Bwaaahhaaahaa! My first thought was "We can't let the Nazis get their hands on this!"
Posted on 11/02/2011 11:41:45 AM PDT by isaiah55version11_0
A physicist in Italy claims to have demonstrated a new type of power plant that provides safe, cheap and virtually unlimited nuclear power to the world, without fossil fuels or radiation concerns.
The only hitch: Scientists say the method -- cold fusion -- is patently impossible. They say it defies the laws of physics.
Andrea Rossi doesn't seem to care. He told FoxNews.com that his new device takes in nickel and hydrogen and fuses them in a low-grade nuclear reaction that essentially spits out sheer power, validating the strange science.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
There are a number of other researchers who are working on something similar using different metals and they show some potential.
This may not be cold fusion, but it may just be an atomic reaction that is useful.
From the www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm website
“Peak power was nomionally 8 kW but the instruments werre so imprecise it might have been lower or much higher, perhaps 10 kW”.
This is where I say “WTF!! C’mon guys, call your local Omega or Agilent Field Service Engineer and show him what you want to measure. He will be more than happy to assist you in providing you the tools and probes to ACCURATELY and PRECISELY make the measurements you need”.
What we are told is that the ‘instruments’ they used can’t reliably guess the power output within 20%. What are they doing? Spitting on the sides and seeing how much it bubbles? No excuse for this crap, especially at this stage.
Bwaaahhaaahaa! My first thought was "We can't let the Nazis get their hands on this!"
If an excess of neutrons are detected, there may very well be a fusion reaction.
“Rossi’s honor”
Rossi, the twice-convicted scammer whose scientific education is from a diploma mill that was shut down for awarding fake diplomas ....
That’s exactly how I thought it happened...
That is the supposition.
However, that the ratio of the Cu isotopes being the same as it is in Nature indicates simple contamination.
Then you got a handful of posters right here on FR who choose to defend “Rossi’s honor”
***I defend Rossi’s data. I could care less about his honor. Either he’s a scam artist or he’s gonna be a billionaire, so he cares little about someone defending his honor. And that’s just the thing — all you guys see is someone defending a scam artist, because that is all you want to see, all you can see. You cannot see the forest for the trees.
like new black panthers at a polling place, suggesting a financial or commercial motive
***Typical troll tactic suggesting an even wider conspiracy theory. The cool thing about this tactic is that I know my own motives and so I know you’re way off.
beyond just posting an interesting or amusing news article worthy of comment
***Sure it’s worthy of comment but troll tactics, classic fallacies and seagull scat should be posted elsewhere.
The excess heat has been measured in many hundreds of experiments
***Many thousands. More than 14,700
IIRC, there is not an excess of neutrons, so it doesn’t seem to be classical fusion. It appears to be something else or a form of fusion that we haven’t seen before.
The navy has beeen working with this for a long time so there could be a reaction that produces excess heat.
You are mostly correct. However, what you have here is not
1 chemical reaction but 2 reactions, one being more of a
physico-chemical process which proceeds at little high rate at the beginning and slows down at the end.
Only when the reaction is exhausted (no hydrogen left in its
elemental state) will one find the excess energy ratio to be around 2 and 3. Again, what Rossi has done has be done already by Rendell Mills (BlackLight Power) 2 years ago and the excess energy ratio was around 3.
Another issue not addressed by Mills (hydrino) and Rossi (LENR) is the geological/cosmological consequences if their
hypotheses are true: the Universe would be a whole lot different.
As a results-oriented mechanical engineer with much experience in data logging and control systems, I agree with your assessment.
Hell, I can guess THAT close! LOL
Engineering should be easily able to get to 10
%. With some gained knowledge, thought and experimentation in the field, 1% is generally quite economically achieved.
Then why not fix it? lenr-canr.org goes on to mention how pathetic the 'instrumentation' is; and to call it 'insturmentation' is a truly pathetic term. When we calibrate theromcouples to a tenth of a degree C; the Rossi instrumentation cannot get within 20%. This is utter crap.
Why do this? You can buy thermocouples with precision well under 1% for less than a dollar each. Heck, I'm sure he could get his hands on a loaned data-logger for FREE (that's ZERO dollars USD) that would accurately measure hundreds of points at the same time.
Now, I want this to be real as much, and even possibly more than anyone else. But, one of the first things a person of moderate intelligence does, is remove questions. Make it as simple and straightforward as you can. Temperature probes on the exterior of the unit, will not tell you what is going on inside the unit - they will tell you where the heat is, how fast it heats, how fast it cools, when it heated, when it cooled - all very accurately and all with a timestamp from the milli-second range, to the month. Precise and accurate data collection should be among the easiest of things to accomplish; but as Rossi has opted to ignore these requests; they are going to continue to bite him in the butt. My question is simple "Why is he refusing to provide accurate and precise data?"
There IS no "FUD". A close examination of the experiments and methodologies is completely convincing, even from the first experiments. The "controversy" should have disappeared after the first three demos, as they cover ALL the bases you mention above.
"It seems like Rossi is his own worst enemy. Why make things needlessly complex and uncertain? It does not build confidence."
The complexity arose solely from Levi and Rossi's attempts to satisfy the critics. As objections were raised, they added more and different techniques in an attempt to convince those people....who will NEVER be satisified, no matter what experimental method was/is used.
"But, the mess he finds himself in, is largely of his own making. With commercial data-loggers having several hundreds of channels, he could easily borrow an Agilent data-logger capable of high resolution, hundreds of channels, and Terabytes of data - at no cost. A sales rep, in the hopes of grabbing future sales - would gladly deliver a freshly calibrated unit to him, free of charge.
None of which is necessary. Rossi's E-Cat can be completely characterized with two good thermometers, a barometer, and a beaker.
"What we are told is that the ‘instruments’ they used can’t reliably guess the power output within 20%. What are they doing? Spitting on the sides and seeing how much it bubbles? No excuse for this crap, especially at this stage.
You don't NEED a measurement better than 20%. The amounts of heat are so large as to be well outside even those error bars. I'm not sure what report you are quoting...certainly not any of the first three, which were MUCH better than that.
If you read any of the posts where I have sunk down to the trolls’ level and engaged in name calling, it is easy to see that they deserved it.
If you don’t like the threads I post, stay off them. There have been parallel seagull threads, but the seagulls are incapable of restraining their trolling to those threads.
Why would you get a buzkill by some of my posts? Do you get a buzz from watching jerks continually harrass FReepers who are trying to have a good discussion? There’s nothing wrong with being an ecat zealot; I’m happy to be called the biggest zealot. Spammer? Every thread is different, a new piece of news.
So, what do you have after your insult has been deconstructed? I think what you have is your own embarrassment, and quite frankly an embarrassment to this forum.
I'm just a silly EE with 23 yrs under my belt in R&D. If I delivered a product to my boss that had a critical component like temperature with a +/-20% accuracy - I wouldn't have a job today.
I mean, I can understand 5% accuracy - but they go on to suppose how the entire unit gets warm. How much heat is lost to the unit cooling? He doesn't have a clue. Where is the placement of this heat? No idea. Why make steam, when you can simply be a heat exchanger and remain in the linear region of the water heating tables?
I think he's on to something; but this continual refusal to provide accurate data is hurting him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.