Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Your analysis is absolutely implausible and not more than wishful.

    Who will cumulate Pd? In what CF philesociety?

    The palladium would accumulate in machines, just as lead accumulates in batteries, and palladium accumulates in catalytic converters today. Nearly 100% of the lead is recycled, but unfortunately, much of the palladium is lost when catalytic converters are used, and more is lost when they are recycled.


    A cold fusion cell resembles a sealed battery, so it is likely nearly all of the pallidium in it can be recycled when the cell is scrapped.

    Look the first MW unit will need 10kg Pd that

    today 239000 $, add to this the price deuterium and find an investor for this disaster.

    Your arithmetic is wrong.


    I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg. This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine, the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower.


    The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower.


    Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper, as I said.


    The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here:


    http://www.publicpower.org/fil…distributedgenerators.pdf

  • (1) There may have been NDAs in place preventing the Lugano group from responding to critiques; if so, it was perhaps an error in judgment to release a signed report that one cannot defend. But anyway, there is that possibility. (2) As of April 2016, there has been a lawsuit with many millions at stake, and if I were one of the Swedes I would not want to get pulled into it.


    So in hindsight I don't hold it against the Lugano team for not defending the report. With specific individuals on that team, there does appear to be a failure to take the internet critiques seriously, which seems like an error in judgment.

    Eric, I think there is probably information to contradict the NDA hypothesis. First, they published a report under the pretenses that it was completely independent with no restrictions. Second, they said they would respond to criticisms. Third, Levi has responded to the extent that he has said the criticisms are invalid. Fourth, Bo talked on the radio after the test about the test. To my mind, there is no reason to think there is an NDA.


    The researchers are being pulled into it whether they like it or not. Well before the lawsuit, they had plenty of time to respond. I'm not that concerned about whether they respond now, but I do think they should release the raw data.

  • @Jed,


    At to palladium, it is no less and no more than wishful thinking. Dead end. Not commercially viable. Let IH throw all their resources at it, and I can almost guarantee you, we will not see a Pd commercially viable cold fusion device in the marketplace for the next 20 years. If LENR is to succeed commercially, it will be high COP NiH systems, or nothing (with the caveat of BLP, who might pull it off with Ag).

  • who labeled it? I am speaking about isotopic hifts.

    Lugano and 1 MW plant.

    Look please to Parkhomov's results too.

    Or tell us, what has a faithful IH supporter to do with those results- define the Task, please.

    Bo Hoistad labelled the analysis from May.

    Lugano... who knows.

    Parkhomov's analysis looked ... weird. I have looked at a lot of analyses (thousands) over many years. I can't make heads or tails out of the analysis he released in Padova.

  • Some things are so blatantly obvious that they require no explanation.

    Your statement is not blatantly obvious. In the past when inventors such as the Wright brothers became famous overnight, they got tremendous support. The best law firms, the world's VIPs (King Edward), high tech weapons dealers (Charles Flint), and Wall Street tycoons (J.P. Morgan and Cornelius Vanderbilt) immediately offered to help them. If this machine works, Rossi will be on the front page of every newspaper on earth, and he will get the Nobel prize and help from every establishment organization.

    Notice how nobody comes to your rescue on some of your more wild statements.

    They have not come to your rescue, either. I expect most people can see that I am right. Anyone who has read history or has experience in business will see that I am right.

  • who labeled it? I am speaking about isotopic hifts.

    Lugano and 1 MW plant.

    Look please to Parkhomov's results too.

    Or tell us, what has a faithful IH supporter to do with those results- define the Task, please.

    peter


    We now know that Rossi or Fabiani were present for the whole test, and the independent Profs made only a few flying visits. Furthermore, Levi, though one of the Profs, has a long past relationship that makes him not independent. He could be under Rossi's influence, given that relationship, without necessarily being overtly complicit.


    So while I don't know precisely at what point the Ni58 sample got switched for an Ni-62 sample, which Rossi could easily have purchased - indeed he stated previously that he was using it - some switch is very possible.


    The alternative looks surprising, even suppose we have something that performs nuclear transformation, because for all of the Ni to be so completely converted exceeds the excess heat emitted by a factor of more than 10X given that to get so much N-62 we have to fuse p with Ni-58 (not enough Li) and the mass balance tells us the emitted energy. You can fit it by supposing complete conversion of some part of the fuel, of course, but the highly pure Ni-62 is characteristic of bought material and not expected from some LENR reaction product. Near complete conversion would normally result in reaction rate decrease, there is no sign of that. Given an unknown mechanism any facts can be fitted, but in this case the fit looks very poor.


    So a careful and objective look at the evidence, even on the assumption that LENR happens here, does not fit this Ni-62 being a product of an LENR reaction that generated the Lugano report excess energy. It does however fit a sample switched or contaminated, whether intentionally or inadvertently. Incidentally, even on the Prof's own wrong figures the excess energy would be too low, and we still have the peculiarity of 98% conversion of reactant with no change in reaction rate.


