Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, let's take good ol Lord Kelvin again:

"Like many scientists, he did make some mistakes in predicting the future of technology.

Circa 1896, Lord Kelvin was initially skeptical of X-rays, and regarded their announcement as a hoax.[49] However, this was before he saw Röntgen's evidence, after which he accepted the idea, and even had his own hand X-rayed in May 1896.[50]

His forecast for practical aviation was negative. In 1896 he refused an invitation to join the Aeronautical Society, writing that "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of." [51] And in a 1902 newspaper interview he predicted that "No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."[52]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin

Reminds me of constant whining about what's "physically impossible".

As your own quote shows, Lord Kelvin did not ever claim that flight was not possible. What he said was that he doubted it would ever be practical. Of particular note is the inclusion of balloons in is comment. While planes were very new, human flight in balloons had been around for well over a century by that point, so obviously he wasn't claiming anything was physically impossible. He acknowledged that flight was possible, he just thought it would remain a useless curiosity rather than becoming such a hugely successful commercial field.

The x-ray part is even worse. He initially thought it was a joke until shown the evidence. Exactly what everyone has said here - show us the evidence, otherwise we'll keep thinking it's a load of crap. In Kelvin's case obviously it wasn't difficult to show him that evidence, so it didn't take long to convince him. Rontgen first observed x-rays in Novemeber 1895, and published his results on 28th December 1895. Kelvin had his hand x-rayed in May 1896, less than 5 months later. How long has Rossi been making claims now?

Can't agree, they are claiming to produce a lot of energy, if it isn't self sustaining then there is something very wrong.

Nope. Just because you can produce energy does not mean the reaction must be self-sustaining. In fact, this is precisely the idea behind sub-critical fission reactors - you have a fuel (it's being developed for thorium reactors, but in theory it would work with any fissionable material) that cannot produce a self-sustaining reaction on its own and must be driven by an external neutron source. This is a great safety feature, since it makes it physically impossible to have any kind of runaway reaction or meltdown.

In general, it's as BenBurch says - just because you're producing energy does not mean you're producing electricity. It means it should be possible for you to produce electricity, but there's absolutely no need to do so to prove the device works. Burning coal was a proven energy source long before anyone discovered electricity, let alone used coal to produce it. With fusion, as far as I'm aware no-one has ever used it to produce electricity, but we've still managed to prove it's a viable energy source despite needing to input a large amount of electricity to make fusion work at all.
 
Please feel free to post the interesting excerpts.



The machine translation is a bit disjointed, and comparing it to the pdf, at least one half of one paragraph wasn't scanned properly. Also, I'm not a chemist, so it's hard to know where to cut the most representative part, but this looks typical. I've added the paragraph breaks where they are in the pdf, so it's a bit more readable.



“The invention consists in, mainly, maintaining a potential difference necessary to the production of a current, in a aB element comprising two electrodes and that using one or several agents likely ““to circulate respectively in or through the aforementioned element and through one or several other elements, in one whose 3 O takes place an addition of energy to one or other of the aforesaid agents; the invention consisting, moreover, in a provision suitable to produce these circulations.

The invention will be more explicitly die 3 5 crite hereafter using the modes of realization given as example and shown respectively in the form of diagrams on the fig. 2 with i5 of the Ci-annexed drawings, the description of the aforesaid modes of realization emphasizing 4o other characteristics characteristic of the invention.

Gn will describe initially, while referring to the diagram of %. 2, a process which can be indicated, as being a borderline case between 45 the element with fuel describes above and the object of this invention, this process which can, nevertheless, being considered as forming part of the aforesaid the invention, because of its fitting.

