On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote:
I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it
isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further
research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may
show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries,
(natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car
catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must
already know about it!
I don't understand his objection to "cold fusion". From a science
perspective, what he describes:
H or D + Metal going in ==> very detailed and particle physics sound
description of processes happening ==> Metal + He + E coming out.
Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his
theory. "cold fusion" is just the abstract of the thing in the middle
of his reaction scheme.
I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit
is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and
your theory is right?
If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for
correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped
experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi
device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the
theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the
right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care
about the right theory for something that does work.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote:
More controversy between LENR competitors ---
Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi & E-Cat
Technology-Nov 26 2011
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-
llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011
The theory in the slides is nonsense if applied to Rossi's E-cat.
One of the early tests involved use a coincidence counter, a pair of
gamma counters with coincidence circuitry, which picks up the gamma
pairs from positron annihilations. None were observed above
background. It was used up close to the reactor.
Here is a photo in which the pair of opposed coincidence counters can
be seen:
http://www.ccemt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/files/
rossi_cold_fusion_aparatus_scintillator_300.jpg
posted on this blog:
http://www.cce-mt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/cold_fusion.html
regarding a February 2011 test. Part of the second counter can be
seen protruding below the surface on which the E-cat rests.
Celani has observed some single (not positron annihilation) counts :
"I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl)
with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of
counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an
erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background." See:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/18/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-
device-celani-report/
http://tin*yurl.com/4djya8
Further, the number of neutrons produced generating 10 kW thermal by
the suggested reactions, much less 0.5 MW, would be dangerous in the
extreme. Neutron activation would produce long lasting radioactive
products. For example 58CO27 + n -> 59CO27, then comes the famous
59CO27 + n --> 60Co27, which is used to produce radioactive cobalt
used in medicine (half life over 5 years.)
Furthermore, the neutrons could activate (make radioactive) many
elements likely present in the device or water, like Ni, Fe, Cu, Pb,
Sn, Zn, Cl, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Na, etc. No residual radioactivity was
detected.
I don't know how this stuff gets passed off as credible. The
implications of the theory are not credible:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html
Hagelstein and Chaudhary pretty much demolished the theory as well.
Further, it seems to me if the gamma shielding part of the theory
were correct, i.e. the ability of heavy electrons to shield all
gammas produced at close range, then it could easily be checked by
passing gammas through a metal film supposedly exhibiting the
shielding property.
The Larsen & Windom Patent on gamma shielding: "Apparatus and method
for absorption of incident gamma radiation and its conversion to
outgoing radiation at less penetrating, lower energies and
frequencies ":
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7893414.PN.&OS=PN/
7893414&RS=PN/7893414
http://tin*yurl.com/47al74f
It was discussed by NET:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/22/cold-fusioneers-complain-
lenr-researchers-patent/
http://tin*yurl.com/46zgbfu
It is notable that, despite the huge amount of content on cold fusion
and LENR, it is not a patent on a nuclear energy production method,
merely a gamma shielding method.
Also, unless I missed it, there does not seem to be any test data
provided in the patent proving the method works. It would seem
sending a gamma beam through such thin shielding material and
*measuring* attenuation would be the minimal level of proof required
to show that the theory is not completely bogus.
Again the authors make the absurd claim that "cold fusion" reactions
do not encompass weak reactions: "Together, the four scientific
papers by the present inventors comprising Attachments 1-4 can
explain all of the major features exhibited in many seemingly
anomalous experiments (lumped under the unfortunate term cold fusion)
that have previously been regarded by many as theoretically
inexplicable. In contrast to other earlier theories involving
penetration of Coulomb barriers, the present Invention's methods and
apparatus for creating low energy nuclear reactions are
scientifically reasonable within the context of the well-accepted
standard model of electroweak interaction physics. The key process
responsible for producing most of the experimentally observed
anomalies explained by these publications is not any form of cold
fusion, nor is it any form of fission. On the contrary, the key
physical processes driving the unique behavior of these systems are
primarily weak interactions."
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
