Posted on 11/10/2011 12:35:57 PM PST by Johnny B.
According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.
According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.
At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.”
According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.”
Brian Ahern, a researcher with expertise in LENR, wrote to New Energy Times with a concise summary of the recent Oct. 28 Rossi demo:
“Rossi has been clever enough to change the trick on each successive demo. Using a secret customer is a great way to allow him to fulfill his promise to demo the 1 MW unit in October. He then evaded conducting the demo transparently by saying that the customer demanded the demo conditions. The “customer’ signed off when Rossi gave him the wink and he shut things down without any measurements by anyone except the shill.
“Occam’s Razor, on the other hand, says that 12 inconclusive demos in succession are not random. It is well planned and orchestrated. He has used the journalists like a team of puppets.”
Let's for a second, assume it works, I don't think it does but go with it . NYC practically runs on as much steam as electricity. Having this thing supply the steam needs for NYC would free up a large amount of electrical energy, (actually, they'd just open the flood gates and bypass the turbines) but there are a lot of uses for steam in a stationary environment besides electricity.
My point was that there are many uses for steam besides generating electricity.
Did someone mention a ham samitch, mmmmm.
Would you please give us a cliff notes version of the differences between LENR and Strong Nuclear force and its implications regarding these devices and tests.
Thank you,
Then, there's gravity.
All four forces can be dealt with under the same math if you assume everything is made up of teeny tiny strings ~ and that applies for both the Quantum World and the Relativistic World.
Just saw a flim flam film on this yesterday. Good stuff.
1 cup water + 2 min on high on microwave = boiling water under almost any conditions (/s)
The North Koreans may be running a real scam ~ producing radionuclides in their half-assed reactor so they can "blow ash" as they detonate their underpowered fake weak bombs to trick our government, and the Chicoms, Russians and Japanese.
Obviously it would be a good idea to have some sort of check list that could be used to JUDGE these events to see which may be fake, or contrived, and what others might have promise.
Did I hear you saying we shouldn't apply such principles to the examination of the North Korean bombs?
So, what you’re saying is, NO HAM SAMITCH! Thanks DINODINO for getting my hopes up.
Well that just sucks.
muawiyah, Thanks for the LENR explanation.
So, what do you think of Randal Mills new theory of everything?
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
He’s written software to model his version of how things work in the subatomic level to go along with it.
His TOE book is available for free at:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
Interesting post on his various theories.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/introguide.shtml
It’s been years since I took a chem or physics class so I had a friend who is going to school to be a chemist what he thought of the BLP process, he says it’s B.S., you can’t have hydrogen electrons in a ground state (I’m going from memory when he told me what he thought of the process). Although he’s not a quantum physicist, he did say that Mills is making it up as he goes along.
There is the fact that Mills is an MD from Harvard and has a BA degree in Chemistry from Franklin and Marshall College so he’s not just some kook but he could be an educated kook.
What kills me is he has folks from Rowan University, major investors and he seems to be doing things in the open. Either his process works, or it doesn’t work but Mills has deluded himself or he knows it doesn’t work and he’s going to stay at the cash feeding trough as long as they’ll have him.
He is also like other researchers who are only six months away from crating a power plant based on his theory.
He did sign some deals with small energy companies, I haven’t seen how that panned out.
My standard response to NewinTexsas:
I gave up on having a reasonable discussion with you a while ago.
T4BTT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2799528/posts?page=407#407
To: NewinTexsas
You’re going off the deep end. It’s time for me to be done with you altogether.
T4BTT
407 posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:58:25 PM by Kevmo (Judicaret spectator se ipso: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Rossi has a history of financial fraud.
***Tax fraud. So he won’t pay taxes on that, if he can get away with it.
At some point, if all the reported customers are shills, the conspiracy widens so far that Occham’s Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is LENR.
without having to actually build a thing.
***The Oct 28 demo had 100 ecats and a large shipping container that was carted away.
BUT, what about the Weak Nuclear force ~ has someone come up with some reason it has to be ruled out?
***You mean, like the Widom-Larson theory? NASA just said it wasn’t nuclear...
13 customers? Can you name any of them?
***Ask Wired.com magazine. They printed the story.
Have any of them published press releases that they have bought an E-Cat? Or are you just playing “Rossi Says” again?
***At this point it is “Wired says”.
“Rossi Says” is a game, similar to “Simon Says”, where any time someone adds the words “Rossi Says” to the beginning of a sentence you’re supposed to blindly accept the sentence as being true.
***Then it should be easy to disprove, so go ahead and do it.
The only significant difference between “Rossi Says” and “Simon Says” is that with “Rossi Says” everybody loses.
***If he’s a scammer he’ll get found out.
Yes, I can think of another way to put energy into the system, without wires: inductance. Simple.
***There are good reasons why no one is putting forth this as a reasonable explanation. For one, the effect drastically reduces with distance, and for it to work across a meter it would generate tons of EMI and other measurable effects. Also, there would be coils in the Ecat when they opened it up.
I prefer to examine these ideas by thinking of them as average proabilities, which will sometimes differ from the average.
Wonder how the Italians handle gravel pits ~ all of those guys (even crushed rock units I've been told) have gold recovery systems associated with their rock washing operations.
So, what else was he recovering that got the Italian tax and EPA guys jumping up and down ~ Hmm.
Hmm.
Either that, or NASA is simply wrong.
What I do not understand is why the seagulls get their feathers in a bunch when I posted Rossi’s background as I found it posted from the same enemy who dug up this FOIA slide.
Andrea Rossi’s Petroldragon Story
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2796280/posts
Friday, October 21, 2011 5:23:59 PM · by Kevmo · 170 replies
New Energy Times ^ | August 20111 | Translation by Alex Passi and Domenico Pozzetti
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
He’s written software to model his version of how things work in the subatomic level to go along with it.
***I know someone who evaluated that software. He has a PHd in chemistry and he says this software generates better results than the software based on current theories.
How do you know there are no coils inside? Rossi didn’t allow inspection of the innermost part.. What about in the pipes adjacent to this “reactor” core? Just thinking out loud, but looks to me like there are plenty of places to hide things.
You don’t understand Occam’s Razor. It basically states that we must choose the hypothesis which is the simplest; i.e., requires the fewest new assumptions.
Occam’s Razor says that the convicted fraudster and academic cheat has not, in fact, discovered a nuclear process hitherto unknown to science.
Rossi has allowed inspection of everything except the powder.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
I don’t get this. What is the point of this simulation? It cannot explain
the salient facts about the reactor:
* There is no slab of cement in the reactor. People have looked inside and
seen no such thing.
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.