Connect with us

Dare I say LENR

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by amdx, Mar 27, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

    I saw this today, (Rossi is one of those saying they have built
    a Low Energy Nuclear Reactor) Terms; E-CAT, LENR, Brillouin Energy,
    Defkalion


    Andrea Rossi
    March 24th, 2013 at 10:53 PM

    DEAR GEORGE HANTS:
    YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OPENS THE GATE FOR THE FOLLOWING
    INFORMATION:
    THE TESTS OF THE THIRD INDEPENDENT PARTY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED YESTERDAY.
    I DID NOT ATTEND, THEREFORE I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY THE RESULTS, THAT
    WILL SURELY BE PUBLISHED BY THE EXAMINERS, PROBABLY AROUND THE HALF OF
    APRIL. I MET THE 11 PROFESSORS AND EXPERTS THAT MADE THE TESTS WHEN THEY
    ENDED THEIR WORK AND THEY WERE VERY POSITIVE. ONE OF THEM TOLD ME ” WE
    GOT EVIDENCE THAT THE ‘ EFFECT’ IS REAL BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT”. I
    COULD NOT GET MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE TO ELABORATE THE
    DATA TO PREPARE THE PUBLICATION. ALL THE PROFESSORS SAID THE TEST IS
    GONE WELL, VERY WELL. THE LAST TEST ENDED AFTER 120 HOURS OF
    UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION OF THE REACTORS ( THE NEW GENERATION OF HOT CATS
    IS MADE BY A TWO STAGE SYSTEM, MADE WITH AN ACTIVATOR WITH RESISTANCES
    COUPLED WITH A KIND OF CHARGE, WHICH ACTIVATES THE E-CAT WITH A
    DIFFERENT CHARGE. THE EFFECT IS STUNNING, WE SAW IN OUR PRIVATE TESTS,
    AND HAS BEEN REPLICATED BY THE THIRD INDIPENDENT PARTY.
    NOW WE PASS TO THE INDUSTRIAL ENGAGEMENTS: WE HAVE TO DELIVER OUR
    PLANTS BY THE END OF APRIL.
    WARM REGARDS,
    ANDREA ROSSI

    I'm afraid I have seen the type of announcement before, but I'm
    skeptically hopeful.
    Mikek
     
  2. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    And like all cranks, kooks and loons he posts all in capitals.
    (I take it you didn't capitalise it to mark quoted material)

    I wonder how much suckers' money he has burned on this?
     
  3. amdx

    amdx Guest



    I didn't capitalize, I did a copy and paste.
    I don't know about the money.
    I'm curious, have you looked into the research
    or is this a knee jerk reaction?

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/lenr-tests-claiming-positive/
    Mikek
     
  4. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    Walks like a duck quacks like a duck => is a duck.
    He has been making absurd unsubstantiated claims for ages now.
    Put up or shut up time.

    I remember the original Flieschmann & Pons cold fusion claim - both were
    reputable scientists. I know tame electrochemists and everyone and their
    dog had a go at replicating it for a while. You could not easily buy
    palladium or heavy water for months after the announcement.
    Unfortunately it was a false dawn. I would still like to believe that
    they did see something real and fusion based mediated by a chance
    interaction of a muon or other suitable particle. Unfortunately Occam's
    razor favours the alternative hypothesis of bad calorimetry.

    But in this guy's case the boot is on entirely the other foot - he has
    done nothing at all to suggest he is anything other than a charlatan.

    Basically either you can demonstrate something that operates way beyond
    anything that chemical energy can supply and then the world is your
    oyster or you keep on drip drip drip secret test gimmee more money...

    Fusion power has been 50 years away for more than five decades now.

    POSTING ALL IN CAPITALS IS VERY VERY KOOKY.

    USUALLY THEY ANNOUNCE "NEW THOERY (sic) OF THE UNIVERSE"
     
  5. rickman

    rickman Guest

    Someone who wanted to build a board for do it yourself cold fusion got
    me to look at Rossi et. al. I didn't see much that you could hang a hat
    on. He had experiments that showed energy production, but he did a poor
    job of measuring the output. It seems there is a *huge* difference
    between dry steam and wet steam. He didn't show his steam was dry, but
    that was what he assumed in the calculations. So none of his results
    were actually useful.

    There were a couple of "scientists" who visited to verify his claims.
    In a video they acknowledged that they could not with 100% certainty say
    that his results showed production of energy. Instead they acted very
    excited and implied that they fully believed the bull. That was maybe
    two years ago and at that time Rossi said he would be shipping
    commercial units in a few months. So where are they?

    As a result of another thread here I found mention of another guy who
    claims he has reproducable results and he talks like he will be shipping
    commercial units in a few months. Sounds familiar...

    The part I like about these guys is that they always have explainations
    of what is going on with drawings and such, but there is never any real
    background info on how what is basically a chemical reaction can have
    any influence on the nucleus... none.
     
  6. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Widom-Larsen theory---http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LENR-and-Cold-Fusion-Theory-Index.shtml


    Bazhutov-Vereshkov Theory (No response to query.)
    Chubb (Scott) Theory (Not living. Nobody responded on his behalf.)
    Chubb ( Talbot) Theory (Not living. Nobody responded on his behalf.)
    Filimonov-Fukuhara Theory
    Filippov Theory
    Fisher Theory (Provided listing for one published paper.)
    Gareev Theory (Not living. Nobody responded on his behalf.)
    Hagelstein Theory (No response to query.)
    Hora-Miley Theory (Responded with descriptive text and a list of his
    scientific papers.)
    Kim-Zubarev Theory (No response to query.)
    Kirkinskii-Novikov Theory (No response to query.)
    Kozima Theory (Responded with a lot of information.)
    Li Theory (No response to query.)
    Preparata Theory (Antonella De Ninno responded on his behalf with a
    summary and two papers.)
    Sinha-Meulenberg Theory (Meulenberg responded with an extensive list of
    papers.)
    Storms Theory (No response to query.)
    Szpak Theory (No response to query.)
    Takahashi Theory (No response to query.)
    Widom-Larsen Theory (Responded with a lot of information.)
     
  7. rickman

    rickman Guest

    The summary at the end lists the catagories of theories with a total of
    66. I guess that makes LENR 66 times more likely to be correct than I
    originally thought.
     
  8. Guest

    Why not? It's the same logic that makes AGW a "fact".
     
  9. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    A theory must have over 50% popularity in order for it to be
    psychically activated..
     
  10. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    AGW isn't a fact, it's just a very well supported hypothesis. The
    rubbish listed above isn't as well supported. The logic involved may
    be the same, but the value of the supporting evidence isn't.
     
  11. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    They are 66 different variants of Conspiracy Theory in 8 flavours.
    New Energy Times is good for a laugh but that is all.

    There is one cold fusion that would in principle actually work and was
    what pushed Feischmann & Pons into their fateful early publication. Muon
    (200x heavier than electron and same charge) catalysed cold fusion is
    possible in certain circumstances. Riken are serious researchers in this
    field at the moment and this is real science as opposed to fantasy.

    http://www.rikenresearch.riken.jp/eng/frontline/5976

    The theory of how it could work dates back to at least 1957

    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v105/i3/p1127_1
     
  12. Interesting thanks, I'd heard of the muon idea, but didn't realize
    that it really worked... If only we could make the muons last a bit
    longer.

    Why does everyone dislike fission? (rhetorical question, :^p
    I think it just needs better PR.

    George H.
     
  13. rickman

    rickman Guest

    Yes, this is a breath of fresh (rational) air on a topic that is often
    full of insanity. Although I'm not sure I would call this "cold
    fusion". The need to create muons with 5 GeV of energy is not exactly
    what I would call "cold". Still, it is fusion and that is the main point.


    It is a shame that after 50+ years they still want payment to read the
    article.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-