Is anyone listening?

On March 22 at CERN* in Geneva Swizerland, two top scientists presented their Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in LENR.  But is the scientific world listening?

See: Francesco Celani and Yogendra Srivastava  source from (CERN document server)

I must admit I am becoming rather cynical.  I am not cynical of the phenomenon of LENR, I am cynical of the scientific community’s willingness to get past “so what”.

I believe that the real issue is this:  In 1989 the scientific community rushed to judgement on the Pons, Fleischmann announcement.  Now the scientific community must admit that it was wrong.  I think they are very unwilling to go there.  Humility is a hard pill to swallow.

So, if top end scientists presenting at top end scientific forums about well researched and published findings cannot break through the “pathological science” barrier, what will?  I believe that the only thing that will is the Home Depot effect.

Go Rossi!  Go Defkalion!

*CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is one of the world’s largest and most respected centres for scientific research. Its business is fundamental physics, (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/About-en.html)

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , ,

93 Responses to “Is anyone listening?”

  1. Roger Bird Says:

    Did anyone attend the CERN meeting? I am sure that that could be determined. I doubt that very many people attended.

    I would prefer that no one attend. I would prefer that mainstream hot fusionists be caught with their pants down rather than they recover themselves before Rossi or Defkalion or someone else starts selling working units at Home Depot or Lowe’s or some other home improvement mega-store. I want mainstream science to pay for their unscientific, cruel, and stupid attitude. It is not only Pons and Fleishmann that they have wronged. The history of science is strewn with heroes and reputations that have been trashed because mainstream scientists are a childish lot that behave like middle schoolers on the playground.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – if you watched it, the seats were very sparsely filled (or perhaps no-one wanted to be seen to attend, so they all sat outside camera view). I saw three people and a few disembodied other voices – maybe 6 or 7 attended.

      Still, given that it was at CERN, it’s got to raise the awareness a bit.

    • kwhilborn Says:

      At the end they scanned the first few rows and we saw about 20 people, but the applause sounded closer to over 50 in attendance. I saw the live broadcast.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I’ve watched the whole thing again and caught the bits I missed. The applause sounded like quite a few more than we saw, and seemed enthusiastic, anyway.

        The really interesting bit was Celani’s experiment using multi-plated wire, where he calculated the energy density to be around 3 times that of a fission reactor. Unfortunately it exploded, so it may not be a good idea to run it at that rate….

  2. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Message to Big Physicist: “Your proctologist called, he found your head.”

    BTW, the sub-specialist, proctologist, has been rendered largely obsolete by the lowly rubber band. The bread & butter for proctologists used to be hemorrhoids. Now hemorrhoids can usually be eliminated by slipping a tight rubber band around the base of the lesion.

  3. Gregoryyc Says:

    Sad to hear an idiot demanding Celani to change conclusion because there was no persentation of reports that did not work. His main complaint is why Celani picked only those “working” experiments ?

    So to this freaggin nut head where most Main stream scientists belong to says setting a camp fire when raining isn’t possible because he can’t do it. How in the world this kind hillbilly is allowed to walk into a meeting like that ??????

    Bicycle can’t run because I can’t fix it. Ha ha ha
    I never had diarrhea so it not possible for you to have it. Ha ah ha.
    No dog will ever bite because my dog never bites . Ha ha ha
    Are these the screwy kinds that receive billion dollars to build fusion reactors ????????? There got to be a some serious sort of fraud going on .. … I think these are the real crack pots pretending to know shit when all they are doing is scamming to steal easy living off our tax dollars.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yes, Celani was becoming quite annoyed with that.

      My mum has difficulty lighting a wood fire. The solution to that problem was getting her only pine and not oak. Even when she builds the fire wrong with oversize gaps, it still works now. Maybe this is a reasonable analogy for LENR – we’ve not found the right fuel and we’re not getting the construction right yet.

      • brucefast Says:

        “Maybe this is a reasonable analogy for LENR – we’ve not found the right fuel and we’re not getting the construction right yet.”

        Yes. And the way to solve the problem is to get a lot of well funded minds working on the problem. Spending money here seems much more sensible than spending it on hot fusion — or cures for baldness.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I’m afraid that many govt funded scientists expend all their creative energy on writing grant requests.

      Since “The March of Dimes” succeeded in achieving themselves out of business, govt funded organizations have learned to keep their goal posts just beyond the horizon.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – In some ways I can really understand this. If you were about to lose your project and your job, and the prospects of getting another job would be slight (no research in your field) then you would also be anxious to keep the project you have. The failure is thus systemic, and I don’t know a way round it at the moment. Companies will do their research on things that seem useful to them, but this is really very directed research normally. I think 3M still allow their scientists/engineers 10% of their time on projects that are “blue-sky”, but I have not heard of other companies doing that. Normally it falls to governments and colleges to fund the fundamental research the rest rely on. In a money-constrained situation, those wilder projects are difficult to get funding for.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        The “Manhattan Project” worked because it was a life or death race with the Nazis to create the atomic bomb. Career protection and enhancement wasn’t a factor.

      • brucefast Says:

        And this is why the “pathological science” label is so devastating. If what you are trying to do is seen as right up there with: Martian “canals”, N-rays, polywater and water memory it becomes really hard to get funding. When the administrative money managers recognize that LENR is valid, then the “global warming” wing of their scientific constituents would likely give LENR drive like the “Manhattan Project” had — desperation.

