unfortunately, reality lies between option 1 and 2.
Both Mr Rossi and Mr Mills have been focusing on a process in which 2 (not 1) chemical reactions occur. One of the reactions is not a reaction in the conventional sense and is more accurately a physico-chemical process. Mr Mills ‘’discovered’’ this process at least 2 years before Mr Rossi. Where Mr Mills attributes the Ni/H process as a hydrino process, Mr Rossi attributes the same process as Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction (LENR). Mr Mills (BlackLight Power) has built a various prototypes (1 kW to 1 MW) Ni/H at least 2 years before Mr Rossi and these prototype performed well below expectations. Just like this weekend test of Mr Rossi was very much underwhelming: one can get the same results from a shorted conventional Ni/H battery.
I am very sure that - at least in the beginning - Mills and Rossi were very sincere.
When a freshly-made reactor was used, the initial - keyword: initial - energy output per unit mass of hydrogen is about 20 to 60 times the energy output of a typical chemical reaction.
What excitement!!! This 20 to 60 ratio was the basis of the Rossi fanboys’ ‘’proof’’ that what one is seeing is indeed LENR and the basis of Mills’ fanboys’ ‘’proof’’ of hydrino reactions.
Now is where the sense of dread kicks in for the fanboys: as more hydrogen is fed into the reactor, the energy output per unit mass of hydrogen decreases eventually to 1 time the energy output of a typical chemical reaction. If one sum up the total energy output of the Rossi/Mills reactor, the average energy output per unit mass of hydrogen is about 2 times that of 1 typical chemical reaction. Rossi’s fanboys are not divulging everything and they need to - somehow - account to whoever is/are the investor(s). Mills’ fanboys have been a little bit more honest.
Rossi’s tests are short-lived (3-6) hrs because the excess energy ratio drops from, say, 20, to 1 rapidly. So the demo stops when the excess ratio is, say, 2.
I am sure the following conversation is taking place:
Mr A: The excess ratio has dropped to 2, when just 1 hour ago it was at 20.
Mr B: That is because the Ni substrate has been ‘’deactivated’’ from the LENR process.
Mr A: So all we have to do is to ‘’reactivate’’ the Ni substrate for further LENR to continue.
And what they will find out is that the energy spent in ‘’reactivating’’ the Ni substrate is at least greater (well, no process is 100% efficient) that the energy collected from the subsequent ‘’LENR’’ reaction (put LENR in quotes since it is not an actual LENR). Mr A and Mr B will say to the investors that they need to ‘’tweek’’ the Ni reactivation process.
Neither Rossi nor Mills have published a complete energy audit of the fuel-product cycle. From what I gather the demos were incomplete (purposefully?) so the observers are lead - inadvertently?- to the incorrect hydrino/LENR hypothesis.
The test need to be complete (at least 72 straight hours, preferably 240 hours). For it to be practicable - utilitywise - the steam output needs to be at least 375oC (critical temp of water) so there is no issue of different coexisting phases: steam at 100oC can be easily of the “wet” variety. No such ambiguity with supercritical steam.
What Rossi has done this weekend is no way comparable to the Wright Brothers’ first mechanized flight. With the case of aviation, any village idiot can see the Wright Brothers’ flight was real: there were no suspended cables keeping it afloat.
Where for Rossi’s latest test, all the results can be duplicated by a shorted conventional Ni/H battery. And the village idiot will say the same thing.
Oh, and Mr Mills (BlackLight Power) has at least 40 engineers in NJ working on the same contraption and got stuck quick quick and deep. And these engineers are not dummies. And - unlike Rossi - the engineers are at least publishing in reputable periodical their experiments in the extreme-UV region: but these results can be explained with conventional electrodynamics and the hydrino hypothesis is not needed. The hydrino fanboys’ also make the false and inapplicable comparison with the Wright Brothers.
What was the state of the art at the time of the Wright Brothers? The aerodynamics was worked out. What was left was propulsion and reliable control. The issue of control was worked out by others before the Wright Brothers. The genius of the Wright Brothers was to put a gasoline engine on an airframe. The roadblock was to find a engine with a high enough power density. Have you ever seen a steam-powered airplane? With no internal combustion engine, the would be no aviation.
Why would you short it?
They use such batteries in the wind power business ~ they try NOT to short them.
Rossi's device uses a standard size a bit shorter ~ 20 ft maybe ~ weighs much less, and has essentially the same racks and facings ~ prewired to handle all sorts of stuff AND has pipes for water.
No doubt the standard equipment is serviceable for all sorts of things.
Did you ever "short" one of these suckers? I've seen a substation full of transformers slag out but "short"?
the source is http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece
If Rossi really wanted to have his gadget tested it is very easy, but he is not doing that. No Nobel prize is issued for answering why.
Steam-Powered Aereoplane
John Hartford
Well I dreamt I went away on a steam-powered aereoplane.
Well, I went and I stayed and I damn near didn’t come back again.
I didn’t go very fast on a steam-powered aereoplane.
well the wheel went around and up and down and inside and then back again.
Chorus:
Sittin’ in a 747 just watchin’ them clouds go by,
can’t tell if it’s sunshine or it’s rain.
I’d rather be sittin’ in a deck chair high up over Kansas City
in a genuine, old-fashion, authentic steam-powered aereoplane.
Well I dreamt I was a pilot on a steam-powered aereoplane.
I’d turn that pilot wheel around and then back again.
I’d wear a blue hat saying “Steam-Powered Aereoplane”
with the letters go ‘round the brim and then back again.