Posts by oldguy

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

It does state they did considerable research and testing and that it worked.

from: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2018119352A1.html as you recommended.

Again, where does it say "they did considerable research and testing and that it worked" ??????

Let's see your reference and exact quote as you

ask of others

All I see about any tests is [33]: "In existing systems and tests- including heavy water electrolytic cells, heavy water codeposition electrolytic cells, Pd lattice plated devices with hydrogen and deuterium gas, and solid state reactors.... "

and [31] : "In the research and tests surrounding anomalous heat generation in various physical configurations - e.g., wet cell, gas charged tubes, and dry reactors - have been investigated."

and the only thing about research [4] is: "research in this field has largely been inconclusive."

There is nothing there that says they did the testing nor the research.

You are just babbling on, as far as I can see and making things up.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You would know if you had been following the thread. You could go back to Wednesday yourself and find the link but that is too much trouble for you.

WO2018119352A1.pdf

First that is not the "recent one" but filled in 2016 (US).

Second it does not use a wafer in a closed cylinder as required by Rossi.

It deals with plated materials (independent claim 1). Plating drastically alters the morphology of a metal.

Gas loading of Pd and other metals has been around a long time.

It appears to be a "paper patent" , i.e. "constructive reduction to practice" and not a "physical reduction to practice". I don't see where IH did any physical testing and got results. Patents can do that, you know. It mentions testing [31] and [33] but does not indicate that they did any testing and even refers to electrochemical/well cell tests. It seems clear to me that they are referring to testing and research in LENR in general by others. I do not see that they give any indication that they did testing on a "Rossi like" wafer in a closed cylinder and got any positive results.

Please be more specific, because even the patent reference you give does not seem to support your caustic accusations. Perhaps I missed it, but is sure doesn't seem to be in what you refer to.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

The one that has just been issued, linked and discussed on the previous pages.

Stop the babble and misdirection. Give specific references. A lot of patents have been mentioned. You seem to whan people to give exact quotes and references but you never do. You said "in a recent patent"- which one. There are at least 5 "recent" one (apps).

I see no claims by IH that say they have excess heat using any of Rossi's patent claims.

I do see where they claim heat by using electrical stimulation by discharge but that is not in any Rossi issued patents that I see.

for example 9,115,913 Rossi uses a wafer and heats via :" induction heater, an electrical resistor, a heater that relies on natural gas combustion, and a heater that relies on combustion of fuel". [see his claim 17 for resistor] There does not seem to be any mention of electrical discharge to a material. By patent law, that must be his "best embodiment" at the date of its filing. That appears to be the one covering technology during the court case

Again: to which Rossi patent and claims and which IH patent and claims do you refer?

Your question was "do you believe it". Yes I do: see the ICCF 21 talk by Letts and Cravens, and Letts and Higgins. That seems to be the one in the recent app 20180193816 but it is glow discharge so it could not be what you are referring to.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's. It didn't get argued and adjudicated in court, so is not proven. IH claimed they had researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent. Do you believe that?

Anyway your reply that does not answer the question I asked, nor is it a quotation using my actual words.

Please give specific patent reference.

Which patent and which claim and how does that claim link to Rossi?

Could it be that it is in a patent that uses technology that is not previously claimed by Rossi?

For example, some of the patents are based on the glow discharge (20180193816 ) and clearly are different from anything Rossi has in his claimed patent.

Or is this just more babble?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Perhaps you could address the specifics I mention? How you rationalise Tom Darden's sworn testimony about Rossi's test protocol that showed an unfuelled reactor giving the same output as a whole set of fuelled reactors?

I found the reason they used the empty reactor very interesting and believable .... the story I heard is that they used one labeled 9 instead of a 6.

...... sneaky those "thieving Russians" (satire intended) who Rossi said took the catalyst.

Quote from Zeus46

Remind me what this "considerable proof" consists of, please.

I doubt there is any "considerable proof" -

If there was proof then why not clearly give it instead of just babbling.

