Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel
Sifferkol.se ^ | 10/8/2014 | Giuseppe Levi

Posted on 10/08/2014 11:12:32 AM PDT by toast

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: PapaBear3625

In this test a higher COP was sacrificed in order to have a stable reaction and simplify the calculations.

As I said before, it will take some engineering and a better understanding of the theory but the COP will increase.


21 posted on 10/08/2014 12:12:52 PM PDT by toast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

You don’t need ‘permission’ of mainstream science, but when the archive known as arXiv blocks any science papers on it, and when scientists are demoted who investigate it, and when your source of funding dries up if you pursue it, you more or less need their permission (unless you can build in your garage on your own dime).


22 posted on 10/08/2014 12:17:22 PM PDT by wattsgnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: toast

“Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras.”

That doesn’t seem like it would be a very exact method of measurement to me.


23 posted on 10/08/2014 12:19:04 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wattsgnu

That’s what Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard did.


24 posted on 10/08/2014 12:22:16 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it earned it." --Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half.

That is a bit hotter than I like my coffee (or aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, and others)

25 posted on 10/08/2014 12:23:22 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: toast
LENR (cold fusion) is confirmed as a real energy source.

Baloney. If a paper gets published in "Physical Review Letters" I might start to think there's something to it. Until then, I don't see this as rewriting the "Standard Model" of physics.
26 posted on 10/08/2014 12:26:28 PM PDT by ZX12R (Never forget the heroes of Benghazi, who were abandoned to their deaths by Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

:) very good point. and Wosniak and Jobs and Robert Goddard and few others. It is my preferred method as well, until I have something to show.


27 posted on 10/08/2014 12:27:21 PM PDT by wattsgnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. That is a bit hotter than I like my coffee (or aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, and others)

This thing will never be producing electricity, just like it's entire history. How many more years will this be dragged along by you Rossi sychophants. There is no such thing as magic.
28 posted on 10/08/2014 12:35:42 PM PDT by ZX12R (Never forget the heroes of Benghazi, who were abandoned to their deaths by Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

Sort of like Edison’s approach but with more severe consequences than pungent odors or burnt fingers.


29 posted on 10/08/2014 12:37:25 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: scouter
What does this mean for the laymen among us?

The abstract says that "The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh." At a conversion factor of about 33 kWh/gal, this is equivalent to the energy in about 45,000 gallons of gasoline, or about 1.3 million automobile miles at 30 miles per gallon.

The total fuel supplied was one gram, and not all of it was consumed/converted. There was no detectable radiation (other than heat and light) outside of the container. The "ash" remaining from the reaction was not radioactive.

Safe energy from almost nothing. What's not to like?

30 posted on 10/08/2014 12:40:20 PM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Sort of like Edison’s approach but with more severe consequences than pungent odors or burnt fingers.

I don't know if Rossi is legit or a scamster as others have accused him to be. But I think it's admirable that he seems to be pretty open about what he's doing.

Although I suspect he probably tried to develop it under wraps with the intention of waiting until he had a commercially viable device, but then found he didn't have the scientific ability necessary to figure out what was really going on and was basically stuck. It does explain his reluctance to release all the details - he's probably hoping others come up with enough theory that he can take it to the next level and commercialize it. If he releases all the details, then he loses control. Just my take...
31 posted on 10/08/2014 12:59:10 PM PDT by chrisser (When do we get to tell the Middle East to stop clinging to their guns and religion?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

I noticed that your name / page indicated a motorcycle that can do well over 100 mph. It took a lot of technology to build that bike. I could identify several technologies used in it’s manufacture that did not exist 100 years ago. To those that were born 200 years ago, that bike would look a lot like magic.

If the e-Cat is not something that you want to be apart of ... fine, don’t invest, don’t research, don’t give it another thought. Right now, it seems like a good way to show that traditional chemistry and physics do not yet have all the answers. It may not prove to be anything more than a tool to explore some exotic form of matter transition.


32 posted on 10/08/2014 1:04:17 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: scouter
At a conversion factor of about 33 kWh/gal, this is equivalent to the energy in about 45,000 gallons of gasoline, or about 1.3 million automobile miles at 30 miles per gallon.

I completely blew this calculation.

Revision in process.

33 posted on 10/08/2014 1:07:09 PM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: toast

I posted this in “front page news”. Not “breaking news”.
It has since been removed from all sidebars.

Is this how posts are sentenced to wither away?

This is a legitimate scientific paper that shows strong evidence of a world changing discovery.

But I guess the mods deem it worthy of censorship.


34 posted on 10/08/2014 1:09:09 PM PDT by toast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

Sounds like some of my xfiles work at Wright Patterson, lol. Exothermic fuels are my specialty, haha. Sounds like more research money wanted, milk it for a twenty years, federal pension type of guy.


35 posted on 10/08/2014 1:10:40 PM PDT by OftheOhio (never could dance but always could kata - Romeo company)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

A good manager and business person would hire an expert (under an NDA of course).

An expert might be able break the log jam.

Or it might be that the next level, proof of concept, is expensive. One cannot be too greedy. If it is legit, someone else will eventually copy it. And something is better than nothing.


36 posted on 10/08/2014 1:12:55 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

I would definitely agree. But people don’t always behave rationally...


37 posted on 10/08/2014 1:14:19 PM PDT by chrisser (When do we get to tell the Middle East to stop clinging to their guns and religion?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OftheOhio

Could be.

A fool and his money....


38 posted on 10/08/2014 1:14:21 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty
The mistake was an improper conversion of megawatt-hours to kilowatt-hours.

1.5 MWh is 1500 kWh (or a constant net output of about 2 kW over the 768 hours of the experiment). Using the same conversion factor of 33.41 kWh/gal, this is equivalent to 45 gallons of gasoline, or 1,300 miles at 30 mpg..

Still, a remarkable amount of energy from 1 gram of material, but not the ridiculous amount I originally calculated. My apologies.

39 posted on 10/08/2014 1:16:34 PM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

Rossi has a backer. Industrial Heat has purchased the technology and is developing production devices. They claim to have a 1MW system in operation at a customer’s facility.

They are not currently seeking investors as far as I have heard.


40 posted on 10/08/2014 1:24:33 PM PDT by toast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson