​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

  • kg031590

    So far, **unnecessarily** high risk and, far as we know, absolutely ZERO payoff. TIFIFY

  • Can you point out the 'political opposition' please?

    You've got to be kidding right? I suggest you read some of the early issues of Infinite Energy. Congress was literally being lobbied by the hot fusion interests not to divert funding to cold fusion research. Reputation traps were being erected. Not for the good of the world, but for self-interested turf-protecting scientists. This is all very richly documented. History will not look kindly on these early obstructive efforts.

  • Can you point out the 'political opposition' please?

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MaddoxJfarewellno.pdf


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


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

    Anytime you mix hydrogen and oxygen, you have a good chance of an explosion. Basic flammability considerations...

    Gas loaded cells do not have oxygen. Open cells have only a tiny amount of oxygen. Some of the explosions have exceeded the limits of chemistry by a large margin.

  • Gas loaded cells do not have oxygen. Open cells have only a tiny amount of oxygen.


    Yes, but the atmosphere has a lot of oxygen, and under unusual or fault conditions this could be drawn into the cells


    Some of the explosions have exceeded the limits of chemistry by a large margin.


    My point is that making that argument is inherently less safe than arguing for excess heat under controlled conditions. During an explosion (or even just before it) equipment is stressed abnormally and it is easy for assumptions (such as your own above that little oxidant is present) to turn out wrong. It is easy to think that small localised melting and major bending of a structure corresponds to melting of the structure, so overestimating heat released, etc, etc.

  • My point is that making that argument is inherently less safe than arguing for excess heat under controlled conditions.

    That is definitely true! An explosion is a terrible way to measure energy release. Except in a bomb calorimeter. Since no one expects an explosion, they do not put cells in bomb calorimeters. An estimate of the energy release from an explosion is an unplanned extrapolation after the fact.


    Here is one of the better papers about an explosion. I would say this is interesting but not the level of proof you get from ordinary calorimetry, in an ordinary test where you plan ahead, practice, and repeat the test many times.


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

  • Whoa! You think a bomb calorimeter is for explosions? "Bomb" like BOOM!?


    Quote

    A bomb calorimeter is a type of constant-volume calorimeter used in measuring the heat of combustion of a particular reaction. Bomb calorimeters have to withstand the large pressure within the calorimeter as the reaction is being measured. Electrical energy is used to ignite the fuel; as the fuel is burning, it will heat up the surrounding air, which expands and escapes through a tube that leads the air out of the calorimeter. When the air is escaping through the copper tube it will also heat up the water outside the tube. The change in temperature of the water allows for calculating calorie content of the fuel.


    You do NOT expect or desire a so-called bomb calorimeter to sustain an explosion! Just an exothermic reaction! Pressure yes. Shock waves nope.

  • At least Darden is positive about LENR,

    Positive??! Hard to believe, since his "experts" are throwing discredited across the field. Also in one of the documents sent to the judge in the IH vs Rossi process it is clear that IH doubts the functioning of the E-Cat on the ground that the theory on which it is based is fallacious and contrary to the laws of physics (excuse me If I do not quote the document, I don't have time to look for it, but it has been shown several times here). So Darden's point of view about the LENR field changes according to his audience and what is convenient to him (nothing to be surprised by considering the subject ...).

  • Whoa! You think a bomb calorimeter is for explosions? "Bomb" like BOOM!?

    I am quite sure they are for explosions. Such as explosive recombination, or igniting a sample of gasoline. People used bomb calorimeters to measure the heat from gasoline. You cannot slow down that reaction, and it produces a lot of force very quickly. That's why it is used to drive automobile internal combustion engines. If that isn't an explosion I don't know what would be.


    Bomb calorimeters are not intended to contain sealed electrochemical cells that physically fracture or burst. I meant that as a joke. If you expected the cold fusion reaction to cause an explosion, you would design it to work inside a bomb calorimeter in the first place, with as much safety as possible.


    Mizuno used a type of bomb calorimeter in his glow discharge experiments. It captured the heat from reactions that lasted 5 to 15 minutes that were intense enough to disintegrate tungsten.


    The beauty of a bomb calorimeter is that it captures all enthalpy, no matter how quick the reaction is. Sample time is not an issue.

    • Official Post

    I am quite sure they are for explosions. Such as explosive recombination, or igniting a sample of gasoline. People used bomb calorimeters to measure the heat from gasoline. You cannot slow down that reaction, and it produces a lot of force very quickly. That's why it is used to drive automobile internal combustion engines. If that isn't an explosion I don't know what would be.


    You are quite correct. When working for WR Grace's Technical Center I used Bomb Calorimetry to measure the calorific content and oxidative potential of everything from sucrose to castor oil. This was working with a pure oxygen atmosphere in the system. Bangs were no uncommon.

  • It's possible that Andrea Rossi's Quarkx may be the same process that I noticed some years ago. I hooked up an old piece of equipment, (the "reactor"), and you will see that there is a 1V drop (approx) across a 0.75 ohm resistor and the "reactor", in series, with a supply voltage as seen on the meter.. The apparent resistance of the "reactor" is less than 0.1 ohm, as best I can measure. These figures seem to accord with Andrea Rossi's Quarkx, to a greater or lesser degree.


    The "reactor" temperature is 104 C, 220 F. The input voltage is DC, with imperceptible ripple. Maybe Andrea Rossi's device uses a different principle, as mine does not not have a 1.5 cm distance between the active electrodes.


    I'm not interested in money or arguments. If it turns out that my device exhibits the same properties as Andrea Rossi's Quarkx, there is no particular intellectual property involved, and I will gladly provide details to anyone on request. So as not to discourage Andrea Rossi (he may have discovered something completely different for all I know), I will wait until he has disclosed more details. It might be completely coincidental that my "reactor" seems to exhibit much the same behaviour as Andrea Rossi's.


    I should point out that I'm not interested in spending any extra money, or any more than a bare minimum of time, on my device. It's a curiosity, no more, no less.


    I hope Andrea Rossi's device has some commercial advantage.

  • You've got to be kidding right? I suggest you read some of the early issues of Infinite Energy. Congress was literally being lobbied by the hot fusion interests not to divert funding to cold fusion research. Reputation traps were being erected. Not for the good of the world, but for self-interested turf-protecting scientists. This is all very richly documented. History will not look kindly on these early obstructive efforts.


    My point is that this is 'old news'. In the first couple of years there was interest in CF in all segments of society. Politicians saw a chance to get some PR by holding hearings and bashing the DOE for not jumping on this wonderful new energy source. But did anything significant come from all that. Not really. The significance (or lack thereof) came from the academic arena.


    Today, the response is usually "Cold Fusion? That was in that Spiderman movie right? LENR? What's that?"


    I doubt there is a politician anywhere that knows about LENR. If any do, the probability is they don't care, because they have been told its junk. They aren't the ones who are controlling the funding that is supposedly being denied to CFers. But it does really hype up the conspiracy theory atmosphere to claim they are. (And BTW, Maddox and Mallove aren't politicians.)


    I do fully agree today that in the _scientific_ arena, there is opposition to it, because everyone feels it was debunked ages ago. When I became interested in this arena in 1995 though, I recognized that that was a mistaken point of view based on the idea that was prevalent in 1989 that there probably was something there but it was unlikely to be what F&P claimed it was. That position has apparently disappeared (except for me) due to the polarization of the field. So I looked, and I found CCS/ATER, which I think is likely the primary cause of apparent excess heat signals, and the secondary cause of a few other types of results. Contamination and contamination concentration covering the remainder. (And BTW, I've already noted in this forum that I also have been 'victim' of this bias.)


    LENR today is primarily an academic 'tempest in a teapot', if that much.


    But the conclusions of *both* the 1990 ERAB review and the 2004 DOE review included recommendations to fund well thought out proposals. Where are they?

  • maybe there are no "well thought out proposals" yet.

    Just a bunch of people looking for government funding that is known will not work and lead nowhere.

    NREL and NASA could do it though if the

    Thought it had a possibility of working.

  • LENR today is primarily an academic 'tempest in a teapot', if that much.

    Political opposition to LENR caused the destruction of many people's careers, savage attacks in the mainstream press, firing, threats of deportation, sabotage of experiments, and publishing of fraudulent data by MIT and others. This is not "tempest in a teapot." It is the worse scandal in the history of academic science.

    But the conclusions of *both* the 1990 ERAB review and the 2004 DOE review included recommendations to fund well thought out proposals. Where are they?

    All proposals were turned down immediately. The reputations of anyone making a proposal was trashed, and Robert Park and others tried to fire anyone who made a proposal. See:


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

  • Political opposition to LENR caused the destruction of many people's careers, savage attacks in the mainstream press, firing, threats of deportation, sabotage of experiments, and publishing of fraudulent data by MIT and others. This is not "tempest in a teapot." It is the worse scandal in the history of academic science.


    Conspiracy Theorism at its best! " It's the *worst* ... "


    Since we already established you don't distinguish between 'political' and 'academic/scientific' I'd need more details on the *political* opposition you mention. Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, Presidents, Premiers, etc. My recollection about the events you hint at is that they were academic and/or scientific personages, not politicians.


    Now some people *did* run into *a lot* of issues from the academic quarter. As well, sometimes it was from people like Robert Park, who was a spokesman for the APS for awhile, But that's what I call the 'scientific' community, since he's (and the others like him I refer to) are not university educators/researchers, at least in this context. But that's what supposed to happen. Vigorous discussion of proposed ideas, coupled to subsequent experimental refinement, and a clarification of the prior issues. Especially with 'extraordinary' claims. And it is the response of the criticized to the critics that defines whether 'good' or 'bad' science is being done. With CF, the result is pretty clearly in the 'bad' quarter. And who in their right mind deliberately funds 'bad' science (think about the "IH" discussions in this forum).


    And the press don't count, they are just looking to sell ad space, we all know that.


    Threats of deportation?


    What sabotage of experiments?


    What MIT fraudulent data? (And don't quote the Mallove junk. He was all wrong.)


    All proposals were turned down immediately. The reputations of anyone making a proposal was trashed, and Robert Park and others tried to fire anyone who made a proposal.


    Documentation of these assertions?


    (I vaguely recall the Robert Park thing. Jed, he's only one guy, and he *never* had the power to do what you suggest. My impression of him is that he seeks attention just like newspaper reporters. So again "tempest".)




    Saw this when it came out. Very much a 'true believer' screed. Want more comments? Line by line?

  • LENR today is primarily an academic 'tempest in a teapot', if that much.

    If it is a mere tempest in a teapot, I predict this tempest will eventually jump from the teapot to the oceans and nations of the world. I agree with Arthur C. Clarke that this is "perhaps the greatest scandal in the history of science -- the cold fusion caper." And when it happens, there are enough of us still around to make that point loudly and clearly so that something like this never happens again.

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.