" It is a tale, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing." Macbeth

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You can't seem to remember what my views are, and keep making things up about them that are not true. Next time quote my actual words.

Oh, it is "not true" that you think that Rossi claims to have "something great" and a "commercial product" sometime in the future: example Jan 19. Is that what you are saying now? You offer no data, no facts- it sure seems like babble to me.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Why do you then babble on for a page? We already know your views on Rossi

And we know your views on Rossi - that he claims to have something great and claims that a commercial product will be in the future with massive manufacturing. So "why do you then babble on". Just let it alone and wait for it to happen.

Quote from kirkshanahan

But don't forget...

50 MJ/kg = 50 kJ/g

So if you have a 2 gram sample, that means you produced 100 kJ.

Now 1 J/s = 1W, so if you were seeing a 1W excess heat, that would require 100,000 seconds = 27.8 hrs. So, if you ran longer, you'd get an even bigger 'energy density'.

But 1W is of the same size as the calorimeter errors coming from CCS/ATER. You would need to assure yourself your 1W 'signal' was actually a signal.

Bottom line: Integrating an error gives a bigger error, not a discovery.

Display More

Don't forget I said the mass of the entire system not just the sample size.

Quote from Roseland67

Adrian,

If some “trusted sources”

do all of the measurements,

showing “Energy Out > Energy In

it would go a long way.

Display More

Yes, and if it is run long enough so that we can rule out chemistry-

say >50 MJ/ kg for the entire system mass calculated from the integrated

amounts.

Quote from can

gamma rays, which have been thermalized in the water flow,

How do you thermalize gammas with water flow ? Thermalize neutrons perhaps but gammas?

Was it a closed system or was the flow open to air?

The problem seems to be that the demos and trials where sorely under evaluated and poorly instrumented. It appears that they didn't really want a valid conclusion.

Quote from Alan Smith

Was it under pressure?

I was under the impression that it was claimed to be 0 bars gauge so there was no reduced back pressure. But some claimed it was under slight pressure.

Quote from can

practice even as much as twice the rated rate when the pump operates with a slightly negative backpressure.

So if the system generated steam under pressure why wouldn't there be a backpressure.

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm surprised you don't get it. The gammas are proof of a nuclear reaction and also provide a clear signal of what the fuel is composed of and what reactions are important. If you want to sell the heat you need to be sure you can produce flames, and the gammas are the smoke. Now, what sensible business man would not want to be sure of that?

I don't think that gammas are required for all nuclear events. Again, the verification that commercial interests are interested in is heat not the production of gammas. Something can produce gammas with little heat but it would not be a reasonable commercial product. They will want proof of a saleable product not of a nuclear event. Just try to sale gammas.

Alan,

again gammas are not much interest for businesses. They may help people how do not believe in LENR that something is happening, but that is not what most business want. They want to do due diligence to verify a working and useable device.

"hoped"

It still remains that he said he had factories and many employees and that he was producing units...... many years ago. His history is that he did not and does not produce what he says.

Alan S-

I would not think that business types would be more interested in gammas than heat. You can't sale gammas. They will want something that produces heat with reduced input and will work "unattended" for a length of time.

I would suggest measure DC into an inverter for the input of what ever device is required - possibly from a battery array - much harder to trick a DC measurement. And pump water from and into a large pool/ or tank and the measure heat rise as a function of time while mixing. Yes there will be loss, but at his claimed COP that should not be a problem. This should be done by setting up, turning on and then leaving the device to run on its own. It should run for over 100 times any known chemical events possible calculated from the device's mass.

If he has on demand, on/off and a robust system, that shouldn't be a problem. If the device does require constant "adjustments" by Rossi then it is not ready for commercialization. Turn it on, stand back and watch for a few days. You can calibrate with an electric pool heater if needed.

In short, heat a "bucket" of water with a battery sourced device for a length of time while the device is left untouched.