    Rossi's known cavalier attitude towards scientific accuracy, and interest in PR "magnificence", makes some sort of a deliberate switch look entirely possible.



    As for Parkhomov's results, he tried to replicate them and the replications, as you know, were thoroughly unconvincing. The original result is explainable through liquid-phase ejection from the water vessel, entirely possible.

  • At to palladium, it is no less and no more than wishful thinking. Dead end. Not commercially viable.

    Except for all of the reasons I gave. You have given no reason for your assertion. You have not shown any faults or arithmetic errors in my analysis. Again, you seem to think that your opinion alone, unsupported by facts or analysis, automatically wins any debate. Do you think you are the Pope?

  • @Jed


    Your statements are blatantly ridiculous. They don't deserve to be graced by my explanation as to why. If you are unfamiliar with the business and legal landscapes, just do a few quick Google searches and you will immediately see the errors in your thinking. I suggest you start with keywords "patent lawsuit jury trial" and go from there.

  • The original result is explainable through liquid-phase ejection from the water vessel, entirely possible.

    This is possible. I have heard of this happening with other experiments, where the fluid is boiled, the waterline is high, and vessel is open at the top. You can check for this by spreading paper towels around the machine and then weighing them, or checking them for dried salts with an electrochemical gadget.


    However, I would not say the "result is explainable." I would say it "might be explained by . . ." Until someone checks with paper towels, this is a hypothesis that needs looking into, not an explanation.

  • Your statements are blatantly ridiculous. They don't deserve to be graced by my explanation as to why

    So, we should take your assertions as infallible pontifications from the Pontiff of Cold Fusion. A Papal Bull. "Bull" is the correct term.


    I give facts, examples from history and cogent arguments. You dismiss them without deigning to give a reason. Do you really think people find that persuasive?

  • This is possible. I have heard of this happening with other experiments, where the fluid is boiled, the waterline is high, and vessel is open at the top. You can check for this by spreading paper towels around the machine and then weighing them, or checking them for dried salts with an electrochemical gadget.


    However, I would not say the "result is explainable." I would say it "might be explained by . . ." Until someone checks with paper towels, this is a hypothesis that needs looking into, not an explanation.

    I'd agree in part. Except that the best (initial) way to look into this is for P himself to replicate - and that seems to have failed. Hence my somewhat negative phrasing. If even P can't replicate the result using different calorimetry the likelihood of such a hypothesis looks much higher. Nor would it be easy to rule out on the basis of another experiment, where perhaps the setup was slightly different and there was no splashing.

  • f even P can't replicate the result using different calorimetry the likelihood of such a hypothesis looks much higher.

    No doubt something like that went wrong. If he would publish high resolution photos of the equipment other people might be able to help him find the problem.


    Splashing is often a problem, as you say. But there are other possibilities.

  • As for Parkhomov's results, he tried to replicate them and the replications, as you know, were thoroughly unconvincing. The original result is explainable through liquid-phase ejection from the water vessel, entirely possible.


    Parkhomov also obtained ash analyses showing transmutation. So his initial results do not rely solely on Calorimetry.

  • It's quite funny how a lot of really smart grown up people are behaving like kids when it comes to the IH and Rossi affair. I am quite sure that not even IH knows for sure if Rossi has sth or not since he definitly behaved deceptive to a certain degree, The fact that other people like me356, parkhomov and so on claimed to have success (which of course still has to be proven) let's me think that there is at least some truth in his claims.

    Why don't we just sit and wait for more revelations instead of attacking each other based on assumptions and pure hear-say <3

    I still hope for a positive outcome when it comes to LENR (and I think pretty much everybody here does - otherwise they would not be reading or writing here) but so far we just can not be 100% sure yet.

  • The alternative looks surprising, even suppose we have something that performs nuclear transformation, because for all of the Ni to be so completely converted exceeds the excess heat emitted by a factor of more than 10X given that to get so much N-62 we have to fuse p with Ni-58 (not enough Li) and the mass balance tells us the emitted energy. You can fit it by supposing complete conversion of some part of the fuel, of course, but the highly pure Ni-62 is characteristic of bought material and not expected from some LENR reaction product. Near complete conversion would normally result in reaction rate decrease, there is no sign of that. Given an unknown mechanism any facts can be fitted, but in this case the fit looks very poor.


    THHuxleynew : You still try to hunt light-green unicorns. May be you have no clue of LENR or are a professional cheater!


    In LENR, the reaction only happens on the surface, in a layer some 100 atoms deep ... The analysis was made by dissolving just the surface. A total conversion is impossible!!


    Try to improve, or stop your FUD.

  • I am quite sure that not even IH knows for sure if Rossi has sth or not since he definitly behaved deceptive to a certain degree,

    I believe they do know for sure. They are not depending on his behavior or even his test equipment. They made independent tests of his reactors and found no heat.


    I feel that I know for sure Rossi had no heat in the one-year test. That is my interpretation of Penon's data. As I have said many times, it shouts out "FAKE!" I do not think he had good results but he hid them and published fake results instead.