Cold Fusion Inventor Comes To Boston

Originally posted by yampa
No one has any idea what the nucleons are doing in either of these experiments. LENR is just a tag.

Wait, it can't be "just a tag". If you do science instead of voodoo and/or fraud, you do not "tag" phenomenon "A" with the name of a different phenomenon "B". It's like "cold fusion" stands for "metabolism". It's not just unhelpful, it's medieval.

And besides, Rossi does not seem to agree with you. He's very, very, very specific in his claim that actual fusion takes place. So what you suggest is either
(a) you don't understand what's going on
(b) Rossi is lying.

I can agree to either. Or both.

Nickel nanoparticles function as the primary 'electrode' in this system. Nanoparticles are supposedly the reason it works.

So you don't know if nanoparticles are involved at all. Why should I entertain somebody's conjecture?

A speculative rendering of the reactor core from a documentary about Rossi (which features academics, engineers and business people stating their observations on Rossi's machine):

This is a laughable sort of graphic. They managed to put "speculative", "probably" and "secret" all on one page. Which means the amount of information contained there is way close to zero.

Pretty simple. Pretty easy to infer what is going on here.

Is it? First of all, you said "no one has any idea what the nucleons are doing". Now you are saying "oh it's so easy!". I think your understanding of what's happening is indeed equal to the amount of energy Rossi has actually produced: ZERO.

nanoparticle induction heating
nanoparticle photon
nanoparticle plasmon resonance
nanoparticle hyperthermic heating
nanoparticle radio frequency
nanoparticle infra red
nanoparticle memory device

Wait, what ANY of this has to do with Rossi and his E-catalyzer?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


There's a discussion I found here.
theeestory.com...

Thats ridiculous! Your expecting to use some random forum posts as proof?
Not buying it. Anyone can post accusations, just like you did...



I meant proof, as in real proof. You obviously have none.

Originally posted by burntheships
I meant proof, as in real proof. You obviously have none.

Nor has Rossi!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, it can't be "just a tag". If you do science instead of voodoo and/or fraud, you do not "tag" phenomenon "A" with the name of a different phenomenon "B". It's like "cold fusion" stands for "metabolism". It's not just unhelpful, it's medieval.

I think you're right; it's deeply unhelpful. By immediately implying a relationship to an existing feature of the Standard Model, the LENR acronym functions as misdirection. Those using 'LENR/Cold Fusion' are no doubt assuming that a 'high energy nuclear reaction' is correctly characterized already, therefore they can differentiate the processes in some useful way.

In reality, if you look at the current physics for star formation, nucleosynthesis, quantum energy exchange mechanisms etc, what you get is a bunch of bull# fairy-tale mathematics, tbh. At best, tags like LENR are gross statements about general energy levels, but they offer little insight into the underlying mechanisms.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And besides, Rossi does not seem to agree with you. He's very, very, very specific in his claim that actual fusion takes place. So what you suggest is either
(a) you don't understand what's going on
(b) Rossi is lying.

You left out: (c) Rossi does not understand what's going on

In my opinion, Rossi does not understand how his reactor works. Neither does Foccardi. I can assume this because I can assume they will be using the mathematics of the standard model and quantum mechanics to make predictions about the heat mechanism inside the reactor.

Nickel nanoparticles function as the primary 'electrode' in this system. Nanoparticles are supposedly the reason it works.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So you don't know if nanoparticles are involved at all. Why should I entertain somebody's conjecture?

Do you see the words 'the latter is filled with powdered nickel, probably of nanometric gauge' on that picture you just posted? It is not just my conjecture, it is the consensus opinion everywhere I have seen. Rossi himself confirms the reactor is run on nickel powder (although I don't think he has stated the exact gauge). Previous patents by Yoshiaki Arata, Francesco Piantelli and Brian Aherne all use nano scale metal powders in their experiments. But it really doesn't matter if we're talking micron scale powders either - I imagine some effects are found at those scales too.



I'm afraid if you are looking for some kind of magical complexity at the centre of this reactor, you are out of luck. It really is that simple. Rossi's previous patents, the rest of that video clip (HERE) and Rossi's own descriptions leave no reason to expect additional complexity. All we're doing here is pumping hydrogen into some nickel powder wrapped around some basic heat resistors. How else would you like to diagram that?

Originally posted by yampa
Pretty simple. Pretty easy to infer what is going on here.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Is it? First of all, you said "no one has any idea what the nucleons are doing". Now you are saying "oh it's so easy!". I think your understanding of what's happening is indeed equal to the amount of energy Rossi has actually produced: ZERO.

Since when did engineers have to properly understand the quantum physics of their machines in order to produce powerful effects? The design of the reactor core is simple, that is all I am saying. Perhaps if you actually looked at the design you would see that.
I already made my opinions of the predictive accuracy of current quantum mechanics models clear, I believe. I really am saying that these people don't know wtf they're talking about when it comes to fundamental theories of quantum electromagnetism.

nanoparticle induction heating
nanoparticle photon
nanoparticle plasmon resonance
nanoparticle hyperthermic heating
nanoparticle radio frequency
nanoparticle infra red
nanoparticle memory device

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, what ANY of this has to do with Rossi and his E-catalyzer?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in the electromagnetic properties of nanoparticles? I suppose I really should have assumed you meant 'give me a cartoon answer which I can then ignore'.
All those search terms describe existing language used in completely mainstream, impartial experiments that confirm the significant interactions between nanoparticles and electromagnetic forces.

Given your already apparent unwillingness to do any real research on your own (a true modern buddha, indeed), I guess it would be silly to ask if you are aware that Rossi's reactor also has some kind of radio frequency input?

Originally posted by yampa
I think you're right; it's deeply unhelpful. By immediately implying a relationship to an existing feature of the Standard Model, the LENR acronym functions as misdirection.

So Rossi is actively engaged in misdirection. I see.

In reality, if you look at the current physics for star formation, nucleosynthesis, quantum energy exchange mechanisms etc, what you get is a bunch of bull# fairy-tale mathematics, tbh.

Interesting! What exactly qualifies as such?

In my opinion, Rossi does not understand how his reactor works. Neither does Foccardi.

Really? What a bunch of buffoons!

Actually, if this is the case, I posit that these two don't qualify to run an experiment at all, and that these results must be thrown out.

Rossi himself confirms the reactor is run on nickel powder (although I don't think he has stated the exact gauge).

Well, so there. We don't know that.

Previous patents by Yoshiaki Arata, Francesco Piantelli and Brian Aherne all use nano scale metal powders in their experiments.

Is the setup common with Rossi's?

I'm afraid if you are looking for some kind of magical complexity at the centre of this reactor, you are out of luck.

Oh, I'm not looking for complexity.

Since when did engineers have to properly understand the quantum physics of their machines in order to produce powerful effects?

Granted, new phenomena can be bumped into completely accidentally. This would be a weird exception, though, because it's one thing to notice a novel phenomenon, and understand it enough to implement a new tech optimally. It's just weird to put in metal shavings and produce energy for reasons that you don't understand.

The design of the reactor core is simple, that is all I am saying.

That's not a lot.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in the electromagnetic properties of nanoparticles?

I may be, but why are they important here? Nanoparticles have interesting and varying properties. So have chemicals. So have isotopes. If you know why and how nanoparticles are involved (if at all) in Rossi's machine, pray tell. If you don't -- take a break from pointless speculation.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


The problem is he has been convicted of fraud,

Care to back up your claim with proof, as in just not your skew on the facts?

edit on 27-11-2011 by burntheships because: format

edit on 27-11-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Go to his website, Ive linked it numerous times in the past. Straight from his mouth....

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


There's a discussion I found here.
theeestory.com...

Thats ridiculous! Your expecting to use some random forum posts as proof?
Not buying it. Anyone can post accusations, just like you did...

I meant proof, as in real proof. You obviously have none.

How's this?

Those 56 prosecutions, for which he was incarcerated, end up with an acquittal of all processes for tax reasons, derived from bankruptcy by the closure of Omar and Petroldragon, 5 of them ended with a conviction

From a Rossi website

Originally posted by yampa
I think you're right; it's deeply unhelpful. By immediately implying a relationship to an existing feature of the Standard Model, the LENR acronym functions as misdirection.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So Rossi is actively engaged in misdirection. I see.

Yes, Rossi does seem to be engaged in misdirection for marketing/IP protection purposes.

In reality, if you look at the current physics for star formation, nucleosynthesis, quantum energy exchange mechanisms etc, what you get is a bunch of bull# fairy-tale mathematics, tbh.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Interesting! What exactly qualifies as such?

Undefined operators? Opaque variables? Borrowing from the vacuum? Symmetry breaking? Renormalization? Superposition? Virtual Photons? Singularities? Gravitons? Heuristic-based absolute constants? We could go on all day. Quantum mechanics is desperately in need of some real mechanics.

In my opinion, Rossi does not understand how his reactor works. Neither does Foccardi.

Really? What a bunch of buffoons!
Actually, if this is the case, I posit that these two don't qualify to run an experiment at all, and that these results must be thrown out.

Oh, I'm sure these guys are really upset that you don't approve of their procedures.

Rossi himself confirms the reactor is run on nickel powder (although I don't think he has stated the exact gauge).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well, so there. We don't know that.

You've just ignored the part where I said it didn't really matter if it was micron gauge either. Good mental selectivity there.

Powdered nickel absolutely was the primary constituent in all existing reveals by Rossi. Are you an expert in micron scale metal powders vs nano scale powders and happen to have some proof of impossibility for Rossi's proposed mechanism? If you are trying to argue a micron here or there, I don't see your point.

It is absolutely known the fuel is a nickel powder. It is absolutely known that nanoparticles (particularly those geometrically attuned and properly distributed) display novel and powerful EM properties. Depending on the material, I see no reason those observations might not exist for metal particulates at the micron scale also.

Previous patents by Yoshiaki Arata, Francesco Piantelli and Brian Aherne all use nano scale metal powders in their experiments.

Is the setup common with Rossi's?

Yes, they have all published or patented work on nanopowder nickel hydrogen heat engines.

Granted, new phenomena can be bumped into completely accidentally. This would be a weird exception, though, because it's one thing to notice a novel phenomenon, and understand it enough to implement a new tech optimally. It's just weird to put in metal shavings and produce energy for reasons that you don't understand.

What is 'completely accidental' about reading Foccardi's peer-reviewed and published papers on energy amplification in nickel hydrogen heat engines, then turning the solid bar nickel core into one consisting of a metal powder, then using observations from peer-reviewed published work on radio frequency induced nanoparticle heating and putting those ideas together? That isn't guessing, that is called being an intelligent and astute researcher and engineer.
They don't understand the quantum electrical interaction because the QM explanations of these energy exchanges are broken, it is not their fault, it is the fault of the likes of Bohr, Heisenberg, Gell-Mann and Pauli.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in the electromagnetic properties of nanoparticles?

If you know why and how nanoparticles are involved (if at all) in Rossi's machine, pray tell. If you don't -- take a break from pointless speculation.

Why don't you take a break from pretending you've paid attention to what is really going on here?

Originally posted by yampa
Superposition?

What about superposition?

Virtual Photons?

Yeah well, did you study field theory? There is a way to compute integrals that involves counting methods that can be added by using diagrams. Some of this are easier interpreted if you invoke the concept. Are you claiming the math is wrong? Looking at results, I see as quite solid. Are you saying you don't know field theory? Tough.



"Go somewhere else!"

Quantum mechanics is desperately in need of some real mechanics.

See above. "I'm not going to simplify it, I'm not gonna tell you it's a ball on a spring, because it's not".

Oh, I'm sure these guys are really upset that you don't approve of their procedures.

They are not, and I put ZERO trust in their "measurements". Some gullible dufus might.

Are you an expert in micron scale metal powders vs nano scale powders and happen to have some proof of impossibility for Rossi's proposed mechanism?

a) you said you didn't believe what Rossi proposed, why does it matter?
b) sorry but the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. I claim that I saw a dinosaur this morning. Please prove I was wrong.

And speaking of your "nano" obsession -- earlier Focardi paper describes and experiment done with a solid rod. So in principle, the form of the metal is simply not crucial for the claim.

Read the Focardi paper

It's an extremely poor piece of tradecraft. It's not a calorimetric experiement, and they ignore a lot of factors that are likely to be present in the setup. For example, thermal conductivity of nickel is higher than that of steel. It is important because heat transfer from the heating element to gas will depend on the material of the rod. They completely ignore that. And one thing is downright suspect -- the curve of T vs power is said to be independent of gas pressure "in the range of value of interest". Well hey, can you explain how you chose the "range"? Is it not interesting to see a few point closer to vacuum and to 1 bar? Since the pressure IS changing according to them, during the experiment, this can't be just ignored without a curve or a quantitative statement.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Read the Focardi paper

It's an extremely poor piece of tradecraft.

Oh! Burn! I'm sure Prof Focardi is feeling the power of that critique. I've no idea if your analysis on the calorimetry is correct or not, but my money would be on the experience of a guy who has been designing sophisticated experiments for the measurement of subatomic particles for 50 years, publishing 70+ results in mainstream, internationally recognised physics journals during this time. I have a feeling he might know if the energy levels are anomalous or not.

It is rather pointless to be clucking over Focardi's work here, given that neither Rossi or Focardi claimed his results were a good proof of concept of a practical heat engine. You asked whether Rossi's experiments were random.. They were not.

And speaking of your "nano" obsession -- earlier Focardi paper describes and experiment done with a solid rod. So in principle, the form of the metal is simply not crucial for the claim.

Umm, yes? That's why I said "then turning the solid bar nickel core into one consisting of a metal powder". Rossi developed the reactor into something that can supposedly yield much better results than Focardi ever did. The powdered electrode is part of that development.

I'm sorry if you think that paying attention to what is happening in reality is an obsession; I understand this must be distressing to someone who is an evangelist for non-physical physics.

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Read the Focardi paper

It's an extremely poor piece of tradecraft.

Oh! Burn! I'm sure Prof Focardi is feeling the power of that critique.

I'm not. If I got this paper as a lab report in a class, I'd have problems with it, because there are simply too many omissions and arbitrary choices of operating parameters. From the description, which is frankly way too simplified, I can also see more potential sources of major systematic errors, in addition to what I posted.

I've no idea if your analysis on the calorimetry is correct or not

Of course you don't.

but my money would be on the experience of a guy who has been designing sophisticated experiments for the measurement of subatomic particles for 50 years, publishing 70+ results in mainstream

I'm not as old, but I did much of same and have a few dozen publications. And I call bovine detritus on that paper. If you didn't manage to get my points in the previous posts, that's because you have no experience in the field.

It is rather pointless to be clucking over Focardi's work here, given that neither Rossi or Focardi claimed his results were a good proof of concept of a practical heat engine.

Well now, if I see a major deficiency in how one such measurement is done, the whole idea that extra heat is produced becomes quite ethereal or rather non-existent.

reply to post by buddhasystem


At no point have I vouched for the validity of Focardi's result. Not sure why you are trying to divert down that path. Your opinion on the paper is irrelevant to the development path which Rossi took.

Vapourising (or faking the evaporation of) 675 litres of water an hour is what interests me. Which is why I'm not writing in a thread about Focardi. There is much less room for faux skeptics to romance the technicalities of calorimetry in 3300 litres of vaporised water.

Interesting read:

Heffner Report

Interesting blog"
Link

Those papers are worth looking at, I think, and I do think Heffner's paper makes a lot of good points about the earlier tests, and he seems thorough. I don't think Rossi runs a particularly robust scientific experiment either.

An interesting point from his paper:

"It appears the RF (frequency generator) power was ramped up at 16:38 (326 min) and down at 18:53 (461 min). The T2 curve mysteriously responds, despite the input RF (frequency generator) power being nominal. The thermal mass of the metal and water is huge. This response of T2 to RF (frequency generator) Pin should not be possible unless the T2 thermocouple reading is directly affected by the RF (frequency generator) , or the 300 mA power of the signal controls a device in the E-cat which opens a thermally conductive pathway between the hot metal mass and the water in the E-cat."

A large anomalous response to a low power RF input signal.. hmm, now what kind of electrode composition might be being affected by such a signal? I wonder..

Anyway, these tests are not 470kW tests, and analysis of these tests do not answer the questions raised by the large test. Over 3300 litres of water were supposedly vapourised over 5 hours using only 66kWh of input. A constant temperature of 105c+ (as high as 114c) was maintained on thermocouples attached to the outside of a large shared steam pipe several meters away from the core of any of the reactors.

Depending on your point of view, that is a whole different caliber of fakery or evidence.

The practical value of a system genuinely capable of sustaining this kind of energy output vs fuel input would be huge.

Originally posted by yampa
Over 3300 litres of water were supposedly vapourised over 5 hours using only 66kWh of input.

Some people have an issue with that claim. Was it vented? Because otherwise, the whole crew would have suffocated. I don't know.

And I agree with Krivit: you can have one, two, three inconclusive "demos"... But 13! It really does appear that Rossi tries to obscure the measurement of the apparatus' performance (which is already pretty much a black box). You are liable to make the most important discovery of the century and possibly in history -- how come you don't go to trouble of logging to one of surplus sites (if you are really strapped for cash) and properly instrumenting your device? Heffner pointed out a few things but I'm sure there were more. He's right -- the power could be "dirty" or "spiked" (pun intended). The "catalyst" could be a reagent.

And I've long since suspected something was going on along these lines -- for all we know, the apparatus could be fed H2 continuously (given it's black-box appearance and lack of access), so yeah, they could be burning hydrogen and indeed using nickel for a useful purpose -- but of course that's not what' expected of them.

A proper demo does not need to be huge -- on the contrary, a smaller, manageable and precisely measured apparatus would have achieved a lot more credibility, especially if operating in completely self-sustained mode.

reply to post by burntheships


I linked you a site where there is a discussion for you to learn more. I very clearly stated why he is a fraudster. You did not refute what I stated. Please show me proof Rossi was not involved in the activities I listed.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by burntheships

 

I linked you a site where there is a discussion for you to learn more. I very clearly stated why he is a fraudster. You did not refute what I stated. Please show me proof Rossi was not involved in the activities I listed.

Andrea Rossi is an Italian, who apparently owns a company selling biofuel generators in New Hampshire and has (or had) a house in America, right? And when you are a foreign national who applies for a work visa, you are entirely obligated to reveal any past criminality, correct? I know people who have been denied US visas because they shoplifted 20 years ago. Whatever his past, Homeland Security and Immigration clearly have less of a problem with Rossi than you do at this stage.

How did Rossi evaporate or fake the evaporation of 3300 litres of water, Master Occam? I have not seen anything that looked like real analysis of the fraud from you, only mindless finger pointing. Great Buddha suggests the burning of hydrogen fuel was the source of the heat, what do you think of that?

reply to post by yampa

How did Rossi evaporate or fake the evaporation of 3300 litres of water, Master Occam? I have not seen anything that looked like real analysis of the fraud from you, only mindless finger pointing.

Maybe he did it the same way as he did in the past?

Such devices are normally only used for refrigeration (Peltier effect), because the efficiency for generating electrical power is only a few percent. Rossi suggested that his devices could attain 20 % efficiency.

A demonstration that he conducted at the University of New Hampshire produced 100 volt at 1 ampere (100 watt) during a week.

Larger modules would be manufactured in Italy. Rossi sent 27 thermoelectric devices for evaluation to the Engineer Research and Development Center; 19 of these did not produce any electricity at all. The remaining units produced less than 1 watt each, instead of the expected 800–1000 watt.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...(entrepreneur)