Posts by Majorana

Quote from AlainCo

[...] Most economists say energy is 10% of GdP, so making energy much cheaper save 9-10% of GdP.
A french economist propose reanalysis that energy availability (by price) is the cause of 60% of growth... (I have made a post on that: a French economist explain GdP growth is mostly energy... ). [...]

unpredictable. priceless.

Yes, the effect on GdP has been severely underestimated. I have read your translation of the thread about the work of Gaël Giraud you refer to.
I would like to refine and concretize his statements further:

Before doing so, let us consider the direct influences that also orthodox economists recognize first:
First of all refering to the calculation in post no. 1
The calculation is conservative since the real energy gain per isotope transmutation is rather 3.2 MeV and of course the transmutation ⁶¹Ni -> ⁶²Ni
also contributes a little bit.

So on the one hand we have the cost for the hypothetical lenr-device based energy infrastructure which is 500.000.000 $

The current direct costsfor the primary energy demand, so the 500 Exajoule is approx. 2 Trillion $

It is a number that is quite hard to grasp (at least for me) but you can image that it corresponds to giving each person on the world
280 $ each year. Just like that.

Now what could be indirect consequences?

I would like to start with one point.

1. What is about agricultural economics / food industry?

How much can the cost of crops, vegetables etc. depend on the energy cost? How cheap can you make it, when energy is virtually for free?

If you build green houses that have amortized. The costs for heating and running solar spectrum lamps will be zero except exchanging the light bulbs etc. You will have to buy fertilizers of course.

Now my question is how large is the share of energy on the cost of biochemical fertilizer synthetization and how large is the cost of elemental ingredients?

If energy cost is dominant, then we can say that food will also become incredibly cheap.

Can you think of other indirect influences?

Dear all,

The consequences of an LEN reactor based global energy infrastructure have of course been analysed before in one or the other way in this forum.
Still, as far as I know, there is no thread in which a thorough and coherent analysis has been made but there is rather a large number of "rags" of analysis spread everywhere.

I would like to start this thread with the purpose of letting all forum members form an analysis of the socioeconomical consequences of a working LERN devices-based global energy infrastructure.

This thread shall not be used to discuss, whether LENR are real or not. So please use the dozens of already existing threads for all discussions of such kind.
Real, [lexicon]low energy nuclear reactions[/lexicon] shall be the working hypothesis of this analysis.

If external source, quotations, longer calculations or other material is quoted please use the spoiler function to reduce the length of posts, This way, the quoted information you want to refer to can be displayed by the reader upon demand.

I start now with a calculation to compare the cost for energy at the current state (fossils, fission nuclear, renewables as sources) with a hypthetical global energy infrastructure based on devices that harness the Ni-LiAlH4-reactions.

Quote from Majorana

[...] I would let Rossi make some "1 year tests" telling all the people who are watching the development that "further tests are needed". in order to get time [...]

I told you, you know.

Quote from BBCK777

Mary Yugo: You seem just too fast to react negatively to information like this: If you have information about Fabiani that would indicate he could be part of a scam, that he has a background that would even point us in that direction, please share it…

Well, it is a fact that Rossi was a scammer. He was also convicted for this.

However, like I said in the past, I don't take this to be a reason that he is a scammer.
The E-Cat could work.

Wow, I am quite surprised what happened to this thread.
Actiually it was startet by me356 to document his experiment and to enable the community to follow the experiment.
The last posts have become quite off-topic.

Dear all,

motivated by Brillouin's press release I started to browse the website of SRI (Stanford Research International).

There is a list of It's personnel and all directors of all subdepartments seem to be listed. Strangely, and in contrast to what is written in McKubre wikipedia article there is NO mention of McKubre.

Instead there is "Barbara Heydorn" listed as the senior director of the Energy Center.

Is there someone who can explain this?

Sorry, but I do not agree.

They allowed Brillouin to take photographs in the first place so why should they refuse to confirm this meeting now?

If this had to be kept secret, then we would not see any photographs now, I think we can be sure of that.

So why do you say there is no meaning in asking them?

My concerns should not be understood as an offense against Robert Godes. I am quite sure that my concerns will turn out to be unjustified.
However, since this technology is so important, and we haven't heard about any official statement so far, ALTHOUGH there are published photographs of the meeting,
why should not we ask?

I would like to see a statement directly given by the house or a related official.

Sorry if I now start to speak english here but French is beyond my scope. (By the way: Vive la France!!!)

Ok, back to topic:

The photographs look convincing. Since they were invited to the house of representatives then there either must have been positive demonstrations in the past OR government knows from internal sources that
LENR is working. Both would be great.

However, let us (LENR forum members) try to convince ourselves that this is actually real.

Since the photographs were published without restriction, probably the house of representatives and their offices will also have no problem with giving a statement whether those pictures are real and whether Brillouin's press release is also?

David, Alain, Barty could you ask the office of house of representatives in the name of the forum if this is real?

They stubbornly keep going it seems. I would like to know how many fools will buy their encased batteries. However, many scammers thought they can get away with it. In the end they can't.

There seems to be something we can actually test for credibilty:

In their "announcement" they claim that On Monday, November 2nd, 2015, Brillouin Energy WET™ and HHT™ Boiler System Reactor core modules were demonstrated to Congress during an event, which was sponsored by U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo.

This person really exists. Let us ask her bureau/office/whatever if this is really true.

What bothers me is that there are no news about this from an official site, although Brillouin's announcement shows that this news is not classified or has to be kept secret in any way.

No you are right. I made a mistake, sorry Ecco. Too much wishful thinking.

So COP is, if at all, only slightly above break even. I am curious for the higher temperatures to come.

Then unfortunately the coil changes could have affected the inductivity of the coil and the reactive power could have decreased while the active power increased, while your apparent (measured) power could have stayed the same.

If you are using DC then the coil changes should not be important for the overall input power.
For DC the apparent power consumption of the coil will equal the active power (Q is 0)

Only for AC coil changes could play a role.

If you use DC and you measure current and voltage then P = U x I will be the real thermal input power, regardless of coil changes.

Quote from me356

The reason for excess heat may be only in coil changes due to added fuel. As I have seen previously LiAlH4 was electrostatically trapped to it or if it was not this, then something unusual formed across the heater.

Sorry if you answered before, but may I ask (again) how you measure ohmic power?

Do you measure current and voltage independently (two separate amp and volt meter)?

If you do it like this the coil changes should not be a problem.

It does not matter whether you choose Celsius or Kelvin as a unit, because only the temperature difference matters for the radiation law.

((450+273,15) K - (25+273,15) K ) = (450 K - 25 K)

Thus my calculation is completely correct.

But I agree that there are other uncertainties.

Quote from Ecco

I tried graphing the data. A COP of 1.22 seems a bit too far-fetched to me.

I don't see why it is far fetched. Look at the power level of 75 W.
The temperature difference is 25 °C (K) thus by the stefan-boltzmann-radiation law.in the case of the fueled reactor
we have(450°C-25°C)^4 =3.2625e+010
In case of the calibration run we have(425°C-25°C)^4 = 2.5600e+010

thus we have a ratio of 3.2625e+010 / 2.5600e+010 = 1.27 corresponding to a COP that is even a little bit higher.

Of course certain effects have to be taken into account, c. f. the post above by GlowFish,
but I do not agree with him that these effects local temperature change etc.
can be enough to explain a difference of 25°C.
IF your TC is really unbiased.
Thus I think probably we have a real COP between 1.15 and 1.2 or so.

I think have to say: Uuuh La La

Uh la la

@me356

Louis DeCharios news could be most interesting for you! You should read it.

"We have run materials simulations (also known as Density Functional Theory simulations) on our best guess of Rossi’s alloy material. It satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Nickel does not."

"Hopefully, we will be able to get all the details of this material released for publication to the general public over the next few weeks."

It seems like instead of pure Nickel only certain alloys of Nickel and other elements act as LENR catalysts.