These are my first comments re the paper
”Defining a New Source of Energy”
presented by John Hadjichristos, CTO of Defkalion Green Technologies, at the National Instruments Week, Austin, TX August 8, 2012
I take full responsibility for the statement that this is a landmark publication in LENR and that things and thinking will be different when the LENR researchers will understand the very spirit of this paper. Some people will accept this fast, some very slowly- Inertia is name of the game for many.
The essence is that LENR is converted now from a Discovery (smart, surprising, confusing) to an Invention (very smart, creative, radical, controlled). It is a change of attitude from try and wait to change in a planned manner.
This paper represents a new orientation and is the start of a New Wave in LENR. It has a great value “per se” but an even greater value as an example. It is a new scientific-technological strategy.
In the present state of affairs it is more important HOW they are doing it than WHAT they are doing specifically, there are probably more alternatives to the technology.-having the aim of abundant generation of vacancies that act as NAE at high temperatures.
LENR is about the relationship between pairs- nuclear marriages of a metal and a gas; initially the mutual attraction between these is not high enough for a success, the participants have be changed in nature and in properties in order to become perfectly compatible. Obviously, not Defkalion has discovered this, from the ancient CF times, the metal (mainly palladium) was treated by very inventive methods. Admirable creativity was demonstrated by Arata. Ahern and many others in using nanotechnology for making palladium and alloys a better nuclear partner for deuterium and by Piantelli who has made a better choice of metal- nickel and has applied the highest science and even art of nanotechnology to force nickel to reveal its best properties and virtues in his process.
But now, Defkalion goes more steps further, makes a complete job. They consider that the gaseous participant of LENR, hydrogen, must be also brought in a very special status in order…to follow the order: Unite!
And instead of a simple theory- LENR+ will be explained and understood by an aggregate of more theories combined with elements of know-how. In a sense, a realistic and useful LENR + theory cannot be separated from actions having the purpose to enhance the effect and from pragmatic engineering. “Pure” theories are beautiful and simple but do not work.
And it is LENR+ because at high temperatures the generation of NAE- vacancies is orders of magnitude more intense than in the case of classic LENR.
The paper demonstrates that DGTG has worked out an original process and has not taken it from Andrea Rossi.
I hope the Hadjichristos paper will be thoroughly discussed because the LENR community can learn a lot of it. I hope the professional detractors and the fans of Detailitis will focus on other subjects.
I had the privilege to read this paper in raw form and to make some corrections. I had the impression that I am like a guy who sees for the first time the Venus of Milo and his first remark is that she has a small wart on her ass. I have found two typos.
This paper has to be understood. But this will not be easy.
It is of symbolic importance that DGTG was the only group to honor Martin Fleischmann during the NI Week with a small call for a moment of silence during the technical presentation. They belong to our community and are not some aliens. LENR+ is a natural, vitally necessary continuation of LENR that has to grow up if it wants to survive and prosper.
I found the presentation of John very interesting.
The website of DGT states:
"A presentation of DGT's technologies and progress, supported also by a scientific paper, are scheduled to be presented by DGT's Hyperion product manager Menelaos Koulouris during the ICCF-17 in Korea."
Do you know whether they are actualy planning to show a working reactor in Korea?
Meneelaos is the Hyperion Product manager. As far I know not presentation yet tomorrow, it is not easy to travel with a NUCLEAR energy generator even if it is cold nuclear in theory.ReplyDelete
I am sure there is a good bit of intellectual property inside the reactor which could make it a candidate for being pinched.ReplyDelete
Highly intellectual, really advanced science- applied. They are very good in the theoretical part too.Delete
Thank you for your comments and your earlier report regarding Defkalion's approach. I too found the NI week Defkalion presentation to be very interesting and informative and was surprised to see that there were no questions. On the other hand, I realize that it takes time to "digest" the information presented, and that there are a lot of details in the presentation which take time to analyze, and which cannot be properly studied during a presentation. I have a lot of questions/comments, but I'll just list a few here which perhaps you or someone else could address:
(1) Why do Pd-D and Ni-H "work" but not Pd-H and Ni-D? (Alternatively, if Pd-H and Ni-D do work then what is different about them?)
(2) After looking at Defkalion's XRF data I noticed that the XRF ratio delta(Cu)/delta(Ni) = 0.05/9.44 corresponding to the ratio of the increase in Cu and Ni concentrations is about 10 times smaller than the corresponding natural isotopic abundance ratio of nickel, e.g.(Ni62+Ni64)/(Ni58+Ni60)= 0.048. If proton absorption is dominant (Rossi-Focardi) then, since (Ni62,Ni64)+p -> stable (Cu63,Cu65) immediately, this could be due to a lower proton absorption cross-section for the less common Ni isotopes. On the other hand, it seems more consistent with the neutron absorption being dominant (WL and Godes mechanisms) since Ni62+n-> Ni63 which decays with a long 100 year half-life to Cu63, thus explaining the reduced ratio of Cu/Ni. Any comments on the relative likelihood of the two mechanisms, e.g. proton (hydrogen nucleus) absorption versus neutron creation and absorption?
(3) A common theme in Rossi, Celani, Godes, and Defkalion is the use of electrical current passing through the sample. In the case of Godes and Defkalion there is electric input via high-frequency high-voltage pulses. How accurately can the electrical power input be measured in this case? What fraction may be lost due to radiation?
Peter, is the paper you reference "Defining a New Source of Energy” by Hadjichristos available yet? I do not see it in the prepublication materials we have already received at ICCF 17, though I may have missed it. If you have a link it would be appreciated.ReplyDelete
I have no idea when it will be given a link to itDelete
but I have the paper and will send it to you (and
anybody) if I have the e-mail address.
Please please send to leissring@Gmail.comDelete
Dear Malcolm, I have tried twice but it seems your server rejects it the atach has 5359K- to great? This can be the reason.Delete
What should I do?
if you send it to email@example.com i will reply back here with a weblink to it for wider dissemination.Delete
With pleasure but it can be disseminated only after it isDelete
presented at Daejeon tomorrow early morning see Korea time.
I will send it ASAP
Thank you Peter.ReplyDelete
Very sorry, the address is not recognized; I worked with copy paste to put it in GmailDelete
Please send it to Mattias.firstname.lastname@example.org.ReplyDelete
Please sent one also to email@example.com
Please send it also to firstname.lastname@example.orgReplyDelete
I am reading all your writings so I know thqt you
are a determined Andrea Rossi fan and follower.
This leads to the idea that it is possiible you
want to "assassinate" this DGTG paper.
However I dare to think that this would be highly counter-
productive. (I am a Master in the High Art of Euphemisms)
The paper is good, has a consistent logic and the scientific part is both well founded and paradigm changing.
I think that the normal relationship between Leonard Corp
and DGTG is COOPETITION. For at least 12-15 years the markets are unsatiable and it is a huge place for developments and improvements... and companies.
At least three actions of DGTG are of direct use for Rossi too;
a) the definition of LENR, eventually in a bureaucratic sense too; till this is not solved there is dangerous obstacle on the way to markets including our homes- both for the E-cats and the Hyperions.
b) the study of the mechanisms both processes are forms of
LENR+ and the essential factor seems to be the inner surface dynamics;has Rossi a real theory?
c) the analytical part- helps us to understand the very complex reactions of transmutation amd nucleosynthesis.
I have not the slightest idea of what is doing Rossi in this area; I hope you know more,but...
Rossi has succeeded to generate energy however he was even more successful in generating enemies, to make angry many
good journalist. During his campaign or experiments I have
suggeseted him a kind of "perfect experiment" very convincing one but he has ignored this completely.
It is possible you understand his actions, I am not.
I hope you will be able to develop a positive intellectual action toward Defkalion. They will solve the problems of
industrialization fast, I bet.
I do not plan to "assassinate" this paper. To be blunt, I just read the paper and have discovered, as I expected, it is not even worth writing an article about for PESN. This is not to say there are not interesting aspects of this paper. The discussion about atomic hydrogen (in a dipole state) and how they have processed the nickel powder to creature a more "open" structure is interesting. Also, the XRF analysis seems to show clear evidence of transmutation products.
However, the paper is tremendously lacking when it comes to providing even a single test report that shows a large amount of excess energy produced at a high COP. In fact, they do not provide anything that comes close to an actual test report. There is a chart of figures that they claim are derived from analysis of repeated test runs, but the chart is not anything close to what needs to be provided to back up their claims.
The fact is Defkalion has made very big claims about high temperatures, high levels of output, and high COP figures. But so far, unless they present such evidence at this conference, they have provided little evidence of such.
For example, they do provide a few photos and screen shots in the appendix of the report. These images seem to show data from testing being performed. However, the images are very confusing and are not explained well. For example, lets consider figure #7 titled, "Monitoring the Performance of Hyperion lab prototypes."
In this image there is a text bubble labeled, "Total heat energy produced" that points to a figure of 166.35 (Wh). Another text bubble is labeled "Total electric energy consumed" that points to a figure of 145.67 (Wh). If these are the two figures that should be used to determine the input to output ratio, the COP produced is barely over 1.
I am NOT saying that I am properly interpreting figure #7. However, due to this paper not providing an actual test report (with details and explanations)I am left to conclude that this test resulted in a very low COP -- far lower than they have been claiming for a year or more.
In addition, the data in figure #5 is almost impossible to read. Again, due a lack of details and specifics it is very difficult to interpret the data in these images.
Unlike Defkalion, Andrea Rossi has provided solid evidence to back up his claims. In 2011 he allowed for at least a dozen tests of the E-Cat. The results of these tests were allowed to be shared with the world. What they contained were actual details, explanations, and specific information that made it clear he was producing very large amounts of power. In fact, the data made it clear that in some instances, his COP was near infinite due to the ability to run the E-Cat in a self sustaining mode of operation.
If Defkalion wishes to convince people that they have a technology that comes anything close to what Rossi has to offer, they need to publish the test reports of those that came to their labs and did experiments. If nothing else, they should allow someone who performed a test to write up a couple pages summarizing their experiment -- with details such as temperatures, flow rate, input, output, and very importantly, a final COP figure.
Do to the fact that so far -- maybe this will change as the conference in Korea progresses -- Defkalion seems unwilling to provide convincing test data that would allow me to develop the "positive intellectual action toward Defkalion" you speak about.
Peter, I've just read on Vortex a preliminary report by Jed Rothwell about DGT's presentation in Korea. What Jed says is:ReplyDelete
"Defkalion presented the same talk they gave at NIWeek
no experimental data. A lot of talk about theory."
so I have to say that this is very, very disappointing.
We have abundance of theories, we have 23 years of theories, what we need is proofs, we need to know if LENR can approach the market with kWs of power and not with the old and well known already demonstrated mWs or Ws.
DGT's credibility now is getting more and more feeble, I even ask to myself why they can go to ICCF-17, who are they? Do they really exist? Are they really work in the LENR field? A bunch of slides like those ones presented at NIweek2012 could has been prepared by anyone. They talk about LENR in nature, stellar-evolution, terrestrial, sun's corona paradox... are they kidding? It's a joke?
No publications, no references, no verifiable data.
Do they have a working prototype machine or only a cylinder of iron empty inside?
Do they have independent test reports? Well, first show that kind of data, then start to talk about your theory and whatever you want.
Now I've heard that Piantelli has drawn back from the conference. Another disappointing man, I even wonder is he is a scientist anymore or has permanently become an entrepreneur (with secrets to take care like Rossi's).
Credibility, LENR(+) field needs CREDIBILITY.
Stop talking, stop claims, now we all need facts if someone is able to do them.
As Andrea Aparo (Ansaldo Energia) said at NIWeek2012:
"data, factual data, that's more than enough to convince people".
I agree. Their paper is full of theory, but does not contain even a single test report. The images in the appendix are hard to interpret, but seem to indicate a COP of barely over 1.Delete
The COP cannot be implied, since you only see the consequence of the spark, which is not on the curve (except by the inflexion). It is decoration, not data, like the photo.
the best data on the test, is a short "executive summary" of the protocol, and the "note" :
"Repeatability of such test for any scientific body or independent researcher is available at the moment only at DGTD’s labs in Greece and Canada following NDA, as already witnessed already by
representatives from labs and institutions from EU and USA"
If you don't trust what they say, wait for an article that is not from Defkalion.
And don't expect it much before Hyperion is under production.
It is annoying, but predictable in business.
Now you can imagine that all those bankers, executives, economists, politicians, are running a global scam, lying all the time in group, employing liars, inventing data and photography, to try to fight against the big wall of skepticism against LENR...
Instead of selling renewable energy or gold futures, where everybody will believe in their claims without checking.
Proofs are indirect, but much sounder than what you see in the mainstream magazine on popular subjects.
What I'm afraid of is simply delay, because it is common in business, especially when you were working in a sinking country, on a denied technology, with international fearful companies.
Just to be more precise on the curve you talk about, you only see the various temperature of different thermocouple in and out of the reactor (body, holes, inside).Delete
No reference to spark triggering.
The ICCF17 DGT paper presents much more scientific data than the NI Week paper. I disagree that it is theory. The techniques described will be of massive help to others in the field. Bodies can go validate the claims by travelling to Greece and signing an NDA.ReplyDelete
This is not two guys (genuine though they were) holding up a tepid test tube. This is a claimed 45 kW and a valid paper delivered at a scientific conference.
I declare the lenr-atheist cause to be a pure religion, now based only on faith. Time for lenr-atheists to move on to the next area of science to trash.
Congratulations to DGT and previous lenr martyrs on delivering this to the world.
Only politics can derail this now.
I largely agree with spacegoat, at least to the extent that I agree that there is significant data of scientific interest in both the John Hadjichristos' NI Week presentation and the ICCF17 DGT paper (on first glance I haven't noticed much difference between them). Regarding, the claims of kW power etc., clearly this requires validation which hopefully will be forthcoming at some point. I noticed that Aris Chatzichristos is co-author of the ICCF17 presentation. Is this the same Aris Chatzichristos who authored the paper "On the rise of Gravitation in a discrete space-time" listed on Rossi's webpage (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=426)? Interestingly, the topic of this article is similar to the space-quantization recently mentioned on the 22passi website.ReplyDelete
Yes it is the same author, young physicist- who has a major contribution to the understanding of what happens in their system.Delete
Dear "Anonimous" above call me Anonimous #2.ReplyDelete
About your comment on "barely COP of 1".
I'd like to point out something I think you forgot to consider.
Defkalion stated. The spark requires "total electric energy consumed" = 145.67 (Wh)".
It is to say "total energy of 145.67Wh/spark". And consider this. There is multiple sparks at each time of spark injection.
And that this spark(s) is kept on for certain time period I can't tell for how long. And then, after that spark time, the reaction goes on to a certain length ,again, I can't tell for how long, until it starts to subside or it may turn off entirely. I am not sure at what power vs time curvature they didn't say. But from what they said I imagine it to be like certain battery voltage drain curvature or so.
At trail end of reaction is when they will introduce another sparks time. The spark can be introduced into the system in quick succession close to start of the trailing end to keep it hotter or slowly towards the bottom end of the trail at a time to keep it barely turned on . If no sparks = no reaction. In this way they can control average output temperature .
From what I can decypher from what they said is this. This spark is unlike car internal combustion engine spark. This spark has be kept on for a certain time to effect the reaction. One or two bursts won't do, it has to be several more in succession.
So the real TOTAL energy consumed should look like:
Total energy = total power of 145.67Wh/spark x ?# of sparks
Whereas energy produced is continuous until it requires another burst of sparks to revive its nuclear effect. During this spark free time the reaction is self sustained and it is supposed to last many times longer than spark time. That's why they claim to have COP of 100 or more.
Funny thing is according to them the more/quicker sparks introduced, that is, the shorter interval between bursts of sparks, the higher the average output temperature for higher COP ratio.
And I too agree that there wasn't enough data as to what its capabilities are like how many KW in vs out, and real device demonstrations in public however selective a public that might be.
Way too much time wasted on lecturing on what the universe has to offer us. Pity.
I hope they did better presentaion in Korea. Otherwise their move to Vancouver Canada will be more or less ignored by me from now on until they can show some concrete proof like Dr.Rossi did.
one spark only. Reaction sustainable until hydrogen supply cut off.Delete
Thank you, however sparking seems to NOT have so lasting effects. Can you give some details, other data?Delete