 |
There are currently, 170 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
|  |
Focardi and Rossi LENR (Cold Fusion) Demo today
Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2011 @ 14:04:35 UTC by vlad
|
|
Jan 14, 2011, from NextBigFuture.com: I
had reported that the Focardi and Rossi demo would be on Jan 15th
(based on an online notice) that was the online press conference and
that will happen tomorrow. Today there was the italian press conference.
UPDATE - The online "press conference" was question and answer in a comment thread, but it had some more technical answers.
Full article here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html
[Vlad] Check the comments on these articles and the Journal of Nuclear Physics site as well (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360). Here is an interesting dialog:
froarty: I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the energy SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly extracting energy from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with different bond states of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG, Lyne's Furnace or Mill's BLP reactor. No one has totally nailed the theory yet (Jan Naudts may be real close with relativistic hydrogen) but it doesn't matter, if they have learned to reliably reproduce the energy at this level, the race for low hanging IP will ensue.
Goat Guy: The fall-back position, isn't it? Well, it doesn't really have a
nuclear signature, so, hmmm... yeah, that's it... its probably related
to the work by Mills 'n' Dunderhead(s) AKABlacklight Power, etc
Little hydrino fairies that everyone in physics somehow missed (except
Mills, Moller, Naudts...) that using nothing more intriguing than a
bottle of powdered metals and a magic wand, create kilowatts of thermal
heat. (For how long? - never for days, that's for sure!)
The
same goes for the whole hydrino thing. Hell, I'm not even seriously
"taking on the proof", just noodling on the backs of napkins with my
trusty spreadsheet calcs.
BLP and its derivatives have exactly
the same "problem" - they bear the burden-of-proof in either 'fessing to
having none of the byproducts expected from their theory, or, having an
abundance of easily quantifiable data that supports their contention.
It is a matter (per another of my posts) of scale. You simply cannot
produce kilowatts of heat - even for periods as short as "minutes" - and
not have macroscopically observable changes in reactant density,
consumed hydrogen, and if nuclear in nature, all sorts of alarmingly
nasty radioactive byproducts. No significant radiation == no
nuclear signature. In the case of BLP, either the magic pixie powder
gains weight (bonding to hydrogen), which can be weighed - and reversed
by applying high heat (which then isn't very magic at all, but clearly
just good old hydrogen surface adsorption) - or there is the presence of
a stunning new form of hydrogen (the hydrinos) that necessarily exhibit all sorts of OMG, wow! behavior.
NOTHING
can be subtle about "new physics", goats - and still get away with
producing kilowatts of thermal signature. It is upon this fulcrum that I
balance the claims versus the results. Hard radiation ("peg the
needle"), copious byproducts, milligram-to-kilogram changes of mass,
intense UV, X-rays, ... but not "oooh, we think we might have seen an increase in neutrons but our detector was having calibration issues; we're buying new, more sensitive equipment."
foarty: Above Goat Guy says [snip] NOTHING can be subtle about "new physics",
goats - and still get away with producing kilowatts of thermal
signature. [/snip]
The "heat" itself doesn't have to come from
new physics - it is far more likely the conditions are making a normal
reaction an endless reaction - it is the conditions that are subtle.
When you dismiss chemical reactions you do so because h1 falls to h2
only once under normal conditions and cannot do so again until you
supply energy to disassociate it. I am saying mother nature can also
supply this energy when gas law forces h2 to migrate betwen different
casimir geometry which is a form of super catalytic action based on
supression of vacuum energy density. changes in energy density are
associated with time dilation due to equivalent acceleration in a
gravity well accumulating over time. the abrupt changes and negative
acceleration due to supression inside a cavity would suggest a
relativistic interpretation of catalytic action that would greatly
multiply the number of chemical reactions occuring inside the cavity
from our perspective outside the cavity to , as you put it, "still get
away with producing kilowatts of thermal signature". The only
premise needed would be an opposition to changes in Casimir geometry by
h2 vs little or no opposition by h1. I think the lack of gamma radiation
and shortage of nuclear ash point to a relativisticly powered
oscillation between h1 and h2 where thermal energy is rectified from HUP
using gas atom bonding states. I think gas law can discount
disassociation requirements when h2 opposes changes in energy density
inside a cavity to a thermal runaway point where more energy is released
upon association then is required to disassociate.
Andrea Rossi: January 16th, 2011 at 4:01 PM
Dear Mr William : 1- I am the inventor of the method and the apparatus. 2- You are asking to me to give away for free technology and know how. It is impossible, for obvious reasons. 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn’t work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a “Holy Graal”, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that’s enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. Thank you for your useful inquiry,
Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi
|
| |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5 Votes: 1

| |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Rossi Discovery – What to Say? (Score: 1) by vlad on Monday, January 17, 2011 @ 22:48:40 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Critical comment posted by Steven Krivit in his New Energy Times Blog:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/ [blog.newenergytimes.com]
Please read the comments as well. Her is my respected friend, Dr. Peter Gluck's comment and Steve's reply:
Peter Gluck: Dear Steve,
This time, I disagree with your approach- the main subject, the essence, the core of the thing is that this event was a first official demonstration of commercial LENR. I have no doubts regarding the validity of the results, mainly on the basis of the results obtained by Prof. Francesco Piantelli- and this was a kind of continuation, variant, etc. of the Piantelli system. It works- and I have waited almost 22 years for that.
The fact that Rossi is not a Lancelot is interesting, some of his sins could actually be technical failures- they happen to the best of us is not the most relevant issue. Have these character flaws- if proved, some influence on the efficiency of the generators?
Best wishes,
Peter
---------------
Steven Krivit: Dear Peter,
I treasure your optimism and enthusiasm, it is worth its weight in gold. In my years of following this topic, I have learned to become cautious. There are two crucial things I have learned, above all others: 1) Trust the scientific process. 2) Do not trust claims of promoters unless independently verified.
As far as your assertion of the “first official demonstration of commercial LENR,” I think your enthusiasm has overtaken your memory. Let’s not forget the Patterson Power Cell. Or Russ George’ [www.newenergytimes.com]s 1 kiloWatt fusion powered heater. Or Innovative Energy Solutions Inc. [www.newenergytimes.com]
Your optimism is essential, as is a demand for scientific rigor and independent validation.
Best regards, Steven
|
|
|
Focardi and Rossi LENR (Cold Fusion) Independent Tests (Score: 1) by vlad on Thursday, January 20, 2011 @ 20:57:03 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Via Directory:Andrea A. Rossi Cold Fusion Generator at PESWiki [peswiki.com]:
Independent Testing
According to a Rossi-Focardy paper [www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com] (p. 4 of 9), similar results have been obtained in the factory of EON in Bondeno (Ferrara, Italy) in a test performed with ENEL [www.enel.com] spa on June, 25th 2009; as well as in tests made in Bedford, New Hampshire (USA) in a lab of LTI [www.lti-global.com] with the presence of the U.S. Department of Energy (November 19 2009) and of the U.S. Department of Defense (November 20 2009).
Some related research [www.newenergytimes.com] was published by New Energy Times in 2004. And even earlier in November 1998 at LENR-CANR.org [www.lenr-canr.org] In March of 1995 came a report [babelfish.yahoo.com]
titled "Italian cold fusion succeeded", stated that a 40-watt battery
had been operated for four months continuous. So these guys have been
at this for a long time.
Patents
In addition to WO/2009/125444, they have another patent filed. Once
the second patent is awarded, then the information about how they
achieve their results will become public knowledge. Meanwhile, they are
keeping that information proprietary.
Abstract A method and apparatus for carrying out highly
efficient exothermal reaction between nickel and hydrogen atoms in a
tube, preferably, though not necessary, a metal tube filled by a nickel
powder and heated to a high temperature, preferably, though not
necessary, from 150 to 5000C are herein disclosed. In the inventive
apparatus, hydrogen is injected into the metal tube containing a highly
pressurized nickel powder having a pressure, preferably though not
necessarily, from 2 to 20 bars.
|
|
|
Cold Fusion Steams Ahead at World's Oldest University (Score: 1) by vlad on Tuesday, March 08, 2011 @ 21:03:00 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Progress accelerates as a year long study of Andrea Rossi's Nickel-Hydrogen Cold Fusion technology (energy catalyzer) at the University of Bologna is announced. The birthplace of higher education has become the developmental womb for a game changing technology!
by Hank Mills with Italian translation editing help from Sepp Hasslberger Pure Energy Systems News
The saga of Andrea Rossi's Nickel-Hydrogen Cold Fusion technology is only accelerating and not slowing down. Physicists are warming up to the technology, new calorimeter tests are forthcoming, media announcements are on the way, and a year long testing program at the University of Bologna has started. With a demonstration of the one megawatt system in the USA in the works (before it is shipped to Europe) and the opening of the one megawatt plant in Greece by late this October things are only going to keep moving faster...
Full article: http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/ [pesn.com]
|
|
|
Re: Focardi and Rossi LENR (Cold Fusion) Demo today (Score: 1) by ChrisCooper on Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 17:20:58 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | What do you mean "NOTHING can be subtle about "new physics", goats". This [www.bbc.co.uk] is nonsense. |
|
|
Cold Fusion: It May Not Be Madness (Score: 1) by vlad on Thursday, February 24, 2011 @ 20:59:52 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | By Mike Martin/ TechNewsWorld
/ 02/22/11 5:00 AM PT
A handful of intrepid scientists are reigniting
interest in work that was dismissed as junk science more than 20 years
ago, claiming to have found a way to create more energy from less. The
most recent excitement was generated by Italians Sergio Focardi and
Andrea Rossi, who demonstrated a device that turned 400 watts of heat
power into 12,400 watts. If their results are reproducible, the
implications could be monumental. Full article: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold-Fusion-It-May-Not-Be-Madness-71916.html [www.technewsworld.com]
|
|
|
|
|