•5o On the fig. 2, With indicates a terracotta plate established in a container B, the aforementioned plate being impregnated of an adapted electrolyte, such that the oxygen and of a base, P^ and Pkj indicate thin sheets out of turntable established respectively on the two 55 faces of the aforesaid the plate. G2 indicates a space filled with gas, envisaged on the right sheet of Pf2 platinum the driver L connecting P^ and Vt2entre they. Sheet P^ the platinum is supposed to be freely in contact with 60 the air, so that oxygen a constant pressure of approximately 0,2 atm. acts on the aforementioned sheet. In order to obtain a potential difference between sheets PF, and ¥t2, the pressure of oxygen on the Pfc sheet, i.e. 65 in G2 space, must be reduced; for this purpose, a reducing substance such as the carbon monoxide is introduced into the aforementioned space speaks leads R^. In G2 space, oxygen burns by catalysis and of carbon dioxide E 70 cap by the R2 conduit. The pressure of oxygen in G2 space is donctrès weak and a potential difference is obtained between the platinum sheets P “I and Pf2. In this case, it is obvious that the P^ sheet becomes posi- 75 tive in so far as ions négatife of oxygen leave this one, whereas Télectrode Pf2 becomes negative because: âe the precipitation of negative ions on this one. The process is a combined process if the 80 gaseous fuel must initially be produced from a solid fuel or liquid by a special process and it serasimple if L lon has a gaseous fuel, which sometimes can be presented, for 85-example at the places where one finds - firedamp, natural gas, or analogues.

On the fig. 3, one showed a realization of the invention relative to a combined process. Ej indicates an electrode appropriate to oxy- (ju gene contained in a container B. - the aforementioned electrode, for example, being consisted magnetite which is constantly in contact with oxygen d.e the air; E2 is another electrode which, for example, can be 96 made up by molten lead and - With an electrolyte made up indicates, for example, by lead oxide dissolved if need be, in a mixture of a halogen and a borate. If the electrodes Elet E2 are connected between wo they by a driver of electricity L, a current is produced in this last. Negative oxygen ions enter in solution of F E1- electrodes which, consequently, becomes - 3

>missing text?<

to be established in manner that a heat transfer is produced between the substances which pass to through of the aforesaid conduits, 55 what can be obtained, for example, by laying out these conduits one in another. in a known way in itself, so that the aforementioned conduits constitute a kind of exchanger of temperature. Preferably, 6o the Rj conduits and R2 are also established in order to constitute between them an exchanger of temperature.

The addition of the thermal process gives place to this result that the aforementioned process, together 61/with the chemical process, forms a combination between the process of combustion and the producing process of electricity. To elucidate this condition, it is to be noticed that the temperature in the container F assembles 70 until the moment when a pressure of measurable disso*-dation for oxygen is obtained above lead oxide. The container B can then be closed, as shown on the fig. with, and it can be connected to the container F by 76 another conduit, which returns possible K combustion of the carbon monoxide outside this last container.

In the aforementioned fig. 4, R 5 indicates the eondtnt auxiliary reliapt the upper part of the 80 container B to that of the container F, the oxygen, separated from the carbon monoxide, contained in the container F by the heating of this last, passing by the aforementioned conduit in the container B in which it is, again, combined with 85 lead via the electrochemical process. Lead runs out, in the way described about the fig. 3, by the R4 conduit out of the container F in the container B. If the combustion of oxide 00 of carbon and the reduction of lead oxide in the container F take place in a reversible way, the process does not involve, theoretically, no loss. One must however expect to encounter q5 difficulties in the realization of these processes in an absolutely reversible way and, for this reason, the losses which occur for this embodiment are generally phis high that those which result from the réali- 100 sation shown on the fig. 3. In spite of that, 1 application of the method in question can have a great practical value, for example if the half fuel one positive since positive lead ions enter in solution starting from the lead which is made negative. These two ions are combined in the electrolyte in the form of oxide 5 of lead. The container B is connected by two conduits Rg and Rj to another Fj container into which is introduced a gaseous fuel, such as carbon monoxide CO, by plunging a Rj conduit in lead oxide I O molten provided out of the container B by the R3 conduit. The lead oxide is then reduced and molten lead is collected at the bottom of the container F from where it turns over by the R4 conduit to the container B, in which it is again i5 oxidized. The carbon dioxide G02 formed in the container F by the reduction of lead oxide is evacuated by the R2 conduit. It is visible, by what precedes, that lead carries out in this realization a process with closed cycle, by the intermediary of which the process of combustion or oxidation, which takes place in the container F, was combined with the producing process of electricity which takes place in the container B, and, for this has 5 reason, one can consider, in this case, lead as being an auxiliary agent. This method gives place to losses, if the process which is carried out in the container F is not reversible. The value 3o of these losses differs according to nature from fuel and of the auxiliary agent to which one has recourse and it can be maintained ata very low rate by the choice of suitable agents who, in this case, are made up, preferably, by carbon monoxide and lead. For this purpose, one can point out that a given temperature is most of the time to adopt, in particular that for the Ho a which process, nonréservible under the ordinary conditions, becomes reversible, and it becomes, consequently, possible to maintain the losses ata very low rate by controlling the temperatures reigning in 45 the containers B and F, however, one must hold account, in this case, of another process which arises then in the system and which will be indicated hereafter by thermal process. If the provision is arranged of 5o this manner, i.e. so that different temperatures reign in the containers B and F, the Rg conduits and R^ must [646.856] - 4 lays out is not pure or of lower quality; this process will thus be described in a more explicit way in the examples below. On this subject, it is necessary to notice that of the 5 combinations of substances other than those indicated above (Pb-03) will be specified, in particular if the temperatures of dissociation to be used for lead oxide are too high to allow a to implemented practical of the method with the aforesaid combination Pb-02.
 
http://douglas-self.com/ <--- Better link for the Loco Locomotives page and related stuff (I host it)

Holman was a fraud; They took investors money in great quantities and produced only a couple of horrible locomotives that cost a tiny fraction of the amount invested.
Cool, thanks. That'll be very useful for gaming, CoC and GURPS Traveller/Ivor the Engine.
 
His gimmick was ingenious. The device drew large amounts of input power in short spikes too quick for the current meter to read and too quick for a circuit breaker to react. Essentially, the inertia of the meter movement made it appear that the current never exceed a particular amount while the average current actually vastly exceeded that amount.

Interestingly on the graph for input at Test 1, in which the device supposedly entered self sustaining mode for 15 mins, the input has lots of spikes. For Test 2 where no self-sustained mode was achieved, the input doesn't have them.

Page 6 of Levi Rossi report
Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
 
Interestingly on the graph for input at Test 1, in which the device supposedly entered self sustaining mode for 15 mins, the input has lots of spikes. For Test 2 where no self-sustained mode was achieved, the input doesn't have them.

Page 6 of Levi Rossi report
Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

My goodness. I was expecting incompetence, but this is incompetence beyond my expectations.

The only power-in instrumentation is a "WATTS UP" power meter, a sort of cheap consumer grade device you'd buy at Home Depot when you're doing a home energy audit. It can't sample faster than once per second. There's no voltmeter. No ammeter. No oscilloscope. No true-power-measuring eddy current meter.

The H2 input was not monitored at all. No flowmeter, no bottle scale. Nothing. They report looking at the pressure gauge---by which they mean the coarse dial gauge on the high-pressure bottle---and seeing no change.

The only power-out instrumentation is a cup of water (collecting "steam") and, at the end of a long cool pipe, a relative humidity probe which they mistake for a "steam dryness" probe. (A steam dryness probe wouldn't do anything in that position even if you had one.)

And the data is presented primarily in the form of digital photos of a computer screen with graphs on it. What the heck?

So, yeah, I'll tell you exactly what is going on. They pumped 1kW of electric power into their thingamabob. The unmetered hydrogen did some PV work too, and probably some chemistry, but that's not the big problem. Their ordinary heat sources made some water boil. The boiling water contains a mix of steam and ordinary droplets---the steam takes energy to make, the droplets basically don't. This cloud ran down their pipe, condensing all the way, trickled past past their indifferent "steam quality probe". They then imagine that all of the water had been boiled, and calculate the energy required. Unsurprisingly, this number is much greater than the electric power consumed.
 
Last edited:
Rossi = thermally induced exothermic self discharge of NiMH battery?

