Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary is in Terrible Danger!
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
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.”
KevMo is marveling over the anti-matter he has in a jar suspended by magnets.
They were grants from the Super Nova that left all our stuff behind. They should still be relatively the same quantities per isotope yet today because they are stable isotopes. I think nickel has 5 and copper has 5.
So, you use tunneling and a Weak Force based process to convert a stable isotope of nickel to what? Is it going to be an unstable or a stable isotope of copper?
So, let's move on over to the world of the Strong Nuclear Force. It teaches us thatif you take a hydrogen warhead to smack atoms together you will get both stable and unstable isotopes of all sorts of things, and with the unstable items you will get different half-lives. Some of the stuff will decay down to some other stable isotope of a different atom before it hits the ground. Other stuff won't.
This was common knowledge back during the 1950s when they were doing atmospheric nuclear tests all the time. They taught about it in gradeschool. We had gigantic wall charts available to tell us what was happening and WHY WE COULD NOT EAT POTATO SKINS.
Did they give that stuff up or something?
Knowledge of what is possible with the Weak Force is pretty thin in contrast. That's mostly because we haven't been studying it. No money in coming up with Nuclear stuff that doesn't blow things up eh!
"Rossi Source for Foxx and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars" [Article]We might want to keep this in mind when we consider the quality of the "expert" speaking so enthusiastically about Rossi's E-Cat.
Earth comes equipped with copper and nickel in certain proportions of stable isotopes.Anyone following this discussion most likely understands that. And, they most likely understand that there is a Weak Force.
It's totally irrelevant to analyzing Rossi's E-Cat. If it does work, we can then figure out how it works. But we haven't reached the point where we know that it does work.
The fact that Rossi's sample contained no signs of any nuclear reaction (based on Strong or Weak Force) is suspicious. Especially when Miley is reporting that their LENR experiments (Slide Show) are producing 39 isotopes that do not match natural ratios.
Faking 39 changes to natural isotope ratios would be very difficult (and very expensive). It is very strong evidence that some unexplained nuclear process is going on.
Rossi's sample, with 0 changes to natural isotope ratios, suggests that there is no nuclear (Strong or Weak) process going on. While faking Miley's results would be difficult and expensive, faking Rossi's results would be cheap and easy.
As we know, the reaction between natural gas and oxygen in the air is a very effective way to generate heat, to cook our food or heat our homes. The question is how long does it take to deplete the hydrogen in the fat-catE? The NASA guy apparently believes it is longer than the time used by Rossi.
This is one body of knowledge where I am pretty sure you could totally exhaust 100% of everything meaningful, including all doctoral theses, and controlled experiments, in probably 2 weeks reading ~
When it comes to Electro-Weak Force materials there's actually a bit more since folks did experiments to back up the unified theory regarding those two forces.
The only really major piece of science where we are more ignant appears to be WHAT'S AT THE VERY MIDDLE OF THE EARTH.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-11/esrf-etl110911.php should help us fill that gap.
The fellows with the 29 different isotopes of this and that might find work soon interpreting these rusults into something meaningful. Or, maybe there'll be a decided absence of productions of the strong nuclear force at work and Focardi will get the job.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHonthereact.pdf ~ one of Miley’s reports. He notes NO D-D fusion, but instead reports “weak fission”. Hmm. But that is a ONE STAGE operation. Focardi and Rossi claim a TWO STAGE operation ~ and what we have in Miley is a pretty good explanation for what we find in Stage Two. I get out there a couple of times a year. in fact, this next trip we’ll go look at a town in the area that I think was laid out and occupied by the spanish BEFORE 1598. We can stop by Miley’s shop and see if we can get his signature on a copy of one of his articles and have some pictures taken.
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.
Easy!
Are you suggesting that Rossi’s secret catalyst is underpants?
Up their sleeves? Muslim outreach, and not much else. Certainly not an E-Cat.
I’m suggesting that somewhere after the underpants, a miracle takes place leading to the third step, profit!
He's pursued the idea of a Two Stage approach a bit differently ~ and seems to have actually come up with something you could call a catalyst (phenanthrene). I don't think he's produced a paper showing success at the second stage, which is when the nickel to copper transformation takes place and he gets heat (in the form of a photon, or electrons or whatever).
With the recession many physicists have turned to LENR research as a hobby ~ it's one of the few major research projects you can do on a table top ~ and not much cost. If there's anything here it's just a matter of time until someone gets it. Firestone invented vulcanization in his kitchen.
I thought it interesting that folks hemmed in by bad winter weather would turn to this sort of project ~ but they turned out a sort of report of some interest at: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/neutron-tracks-detected-in-cold-fusion.html
As we back entirely out of supplemental heat from lighting systems (with ever more efficient fluorescent and LED lighting systems), the demand for supplemental heating systems will be HUGE
“You sure don’t understand this at all.
No, NASA claimed superior knowledge regarding how an LENR device should work.”
You obviously do not know NASA or me. That’s OK, we deal with little kids like you that always think they know everything because they googled for the most superficial of information.
I thought it interesting that folks hemmed in by bad winter weather would turn to this sort of project ~ but they turned out a sort of report of some interest at: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/neutron-tracks-detected-in-cold-fusion.htmlI see that that article was written by Steven Krivit. I thought he was a snake and not to be trusted (according to Rossi, Kevmo and Wonder Warthog)?
I’m scratching my head on that length of time issue. That seems like a lot of sustained heat over a long time. Lets take the hydrogen gas example. Hydrogen is very “leaky” and would require a large volume stored in a small space i.e compression. But the more you compress hydrogen, the more leaky it becomes. Also, you are limited by weight.
So with a given weight / volume ratio, it would seem logical to me that someone who knows a whole lot more chemistry and physics than I do, would be able to construct a chart that shows an envelop of practicality for hydrogen gas. If the results are outside of that envelope, then it can’t be hydrogen.
I guess that what I’m trying to understand is at what point do we cross the threshold of all known chemical reactions that can produce the same heat and duration? When we cross that line, we are either into a new chemical reaction which I would think would be a good thing, or we are out of chemical all together and into nuclear.
I’m thinking that if the chemists and physics guys could create some kind of standard that says, if you produce more than X amount of heat over Y time and do it with a system that has Z mass/weight ... then you have exceeded known chemical reactions. But there does not seem to be such an established test point.
Think about it a sec ~ to minimize problems with highly explosive hydrogen in enclosed spaces they almost universally switched over to using on the spot hydralysis to produce just the amount of hydrogen they needed.
These guys in Hokkaido went off on their own and developed something far more controllable, as well as liquid at room temperatures. They are important for that if nothing else, and that would apply in just all sorts of physics and chemistry experiments.
Rossi and Focardi seem to have a good relation with them ~ and they have a good relation withsome of Rossi's critics.
Such are the ways of the world.
I’m thinking that if the chemists and physics guys could create some kind of standard that says, if you produce more than X amount of heat over Y time and do it with a system that has Z mass/weight ... then you have exceeded known chemical reactions. But there does not seem to be such an established test point.I think that was the point of the article. According to the NASA analyst, Rossi's tests did not run long enough to rule out known processes (stored heat and/or hidden energy sources).
If he ran one of his small units for a week nonstop, there would be no doubt (assuming it was verified that no external source of power was being applied). However, Rossi won't (or can't) do that, and no one else is in a position to do so (unless the "secret" companies Rossi claims to have sold devices to step forward).
For example, in the October 6th test, Rossi promised to run the test "at least 12 hours" and to run the working fluid (water) in a closed loop so there would be no question of how much heat was being generated. He didn't do either of those things. Instead, he ran the test for about 4 hours, and dumped the working fluid down the drain.
In this last test (for his secret customer), he claims that he was generating 470KW of power. But we have to take his word that he was actually turning all of the water into steam. If he was barely generating any steam, then his device was only generating 70KW of heat. And, since it was hooked up to a running 500KW generator the entire time, it's easy to see why some people are skeptical.
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.