Peter Heckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I first heard about this I did not know much about this. > I have readed that Levi claimed there where energy bursts of 100 or 200 kW > some months ago. > > With my todays knowledge I know, this is impossible, because it is > impossible to measure this amount of energy with this machine even if it > would be true. > The correct number was a 40°C temperature difference which indicates a nominal 130 kW. See: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece That is perfectly possible for a device of this size with this flow of water. Many automobile engines and other devices of this size produce that much energy without exploding. I doubt the power was actually that high. I expect some of the heat was being "wicked." > If it really happens for more than some seconds then the machine must > explode or the core must melt down. > The cell is roughly the size of motorcycle engine cylinders without the cooling fins. It does not need cooling fan since it is watercooled. A large motorcycle produces 40 hp of mechanical energy at roughly 25% efficiency, or 160 hp of raw heat. 130 kW = 174 hp. Of course the cylinders are heavy duty because the exploding gasoline produced a great deal of force (40 hp!), but in any case the temperature does not make it melt. I cannot trust a scientist who tells such stories without reasonable > scientific and technical explanation, how this happened. > Therefore I cannot trust persons who trust him. > Your judgement is flawed. There is nothing unbelievable about the 40°C temperature excursion. It was dangerous, but with 1 L per second cooling it was controlled. > Also the claims of Defkalion in their forum must be untrue . . . Which claims? Why do you say they "must be" untrue? I have not heard of any reason to believe that. I dont know why they do this. Do they take drugs? Have they all invested > money? Is Rossi addicted to this role to be an inventor like a junkie? > Your technical assertions are wrong. Check your arithmetic and you will find you can stop spinning hypotheses about what is wrong with these people. > I ask myself, when NASA tested Ni-H fusion sucessfully in 1995, why didnt > they follow this path and made a definitive proof? > Obviously because there is enormous political opposition to cold fusion! Everyone knows that. Also this was not a particularly effective method of doing cold fusion and there is no indication it could ever be made into a practical source of energy. It was a laboratory curiosity. > Why did Piantelli make Patents and stop this research, when they had so > much success? > Piantelli et al. is still doing the research is far as I know. Where did you hear they stopped? > Why doesnt Mills produce any products? > No idea. > Why isnt there a clear and repeatable key experiment to proove LENR > effects? > There are such tests. Read McKubre, Storms or the papers from the ENEA and Energetics Technologies. The only thing lacking in cold fusion has been good control of the reaction. The only difference between Rossi and the others is that Rossi can control the reaction (most of the time) and therefore he can scale up. - Jed