Considering above discussion that power output could be overestimated up to 7 times because of difference between vaporization and just reaching 100C, it brings to power output in the range of existing power sources. A set of suspicious coincidences is pointing towards using nickel-metal hydride batteries, which are used in innovative way.

Instead of just discharging them directly, they can be overheated to about 100-110C which will cause accelerated internal self discharge through direct reaction between H2 developed from metal-hydride anode and NiO(OH) cathode. This self discharge causes large heat dissipation, basically entire energy of the battery is dissipated as heat instead of electricity.

NiMH energy density is about 300Wh / L, so considering that most of the blue box shown in the presentation is filled with batteries, it would account for enough energy (considering 7 times underestimation it would be just 1.7kW needed for 30 min presentation.
Using thermally induced self-discharge would also account for about 30 min delay - because thermal time constant of all batteries is about 30 min due to large mass and thermal capacity, it takes about 30 min to heat it up to needed 110C temperature with 400W heater.

Another coincidence. From Giuseppe Levi report
"The basic observable elements are an horizontal metallic tube (approximate length 70 cm, diameter 20 cm, 22 L volume, 30 kg weight as a guess-estimate".

Why is it so heavy? According to Rossi, apparatus includes lead shielding to shield radiation. However, very accurate measurements of neutrons and gamma radiation in the same Levi report showed no radiation whatsoever.
Levi also explained that lead shielding can not completely hide radiation,
only reduce, so absence of radiation outide shielding means that there
is no radiation inside either.
So could it be that so called lead shielding is just an excuse for
the weight of batteries? Quick check - 30 kg * 80Wh/kg (NiMH energy density) gives 2.4kWh which would allow to produce 4.8 kW output for half
hour demonstration - more than needed to account for 7 times reduced
power estimate. The same batteries would have volume of 2.4kWh/300Wh/l = 8 L. This is well within 22 L volume estimate and gives
enough space for heater and water pipes.

This elegant apparatus would exhibit the same behavior of Rossi demonstration unit, and, conveniently, it would even be rechargeable! By simple switching wires from heater to battery string terminals, they can be recharged for the next demonstration!

Care should be taken not to allow overheating above 140C where NiO(OH) decomposes with oxygen release and whole thing can blow up. That is where the need of very accurate external temperature control and water flow control comes in. Btw operating battery in such way is extremely dangerous as thermal run-away is possible, so all the participants of this demonstrations might have been exposed to mortal danger.

Hopefully these considerations are just a coincidence and Rossy device is a real thing.
But for any prospective investor I would absolutely require long continuous run test (above 24 hrs) and inspection of the volume/weight of the inside of the device to exclude above mechanism.

Note that making apparatus larger (say 1MW) does not eliminate above
"NiMH thermal self-discharger" - it is perfectly scalable to any size! Only
long continuous run-time with controlled device size/weight can assure against such contraption.

Regards,
Yevgen
 
.

Regards,
Yevgen

Thanks for the analysis Yevgen. Your comment about the radiation is appropriate---in particular, in any actual gamma-shelding application, 30kg of lead is practically nothing. That's three bricks' worth. If I gave you a millicurie cobalt-60 point source and told you to shield it down to undetectability, you'd start with 100 kg and go up from there.
 
Lead shielding can reduce radiation to the point where it appears as noise in the background count. Alpha and beta radiation should be completely absorbed by the shielding and reactor walls. The physics of the reaction is not yet known, so predictions of photon energies and what shielding would be necessary to keep it in the noise is without basis.
Given the water flow rates and heat flux required to make steam, the internal temperatures would likely be significantly greater than 140C. Check steam tables for steam at one atm and a temperature of 102C to determine saturation. The "seven times" underestimation is a stretch because steam was present at 102C not merely water at 100C.
 
Lead shielding can reduce radiation to the point where it appears as noise in the background count. Alpha and beta radiation should be completely absorbed by the shielding and reactor walls. The physics of the reaction is not yet known, so predictions of photon energies and what shielding would be necessary to keep it in the noise is without basis.
Given the water flow rates and heat flux required to make steam, the internal temperatures would likely be significantly greater than 140C. Check steam tables for steam at one atm and a temperature of 102C to determine saturation. The "seven times" underestimation is a stretch because steam was present at 102C not merely water at 100C.

It takes quite a bit of shielding to reduce gamma flux down to background. A good rule of thumb is 2 inches (5cm) of lead will reduce the gammas to 10% of the original flux.

Saying the physics of this reaction isn't known is incorrect...that becomes an argument from ignorance. This type of reaction has been studied extensively in accelerators around the world--this has been described by several people here. It is very easy to measure gamma energy. A scintillation detector can accurately measure the energy of the photons. This would be a first step for safety...prevent killing the operators. Since the measurements indicated nothing above background, this would indicate no nuclear reactions taking place.

glenn
 
It takes quite a bit of shielding to reduce gamma flux down to background. A good rule of thumb is 2 inches (5cm) of lead will reduce the gammas to 10% of the original flux.

Saying the physics of this reaction isn't known is incorrect...that becomes an argument from ignorance. This type of reaction has been studied extensively in accelerators around the world--this has been described by several people here. It is very easy to measure gamma energy. A scintillation detector can accurately measure the energy of the photons. This would be a first step for safety...prevent killing the operators. Since the measurements indicated nothing above background, this would indicate no nuclear reactions taking place.

glenn

The physics of the reaction is not known because the reaction is not known. All that is known is that more energy appears to come out than goes in. Assuming high energy gamma would be emitted and then concluding that since none had been measured that no nuclear reactions are taking place is the logical fallacy.
 
Except the energy levels of the alleged tranformations are well know and the energy they would release are well known, this is NOT a mystery, You should try to understand much of the discussion above rather than just dismissing it with a hand wave. Your alleged argument is addressed in several posts.

ETA:

So when someone says 'it would take this much lead to produce that effect', do you really think you can dismiss that?
 
Last edited:
The physics of the reaction is not known because the reaction is not known. All that is known is that more energy appears to come out than goes in. Assuming high energy gamma would be emitted and then concluding that since none had been measured that no nuclear reactions are taking place is the logical fallacy.

What logical fallacy would that be? Your claim is still an argument from ignorance. Nuclear reactions like this would produce a fairly wide range of energetic gammas and X-rays. Not finding any is a sure indication that nothing nuclear is happening.

you can run the stuff yourself to see if this is "unknown". Link:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/exfor/exfor00.htm

glenn
 
Lead shielding can reduce radiation to the point where it appears as noise in the background count. Alpha and beta radiation should be completely absorbed by the shielding and reactor walls. The physics of the reaction is not yet known, so predictions of photon energies and what shielding would be necessary to keep it in the noise is without basis.
Given the water flow rates and heat flux required to make steam, the internal temperatures would likely be significantly greater than 140C. Check steam tables for steam at one atm and a temperature of 102C to determine saturation. The "seven times" underestimation is a stretch because steam was present at 102C not merely water at 100C.

Main problem with the thermal balance calculation is that the rate of outgoing
water flow is unknown (there was no meter for outgoing water), but it is known that water was continuously out-flowing because at the end of the test reaction was quenched by increased water flow, as described by Levi.
So it means that not all water was converting into steam and correspoindingly we don't really know how much steam there was. We only know that water was heated to 100C and that it was boiling. But how much was boiling off is a complete mystery. So based on absence of loud
audible signs of 12kW of steam coming out the reasonable assumption is
that ration of water converted to steam to water heated to 100C was negligible and therefore comes 7 times underestimation.

Btw if you check the power estimate for the 30kg NiMH batteries power, 7 times underestimation is not needed. Batteries would give 4.2kW for 30 min,
so we only need about 3 times underestimation to get Rossi's system behaviour withing the range of this "battery thermal self-discharger".
That allows for quite a bit of steam formation that would give enough
pressure to explain slight temperature difference.

Regards,
Yevgen
 
What logical fallacy would that be? Your claim is still an argument from ignorance. Nuclear reactions like this would produce a fairly wide range of energetic gammas and X-rays. Not finding any is a sure indication that nothing nuclear is happening.

you can run the stuff yourself to see if this is "unknown". Link:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/exfor/exfor00.htm

glenn

Nuclear reactions like what? No one knows what they are. There are reaction pathways that Sergio Focardi proposed but one cannot assume that they are correct. You can say that based on known physics, the proposed pathways would produce ca. 500 KEV gamma and that serious shielding would be needed to reduce these to background levels. You cannot say that because such gamma rays are not seen that the reaction cannot be nuclear in nature.
As I have said previously, you are assuming a pathway that is one of many possibilities but not seeing evidence of that pathway does not preclude the other possibilities.
Look up your list of logical fallacies and see where your argument fits.
 
Evgen,
If you are claiming that the control boxes were the energy sources, there could be any energy storage media within them. If you are claiming that the reactor was a NiH battery, then it was too small to produce the power required. The internal temperature of the reactor is much higher than 150C.
Regardless, this will be resolved with a long term test of weeks or months. It either is real or it isn't and basing conclusions on the information at hand is premature.
 
Evgen,
If you are claiming that the control boxes were the energy sources, there could be any energy storage media within them. If you are claiming that the reactor was a NiH battery, then it was too small to produce the power required. The internal temperature of the reactor is much higher than 150C.
Regardless, this will be resolved with a long term test of weeks or months. It either is real or it isn't and basing conclusions on the information at hand is premature.

The whole point of my analysis is that just the reactor size and weight allow to explain the whole observed energy output. Here is the experpt from my above analysis:
**************************
From Giuseppe Levi report
"The basic observable elements are an horizontal metallic tube (approximate length 70 cm, diameter 20 cm, 22 L volume, 30 kg weight as a guess-estimate".

Why is it so heavy? According to Rossi, apparatus includes lead shielding to shield radiation. However, very accurate measurements of neutrons and gamma radiation in the same Levi report showed no radiation whatsoever.
Levi also explained that lead shielding can not completely hide radiation,
only reduce, so absence of radiation outide shielding means that there
is no radiation inside either.
So could it be that so called lead shielding is just an excuse for
the weight of batteries? Quick check - 30 kg * 80Wh/kg (NiMH energy density) gives 2.4kWh which would allow to produce 4.8 kW output for half
hour demonstration - more than needed to account for 7 times reduced
power estimate. The same batteries would have volume of 2.4kWh/300Wh/l = 8 L. This is well within 22 L volume estimate and gives
enough space for heater and water pipes.
***************************************

Regarding the temperature inside, it is actually unknown - there was absolutely no access available for Levi to measure
anything inside - only output water temperature was measured, and it was 100C. So it is consistent with laminar water flow along large surface heaters (such as batteries under thermally induced self-discharge) which temperature is not much higher than 100C. Btw it is technically very difficult to water-cool at atmospheric pressure anything which has surface temperature much higher than 100C because of extreme bubble formation and cavitation that disrupt heat flow and build virtual "blanket" between water flow and surface. Think about a drop of water fallen on a hot fry-pan.

Regards,
Yevgen
 
You cannot say that because such gamma rays are not seen that the reaction cannot be nuclear in nature.

As I have said previously, you are assuming a pathway that is one of many possibilities but not seeing evidence of that pathway does not preclude the other possibilities.

Several comments.

"One of many pathways"? What makes you think that there are nuclear-energy-releasing pathways that don't include high-energy radiation? Levi's claim, if true, requires that nuclear binding energy (several MeV stored in a non-ground-state configuration of a ~5 fm ball of protons and neutrons) is released somehow---it has to stop being binding energy and turn into thermal energy. If you know of a list of options other than high-energy radiation, I'd like to hear it.

Since Levi knows that there is no radiation from his device, why did he stuff it with lead?

On logical fallacies: your statement is equivalent to "Harry Potter really does fly on a broomstick. You keep citing 'gravity' and 'lift' and 'aerodynamics' but that just shows that you are assuming a particular mechanism."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom