Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
BenBurch said:
Because he COULD not.

All of this could be cleared up (one way or another) by simply giving me one, and I will test it in a professional and competent manner.
Click to expand...

What're the odds against THAT being allowed?






You might discover their most Jealously-Guarded secret of all!

That NOTHING extraordinary at all happens.:D

Dave
 
unclep2k said:
True, but he did get an energy gain. He doesn't know what Rossi uses for a catalyst. He is doing experiments trying to raise the output.
Click to expand...

No, that is not shown at all, for all you know it could be considered a chemical reaction and not some 'megawatt power station for real cheap' claim.

Energy gain in terms of what, ordinary chemistry?
 
Crawdaddy said:
Yevgen,
1) The reduction of zirconium oxide in hydrogen is an endothermic reaction.

2) It has never been observed at the temperatures in the ahern experiment.

3) the paper you cited only shows a partial reduction of the oxide to ZrO1.x and then only after the extremely thin film (2.6nm) has been bombarded with ions from a hydrogen plasma (typically these ions can have energies in the keV range).
Click to expand...

1) Regardless if reaction is endothermic or isothermic (e.g the sign of dH)
its overall energy effect depends on the conditions, basically on the sign of
dG = dH - TdS.
As long as dG is negative, reaction will take place and will release heat.
In this particular case, even though dH is positive, the very large dS due
to gaseous products will make dG negative at certain temperature. If that
would not be the case, there would be no reaction products detected in the paper I cited.

2) Experiment was run at several temperatures and in particular at temperature. You might want to re-read your sources. From the Ahern write-up:
***
After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a
constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at
100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C
after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while
still at 530C overnight.
***
From the paper I cited:
***
Heating to 425°C yielded a reduced suboxide, ZrOx,
***
So in fact, they used even lower temperatures than Ahern...

3) It was showing a partial reduction exactly because they used plasma - there was low pressure H2 and short time exposure. The purpose of the paper
was not to reduce the whole ZrO2 but to investigate the reaction. But the very
fact that there is a reaction at this temperature raises the red flag to
the whole assumption of non-chemical energy release.

Speaking of reduction, I did not want to, like you say, "state the obvious", but since you insist, we should also consider reduction of NiO2 and CuO that have to be present after prolonged heating of the mix in the oxigen atmosphere. Will you argue about them too? These reaction will not only take place at high
temperature, but are even exothermic by themselves having negative dH:

***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****
So, why again we are surprised that this mix of oxides will produce heat when
reduced by hydrogen? H2 / NiO2 is effectively the energy storing couple used
in NiMH batteries...

Regards,
Yevgen
 
Yevgen Barsukov

1) Regardless if reaction is endothermic or isothermic (e.g the sign of dH)
its overall energy effect depends on the conditions, basically on the sign of
dG = dH - TdS.
As long as dG is negative, reaction will take place and will release heat.
In this particular case, even though dH is positive, the very large dS due
to gaseous products will make dG negative at certain temperature. If that
would not be the case, there would be no reaction products detected in the paper I cited.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely wrong. Endothermic reactions store energy in the form of potential energy. The reduction of ZrO2 lowers the temperature of the reaction vessel. The change in entropy in the reaction is low. There is no change in the number of gas phase molecules.

2) Experiment was run at several temperatures and in particular at temperature. You might want to re-read your sources. From the Ahern write-up:
***
After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a
constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at
100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C
after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while
still at 530C overnight.
***
From the paper I cited:
***
Heating to 425°C yielded a reduced suboxide, ZrOx,
***
So in fact, they used even lower temperatures than Ahern...
Click to expand...

You have failed to understand your own source. The observed reduction of ZrO2 (on the order of micrograms/mol under normal circumstances) was enhanced in this paper by a pre-bombardment with high energy hydrogen ions from a plasma. Typically plasma ions have energies in the 100eV range. In case you are unaware, an atom with 1eV has a temperature of around 11000 kelvin. You cannot compare the reduction observed in this experiment with the ahern measurements because of the exposure of the thin film to extremely highly energetic hydrogen ions. Of course this is a moot point because the reaction has a positive enthalpy in any case!

3) It was showing a partial reduction exactly because they used plasma - there was low pressure H2 and short time exposure. The purpose of the paper
was not to reduce the whole ZrO2 but to investigate the reaction. But the very
fact that there is a reaction at this temperature raises the red flag to
the whole assumption of non-chemical energy release.
Click to expand...

The generation of oxygen vacancies in metal oxide under plasma treatment with a post plasma treatment annealing step is similar to the ahern experiment!? Absolutely false.
 
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Still can't post links, sorry. Quote from the above:

Bologna, Italia — Here is a quick status report of my visit to Andrea Rossi’s showroom on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at his invention which he calls the Energy Catalyzer.

In addition to Rossi, I also came to speak with Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a current member of the University of Bologna department of physics. All three have been actively involved in the experiments and promotion of the E-Cat.
Click to expand...
 
Aam said:
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Still can't post links, sorry. Quote from the above:
Click to expand...

I just read the article at the link and it's very carefully written to say, in essence, that no evidence was presented that supports any of the claims. Well worth a read to get a flavour of what appears to be going (or not going) on.
 
Aam

I just read the article at the link and it's very carefully written to say, in essence, that no evidence was presented that supports any of the claims. Well worth a read to get a flavour of what appears to be going (or not going) on.
Click to expand...

Krivit's thinking is certainly moving in the right direction! See #1448 p 37, where I report his earlier credulity regarding Rossi.

Quote:
If confirmed, the Rossi-Focardi development would be a significant practical development for the LENR field. Despite my earlier misgivings about Rossi’s Web site promotion, I am upgrading my skepticism about the Rossi-Focardi device to cautious optimism. ( ... )
My confidence in the Rossi-Focardi work comes not only from Celani’s report but also, in large part, from my lab visits with Piantelli in 2007 and 2009. ( ... ) As far as Rossi’s story of a self-sustaining reactor, I am inclined to believe it. It is very similar to a story that Piantelli told me[/quote]about a self sustaining device allegedly created by Pianatelli, which unfortunately "exploded"
And I have seen the melted metal in Piantelli’s lab.
Click to expand...

Where Rossi went wrong with Krivit may be not only that he didn't show his visitor any melted metal (which Krivit appears usually to accept in lieu of data) but - oh, horror! - he took the coffee machine away.
 
Aam said:
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Still can't post links, sorry. Quote from the above:
Click to expand...

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011...views-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio.

I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.

By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my calculations which displayed one to two orders of magnitude less enthalpy if the measurements had been made volumetrically, he assured me that the measurements had been measured by mass
Click to expand...

Levi’s Jan. 21 report stated that Galantini used a device to check that the steam was “completely dry,” however, Levi did not say if, in fact, that Galantini measured completely dry steam. Levi also did not provide clear details about Galantini’s method.

The Essen/Kullander April 3 report of the March 29 E-Cat experiment does provide some details about how the steam was measured for its liquid content. I am in the process of evaluating this information to assess if it reflects a mass or volumetric basis for the measurements. If any readers believe that the given information provides clarity on the method used during the Essen/Kullander experiment, please send me an e-mail right away.

The entire uncertainty about vaporization enthalpy would be moot if the experiments were run with a higher flow rate to keep the output temperature below boiling. Levi apparently did this on Feb. 10-11 and he provided information about his final results to reporter Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik.

Levi has not however, provided Lewan, or anybody for that matter, any information about his data. On Wednesday, I asked Levi for this data, for the second time. This time, he agreed. Levi promised to send me either raw or formatted data from the Feb. 10-11 experiment by next Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Unclep2k

Why does he need to play hard ass to get the right questions answered? Faced with a soft ass enquirer, would Rossi give the right answers to the wrong questions or the wrong answers to the right questions? If so, why?
 
Dr. Levi's response to Krivit's post:

Dear Mr. Krivit

Carefully I have read your preliminary report on your travel to Bologna .
Your report Clearly Demonstrates That You have not understood anything of what you have and what we have seen you Explained.
First of all the story about the steam.
As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics Years Ago.This Means That I have totally Understood the difference Between residual water in steam as fraction of the mass or volume.
As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain you:
1) The plots are showing you where you can find well known and Them in Any manual of physical chemistry.
When You apply the measure the quantity of steam present as% of VOLUME.


2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist That Was in charge, have done to measure as percent of MASS.


As Professor Zanchini has told you the Same Day We Met, one of the informations you have crutial omitted from your preliminary report, fraction of water in the steam, Measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of energy in a Measured linear way.


So our analysis and our calculation is correct.


Because you:
Part of You Had omitted information, insulted me (and my University) Trying to say that I'm not prepared in my field, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to know to Obtain undisclosed date,
I Will not Send You Any Other information.


Regards,
Dr. G. Levi
Click to expand...

http//22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html

Still can't post links, sorry.
 
Crawdaddy said:
Yevgen Barsukov



This is absolutely wrong. Endothermic reactions store energy in the form of potential energy. The reduction of ZrO2 lowers the temperature of the reaction vessel. The change in entropy in the reaction is low. There is no change in the number of gas phase molecules.
Click to expand...

Good point about the number of molecules. Also, by looking closer at the papers on ZrO2 + H2 I also found that H2O is not even formed in this reaction, instead H+ is getting trapped. This is indeed
going to be endothermic. Scrap that argument - the ZrO2 will stay
unchanged in this environment.

Now, lets come back to the other portion of my message that you did not
comment on, regarding Cu and Ni oxides which reaction with H2 is clearly going be be exothermic.
From the article:
***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****
So, why again we are surprised that this mix of oxides will produce heat when
reduced by hydrogen? H2 / NiO2 is effectively the energy storing couple used
in NiMH batteries...
Do you see any problem with this logic?

Regards,
Yevgen
 
Yevgen Barsukov said:
Good point about the number of
***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****
Click to expand...

Here are a very visual example of CuO formation in air and reduction with H2,
to avoid any complex discussions:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/REDOXCU/PAGE1.HTM

CuO+H2-->Cu + H2O is going to be exothermic, because:
H2(g) + 1/2 O2(g) -> H2O(g) dHof = -286 kJ/mol
Cu(s) + 1/2 O2(g) -> CuO(s) dHof = -157 kJ/mol

e.g for CuO + H2 the dH = -286-(-157)= -129 kJ/mol

Regards,
Yevgen
 
BenBurch said:
In other words; "You are asking questions that would expose the hoax if I answered them, so I will pretend to be upset with you so I can ignore you in the future."
Click to expand...

Does that mean the blog writer isn't going to get the data he was promised for "Wednesday"?

Science is such a frustrating enterprise. All the collisions of egos and emotion... how is progress ever made at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom