Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

As far as I know, no hot fusion reactor has run with a COP<1 for any appreciable length of time. Even the latest project, the $25 billion ITER will only run at a COP 1.3 for ten minutes - if it meets it's target. Obviously hopelessly uneconomic. Are you saying there are better systems out there and ITER is a step backwards?

There are several other systems out there, like Polywell, that are not funded properly and probably decades away if they ever work. I've not been following Lockheed and don't know how that is doing.

Do tell us of this new system small and cheap enough to power a house

Adrian:

Would you care to state which of my statements trouble you and your reason for objecting? Your arguments above are straw men, if you read what I said carefully.

I also suggest you consider context, and note that I only promised to provide better evidence for my statements than Axil has for his. That is a low benchmark.

Now, more seriously, for a possibly better H-B system, I suggest you look at Hora's work.

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…42-6596/244/2/022002/meta

Science has made a big mistake that is causing them to travel down the Hot Fusion dead end. The Sun uses the LENR reaction to produce energy, not hot fusion. One false basic assumption can cause the entire scientific edifice to collapse.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Higgs Bosons - the particle that makes gravity work - can now be produced at will. Commericalisation is just round the corner and while no-one has yet come public with an anti-gravity machine many must be working on this.

Whoa! Is that even a thing? I mean, is it even a remote possibility that research into Higgs Bosons might give clues about anti-gravity, assuming anti-gravity might exist? I had no idea.

As I understand it, the high energy people only found a few Higgs Bosons, and they are not making them now. They have to make a gazzilon, gazzilon other particles to find one. It is ironic that these people criticize cold fusion for having a low reproduciblity rate. Plus, they only did it in one lab. It was never replicated, and it cannot be, because only one machine can make them. Yet they criticize cold fusion for not being independently replicated enough.

(Actually, they think cold fusion was never replicated, but even when you give them a list of replications they say, "that's not enough." It is the Mary Yugo standard: whatever the number is, it isn't big enough.)

Quote from JedRothwell

You asked about similar experiments in multiple labs. I told you to look at the video (or the script and notes, which is faster). The script addresses that very issue. It is one of the main themes. So anyone who did look at the video will know that you did not bother to glance at it, but instead accused me sending you on a wild goose chase to an irrelevant "compendium."

If you want a compendium on widely replicated experiments, try looking up the electrochemical experiments with bulk Pd cathode, a single spiral Pt anode, and isoperibolic calorometery. That, by golly, is a compendium. I have never tried to tally them all. They are similar because there are not many ways to do isoperibolic calorimetry. You can measure temperature inside the cell or outside it (or both). I cannot think of other major variations.

Quote from JedRothwell

If you want a compendium on widely replicated experiments, try looking up the electrochemical experiments with bulk Pd cathode, a single spiral Pt anode, and isoperibolic calorometery. That, by golly, is a compendium. I have never tried to tally them all. They are similar because there are not many ways to do isoperibolic calorimetry. You can measure temperature inside the cell or outside it (or both). I cannot think of other major variations.

Here is a single paper review of such things and a list of about 150 papers with notation of which criteria they "replicated".

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Quote from oldguy

Here is a single paper review of such things and a list of about 150 papers with notation of which criteria they "replicated". file:///C:/Users/dennis/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/G6X9VVWV/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Oops. You sent us the link to the paper on your own disk. You meant:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

[Now fixed]

Good paper. Thanks for reminding me of it. But, but . . . it's a compendium! Compendium, bad. Fire, bad. Smoke . . . good.

Quote from axil

Science has made a big mistake that is causing them to travel down the Hot Fusion dead end.

The problem is that the military sold us the hydrogen bomb, where in reality it was a lithium bomb. Just like everywhere: Fools fooling fools.

Building a Lithium reactor with high COP has been done by Lipinskis... But, as it looks now, Dod is holding them back...

Quote from Wyttenbach

The problem is that the military sold us the hydrogen bomb, where in reality it was a lithium bomb. Just like everywhere: Fools fooling fools.

Building a Lithium reactor with high COP has been done by Lipinskis... But, as it looks now, Dod is holding them back...

Please post the reaction chain of the "lithium bomb". Lithium reactions, without deuterium or tritium process/fusion energy.

Let us see where the MeV (the equivalent Megatons of TNT) is comming from.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I'm sure DOE will be most disappointed to learn ITER is a straw man.

The abstract from your link sounded like an indefinite maybe and certainly didn't encourage me to look further.

Making electricity directly by magnetohydrodynamics is obviously an attractive method, if you are able to figure out how to do it. Apparently Rossi is playing wit the idea with his larger SK reactors. I suspect Rossi is closer to doing it that the method suggested in your link. Of course he is not offering lifetime employment for hundreds of DOE scientists so is unlikely to be offered government funding.

Rossi claiming to want to use MHD, or TEG, like many others, is a distraction mechanism. All he needs for that Nobel etc is working LENR that anyone can validate, not heat to electricity comversion as well. And that is the thing he has never had...

Maybe before you comment on links you should read and understand them? The link I showed was about an interesting mechanism for non-thermal H-B fusion enhancement.

You are doing what you specialise in here in misrepresenting arguments. I never said ITER was a straw man: how could it be as a fusion project, not an argument. My point was that your arguments in the last post were tilting at straw men - e.g. not addressing my arguments. You cannot mend that by further misrepresenattion of what I posted!

Quote from bang99

Please post the reaction chain of the "lithium bomb".

2 ⁶Li --> 3 ⁴He. Initial energy( strong field forces) by A-Bomb. Thats why the US still treats ⁶Li as military use material.. (and tries to get as much as possible)..

Quote from Wyttenbach

2 ⁶Li --> 3 ⁴He. Initial energy( strong field forces) by A-Bomb. Thats why the US still treats ⁶Li as military use material.. (and tries to get as much as possible)..

Of cource ⁶Li and ⁷Li are "precious

But: Reaction without deuterium or tritium involved?

2 ⁶Li --> 3 ⁴He How much MeV?

Are that small lithium bombs in kilo tnt range or megatons tnt?

Can you provide the military version number of a war head, that is using this reaction.

Can you please post your source, thanks.

The QX system is built to be a distributed system located in the customer's site. Local control of that system is a problem for Rossi.

The requirement for an on site expert to control a local system is the weakness of Rossi's system. Rossi wants to keep the need to have a trained operator on site to a minimum or even better to have no local operator on site at all. This internet remote control idea is dangerous, not so much to protect the Rossi IP, but to protect his system from the sabotage that a competitor might want to inflect onto the entire population of Rossi's product line.

A hacker could mount a denial of service attack against Rossi's entire product line and no control signals will get though to any of his systems. What does Rossi do then?

A system that needs no control expertice is a system that will easily defeat Rossi in the marketplace.

Rossi made a mistake when he designed the QX. In a centralized system where control is provided by on site experts, extreme power density and minimum material usage is what will win in the marketplace.

A 20 gigawatt reactor that can operate inside a room will defeat a huge centralized e-cat site using millions of QX reactors. High power density means cheap up front costs and econimies of scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Quote from bang99

Can you provide the military version number of a war head, that is using this reaction.

Can you please post your source, thanks.

This is a silly (Troll - like) question! As I said still under absolute secrecy in the US. May be best source is Sacharows Biography. He was the guy that built the 150 Megaton Lithium Siberia eraser..., based on US secretes... Of course there are more possible reactions as I quoted above. Lipinski's e.g., see also 2 ⁷Li --> ⁶Li + 2 ⁴He... This runs at 100 eV activation (in fact down to 50 eV).

That's why fusing Lithium is the best and cheapest process.

One hint I can give you. 3/4 of the total bomb energy is coming from Lithium.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Typical. Rossi has not claimed to use MHD,although he reported he could get < 40% of the energy from the QX as electricity, he is sticking with heat for now.

He says he would like to look at MHD at some future date, after he has started mass production. No claims or promises. Apparently, you knowing little about what Rossi is doing or thinking claim this, like everything he does, is a con and a distraction.

Nothing I said in my earlier post was a straw man. You are wrong. Try and prove it if you can.

edited typo

Display More

Adrian,

You seem to use words differently from me. The phrase "straw man" applies to when you argue against some statement that in fact another had not made, as though they had made it.

In this case your original objection to my slightly tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless correct comment about Axil's post, was tilting at windmills that do not exist. I don't need to prove anything, because I might agree with all that you said in that post while also holding what I said. You don't have to agree with me in this matter: I was just pointing out to you that your arguments did not touch what I said. Frankly, I doubt we disagree over hot fusion since I'm careful in the claims I make for it.

As far as Rossi goes you raised this talking about MHD not me. I accept your correction that this is a claim of future intent from Rossi, but you can no doubt see that my point equally applies to such a statement of future intent. Specifically, by addressing problems of how to convert heat into electricity, it distracts from the matter in dispute which is whether Rossi has ever made a device that generates excess heat.

You used the word con: if the cap fits wear it. It undoubtedly is a distraction.