More from Rossi on the High Temperature E-Cats

Since Andrea Rossi announced that he had almost 20 high temperature E-Cat reactors there have naturally been many questions about them, some of which have been posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, and have been responded to by Rossi. A few new details have been added by AR

When I say above 600 Celsius I mean exactly this: the temperature of the wall is well above, as you will see from the report we will publish soon ( matter of weeks). The temperature is constant, within a reasonable variation integral.

Rossi also said:

We do not produce steam boilers, so this issue will be assessed by the boiler manufacturer. We will not manufacture or engineer heat exchangers of any kind. What we have to do is to obtain the primary walls at a temperature above the temperature demanded for the steam, with the due power

It looks from these statements that the temperature being measured at this point is not steam — it is the wall of the reactor. It seems that Rossi is essentially building the heating element, and leaving the rest of the apparatus required for steam production, or whatever other application might be needed, to others. It would make a lot of sense for Rossi to partner with companies that have the expertise on staff to design and build the systems needed to produce power, and who already have off-the-shelf products which can be incorporated into products.

Rossi commented also that, “We are already manufacturing the industrial 1 MW plants and we are close to the manufacturing of high temperature plants.” This sounds like that, in addition to running the high temperature reactor tests, they are busy designing products around them while the tests continue — which would certainly involve working with other engineering outfits. Before news of the high temperature E-Cats came along, Rossi had said he had been working with Siemens AG on the testing of a turbine. I wonder if they are still involved.

  • Martin

    “We are already manufacturing the industrial 1 MW plants and we are close to the manufacturing of high temperature plants”
    Rossi’s English is very unclear. What does he mean? Plants for manufacturing are being built, units are manufactured?
    Broken English is part of his scam, oops I mean scheme, I guess.

    • jacob

      For your information Martin, it is not a scam or scheme ,it is as real as real gets,and it will no longer be blob in your imagination,once you hold on to a real LENR device,what Rossi means the are close to building the high temperature plant,what part of that do you not understand,there is a lot of research and development involved to get to that stage and they are moving extremely fast,to have already reached that point,and are moving quickly forward to providing the the heating elements for Industry ,so Industry can incorporate them to replace natural gas and heating oil,fasten yous seat belts ,these are exciting times.

      Martin,Rossi may have broken English,but he has integrity,you seem to be pointing at him to discredit him,but that is your choice i guess,but can’t see what good it can possibly accomplish,”Tt takes a carpenter to built a barn,but it takes a jackass to kick it down” it’s a saying ,but no pun intended .

    • psi

      Please see my reply immediately above.

    • barty

      I think they are currently manufacturing the “normal heat” megawatt plant, and close to be able to manufacture MW plants with the 600°C reactors.

    • robiD

      What is unclear?
      He is already manufacturing 1MW plants (i.e. the “old” plants like that one shown in October)

      and

      he is close to manufacturing new plants with the new 600°C reactors.

      That is not a problem with English language, your problem is that you think Rossi is a scammer.

      • Bigwilly

        I believe the issue is that Rossi word is not credible due to past of reversal, misunderstandings (1mw plant not shipped, flip flops etc.

        I do not need to label him a scammer or liar but his text based developments are pure malarkey until proven otherwise.

        bw

        • mcloki

          Or they are just updates about an ongoing test. If you’re going to look for failure why are you here? There are no brownie points for being right on ether side of the debate. I just want information.

    • Martin

      You guys are mixing everything up as well. English is not my first language, but I do know that a “plant” is a factory in which something is manufactured. A “1MW plant” is not a reactor or E-Cat or whatsoever. Now, what kind of thing is Rossi building right now? One factory, several factories? He seems to be ready to build 1MW reactors, or is it the plant for the 1MW reactors which is ready to start manufacturing those. Man, this completely messed up.

      • Andrew Macleod

        Plant has many definitions. For example in telecommunications outside cable plant means “the wires on the poles or any interconnects that are not inside buildings…..not an outdoor cable manufacturing plant!

        • Robert Mockan

          The plant on my desk is not happy. I give it water, some sunlight, and talk to it. But it just stands there getting brown leaves and drooping.

  • psi

    To me it is quite clear. He is manufacturing the 1 MW units of the which the first was tested last August. One of these, at least, has been shipped to a customer. The other 12 or 13 ordered units or perhaps more based on more recent orders are being constructed. Design modifications have allowed the newer, more stable high temperature model to be prototyped and this is now undergoing testing. Failure to understand the obvious is, I suppose, part of your character assassination, oops, I mean, analysis. How impressive.

    • Dave From NJ

      I thought the last October test did not exceed the 500 watt input power.

      • Ged

        There was no 500 W input power, where did you get that idea? The October test was independently reviewed by a member of the military (who was the one running the plant during the tests, not Rossi). The guy’s report was leaked onto the internet, and is posted in previous threads elsewhere on this site. It’s very interesting.

    • Mike

      I partially agree with dave here. Rossi has nothing until he proves it. Granted anyone would hope he has what he claims, but to believe it is a mistake without proof; unless you know the man. Rossi may be a honest, wonderful man, and I hope he is, but I don’t know it. I don’t know him.

      • Ged

        This is true, and why no one here should ever give money to Rossi. Nevermind that Rossi has said he will not even except such offers of money in the first place, and has never asked for it.

        But as it is, reviewing his claims and their meanings has no loss to anyone other than time. So, what “mistake” can be made?

  • AstralProjectee

    Sounds like he’s making good progress. I hope it’s true. Nothing wrong with hoping in something that has as much evidence as has been presented. Including cold fusion in general.

    Peace!

    • jacob

      great reply

      • Barry

        ditto

    • Ged

      He did not give blind admiration. Did you not notice where he speaks to the great level of evidence that has been presented? The hopefulness that he’s holding to (or she), is due to the weight of supporting evidence and lack of contrary. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it’s completely rational and even a general scientific sort of outlook (tentatively true until falsified).

      Oh, and I think you don’t even remotely understand Rossi’s technology, or LENR, if you think the reactor can explode and “thousands of people die”! It is not a “nuclear” reactor, it’s a low energy fusion reaction between hydrogen and nickle (or facilitated by the nickle, that’s still a mystery). If the reactor heats up too much, -the nickle melts- and the reaction is immediately killed. And even if it somehow did explode, all you’d get is nickle thrown everywhere and a little “woosh” of a flash from the combusting hydrogen. Hardly dangerous to even a single person!

      The only danger would be an explosion of high temperature steam, which is a danger for ANY and ALL applications working with steam.

    • Bob

      Very, very doubtful that one can “blow up”. Most of the main stream scientists state that LENR does not even happen and CANNOT happen. For a blow up, a critical mass must be achieved. It took the U.S. war department several years of intense research to make the first fusion bomb. These bombs require a small fission explosion to detonate the fusion process!

      So a device running and a few hundred degrees C with a few grams of nickel and hydrogen will not have a nuclear explosion.

      One of these devices may explode due to internal pressure from heated gas or steam, but it would not cause “thousands of people” to die. Perhaps the homeownver if he/she was standing next to it. But then, a water heater can potentially do the same.

      Radiation could be a greater concern, but then again, only for the very near proximity.

      LENR stands for LOW ENERGY nuclear reaction. The LOW ENERGY precludes any large explosion (HIGH ENERGY) nor the mass required to obtain critical mass detonation.

      I am not saying that LENR is real (although I suspect it is, based upon Duncan, Piantelli, MIT, NASA, etc. etc.) but I feel very comfortable stating that “nuclear explosions” from it are NO threat. One can read up on critical mass if you have doubts.

      • Ged

        LENR isn’t fission. It cannot create a RAPID self sustaining, chain reaction. Heck, it isn’t even easy for fission reactions to meet the requirements for an explosive (uranium 238 for instance can never be used for rapid fission, and as such can never explode).

        Since LENR is a slow fusion, anything can stop the reaction.

      • kemo sabe

        But you’re basing your argument on the old physics. Using old physics, LENR shouldn’t happen, and so (nuclear) explosions won’t either. But LENR uses new physics, which makes things previously considered impossible, easy, so unless you can describe the new physics, how do you know it doesn’t also make nuclear explosions possible?

    • Mike

      Earlier posts said that the city of Miami’s public safety officials investigated his site, and pronounced it safe. So, probably not to worry. Granted many industrial accidents happen without the need of nukes to hurt lots of people, so who knows.

      I do hope Rossi has something, but until he shows it, he’s just a guy talking.

    • GreenWin

      Gentlemen, you make excellent points that perhaps are backdoor debunking of specious claims. But you waste your energy on those who write:

      “I can here all you hacks now, “Oops, sorry.”

      • Andrew Macleod

        Funny that some “scientists” are taking note and want to wrench this away from “hacks” due to safety concerns. *facepalm. I’m sure they would like to get credit for its discovery too.

      • GreenWin

        Andrew, LOL!! Thx.

  • Jason

    Some people have posted their disappoinment with the slow progress but in my engineering experience with new technologies it seems to me that Rossi is making very fast progress with significant improvements to his technology. I continue to be encouraged that he will be delivering significant products to industry and I hope the consumer. If I were in his shoes I would concentrate on the industrial users first to work out any safety and reliability problems with the technology before introducing consumer products. Industrial customers will have there own staff who can assimilate the new technology and consumers need moderate cost turn key systems.

    • jacob

      Jason,I agree,industry as a time testing ground,and safety certifications will come after some time for domestic home units.

    • duecat

      jason_ Respect your logic but disagree with your conclusion. There is a world of losers associated with success of LENR who will resist commercialization of a product. Expect a violent kick-back when the news is digested. I think it is very important to have a political/popular backing at that time. This will be best established by having a large number of people who will have a demonstrative benefit from the devices. This may or not be the case with industrial applications. Promise of cheap home heating for millions will certainly build support… Think of the social agencies who scramble every winter to help the needy keep warm. The support of such powerful lobbies as the home-builders and realtors would be extremely beneficial. Banks might be be supporters as it is apparent that some of the housing in their portfolio can be off loaded due to cheap heating/cooling being available..AND the flood of new loans for home improvement. If the Chamber of Commerce sees the potential increase in household disposable income possible, even they might come on board. Unions representing construction works might join support in new technology that opens up the building design field. Could go on but the point is that organized supporters can be mobilized over the world if LENR touches them personally. The opposition is out there in spades and it will show its head when the silence ends. A LENR home unit in the mix will certainly help win the battle. Probably need to say…. my view assumes Rossi has the goods that may or may not be fact.

  • Robert Mockan

    What Rossi is saying now is significant. Previously his stated temperatures (and COP) were within a reasonable extrapolation of what gas loaded LENR might do with funding of R&D by a dedicated individual. In Rossi case an entrepreneur with street smarts and a science background. But what he is saying now, if verified, is a real breakthrough. If the catalyst is providing heat above 600 C for extended time, with the power per unit mass ratio Rossi has indicated, and holding to at least a COP of 6, then he has made a real breakthrough. An advance in LENR technology that goes beyond anything I’ve come across before, in either the literature research or from the cold fusion and alternative energy conventions I’ve attended, or from conversations with any of the LENR researchers. I’ve read about higher COP in other systems, but not with this high a temperature.
    Government MUST be watching this now, if they have not been doing so for years anyway. Other LENR researchers MUST be paying attention to what Rossi is saying now, if they have not been doing so before.
    With the Rossi work I am finally seeing some real possibility that LENR, when it is optimized for even higher temperatures and power levels, probably with other materials than nickel, and with higher COP, is going to have space propulsion applications.
    Rossi, in my opinion, has definitely assured his place in the history books.

    • Lu

      Defkalion claims a much a higher COP (> 32) but lower (but still significant) temperatures (max 414C). Of course this is only a claim and given Defkalion’s track record, I put them well behind Rossi. We’ll perhaps find out more this August.

      It seems to me that Rossi’s approach is the better one. Defkalion is building the entire box while Rossi is looking to team with other manufacturers such as Seimens.

      If commercial LENR is real, Rossi’s place in history is assured as father of commercial LENR. The current struggle is about market dominance and it’s still a horse race (but looking better for Rossi all the time), IMO.

      • GreenWin

        If you study the link I posted yesterday detailing the Siemens Micro-CHP with Stirling engine – it matches well to the ecat tests occurring now. It is likely this type system can operate with lower temp LENR and produce 6-10kW electrical output without steam cycle.

        There are also excellent Siemens steam turbines generating 600kW from industrial steam (sold in USA by Carrier HVAC.) These match well with the 600C temp of the newer ecat design – combining two in a single ecat form factor would give 1.2MW continuous.

        I expect to see a US and Japanese major manufacturer jump in shortly. With a market of 6.5 billion people – there’s plenty for everyone.

        • jacob

          good point Green Win,an E-cat coupled to a sterling cycle engine,no steam no fuss, combined with the micro CHP,read the Siemens link ,you provided,thanks again

    • Pete

      It would be as awesome as you describe if there was at least some minimal independent confirmation of the claims. As it is, it’s just more food for the fanboys. But he will publish a report soon, just not yet, hehe.

      • Dave From NJ

        I guarantee he will publish his own report.

        And there will not be a single name associated with the report that has any significance or respect in doing these types of measurements.

        • jacob

          Dave,some people couldn’t see the truth if it fell on them,you may just never understand LENR and how it works,but that is ok.

        • GreenWin

          Gee Dave, now you sound the Grinch That Stole Christmas!

          “Don’t worry, be happy.”

        • Andrew Macleod

          Hope he doesn’t publish an independent report. If he does we very well might loose most of the entertaining banter on this site 🙂

    • morse

      Always nice to read your comments Robert, scientifically based and interesting to follow.
      How do you see LENR in combination with space propulsion applications? Is it a faster way to discover our solar system and go even further?

      • what if

        It would do to colonize the solar system, but won’t help to make the distance “shorter” . Probably the new space ships will use water superheated vaporized for propulsion, is full of it in the meteor belt. All that you need is energy.

      • Robert Mockan

        I wrote about this May 15 in a post at my blog OPEN SOURCE NUCLEAR FUEL. With your question I expanded upon the original article and posted it at my blog today. If interested you can get there by just putting OPEN SOURCE NUCLEAR FUEL into the Google search engine, and a number of links to my site will be seen. Link to it and click on the archive file on the blog home page to get to the article you want to read. I write about these kind of subjects when I think any body might be interested. Unfortunately the interest level in LENR is not as high as we might hope. I sometimes use a Google application to find out who is visiting my site. It has been up about 7 months now and I’ve only had a little over 7000 visitors. And many of those are repeats from the USA and Canada. Interesting though I’ve also had about 200 visits from Europe (mostly Italy, Germany, and France), and a few from Russia. Maybe someday if I start getting more visitors I’ll publish some of the backlog of articles I have in my files.

  • Lu

    I find it interesting that according to Defkalion’s independent test specification that they put out way back in January, they were not going to be producing steam and only measuring the walls. We don’t know whether Rossi is producing steam here (and it still looks to me like he isn’t) but he perhaps is performing a similar type of test as Defkalion’s. Maybe we will find out with the report.

    • That’s right. It does seem that the reactor ‘fuel’ mass may be small, in which case extracting any significant amount of heat using a coolant might well quench the reaction. The small mass may be necessary in some way, in which case there is still a lot of engineering development required.

      My guess (unfounded but ever hopeful) is that this 20kHr testing process is intended as definitive proof of principle that will allow Siemens (and possibly other backers) to acknowledge partnership with Leonardo Corp without fear of ridicule or loss of stock values. In fact the reverse seems very likely.

  • Kim

    Home Owners of Swimming Pools would
    love to have year around swimming!

    Go Rossi

    Respect
    Kim

    • GreenWin

      What’s more fun than swimming in your heated pool during a big snowstorm?? Only done at a few ski resorts at great expense.

      • Ans.: Sitting by an open fire and sipping mulled wine. Wanting to jump into a pool while it snows is just perverse.

  • Robert Mockan

    Rossi is doing something incredible, in ways the layman might not understand. And I suspect his continued involvement is probably beginning to ruffle the feathers of some big birds. For example, in all catalyst research testing using a special kind of reaction calorimeter is done to determine the physical chemistry properties of the material being developed. The results of such testing is how the catalyst is improved. For Rossi to be able to operate above 600 C that testing HAD to have been done. Who ever developed the catalyst he is using now HAS to have an advanced understanding of exactly how LENR works. There are some extremely well funded people behind what we are seeing, and my guess they are outside of Rossi’s ball park because that kind of money is only connected with top scientific minds in the business. Rossi definitely has made some connections. Who ever those people are they are NOT going to disclose how the new Rossi catalyst is made, or why it works better than before. I am more convinced than ever that we MUST have open source disclosure of how to make the catalyst, so that every person who wants can make it. Because otherwise new LENR technology is going to be controlled tightly. Corporations, military, and governments (not necessarily in that order), have much to gain by keeping it a secrete. This also indicates consumer products are not going to happen until AFTER industrial. And THAT is not going to happen until AFTER other vested interests have extracted all the wealth, and power (political) they can from the development. Rossi is probably going to eased out as a player. WE MUST HAVE OPEN SOURCE NUCLEAR FUEL!

    • Dave From NJ

      “Whoever these people are” is key. The circus environment surrounding Rossi is very predictable.

      • Ged

        You do make a good reminder of caution. Some of us are acting under the assumption that these facts are valid, and then making sense of what it means for them to be so (nothing but good things if they are). None the less, this technology is not proven beyond a doubt as of yet. But a lot about LENR has come out lately, from NASA and MIT, to Toyota and Mitsubishi. I think that wave of validation that LENR is very real has given Rossi a great deal of coincidental support.

      • Dave From NJ

        And you think ad hominem attacks is good science.

        “clowns and snakes”. Everything around Rossi is nothing but a pure circus.

        Last October everyone was saying wait until the 1MW generated is demonstrated. Bla bla bla. And then at the moment of truth, it did not work. And on top of that someone was pointing out they had 500 watt input and that was the total output measurement.

        So what am I to believe. The next October event is schedule in 3 weeks.

        You can make love to Rossi all you want. But you have to admit the last 18 months have been a circus.

        • Ged

          The “500 W” is the absolutely full rating of the generator powering the instruments. The amount of heat energy out from the 1 MW plant was around 473 W I believe it was, which is well above what the supposed “500 W” generator can give out when you factor in efficiency losses. Especially from 52 individual cores.

          No, the most you can realistically get out from such a generator is around 200 W of thermal energy in such a situation.

          This is supposing that the claims about the generator are even true, and that it wasn’t a lower powered unit that that even.

          It does leave ambiguity as to the real value of the results, you’re absolutely right about that. But remember, that October test was not run by Rossi.

          • jacob

            ged,473 kilowatts,0.473 Megawatts thermal Output ,input i think was around 60 or 70 Kw electric power

      • Ged

        That’s what I was thinking. Thanks, Jacob, for the reminder.

    • GreenWin

      Interesting ideas Robert, if a bit too gloomy. Professor Hugh Abundo in Rome has patented the Mizuno-type cell the Athanor Project produced. The patent rests with Pirelli High School and is OpenSource as are the cell construction plans.

      We are seeing a many pronged process of organized disclosure. Don’t expect every catalyst formula to be made public. It’s okay they are not. IP profit motive is the one thing that will push LENR beyond the confines of States and governments and even military interests.

