Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
A face-palm moment. Trying to bring an engine to market based on no known physics, with no published complete data, is little short of insane. From a known effect to a practical mass application can take a very long time. From an unknown effect, forget about it. The basic work must be done first. Sure, if you can pull it off, amazing. But I, for one, won't be holding my breath. Selling a demo "popper," brilliant idea, actually. If you can't get a popper to show XP, and engine is impossible. If an XP effect can be shown, it can be studied, and this can become confirmed knowledge, and an engine is *probably* possible, even if it takes years. But the popper kit is being sold without there being published data on operation. As noted, it should be simple to measure stroke input and output power. So why don't we have this data? My guess, and it is just a guess, it's because there is no there there. We should know soon, there are probably enough honest and careful people trying this. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:13 PM, David Roberson wrote: > That was an interesting video, but no attempt was made to measure output > energy compared to input energy as far as I could tell. That is the kind of > information that we need if we are to accept that it works. > > It is my suspicion that this type of machine behaves more like an electric > motor than a heat engine and of course electric motors put out less > mechanical energy than they require electric energy for drive. Also, > Electric motors run moderately warm due to high efficiency which is similar > to the claims of Papp. > > I was considering a test that would demonstrate excess output energy of a > single cylinder experiment if it appears. Place a calibrated weight such as > 10 kilograms on the piston rod and fire the engine. Carefully measure the > heigth that the weight reaches before it begins to fall back and then > calculate the net change in potential energy. Charge up the capacitors to a > know energy level and derive the small energy required to fire the spark gap > from this charge. Power should be disconnected from the capacitor bank prior > to the drive pulse. It should be easy to calculate the energy stored within > the capacitor bank both before and after the weight has been shot into the > air. Determine how much electrical energy was drawn from the capacitor bank > and compare it to the potential energy acquired by the weight. > > Dave > > > -Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:58 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: > >> I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has >> been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same >> level of proof for the Papp devices? > > Nothing solid, but there's an interesting video of a Papp replication linked > to in a post from Puppy Dog that seems to be doing real work: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71223.html > > Eric >
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
I very much would like to see this become a success. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences We are working to recovery this technology in an opensource effort involving multiple experimenters. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:45 AM, David Roberson wrote: Show me a currently available and operating device that can be independently proven and I will be convinced. The burden is upon those that make the extraordinary claims. If it was done once, then it should be possible to do it again. I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same level of proof for the Papp devices? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences To my best knowledge, the Papp engine is the only over unity invention to have ever received an American patent. The self-powered Papp engine was tested by independent and objective parties and certified under oath to be functional and witnessed to produce over 100 horsepower. The Papp reaction was tested under the supervision of the navy and observed by defense contractors to split open and shatter a 6 inch diameter 3/8 inches thick steel gun barrel when its projectile jammed in that barrel. An isolated and completely self-powered Papp engine produced sufficient power to explode with such force to kill and injure multiple observers. IMHO, the Papp reaction has proven to be more viable than any other over unity devices with a COP of infinity. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, it has not been proven that the Papp engine is capable of performing as advertised. I have serious doubts from what has been demonstrated to date and it is wise to continue to pursue technology that we know exists. Can you point me to a recent demonstration that actually shows a Papp engine generating mechanical power that is measurable? All I recall so far are some interesting experiments that are basically a one hit pony. We need to see a continuously running machine. I would like very much to believe that the Papp concept is valid. So far I am not convinced. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of those various over unity energy production methods. As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which extracts energy out of the quantum foam. Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s percentages with little or no heat production. The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction to the absolute minimum. Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED lighting will not add to the urban heat load. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Gibbs published a new article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. I posted the following response: Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. The total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. It should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
That was an interesting video, but no attempt was made to measure output energy compared to input energy as far as I could tell. That is the kind of information that we need if we are to accept that it works. It is my suspicion that this type of machine behaves more like an electric motor than a heat engine and of course electric motors put out less mechanical energy than they require electric energy for drive. Also, Electric motors run moderately warm due to high efficiency which is similar to the claims of Papp. I was considering a test that would demonstrate excess output energy of a single cylinder experiment if it appears. Place a calibrated weight such as 10 kilograms on the piston rod and fire the engine. Carefully measure the heigth that the weight reaches before it begins to fall back and then calculate the net change in potential energy. Charge up the capacitors to a know energy level and derive the small energy required to fire the spark gap from this charge. Power should be disconnected from the capacitor bank prior to the drive pulse. It should be easy to calculate the energy stored within the capacitor bank both before and after the weight has been shot into the air. Determine how much electrical energy was drawn from the capacitor bank and compare it to the potential energy acquired by the weight. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same level of proof for the Papp devices? Nothing solid, but there's an interesting video of a Papp replication linked to in a post from Puppy Dog that seems to be doing real work: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71223.html Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
We are working to recovery this technology in an open source effort involving multiple experimenters. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:45 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Show me a currently available and operating device that can be > independently proven and I will be convinced. The burden is upon those > that make the extraordinary claims. If it was done once, then it should be > possible to do it again. > > I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has > been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the > same level of proof for the Papp devices? > > Dave > > -Original Message- > From: Axil Axil > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:11 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences > > To my best knowledge, the Papp engine is the only over unity invention > to have ever received an American patent. > The self-powered Papp engine was tested by independent and objective > parties and certified under oath to be functional and witnessed to produce > over 100 horsepower. > The Papp reaction was tested under the supervision of the navy and > observed by defense contractors to split open and shatter a 6 inch diameter > 3/8 inches thick steel gun barrel when its projectile jammed in that > barrel. > An isolated and completely self-powered Papp engine produced sufficient > power to explode with such force to kill and injure multiple observers. > IMHO, the Papp reaction has proven to be more viable than any other over > unity devices with a COP of infinity. > http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM, David Roberson wrote: > >> Axil, it has not been proven that the Papp engine is capable of >> performing as advertised. I have serious doubts from what has been >> demonstrated to date and it is wise to continue to pursue technology that >> we know exists. >> >> Can you point me to a recent demonstration that actually shows a Papp >> engine generating mechanical power that is measurable? All I recall so far >> are some interesting experiments that are basically a one hit pony. We >> need to see a continuously running machine. >> >> I would like very much to believe that the Papp concept is valid. So >> far I am not convinced. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Axil Axil >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences >> >> Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. >> Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of >> heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of >> those various over unity energy production methods. >> As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which >> extracts energy out of the quantum foam. >> Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s >> percentages with little or no heat production. >> The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as >> antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. >> The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that >> carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. >> These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do >> not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. >> These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this >> clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime >> reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction >> to the absolute minimum. >> Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED >> lighting will not add to the urban heat load. >> >> Cheers: Axil >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >>> Gibbs published a new article: >>> >>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ >>> >>> For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. >>> >>> I posted the following response: >>> >>> >>> Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold >>> fusion. These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several >>> people since the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, >>> Stanley Pons, Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, M
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has > been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the > same level of proof for the Papp devices? > Nothing solid, but there's an interesting video of a Papp replication linked to in a post from Puppy Dog that seems to be doing real work: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71223.html Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Show me a currently available and operating device that can be independently proven and I will be convinced. The burden is upon those that make the extraordinary claims. If it was done once, then it should be possible to do it again. I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same level of proof for the Papp devices? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences To my best knowledge, the Papp engine is the only over unity invention to have ever received an American patent. The self-powered Papp engine was tested by independent and objective parties and certified under oath to be functional and witnessed to produce over 100 horsepower. The Papp reaction was tested under the supervision of the navy and observed by defense contractors to split open and shatter a 6 inch diameter 3/8 inches thick steel gun barrel when its projectile jammed in that barrel. An isolated and completely self-powered Papp engine produced sufficient power to explode with such force to kill and injure multiple observers. IMHO, the Papp reaction has proven to be more viable than any other over unity devices with a COP of infinity. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, it has not been proven that the Papp engine is capable of performing as advertised. I have serious doubts from what has been demonstrated to date and it is wise to continue to pursue technology that we know exists. Can you point me to a recent demonstration that actually shows a Papp engine generating mechanical power that is measurable? All I recall so far are some interesting experiments that are basically a one hit pony. We need to see a continuously running machine. I would like very much to believe that the Papp concept is valid. So far I am not convinced. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of those various over unity energy production methods. As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which extracts energy out of the quantum foam. Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s percentages with little or no heat production. The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction to the absolute minimum. Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED lighting will not add to the urban heat load. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Gibbs published a new article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. I posted the following response: Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. The total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. It should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed units, like batteries. As long as the recycling plants are designed and run correctly, this should not be a problem. Clarke discussed the heat islands problem. He, I and others concluded that even with low Carnot efficiency, savings from co-generation space heating will likely lower overall heat releases. Agriculture from desalinated water may be a problem, but not if the standards of Israeli and
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
To my best knowledge, the Papp engine is the only over unity invention to have ever received an American patent. The self-powered Papp engine was tested by independent and objective parties and certified under oath to be functional and witnessed to produce over 100 horsepower. The Papp reaction was tested under the supervision of the navy and observed by defense contractors to split open and shatter a 6 inch diameter 3/8 inches thick steel gun barrel when its projectile jammed in that barrel. An isolated and completely self-powered Papp engine produced sufficient power to explode with such force to kill and injure multiple observers. IMHO, the Papp reaction has proven to be more viable than any other over unity devices with a COP of infinity. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Axil, it has not been proven that the Papp engine is capable of performing > as advertised. I have serious doubts from what has been demonstrated to > date and it is wise to continue to pursue technology that we know exists. > > Can you point me to a recent demonstration that actually shows a Papp > engine generating mechanical power that is measurable? All I recall so far > are some interesting experiments that are basically a one hit pony. We > need to see a continuously running machine. > > I would like very much to believe that the Papp concept is valid. So > far I am not convinced. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Axil Axil > To: vortex-l > Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences > > Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. > Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of > heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of > those various over unity energy production methods. > As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which > extracts energy out of the quantum foam. > Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s > percentages with little or no heat production. > The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as > antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. > The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that > carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. > These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do > not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. > These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this > clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime > reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction > to the absolute minimum. > Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED > lighting will not add to the urban heat load. > > Cheers: Axil > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Gibbs published a new article: >> >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ >> >> For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. >> >> I posted the following response: >> >> >> Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. >> These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since >> the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, >> Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene >> Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I >> described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, >> “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf >> >> Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. >> The total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. >> It should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed units, like >> batteries. As long as the recycling plants are designed and run correctly, >> this should not be a problem. Clarke discussed the heat islands problem. >> He, I and others concluded that even with low Carnot efficiency, savings >> from co-generation space heating will likely lower overall heat releases. >> Agriculture from desalinated water may be a problem, but not if the >> standards of Israeli and Saudi desalination plants are adhered to. These >> and other examples demonstrate that the use of cold fusion will have to >> regulated to some extent. &g
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Axil, it has not been proven that the Papp engine is capable of performing as advertised. I have serious doubts from what has been demonstrated to date and it is wise to continue to pursue technology that we know exists. Can you point me to a recent demonstration that actually shows a Papp engine generating mechanical power that is measurable? All I recall so far are some interesting experiments that are basically a one hit pony. We need to see a continuously running machine. I would like very much to believe that the Papp concept is valid. So far I am not convinced. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of those various over unity energy production methods. As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which extracts energy out of the quantum foam. Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s percentages with little or no heat production. The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction to the absolute minimum. Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED lighting will not add to the urban heat load. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Gibbs published a new article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. I posted the following response: Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. The total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. It should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed units, like batteries. As long as the recycling plants are designed and run correctly, this should not be a problem. Clarke discussed the heat islands problem. He, I and others concluded that even with low Carnot efficiency, savings from co-generation space heating will likely lower overall heat releases. Agriculture from desalinated water may be a problem, but not if the standards of Israeli and Saudi desalination plants are adhered to. These and other examples demonstrate that the use of cold fusion will have to regulated to some extent. Granted, there are many other unintended consequences. They are anticipated, but not intended. There are also a host of evil applications for cold fusion, some of which I describe in the book. Fleischmann and Pons delayed the introduction of cold fusion for a few years partly because they feared some of these applications. They thought it might be a good idea for the Department of Defense to classify the research. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Axil Axil wrote: > Wrong in that over unity power production cannot be engineered without > significant environmental downsides. > Yeah, I agree with that. But I do not think Gibbs is saying that downsides are inevitable. He is saying they are possible, especially if people use the energy carelessly. I think he makes a good point. I made the same point in chapter 19 of my book. People can turn any blessing into a curse. Gibbs mentions the likelihood of cheap machines with low Carnot efficiency being a problem, because they produce too much waste heat and cause urban heat islands. I added a comment about this to his blog: ". . . While this may be a problem, there is a lower limit to it. A machine with only 2 to 4% efficiency would have a giant motor. It would look like a 19th century steam tractor. It would end up costing more than a machine with Carnot efficiency of ~10%, which is approximately what cars were like in 1960." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Wrong in that over unity power production cannot be engineered without significant environmental downsides. Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > >> Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. . . >> . >> > Wrong about what? > > I do not think anyone has conclusively demonstrated a practical device > yet. Even assuming Rossi is correct, I would not call his reactors > "practical." They are about as impractical as a 1908 model Wright Flyer, > which was basically a machine to kill pilots. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Axil Axil wrote: > Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. . . . > Wrong about what? I do not think anyone has conclusively demonstrated a practical device yet. Even assuming Rossi is correct, I would not call his reactors "practical." They are about as impractical as a 1908 model Wright Flyer, which was basically a machine to kill pilots. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of those various over unity energy production methods. As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which extracts energy out of the quantum foam. Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s percentages with little or no heat production. The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction to the absolute minimum. Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED lighting will not add to the urban heat load. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Gibbs published a new article: > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ > > For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. > > I posted the following response: > > > Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. > These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since > the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, > Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene > Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I > described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, > “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf > > Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. The > total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. It > should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed units, like > batteries. As long as the recycling plants are designed and run correctly, > this should not be a problem. Clarke discussed the heat islands problem. > He, I and others concluded that even with low Carnot efficiency, savings > from co-generation space heating will likely lower overall heat releases. > Agriculture from desalinated water may be a problem, but not if the > standards of Israeli and Saudi desalination plants are adhered to. These > and other examples demonstrate that the use of cold fusion will have to > regulated to some extent. > > Granted, there are many other unintended consequences. They are > anticipated, but not intended. There are also a host of evil applications > for cold fusion, some of which I describe in the book. Fleischmann and Pons > delayed the introduction of cold fusion for a few years partly because they > feared some of these applications. They thought it might be a good idea for > the Department of Defense to classify the research. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
I should welcome Gibbs to the Reality Based community for these comments: ". . . it seems there may well be a real effect producing anomalous heat in experimental setups. The experimental stuff is all well and good but so far no one has managed to definitively demonstrate that whatever the effect is can be reliably harnessed to provide a useful energy source." He should have mentioned that the experimental results have never been refuted, and after 23 years it is safe to say they are irrefutable. If the skeptics could have found a problem, they would have by now. The best they can come up with is Jones' claim that recombination is a problem with a closed cell. Reliability is unproved, as Gibbs says. The fact that the effect can be scaled up was proved definitively by the explosion at U. Utah, and later by Mizuno's inadvertent heat after death event, which boiled away 17 liters of water in 5 days. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf If we can get the cells to do that on demand, in a controlled fashion, there is not the slightest doubt this will be a practical source of energy. That would be true even if the effect only worked with palladium. A device of the same size and temperature of Mizuno's cell would, by itself, be sufficient to power a surprisingly large fraction of our industrial civilization. You may not think so at first, but you have to take into account the fact that most machines consume less than 100 W. - Jed
[Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Gibbs published a new article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. I posted the following response: Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. The total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. It should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed units, like batteries. As long as the recycling plants are designed and run correctly, this should not be a problem. Clarke discussed the heat islands problem. He, I and others concluded that even with low Carnot efficiency, savings from co-generation space heating will likely lower overall heat releases. Agriculture from desalinated water may be a problem, but not if the standards of Israeli and Saudi desalination plants are adhered to. These and other examples demonstrate that the use of cold fusion will have to regulated to some extent. Granted, there are many other unintended consequences. They are anticipated, but not intended. There are also a host of evil applications for cold fusion, some of which I describe in the book. Fleischmann and Pons delayed the introduction of cold fusion for a few years partly because they feared some of these applications. They thought it might be a good idea for the Department of Defense to classify the research. - Jed
