FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[chessnyt]

@Everyone:
For those who predicted that Andrea Rossi was indeed in for some real and close competition; it looks to be in the works. 

Here is a quote from PESN.com:
"Defkalion's 5-45 kilowatt modular heat reactor is not yet a product you can go out and purchase, but it is getting close to the market. It will provide competitively-priced thermal energy, but with very low fuel costs for the nickel and hydrogen used in the reaction chambers that will last for six months of continuous output without refuelling.

In the coming few weeks, they will be having at least seven different groups come in to test their device, beginning with the Greek government next week. The results from each group will be published. Each group will have 48 hours to test the device and a control to which they can compare it.

They showed me the experimental set-up -- running, producing heat. It includes a control chamber and an active reaction chamber. After the two are run simultaneously -- one with the low energy nuclear reaction (aka cold fusion), and one without -- showing that the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) system produces at least 20 times more heat; they will then switch the reaction chambers, removing the nickel and hydrogen from one (cleaning it out to make sure there are no residual elements), and adding these ingredients to the other chamber, which previously was the 'control' or 'blank' chamber; to prove that the data remain the same. They will also show that some gamma radiation comes from the reaction chamber of the LENR system, as evidence that a low level nuclear reaction of some kind is indeed taking place (though not on a dangerous level to those operating the test). The final product will be fully shielded to prevent emission of stray radiation."

The full story can be found at the following link:
http://pesn.com/2012/02/13/9602039_Hope_from_Athens_found_in_Cold_Fusion/

Notice who Defkalion is allowing to test and validate their product.  Very interesting move for them IF they follow through with their latest claims.


Regards,

Chess

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Chess,

Very interesting indeed.  Nice to see that Rossi's got competition - but I'm not altogether sure that I like the competition.  That bit about 'self-destructing' - is somewhat OTT.  I'll leave my order with Rossi - is my choice.  We need as many competitors as possible.  But some radical variation to the choice of hydrides would be way more preferable - is my take.  Our only long term security to be shot of monopolists is to be able to do this ourselves.  That way - we can buy from whoever.  But if the strangleholds start setting in - then - blow them.  We'll be able to build our own.  Only then will we be entirely protected.  So I see open sourcing and separate testing as highly desirable.  Good reason for forums and threads to continue.

I'm not sure that I like Sterling's change of loyalty either.  It's rather brutal.  If Rossi's a bit prickly - then God knows.  He had a high mountain to climb.  I'm sure I don't give two hoots if he's not a 'people's person'. LOL.  I know a little about this.  I'm definitely in the 'grumpy' age and class. And I'm not sure that popularity matters too much.  Unless of course, you're a film star.     Or a politician. 

Thanks for the update.  I'm looking forward to hearing more about that SA number.  Another interesting development.  Golly.  Is there no upper limit to all this good news?  What a DELICIOUS complaint.

Kindest and best, as ever
Rosemary

[sm0ky2]

While Mark is a phenominal debator,. its very rare that i find me and him seeing eye to eye on most issues.. 

But i have to agree with him here, he makes a very valid point....

Why does the energy equivalency of this system seem to persist, regardless of the arrangement?

to put it quite simply, ... regardless of energy input, or output of the system, the mass to energy equivalency of the internal system, is conserved.

YES, this type of system allows us to perform reactions, at energy levels much lower than those used in other types of systems.. However, this equivalency remains unchanged. You can analyze this system from either perspective, with the square of c, or the square of T, and there will always be a proportional ratio between energy and mass. (ths is because of the relativity between the speed of light and "time" )

The bottom line is, altering either the input, or the output of the system, alters the relative reaction rate of the internal system. Thus making this system, completely "conservative", meaning it does not violate any laws of physics.

As far as the C.O.P. is concerned,.. This value is always going to be obscured by an external analysis, and until the scientists involved fully understand the processes they are toying around with, there will always be a line in the sand, between those who 'observe' anomalous C.O.P. values, and those who are ingenuitive enough to resolve them from a 'Black-Box' analysis.

The fact of the matter remains unchanged.. It is halfway through Feb. and we still see no "game changer"

[gravityblock]

While Mark is a phenominal debator,. its very rare that i find me and him seeing eye to eye on most issues.. 

But i have to agree with him here, he makes a very valid point....

Why does the energy equivalency of this system seem to persist, regardless of the arrangement?

to put it quite simply, ... regardless of energy input, or output of the system, the mass to energy equivalency of the internal system, is conserved.

YES, this type of system allows us to perform reactions, at energy levels much lower than those used in other types of systems.. However, this equivalency remains unchanged. You can analyze this system from either perspective, with the square of c, or the square of T, and there will always be a proportional ratio between energy and mass. (ths is because of the relativity between the speed of light and "time" )

The bottom line is, altering either the input, or the output of the system, alters the relative reaction rate of the internal system. Thus making this system, completely "conservative", meaning it does not violate any laws of physics.

As far as the C.O.P. is concerned,.. This value is always going to be obscured by an external analysis, and until the scientists involved fully understand the processes they are toying around with, there will always be a line in the sand, between those who 'observe' anomalous C.O.P. values, and those who are ingenuitive enough to resolve them from a 'Black-Box' analysis.

The fact of the matter remains unchanged.. It is halfway through Feb. and we still see no "game changer"

The total energy of a system is conserved, but mass is not.  Conservation of energy applies to systems, not to individual bodies.  For a detailed explanation, please see this post (reply #132) in reference to Frank Wilczek's book, titled "The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and Unification of the Forces".

Please, no comments on this until you have actually read the post.

Thanks,

Gravock

[Rosemary Ainslie]

But i have to agree with him here, he makes a very valid point....Why does the energy equivalency of this system seem to persist, regardless of the arrangement? to put it quite simply, ... regardless of energy input, or output of the system, the mass to energy equivalency of the internal system, is conserved.

WHAT are you saying Smoky?  WHERE is there a conservation of the mass to energy - thingy?  If there was the required conservation then there would be absolutely no way Rossi could manage a COP>6.  Which is the nominal guaranteed return.  It is PRECISELY because there's no apparent conservation that this result is attributed to a nuclear interaction. 

YES, this type of system allows us to perform reactions, at energy levels much lower than those used in other types of systems.. However, this equivalency remains unchanged. You can analyze this system from either perspective, with the square of c, or the square of T, and there will always be a proportional ratio between energy and mass. (ths is because of the relativity between the speed of light and "time" )

The relationship between energy and mass is absolutely NOT applicable to nuclear reactions.  Which is precisely why this result is attributed to a nuclear interaction.  At the nuclear level there is ONLY the conservation of charge.  The outstanding question relates to the fact that the known nuclear interactions result in gamma ray emissions.  They're toxic.  In this LENR - for reasons that are NOT explicable - there are no TOXIC emissions at all.  But our standard paradigms are not yet developed to explain this.  Not conclusively.  There have been proposals - but nothing yet definitive.

The bottom line is, altering either the input, or the output of the system, alters the relative reaction rate of the internal system. Thus making this system, completely "conservative", meaning it does not violate any laws of physics.

Actually no.  Not at all.  This system is NOT conservative - in the sense that you're applying it.  There are some really weighty intellects that are trying to explain this.  But there has been no definitive resolution.  Apparently Rossi will publish his own thesis on this when his patent is finally granted.

But Smokey - disabuse yourself of any thoughts that there's anything standard in this LENR or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.  It's NOT standard.  Until Rossi showed its potential in purely pragmatic terms - then the entire field of study has been rather outlawed by our academics.  There is no classical nor quantum resolution of the results that the E-cat give us. 

As far as the C.O.P. is concerned,.. This value is always going to be obscured by an external analysis, and until the scientists involved fully understand the processes they are toying around with, there will always be a line in the sand, between those who 'observe' anomalous C.O.P. values, and those who are ingenuitive enough to resolve them from a 'Black-Box' analysis.

I like your term 'ingenuitive'.  It's a composite of ingenious and intuitive.  Very nice. But there's no 'line in the sand' - here.  And those COP values are not, as yet, resolved.

The fact of the matter remains unchanged.. It is halfway through Feb. and we still see no "game changer"

Actually no.  Again.  We're not only seeing Rossi's technology moving to production - aimed for November of this year - but we're also seeing some rather robust competition from Greece - aimed at a launch I believe even sooner.  The 'game changer' is most certainly here.  It's not even OPEN for debate.  And no matter how skilled you propose that S Mark Coffman is - in this art - it won't change this reality.  Many millions, have already been invested in this production.  No further need for proof of concept.  It's IN THE BAG.  Which is a really good thing for us all.  I'm sure you appreciate this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary