Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

  • @ maryyugo,

    Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power. If the device runs at 100W for 10 days (240 hours), the energy it would output would be 86.4 Mega Joules or 8.64 * 107J.

    […] I would appreciate it if anyone can help me find either the paper I misplaced or a paper or report which describes a device that purports to do what Jed claims.

    […] Note: 8.64 * 107J seems like a lot but by comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains a bit over 108J.


    If you are looking for a document describing a long lasting, high power LENR test, with nearly no input power (ie in the so called self sustaining mode) the most significant, as you well know, is the one published on LENR-CANR (1) which summarizes the experimental data of the 18-hours test held in Bologna on February 10-11, 2011. That document reports that the Ecat device produced 16 kW for 18 hours, with no energy in input except a few tens of W for the control box. The resulting output energy (1,037 MJ) was equivalent to more than 9 gallons (26 liters) of gasoline. An absolute record for a CF/LENR test (except the 1 MW tests).


    If you need to be assured on the significance and credibility attributed by JR to these data, you can read what Josephson posted on March 2011 (2). Did you ever see it? It seems a private email by JR, which reveals several inedited details about the 3 tests held up to then by Levi and others.


    So, from the point of view of energy output, the February 2011 test still represents the absolute record for any other test carried on along the entire CF/LENR history, and, moreover, it was documented, analyzed, recommended, and strenuously defended (for years) by JR himself.


    I really can't understand which better evidence are you looking for. The Ecat tests had been carried out in order to demonstrate the industrial exploitability of LENR, but they only demonstated the lack of reliability of many people involved for whichever reason in them.


    Quote

    Finally, it does strike me as strange that Jed, for whose good intentions and work ethic I have considerable respect, makes this claim and won't tell us where it came from.


    I does strike me, that it strikes you. His way of doing is evident since long.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=640

    (2) https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3

  • Ascoli65


    As you know, I consider, based on observation for more than five years, that Rossi has nothing. I am familiar with Lewan's writeup of the Levi experiment you cite. Had it been done properly, it would have been very persuasive. Unfortunately Levi failed to perform calibrations and worse yet, when told of this deficiency by several people over quite a period of time, he still did not revisit the experiment. It was thus never ruled out that experiment could be bogus, probably by the simple expedient of Rossi misplacing the thermocouple at the output of the ecat close to the two extremely large and powerful heaters that the original ecats contained. Note also that the configuration of these heaters is such that the outer one can only heat the cooling fluid!


    I approached Dr. Josephson a couple of years ago on his Youtube channel and asked if he would email Levi and ask him to repeat the work with proper controls (blanks, dummies) and calibration. Josephson did and later wrote that Levi did not reply to his email. When I pressed him further, he simply said "write him yourself." as if Levi wouldn't respond to Josephson but would do so to me! LOL.


    I think that the ecat experiments demonstrated a succession of poorly designed and incompetently conducted tests which only speak to Rossi's ability to fool gullible scientists and technologists. I know of no claim or admission by anyone connected by to the ecat that the technology is unreliable. It only seems to fail when it is properly observed and the experiment is calibrated, for example the tests done by the Swedish Technical Institute which Rossi apparently was unable to avoid.


    After the complete failure of Industrial Heat to confirm that the ecat makes power in the course of having the full rights to it for a year and Rossi's assistance as per contracts, what in the world leads you to think that Rossi's claims have the slightest whiff of credibility?

  • @ maryyugo,


    If you are looking for a document describing a long lasting, high power LENR test, with nearly no input power (ie in the so called self sustaining mode) the most significant, as you well know, is the one published on LENR-CANR (1) which summarizes the experimental data of the 18-hours test held in Bologna on February 10-11, 2011.


    The experiment that renewed my interest in LENR was Arata's device using Pyncodeuterium. It had no input power.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…29-8dd54geg.shtml#sputnik


    And I was the first layman to make money on cold fusion by setting up a contract at Intrade and betting that this experiment would get replicated in a peer reviewed journal.


    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts

  • Quote

    maryyugo: Could you please provide a link to those other papers for the devices that ran unpowered for a day or two?

    Jed Rothwell: Dardik.

    Seriously? THIS dude? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Dardik


    Quote

    Dardik developed a system of treating diseases using wave form technology, which he called "supersonant waveenergy".[1] His system basically involved exercise techniques that were designed to modulate the cardiac rhythms in order to amplify the bodies natural wave frequencies to fight disease... ...

    In 1995, Dardik was stripped of his license to practice medicine, following a successful lawsuit filed by a former patient, Ellen Burstein MacFarlane, a former consumer-action reporter[7] who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1985.[7] Dardik had claimed in a 1991 New York Magazine cover story that he could cure multiple sclerosis with wave energy therapy.[8]

    Dardik charged MacFarlane and her family $100,000,[9] with the promise that not only could he cure her multiple sclerosis, but also that he would personally be available for the treatment sessions.[10] After receiving his fee, Dardik treated MacFarlane in person at most 10 times during a 10-month period, sending proxies intermittently.[10] MacFarlane's disease progressed, and her condition worsened.[10] MacFarlane wrote a book with her sister, Legwork: An Inspiring Journey Through a Chronic Illness (Lisa Drew/Simon & Schuster 1994), in which she asserted that Dardik robbed her of not only money, but also of her hope for recovery.[11][12]

    In July 1995, Dardik was found guilty of defrauding a total of five patients, including MacFarlane, by the State of New York Department of Health Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct, which revoked his New York medical license and fined him $40,000.[13] MacFarlane died in 2004.[7]


    So he was a quack and a nasty and expensive fraud in his medical practice. This is not a guess. He was convicted by his peers.


    Quote

    In 2004, Dardik put his waveenergy theory to use attempting to produce cold fusion.[14] Working with Israeli company Energetics Technologies, his group claimed "startling results."[14] Energetics Technologies is currently set up at the Business Incubator of the University of Missouri .


    A search of Google scholar shows only medical papers. He does not seem to have any peer reviewed journal articles in LENR. There is this from 2003 in Jed's files: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIintensific.pdf -- he does claim this:



    The "later experiment" referred to above is never further described or referenced. That's about the level of quality of this paper. Although this was in 2003, there is nothing to suggest replication by anyone else or improvement or duplication even by Dardik... in 14 years during which Dardik burned plenty of Sidney Kimmel's money. In fact he or his group is still doing that. This may impress some people. I don't know why it would.


    Finally, I saw no unpowered runs by Dardik. Instead, he refers to a power out/power in ratio. Maybe I just missed it.

  • For example Cravens spheres generated more than 100 watts on their own. There are many similar examples (Patterson, Piantelli, Cellani, etc cells).



    Jed Rothwell regularly links his sources. But you won't read them, because you're a pathoskeptical troll.


    (1) If these spheres actually did this they could be black box tested by anyone and Craven would be instantly (OK, within 6 months or so) very very famous.

    (2) Craven's data is unconvincing because he relies on TC's buried in the spheres. These (I looked up the type number a while ago - but sorry don't have the link to my post here then) are not robust to industrial conditions and known to be sensitive to reducing atmospheres. therefore the chance of diffusion of H2 or D2 into these TCs altering calibration is high, and this mechanism fits all the observations Cravens has made and is nowhere checked (of if checked not written up). Since for those knowledgeable about TCs the issue of long-term drift due to contamination is well known I find the lack of this from Cravens to be salient. Either he is not knowledgeable in the calorimetry he uses, or he cannot for some reason provide evidence that contamination is not the issue here.

    (3) As always differential behaviour D and H is no control, because these have very different physical propertiues - particularly when it comes to diffusion which would be an obvious issue here. The initial high temperature conditioning period used looks to fit the mechanism of TC drift due to long-term contamination very well - you'd get higher diffusion rates at this elevated temperature, and once contaminated the TC's would stay indicating this spurious extra temperature indefinitely.

    (4) This issue - TC contamination - is relevant for quite a number of the other examples in this area - though no ways all and there are other known mechanisms (as for example MFMP found out in their early days when as amateurs with no preconceptions they did some excellent work, learning as they went on).

    (5) if I'm wrong Craven has a demo worth billions and IH and many others would be interested!


    @Zephir. I refuse to go over this again but I can assure you that Craven's experiments fascinated me - I read the original write-up and a slightly more complete write-up someone posted here more recently, from which the diffusion/contamination mechanism emerged as an obvious unchecked candidate when i checked the TC part numbers.

  • However, even 3 hours of HAD in the paper I pointed to is far beyond the limits of chemistry.

    The cells that produced HAD also produced massive amounts of energy before heating up (phase 1), and during the boiling event (phase 2).


    No it is not beyond the limits of chemistry as I have explained many times. As well, I have explained that Fleischmann made a big boo-boo in the paper you refer to. It is detailed in my whitepaper. Turns out he missed *completely* a second cell showing an identical HAD...or maybe, he claimed a cell behaving normally was showing a HAD. See my whitepaper for details.



    Blank cells such as Pt-H driven to boiling by conventional electrolysis never show excess heat



    Of course Pt-D does show excess heat signals (see Storms ICCF8 (I think) paper). Since H is chemically significantly different from D, to be able to see an apparent excess heat with Pt-H would require some modifications to the protocol. But we do know Ni-H cells show apparent excess heat.

  • Quote

    ... A distinct possibility, [that I missed something] based on your ignominious Celani 'single wire' episode (and similarly, on your reply to Ascoli).


    If I missed something about Dardik, what was it? It doesn't help to make an unsupported claim about it.


    @THH: It would be so easy to use an envelope (Seebeck effect) or a mass flow calorimeter with Dennis's infamous balls. I always wondered why he didn't do it. I was not aware of the argument about thermocouple errors so I am glad you brought it up. That could be easily solved by substituting thermistors or other types of temperature sensors. I wonder if anyone has pointed this out to Dennis.

  • @ maryyugo,

    After the complete failure of Industrial Heat to confirm that the ecat makes power in the course of having the full rights to it for a year and Rossi's assistance as per contracts, what in the world leads you to think that Rossi's claims have the slightest whiff of credibility?

    Where did I say such a nonsense? In my previous comment, I wasn't talking about my credence. I was just referring to the credibility which JR did attribute to the results of the February 2011 test, as expressed in the letter he sent to Josephson and which was posted on physicsforum (1).


    Did you read it? In this letter to Josephson, JR excluded the possibility that the Ecat tests could have been magic shows carried out by Rossi, because Levi and his colleagues would have been capable of unmasking whichever trick. But we know that in reality the magician apprentice was Levi, not Rossi. Did JR ignore this hobby of Levi?


    On the basis of the above JR's letter, the Ecat testimonials can be subdivided in these 3 levels:


    1) The main protagonist, who, however, is considered unreliable: "People have said that Rossi might be a sleight of hand stage magician who fools people.";


    2) The academicians, who, on the contrary, are considered indisputably reliable: "No stage magician in history has ever fooled a thermocouple or flowmeter. Instruments are totally immune to the kinds of tricks they use. If Rossi has supplied the instruments we might imagine he changed them, but Levi brought them from the university.";


    3) The opinion makers, who suggest to the public how to interpret the claims made by the academicians, as well as their silences, and propose the final conclusions: "What stage magician would do such a thing? Why?!? It makes absolutely no sense. I think we can decisively rule out the chemical fuel hypothesis."


    Now, nearly all agree that the chemical fuel hypothesis, along with the batteries one, was wrong, but many of us know that there are other much more reasonable and mundane explanations for those Ecat test results. We could deduce that what has been described in the JR letter is typical of magic shows, in which (n) possible explanations are proposed to the public, and then (n-1) of them are shown to be false, in order to let the people believe in the validity of the last remaining possible explanation, which in reality is even more impossible than the others. The base trick consists in not including the right explanation among the proposed ones.


