NASA Engineer Explains Why Rossi Demos Failed

New Energy Times Blog ^ | 11/10/2011 | Steven B. Krivit

[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.”

[Awnest]

Johnny, keep in mind the Rossi reactants are very different from Miley’s. Rossi claims to use only a nickel powder H and some sort of electromagnetic radiation. Miley is studying thin-film electrodes with Pd and loaded deuterium.

Another curiosity is chem reaction produces that kind of heat for 5 hours in finite space? Weapons grade thermite? If it is a trick, it fooled Navy, Dr. Sven Kullander, Chair Energy Committee, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and dozens of other physicists.

Still not as good as global warming.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's the problem with SLAMMING those protons and neutrons into a myriad of nucleuses ~ you end up making an ATOM BOMB unless you have a proper reactor constructed around it with moderating material in place.

Slamming a neutron into nickel, assuming the neutron "sticks", just gives you a new isotope of nickel. How that ends up a nuclear bomb is something you'll have to explain.

[Kevmo]

All he has to do is collect deposits from the “five year’s worth of customers” that Kevmo claims he has, then skip town.
***So, the 13 customers he has lined up would be victims, right?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up

Or are they part of a wider conspiracy to draw in hundreds more customers?

As long as he’s selling units and has not skipped town, he hasn’t sprung the trap, right?

[Kevmo]

Also, where would he hope to skip town to? He’s famous. Maybe the Seychelles?

[Kevmo]

Perhaps some kind of prize?

***Like the $10M X-prize for the first civilian to make it into space. But if Rossi’s real, he already passed the $10M mark this week.

[expatpat]

Oh yeah, what is the exact composition of the Rossi kluge, if you know so much about it?

[Kevmo]

As usual, I like what Jed Rothwell has to say.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed Rothwell Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:51:34 -0800
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything .


I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum .



Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as
heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into
reactor .

I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that.

There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the parable here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html

ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?

SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry,
and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet .


ME: Okay, but it is way up there .


SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot
error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it
could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be
on the ground .


Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous.

Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the one they are critiquing.


For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing .


I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or anyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff.

PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all
demonstrations have been too short, including these private
demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa .


As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.

- Jed

[Kevmo]

here's another

Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Jed Rothwell Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:27:38 -0800
Mary Yugo wrote:

Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain
>> you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it.
>>
>
> There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour
> run is more persuasive than a 4 hour one . . .
>

This is like saying that a gigaton thermonuclear bomb is more convincing
than a 20 kt bomb. No, it isn't. Once you exceed the limits of chemistry by
a large margin, a larger margin proves nothing. Or, to take a more peaceful
example, it is like saying that the quantum levitation shown in this video
would be more convincing if the superconducting material was a meter away
from the track instead of ~1 cm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

It is definitely levitating. Making it farther from the magnet would not
prove anything that is not already proved.


. . . especially when there is no compelling legitimate reason to stop
> early. I've made jokes that maybe Rossi has another appointment?
>

Not a joke. The people observing the tests told me that they had other
appointments. They asked him to stop. That is a compelling, legitimate
reason.



> As for there being no way to cheat with the experiments Rossi has done so
> far, how do you know?
>

The only suggestion you have come up with is a stage magician trick. I know
enough about stage magic to know that such a trick could never fool anyone
who opens up the device and looks inside. If there are wires or hidden
fuel, you would see them. Otherwise it would be genuine supernatural magic.
There is no such thing.

You have said that someone, somewhere may know of some stage magic method.
That assertion cannot be tested or falsified, so it is not meaningful. It
is like saying there might be an undiscovered error in Newton's laws.


Do you know every possible way there is to store energy in an 80 kg
> device?
>

Yes, I do. More to the point, so do all physicists and chemists. The limits
of chemical energy storage have been well known since the mid-19th century.
If you are challenging them you will have to overthrow far more than a few
plasma fusion theories that some people claim cold fusion may violate.

I know just about everything relevant to this system, and experts who know
this in far more detail than I do are certain there is no way to store this
much energy in this device. It is not close, or questionable, or marginal.
It is not a difference of 20%. It is beyond question. The thing would cool
rapidly, reaching room temperature in 45 min., tops, yet it still boiling 4
hours later. That's not close. It might as well be a million hours.

How do we know there was no heat storage? We know the specific heat of
water and the metals in this device. We know how much the metal weighs. We
know there is no invisible concrete that takes up no space and displaces no
water. We know that if you "store up heat" before the test, the reactor
would get hot. It would have to be 1000 deg C inside. There is no
insulation so perfect that the outside surface would not be quite hot to
the touch. When the observers picked the thing up to weight it, they would
feel it is hot. The human sense of touch is sensitive and 100% reliable at
these temperatures.



> Do you know every possible way there is to bamboozle the instrumentation
> and the observers?
>

There is no way to bamboozle the sense of touch. You cannot make a dozen
people think that a box at room temperature is radiating heat at 80 deg C.
You cannot make it burn someone and cause pain.

Prepackaged modern electronic gadgets such as the thermocouple meter cannot
be bamboozled either. All you can do with those things by monkeying with
them is break them. Besides, one of the observers tested the meter against
his own, and found that it works.



> If you don't know for sure EVERY possible way, you can't be sure that
> one wasn't used.
>

Yes, I do know EVERY possible way, because this is first-principle,
fundamental physics. Any person in the last 100,000 years would know that
boiling water in box that is radiating heat must cool down in 4 hours. It
is ridiculous to question that. It is absurd to natter on about the
placement of the thermocouples when sense of touch alone proves the
point. The only possible cause is energy generation, and I do know EVERY
possible way to send electric power or chemical fuel into the box: with a
wire or tube. There are no wires or tubes. Do you know of any other way to
put energy into this system?



> Longer duration and higher power would make a lot more sense than the
> anemic and brief tests that we've been subjected to thus far.
>

What the hell is that supposed to mean?!? Those are absurd adjectives in
this instance. 4 hours is not "brief" compared to 40 minutes. Heck, you
would know in 10 minutes that it is cooling rapidly. If kilowatts of heat
an a large box radiating at 80 deg C is "anemic" what the heck do you want?
A blast furnace? "Anemic" compared to what? If you think this is a small
amount of energy, I suggest you boil 30 L of water and trying dropping
something into it, such as a half-dozen lobsters. You will see this takes a
tremendous amount of heat. You would be severely scalded -- hospitalized --
if you put your hand in that for a few seconds. Turn off the flame, wrap it
in insulation, and check back in 4 hours. That is how it would be if there
were no anomalous heat. Lukewarm, probably room temperature. Go ahead and
put your hand in. Can you tell the difference between that and boiling
water? Would you call that an "anemic" difference? It is gigantic.

- Jed

[Kevmo]

Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.
***Maybe it’s a chemical thing after all. I’ve been saying that such an outcome would be preferable anyways. No NRC oversight.

[Awnest]

To further complicate things Rossi has just signed an agreement for National Instruments of Austin, Texas to build the monitoring and control instrumentation for manufacture of Rossi’s 1MW systems. NI confirms Rossi is a client with their “Big Physics” division that builds components for hot fusion reactors and particle accelerators.

Go figure.

[Awnest]

Another thing Johnny, Dr. Focardi just gave a TED lecture describing his confirmation of low level gamma radiation - from Rossi’s experiments, requiring very light shielding on the e-cat units. Other experimenters have confirmed high energy particles in various LENR cells.

[Moonman62]

Maybe it’s a chemical thing after all. I’ve been saying that such an outcome would be preferable anyways. No NRC oversight.

Unless he's doing something simple and deceptive like adding pure ethanol into the water.

[_Jim]

So the complaint is that it ...

Calorimetry (measurement or heat or energy production) is NOT that hard to do in this day and age and easy to perform at the energy levels Rossi has been working at; the naysayers on the board would have trouble calculating the energy required to boil a pot of water to make coffee IMNSHO ...

"Basic Science" is beyond most people's capability today, and that is sad.

[Kevmo]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
It appears that a relatively innocuous post responding to you was pulled.
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.

55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[dinodino]

What in the WORLD are you talking about? Talk about half-baked ideas!

[dinodino]

Really unbelievable, mindless conjecture. Would you please throw in some lizard-man aliens and a UFO to make your story complete?

[dinodino]

Well, right off the bat, I can see that Jed has overstepped with the following quote:

“The only possible cause is energy generation, and I do know EVERY
possible way to send electric power or chemical fuel into the box: with a
wire or tube. There are no wires or tubes. Do you know of any other way to
put energy into this system?”

Yes, I can think of another way to put energy into the system, without wires: inductance. Simple.

I am not saying this is how Rossi conducted his hoax, but I am pointing out that Jed is overreaching with his statement.

[dinodino]

...or hydrogen peroxide, or hydrazine...

[Wonder Warthog]

"Oh yeah, what is the exact composition of the Rossi kluge, if you know so much about it?"

Nickel nanopowder, a few grams of hydrogen and "catalyst" (unknown). Zirconia is VERY unlikely to be the catalyst, as it is an inert ceramic. The volume of hydrogen is insufficient to support combustion of any sort for even a few minutes, much less hours on end, as in these trials the E-cat was "charged" with hydrogen, and the tank disconnected. The E-cat ran throughout the test on the loaded quantity ONLY.

And pretty much all the possible "chemical fakes" have been examined by Alan B. Fletcher:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v401.pdf

(above is a 5 MB file if you happen to be on dialup)

[Wonder Warthog]

"Yes, I can think of another way to put energy into the system, without wires: inductance. Simple."

Yeah, right. Do you have any idea how big an induction furnace driver is?? I have....one that is 5KW (1MHz frequency) is about 3ft by 3ft by 2.5ft. A different one of the same power level but using 100KHz is about 4ft by 4ft by 5ft. Kind of hard to hide. And then there is the 1/R2 problem of coupling the energy into the E-cat.

NOT so simple.