  4. Brad Arnold Says:

    In the ebook “Secrets of E-Cat,” (Consulente Energia Publisher, 145 pages, 68 illustrations, Pdf format, 7 €, http://www.consulente-energia.com/cold-fusion-book-secrets-e-cat-by-mario-menichella-secret-ecat-andrea-rossi-focardi-energy-catalyzer.html ) author Mario Menichella says:

    “The modern history of cold fusion begins with the premature announcement made in the United States by the two electrochemical Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who in 1989 convened a press conference…there were numerous attempts to replicate (their) result, but for some years had little success, so that soon the question of cold fusion was labeled by the media and mainstream science as a “hoax.””

    Menichella continues, “The probably better experimental work…carried out in Siena since the early Nineties, by a group of physicists composed by Sergio Focardi (University of Bologna), Francesco Piantelli (University of Siena), Roberto Habel (University of Cagliari), but it did not lead to a system capable of generating useful amount of excess energy for normal industrial or domestic applications. In Siena, in fact, the three scientists – using hydrogen and nickel as the two only “ingredients” of the reaction, plus an appropriate amount of heat supplied to the system – managed to get out a double thermal energy than the electrical energy provided in input.”

    If they were getting 2x, why is it is preposterous that the LENR Ni-H exothermic reaction can’t be refined furthermore to get of 6x and get enought excess energy for normal industrial or domestic applications. Frankly, that seem like more worth pursuing than a cure for baldness.

    • brucefast Says:

      Brad, “that seem like more worth pursuing than a cure for baldness.”
      Love it!

      You have so hit the nail on the head with this post, Brad. There is no good reason that LENR has more trouble getting funding than the hot fusion boys have. LENR has the serous potential to make obsolete the debate about global warming. LENR has the serous potential of eliminating the second biggest motivation for war (outdone, of course, by religion.)

      The only thing that the scientific community should need to get excited by LENR is a COP of 1.01, in bursts, sporadically. They have had much more than that for a long time. The scientific community has been playing the fool on this one.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        Yeah, and I am going bald:) I’d rather heat my head on a cold winter night with a LENR reactor for pennies a day than grow grass on a busy highway.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Brad – look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17457098 for the soon-to-arrive cure for baldness.

      Piantelli’s patent is openly available. Since he got COP=2 from that design, using a block of nickel, then it is not unreasonable that a higher COP should be produced by using more surface area. By using the nanopowders you get that increase in surface area for the same weight of nickel, but of course you could also use foils or fine wires – you just need a bigger lump of nickel to start with. Solve the heat-transfer problems and you can build a reactor based on Piantelli’s work alone. With a bigger one, you should get a higher COP anyway.

      This is basically the reason why I think Rossi and Defkalion ought to have a working systems despite the bad indicators of them both. It’s not a large step from COP=2 using a block of Nickel, to COP=6 using nanopowders.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        While nickel powder (size does matter) is an improvement, to maximize the reaction the way Rossi did may need a catalyst and maybe a frequency modulator. Maybe even picking the isotopic composition of the nickel (probably not the hydrogen), and further treatment of the nickel is some esoteric manner. I mean Rossi did thousands of different combos – who knows where his intuition took him. Let me add, that somebody else may even stumble on an even better LENR Ni-H formula through intuition, even more extensive attempts, or by utilizing a deeper understanding of the physics.

        And, as you’ve pointed out – there is the engineering aspects like heat transfere. I mean the theoretical limit to the heat output of the reaction chamber is the melting point of the nickel powder – and it sounds like Rossi’s E-Cat is yielding substancially less heat than it’s reaction chamber is yielding. Maybe Defkalion’s Hyperion is going to yield higher heat- that is the Holy Grail to swap out the coal or natural gas or nuclear for LENR to power existing steam turbines. Man that would be GREAT (although obviously point of usage electricity generation will eventually be superior for consumers).

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Brad – the theoretical limit for Nickel is actually the softening temperature, where it will deform and thus let the Hydrogen atoms out of confinement. I haven’t found this data yet, but I would expect it to be around 750°C. The Edison approach (try loads of things to see which one works) is at the moment the only real way of finding a better fuel, though Celani seems to have used intuition to get his wire experiment the way he did. Since he has published his data, that helps others (such as Mitsubishi) to refine their techniques. He deserves a lot of credit for this.

        With the heat transfer problems solved, it would be much more efficient to run a huge LENR power station than the small ones we envisage for home use. Even using Piantelli’s design and scaling it up, we could right now get usable power levels. It seems strange that after over 20 years no-one has done that yet.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon, re using nickel wire: Would nickel wire screen be an improvement?

        My hunch is to try use nickel hydride nano-powder in a fluidized bed with another gas, preferably a catalyst gas blowing through the particle bed. Celani’s slide show mentions argon.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Well I guess that argon could not be a catalyst since it’s inert. Apparently it was used by Miley to treat nickel sheeting. Argon may be suitable for agitating and fluidizing nano-particles since it’s one of the denser inert gases.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – A wire screen would also work, with your fluidised bed idea. Use the gas as the heat-transfer medium – the problems with Rossi and Defkalion arise from trying to get heat through a powder.

        If you use pure Hydrogen, then any sparks will just produce atomic Hydrogen. If you add a small admixture of Argon, then a spark also produces sputtering which thus coats any particles near the spark with a thin coating of fresh metal. This may also produce dislocations in the lattice between the particle and its new coating, and dislocations are what concentrate the Hydrogen in the lattice. This is probably the reason for the Argon, even though it has not been stated as such. People aren’t going to tell us everything, after all.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon, what do you think of nickel hydride nano-powder? Can such a powder be made? That would put the hydrogen right where it needs to be and avoid the danger of gaseous hydrogen.
        ~~~~~~~~~
        Ukranian inventor, Profesor Bolotov, has developed a cold fusion system that utilizes the transmutation of zirconium (in the form of zirconium oxide) into other elements to produce energy. Bolotov’s engineer from Poland, Waldemar
        Mordkovitch, claims that with one version of his system, sixty watts of input could result in twenty kilowatts of output.

        http://pesn.com/2011/03/30/9501800_Zirconium_Flavored_Cold_Fusion_from_Poland/

        Zirconium has a melting point of 1855°C.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Oh, geez whiz wilkers, I am so excited. Not. I will need much more evidence, how ever soft and social before I am impressed enough to get excited.

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, this is interesting, but like everything relating to LENR it doesn’t seem to go anywhere. The test was given a year ago, if this was that great of a demonstration, as stated, where are the investors?
        Is anyone Listening? Seems to be a great question.
        Everywhere you look, strides are being made on shoe string budgets with “decent” proof being demonstrated. We all know that Rossi and DFK are wild cards (I personally believe in), but other demonstrations by reputable people and groups should be stirring the buzz around the world, but its not happening.

        To me the attacks are getting stronger and in some ways comical in their made up attempts. If you evaluate what they say its the same thing repeated in a dozen different ways. This is junk science by just some crazy people. No real proof on anything, but boy are they loud.

        Its obvious the money will not come from government and if left to a few Universities it will not happen or very long time lines will be present. To become something that creates a media buzz, it will take a product, but I’m not holding my breath on government approval any time soon.

        I think the only way to force this into visibility and usage is to have the recipe available so it can’t be stopped. If I read the blogs properly, it seems there are dozens if not hundreds of “garage shop inventors”, working to figure it out. I personally think there are many recipes for Fusion, we just need one to go mainstream to get the Genie out of the bottle for good.

        I look at the relentless nay Sayers and keep asking, why do they care so much. Is it big oil, government or the Power elite. Wish I knew how to figure this out or how to put pressure on MSM. Part of it can be seen by the goof ball at CERN, don’t rock the boat, don’t mess with my job. These are big issues but the Fusion power wave must occur for mankind to take a step forward.

        I think we have selective hearing.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bob, the patho-skeptics have an obsessive (read: sick) need to crush any feeling that is positive, like hope, enthusiasm, etc. I have seen it in other venues. The punishment for their bad behavior is that they never get to use the latest health discovery and they will be the last to benefit from LENR.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – Nickel Hydride nanopowder is relatively easy to make. You already buy it in those rechargeable NiMH batteries. Take Nickel nanopowder, de-gas it by heating in a vacuum, then pump in Hydrogen and the Nickel will absorb it. Run this de-gas (unload) and loading a few times to get the most possible Hydrogen absorbed – the internal pressure caused by the absorbed Hydrogen produces more defects in the surface and thus more places for the Hydrogen to go.

        To store Hydrogen in a solid form, people are currently using a Titanium-Iron alloy, which seems to be good at it. This avoids the need for high-pressure canisters of Hydrogen, and is probably what both Defkalion and Rossi are using in their devices. This technology was developed for Hydrogen-powered cars.

        On the Polish inventor, it looks like what he’s doing should work. It does produce a bit more radiation, if I remember correctly. I’ve no idea why it does not seem to have progressed in the last year.

        Bruce – I couldn’t agree more. I can’t see why no-one is listening, since it seems there are now a lot of methods of getting a reaction and producing energy, and most of them just need a bit more development to get them commercial.

        The “garage shop” will produce some viable open-source method, but these efforts are under-funded by definition, and some of the stuff needed is a bit hard to source so there will be less-than-ideal substitutes used. There’s a bit of catch-22 in this. Since the people doing it are not reputable scientists, no reputable scientist will trust their measurements or believe that it is true. Because they don’t believe it is true, no reputable scientist will run the experiments since he/she would thus lose their reputation. The same thing has been seen at various historic points in science, but at least nowadays we don’t actually torture people (like Galileo) to make them toe the line, they are just shunned (like P+F).

        What has happened in the past is that the new graduates who have heard the evidence and don’t “know” that it is impossible by current theory will make it work. This obviously takes a generation or so (30 years) so we’re due a revolution in about another 5-10 years. The various attacks on it will stop once a cheap and easy way to perform LENR is commercialised. After this, a lot more methods will be found and the cost and effort needed to build a reactor will go down – I predict we’ll get chip-sized ones made by someone like Intel, but first Intel will need to see that it is possible and profitable.

        I reckon that one way or another, this year we’ll see some real progress. Hopefully it’ll be enough to convince Peter Thieberger, since if we can convince him then the standards of proof should be good enough to convince a manufacturer to mass-produce them. After that there will be a rush to make them world-wide. It will still take a few years after that until the theory catches up, but the new paradigm will be part of the known physics by then, and undeniable.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Yeah, I thought about the fact that nothing new had been reported by Bolotov but I thought I heard Celani mention Zirconium twice during the Cern lecture. And with its high melting point there should be a higher COP potential.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – Celani was talking about Zirconium Oxide as a filler material to dilute the catalyst being used – as far as I could tell he was not intending it as the reactive material. Zirconium oxide can be used as the ‘inert’ powder that is plated with a thin layer of Pd or Pt, thus giving you a cheaper catalyst – the same surface area of the precious metal using much less of it.

        It would be nice to get a transcript of that lecture to check the odd bits of what he said. There’s a lot of information there.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Leave it to me to be confused about what I think I hear.(I wear hearing aids)

        I’m apt to mistake a woman talking about her cubic zirconia, for a female physicist.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Just to clarify on sintering temperature – I’d thought around 750°C, but it seems that a temperature as low as 600°C for around 80 minutes (under compression) is used for making sintered Nickel wicks. The upper temperature for use of Nickel nanopowders used in a packed format must thus be below this. It is possible that using Iggy’s method of fluidised bed that a higher temperature may be attained, but this is going to be a more complex machine with high-temperature Hydrogen pumps.

  5. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Simon, to avoid the internal complexity of the fluidized bed, could you devise a “tumbling reactor? This would keep the powder moving and help distribute the heat to the entire reactor wall. You could have brush type electrical contacts at the ends of the reactor.

    Next problem would be how to harvest the heat. You could immerse all of the reactor in water but this might short out you electrical connection. Or you could immerse just the bottom part of the reactor. You could tumble the reactor within a stationary water jacket but you would need good seals to protect the electrical contacts and to withstand the steam pressure. Rather than have electrical contacts could you use electrical induction to drive tumble motor?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – this sounds even harder to manufacture. Admittedly I do think in terms of how I personally would make things with the tools I have (small lathe, mill/drill, welder and a few less common things) but I think the fluidised bed idea is the simplest to implement. OK, it needs high-temperature pumps/fans, but they are not too difficult. The main problem will be, as always, getting the heat out sufficiently quickly, and using the Hydrogen as both the reactant and the heat-transfer medium would be fine. It’s easy to control, too. Lag-times on reading the temperature would be minimal, and so a fine control of conditions could be achieved. Since Hydrogen is pretty hard to seal against anyway, putting in any moving seals and expecting them to last any time at all without leaking is asking too much, so the only way to design it is with static seals that can be bolted down tight. The heat-exchanger is easy to seal anyway, and by controlling the flows though it you control the temperature of the Hydrogen fed back in to the reactor.

      For this method, I would expect that a mixture of say 5-10% Argon with the Hydrogen would be useful, and the reaction would be started using high-voltage sparks and stopped using a strong magnetic field to clump the Nickel together. Instead of pumping the gas through to fluidise, you could use a fast stirrer to keep it moving, but then you’d lose the heat-transfer in the Hydrogen so there would again be a problem getting the full usable temperature out of it. With the fluidised bed you could run an input gas temperature of maybe 500°C and an output temperature of maybe 550°C. This looks like being the maximum usable temperature for Nickel before it starts to soften and possibly sinter together.

      Although your idea is better, and about the simplest I’ve heard for a full-temperature and scalable design, the engineering for it is not simple. It would take a while to settle on a precise design, and several months to build the prototype to test it. This could of course be quicker if you have a lot of money to throw at it or a tame engineering company (about the same thing, really). If it works at the 100g of Nickel range, then you could then scale it to 10 times or 100 times and get that much more energy out of it – not like Rossi’s or Defkalions where the maximum size of a unit is 5-10kW and a 1MW reactor takes 100-200 separate units. That is why I think your idea would be better for big reactors, although it would probably be more expensive for a home-sized one.

    • Bob Says:

      Iggy, I have been playing around with some cavitation ideas and realized I could have an inner core tumbling with Nickel and Hydrogen with a spark. I am looking at putting water through the center of it so the N/H reaction heats the water running through it, I then have another outer wall that is dimpled where I run bubbled water in and as the cylinder turns it reacts with the cavitated water and the dimpled sides making heat. This water is heated and pumped through the device. The turning cylinder stirs the N/H and acts on the cavitated walls on the outside.

      I think I know how to build it and keep the brush contacts dry. What I’m trying to decide is how many ring contacts to make fore a firing sequence. The spark rate will probably determine everything.

      Simon is right, this is maybe more complex to make than its worth. The seals are the big issue.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        So Bob, are you contemplating two types of reactors, a cavitation and a nickel/hydrogen, or a combination of the two?

        BTW, I read that H2SO4 cavitated much more easily than water.

        This company builds and sells several cavitation machines for industrial use. http://www.hydrodynamics.com/r-d/

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Which makes me think, could you possibly juice up a lead/H2SO4 battery by introducing ultrasonic vibes to the acid? Would make a messy explosion.

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, thanks for the link. I have searched this subject extensively and can’t believe I have missed this one. I use a wedge type of structure and plan an ignition at the bottom.

        I was thinking of a turning cylinder for cavitation and realized I could mix the two ideas. The more I think of it the more I realize I’m making it too complex, a common problem of mine. I think I will drop back and just work on the cavitation for now as I have had some early success. The Nanospire results are a bit scary though.

      • Bob Says:

        I have no idea on the battery idea, food for thought though.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy and Bob – if sulphuric acid cavitates more easily than water, then actually it won’t be as good. What we are doing in cavitation is to put in a certain amount of energy at a low temperature, and when the cavitation bubbles collapse they concentrate this energy down to atomic dimensions. We thus want fewer cavitation bubbles for the same amount of energy input, and a fluid that is harder to cavitate.

        Ultrasonics in a lead-acid battery would probably break up the sulphating on the plates – maybe the plates too. At the right level it would certainly rejuvenate the battery, anyway.

        I think it’s better to get a simple machine running first, then we can find out how to control it. It’s a difficult compromise to get it as simple as possible but no simpler. It helps if you have a small budget, since the simpler things are cheaper, too. It would be really good if one (or more) of us get something working in one of these projects – we can believe those figures.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “get it as simple as possible but no simpler”

        There you go, quoting the “great one” again.

      • Bob Says:

        Simon & Iggy – Here is an interesting link on cavitation and Nanospire.

        http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cold-fusion-comedy.html

        Note at the bottom there is the following information.

        “2/22/12: A new NanoSprire press release states: “Nanospire has announced that its investigative study on fusion created by cavitation in water has come to an end.” It’s good that they have stopped testing for now. During the nuclear fusion reaction that occurred when they did their test, “Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab.” [See Krivit's second link, above.] Well, according to Google maps (25 Jesse Daniel DR, Buxton, ME) the Buxton Vehicle Registration is located about five hundred feet from the lab, so I hope none of the people getting their cars registered got irradiated when the desktop supernova occurred.

        3/27/12: Updated to include edited responses from NanoSphere (highlighted in blue). See explanation, above.”

        This is a bit scary if its true. I had good luck with a lot of heat on my first device, but I feel fine. Not sure I want to rush back and run more experiments until I know whats happening. The water did turn white, almost like milk. Wish I would have saved it. Very stupid not to have!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bob – thanks for this info. It seems that they may be someone else changing the local weather! Photos of those “vortices” burnt into the trees and walls would have been interesting.

        It’s probably worth getting some sort of geiger counter to check on radiation. I reckon a webcam will do an adequate (though uncalibrated) job of telling you if there’s radiation or not. A zinc-sulphide coated plate would also give some indications cheaply.

        Again it looks like they don’t know what they are doing, and I find it interesting that they didn’t want their replies (to an investor enquiry) published.

        So – they probably got some heat. Those published answers don’t give me much confidence in how much heat, or their measurements of anything else. They are using standard tapwater and talking about D-D fusion (D concentration about 1/6000). They are talking about using a laser, avoiding transmutation and still getting “zero-point energy” to heat the water. Talking about ZPE is a pretty sure sign they don’t know what they are talking about – I’ve only seen one experiment that has some theoretical basis for utilising ZPE, and that guy was himself pretty dubious that it could be done.

        Bottom line here is that it probably works. Radiation poisoning can be confused with food poisoning. High-speed water (or other fluids) will etch metals – that’s why you have to replace diesel injectors now and again. LENR is generally radiation-free, so the statements don’t add up. After one 8-hour run they want to collect millions of dollars to progress the experiments. A geiger counter does not cost that much – about $400 or so. True cost of running the experiment reasonably would be less than a grand, and then run it for a month or until it breaks.

        Gregoryyc told us on this blog about his experiments with motors. He said he expected to achieve over-unity but hadn’t got it yet – this is honest. If your measurements show excess heat from cavitation, Bob, I’d believe that as well. I don’t believe Nanospire, though.

      • Bob Says:

        Simon – I agree, these guys don’t make sense. I have read their patents and that does make sense. I think they have created some heat, but most of their statements are outlandish.

        I think they may be trying to get a buzz going so they can get funds, that’s the only way to explain some of their comments. They have opened themselves to some real lawsuits by their neighbor businesses.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Fascinating article, Bob, but how can they get a patent for cavitation when Jim Griggs was granted a patent in 1993?

        http://www.google.com/patents?id=Y3UcAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=U.S.+Patent+No.+5,188,090&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1HpyT_nZMYWjgwe3xZg0&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=U.S.%20Patent%20No.%205%2C188%2C090&f=false

        If it’s so dangerous how come all the firemen in the Albany, GA fire station aren’t dead where all the hot water has been produced with a Griggs cavitation heater for several years?

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy – I read over the patent and it does look a lot like one of Nanospire’s, but the claim structure is different. If this becomes a commercial success I suspect it would be tested in court.

        I think a lot of the claims are smoke and mirrors. The head scratcher is why they would claim such dangerous things if they weren’t real. It would seem they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit. That doesn’t make sense, so at this point the smoke is blinding.
        Thanks for the link to the patent.

        This is about as much fun as watching Rossi!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        We’ve had some discussion in the past about the Griggs pump. Since it is demonstrated to work and has been used for years at the Albany fire-station, this is obviously a nice solid demonstration of repeatable and reproducible LENR by cavitation. I’m pretty sure the design could be improved, too.

        This gives rise to a couple of questions, though:
        1: Why has the Griggs pump not been really commercialised – it seems only LENR aficionados know about it.
        2: How can mainstream science still deny that cavitation is a valid way of getting a nuclear reaction? There’s no other source of the extra energy.

        A normal central-heating pump, where the rotor has been a bit modified, could be converted into such a heater. This has all the necessary seals and bearings already sorted out, and sells for less than $100. Maybe I’ll go ask in the local scrap-yard and get a few of these pumps and check out how easy it is. Measurement of the COP should be pretty easy, too. The really nice thing about this is that it would still pump water round the system, so nothing else would need to be changed in the normal central-heating system. This sounds like a nice project this summer.

        Just for interest, it strikes me that sparking underwater would also be a valid method of getting both cavitation and extra heat.

      • Bob Says:

        Simon – that’s an outstanding idea. I have been trying to think of ways to build things and I hadn’t thought of that. Much easier. Know you know why I was never great in the lab, I can draw what I want, but always had someone to make it and now that I’m retired and have to do the work I discovered I have all thumbs.
        My first prototype was made from tin and basically disintegrated after running a while. From what I can tell, it seems like the most destruction was don where I had wedge shaped holes in the tin, as best as I can tell.
        I ran without having the proper equipment, so it was almost a useless run, all I know is it got very hot.
        Time to get acquainted with my local junk yard man.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bob – I’ve been taking many things to bits since I was old enough to handle a screwdriver, so I know what’s inside a lot of things. I had to repair things since I couldn’t afford to replace them – even today I tend to buy things in pairs so that if they both fail I can probably still have one repaired. Modifying something that is already manufactured is the cheapest and quickest way of getting something to test an idea. Also, it really is amazing what can be found in a scrap-yard. If you need to haggle over price, decide first on what you would be willing to pay and offer half of that to start with – the final price will often be double your starting bid. Maybe this will change once you become a known good customer. When you reach this status (maybe before that if you fit in with them), the guys there will probably be able to suggest things that fit your requirements – they also take a lot of things to bits. It’s an amazing resource.

        One other useful thing with the pumps is to use a silicone sealant (instant gasket) to replace the joints when you reassemble. You probably won’t be able to get the original gaskets. Use the expensive one rather than bathroom silicone sealant, since it is stronger and works to a higher temperature (250°C). Lightly oil one face first if you think you’ll need to disassemble it again.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon said:
        1: Why has the Griggs pump not been really commercialised – it seems only LENR aficionados know about it.
        Simon, I believe this is Griggs’ company. Looks like some pretty sophisticated products. http://www.hydrodynamics.com/r-d/
        ~~~~~~~~~~

        A normal central-heating pump, where the rotor has been a bit modified, could be converted into such a heater.
        Simon, what type pump is a central-heating pump?
        Centrifugal, piston, lobe, screw, or scroll?

        Scroll animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8UWQwQVxBE&feature=related

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – The Hydrodynamics site doesn’t mention Griggs at all. They also do not mention over-unity operation of their heater, which I would expect if it were using the Griggs ideas.

        The central-heating pumps I’ve seen in the UK are the cheap centrifugal ones – they generate a pressure rather than a positive displacement, so don’t cause a problem when all the radiators are thermostatically shut off (though of course some circulation is still needed through a bypass). Any such centrifugal pump could be modified by changing the rotor to generate cavitation rather than suppress it.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Hydro Dynamics founder Jim Griggs began his research into harnessing the benefits of the “water hammer” in 1985 and founded Hydro Dynamics five years later.

        http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2000/ip3.htm

        Maybe the company avoids the ‘overunity’ term because they’d rather avoid the hassle of explaining the term and arguing with academics and skeptics.

        I doubt Grigg’s pump could compete with the E-Cat or the Def device but cavitation might eventually evolve into something more useful.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Thanks for that Iggy – I couldn’t see the connection in the Hydro Dynamics website. It’s great to know he’s getting in to all the other things, too. Something that sits there and works now (I think the COP was about 2) is worth having. It’s probably nice and reliable now, so it could still be worth it for some people.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Warning: Pure Speculation Ahead:

        Apparently dark energy and dark matter are not evenly distributed. What if we the solar system are drifting from a more dense dark energy/matter area to a less dense dark energy/matter area, or vica versa, and what we think of as reality is changing ever so slightly, just enough so that cold fusion is starting to work and cavitation has just enough oomph to make for some form of fusion? What if there were other thingies as the level of dark energy and dark matter that we may be drifting into or out of that would have the same effect?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – have you read ‘A Fire across the Deep” by Vernor Vinge? This explores that idea of there being variations in physics across interstellar distances. I feel that a lot of the technology he describes has a good chance of arriving within the next century, and maybe we’ll find out whether it’s true or not. Most of his books are thought-provoking and thus good.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Bob, I was reading a NASA pdf on cavitation in liquid sodium and the paper kept referring to a magnetostriction device to induce cavitation.

        I googled magnetostriction and came up with this April, 2011 vortex thread where the guys were speculating that Rossi’s E-Cat was a cavitation device.

        http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com

        /msg45309.html

        Have you read this? They’ve probably abandoned this theory
        by now.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        here’s the url again:

        http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45309.html

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, thanks for the link, it is VERY interesting. I look at the Vortex daily and some how I had missed that. The discussion is interesting and there are a lot of good links. I will need time to evaluate all this. I had tried a Giggs type device and had some luck, but was thinking more Laser or Piezo type stimulation. This shows a whole different pat that can be looked at. I’m not convinced its a cavitation affect and may be more related to Rossi’s environment.

        Again, thanks, a great find.

  6. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    from same NASA article above:
    Now, after years of development and some NASA assistance with the bearing problem

    I wonder if NASA’s solution was a magnetic bearing?

    Danfoss Compressors, built in Tallahassee, use magnetic bearings.

    http://www.turbocor.com/uploaded/pdfs/TurbocorProductBrochure.pdf

  7. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    UFO sighting filmed on last space shuttle. 4:45 min mark.

  8. Bob Says:

    That is very interesting. Never saw metalic cloth fly in formation. Sure makes one wonder about what is going on.

  9. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Hey Simon, Brillouin stole our ‘fluidized bed’ idea.

    • Bob Says:

      The comments on how it works were the biggest news. Nickel is the catalyst in the operation. A must read for every inventor. Not sure I buy it, but it does make some sense.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – did you notice that on the picture it’s “Q-Pluse”. I would have thought they would spell-check the publicity. (Shakes head – “The youth of today!”). At the moment it seems they are only claiming x2 COP, though I see no reason why this should not be improved.

      I’m sure that last time I looked at Brillouin they hadn’t mentioned a fluidised bed (http://www.brillouinenergy.com/p2d.html). Maybe they read your suggestion and it gave them the idea they needed. Their process seems sound and should work (the theory is a bit dodgy, though), but the secret Q-pulse is, I suspect, simply an old-fashioned spark as we talked about on your idea. This is sufficient to make it work. They are using blown Hydrogen to fluidise the bed, according to the pictures, so the only real variable now is the particle size of Nickel they are using. I have a hunch I could make it much more efficient with a small addition, and also they may need to change their Hydrogen pumps to be noisier with a greater pulsation in the pressures – it looks like they are using turbine compressors which give too smooth an output (maybe grind off each alternate vane to test the difference). That’s just in case they are reading this blog…. I like to do more with less. The idea here is to force the Hydrogen to migrate by giving it varying pressure differentials, so it drops into an NAE spot with higher probability.

  10. Roger Bird Says:

    Lots of people are listening. I took the phrase “Cold Fusion Forum” and translated it into the languages listed below. After the languages are the number of hits I got on Google for the translation for that phrase:

    Arabic 175,000
    English 14,300,000
    Chinese, total 4,132,000
    Simplified Chinese122,000
    Traditional Chinese 4,310,000
    German does not translate differently from English with Google translate
    Greek 6,490
    Hebrew 14,200
    Urdu (an Indian language) 9,980,000
    Italian 730,000
    Japanese 15,200
    Norwegian 51,100
    Persian 24,300
    Spanish 587,000
    Swedish does not translate differently from English with Google translate
    Russian like languages total = 1,763,200
    Russian 1,430,000
    Belarusian 25,200
    Ukrainian 308,000

    There are actually a few surprises. The winner in the big surprises category is Urdu, and Indian Language, with almost as many hits has English. And I will bet that 99% of all of those Urdu speakers also speak English. Greek was also a surprise with so few hits.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – that’s a brilliant idea. I’m surprised the Japanese was so low. Given that India has a lot of different languages (143 last time I looked), and Hindi is the official language with English the real lingua franca, there’s probably a lot of research going on there. I’m also a bit surprised that the Hebrew was so low. Maybe they need the Uranium by-products more there, so don’t want a safe alternative.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The other Indian languages, like Hindi and Kannada and others, were so low that there was not point in listing them.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, I learned it in response to your post.

    • Bob Says:

      A clarification. I type Cold Fusion into Google and at the top of the page it says “about 17,800,000 results”
      Is this the number your looking at, or is there a more specific way of determining Google hits? I admit ignorance as to how its done.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        You got it right, Bob. I wrote “Cold Fusion Forum”. It is not intuitive that “Cold Fusion” should get more hits than “Cold Fusion Forum”.

  11. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Cold Fusion: A Cure For High Gas PricesSeeking Alpha http://seekingalpha.com/article/406981-cold-fusion-a-cure-for-high-gas-prices

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I would hardly call this an excellent report. I am a 95% LENR believer, but this report was so poor as to be an embarrassment. For example, it said “very large-scale installations such as nuclear power plants utilizing hot fusion processes”. There are no such things. Virtually every nuclear power plant on Planet Earth uses a fission process. Also, he mentioned Seldon Technologies; I see no reason to include them in the list. He also mentioned the Hyperion and the E-Cat many paragraphs before he mentioned where they came from. It is nice to see positive reporting about LENR, but accurate and well crafted reporting would also be nice.

  12. Bob Says:

    Iggy, this has to be wrong. I read in a physics book about this coulomb barrier thing, no way CF could be real. It was in the book!

    Never mind all the new atomic physics discovered and quantum affects not understood. Splitting electrons and vibrating Nucleus with Rydberg matter. These thing are immaterial, the book says the only way threw the barrier is with 50,000,000 C temperatures.

    I am astounded every day how rigid the physics world is, thank heaven there are a few free thinkers that will go, if not out of the box, at least to the edge.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      The history of science is replete with pioneers and explorers being trashed by the mainstream, for freaking decades!!! My favorite example is Alfred Wegener, who discovered continental drift. And scientists, an emotionally and morally retarded lot, don’t do this trashing with sweetness and kindness.

      • Bob Says:

        I understand the need to be precise and not make wild claims, otherwise no one will ever listen. I do believe the science world clings to their charts, graphs and the ever required peer revue. If its not mainstream it never gets out of peer revue. Their is a fine line between genius and lunatic, but who can judge?
        Your example was great!

  13. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Interesting links from Axil Axil and Terry Blanton at vortex:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66619.html

  14. Bob Says:

    This is interesting and points to some similarity of the talk about Nickel needing to be irregular in structure. There sure seems to be something related to cracks and fissures.

  15. brucefast Says:

    And this may be a major factor in why the next generation of a working machine often doesn’t seem to work as well. Alas, if these guys presented their work to the world, warts and all, and if the world believed that they have what they have, the great collective would solve the consistency problem in no time.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Bruce – Gary Wright is trying to do just that at http://opensourcelenr.com/ but does not yet seem to have garnered much support. Only 11 people have subscribed to it, and there’s almost zero activity on the associated blog. Stringham has presented his work to the world but I’ve seen no major response from either critics or supporters despite his getting 40kW per square metre (40w from a centimetre square). The Vortex guys seem to be publishing a load, but haven’t yet got a working system to improve as far as I can see.

      I think your second “if” is maybe more important – not enough people believe it to actually put effort into thinking about it or doing the experiments.

  16. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I wonder if the “crack/fissure” phenom could be amplified by keeping the powder under pressure and inducing stress with counter-rotating screws (like counter-rotating concentric augers). Like this image except the inner auger would not be enclosed in a tube.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – it certainly seems likely. A ball-mill would also probably do the same thing, if used dry and filled with Hydrogen. Experiment by using different powders and by either using an inert gas or Hydrogen to fill the container. It’s a lot easier than other ways, even though the COP would likely be small.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        When I say to keep the powder under pressure, I don’t mean gaseous pressure but mechanical pressure, so as to create greater shear action…..great gaseous pressure might help, as well.

        Speaking of electrical surges just before a powder bank collapses, I seem to recall someone that claimed to be able to forecast an impending earthquake by measuring electrical anomalies.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – the Hydrogen would be there as a reactant, since it’s probably easier to get a reaction with H2 than a heavier atom. The inert gas is simply to change the probabilities and thus get a comparison. In a ball mill, the powder between the balls is alternately compacted and sheared, so there would be a lot of those electrical anomalies. Overall, the probabilities of a reaction should be increased, and thus we may well see some anomalous heat output. In the normal use of such a machine, if it got too hot you’d turn it off for a bit, not use a calorimeter on it to see where the energy came from. This may be hiding in plain sight in the instruction manuals as in “don’t try grinding powder X in this as it may get too hot”, in the same way as they caution against using other than lead balls to grind gunpowder.

        On forecasting earthquakes, people have also had some success using animal behaviour – they are also sensitive to electrical disturbances. No links, but I think I read this in New Scientist a few years ago.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Am I correct that a ball mill works by the container rolling so that the balls tumble?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=25_72&products_id=363

        In other words, yes. It’s used for both grinding powders to dust and for polishing stones – add the stones and some grinding slurry, and leave it rolling a while. Easy enough to make one if you have a motor spare. For the drum, use any screw-top container such as a jam-jar or coffee-drum.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Another use for ball-mills is to make mechanical alloys. Two metal powders are added, and the grinding process smears them together to make an alloy that you can’t make by melting (either the metals have widely different melting-points or are immiscible).

        I don’t own a ball-mill yet, but may build one sometime.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I remember 20 or 30 years ago reading about using
        explosives to forge powdered metal into a shaped solid.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Also for “Stone-Washed Jeans”.

        I’m hoping that old worn-out men will come into vogue (with the young female set).

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Oops Iggy – you may need a nano-manipulator for that.

        As far as I know, high-explosives are used both for laminating metals that wouldn’t otherwise be possible, and also to stamp maker’s marks on large steel beams. It’s another one of those things where if you do things very quickly they happen before the material has time to realise it, so it moves somewhat like water. If you cut cross-sections of the laminated metals done this way you see ripples where they join. Sorry, I don’t have links for this. I never saw it used for sintering, but I can see it would work well.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon, as usual you’re right. Explosives are used for cladding dissimilar metals. http://www.highenergymetals.com/

        Sintering is done with heat and pressure.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Thanks for that, Iggy – bookmarked. I never needed it done, just a curiosity. You’re also right that it should work for bonding powders together, and they do state that they do that too.

  17. LeRoy Pea Says:

    A smaller cavitation heater needed when output is applied to a Sterling Engine(s).

  18. SAT prep Says:

    My spouse and I stumbled over here from a
    different web address and thought I should check things out.

    I like what I see so i am just following you.
    Look forward to looking into your web page repeatedly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: