are (3) possibilities and these should be fairly easy to correlate.


    1) The reports are vastly overstated and the amount of melting / mass is not significant.
    2) The power supplies were capable of inducing much more than 800 - 1000 watts AND
    some mechanism exists for radiating that power in the form of heat to the extent that the temperature and time required to melt the alumina body.
    3) There is some unknown source of heat other than the heating coils and oxidation of the included fuel.


    I am not stating this is proof (There is not nearly enough information or substantiated fact), however I believe it not unreasonable to develop a theory that can be helpful in reactor testing.


    If the possible amount of power input is known into a system, the fuel is known and a melt down occurs, one should be able to weigh the mass of the melted material and obtain a reasonable calculation of the power required to melt it.


    This is just another "tool" an experimenter could plan for and use. In the case when a so called "run away" occurs, if the above parameters are considered and recorded, then at least some information and conclusions could be made. The point is that a "failed" experiment can still provide useful data! I.E. a well though out experiment is never a failure, it simply produces different results! But those results can still be useful. ;)

    • Official Post

    Looks like all the elements are in place for Rossi to become an LENR legend. Anecdotal reports of melting reactors...NC (Alan)/Ferrara (Levi), and unsubstantiated reports of successful Ecat tests (Jed/Alan/AEG/Stremmenos). Secretive, paranoid personality, trail of lawsuits, and now IH is about to beat him up in court, take his money, thereby solidifying his place with the working class conspiracists who will keep his story alive for generations to come.


    Quite the feat considering we still don't even know....probably never will, if the damn thing works!

    Quote from Shane D.

    Looks like all the elements are in place for Rossi to become an LENR legend. Anecdotal reports of melting reactors...NC (Alan)/Ferrara (Levi), and unsubstantiated reports of successful Ecat tests (Jed/Alan/AEG/Stremmenos). Secretive, paranoid personality, trail of lawsuits, and now IH is about to beat him up in court, take his money, thereby solidifying his place with the working class conspiracists who will keep his story alive for generations to come.


    Quite the feat considering we still don't even know....probably never will, if the damn thing works!



    My bet for the future of LENR is placed on Holmlid. This summer, when it is proven that boatloads of muons are being produced by his miniaturized reactor placed inside a professional particle physics based particle detector, then the cat will be out of the box. Science will be faced with explaining what is going on inside their particle detector. Then the race will be afoot in earnest.


    Measurement errors! BLP/Mills! Misplaced thermocouples! Lewan! Such a wonderful summary Mary! I have not heard you mention these terms and names since your last post ;) Don't forget for tonight's session the safe word is "Defkalion". :P

    Quote from Shane D.

    Axil,


    I think you are LENR legend material also. With all you have said, proposed, theorized, when someone comes out with that final theory one day, you will be able to honestly say: "hey, I said that already". ;)



    It will be one hundred years before a correct theory of LENR is produced because all of the intellectual weeds must be cleared first;


    Max Plank: “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.”


    The only thing that will cure your way of thinking is the grave.

    LC - getting a judge and jury to award Rossi $89M is going to require more than a paperwork trick.
    Then there is the recent unpleasantness that Rossi still has to face around the fake customer, the glorious "factory" pictures, the IR data, reps and warrants, test and measurement deception, etc..., etc....

    Quote from oldguy

    Why do you keep saying that IH did not say a word before the suit?
    I would ask you as why didn't Rossi say he was considering the testing in FL the QPT until fall of 2015?



    I can't believe IH was so naive, I think it's really impossible that they did not get things straight with Rossi from the beginning of the test.
    They were waiting for a specific kind of test, they were informed about the beginning of the Doral test and they never asked to Rossi if that test was the GPT? Do I have to think they are fool?! No Sir, I don't think so....

    Rossi's real reason for going to court is to keep IH from getting the rights to his IP. No matter what happens in court, IH will have a impossible job at getting at the rights to Rossi's IP. If Rossi wins, Rossi gets tons of money, too much for IH to afford. If IH wins, IH cannot say that Rossi's IP is worth anything. In any case, Rossi pulled the IP rights that IH once had out from under IH. IG will look like fools if they insist on claiming the rights to the IP after saying it never worked. Poor IH, so sad...

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.