Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Peter Gluck

Now it is 10W/g in the best case. And think please technologically- what devices will be used?

The best performance I know of is 300 W/cm^3 for the entire cathode (not just local hot spots). That is 25 W/g, but I am sure that better performance is possible. 300 W/cm^3 compares favorable to the power density of uranium in a fission reactor core.

See the table "Power density is compared by volume or by surface area:"

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

If the claim by Fleischmann & Pons that one of their cathodes melted is correct, then palladium can be driven to power levels close to the melting point of the metal. That would be far higher power density than the best experiments so far. I believe their account. There is other evidence that local hot spot power density in some palladium samples has exceeded the 300 W/cm^3 level.

The cost and availability of palladium would be roughly comparable with that of uranium oxide reactor fuel.

Regarding what devices would be used, initially the devices will probably be expensive so they would be used in niche applications such as remote power supplies, or space-based power supplies. They might be used for very small, expensive power such as wristwatch, pacemaker or hearing-aid thermoelectric batteries. The cost per watt of these devices is far greater than macroscopic power supply electricity. Initial applications might be similar to aneutronic plutonium-238 thermoelectric devices. These are used for the Mars Curiosity rover. In the 1970s they were used for pacemaker battery power supplies. They have the same advantage as cold fusion: they produce no penetrating radiation and they last for many years; much longer than a chemical battery.

As the cost of palladium cold fusion falls, it may be used for more general purpose energy. Given the limited supplies of palladium, I do not think it could be used for low-duty cycle applications such as automobiles and flashlights. Fortunately, chemical batteries are improving, and all-electric vehicles may soon be common.

In the distant future, supplies of palladium may greatly increase with better extraction techniques, especially techniques that take a lot of energy. The energy overhead would still be much smaller than it is for oil or coal. Extraterrestrial sources might also be found, such as in asteroids.

Palladium will probably not be transmuted, destroyed or lost from a sealed cold fusion device, so supplies would grow over the years, whereas with present day uses for palladium such as catalytic converters, supplies are lost over time, to sublimation.

I have seen 50W/g Pd.

Quote from Peter Gluck

This about what he was informed during the Test about th bad results as zero excess heat all the time, flowmeter showing 4 times more than the real flow etc. . . .

They did not tell me that much! They told me some of the reasons, and showed me some of the data. I had doubts, but as I said here, I was willing to join Mats Lewan in his symposium because I was hoping the problems had been corrected. They might have been corrected. There was time.

Quote from Peter Gluck

True, however not credible.

Why is it not credible? I know how to keep secrets. Unlike you, when someone asks me to evaluate something and shut up, I do that. As I said, I translate and copy edit scientific papers. I have been doing that for a long time. Authors would not let me do that if I blabbed about the papers months or years before they were published.

I wouldn't blab about upcoming papers because papers often change or vanish before publication. In the case of the 1-year test, I knew that Rossi is sloppy, and I could see he was being sloppy again, but I thought he might be serious. He had plenty of time to fix the problems that I knew about. I think it was reasonable for me to give him the benefit of the doubt, say nothing, and hope he would fix the problems. That's what I.H. did. Many experiments are sloppy when they start, but they gradually improve. You have to give researchers time to make mistakes and improve things. Research isn't paint-by-the-numbers.

oldguy,

Is this something you're able to reproduce on demand?

Quote from oldguy

I have seen 50W/g Pd.

Where? For the whole cathode? Solid material or powder?

Dear Jed,

300 W/cm3 is 25 W/g- 4 times less than what I wrote. Not for commercial applications,

Re the Fleischmann Pons cube cathiode caseit is perfectly possible that at Hot E-Cat temperatures

Pd also starts dynamic active sites generation but this has to be tested and made reproducible.

I discussed it on my blog with no success.

On short-medium range commercial Pd D is a no go, sorry.

peter

Quote from ele

The 1MW plant had a large number spare units as usual for a plant that must be working 7/7 24h.

According to the Tests Plan, there was to be 4 spare reactors, not 52.

Quote from Bob

We even have to remember.... the memo stating that pipe size was DN40, does not even designate where the pipe was in the system. Many are simply assuming it is the exit pipe shown in the photo. Can anyone truly confirm that is what Murray was discussing? The pipe could be anywhere in the system, in the container, the exit pipe coming out of the container, a pipe/fitting on the other side of the wall. There can be a DN200 pipe in the container and a DN200 pipe on the other side of the wall, but if there is a single value or small stretch of pipe between the two, that pipe becomes the restrictive element.

The memo probably is referring to that exit pipe. I cannot prove it nor I do not believe you can either. I am just saying that the peanut gallery is stating "We know what is really happening... We know the true pipe size" and yet none has been there, actually seen the facility and have no facts. Murray on the other hand was there, was hired to investigate and ask questions and was in a position to know these things. Which is most likely correct? The peanut gallery or Murray? hmmmmm....

The pipe described as DN40 is also described as being 6 m long on the container side to at least to the Customer wall.

Quote from JedRothwell

Where? For the whole cathode? Solid material or powder?

sorry I cannot go into details but it was more like co deposition material on an inert surface.

Mitch S. claims for his NANORs a density of 19,700W/kg . However, this contains active ZrO2–PdD nanostructured material [Zr (66%), Ni (0–30%), and Pd (5–25%) by weight],

If the 19.5W/g can be obtained with the 5% Pd then that would be 487W/g of Pd.

Quote from Bob

The memo probably is referring to that exit pipe. I cannot prove it nor I do not believe you can either.

The author of Exhibit 5 referred to the alleged DN40 pipe as the exit pipe implicitly, because it then went on to argue that the pipe would not support the total flow. If you believe the DN40 pipe story, then you would have to believe that Rossi switched from larger pipes in the past to a ridiculously small one for the time that it really mattered.

Quote from Peter Gluck

300 W/cm3 is 25 W/g- 4 times less than what I wrote. Not for commercial applications,

You wrote 10 W/g. 25 W/g is twice as much, not 4 times less. You have made an arithmetic error, or you typed the wrong number. In any case, 25 W/g is about the same as uranium oxide in a fission reactor, so it is a useful level of power.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Re the Fleischmann Pons cube cathiode caseit is perfectly possible that at Hot E-Cat temperatures

I did not mention temperature. Any reasonable temperature can be reached with palladium.

Quote from Peter Gluck

On short-medium range commercial Pd D is a no go, sorry.

Martin Fleischmann and many other experts disagree with you. I disagree with you. You made a simple arithmetic error (or a typo) above, so you have not made your case. You did not address of the technical issues I just listed, so you have not made your case. You made an assertion here -- "no go" -- with no supporting evidence and no reason for anyone to agree, or even know what you are talking about. That is not a discussion. You have not made your point -- or any point.

Jed,,excuse me you have told univoqually and

in principle irreversibly about the quadrupling flowmeter, info you got from more persons)

and for believing that I must force imagination beyond boarders. Exactly as with the half-full pipe story in the conditions of the Plant. (not in the garden)

I was working as industrial researcher in chemical plants and their annexes from 1962 to 1999, have lead research projects and have my own problem solving system. I still can tell what you can do wit a flowmeter and what not. from practise.

Please do not forget that the actual recorded results tell you better what actually happened

and these are those > 600000 pages about which Rossi has spoken after the Test. A flowmeter put there where you want is inconstant, jumping...as readings.

A 40mm pipe for 1500 kg/h low pressure steam is a gaffe no designer will do.

And fake results for n entire year with IH's operators, visitors there is not believable.

You are free to think what you wish or have to in the very role of Rossi killer assumed by you-- it implies a responsibility eventually.

As colaborating with the NiH killers too.

peter

Quote from IH Fanboy

If you believe the DN40 pipe story, then you would have to believe that Rossi switched from larger pipes in the past to a ridiculously small one for the time that it really mattered.

No. In this installation it was DN40 the whole time. He did not switch. He had a problem he did not correct. He had many problems he did not fix.

If he had previously had a larger pipe, he would have said so in response to Murray. He would have shown a photo or other proof. He would have explained why he replaced the larger pipe. He would have been paid $89 million to do that. If someone offered you $89 million for a photo, would you give it them or not? Can you suggest any reason why Rossi had proof that his gadget was working, but he refused to give it to I.H.?

Please do not repeat your ass-backwards assertion that he did not give the information because he knew I.H. was not going to pay. That is the opposite of what any business person would do. You produce evidence to force the customer to pay. You don't hide it when you think the customer may not pay.

@Jed

Why don't you ask Brilluoin--just funded to the tune of $8 million--whether they think Pd is the way to go. I'm afraid IH is going to be spinning their wheels for years to come, and trying to divert a whole lot of attention away from what really has promise.

Jed just for the record, in my 2nd message I

wrote

Suppose all goes to CF energy production and

100W/g are attained (1 W/g is more realistic now.

Cf will generate then)

200,000,000x 100= 20,000, 000,000W

that is"

0.02 TW was calculated with 100 W/g

I a liked CF and I am generous and optimist.

OK, has PdD a commercial future? Y/ N?

peter

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed,,excuse me you have told univoqually and

in principle irreversibly about the quadrupling flowmeter, info you got from more persons)

and for believing that I must force imagination beyond boarders. Exactly as with the half-full pipe story in the conditions of the Plant. (not in the garden)

If it happens in a garden fountain, why would it not happen in a plastic tank open to the atmosphere? You can see for yourself that is what the reservoir was. It is right there in the photo. That is how any unpressurized gravity return works. You cannot pressurize that kind of tank. You can also see right into it, and see how the pipes are arranged.

Your imagination has carried you off to never-never land. You are deluded by wishful thinking. You claim the pipe cannot be DN40 because that would mean the reactor did not work. That is illogical. The logical assertion is: the pipe was DN40, therefore the reactor did not work. See "Appeal to the consequences of a belief:"

http://www.nizkor.org/features…peal-to-consequences.html

Variation 5. "I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking."

Quote from IH Fanboy

Why don't you ask Brilluoin--just funded to the tune of $8 million--whether they think Pd is the way to go.

I do not know what materials they are using.

I would suggest you ask Fleischmann, but he is dead. I spent a week with him discussing these matters, and I read everything he wrote, so I know what he thought and where he got his numbers. If you want to claim you know more about palladium and energy than Martin Fleischmann, be my guest. Go ahead and say that. Show the world that you have a swelled head and you think you know better than the Leading Experts.

Of course I can see the advantages of Ni, Ti and other materials. Au might actually be a candidate. Wouldn't that be something? Fort Knox could supply all the energy in the solar system and more, for billions of years.

A sandwich combination of Pd and Ni might be promising.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not know what materials they are using.

They've been open about the fuel: NiH and no Li.

Quote

A sandwich combination of Pd and Ni might be promising.

I actually agree with you on this one. But it would need to be light on the Pd to be commercially viable.