    In conclusion, whoever is interesting in understanding the Ecat events should first reflect upon the roles and reliability of people included in the lowest two supporting levels, avoiding to be too much focused on the main protagonist.


    (1) https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3

  • Ascoli65

    Sorry but, as usual, I am not sure what you're getting at. Are we rehashing all the possible methods Rossi could have cheated? He probably used a lot of different ones at different times. Unless he eventually confesses the details, we are never going to know exactly how he made the ecat appear to produce power. Best we can do is educated guesses and those have been rehashed again and again. Are you asking if Levi was a perpetrator or a victim of Rossi's scams? I don't know. He could tell us but he probably won't.


    Edited to add: thanks for the link... https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3 If I saw it before, I don't remember it. What is amazing about it is that, from the part I browsed, nobody commented on the lack of blank runs or calibration. Nobody complained that the result might be bogus because of mismeasurement. They did raise the issue of hidden fuel or power but that was appropriately dismissed. The ecat was small and delivered 10 - 15kW for 18 hours (with a peak output of 135kW which apparently "scared" the experimenters). No fuel or battery could do that with the small uninspected volume involved. But a simple deliberate misplacement of a thermocouple -- that they never thought of. I didn't read the whole thing so if someone read that they did, I'd appreciate being pointed to it. I don't have time to read it all.

  • It's pretty funny to be accused of insulting people above. Yes, I called you a name, but really (a) you are one, and (b) it's barely an insult.


    Compare that to what's come out of your filthy mouth in the last four weeks:


    you are too lazy or too dumb... so feeble minded... an unspeakable asshole... a cowardly piece of subhuman slime... human excrement... infantile moron... individual ayhole... A worse piece of human excrement I can not imagine... low life sewer-dwelling asswipe... a subhuman piece of crap below the level of trailer trash.


    Which is truly fascinating, if only because seeing it all at once gives a great insight into your character. Freud would no doubt consider you to have been too harshly punished during your potty training, leading to a lifelong anal fixation, but then, Freud was a weirdo: I reckon you just have a scat fetish?


    And what's with you calling people 'subhuman' all the time, you know that word has a pretty terrible history, right?

  • @ maryyugo,

    Sorry but, as usual, I am not sure what you're getting at. Are we rehashing all the possible methods Rossi could have cheated? He probably used a lot of different ones at different times. Unless he eventually confesses the details, we are never going to know exactly how he made the ecat appear to produce power.

    [Emphasis added]

    My point is that it's impossible to attribute all the responsibility to only one "HE".


    The method used to try to convince the public about the reality of the excess heat generated by the Ecat has not been some material tricks (hidden wires, stored fuel, etc.), but the bold misrepresentation of experimental data. The public confidence on these data relied exclusively on the credibility of the academicians who participated in the tests. These academicians chose some direct, and non orthodox, channels (usually by internet) to release their reports and/or declarations, where they stated and confirmed the production of huge quantities of excess heat. However, they always avoided the direct confrontation with the common people, because at this point they claimed to be questioned only by their peers. The task of providing the blogosphere with the interpretation of their astonishngly results has been carried on by some opinion makers, that obstinately defended the absolute reliability of the academicians involved in the Ecat tests, and the credibility of their statements. Can all this be caused by only one HE?


    For example, consider, please, the incongruity between the nominal output of the yellow pump in the January 2011 demo (max output: 12 L/h, effective output: no more than 7.2 L/h) and the value declared in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h), which was used for calculating the excess heat. Do you really think it's possible, that the only person who was aware of this incongruity was Rossi (1)?


    (1) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • There is nothing vague or conditional about 100W, no power in, and days of running. I looked at what Zeus provided and none of it is 100W, no power in and days.

    Saint Mary of Unbelievers, you are imposing a Dogma. Many systems need to have a stimulus in order to work.

    All the system illustrated here are impressive because of their positive COP for long times and because they are quite light !

    So be sure that LENR exist !

    Want 100W no power in for days ?

    Just charge one of these batteries and you can run 100W for 4 days no power in:

    https://www.alma-solarshop.de/…giespeicher-batterie.html