      What we may see is a tiered program that puts the most effective catalysts in non-military hands. Guardians are well aware of the tendency to weaponize any new energy source. The Athanor Project guarantees anyone with $1k in parts and materials can produce a COP 4+ heater. THAT goes a long way to guaranteeing progressive Open Source LENR. And it pushes the for profit ventures to do better. Win Win… and green;)

      • Robert Mockan

        The only formula I am interested in is the Rossi formula. 600 C, high power, inexpensive materials, COP=6. Starting with that, progress to develop something better would make a big leap.

        • I would narrow the field still further – to only the 600C design and its derivatives. The purported home unit and the 1MW demo unit are now just relics. (Usual caveats) The former would never be permitted to see the light of day in any case.

      • GreenWin

        I suppose if you or good friend had $1.5M you could buy a 1MW unit and disassemble it. But as you note, there already are good minds developing the catalyst – those meeting the qualifications are few. But I have some ideas.

        Whoever is running that segment is doing a good job. But I don’t expect to see the “formula” for Rossi catalyst until long after global manufacture and distribution are firmly in place.

  • Dave From NJ

    Rossi’s words mean nothing. We need a well respected physicist who is an expert in calimetric measurements. If Rossi gave SRI a device, I am sure they would honor the NDA. Besides, Rossi could sue the pants off them if they do not. Then we can have a real measurement expert like Mike McKubre publish his results.

    I am actually stunned that safety concerns over an energy reactor using nuclear reactions is never discussed in any of these threads.

    • Ged

      Safety is never discussed in these threads? My good sir, you really must be new here. We’ve had at least a dozen back to back threads where safety was constantly brought up. Where I myself calculated the radiation, the effects at that level, the shielding needed, and what it would mean to be exposed to it, with hard numbers (the take home message was the gamma radiation originally detected was so low as to be blocked by a centimeter of lead, in agreement with Rossi, and of no dangerous biological concern).

      You should go diving back through historical posts, there’s a lot of great nuggets of information I think you’d find interesting.

      • Ged

        Wow dude, instead of wanting to learn or discuss, you are going to sidetrack with sarcasm? You sound almost… wounded. I don’t have time to play fetch for you, do that yourself and learn how to educate yourself. I’d do you no favors to fish for you.

        There are theoretical models written by physicists also posted here on this site. In fact, very recently was the one by Storm that got its own headline news article. Go read them.

        The radiation is also understood as a result from hydrogen/nickle fusion into a (very low percentage of the time) radioactive copper isotope. The decay of that isotope gives off 511 KeV of soft gamma radiation or so. That is blocked by a single centimeter of lead (well, more like 1.6 cm to completely attenuate it). You can also use google to look that up.

        It is quite possible, as has been reported by other physicists, that the LENR process could be favored only for stable isotopes, which means -no radiation- would be given off, except heat radiation, captured in lattice vibrations.

        • Dave From NJ

          It’s “Edmund Storms” not “Storm”.

          • Ged

            Absolutely correct! I am glad you are starting to delve into the material. Keep it up, as this is how one truly learns and discussions are advanced.

            I hope to have you correcting me more often ;).

      • Andrew Macleod

        Hey Dave, I mean no disrespect but we don’t care if you believe. If you have safety concerns about it then don’t get one or take it up with whatever safety board you want. Frankly your scarcasm and bad attitude is getting old like all trolls that are probally migrating from other sites because they drove off everybody and have no one to argue with anymore. Here’s the facts! Theres very little or no evidence to support anything Rossi says. We take it on faith! This site is not here to debate the scientific rigors of cold fusion, it’s here to provide a place for discussion for those who are excited or interested about it, that’s it.

    • Ged

      I don’t see people posting that. But, I have only just gotten on to check this site. Most of everything you’re trying to bring up has already been discussed -at length- elsewhere on this site. The regulars know that, and that may be why they seem gruff. Just rehashing of the same old, same old.

      • Dave From NJ

        There is nothing new here. Rossi has just made another extrordinary claim followed by ordinary support for his claim.

        • Ged

          No, I’m saying -you’re- not saying anything new. Rossi’s claims are new. Or rather, more of a clarification of focus regarding the boilers (which is no surprise… it’d be a surprise only if he was also putting boiler production on his plate).

          What is very new is that temperature is being measured by the walls of the reactor itself, instead of an output stream of water. Originally the reactors were bathed in water, now it seems that is not so, and they are “solid state”. That is a huge change, and would mean the reaction is under far greater control than previously.

          • Dave From NJ

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

            Rossi needs to give a device to SRI or some other respected organization for testing.

          • Ged

            The device is in the hands of UL at the moment. They are currently certifying its operation and safety; required for its manufacture for home use.

            That’s far better than giving it to SRI.

          • jacob

            dave ,who do you recommend to do third party testing and who you also respect???but remember he has to be smarter than a fifth grader,LENR ,COLD FUSION works my friend.

          • Dave From NJ

            1. Dr. Hagelstein
            2. Edmund Storms
            3. Mike McKubre

          • Ged

            I would love to see such a party of te– ok, this whole nesting of comments bit is getting insane. Now we get a letter per line?

    • Dave From NJ

      Just ignore the input power. That’s good science!!!

      • Ged

        Do you not notice all the discussion about COPs? A COP of 6 means the reactor is giving off 6 times more heat than input power. No one is ignoring or has ever ignored input power here on this site!

        • Dave From NJ

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

          Except with Rossi. He is special.

          • Ged

            As I just posted above, and because you are new here I’ll reiterate:

            “The device is in the hands of UL at the moment. They are currently certifying its operation and safety; required for its manufacture for home use.”

            Others are already working on this issue.

          • Dave From NJ

            What is the UL certification number so I can look it up?

          • Ged

            It isn’t UL certified yet. And as we’ve previously seen, so far, any attempts to talk to UL about it makes them whip out a NDA. In short, we can’t know till they are done, sadly.

          • jacob

            edog funny

    • Bigwilly

      Ya Dave, chill. Take it on face value. If he says it it MUST be true.

      bW

      • Dave From NJ

        It is true. I believe!!!

        All objective truth is subjectively determined.

        Rossi is a great guy!!!

        • Ged

          If you have real concerns and information to back them up, then present them. Opinions are not all that interesting when we’ve seen them a thousand times.

          • Dave From NJ

            E/C2 = m Fact.

            Same reactions are used in hydrogen bombs. Fact.

            The amount of energy being reported is well beyond the total energy of they materials if they were burned with perfect efficient. Therefore, it must be a nuclear reaction. FACT.

            Take all these facts and add them up. A very little amount of “m” could create a very big BOOM. Fact or not?

            You can’t prove a negative that somethine will never happen. However, if we had an accepted and tested theoretical model at least we would know the limitationas and total potentials of the each device.

            Hey look, it’s safe. God says so. Just believe what you want to believe. Click your heals together three times and repeat after me: E-Cat is safe, E-Cat is safe, E-Cat is safe.

          • Ged

            Oh… my goodness… You want to discuss how nuclear physics actually works?

            Ok, firstly, let’s look at this wiki article on uranium 238 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238

            Notice how, although uranium 238 fissions, and is used in nuclear fission reactors, it cannot cause a chain reaction, and therein cannot explode. This is why uranium enrichment (enriching uranium 235 which can explode) has to be done to make a bomb.

            An explosion requires -rapid- energy release. The sun is not exploding, because its energy release is not rapid enough to overcome gravity. If the sun’s energy release increased beyond that point, it would go nova. See, just because you are using nuclear reactions, does not guarantee and explosion.

            Rate of reaction MUST be rapid enough for something to be explosive. LENR is not a rapid reaction. Nor can LENR cause a chain reaction as uranium 235 (but NOT uranium 238) can.

            So, once more, just because something is “nuclear” like uranium 238 is, does not mean it can ever explode in any way, shape, nor form.

            You can prove a negative that something will never happen. Uranium 238 will never explode, because of the properties of it itself is too slow. No amount of saying “but you can’t prove a negative!” will change this fact of reality. LENR will never explode, it’s useless for any sort of direct weapon.

            Finally, even though both fission and fusion are nuclear reactions, neither used E = Mc^2 completely. The energy given off is mostly from the transformation of subatomic particles (such as protons to neutrons, or vice versa), and the changes of energy associated with the strong/weak nuclear forces. You’re thinking more of antimatter and matter reactions, which are the only reactions that truly use E = Mc^2 to the full extent.

          • Dave From NJ

            LENR causes nuclear reactions in a metal matrix. You know that it is perfectly safe because God has told you?

          • Ged

            Because physics has told you!

            Ok, look up what “explosion” means. And then get back to me.

            Oh, and how about you propose a mechanism by which an explosion can occur through LENR?

          • Ged

            Oh, and for the record. How do hydrogen bombs work?

            Hydrogen bombs use a casing of hydrogen around a nugget of plutonium (you need to have enough plutonium mass for this to work), where a primer explosion by rapid burning of the hydrogen compresses the plutonium. The compression of the plutonium causes it to undergo a massive, spontaneous fission. That all of the sudden at once fission is what causes the explosion; which then fuels rapid, “all at once” mass fusion of the remaining hydrogen to give off even more energy (consequently, hydrogen bombs are both fission and then fusion explosions). Although plutonium is radioactive (and thus constantly undergoing self nuclear reactions), it is not explosive on its own.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

            See, isn’t learning about nuclear physics fun?

          • Dave From NJ

            I think hydrogen bombs work by using forces created in nuclear reactions.

            I think LENR works by using forces created by nuclear reactions.

          • Ged

            Both I and physics do not care about what you think. What you think is meaningless.

            I have told you how the physics -actually- works, and linked you to articles to learn yourself.

            Force is not involved in LENR. Though radio frequency occilations of a metal matrix may be involved. Nor is force given off by LENR, other than vibrations of a lattice in the form of heat.

            Do you understand all the variations that “energy” can manifest in?

          • jacob

            an apple is round so is an orange

          • kemo sabe

            To correct some of Ged’s errors in physics:

            It’s true that U-238 is present in nuclear reactors, but it is the fission of U-235 and some Pu-239 that produces the heat. This is because both can go critical with a suitable moderator. U-238 cannot go critical and therefore fission of U-238 contributes negligibly to the heat production in a reactor. It’s only there because it is present in the same ore that the U-235 is found in.

            In the sun, gravity serves to confine the plasma, and *causes* the fusion, which occurs at a rate to balance the temperature and size in a kind of equilibrium. It generates energy at a rate of 10^11 megatons of TNT per second, which seems explosive to me, although it’s true that the power density is quite low.

            It’s true that the presence of nuclear reactions does not guarantee explosions, but surely explosions don’t have to be guaranteed to consider something dangerous.

            You say LENR is not rapid enough to be explosive, but I’m not sure how you know that, given that there is no agreed upon theory to explain LENR, and the usual argument is that it probably involves some kind of reaction completely different from the usual nuclear physics.

            Being radioactive like U-238 is not enough to make something explosive, but U-238 can’t even produce useful heat in a reactor. On the other hand, LENR is a nuclear reaction of unknown description that can allegedly produce billions of joules of heat per g of fuel. Without knowing how it works, how do you know that conditions can’t exist wherein that can happen explosively? When skeptics say LENR can’t happen, they are accused of being dogmatic, and yet you have no problem being certain that explosions can’t happen. The same thing that might make LENR useful (where U-238 is not) might also make it dangerous.

            (And actually, U-238 in a breeder reactor becomes Pu-239, which can explode.)

            It’s true that neither fusion nor fission cause complete conversion of the mass of fuel to energy, but if the change in mass is m, then the energy produced is given completely by E=mc^2. In chemistry, far less mass is converted to energy, but still Dresden was still laid flat with chemical explosives.

            Personally, I have no fear of nuclear explosions in ecats, because I don’t believe there are any nuclear reactions of any consequence. But I don’t see how anyone can claim accessible energy densities a million times higher than dynamite, by unknown mechanisms, and be so sure that the energy can’t be released explosively.

          • kemo sabe

            Ged:
            As for how hydrogen bombs work, conventional explosives (not hydrogen) compress a plutonium core to criticality, and this fission explosion compresses and heats fusion fuel (Li-6 deuteride), which produces copious neutrons, which may be used to trigger a second fission explosion in a second plutonium core.

            The critical mass of a sphere of pure Pu-239 is 11 kg (about 4 inches in diameter). That means it will explode without any compression. Of course, the difficulty is making such a sphere quickly enough to get a big explosion. For this, conventional explosives are used, so yes, producing a really big explosion from pure Pu-239 is hard. But I wouldn’t want to be anywhere nearby if you simply threw two pieces of Pu together, each of which exceeded half the critical mass, thank you very much. And in any case, dynamite is not explosive on its own either; it also requires a spark.

          • kemo sabe

            Ged wrote “Force is not involved in LENR.”

            Nuclear reactions release heat because of changes in binding energy, and binding energy results from the force between nucleons, so force is most certainly involved.

          • Ged

            Kemo Sabe,

            Thanks for catching some things, like the conventional explosives used for the plutonium implosion in a hydrogen bomb.

            I do think some of your points are wrong, however.

            For instance, “force” can have many interpretations, but I was taking the Newtonian version; as in the force of an explosion. LENR does not generate force in that sense, as a nuclear bomb generates force during detonation from the rapid expansion of heated gas.

            Secondly, the sun is not exploding. That is a crude analogy born from the need to measure the energy output of the sun. But the sun is fully contained by gravity, as I stated. To explode, the -rate of reaction- would have to increase beyond gravity confinement, which leads to a star going nova. This can happen, for instance, was a star begins to collapse on a iron core late stage in life, and this collapse builds up enough pressure to start fusing iron; the energy release of such is so rapid and enormous it detonates the star. Of course, there are other mechanisms too. But the point being, an explosion can only happen if you release energy -rapidly- enough. Just because you’re giving off energy does not mean you can have an explosion. Glucose is burned in your cells through oxidation just as if you burned glucose in a flame; yet you do not spontaneously combust because the rate of reaction is so slow.

            Thirdly, Dave was trying to say that the E-cat could explode and “kill thousands of people”. So the discussion of what was dangerous was limited to explosive potential. Other possible dangers are of course radiation, but that has been addressed elsewhere.

            Fourthly, we can know LENR is not rapid enough to explode because 1) it only gives off a quick enough reaction to heat something to 600 C at most, and 2) the reaction is very easily stopped, which has been why LENR work has been so slow, and 3) all proposed mechanisms for LENR (which do conform to physics as we know them, actually), do not allow rapid energy release as would be required for an explosion, just a slow rate from certain favorable sites in the lattice, which is in agreement with observations. No explosions have ever occurred either. We can claim they never will because, again, rate of reaction is way too low, just like uranium 238’s rate of fission is way too low and can -never explode- even though it’s a nuclear reaction.

            Fifthly, I’m in complete agreement with you about uranium 238 in reactors, so no divergence between us there.

            Sixthly, dynamite is indeed not reactive on its own without an ignition. Same with C4. Same with plutonium. Just throwing two half critical mass plutonium spheres at each other will not create an explosion. You’d have to compress them in the process (throw them hard enough, that might do it!). But my point stands, just because something is nuclear, does not make it explosive. It is in fact very hard to use nuclear reactions as explosives, and hence why so few countries in this world have accomplished it.

            Finally, you are completely wrong about chemical reactions converting mass. Chemical reactions -never- change mass, and are never subject to E = Mc^2. That’s one of the hallmarks of what makes something a chemical reaction, and allows equilibrium. The energy from a chemical reaction is all in the changes of the bonds between atoms, and electrostatic interactions. That’s it. No mass changes what so ever. Similarly, some nuclear reactions do not actually cause a change of total mass of the system, but some do. Consequently, E = Mc^2 does apply to some nuclear reactions, as I stated. However, -the majority of energy- is still from the weak/strong nuclear forces, not from the conversion of mass into energy. Only antimatter-matter reactions can truly tap into the conversion of mass into energy directly.

            Thanks for the intelligent replies!

          • Ged

            In fact, Kemo, let’s take our rate of reactions example farther.

            A nuclear reactor can melt down, but can it cause a nuclear explosion like a bomb? No. In fact, that’s impossible, and physics tells us why that’s impossible. Yet, it’s still a run away nuclear reaction.

            The reason a nuclear reactor can run away, melt down, but never explode is because it can never gain a rate of reaction that’s both abrupt enough and fast enough for causing an explosion (ignore over heating of steam causing steam pipe pressure ruptures, that’s a totally different thing).

            The uranium 235 is not enriched enough to reach a spontaneous reaction speed required for a nuclear explosion. So, as you can see, just because something is nuclear does not mean it can ever explode. To explode you must have 1) a great enough spontaneous reaction mass, and 2) a fast enough chain reaction rate.

            Let’s look at one more example. Dynamite and thermite both give off enormous amounts of energy when they react (thermite can cut a car in half, as Mythbusters showed). However, dynamite explodes, and thermite does not. Why is this?

            The reason dynamite can explode yet the similarly powerful thermite does not, is because thermite reacts -slowly-. It gets extraordinarily hot, but the rate of reaction is slow. Dynamite does not get hot, instead it has a fast rate of reaction which causes an explosion (shockwave) from the energy release.

            See, just because two things release mass amounts of energy, one does it slowly as heat (thermite) and the other does it rapidly as shock (dynamite); and it’s the rate of reaction that determines if something is explosive, not the amount of energy release.

            So there you have it, two clear examples that should show you that just because something gives off energy (and LENR doesn’t even give off that much energy), or is nuclear, does not mean it can be explosive, and in fact, we can prove that it can never explode (with current materials).

        • Dave From NJ

          I have never attacked Rossi. A man is not his inventions. A man is not his words or what he claims.

          I am sure Rossi is great guy. What I am criticising is not “attacking Rossi”.

          • GreenWin

            Maybe Dave thinks Ing Rossi insulted him in some way and now holds a grudge??

        • jacob

          Dave, is a nice guy ,who Attacks Rossi for no reason at all,unless there is something we don’t know about,so dave why are you attacking Rossi and his LENR,is it because you believe a big explosion is going to happen and wipe out ROSSI’s factory,can someone on this Bloc give some evidence how save LENR is ,and give it to Dave,he is freaking out,some body please calm him down with reassuring safety details, thanks in advance

    • Karl

      The so called well respected scientists have had their saying many years and we know their position by now. Your claims of independent testing is quite naive in a business perspective. The kind of general skeptics view you suggest we do have heard to much of already. I imagine we are rapidly coming closer and to a plausible theory anyway. Rossi is not alone in this work but I’m sure we will finally give him a lot of credit for it.

      • Dave From NJ

        Yes, I am aware of the hot fusion guys and their behaviors. Yes, hot fusion is junk science.

        These 3 guys have studied LENR for over 20 years:

        1. Dr. Hagelsteing of MIT
        2. Dr. Edmund Storm
        3. Mike McKubre of SRI

        I have heard Mike McKubre say he would love to have a Rossi device and test it. I do not think it is an issue of money. But it is an issue of trust and paranoia.

        Paranoia both ways. If it is true then the “secret” will be let out. And if it is false then all the fun will stop.

        • Karl

          The people you mention are all extremely qualified in the topic and know that the LENR phenomena is for real. They do not need Rossis devices to verify anything.

        • hempenearth

          Mike McKubre is on the Board of Advisors to Brillioun, a competitor of Rossi. Peter Hagelstein is somewhat controlled by MIT which was a big part of the early unjustified discrediting of CF/LENR and still has extensive hot fusion interests, so that really only leaves Edmund Storm as an option who could provide you with an opinion/data you would trust?

    • GreenWin

      “Ego non sensus.”

      • Dave From NJ

        One man’s delusions is another man’s convictions.

    • jacob

      What is SRI dave??or what other respected organization??

      • Dave From NJ

        1. Dr. Hagelsteing of MIT
        2. Dr. Edmund Storm
        3. Mike McKubre of SRI

        SRI International – an independent, nonprofit R&D organization …
        SRI International is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts contract research and development for government agencies, businesses and

        • Ged

          I think it’s better for Underwriters Laboratories to do the initial evaluations, more than SRI. Since UL answers to the government directly, and has to do a good and thorough job.

          Still, would love to see SRI get a device and evaluate it. They would be able to posit more on the theory side.

    • Ged

      No, he’s right. You have radioactive potassium undergoing nuclear reactions in your body right now. Not to mention the radioactive calcium in your bones. Or the radioactive uranium floating in your system as you pick it up from the dust of the earth and your drinking water.

      Radioactive carbon 14, is also in your body, along with radioactive sulfur 35 (which I’ve personally worked with for scientific research).

      Your body is full of radioactive isotopes undergoing nuclear reactions. It’s fun to actually learn about reality, yes?

      • Dave From NJ

        Yes he is right but he is being disrespectful in my opinion.

        I am not being disrespectful. I am questioning the safety of a device that is producing energy based on nuclear reactions.

        So far the implications are I am an idiot, snake, clown, ignorant, and have no understanding of basic physics.

        • Ged

          I will agree with you there. He was being a little disrespectful, but no more than you have been earlier in threads above with your sarcasm.

          You are not an idiot, snake, or clown. However, I will say this: yes, you do lack an understanding of physics or what “nuclear” means. I hope I have been helping you to begin the journey of learning the basics of nuclear physics.

    • AB

      Regarding safety concerns brought up by Dave (and others in the past).

      In a scenario where the ecat is genuine, it’s most likely reasonably safe as evidenced by the fact that Rossi is still alive. There is also a radiation safety report written by a professional during internal testing of the ecat that you can view here: http://22passi.blogspot.it/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html

      According to Rossi, the reaction cannot run away because once the nickel melts, the nanostructures that are required for the reaction to take place disappear. That nanostructures on the metal surface are a requirement for the reaction to take place is an opinion that many LENR researchers share.

      Pekka Janhunen (our resident physicist) at one also explained why a catastrophic chain reaction (like in a nuclear bomb) is unlikely given what is known. For such a chain reaction fast neutrons are needed which are absent in the ecat. Even if an ecat could suddenly produce neutrons unexpectedly, the hydrogen would slow them down too much to allow a chain reaction (disclaimer: this explanation may be incomplete or a simplistic but that’s what I remember, feel free to point out any errors or omissions).

      The alternate scenario is that the ecat is a lie, in which case there are no safety issues.

    • jacob

      YOU,Dave come on this site and trash one of the most incredible inventors Andrea Rossi, who has the guts to bring cold fusion back to us with working models ,that were discredited by many,and you don’t think for one minute,your opinion whatever the heck it is based on,against this new technology is simply undermining what has already been proven by hundreds of researchers in the field,who are afraid of being shot down and lose their research grants,you have to read and do your home work,because you are blindly commenting on things you have no understanding and no real knowledge of,there is some other sites that may be more interesting to you,nobody likes to look like a foul,but you are just another person that is attacking ROSSI,and you think it is funny,ROSSi will go down in history as a HERO,who boldly went ahead to improve life for Civilization Earth,including you Dave,but you can’t see it yet.

    • jacob

      You are right Dave you are stunned,ROSSI doesn’t need approval of his reactors by SRI or any other 3rd party peers,he went through that already, you just don’t know about it, probably missed it by mistake,but that’s ok

    • GreenWin

      Ged, remarkable patience! Respect.

    • daniel maris

      I don’t think calimetrics are so important as a convincing demonstration. That means longer than 12 hours (his max so far I think). It means in a neutral venue where distinterested parties can confirm there are no secret cables or devices etc.

    • Deleted once again by the author. Why are these posts being mis-posted?

  • Pingback: More from Rossi on the High Temperature E-Cats | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • Dave From NJ

    Alright, I give up. You all win. I am gone.

    • Ged

      If you run away when someone starts talking to you about actual science, and linking you to information, then maybe that should tell you something.

      Please, start reading more about nuclear physics, I think you may enjoy it, and then be able to join our discussions on that topic. We’d certainly be welcome to having you, once you are willing to learn the basics and come up to speed.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        “Please, start reading more about nuclear physics…”

        While at it, also brush up on 3rd grade grammar and learn the difference between there, their, and they’re.

        • GreenWin

          Ig, that would require education.

        • kemo sabe

          In this thread I noticed 2 their/they’re/there errors and 2 its/it’s errors which didn’t seem to bother you. Is that because they’re all from Rossi fans? I didn’t spot Dave from NJ’s error, but maybe it’s in a different thread.

          But picking on grammar is kind of petty, when there are so many errors made in physics, particularly by Ged, in an effort to school Dave from NJ.

          • Ged

            Check below where I corrected some of your physics (and chemistry) errors, Kemo. Thank you for the time replying intelligently, this is a real, and interesting, discussion.

    • jacob

      please Dave from NJ ,read up on all the facts ,about COLD FUSION and LENR processes and be assured it is very save .Don’t worry dave ,and i wish you a successful future ,including save COLD FUSION and save LENR technology, good bye . No insults intended.

    • Don Witcher

      Sorry if you get a poor performance review. You are extremely good at staying “on message”

      • Its just a shame about the message. Actually he does at least make an effort to appear to be contributing, rather than just being relentlessly jeering and negative like the ECN crew.

        • Ged

          Very true. He at least seemed to be about to start learning, and to read up on the material. I enjoy it when I’m corrected for a mistake, as he did with Dr. Storms. I really feel he has hope; and that has nothing to do with if he does or does not think the E-cat is valid.

    • Matt S

      Don’t give Dave the time everyone, really not worth the bother, so many of them (like Dave NJ) it would drive you all mad trying to swat them all. He is only here to wind folk up and that could be for all sorts of various reasons.

      • Don Witcher

        Dave was just doing his job. He has undoubtedly been reassigned to another area better suited to his capabilities. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826545/pg1

        The pattern of their responses is easy to recognize once it is understood what is really going on. Be happy. This is really a recognition that Rossi is undoubtedly for real because somebody is shelling out big bucks for this activity.

        • Bigwilly

          Oh dang!

          This one story of a paid shill handily indicts all posters who arent true believers.

          Listen here shills and turfers! Your time has come. We now know what your TRUE intentions are…

          Wait, actually im not sure what it is. All I know is if I could get paid to post some stuff on a forum I would absolutely do it. As long as I dont have to be insulting or rude.

          BW

        • Don Witcher

          Ah BW

          The service that shills provide makes them a member of the worlds second oldest profession which is closely akin to the first. One sells a body and the other sells integrity. Both will be with mankind as long as it exists.

          Having said that I have no problem with skeptics of LENR and the ecat, which is the subject of this Blog site, whether they are paid or not. They can provide good content to the site as long as they keep the dialog at a good technical level and keep their arguments honest. Posting half truths and lies in an endlessly repetitive fashion is however beyond the Pale.

        • GreenWin

          Brilliant Don. LOL!

        • Garry

          Don– world’s second oldest profession… one that sells integrity?

          I think you mean lawyers.

        • kemo sabe

          Actually, I think it is far more likely that the many prolific and adamant supporters of Rossi are paid shills. If Rossi is looking for investment, then he has something very obvious to gain from a devoted following. Also, Rossi’s history, and the comment he made to Krivit (from memory: if you help me now, I will help you always), back when Krivit was on-side, seem entirely consistent with his employing advocates.

          On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine what skeptical organizations could possibly gain from a few shills in tiny irrelevant internet blogs, when science already disbelieves Rossi, and the media ignore him. Any organization threatened by LENR does not need to worry until someone convincingly demonstrates a working device, and then no amount of advocacy would help them.

          • GreenWin

            Hehe Generale – out of uniform! We tend to think the consternation of skeptics increases with inevitability of LENR.

  • Allen

    Can we ban Dave and all like him from comments?

    • Bigwilly

      Some sort of autoban that only allows fanboys to post?

      Im for it.

      BW

      • And fangirls, obviously

      • Ged

        Yeah, why does everyone forget the fangirls? So unfair.

  • Plumber

    i cant wait to see this live!

  • Don Witcher

    I think that we can all agree that once it is commercialized, LENR will have a profound effect on the Worlds economy. Some business’s will be relatively untouched, some will be profoundly effected but will survive, for some that do not find a way to adapt it will be a death knell and of course new business’s will come into being.

    Rossi and the Corporation that he represents has had a moral if not legal obligation to provide as much disclosure as possible while still protecting the interests of the corporate entity of which he is the founder. I personally think he has done a remarkable job of this with his Blog Site and his October 6th 2011 demonstration and October 28 2011 acceptance test of a commercial product for an undisclosed customer who wished to remain anonymous.

    After the acceptance test of the first one megawatt reactor these low temperature one megawatt reactors have been for sale. Thus any large Corporation or individual that has been astute enough to feel that its corporate interests could be potentially effected has had the opportunity to negotiate with Rossi for the purchase of and ultimate possession of a reactor and thereby receive information not necessarily open to the public. The price for that action was the commitment of 1.5 million dollars payable upon a successful acceptance test and delivery.

    With the advent of the 600 C ecats we seem to be rapidly approaching the end game concerning the reality of LENR and commercial utility. When that happens and its the ecat and Rossi that does it then NOBODY can say that Rossi has not disclosed his activities.

    • The best thing is that our money won’t be wasted on arab oil.

    • georgehants

      Don look above at the National Research Council long term priorities.
      Quantum good, at long last, but not a word on Cold Fusion.
      Pray Rossi is legit or it will be 100 years before science even looks at the subject.

  • georgehants

    georgehants on June 26, 2012 at 6:27 pm
    National Research Council presents long-term priorities for US nuclear physics program
    June 26, 2012
    Nuclear physics is a discovery-driven enterprise aimed at understanding the fundamental nature of visible matter in the universe. For the past hundred years, new knowledge of the nuclear world has also directly benefited society through many innovative applications.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-national-council-long-term-priorities-nuclear.html

    • Don Witcher

      Incredibly pathetic. Stagnation squared.

  • georgehants

    See how easy it is to get hundreds of comments on page, just have one person causing trouble, imagine with ten of the same kind.
    Quality drops to zero.

    • georgehants

      Peter, I did not mean you. Ha.

      • Aw, c’mon George – I’ve hardly had a go at anyone all day! (Apart from governments and banks that is – as usual).

      • GreenWin

        I’ll pay $1k to see Peter Roe arm wrestle David Rockefeller. All rights reserved.

        • I abhor sport of any kind. On the other hand, he is about 90, so I might be in with a faint chance…

          • Barry

            I’m placing ten dollars on Peter.

        • GreenWin

          Peter, David has demurred, dashing my hopes of easy money via television rights. But I am pursuing Mervyn A. King, Governor of the Bank of England. He is only 64 so perhaps a frog throwing contest would be better. My money is on you Peter.

          • Thank you for your faith in me GW. Frog throwing does happen to be one of my stronger suites, and I do have a whole year on old Merv.

            PS, I do like the word ‘only’ in connection with ages in the early sixties range.

          • GreenWin

            Excellent! I too drive an older car with a young engine – it needs only a little TLC.

            PS You meant cards or clothes and not a strong abode me thinks.

    • Bigwilly

      Come on George. I think the dissension breeds interesting discourse.

      BW

      • georgehants

        BW, fair discussion even disagreement, I agree with you, but pointless “dissension” just to be awkward breeds the kind of minds one finds in main-line science.
        Something I think any reasonable person would want to avoid.

        • daniel maris

          Who’s to decide what’s awkward. You’re pretty awkward yourself, most people would say. Free speech is important. We should maintain it as far as possible.

        • Ged

          I so agree, George. I would define pointless dissension as over the top, unsupported statements already well falsified through common knowledge… People who are contrary just for contrary’s sake. The vast majority here do not do that though. In fact, it’s actually rather remarkable the sophisticated level of discourse this place enjoys. I love it.

          And, I do enjoy all your contributions, George, even when I do not agree.

  • clovis

    Hi, guys.
    It is the wall of the reactor. It seems that Rossi is essentially building the heating element,
    I say that has always been the case, I believe.
    Regulation of temp could be done by using different size reactors,larger for more, smaller for less, could it be that simple.–smile

  • georgehants

    From The Foresight Institute.
    Solid state synthetic molecular machine points to advanced nanotechnology
    Canadian chemists have induced a metal-organic framework to self-assemble and function as a molecular wheel on an axle in a solid state material. From a University of Windsor news article “Chemists break new ground in molecular machine research“:
    A graduate student and his team of researchers have turned the chemistry world on its ear by becoming the first ever to prove that tiny interlocked molecules can function inside solid materials, laying the important groundwork for the future creation of molecular machines.
    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=5225

    • Ged

      Very fascinating. Shows what crazy things we can do with a solid lattice. I’m loving it.

  • JWR

    The e cats of a year ago gave heat because of fusion of hydrogen at about the boiling point of water.
    That is already very good! For sanitary hot water and for heating.
    Now Rossi claims that he is able to do it at a surface temperature of 600 C.
    Fantastic he can make steam -if the reaction takes also place at high pressure!- for existing technology of steamturbines.Or gas at high temperature.
    What I like with Rossi, he is not claiming more!
    He only claims that he has been able to have a LENR phenomenon up to 600 C.
    Boiling manufacturers, whether coal , gas , oil or nuclear have to incorporate this new heat source, for steam turbines or gas turbines or what other mechanism to go from heat to mechanical work.
    And it is a LENR! No radiation, no waste, no run away.
    Indeed Dave, I understood he is at ECN in the Netherlands, should not make himself ridiculous.

  • georgehants

    One can imagine the advice they are going to get.
    “opinion experts” telling everyone that Cold Fusion is a myth. Etc.

    Nature | From SciDev.Net
    UNESCO to set up UN science advisory board
    Board will advise secretary-general on science issues.
    http://www.nature.com/news/unesco-to-set-up-un-science-advisory-board-1.10884

  • georgehants

    Damiano
    June 26th, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    Hello Andrea
    Do you have an estimate for the production of the smaller heating units ?
    (the ones that just produce heat for a household)
    Thanks
    Damiano

    Andrea Rossi
    June 26th, 2012 at 3:08 PM
    Dear Damiano:
    We have to wait for the certification, after which we have already prepared the line of production for mass scale.
    The industrial plants are already in production.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • psi

    Having read or perused most of the 143 comments in this set of threads I will offer an opinion:

    Dave is either

    1) Not very bright, not very well informed, eager to insult, and habituated to confrontation for confrontation’s sake,

    or

    2) A paid shill.

    Either way, I personally find his involvement highly entertaining and strongly in the favor of both Rossi and LENR. Just my 2 cents. Maybe Smith the Aussie will throw in a million to support Dave’s pabulum.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigation.”

    • Fender

      Admin, I thought ad hominem attacks were not allowed here.

      • psi

        If that were true almost all of Dave’s posts would be deleted. Have you read them? He has called anyone who has had anything positive or even neutral to say about Rossi an idiot etc.

      • psi

        If that were true almost all of Dave’s posts would be deleted. Have you read them? He has called anyone who has had anything positive or even neutral to say about Rossi has been called an idiot etc.

        • kemo sabe

          Could you give a single example of this? I couldn’t find one.

  • hempenearth

    Does anyone know if the walls of Rossi’s device are still lead and if the water that passes through his device comes into direct contact with that lead?

    Just a non physicist seeking information and apologies if I have missed it in an earlier thread.

    • Fender

      Lead melts at 327 deg C, so the primary walls have to be made of a different material.

    • No ‘clues’ seem to have been leaked so far about the design of the new high-temperature ecats. It seems likely that the individual reactor cores are small (I think a nickel charge of 1.5g was mentioned at some point) so there will probably be tens of them in a module, the substance of which would provide any shielding required. Rossi has stated that he will not be involved with water boilers or heat exchangers, which weakly implies that there will be a primary (presumably non-water) coolant of some kind that is then circulated through 3rd party equipment.

  • daniel maris

    Sorry – just saw George beat me to this…

    MORE FROM ROSSI:

    Damiano
    June 26th, 2012 at 2:48 PM
    Hello Andrea

    Do you have an estimate for the production of the smaller heating units ?
    (the ones that just produce heat for a household)

    Thanks

    Damiano

    Andrea Rossi
    June 26th, 2012 at 3:08 PM
    Dear Damiano:
    We have to wait for the certification, after which we have already prepared the line of production for mass scale.
    The industrial plants are already in production.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Garry

    Here’s a question. There’s been a lot of discussion about economics on the board. What about the US election? Would either party benefit from getting an inside scoop on this and publicizing it first?

    Would the “announcement” move faster, or be less likely to be suppressed, if either side saw it as a way to win the election?

    I was surprised something similar didn’t happen in Greece, but perhaps people were still too unsure about the reality of Dekfalion to dare lose credibility.

    • psi

      To me it looks like a good opportunity for Obama should he choose to make use of it in a strategic way – he seems much more likely to have easy access to the latest classified information than his rival.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        An October surprise?

    • Fender

      I am not sure, Garry. If I were a presidential candidate, I would be very cautious about any announcements regarding LENR. All we have since last year are just Rossi’s posts on JoNP. Do you think this is enough to bet your carrier on?

      • Garry

        I agree, but like Psi says above… if he had inside info… He could have a “surrogate” take the chance, get it out there, and then get behind it.

        Or Romney.

        I have my VERY strong preference of the two men but I don’t want to turn this into a political thread. We all know from business development… create scarcity, create competition, and things HAPPEN.

        I’d like them each racing to “own” the announcement. I think the outcome for the world would, I hope, overshadow the political damage one thinks either would do as president.

      • Don’t forget that if we are reading the runes correctly, Rossi may soon be able to announce 20,000 hours of operation of the ‘super-ecat’ design, which hopefully will be backed up by a lot more than his say-so.

        It might just be that he is nearly ready to roll things out in a way that can’t be put down by the shills, and which is good enough to encourage the more loosely controlled media to carry the story. If Siemens’ apparent involvement is formally confirmed, then this could be the tipping point.

        I have to say that if none of this proves to be the case within a reasonable time frame, I intend to get on with more useful things than following this story, at least until Brillouin, DGT or someone else makes their play.

    • GreenWin

      Randy Hekman, candidate for U.S. Senate Michigan – is a MIT grad with strong support for the WL-theory of LENR. He has come out in his campaign materials in support of cold fusion aka LENR:

      http://randyhekman2012.com/about

      “Other Interests”

    • No candidate in his right mind would venture out on the seemingly very weak limb of “cold fusion is here, now, to save us all.” It would be suicidal. Politicians are shape-shifting chameleons and thieves at heart. They have learned to adopt the colors of those around them or they will be taken to task for not blending in. If they take a bold, firm stance on anything of substance they win enemies. Whatever friends they may make by their position will quickly forget the favor but the affront will be remembered longtime.

      The events of cold fusion are still submerged in very murky water and possession of the talisman will not be claimed until such time as a product comes to market and it is safe for them to utter their weasel-words. I must say it would be very nice to know which of the two presidential candidates has an opinion on the subject. I suspect neither have a clue as their are both totally unoriginal people. They may be able to work the materials and manipulate people but neither have original ideas, insight, nor vision.

      • psi

        I agree with your analysis of the political calculus for the candidates — as things stand in *June*. This very fluid situation could be very different in late October….just saying.

  • jacob

    I read a lot of information on the speculation about containing a heating fluid at over 600 celsius and about molten salt and hot oil,but why is it not possible for the E-cat to use Lead both for shielding and circulating fluid,would it still block gamma radiation and still absorb the heat in a liquid molten lead ,to act as a solid state reactor,thanks in advance

    • What gamma radiation? How much gamma radiation? If those radiations are weak why bother with lead when a layer of circulating water and a couple of shells of steel would suffice. Using liquid lead for a heat transfer fluid makes for many problems.

      • “Using liquid lead for a heat transfer fluid makes for many problems.” Indeed, not least of which is what happens when a unit is switched off and the lead solidifies in pipes and pumps!

    • GreenWin

      The independent report I read on a 2011 Rossi reactor test anticipated release of 500+keV gamma confirming beta decay thermalization. The report used two calibrated scientific quality scintillators and found no gamma above background – even when the reactor ran hot. I may be reading it wrong but that’s what I took from it. Sorry I cannot find the link.

  • GreenWin

    Dear Friends, here is interesting speculation for LENR rocket propulsion from our own Robert Mockan:

    http://opensourcenuclearfuel.blogspot.com/2012/06/lenr-pulse-units-for-rocket-propulsion.html

    LENR fever grows hotter!

    • Robert Mockan

      Thanks for the plug, GreenWin. The response supports what I’ve been saying how few people actually visit these LENR sites. My site averages about 20 visits a day, mostly repeats. Since you made your comment there was a surge to 85 visits in one day, also mostly repeats, then back down. I suspect that might be mostly the people who also visit this site. There are over 6 billion people in the world. Do the math and one realizes if LENR and Rossi were to disappear tomorrow, there would be no significant outcry. Even the Rossi web sites do not have much action, all things considered. This is why we must strive to make available the information how the catalyst is made and used. The secret could still be buried if the powers that be want to bury it, and without much difficulty. Cold fusion has been practically buried for over 20 years, and I can say that after having studied almost ALL the literature on the subject and conversing with scientists in the field. If there is another spell of media silence on the subject it could be killed for good.

    • GreenWin

      Robert, I share your concern. However the actual corporeal visits to any of these sites may matter less than we think. And I am enthused by the Athanor Open Source Project in Rome. In fact I am scouting for a suitable academic in my area of the NW (USA) willing to build an Athanor cell. Financing is in place.

      This all heightens my respect for groups like Navy, SRI, Energetics, Hagelstein, who have labored long in the dark. LENR certainly does not carry the panache a Murray Gell-Mann commands.

      I have a hunch we might learn more about Ni catalysts from Dr. Mills than Ing Rossi. Just a hunch.

  • chris robinson

    It is truly astonishing that Rossi has now been able to achieve the holy grail of steam 600 C plus from the previous 120C in such a short timeframe .

    I believe that Defkalion primary grievance for the breakup of their joint enterprise was because Rossi was unable to even stabilize the reactor.

    This new breakthrough can not be purely due to the Edisonian approach attributed to his endeavors by Bushnell & Co at NASA . One can only logically conclude that Rossi or someone on his team now has a profound understanding of the theoretical principle underpinning the phenomena

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      chris robinson: Good observation you are right, a few weeks ago Rossi stated he now understands the principles behind his E-Cats.

    • That seems reasonable, although I doubt that sub-nuclear interactions are AR’s forte. Plenty of ‘Edisonian’ engineering would still be needed in order to apply any new theoretical understanding of what is going on.

  • Italo R.

    For those readers who don’t yet know.
    In the following site (Journal of Nuclear Physics) you can read in real time all messages written to/by dr. Rossi:

    http://www.rossilivecat.com/

  • Italo R.

    In two or three weeks there will be important news here in Italy.
    It’s in italian, sorry.
    Read the message of 27 giugno 2012 10:45

    http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/06/aggiornamenti-su-athanor-e-una-proposta.html?showComment=1340790007524#c3908095716679690230

  • kemo sabe

    This is a reply to Ged’s comment nested ridiculously deeply at 4:30 pm (June 27):

    On force: It has a pretty well-defined meaning in physics, and force is involved in nuclear reactions, and therefore in LENR. And if heat is produced, then that can produce pressure, which is a force per unit area. Without force, you’ll never make electricity from LENR.

    On whether the sun is exploding, it depends on what you mean by explosion. If you mean matter is hurtling outward, then no. If you require high power density, then no. But if you mean fast production of energy in the form of radiation, then yes: 10^11 megatons of TNT per second qualifies. But I don’t think a semantic discussion has much relevance here.

    On whether LENR is rapid enough to be explosive:

    The claim is that LENR can produce a lot of energy from a small amount of material by an unknown mechanism. Without knowing the mechanism I don’t see how you can rule out the possibility of rapid energy production. You say there has never been an explosion, but I’m not convinced there has ever even been measured heat from nuclear reactions in LENR experiments, so that means nothing.

    The various mechanisms proposed do not actually calculate rates of reactions. And there is no general agreement about the mechanisms, which means, they may all be wrong, and so there is no way to know that if someone actually succeeded at extracting GJ/g energy from metal hydrides, that it might not happen explosively.

    On the explosiveness of U-238:

    If you agree that U-238 doesn’t produce useful heat, then why bring it up? The argument, as I understand it, is not just that LENR is nuclear and therefore explosive. No one said that. The argument is that LENR can produces copious heat from a small amount of fuel by unknown nuclear reactions, so you can’t know that it can’t be explosive.

    On the ignition of nuclear explosions:

    You said “Just throwing two half critical mass plutonium spheres at each other will not create an explosion. “, but in fact, throwing two half critical masses of U-235 at each other is exactly how the Little Boy exploded, although the throwing was done with a gun. The implosion method is much more efficient, and the gun method is considered too inefficient for Pu because of its short time constant, but an explosion would nevertheless happen.

    You said “It is very hard to use nuclear reactions as explosives, and hence why so few countries in this world have accomplished it.” But then it is also very hard to get nuclear energy from metal hydrides — some would say impossible — and hence why *no* countries have accomplished it practically. In LENR, people claim to have succeeded in getting nuclear energy from metal hydrides. So, they’ve accomplished something very hard. So, just because something’s hard doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Without knowing the mechanism, you don’t even know if it is hard, once LENR has been tackled.

    On the mass-energy equivalence:

    Every production of energy is accompanied by a reduction of mass. In chemical reactions, the change in mass is just too small to be measurable. Nuclear reactions made the mass-energy equivalence experimentally observable, but it holds in all reactions. And the difference in mass between the products and precursors is related to the energy released by E=mc^2. Exactly. In every case. Sorry.

    First year physics texts like to use the example of a spring that increases in mass when it is compressed, because of the energy added to the system (and stored in chemical bonds).

    • Ged

      Kemo,

      Point one: Kemo, in physics force is defined as F = (mass) * (acceleration). Do you see where force comes in to play with LENR? Is force used to make electricity in solar cells? Binding energy is not force as classically defined above, but we call it “nuclear force”. Since Dave made the claim that the E-cat could explode and kill thousands, I was speaking of force in terms of the classical definition. Show me were it applies to LENR (ignoring the force used by steam to move a turbine to generate electricity; I’m talking about the LENR reactions themselves).

      Point 2: I brought up U238 to show that a nuclear reaction (fission) is not always explosive. U238 cannot explode, even though it undergoes fission and is radioactive. Americium is another radioactive element that does produce heat if you put together enough of it from smoke detectors into one place, but it cannot cause an explosion. Why? Because the fission reactions are not fast enough to cause a rapid expansion of gas. So, no matter the heat the E-cat makes, it does not make heat -fast enough- to be explosive.

      Point 3: Using a gun, that is a shockwave compression is what set off the uranium, yes. Which I stated. That is still compression, and not simply knocking two subcritical pieces together. I think we fully agree here.

      Point 4: The “nuclear energy” from the E-cat is not fission. If it is indeed fusion, be it hydrogen-hydrogen or hydrogen-nickle, we have well defined theoretical models for both as to the nature of the energy release. But in reality, LENR is not hard. As Dr. Storms points out in his review, elecrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen using titanium has already shown LENR reactions (transmutations) with the titanium and excess energy. This has long been occurring, but ignored. Nor can electrolysis result in an explosion (unless you collect and ignite the hydrogen gas).

      Point 4: Absolutely, 100% false. Chemical reactions NEVER result in a loss of mass. If this was so, there would be no possibility to have reversible equilibrium. And in fact, all our energy equations from which all our chemicals, understandings of biology and energetics, and our explosives would be completely wrong. All those are based squarely on the energy released by the breaking and creation of (more favored) chemical bonds. Mass is NOT changed, mass is NOT created, and mass is NOT lost.

      Remember the law of the conservation of Mass, Kemo? The law of the conservation of Mass states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That law applies to chemical reactions. Mass is neither created nor destroyed, and claiming that some is but is “unmeasurable” is an unscientific statement that cannot be tested, violates all our mathematical equations, and violates the law of the conservation of Mass. You are dead wrong here, unless you can show how we can completely rewrite our understanding of physics. But hey, that is always an open possibility.

      No, springs do not increase in mass when they are compressed. They increase in tension–a form of latent mechanical energy. Any other description is absurdly invalid, and a misuse of the energy-mass.

      • GreenWin

        Interesting discussion. Kemo seems to rely on the argument that even slow energy release in LENR might “explode” ’cause we don’t know the mechanism. But in 22 years we’ve not seen a fast release of energy beyond chemical reaction. NASA’s favored theory WL demands “slow” neutrons – further confirming there are no particles moving fast enough to cause a chain reaction.

        Er, please correct me if this is wrong.

        • Ged

          The field that studies rates of reactions is called Kinetics. I fear people often forget kinetics and how critical it is: from the passing of drugs through your system, to the correct mixture of sulfur/salt peter/charcoal igniting in an explosion (if you mix black powder wrong, it can no longer explode, and will just burn; and this is due to unfavorable ratios for a fast reaction rate). Similarly, a nuclear reactor can melt down (make lots of heat) but cannot explode, as the kinetics of the fission reactions are not fast enough (need 90% pure U235 for fast enough chain-reaction fission kinetics).

          For absolutely anything to be explosive, it must have a fast enough heat release rate–that is fast enough kinetics. The vast majority of all chemical and nuclear reactions on this planet do not achieve this. You can still get plenty of heat, and even fire, but explosions aren’t so easy.

          I think you are remembering right, GreenWin. The kinetics of the WL theory uses slow neutrons, and thus has a slow kinetic rate.

        • Ged

          I should also point out, many if not most explosive compounds are such because the chemical reaction itself rapidly generates extremely hot gasses, that then rapidly expand in a shockwave (such as the combustion that goes on in a car engine). LENR does not generate heated gasses.

          • kemo sabe

            Ged: The explosiveness of a fission or fusion bomb does not come from the generation of hot gases, except as a secondary result of the immense heat produced.

          • Ged

            Nor did I say that’s how nuclear explosions work (I clearly mentioned chemical only). Though if you detonate a fission/fusion bomb in space, there’s no explosion in the typical sense, except in the sense of electromagnetic pulse.

            You are trying to add to things I’ve said in this reply so you can disagree with me; that is not constructive.

          • kemo sabe

            Not at all. You said chemical explosions involve the production of hot gas, and LENR doesn’t, implying that makes LENR less likely to explode. I was just pointing out that the production of hot gas is not needed for a dangerous explosion to occur.

          • Ged

            I was saying that is one explosive mechanism that cannot occur through LENR.

            Of course, all explosions in atmosphere are ultimately rapidly expanding hot gasses. But LENR itself does not generate gas, like most chemical explosions; so such a comparison cannot be made in that way.

            That is all.

          • kemo sabe

            But the comparison to chemical explosions was only with respect to energy densities. Fission and fusion explosions show you don’t need to generate hot gas to be explosive.

        • kemo sabe

          Greenwin:
          In 22 years we’ve not seen a fast release of energy beyond chemical reaction, but in 22 years no practical LENR device has been built. If you don’t accept the latter as an argument that no practical LENR device can be built, then why would you accept the former as an argument that no explosive release can occur?

          My argument is completely hypothetical. *If* someone finds a way to release GJ/g energy density from metal hydrides in a practical and convincing way, and doesn’t know how it works, one should consider the possibility that the release might be explosive.

          • Ged

            You can argue any hypothetical till you are blue in the face. I could say hypothetically reality could invert tomorrow and turn us all into piles of cheese. Can you dispute that? No, because it’s hypothetical.

            Instead of hypotheticals, show me actual calculations that could then be testable.

          • kemo sabe

            A hypothetical is not an imagined case. It is a case that depends on a hypothesis. The hypothesis in this case is that a practical LENR device can extract GJ/g energy from metal hydride in reactions that individually produce MeV energy. It is an hypothesis I don’t accept, but I should think most LENR advocates do.

            If you can extract GJ/g energy by nuclear reactions, and don’t know how it works, then the chance that it might happen explosively seems like a pretty straightforward extrapolation. And no, if LENR advocates can’t produce testable calculations, how on earth can skeptics do it?

            The argument about safety makes no sense to me anyway, until there is some believable evidence for nuclear reactions. I joined simply because it seemed like advocates were trying to pull a fast one. Sure, we can make billions of joules of energy from a gram of fuel. No, we don’t know how it works, but we know for sure that it’s safe.

          • Ged

            Ah hah, now you are actually giving a hypothesis. Before it was just hypothetical (imagined) as you hadn’t fully defined it.

            But this statement “GJ/g energy from metal hydride in reactions that individually produce MeV energy” is not something I agree with either. I see no evidence, nor no basis to believe LENR produced GJ per gram.

            So I agree with you fully, that is a hypothesis I do not accept with the current data.

            I guess this is where we have gotten crossed in our talk about safety.

          • kemo sabe

            What are you on about? A hypothetical argument is of the the form “If (hypothesis), then so-and-so.”

            I gave the hypothesis in the first instance when I wrote:

            *If* someone finds a way to release GJ/g energy density from metal hydrides in a practical and convincing way, and doesn’t know how it works, one should consider the possibility that the release might be explosive.

            So, you don’t buy GJ/g energy density. But Rossi claims (or has claimed) ecats that give 10 kW for 6 months from a few hundred grams. That’s 155 GJ of energy, and energy density in the range of GJ/g.

            Surely, the suggestion that it might be dangerous is based on what Rossi says, because there’s nothing else to go on.

            So, to put it another way, if Rossi has what he claims, one should consider the possibility that the energy release might be explosive.

          • Ged

            “I gave the hypothesis in the first instance when I wrote:”

            No, that isn’t a hypothesis. Why? Because you said “if someone finds a way”. Well, someone could find a way to turn the planet into a giant foosball, and if they could, what then? That isn’t a hypothesis. A hypothesis needs a testable layout, I didn’t see you provide one with that statement at all.

            There is also a fatal flaw in your arguments, in fact, in our discussion as a whole. Arguing about energy density means nothing when it comes to explosive potential, it’s POWER density that determines explosive potential, alone.

            Moreover, we don’t know if the nickle itself is consumed or if the reaction is actually hydrogen-hydrogen, and that the nickle lattice simply breaks down with time and must be replaced (or damaged by the reaction over time). Nor do I know exactly how much hydrogen is used, but maybe you do?

          • kemo sabe

            It was the hypothesis for the hypothetical argument. *If* what Rossi advocates claim is true, then there is danger of explosion. I don’t believe the claims, so I don’t see any danger. But I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Super high energy density released in unknown ways, and yet known not to be too fast.

            Both power density and energy density are relevant. Without enough (accessible) energy density, no explosion is possible. One joule of energy can produce any power density you want in a short enough time, but that’s not explosive. In fact the power density in the immediate vicinity of a single nuclear reaction is immense, but not explosive.

            A very high (accessible) energy density is potentially explosive if the reactions are fast enough. Since the conditions that control the reaction rates are anyone’s guess, it’s dangerous (if it’s real).

            It doesn’t matter if it’s nickel or hydrogen consumed. If the claims are valid (10 kW for 6 months), then there is 155 GJ of energy in an ecat accessible by heating through unknown mechanisms.

        • kemo sabe

          Greenwin:

          The WL theory requires 780 keV electrons to form those slow neutrons. Those would be *fast* electrons.

          Anyway, if the LENR reaction is triggered by heat, as in the ecat, then the heat produced by the reaction can cause it to self-sustain, and under the right circumstances, also explode. That’s how chemical explosives work after all. Unless you know the reactions and the rates (and WL is neither widely accepted, nor does it calculate rates), how can you be sure it will not be explosive?

          • Ged

            Self-sustaining or not, you have to have a fast enough reaction. Just because something is self sustaining (such as the burning of fuel by the body), does not mean it can ever be explosive. The two are not equivalent. Nor are all explosions from “self-sustaining” reactions in the sense of a “chain-reaction”, though they are all from spontaneous reactions that happen en-mass.

            No LENR method or reaction has ever shown fast rates or high heat (beyond the reported 600 C here). The reaction continues as long as there are reactants and enough energy to cross the “energy of activation” threshhold; just as is the same all chemical reactions, explosive or not.

          • kemo sabe

            I did not say that self-sustaining meant it was necessarily explosive. I said that being self-sustaining indicates a kind of thermal chain reaction, which *could* be explosive.

            No LENR reaction has shown fast rates or high heat, but then no LENR reaction has ever convinced me that nuclear reactions are happening, so that means nothing to me.

          • Ged

            Well then you’re arguing against observational reality. Just saying something could explode is not informative. I could make absolutely anything explode, if I threw some anti-matter at it. So, what’s the parameters?

          • kemo sabe

            Well, I think the whole field of LENR is arguing against observational reality. I’m just saying that the conditions that make LENR useful (high energy density, easily accessed) in comparison to what is believed by non-delusional scientists, is 99% of the way to what could make it dangerous.

            The reaction rates required to make LENR useful are some 20 or 30 orders of magnitude higher than what they are believed to be by conventional considerations. I don’t see how you can accept that the rates increase by say 20 orders of magnitude by unknown mechanisms, and yet be so sure they can’t increase by a few orders of magnitude more, to make it explosive.

          • GreenWin

            Kemo, “if the LENR reaction is triggered by heat, as in the ecat, then the heat produced by the reaction can cause it to self-sustain, and under the right circumstances, also explode.”

            OK, what specifically are those circumstances??

          • kemo sabe

            Circumstances where the reaction rate is fast enough, and enough reaction candidates are available. Since neither of those are known quantities, there is a risk that those conditions could be inadvertently met.

          • GreenWin

            Don’t buy it. We have NEVER seen an LENR reaction rate accelerate remotely close to a chain reaction. Early experiments required weeks of gas loading to even begin a reaction. And not all reactions require heat. Miley does experiments with gas loading at several bar and gets spontaneous heat. No radiation.

          • kemo sabe

            A chain reaction just means that one reaction facilitates at least one other reaction. It doesn’t have to be explosive. Any self-sustaining reaction is a chain reaction, and there are claims of self-sustaining LENR reactions. Fission reactors depend on chain reactions, but it doesn’t mean they’re exploding. But if a self-sustaining chain reaction is possible, then the only thing needed for an explosion is sufficiently fast reactions, and enough reaction candidates. Once self-sustaining, high power density reactions are easily produced, if the mechanism is not understood, you can’t ignore the possibility that explosive conditions could be inadvertently met.

            Reactions that are not self-sustaining are inherently safer, but even there, if you claim that you can produce high power density and you have extremely high energy density (a million times higher than dynamite), and you don’t know how it works, then your confidence that it won’t explode will be little comfort to potential customers.

            Once again, the discussion of safety at this stage is beyond banal, because effective LENR has not yet been demonstrated. I should think that a big nuclear explosion in a LENR lab would be the best thing for the field (if not the observers in close proximity). Because then the world would believe nuclear reactions are happening, and massive investment, and participation of some intelligent scientists (something sorely lacking at present) would soon ferret out the mechanism, and then they could figure out how to make the chance of explosions acceptably remote. Or at least understand whether or not it can be made useful and still safe.

        • GreenWin

          As an issue of safety, let’s consider two examples: radiative microwave “cooking” and gasoline powered automobiles. Microwave cooking was stumbled upon by radar scientists at Raytheon in 1947. Once they realized they could heat organic matter with microwaves they set out to commercialize the invention. Did anyone think to do long term studies on the safety of high energy electromagnetic radiation in edible foodstuffs? Guess not since the first commercial oven was certified and produced in 1948! Point is, we test for known and “hypothetical” hazards to practical limits. In the case of microwave ovens it was tested to confine spurious radiation and minimize exposure to humans.

          Gasoline engines burn a fuel with extremely high energy density. It is a highly explosive fuel (remember those red stickers on tanker trucks?) But we have learned to live with the risk of explosion and to minimize it. Still, thousands of people have been burned to death by exploding gas tanks. So, we know how chemical explosions work – hasn’t stopped the massive use of explosive liquids in the most common form of transportation on earth.

          And Ged points to fission reactors. They don’t explode – they just melt down and spew deadly radioactivity for miles around – annihilating land use and forcing evacuations and potentially poisoning valuable resources like biomass and water.

          So far of the 12 or so theories of LENR – not one has painted a practical scenario for a nuclear chain reaction. Unless I missed it. Did I??

          BTW, sounds like Rossi and team figured out the kinetics of their catalyst – and increased the reaction areas/rate resulting in the higher temp.

          • kemo sabe

            As I said before, we use devices that can accidentally explode chemically. But we understand the mechanism and the limits of such accidents. Nuclear energy densities are a million times higher, so there is potential for a much more explosive accident, and more importantly, the mechanism of LENR is not understood, and the risk cannot even be estimated.

            People who develop theories for LENR are advocates, so they will steer clear of painting explosive scenarios. But again, if the reaction produces heat, and is triggered by heat, there’s your chain reaction.

          • GreenWin

            Nope. Unconvincing. Bordering on fear mongering Kemo. “there is potential for a much more explosive accident”

            Don’t you mean much larger release of energy? At observed rates well below those of atomic power plants which represent catastrophic, realized nuclear accidents (Fukushima!) At this point there is ZERO potential for explosion unless you provide the mechanism.

            But let’s say there’s a .0001 chance of your dream scenario. Natural gas stoves and heaters have a relative .01 chance of explosion. Gasoline powered cars .1% chance. LENR is far safer than either of those heat sources. Which is why there is global interest.

          • kemo sabe

            You have a double standard regarding LENR with respect to usefulness and danger. You don’t seem to need an accepted mechanism to accept that LENR could be useful, even though the evidence for it remains controversial, and largely rejected, but you refuse to believe that even if useful it might be dangerous, unless a mechanism for explosions is provided. To me, GJ/g energy density accessible by unknown mechanisms is scary. Fortunately, I don’t believe it is accessible at all.

            If the chance of a LENR explosion is 100 or 1000 times less than that of gas stove of car engine, then the danger is still 1000 or 10,000 times greater because the energy density is a million times higher.

          • GreenWin

            Still don’t buy it. Throwing around energy density is millions of times higher is not strictly correct, is it. Since the nuclear energy density in gasoline or a chunk of nickel is relatively the same. As Ged pointed out, the nuclear energy density of a dime is also millions of times higher than gasoline. And of course we have nuclear reactions taking place in our bodies every nanosecond. But the incidence of those reactions cascading to an exploding man are zero.

          • kemo sabe

            Actually, it was me that pointed out that the energy density of a dime is vast if you consider mass-energy equivalence. It’s a shame you didn’t read the rest of the post.

            It should be self-evident that when I talk about the energy density in LENR, I am referring the the energy said to be accessible to LENR, not all the conceivable energy contained in the mass. In that case it *is* strictly correct to say that the energy density said to be accessible to LENR is a million times greater than the energy density of dynamite accessible to chemical reactions. As long as the rate at which LENR extracts that energy is not understood, it seems imprudent to dismiss explosive release, if you accept that LENR is real.

            And by the way, the energy of radioactive isotopes in the body (dominated by K-40) accessible to radioactive decay in a typical human lifetime is about a million billion times lower than the energy claimed to be accessible to LENR in an ecat. A different animal altogether.

      • kemo sabe

        Ged wrote: “Point one: Kemo, in physics force is defined as F = (mass) * (acceleration). ”

        My dictionary of physics defines force as an action that alters a body’s state of motion.

        “Do you see where force comes in to play with LENR?”

        Why yes. It acts between nucleons in a nucleus to bind them together. Changes in binding energies result in absorption or release of energy.

        ” Is force used to make electricity in solar cells?”
        It is certainly involved. Photons are absorbed by electrons which are then freed from the attractive *force* of the nucleus.

        “Binding energy is not force as classically defined above, but we call it “nuclear force”.”

        You’re not making sense now. Obviously energy is not a force. But the nuclear force between nucleons acts just like the electromagnetic force, even though the range and distance dependence is different. It’s a force. It changes the momentum of other nucleons.

        “Since Dave made the claim that the E-cat could explode and kill thousands, I was speaking of force in terms of the classical definition. Show me were it applies to LENR (ignoring the force used by steam to move a turbine to generate electricity; I’m talking about the LENR reactions themselves).”

        The force between nucleons results in release of nuclear energy, and that energy may produce heat that can exert force on anything in the vicinity.

        “Point 2: I brought up U238 to show that a nuclear reaction (fission) is not always explosive. U238 cannot explode, even though it undergoes fission and is radioactive. ”

        OK. But no one claimed that nuclear reactions are always explosive. The claim was that *unknown* nuclear reactions that generate a lot of heat *might* be explosive.

        “Americium is another radioactive element that does produce heat if you put together enough of it from smoke detectors into one place, but it cannot cause an explosion.”

        Again, the spontaneous decay of Am is well-understood. A better example for your case is Pu-238, which is used in RTGs to generate electricity in space crafts. It really does generate heat, but is not explosive, but again, the decay paths are very well-understood. The point of LENR is that the reactions are claimed to be nuclear, the energy density is claimed to be high, but the mechanism is not known.

        “Point 3: Using a gun, that is a shockwave compression is what set off the uranium, yes. Which I stated. That is still compression, and not simply knocking two subcritical pieces together. I think we fully agree here.”

        No, the explosion happens because two subcritical pieces are brought together very quickly. The compression is not necessary. With Pu-239, they can’t be brought together quickly enough, so the explosion is very inefficient. Increasing the pressure with an implosion is much more effective.

        “Point 4: The “nuclear energy” from the E-cat is not fission.”

        Who said it was?

        “If it is indeed fusion, be it hydrogen-hydrogen or hydrogen-nickle, we have well defined theoretical models for both as to the nature of the energy release.”

        No we don’t. Bringing nuclei together takes a lot of energy (even if the first step is making neutrons), and there is no agreed upon mechanism to supply this energy.

        “But in reality, LENR is not hard.”

        In reality, no one has convinced the world it is even possible. You used the few nations that have got the bomb as evidence of how hard nuclear explosions are. Well, even fewer (none) have working LENR.

        “As Dr. Storms points out in his review, elecrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen using titanium has already shown LENR reactions (transmutations) with the titanium and excess energy.”

        By “shown” you mean to his satisfaction; not to the satisfaction of experts in nuclear physics.

        “Point 4: Absolutely, 100% false. Chemical reactions NEVER result in a loss of mass. ”

        Well, I’m afraid your certainty does not overrule mainstream science. Chemical reactions that absorb or release energy *always* result in a change of mass. The change is in the range of parts per billion.

        “If this was so, there would be no possibility to have reversible equilibrium.”

        Why not, conversion of mass to energy is reversible.

        “And in fact, all our energy equations from which all our chemicals, understandings of biology and energetics, and our explosives would be completely wrong.”

        No they wouldn’t. Parts per billion change in mass will have no measurable effect on any of this. Simple chemical bonding can be calculated exactly by quantum electrodynamics, which most certainly assumes mass changes in reactions.

        “All those are based squarely on the energy released by the breaking and creation of (more favored) chemical bonds.”

        Right. That is still true. The thing is that since Einstein, we are aware that potential energy appears as mass within a system.

        Consider a neutron and a proton in a box. It has a mass of (939.6 + 938.3 = 1877.8) MeV/c^2 (plus the mass of the box). There is a potential energy, because (at least at short range) there is an attractive force between them. If they come together and bind, a 2.2 MeV gamma ray will be released and exit the box, and the box will have the mass of a deuteron (1875.6 MeV/c^2) (plus the mass of the box), which is exactly 2.2 MeV/c^2 less. So before they joined, that potential energy appeared as a mass. So the energy is released because of the formation of a bond, but still the mass changes.

        Same thing in chemistry. Just the change in mass is smaller.

        “Mass is NOT changed, mass is NOT created, and mass is NOT lost.”

        Capital letters don’t make it true. But I won’t take more time to learn you. Find a reference to support that and report back. And also explain why all the physics texts get it wrong. For example, in Hecht’s first year text (Physics), he has a table (26.4) which shows the change in mass for different processes, and lists chemical (10^-8 to 10^-7 %; i.e. ppb) and nuclear (.1 to .6 %).

        Also, you might want to explain the wikipedia section on conservation of mass which reads in part:

        Wikipedia: “The change in mass of certain kinds of open systems where atoms or massive particles are not allowed to escape, but other types of energy (such as light or heat) were allowed to enter or escape, went unnoticed during the 19th century, because the mass-change associated with addition or loss of the fractional amounts of heat and light associated with chemical reactions, was very small.”

        Ged: “Remember the law of the conservation of Mass, Kemo?”

        Sure, but since Einstein, it’s been the conservation of mass-energy. Of course one has to be careful about defining the system. The energy released or absorbed in reactions ordinarily means energy that is not part of the system. If the energy does not leave the defined system, then the mass of the system will not change. For example, if that gamma ray in does not leave the box but is absorbed by the walls of the box, then the mass of the box (and its contents) will not change.

        “No, springs do not increase in mass when they are compressed. They increase in tension–a form of latent mechanical energy. Any other description is absurdly invalid, and a misuse of the energy-mass.”

        Is there any reason I should take your word above that of every physics text I’ve looked at?

        • Ged

          Point 1: “My dictionary of physics defines force as an action that alters a body’s state of motion.”

          Which is F = M*A. That is the equation for classical force. I was going to get into electromagnetic force, or splitting hairs and saying and electrical current is brought on by force that changes the bulk motion of electrons. That’s taking things out of hand. Let’s keep it to mathematics.

          On again, Kemo, I was talking about -explosive force-. I have always keep the talk of force limited to that kind. Show me where explosive force applies to LENR? You have, when you stated release of heat energy, but you didn’t go far enough. That release of heat energy increases pressure of a gas through PV = nRT . If the heat rises fast enough, so it cannot flow away from the source, then pressure rises too quickly and you create a shockwave, which is an explosion. LENR does not create such a rapid heat.

          Once again, F = ma, is the definition of force. Nuclear force uses quantum definitions that are beyond the scope of this talk, or what I was ever addressing.

          Point 2: “OK. But no one claimed that nuclear reactions are always explosive. The claim was that *unknown* nuclear reactions that generate a lot of heat *might* be explosive.”

          No, that was not the claim. David’s claim was that all nuclear reactions and thus LENR are explosive. Go back and look, if his post wasn’t deleted (which it may have been). There was no talk about “unknowns” specifically in that regard other than by you.

          Point 3: “Again, the spontaneous decay of Am is well-understood. A better example for your case is Pu-238, which is used in RTGs to generate electricity in space crafts. It really does generate heat, but is not explosive, but again, the decay paths are very well-understood. The point of LENR is that the reactions are claimed to be nuclear, the energy density is claimed to be high, but the mechanism is not known.”

          Americium 241 (the common type) fissions, as does Ammericium 242, which is being proposed for use in nuclear batteries. Even though fission is going on, there is no explosions or even the possiblity it could ever be used for explosions. This is do to the rate of fission (and branch percentage) being too low.

          When Americium’s mechanism was not known, did that mean it was explosive, and then suddenly lost the ability to explode because we figured out how it worked? Same with plutonium 238. Did it suddenly lose the ability to explode when we figured out its mechanism? Being unknown means nothing, empirical evidence tells you the limits of things according to their conditions.

          Point 4: Too many things to quote all of them about mass and energy in chemical reactions.

          Want a reference? Sure: http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-energy/masscons.html

          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/108802/chemical-reaction/277182/The-conservation-of-matter
          http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/history/lavoisier.html

          http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/history/lavoisier.html

          How bout even a video demonstration http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/conservation-of-mass-in-chemical-reactions/10619.html

          Mass is conserved in a chemical reaction. If 2 moles of hydrogen react with 1 mole of oxygen, you get 1 mole of water (H2O). This is a defining feature of chemistry. No mass is lost. And if mass was, what particle was lost? If we are losing matter every time we do a chemical reaction, we will soon run out of material. There could be no reversible equilibrium, contrary to your other claims.

          You can’t emit a gamma ray and than put it back.

          Why don’t you show me some references to back your theories up? I see your wiki quote, but you didn’t link it, so I can’t reference its real source; or see the experiments for it. Nor do I leave it undisputed.

          Chemical energy is through chemical bond changes. Or as easier to put dG = dH – tdS.

          Maybe I am wrong here, but you need a lot more evidence and to actually back up what you say, since -life itself- requires reversible equilibrium to exist.

          Point 5: “Is there any reason I should take your word above that of every physics text I’ve looked at?”

          Yes, it’s easy. If a spring was somehow “gaining mass” when tension was applied to it, two things would have to happen: 1) the spring would now be heavier, and 2) the gravitational field of the spring would have to increase.

          Show me experimental evidence of those. Otherwise, those text books are incorrectly applying energy-mass conversion. Energy and mass are not simply interchangable, as there are clear mechanisms to change one to the other. And using them willy nilly (outside of quantum mechanics, but that’s a whole other ball game I am trying to avoid bringing in here) obfuscates matters.

          Let me re-lay out some ground rules: I have been avoiding quantum mechanics in this discussion as that takes things to a completely different level and I think would lose the point of it all; I have used classical force (F = ma) when talking about explosions, not any other electromagnetic or nuclear force (which to be true force, must still obey F = ma); I have avoided bringing in subatomic particles, which would be necessary to even begin to discuss your claims of mass changes with chemical reactions, since moles of mass must be conserved (actual particle number of atoms must not change!).

        • Ged

          My reply is currently in moderation, due to the reference links, so I’ll repost here without them until it shows up:

          Point 1: “My dictionary of physics defines force as an action that alters a body’s state of motion.”

          Which is F = M*A. That is the equation for classical force. I was going to get into electromagnetic force, or splitting hairs and saying and electrical current is brought on by force that changes the bulk motion of electrons. That’s taking things out of hand. Let’s keep it to mathematics.

          On again, Kemo, I was talking about -explosive force-. I have always keep the talk of force limited to that kind. Show me where explosive force applies to LENR? You have, when you stated release of heat energy, but you didn’t go far enough. That release of heat energy increases pressure of a gas through PV = nRT . If the heat rises fast enough, so it cannot flow away from the source, then pressure rises too quickly and you create a shockwave, which is an explosion. LENR does not create such a rapid heat.

          Once again, F = ma, is the definition of force. Nuclear force uses quantum definitions that are beyond the scope of this talk, or what I was ever addressing.

          Point 2: “OK. But no one claimed that nuclear reactions are always explosive. The claim was that *unknown* nuclear reactions that generate a lot of heat *might* be explosive.”

          No, that was not the claim. David’s claim was that all nuclear reactions and thus LENR are explosive. Go back and look, if his post wasn’t deleted (which it may have been). There was no talk about “unknowns” specifically in that regard other than by you.

          Point 3: “Again, the spontaneous decay of Am is well-understood. A better example for your case is Pu-238, which is used in RTGs to generate electricity in space crafts. It really does generate heat, but is not explosive, but again, the decay paths are very well-understood. The point of LENR is that the reactions are claimed to be nuclear, the energy density is claimed to be high, but the mechanism is not known.”

          Americium 241 (the common type) fissions, as does Ammericium 242, which is being proposed for use in nuclear batteries. Even though fission is going on, there is no explosions or even the possiblity it could ever be used for explosions. This is do to the rate of fission (and branch percentage) being too low.

          When Americium’s mechanism was not known, did that mean it was explosive, and then suddenly lost the ability to explode because we figured out how it worked? Same with plutonium 238. Did it suddenly lose the ability to explode when we figured out its mechanism? Being unknown means nothing, empirical evidence tells you the limits of things according to their conditions.

          Point 4: Too many things to quote all of them about mass and energy in chemical reactions.

          Want a reference? Sure:
          (temporarily redacted due to moderation)
          How bout even a video
          (temporarily redacted due to moderation)

          Mass is conserved in a chemical reaction. If 2 moles of hydrogen react with 1 mole of oxygen, you get 1 mole of water (H2O). This is a defining feature of chemistry. No mass is lost. And if mass was, what particle was lost? If we are losing matter every time we do a chemical reaction, we will soon run out of material. There could be no reversible equilibrium, contrary to your other claims.

          You can’t emit a gamma ray and than put it back.

          Why don’t you show me some references to back your theories up? I see your wiki quote, but you didn’t link it, so I can’t reference its real source; or see the experiments for it. Nor do I leave it undisputed.

          Chemical energy is through chemical bond changes. Or as easier to put dG = dH – tdS.

          Maybe I am wrong here, but you need a lot more evidence and to actually back up what you say, since -life itself- requires reversible equilibrium to exist.

          Point 5: “Is there any reason I should take your word above that of every physics text I’ve looked at?”

          Yes, it’s easy. If a spring was somehow “gaining mass” when tension was applied to it, two things would have to happen: 1) the spring would now be heavier, and 2) the gravitational field of the spring would have to increase.

          Show me experimental evidence of those. Otherwise, those text books are incorrectly applying energy-mass conversion. Energy and mass are not simply interchangable, as there are clear mechanisms to change one to the other. And using them willy nilly (outside of quantum mechanics, but that’s a whole other ball game I am trying to avoid bringing in here) obfuscates matters.

          Let me re-lay out some ground rules: I have been avoiding quantum mechanics in this discussion as that takes things to a completely different level and I think would lose the point of it all; I have used classical force (F = ma) when talking about explosions, not any other electromagnetic or nuclear force (which to be true force, must still obey F = ma); I have avoided bringing in subatomic particles, which would be necessary to even begin to discuss your claims of mass changes with chemical reactions, since moles of mass must be conserved (actual particle number of atoms must not change).

          I think we are at this point simply talking past each other by looking at things from different points of view.

        • kemo sabe

          Ged: “I was talking about -explosive force-.”

          You said force. And you said force was not related to LENR. You were wrong. Just admit it. Nuclear force is involved in the purported reactions, and pressure is involved when heat is produced. There’s a lot of energy, so there could be a lot of force. Ergo, it could be dangerous.

          Ged: “David’s claim was that all nuclear reactions and thus LENR are explosive. ”

          There are a lot of posts, but the context was always successful LENR, which means high energy density, nuclear reactions, and unknown mechanism. At least that’s how I interpreted his posts, and that’s certainly my argument.

          Ged: “When Americium’s mechanism was not known, did that mean it was explosive, and then suddenly lost the ability to explode because we figured out how it worked?”

          No, of course not. But we never tried to use it to produce heat before it was understood. The point is if we the mechanism is not known, the energy density is high, copious heat is produced, and the reactions are nuclear, then it’s not a stretch to consider it might be explosive.

          Ged: “Being unknown means nothing, empirical evidence tells you the limits of things according to their conditions.”

          Being unknown means we don’t know. The empirical evidence suggests to me that there are no nuclear reactions. When the evidence suggests nuclear reactions at high power and energy densities, then empirical evidence of no explosions will become more persuasive, but I don’t think they will be enough.

          Ged “Want a reference? […]”

          Those are all non-relativistic approximations to reality. Some even quote principles from documents dated pre-Einstein.

          What I want is a reference that states explicitly that there are no changes in mass in chemical reactions, even considering relativistic mass-energy equivalence.

          Ged: “Mass is conserved in a chemical reaction. If 2 moles of hydrogen react with 1 mole of oxygen, you get 1 mole of water (H2O).”

          Right, but one mole of water has less mass than 2 moles of hydrogen plus one mole of oxygen. Get used to it.

          Ged: “This is a defining feature of chemistry. No mass is lost. ”

          Well, depends on what you mean by “lost”. The energy generated by forming water has mass, but it is not necessarily part of the water. It appears normally as heat, which has mass too, of course. If only the water is heated up, then the water will have the same mass, but if that heat is transferred to its surroundings, then the water has less mass, and you can say the mass is lost.

          Ged: “And if mass was, what particle was lost? ”

          No particles are lost. Bound particles have less mass than the separate constituents. This is obvious only in nuclear particles, where again, the deuteron, which is made of a neutron and a proton, nevertheless has measurably less mass than the sum of the masses of the neutron and proton. No particles are lost, but the mass is lower.

          Ged: “If we are losing matter every time we do a chemical reaction, we will soon run out of material.”

          But we don’t lose mass every time. Sometimes we gain mass. So, in electrolysis, you put energy into the water molecule and the masses of the individual components are restored. It all balances.

          Ged: “You can’t emit a gamma ray and than put it back.”

          You certainly can. Hit a deuteron with a 2.2 MeV, and it might split apart, with the proton and neutron back at their rest masses. The photoelectric effect uses a photon’s energy to separate an electron from a solid. The mass of the combination is just a little higher.

          Ged: “Why don’t you show me some references to back your theories up? I see your wiki quote, but you didn’t link it, so I can’t reference its real source; or see the experiments for it. Nor do I leave it undisputed.”

          First, it’s not my theory; it’s well-known physics for about a century. Second, I gave 2 references, but it’s in any first year physics survey text, and all over on wikipedia. And I hope you can type a topic like “conservation of mass” into the wikipedia search field.

          Another good one is “mass-energy equivalence”. Let me quote extensively from it:

          wikipedia (mass-energy equivalence):
          “Max Planck pointed out that the mass–energy equivalence formula implied that bound systems would have a mass less than the sum of their constituents, once the binding energy had been allowed to escape. However, Planck was thinking about chemical reactions, where the binding energy is too small to measure. Einstein suggested that radioactive materials such as radium would provide a test of the theory, […]

          “A little while later, the first transmutation reactions verified Einstein’s formula to an accuracy of ±0.5%. […]

          “Any time energy is generated, the process can be evaluated from an E = mc2 perspective.”

          “Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass.

          “- A spring’s mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

          “- Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world’s primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).

          “- A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.

          Ged: “Chemical energy is through chemical bond changes. ”

          Right, and nuclear energy through nuclear bond changes. But still the mass of the particles changes.

          Ged: “Maybe I am wrong here,”

          Yes, you are.

          Ged: “but you need a lot more evidence and to actually back up what you say, since -life itself- requires reversible equilibrium to exist.”

          This has been accepted scientifically since Einstein, and stated explicitly by Planck. I feel no need to back it up beyond what I have done. Do some reading, and enlighten yourself.

          Ged: “If a spring was somehow “gaining mass” when tension was applied to it, two things would have to happen: 1) the spring would now be heavier, and 2) the gravitational field of the spring would have to increase.”

          Right. So? The energy to compress the spring had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere will have less mass and less gravitational field.

          Ged: “I have avoided bringing in subatomic particles, which would be necessary to even begin to discuss your claims of mass changes with chemical reactions, since moles of mass must be conserved (actual particle number of atoms must not change!).”

          No. Planck had no idea of subatomic particles, or even the nuclear atom, and he realized that bound states would have less mass than the sum of the constituents. The particle numbers don’t change in chemical reactions, just the mass.

          • Ged

            “Right. So? The energy to compress the spring had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere will have less mass and less gravitational field.”

            And where was that somewhere? And how can a chemical bond (interactions between electrons between atomic nuclei), have mass? Is not the energy of the spring actually from the lattice being strained out of its perfered form? That explaintion quanitiatively explains everything about spring dynamics. But has the spring gained weight? Does it generate more gravity now? You didn’t answer that, you said gravity would have to be removed from somewhere else. The object compressing the spring? Would it now be lighter? That doesn’t explain the energy transference well at all, and how would you put that into actual predictable math?

            Basically all that says is due to the wave-particle duality, when energy is added, the particle part of the equation gets “heavier”. But you haven’t added more particles.

            2 mole of water still has 2 moles of H and 1 mole of O. You’re utterly wrong when you state otherwise. Because the very property of being water requires this, as does the ability to reverse back to separate H2 and O.

            I think you are misapplying the wave-particle duality completely. The change in “mass” is never a loss of actual particles. Does a proton disappear and cease to exist because it recombined with oxygen to form water? Well, then it didn’t actually form water, and you’re left with an ontological problem, as the reaction then never took place, and thus the hydrogen should never have disappeared.

            The mass change in as much is the wave form change, not an actual loss of a particle. So the molar laws are obeyed completely. This is a quantum discussion beyond the scope we should have brought in, and there’s plenty of room to dispute your interpretations.

            For instance, there is indeed direct ways to transform matter to energy, though annihilation of particles by an antiparticle. Even a gamma ray given off by a nuclear decay can be from electron-positron annihilation.

            And how do you create a particle with energy? Only way I know to do that would be to break symmetry with a virtual particle to allow it to become real.

            But where does adding heat cause a new particle to pop into existence? Does a whole new iron atom appear when you heat it up? Do iron atoms cease to exist when you cool it down?

            The -wave- form changes, but the particle part remains the same. That’s what the conservation of mass is all about. Relativity does not violate that as far as I’ve seen, and if you’re going to claim it does, you need some heavier hitting evidence than what you’ve listed.

          • Ged

            Oops, I missed one of your points (maybe more, there is a lot flying around here! So sorry if I do).

            — “You said force. And you said force was not related to LENR. You were wrong. Just admit it. Nuclear force is involved in the purported reactions, and pressure is involved when heat is produced. There’s a lot of energy, so there could be a lot of force. Ergo, it could be dangerous.”

            Sigh. You are missing the point, deliberately or accidentally, I don’t know.

            One can argue -all- energy transfer is through force. So, by your logic, all energy transfers are explosively dangerous.

            Dave made the attempt to say “nuclear reactions release energy by exploding, nuclear reactions use force, LENR uses force, ergo LENR explodes.”

            I was stating LENR does not release energy through explosive force ( LENR does not release its energy by directly accelerating mass, en mass, as in F = ma). This is true, -it doesn’t-. I also originally mentioned LENR releases energy through heat via lattice vibrations. Lattice vibrations of course only happen because a (quantum vibrational) force was applied on them, and the heat they transfer is through kinetic force.

            Do you see what I meant now? I was never saying force was not involved in so much as force permeates all things if you go small enough. I was saying explosive and mechanical force (F = ma) is not involved in normal LENR reactions as Dave was trying to insinuate. A very different matter.

          • kemo sabe

            Ged: “Dave made the attempt to say “nuclear reactions release energy by exploding, nuclear reactions use force, LENR uses force, ergo LENR explodes.””

            Wow. That makes no sense to me. What he said was that “LENR works by using forces created by nuclear reactions.”

            I think this discussion of forces is pointless, but his statement is basically right (if the claims are accepted): LENR produces heat, and force is needed to accelerate atoms to give them kinetic energy (heat), and the ultimate source of that force is (according to LENR advocates) is nuclear reactions.

            On the other hand, your reply that “force is not involved in LENR” is just plain wrong.

          • Ged

            Oh, noticed I did miss another of your points, about the references.

            Ok, so you don’t like those? Well how about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

            More importantly “By contrast, the rest mass and invariant masses of systems and particles are both conserved and also invariant. For example: A closed container of gas (closed to energy as well) has a system “rest mass” in the sense that it can be weighed on a resting scale, even while it contains moving components.” And, “Added to this concept is an additional complication resulting from the fact that “mass” is defined in two different ways in special relativity: one way defines mass (“rest mass” or “invariant mass”) as an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames; in the other definition, the measure of mass (“relativistic mass”) is dependent on the velocity of the observer.”

            I think the problem you are having with relativity actually stems from this: “In special relativity, mass is not “converted” to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass.”

            So, when energy is released in say a chemical reaction, mass in the sense of matter, like actual number of particles, is -not lost- or changed.

            However, when viewed from relativity, -energy itself- is actually considered a separate mass adding to the total of the system’s mass. And that’s where your statements are getting confused and hung up, and why I was not understanding what you were trying to say.

            Such as: “Thus, a system’s invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings.”

            When I was talking mass, I was speaking of actual matter, as in particles and numbers of (moles). When you were talking mass, you were including energy itself in the rest mass of the entire system. That is true and valid, but a separate issue from how I was describing the system, which was to keep energy and mass as separate, by taking mass as meaning amount of physical matter (Newtonian sense).

            Gotta be careful not to confuse or obfuscate the use of the terminology from the separate points of view. This is, of course, part of the issue keeping relativity and quantum mechanics from being reconciled under one theory.

          • kemo sabe

            Ged: “However, when viewed from relativity, -energy itself- is actually considered a separate mass adding to the total of the system’s mass. ”

            Yes, I said that several times, and now you’re beginning to understand. That’s nice.

            Now, admit that a molecule of water has less mass than the sum of its constituents, and the mass difference is related to the energy released by E=mc^2, and we can lay this story to rest.

            (Oh, and that a compressed spring increases in mass.)

          • kemo sabe

            You’re rambling incoherently now. This is quite peripheral to the issue at hand, and I don’t see much point in giving you a course on relativity. But I’ll say a couple of things.

            You’re hung up on the idea that mass can only change by the creation and destruction of particles. The particle count (sometimes referred to as quantity of matter) is indeed conserved in chemical reactions. The point is that the mass of a bound state of particles is less than the sum of the masses of the free particles. And it doesn’t matter what the force is that binds the particles together.

            This is not just a theoretical idea. It is experimentally observed. The mass of the bound state of a neutron and proton is measurably less than the mass of a free proton plus the mass of a free neutron. The very same particles exist in both states, but the mass is different. This is because when the bound state is formed, energy (the binding energy) is released, and is no longer part of the system, and energy, in any form, has mass. The relationship between the masses of the constituents and that of the bound state is given by E=mc^2, where E is the energy released, and m is the mass difference.

            The same is true for any bound state, including water. So, the mass of a water molecule is less than the mass of a free oxygen atom plus the mass of 2 free hydrogen atoms. Same particles, different mass. And always related by E=mc^2 where E is the energy released in the formation of the molecule.

            Reactions that conserve quantity of matter (particle identity and number) are often not considered as the conversion of mass to energy, even though the particle system changes mass as determined by E=mc^2. That’s because it’s really just a conversion of potential or binding energy to or from heat and light. The thing is that potential energy or binding energy contribute to the mass of the system, whereas heat or light escapes, and is not counted as part of the system.

            Reactions in which particle identities change or are annihilated or created constitute actual conversion of mass to energy (or vice versa). The energy from fusion and fission, however, comes mostly from changes in binding energies of nucleons.

            Finally, the wave-particle duality has nothing to do with the mass-energy equivalence. E=mc^2, and Planck’s observation that bound states would have less mass than the sum of the constituents predates de Broglie’s matter waves by about 20 years.

          • kemo sabe

            I found a nice quote from Einstein in 1905 (translated from Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905) to tie this up with a bow:

            “If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c^2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so we are led to the more general conclusion that

            “The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content; if its energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/c^2.

            “It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.

            “If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies.” — A. Einstein

            These remarks are completely general (except for the example), so if the “body” is an atom which emits a photon due to a decay from an excited state, then its mass changes. And if the “body” is a system of 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, and they bind to form H2O, releasing energy L, then the body’s mass will reduce by L/c^2.

            Einstein’s theory has of course been verified in countless ways to exquisite accuracy.

            Note also when he wrote this, the concept of particles changing identity or being created or annihilated was completely unknown.

  • kemo sabe

    This is a reply to Ged’s comment, which is deeply nested at 5:14 pm (June 27)

    On the explosiveness from unknown processes:

    I agree that an ordinary reactor will not undergo a nuclear explosion, because the conditions for criticality are very fragile, and destroyed before significant energy can be released. But we understand the workings of a nuclear reactor in great detail.

    Likewise, thermite is designed to burn slowly, and does because its combustion is well-understood.

    The problem with LENR is that a high energy density is claimed, but the mechanism of its release is not understood, and so I don’t see how you can be certain that conditions don’t exist in which the release might be explosive.

    • Ged

      Thermite is not designed to burn slowly. The slow burning of thermite is the very nature of the chemical reaction between the iron oxides and the aluminum metal. That’s all there is, iron oxide and aluminum. You cannot “design” that for different reaction rates; it’s a property of the elements in question.

      The high energy densities claimed are not that high. We’re talking above chemical reaction, but not at the level of uranium fission. But even if the energy densities were the highest of any known substance, that does not guarantee an explosion. If the mechanism of the release of that energy is a slow one, you can -never- explode. Similarly, the mechanism by which thermite works means that it can -never- explode: no amount of designing can change that. Only by changing the mechanism could that be done.

      We’ve seen the LENR mechanism through many individuals attempting it. It always gives off a small amount of excess heat energy, but at a slow rate. So far, all experimental evidence, all observations, and all theoretical explanations posit that the LENR reaction is slow, low energy, and impossible to make into an explosive.

      We would have to change the very mechanism itself to change that. And maybe that could be possible, but not with our current materials, as I stated, or our current methods. The E-cat can never, contrary to Dave, explode and kill thousands, that is an impossibility. Just as the burning of glucose by your cells could never cause you to spontaneously combust despite it being the same combustion reactions as any open flame. That is an impossibility due to the -mechanisms- and rates of reaction by which they occur.

      • kemo sabe

        The design of thermite is in the choice of the chemicals. They are chosen to burn slowly.

        You haven’t been watching the promos if you think people don’t claim high energy densities for LENR. Watch the 60-minutes episode, or read Rothwell’s predictions. They claim you can run a car for a year on a few drops of water, or something to that effect. And if it’s not significantly higher than chemical, then what’s all the excitement about?

        You’re right that high energy densities don’t guarantee an explosion, but I should think that a homeowner would take little comfort in being assured that his ecat is not guaranteed to explode. I think he’d want it to be guaranteed not to explode.

        Without understanding the reaction, the very high energy density of nuclear reactions should give pause. Nuclear reactions release 10^6 times more energy per reaction, so a reaction rate could be 1000 times slower than dynamite, and still be 1000 times as explosive.

        I agree that all the evidence to date indicates that LENR experiments are not explosive. But to me, and most of the world, all the evidence to date indicates that LENR is not nuclear.

        You say it’s impossible for the ecat to explode because of what you know about it. But when skeptics say it’s impossible for the ecat to produce useful nuclear energy, based on what they know about it, they are called dogmatic and old-school and ignored by the believers.

        You should keep in mind that what you want to be true is not a scientific criterion, and nature doesn’t care.

        • Ged

          — “The design of thermite is in the choice of the chemicals. They are chosen to burn slowly.”

          Ok, I absolutely agree with you there. I think you totally missed my point though. It’s like saying “well, we can make thermite explode if we choose to use black powder instead of iron oxide and aluminum.” In that case, it’s no longer thermite and instead gun powder. This is almost getting into existentialism and talking about the very definition of what a thing is according to its name.

          Thermite, the thing so named, is not explosive by its nature. It’s still a highly vigorous reaction like gun powder, but its rate of reaction is slow and can never explode. That was my point. Just because you can give off a lot of energy, or do give off a lot of energy, does not mean you will ever explode.

          Sure, you can throw in some nitroglycerin, but now it’s no longer thermite.

          — “And if it’s not significantly higher than chemical, then what’s all the excitement about?”

          I said it was higher than chemical. But all actual information and data we have (not simply claims) suggests its not as high as uranium fission. We could all have nuclear reactors running our cars -for decades- too. So, what’s the point?

          — “Nuclear reactions release 10^6 times more energy per reaction, so a reaction rate could be 1000 times slower than dynamite, and still be 1000 times as explosive.”

          At face value, I fully agree with you there. So since LENR is not explosive, the reaction rate must be much lower than 1000 times beneath dynamite… OR, we are using 1000 times less material.

          We both forget about the last part there. If you take just a gram of dynamite, can you get a dangerous explosion? No. You’ll get a puff, and that’s about it.

          Black powder is used in certain fire crackers that are not at all dangerous (snakes), but really fun and slow burning. There’s no explosion because the amount of black powder is so small.

          It isn’t just energy density, or rate of reaction, but also -amount- available to react that’s also an important figure. And so far, Rossi has stated just grams of nickle.

          I still contend that too low a rate of reaction, even if you had a mountain of material, could not generate heat fast enough to localy increase it at a speed required for an explosion.

          Remember, explosions also have to out run thermal transferance. So even if we have 1000 times the energy density of dynamite, if heat is given off too slowly and is able to diffuse, there can never be an explosion.

          “You say it’s impossible for the ecat to explode because of what you know about it. But when skeptics say it’s impossible for the ecat to produce useful nuclear energy, based on what they know about it, they are called dogmatic and old-school and ignored by the believers.

          You should keep in mind that what you want to be true is not a scientific criterion, and nature doesn’t care.”

          You last statement is important for all to remember. But where have I mentioned “what I want to be true”? Never. I have spoken only from fact from start to finish. Even if you dispute those facts, it’s still never been opinion on my part; even if hypotheses at worst.

          I do not call skeptics of the e-cat dogmatic or old-school, not even once. So I don’t know why you are throwing that at me.

          At any rate, I must leave for the day. I have enjoyed our talks, and you are a great conversationalist, Kemo.

          I hope you have a good evening!

        • GreenWin

          I want my gas water heater guaranteed not to explode but… every year a couple thousand homes blow up ’cause a gas leak at the water heater.

          Seems both you guys are talking about energy densities in traditional nuclear and chemical matter. However several LENR theories suggest the excess heat arrives from atomic transitions or latent energy. Mills claims fractional H1 transitions release energy. A shrinking H1 atom has no apparent mechanism to explode. Other theories require access to virtual particles, vacuum flux, and heavy electrons. None suggest even remotely a mechanism for explosion.

          • kemo sabe

            GW: “I want my gas water heater guaranteed not to explode but… every year a couple thousand homes blow up ’cause a gas leak at the water heater.”

            Right. A lot of things we use are potentially explosive. But we understand the mechanism of the failures, and their limits, and take the calculated risk.

            With LENR, we don’t know the mechanism, and more importantly, given the very much higher energy density, the potential size of the explosion is far higher.

            “Seems both you guys are talking about energy densities in traditional nuclear and chemical matter. However several LENR theories suggest the excess heat arrives from atomic transitions or latent energy. Mills claims fractional H1 transitions release energy. ”

            Whatever, the reason LENR is touted as a solution to our energy problems is because of high energy density. That’s the danger, especially when the mechanism of release is unknown.

            “A shrinking H1 atom has no apparent mechanism to explode. Other theories require access to virtual particles, vacuum flux, and heavy electrons. None suggest even remotely a mechanism for explosion.”

            Actually the WL literature mentions a chain reaction. But if the reactions are triggered by heat, and they produce heat (as in the ecat), then that’s a chain reaction, regardless of what theory you subscribe to. That’s the mechanism for chemical explosions. It’s only a matter of reaction rate, and the availability of reaction candidates, neither of which any theory predicts quantitatively.

        • kemo sabe

          Ged,

          I think I got the point about the thermite. There are reactions that are not explosive under any conditions. But if the mechanism of the reaction is not understood, then it is not possible to know if it can be explosive or not. And when the energy density is 10^6 times higher than chemical, then an explosive reaction has dramatic destructive potential.

          Ged: “I said it [the energy density in LENR] was higher than chemical. But all actual information and data we have (not simply claims) suggests its not as high as uranium fission.

          The actual information and data we have on energy density in LENR experiments suggests it’s not even higher than chemical. That’s why the world doesn’t believe it’s nuclear, and why I’m not concerned about safety. But, if the reactions are nuclear, then the fact that individual reaction release MeV energy, means the energy density is vastly higher than chemical.

          Ged: “At face value, I fully agree with you there. So since LENR is not explosive, the reaction rate must be much lower than 1000 times beneath dynamite…”

          You’re arguing in a circle now. You’re saying since LENR is not explosive, LENR is not explosive. You can’t use your conclusion in the premise.

          If the fact that LENR has not yet exploded means it’s not explosive, then the fact that LENR has not yet been made practical means it can’t be made practical.

          The point is that when high energy density is clearly demonstrated, then the possibility of explosive release should be considered.

          Ged: “OR, we are using 1000 times less material.”

          Even with 1000 times less material, the same reaction rate as in dynamite would represent an explosion 1000 times as big. Or a rate 100 times lower, would give an explosion 10 times bigger. Without knowing the reaction rate under all conditions, we can’t ensure that the conditions are not present for an explosive reaction rate.

          Ged: “It isn’t just energy density, or rate of reaction, but also -amount- available to react that’s also an important figure. And so far, Rossi has stated just grams of nickle.”

          I think it’s more like a hundred grams, but in any case, the reason the ecat has attracted attention is because the claim is that it can produce a lot of energy without adding fuel. Rossi claims it can run 6 months at 10 kW, so that’s 150 GJ, or about the equivalent energy of 75000 sticks of dynamite. If you don’t know what controls the reaction rate, you have the potential for a big explosion.

          Ged: “Remember, explosions also have to out run thermal transferance. So even if we have 1000 times the energy density of dynamite, if heat is given off too slowly and is able to diffuse, there can never be an explosion.”

          But the nuclear energy density is more like a million times higher, and secondly, the high energy density here means heat transfer is easier, and dissipation is harder.

          Ged: “But where have I mentioned “what I want to be true”? ”

          I take it as self-evident that we all want LENR to work and for it to be safe. Isn’t that what you want?

          Ged: “I do not call skeptics of the e-cat dogmatic or old-school, not even once. ”

          Nevertheless, skeptics are called dogmatic when they say LENR is impossible. And yet they do not call you dogmatic when you insist that explosions are impossible.

          • Ged

            — “I think I got the point about the thermite. There are reactions that are not explosive under any conditions. But if the mechanism of the reaction is not understood, then it is not possible to know if it can be explosive or not.”

            Finally, some sense in this talk.

            Yes, if something is completely unknown we can’t know what it does till we experiment. And there have been many, many LENR experiments. It is well defined, and all theoretical models for LENR show it cannot explode at all. Show me a theoretical model that says differently. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

            The rate of reaction is too slow. Or better put, the power density is too low. This has absolutely nothing to do with energy density, and in fact, energy density is a red herring we got bogged down in. It means nothing except the total energy you can get out of a system -over a total amount of time-, but it never tells you how much energy you can get out of a system at any specific amount of time. LENR could have an energy density of 1 million terajoules and be unable to do more than heat a coffee pot for a billion years; and still be impossible to explode.

            — “You’re arguing in a circle now. You’re saying since LENR is not explosive, LENR is not explosive.”

            You missed the point of what I was saying, again. Which was to say -if- we used your logic, this is where it would lead, and hence why your reasoning was flawed in this manner.

            — “The point is that when high energy density is clearly demonstrated, then the possibility of explosive release should be considered.”

            And you forgot my lessons about thermite and U238 and Americium. All three have very high energy density, all three cannot explode. Why? Because both have low power density (power release per unit mass).

            — “Even with 1000 times less material, the same reaction rate as in dynamite would represent an explosion 1000 times as big.”

            What? Absolutely wrong. If you have something that has 1000 times the power density of a gram of dynamite, and you use only a milligram of it, you can only get a power output the same as 1 gram of dynamite. You missed the point, again.

            — “But the nuclear energy density is more like a million times higher, and secondly, the high energy density here means heat transfer is easier, and dissipation is harder.”

            Arguing the wrong matter. Energy density means nothing. Pure vacuum of space has the energy density to boil the world’s oceans, it is said, and yet it has such a low power density we can’t use “vacuum energy” for anything.

            Transfer rates only have to do with -power-. If the power exceeds the transfer rate, it has nothing to do with energy density.

            — “think it’s more like a hundred grams, but in any case, the reason the ecat has attracted attention is because the claim is that it can produce a lot of energy without adding fuel. Rossi claims it can run 6 months at 10 kW, so that’s 150 GJ, or about the equivalent energy of 75000 sticks of dynamite. If you don’t know what controls the reaction rate, you have the potential for a big explosion.”

            We’ve already seen the power output of the reaction, 10 kw. There is no potential for explosion there. Saying there could be a totally other way to get a higher power, and a high enough power density to cause an explosion, is a very different argument. Where’s the mechanism by which that would occur? All theoretical mechanisms for the E-cat, and from all other LENR experiments, show that is not possible from our current methods or materials.

            Saying something “could” is meaningless. Anyone could say anything could do anything else. You need to say how. As we already have observations, and copious amounts of, to the contrary.

            — “Nevertheless, skeptics are called dogmatic when they say LENR is impossible. And yet they do not call you dogmatic when you insist that explosions are impossible.”

            This is a victim like statement, and has no purpose or reasoning for discussion, a pure strawman argument. If you have a problem with people saying such things, -take it up with those individuals-, don’t play the pity card on me.

          • kemo sabe

            — Ged: “Yes, if something is completely unknown we can’t know what it does till we experiment. And there have been many, many LENR experiments. It is well defined, and all theoretical models for LENR show it cannot explode at all. ”

            The problem is *all* the theoretical models. There are many because there is no consensus on which is right, which means they could all be wrong, and probably are. There have been many LENR experiments, and the results are all vastly different (far from well defined), and none are quantitatively described by any models. And none even convincingly show nuclear reactions. But if they do, given the huge variation in output results, none of the half-baked models should give any confidence that the variation can’t go much higher.

            — Ged: “The rate of reaction is too slow. ”

            But the rate of reaction varies vastly in different experiments (accepting the claims), and is not understood, so you don’t know that it can’t increase.

            — Ged: “Or better put, the power density is too low. This has absolutely nothing to do with energy density, and in fact, energy density is a red herring we got bogged down in. ”

            Both power density and energy density are relevant. Without enough (accessible) energy density, no explosion is possible. One joule of energy can produce any power density you want in a short enough time, but that’s not explosive. In fact the power density in the immediate vicinity of a single nuclear reaction is immense, but not explosive.

            — Ged: “It means nothing except the total energy you can get out of a system -over a total amount of time-, but it never tells you how much energy you can get out of a system at any specific amount of time. LENR could have an energy density of 1 million terajoules and be unable to do more than heat a coffee pot for a billion years; and still be impossible to explode.”

            I know what energy density means. But the claims of LENR are that the energy is accessible by unknown mechanisms some 20 orders of magnitude higher than predicted by conventional considerations. If the mechanisms are unknown, and in particular if the rates are vastly different in different experiments, the possibility seems rather high that a little tweaking might coax a few more orders of magnitude out of the reaction, which will make it explosive.

            — Ged: “And you forgot my lessons about thermite and U238 and Americium. All three have very high energy density, all three cannot explode. Why? Because both have low power density (power release per unit mass).”

            No, you forgot the difference. Those systems are understood, and the limits on the power density are calculable. LENR is not understood, and the power density varies widely, and has already been allegedly increased by 10^20 by some fortuitous arrangement of the atoms. An even more fortuitous arrangement, or a higher density of such arrangements (NAEs as Storms calls them, as if giving them a name constitutes a theory), seems pretty plausible.

            — — KS: – “Even with 1000 times less material, the same reaction rate as in dynamite would represent an explosion 1000 times as big.”

            — Ged: “What? Absolutely wrong. If you have something that has 1000 times the power density of a gram of dynamite, and you use only a milligram of it, you can only get a power output the same as 1 gram of dynamite.”

            Think again. A single reaction has a million times the energy, so if the reaction rate is the same, then the power density is a million times higher (assuming similar mass density). So a milligram of LENR fuel with the same reaction rate as dynamite produces the power density of a kg of dynamite (about 4 sticks). A hundred grams is 100,000 times more.

            — Ged: “Arguing the wrong matter. Energy density means nothing.”

            But it’s not just energy density being argued, but accessible energy density. The energy density of a dime is vast if you consider the mass-energy equivalence, but no one is claiming to be able to extract it.

            In LENR, people are claiming to be able to extract that energy density at *useful* rates which (1) vary widely from experiment to experiment, (2) are not understood, and (3) are than 20 orders of magnitude above conventional predictions because of lucky atomic configurations.

            Do you see the difference? In that scenario (if you believe it), no one should have confidence that some other lucky atomic configuration or a higher density of them can’t exist to increase the rate by few more orders.

            — Ged: “We’ve already seen the power output of the reaction, 10 kw.”

            Yes. Under normal operation.

            — Ged: “There is no potential for explosion there. Saying there could be a totally other way to get a higher power, and a high enough power density to cause an explosion, is a very different argument. Where’s the mechanism by which that would occur? All theoretical mechanisms for the E-cat, and from all other LENR experiments, show that is not possible from our current methods or materials.”

            Those theoretical mechanisms show no such thing. They are not in the least quantitative, and could all be wrong. All you can say (if you believe the 10 kW), is that some configuration of Ni and a secret sauce has increased the reaction rate by more than 20 orders of magnitude to give 10 kW. If that’s possible, it seems plausible that an even better configuration or a higher density of such configurations might give much higher reaction rates still. Maybe another 20 orders of magnitude are possible.

            — KS:– “Nevertheless, skeptics are called dogmatic when they say LENR is impossible. And yet they do not call you dogmatic when you insist that explosions are impossible.”

            — Ged: “This is a victim like statement, and has no purpose or reasoning for discussion, a pure strawman argument. If you have a problem with people saying such things, -take it up with those individuals-, don’t play the pity card on me.”

            I assure you, I’m not looking for pity. This is an open forum, so it’s not all about you. I was pointing out, in a forum populated by LENR advocates, a contradiction in that advocates reject arguments about impossibility as too dogmatic, but only against the usefulness of LENR, not its potential danger.

            Anyway, whether you call them dogmatic or not, you dismiss their views that LENR is impossible, even while you state with poorer evidence that LENR explosions are not possible.

          • Dave

            Special micro/nano structures (such as nanosized cracks and holes) are needed for any reaction to take place (do your research please). All reactions are very localized and often cause nano sized melt spots.
            1 – If temperatures go up too high, the essential nano structures are lost and the process stops.
            2 – A chain reaction in LENR means that an increase of essential nano structures takes place, through “erosion” of the metal used. This is why LENR reactions often take a few days to start.
            3 – It doesn’t matter if the energy density in LENR is higher than chemical or not. What matters is the COP!!! PLEASE THINK MAN!
            4 – If you don’t believe LENR, then don’t spend your time on it AND DON’T GO BUY A LENR ENERGY REACTOR EVER!!! If you don’t understand it is all about COP and you do not see the evidence… well… you simply look like an idiot…

            Just do everybody a favor and invest your time in solar or wind energy…

          • kemo sabe

            The locations of LENR reactions, if they take place, are very speculative. And given the erratic nature of LENR, it is very difficult to test the ideas systematically. Neither all theories, nor all experimentalists agree on what constitutes favorable LENR sites, which of course is why after 23 years, we still don’t have a practical LENR device.

            Given the speculative nature of these sites, I don’t think you can be sure that destroying them will stop a runaway reaction. More importantly, since the reaction rates are not well known, it may be possible for a particular configuration of such sites (assuming they are needed) to ignite simultaneously or very fast, producing an explosion before sites are destroyed.

            A fission reactor is sustained by the same chain reaction that occurs in an atomic bomb, but the reactions are well-understood, and the reaction rates in moderated fuel rods are known to be slow enough so that they are not explosive. This kind of knowledge is missing in LENR.

            I don’t understand your point about the COP, and I’m thinking as hard as I can.

  • Ged

    Kemo, I realized our discussion has had a fatal flaw, and I can only blame myself. I failed to bring in the quantified meaning of “rates of reaction” for which this discussion should have been about. We should never have gotten bogged down in the absolutely meaningless discussion of energy density.

    You failed to understand my examples of U238, thermite (or also incorrectly mixed black powder works here), and americium, and why they were relevant.

    All those have very high energy density, none of those can ever explode. Why? Because you cannot get much power out of it.

    The discussion should always have been about power. To explode, you must exert a massive amount of power. And that power must be exerted over a small area; which is power density (energy per unit time per unit area).

    Power density alone determines if something is explosive. All matter has absurdly high energy density, but will a computer mouse explode and level a town? No. It has low power density if used in combustion. Unless you mix it with antimatter; the reaction with which would have a absurdly high power density.

    For LENR, what do we see? We see at most 10 kW of power per reaction core (you can then use the dimensions of the core to get the power density). That’s it. Can you explode something with 10 kW?

    By mixing nickle with hydrogen, the power density of the reaction is low. All empirical evidence from all experiments show that. We get a scale of excess energy from mW to kW depending on how the mixture is done. Interestingly too, micronization (powdering) of nickle does not increase power, but seems to actually hamper it, showing that surface area is not part of this equation; but reaction sites in a lattice, which are far and few between.

    LENR can never explode, as it is now–the E-cat can never explode directly–because the power density of the LENR reaction is low. Maybe and even if the energy density is 150 GJ, that means nothing if that energy can only be released over a period of 6 months.

    -Could- we find a way to change that, -if- someone discovered some magical method to increase power density? Of course. But only if one increased power density would potential to be explosive exist; and that’s a hypothetical, not a hypothesis, as no testible way to do so is put forward by you.

    This goes right back to the sun and why it can ever exist. While the energy density of the sun could wipe out this entire solar system and then some; the power density of the sun irradiates this planet with a mere 300-400 W per meter squared (on average).

    So, basically, all our previous discussion is pretty meaningless, as we were talking about the completely wrong thing.

    Maybe now we will be on a common thread, or will one choose to continue interpreting matters in an erroneous way?

    • Ged

      Small correction: Power density is usually per unit volume, not area (though area is sometimes used, like for solar irradiance).

    • kemo sabe

      –Ged: “I realized our discussion has had a fatal flaw, and I can only blame myself. I failed to bring in the quantified meaning of “rates of reaction” for which this discussion should have been about. We should never have gotten bogged down in the absolutely meaningless discussion of energy density.”

      You’re only now understanding what energy density and power density mean? Is someone coaching you? You’re beginning to sound like Jed Rothwell. Hmmm. Jed = Ged? Could be. That certainly explains your stubbornness about admitting you got it wrong about mass changes in chemical reactions, and your incoherent verbosity when you get cornered.

      Both power density and (accessible) energy density are relevant. Without enough (accessible) energy density, no explosion is possible. One joule of energy can produce any power density you want in a short enough time, but that’s not explosive. In fact the power density in the immediate vicinity of a single nuclear reaction is immense, but not explosive.

      And it’s not just energy density being argued, but *accessible* energy density. The energy density of a dime is vast if you consider the mass-energy equivalence, but no one is claiming to be able to extract it.

      In LENR, people are claiming to be able to extract that energy density at *useful* rates which (1) vary widely from experiment to experiment, (2) are not understood, and (3) are more than 20 orders of magnitude above conventional predictions because of lucky atomic configurations.

      In that scenario, no one should have confidence that some other lucky atomic configuration or a higher density of them can’t exist to increase the rate by few more orders.

      — Ged: “You failed to understand my examples of U238, thermite (or also incorrectly mixed black powder works here), and americium, and why they were relevant.”

      No, I understood them, but you failed to understand how they are different from LENR.

      Those systems are understood, and the limits on the power density are calculable. LENR is not understood, and the power density varies widely, and has already been allegedly increased by 10^20 by some fortuitous arrangement of the atoms. An even more fortuitous arrangement, or a higher density of such arrangements (NAEs as Storms calls them, as if giving them a name constitutes a theory), seems pretty plausible.

      — Ged: “The discussion should always have been about power. To explode, you must exert a massive amount of power. And that power must be exerted over a small area; which is power density (energy per unit time per unit area).”

      Of course power is important, but there must also be accessible energy density, which is what is claimed to be the case in LENR. And power density normally means power per unit volume, not area. (I see you caught that.)

      — Ged: “For LENR, what do we see? We see at most 10 kW of power per reaction core (you can then use the dimensions of the core to get the power density). That’s it. Can you explode something with 10 kW?”

      That’s the most that’s been claimed. It hardly means it’s the most that’s possible (if the claims are true). Before Rossi, the highest claimed was far far less, but that didn’t mean the limit had been reached.

      — Ged: “By mixing nickle with hydrogen, the power density of the reaction is low. All empirical evidence from all experiments show that.”

      To my mind, all the empirical evidence shows that LENR is not nuclear, so I agree it’s safe. What I’m saying is that *if* someone succeeds in increasing the nuclear rates by 10^20, by methods not understood, the possibility that the increase might be much larger cannot be easily dismissed.

      — Ged: “We get a scale of excess energy from mW to kW depending on how the mixture is done.”

      That would be power. Anyway, that’s 6 orders of magnitude, with no understanding of how it works. What happens if some kind of configuration gives 9 orders when you least expect it?

      — Ged: “Interestingly too, micronization (powdering) of nickle does not increase power, but seems to actually hamper it, showing that surface area is not part of this equation; but reaction sites in a lattice, which are far and few between.”

      Right: few and far between. What keeps them that way? What happens if they are more concentrated for some reason?

      — Ged: “LENR can never explode, as it is now–the E-cat can never explode directly–because the power density of the LENR reaction is low.”

      You say that with confidence, but nuclear physicists say with the same confidence that LENR can’t even work. You dismiss their views, just as I dismiss yours.

      — Ged: “-Could- we find a way to change that, -if- someone discovered some magical method to increase power density? Of course. But only if one increased power density would potential to be explosive exist; ”

      Exactly. But it could happen by accident. After all, the discovery of LENR, and H-Ni LENR was kind of an accident. They claim to have found a way to increase the power density of H-Ni by 20 orders of magnitude by sheer guesswork. It’s therefore plausible that it could increase by a few more orders by accident.

      — Ged: “This goes right back to the sun and why it can ever exist. While the energy density of the sun could wipe out this entire solar system and then some; the power density of the sun irradiates this planet with a mere 300-400 W per meter squared (on average).”

      The sun’s output is not erratic, and we are not monkeying with the reaction rates by changing the nature of the fuel.

      — Ged: “Maybe now we will be on a common thread, or will one choose to continue interpreting matters in an erroneous way?”

      I think that’s almost a certainty. We have a history, after all.

      • Ged

        Oh kemo, you are acting hilarious at times. “Accessible” energy density -is- power density (once accessed 😉 ). One in the same. Look up how this is used with battery technology, as a good primer.

        Your comment about the sun also makes me laugh. You -completely- and utterly missed the entire discussion about energy density and power density. The energy density of the sun is the energy it will produce for its entire life span and is enough to vaporize all matter in our solar system; the power density is the irradiance it’s giving our planet right now. The sun’s energy density will be released over billions of years by fusion reaction, hence why it’s power density is making for a nice summer weather. That you missed the whole meaning of this… and since all my other examples are showing you the same… and since you fail to even begin to discuss how LENR could have a dangerous power density… and how you fail to realize explosions have to do only with the power density of the reaction… I honestly don’t know what to say to you.

        I simply cannot take this discussion seriously anymore, it is making me smile too much. Between all the ad hominin attacks (notice how I don’t try to make such silly statements about you, but it says a lot about yourself and your position that you have to resort to such against me :D), and the complete disregard of the difference between power versus energy (I don’t believe for a second that you don’t know the difference, you obviously do, but you’ve wrapped yourself into such a corner you’ve lost the plot and “forgotten”), I am not sure what more can even be said. I’ve shown your view of things off base in a myriad of ways from top to bottom (such as when you took the application of words incorrectly for mass-energy in regard to a relativistic frame, which doesn’t even matter since we’re in the same COM as any e-cat anyways, and tried to claim a chemical reaction makes -matter- disappear as with the moles example; violating reversibility and reality). So I guess I have to end here then.

        All I can say in the end is that LENR requires an intact metal lattice. If that lattice melts or breaks down, all reactions stop. Hence, LENR can not have a power density above what the lattice can survive (which is 1,453° C for the nickel).

        But just wow… Every time I’ve tried to reconcile with you, you have been insulting and gone on absurd tangents that make no sense. But hey, it was fun for awhile!

        • kemo sabe

          Really, Ged? You think accessible energy density is the same as power density? My word!

          (And by the way, the idiom is “one *and* the same”, although it is frequently mangled into the approximately phonetic equivalent of “one in the same”.)

          How do you think the modifier “accessible” results in a time derivative? It has nothing to do with time. The units of accessible energy density are the same as the units of energy density, but power density has different units.

          This demonstrates that you really don’t understand the difference between power and energy, and you just raised the semantic diversion with wordy nonsense to mask the fact that you were losing the argument. It’s a common tactic.

          Energy density almost invariably refers to *accessible* energy density. Otherwise, it is quite a useless concept. All things have the same ultimate energy density per unit mass (specific energy really): it is simply c^2 (or 9E16 J/kg). But when you talk about the energy density of a chemical fuel, you refer to the energy that can be extracted in the form of heat by combustion. When you talk about energy density of a battery, you talk about the energy that can be extracted in the form of electricity by chemical reactions. When you talk about the energy density of fission fuel, you mean the energy that can be produced by fissioning the fissile atoms contained in the fuel. And when you talk about the energy density of LENR, you mean the energy that can be extracted by nuclear reactions of the atoms in the fuel. (Since no one actually agrees on what those reactions are, we can only estimate, but I think everyone agrees they are not fission reactions, so one assumes some MeV per atom of fuel. Or you can make estimates based on claims of people with reactors, like Rossi’s 10 kW for 6 months. Either way, you get energy densities (yes, accessible) in the range of GJ/g, and more importantly, a total energy content of an ecat in the range of a hundred GJ.

          And it’s not just me that uses the language this way. Check out the energy density article in wikipedia, where the second sentence reads:

          “Often only the useful or extractable energy is quantified, which is to say that chemically inaccessible energy such as rest mass energy is ignored.”

          and in the article on specific energy (which is energy density per unit mass):

          “The concept of specific energy applies to a particular or theoretical way of extracting useful energy from the material considered that is usually implied by context.”

          *Implied by context* As I said elsewhere, it should be self-evident that when one talks about the energy density in LENR, one means the energy density accessible to LENR reactions. It seems redundant to have to say that.

          ———–
          On the relevance of energy and power and energy density and power density

          Both energy and power (and their densities) are obviously important, and to suggest that only power density matters is simply nonsense.

          Beyond a certain point, increasing power density has no effect. If the reaction is fast enough, then the propagation of the energy is determined by the properties of the surrounding matter. So, for example, if all the energy is released in 1 nanosecond or 1 microsecond, will make no difference to the effect of the explosion, even though the power (and power density) differs by a factor of 1000.

          On the other hand increasing the energy density (and therefore the total energy) by a factor of 1000 will make a 1000 times bigger explosion.

          Moreover, if the total energy is limited to one joule for example, it doesn’t matter a whit how high the power is, it will make a very small explosion.

          That’s why explosives are usually quantified by the total energy released, and not the power. Check the Wikipedia article on TNT equivalent, which is defined as a method of quantifying the energy released in explosions. The “ton of TNT” is a unit of energy equal to 4.184 petajoules.

          And it’s why they say something like: “However, TNT is not the most energetic of conventional explosives. Dynamite, for example, has more than 60% more energy density.” So someone else seems to think energy density is relevant.

          So, the total energy (which depends on energy density and amount of fuel) puts a limit on the size of the explosion, regardless of the power density, or the total power.

          The essential difference between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons is not the difference in power density (both meet the criterion of being fast enough), it is the difference in energy density. It is the fact that because of the higher energy density, you can have a single nuclear weapon with *energy* corresponding to megatonnes of TNT, whereas conventional weapons peak in the tens of kilotons.

          ————-

          The need for power

          Now, I fully understand the point of your tiresomely repeated examples that demonstrate that high energy density (or high total energy content) is not enough. The reaction rate (power density) also has to be high enough to produce an explosion.

          The point is that *if* that criterion is met, there is a lot of energy available to make a big explosion.

          And the second point is that the mechanism for LENR reactions is not understood, so it is not easy to dismiss the possibility that conditions for a sufficiently high reaction rate might be inadvertently met. This is particularly the case, when you consider that some largely unknown fortuitous arrangement of the atoms is claimed to produce a reaction rate more than 20 orders of magnitude higher than the calculated fusion rate of the atoms based on their density in metal hydrides including the effect of electron shielding (more on this later).

          So, a little more of whatever it is that makes LENR work might make it explosive.

          ———–

          As for the intact metal lattice, a sufficiently fast reaction could be over before the metal begins to melt.

          Finally, I think your condescension and amusement and calling me 100% wrong and absurd etc is every bit as insulting as I have been. Not that I mind it — it makes the discussion more lively — but a pot should not call the kettle black. For my part, I have simply given my honest evaluation of your arguments. If they are evasive and impossible to follow, as some have been, then calling them incoherent is not ad hominem.

      • Ged

        I will answer one other thing though, from way nested below, because it is actually a new claim that hasn’t been posited before. And.. an example of just how bizarre things have gotten.

        — KS: “The reaction rates required to make LENR useful are some 20 or 30 orders of magnitude higher than what they are believed to be by conventional considerations. I don’t see how you can accept that the rates increase by say 20 orders of magnitude by unknown mechanisms, and yet be so sure they can’t increase by a few orders of magnitude more, to make it explosive.”

        What in the world? Where are you getting this notion that the reaction rates are 20 to 30 times higher than “what they are believed to be by conventional considerations”?

        I think you’ve lost the ball here.

        Power of E-cats and other LENR reactions have been measured. That’s the reaction rate, right there. You can even calculate how many atoms per second by knowing the total energy versus the mass (of matter) versus the power output.

        The higher the energy and the lower the power from a reaction, the -slower- the reaction rate, not higher (and thus the longer it’ll take to release all the energy: such as 6 months for an E-cat). The fastest anyone’s gotten the reaction rate is 10-20 kW according to Rossi per reaction core, so far (I think I heard 20 kW stated before).

        • kemo sabe

          The 20 orders of magnitude (actually 27) comes from a paper by Legget and Baym published in Nature 340 (July 1989) 45. They calculated the D-D fusion rate for palladium deuteride, based on the density of the deuterons in the metal, and the screening effect of electrons in the material, using highly favorable assumptions, and found it to be 27 orders of magnitude too low to account for the observed heat claimed in cold fusion experiments.

          Now, I realize that most people claim LENR is not simple D-D fusion, and that the ecat is not even palladium deuteride. But H-H fusion or H-Ni fusion, or any other nuclear reaction one can think of would almost certainly give lower reaction rates because the Coulomb barrier would be higher.

          So, of course the claim is that it is some exotic reaction, nothing like ordinary reactions those sorry physicists can conceive of. Maybe so. But the point is that whatever it is, LENR represents some kind of magical atomic arrangement or something that gives a nuclear reaction rate 27 orders of magnitude higher than anything that *can* be described with conventional considerations. And there is no consensus on how this works; people don’t even agree on what the reaction is, let alone what detailed properties of the fuel enable it. So, if some unknown condition can produce rates so much higher than what is currently understood, it’s not a big stretch to assume another unknown condition might do better, and the risk is that it might do too much better.

          And actually, the highest power from an ecat according to Rossi is about 120 kW in the February 18-hour run, not counting the ones he said exploded. That 120 kW should have been high enough to melt the nickel, and yet the reaction allegedly kept going.

          The total number of ecat hours is still pretty small. If they turn out to work as claimed, and there are millions of them running continuously, it seems imprudent to ignore the chance that one of them may ignite a large number of nuclear active sites simultaneously and produce a large explosion. Unless of course, Rossi comes out with a testable theory that makes such explosions sufficiently implausible.

      • Ged

        Actually, to be nice, I will give you a concession; which I already did way buried, but I’ll do it again for your sake.

        — “That certainly explains your stubbornness about admitting you got it wrong about mass changes in chemical reactions”

        Ignoring whatever you were talking about above that, and the personal insult attempts.

        You are right that I was talking about mass as meaning -matter-. Not mass as meaning -energy- and matter, such as mass is defined in relativity; in which case of course mass is changing because energy is changing, and you’ve defined mass as meaning energy.

        The definition of mass classically is different from the definition of mass in relativity. Since my part of the discussion was a classical one, using classical equations, where energy and mass (as in matter) are separate variables and not one in the same; I took everything you said originally as meaning that physical matter (e.g. atoms) was disappearing in chemical reactions. Which it -doesn’t-.

        None the less, your use of calling energy mass is completely right if talking from relativistic point of view.

        Our definitions got crossed as, again, I was keeping the energy and matter (mass) separate in a Newtonian use. But both views are valid; just gotta define which one you are using.

        • kemo sabe

          It’s a concession (thanks), but it’s not enough of one.

          You still don’t seem to understand the concept. Relativity did not just redefine mass as mass plus energy. It showed that energy *has* mass — inertial mass, the same inertial mass defined classically by Newton.

          Didn’t you read the nice quotations I gave from Einstein in 1905, where he said among other things:

          “The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content; if its energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/c^2.”

          Experimentally, this means that a system of bound particles has less mass than the sum of the free particles — ordinary inertial mass, or gravitational mass. This is not a semantic trick. If you take a deuteron and put it on one side of a balance, and take a neutron and proton and put it on the other side, they will weigh more.

          You can’t say such an experiment is not true because you’re talking classically. It is simply an experimental fact.

          And no one (educated) doubts it is also true for chemical reactions, even though it can’t be demonstrated experimentally, because the mass differences are too small.

          What changed semantically with relativity was the realization that mass as quantity of matter was no longer equivalent to inertial or gravitational mass. From then on, the term “mass” has taken the default meaning of inertial (or equivalently, gravitational) mass, and again, it’s the same inertial mass, as used classically by Newton. It’s what Einstein meant in his papers, and its what mass means when unqualified (explicitly or by context) in all literature for 100 years.

          And it’s what you meant by mass too, because you wrote:

          “If a spring was somehow “gaining mass” when tension was applied to it, two things would have to happen: 1) the spring would now be heavier, and 2) the gravitational field of the spring would have to increase.”

          Both of those are true, and it shows you were thinking of gravitational mass. You were also thinking of quantity of matter, as in particle inventory, but your mistake was in assuming that quantity of matter was equivalent to inertial or gravitational mass.

          And even if you had meant quantity of matter, and knew it differed from inertial mass, you could not, under any circumstances, correctly call (as you did) the following statement “absolutely, 100% false”:

          KS: “And the difference in mass between the products and precursors is related to the energy released by E=mc^2.”

          Nor could you correctly make the statements:

          Ged: “Chemical reactions NEVER result in a loss of mass.”

          or

          Ged: “Chemical reactions -never- change mass, and are never subject to E = Mc^2.”

          because of course, by the classical definition of inertial mass, they do change mass, and are subject to E=mc^2. Since it is clear you *were* thinking of gravitational mass, the statements are doubly reprehensible.

          Just now you said: “I took everything you said originally as meaning that physical matter (e.g. atoms) was disappearing in chemical reactions. Which it -doesn’t-.”

          but you can’t get out of it with a semantic dodge, because you continued to be adamant that I was wrong even after I was explicit about the particle inventory being conserved, as in the box with a neutron and proton, and with the molecule of water weighing less than 2 hydrogens and an oxygen.

          So, to recap, the *inertial* mass of the products of a reaction (nuclear or chemical) differs from the masses of the precursors, and the mass difference, is related to the energy released by E=mc^2. This is true in all reactions, not just reactions in which particles disappear or change in identity.

          Furthermore, a compressed spring increases in inertial mass, and an object gets heavier when it is heated.

          Energy *has* mass, and when added to a system, causes the system to increase in ordinary classical inertial mass by the energy/c^2. No terminology specific to relativity is needed to make these claims.

    • kemo sabe

      I should repeat somewhere nearer the top that I think the discussion of safety at this stage is pointless, because effective LENR has not yet been demonstrated.

      I should think that a big nuclear explosion in a LENR lab would be the best thing for the field (if not the observers in close proximity). Because then the world would believe nuclear reactions are happening, and massive investment, and participation of some intelligent scientists (something sorely lacking at present) would soon ferret out the mechanism, and then they could figure out how to make the chance of explosions acceptably remote. Or at least understand whether or not it can be made useful and still safe.

      • GreenWin

        kemo, you seem fixated on convincing a skeptical audience that something in the LENR data provides a mechanism for a nuclear explosion. Yet, we have yet to see you demonstrate that process or data.

        “participation of some intelligent scientists (something sorely lacking at present)”

        These attacks on the intelligence of LENR scientists are condescending without merit. Nearly every nuclear scientist with lab access had a go at LENR in 1989-1991 – and failed. Thus, you condemn the entire mainstream. A bit over the top eh??

      • kemo sabe

        GreenWin:

        You have a double standard regarding LENR with respect to usefulness and danger. You don’t seem to need an accepted mechanism to accept that LENR could be useful, even though the evidence for it remains controversial, and largely rejected, but you refuse to believe that even if useful it might be dangerous, unless a mechanism for explosions is provided.

        The mechanism for an explosion differs from that of generating useful heat only in degree (reaction rate), and since there is no understanding of that mechanism in LENR, the degree to which it is effective has a certain unpredictability to it. The energy density said to be *accessible to LENR* is in the range of GJ/g, and if the mechanism of accessibility is not understood, then to me, if I believed LENR were occurring, that would be scary.

        After all, Rossi claims that in February of 2011, his 10 kW ecat briefly ran with 120 kW output, and he has often said that a self-sustaining system is dangerous, and there is a chance of explosions, which he says have occurred.

        As for the lack of impressive scientists in the field, do you have a problem with the concept of “at present”? The intelligent scientists that tried cold fusion experiments got out when they found it didn’t work. They’d jump back in if definitive evidence that it does work presented itself, and then they’d have a better idea where to look. I doubt that will happen though.

        But yes, the comment probably was a little over the top.

  • Stefan Flueler, Zurich

    What’s so inacceptable with the idea of protons hopping around and tunneling through the electron hulls of large numbers of atoms with the help of high electrical currents on the surface of nickel grains ? And in a rather silent way, which doesn’t produce strong gamma radiation or fast neutrons ?
    We already know they sometimes do it and fuse with the nucleus beneath the electron hull. Until now we only thought of that as an exceptionally rare incident. As it seems, there are circumstances, where this occurs much more frequently.
    Regarding explosions: Already Fleischmann and Pons reported one, back in 1989. One of their electrolysis chambers containing heavy water and palladium electrodes exploded in the lab during electrolysis.

    • Stefan Flueler, Zurich

      improved version:
      What’s so inacceptable with the idea of protons hopping around and tunneling through the electron shells of large numbers of atoms with the help of high electrical currents on the surface of nickel grains ? And in a rather silent way, which doesn’t produce strong gamma radiation or fast neutrons ?
      We already know they sometimes do it and fuse with the nucleus behind the electron shell. Until now we only thought of this as an exceptionally rare incident. As it seems, there are circumstances, where this occurs much more frequently.
      Regarding explosions: Already Fleischmann and Pons reported one, back in 1989. One of their electrolysis chambers containing heavy water and palladium electrodes detonated in the lab during electrolysis.

      • kemo sabe

        There’s no difficulty for protons getting past the electrons in atoms, and no tunneling is needed for that. The difficulty comes in tunneling through the Coulomb barrier. For D-D fusion, appreciable rates of tunneling without charge shielding, requires energy in the range of 100 keV. More energy is needed for less massive protons, and still more for fusion with nuclei that have more charge (more protons). (Some people suggest neutrons are formed first, which do not see a Coulomb barrier, but the formation of neutrons requires much more energy (780 keV), so that doesn’t really solve anything.)

        And the evidence that there are circumstances where this occurs much more frequently than expected is not widely accepted.

  • Running the e-cats at 600C seemingly proves that Mr Rossi has solved the control problem – he can turn them on or off at will.

    Very good but we now learn that no steam is being produced at this temperature, so it leaves open the question of how much continuous steam throughput they can sustain. Equivalently, how much sustained power (= wattage) these latest e-cats can generate at 600C.

    Put it this way: the tip of my 25 watt soldering iron is probably at something like 600C but, if I spray a small amount of water on it, it produces a initial burst of steam and then quickly cools down.

  • dragon

    test

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Corporation has a very high efficiency
    thermoelectric generator on the drawing board. It can be employed to
    generate electricity from LENR derived heat. It uses nanoparticles in a
    new way to generate electricity from heat. It is based on the same
    theoretical foundations as current thermoelectric generators and we have
    calculated that our generator will exceed the performance of existing
    thermoelectric materials. Vulvox is a nanomaterials company with a
    patent pending on high strength materials. It’s shown on our webpage at
    http://vulvox.tripod.com
    If you want to discuss an R&D partnership to jointly develop our
    breakthrough thermoelectric generator; contact me at vnbcinc@gmail.com
    Neil Farbstein
    President
    Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Inc.