
Focardi and Rossi LENR (Cold Fusion) Demo today
Date: Sunday, January 16, 2011 @ 14:04:35 UTC Topic: Devices
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
|
|