6 ms·

That actually doesn't work, as there's a long history of people hiding batteries in their fake overunity devices. You can also have devices that might have oth

by readams 11y ago

That actually doesn't work, as there's a long history of people hiding batteries in their fake overunity devices. You can also have devices that might have other forms of stored energy that might be slowly depleted, such as mechanical strain being relieved, chemical reactions taking place, etc. You can also have devices that work by taking advantage of solar power in a subtle way or other external effects.

mikeash 11y ago
This thing is supposedly a fusion device. Run it until you've drawn more energy than could possibly be provided by burning an equivalent mass of hydrogen, and then you know it must be a nuclear effect. If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device. I can accept that such a test may not be totally 100% definitive. But if the device is real then it could definitely pass. The fact that they're fucking around instead of just doing the obvious shows that they're full of it. Edit: regarding potential external effects, these devices are supposed to put out a megawatt of power. There's no solar trickery that's going to let you fake that.
- admax88q 11y ago
  Yes, random internet guy has the answer. > If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device. A fusion device that produces more energy than you put in but doesn't produce a shit ton of energy right now is a useful breakthough in fusion.
  - drjesusphd 11y ago
    > Yes, random internet guy has the answer Ideas (should) stand on their own around here. Take this lame attempt at Argument from Authority somewhere else.
    - dang 11y ago
      Please don't respond to an uncivil comment with another uncivil comment. That just makes the thread worse yet.
  - striking 11y ago
    But it doesn't prove that it truly is a fusion device then. > random internet guy Are you sure you're more qualified to discuss this than the poster you're replying to? Why make a point of it if you aren't?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It's not about speed, it's about quantity. A real nuclear power source will be able to produce far more energy than any chemical system of the same mass. If you want to see if supposed nuclear power source works, run it and see if it actually does so. If you believe there's something wrong with what I'm saying, please explain, random internet guy.
- Recurecur 11y ago
  Hey Mike, a few things. First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. The science is in an early state, but looks to be very promising! http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-218283%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reaction%20Aircraft_0.pdf http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21... Here's a pithy excerpt: "Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics models: the Widom-Larsen Theory. The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Theory is believed to be the best explanation of the LENR process because it does not require new physics models. The phenomenon now called LENR requires relatively low temperatures or energy stimulus to initiate reactions. It is a form of nuclear energy which has conservatively been estimated to have over 4,000 times the energy density of chemical energy sources and potentially much more." The non-conservative estimate is up to 1,000,000 times the energy density of chemical reactions. :-) Imagine - virtually unlimited, guilt-free energy. It would change everything! Flying cars, colonization of the solar system...no limits!
  - dcvuob 11y ago
    The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available. Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real., is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about aircraft. You are either scamming or are being scammed. In the latter case (and I'm trying to help you here), please make an effort with some serious research and re-evalaute your opinions.
    - Recurecur 11y ago
      "The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available." Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real" is entirely accurate. More than that, there is substantial, rigorous scientific evidence that LENR is real. =========================================================== From the SPAWAR materials: Experimental Results Since 1989 – Excess Heat >> chemistry (F&P, SRI, CL, Bockris, Storms, Energetics, ENEA, Miley, Swartz) – 4He, commensurate with excess heat (SRI, China Lake (CL), ENEA) – Low intensity, soft X-rays (0.5-20 kev), (SRI, CL, SPAWAR, Karabut) – Tritium Production; a species of nuclear ash (BARC, Bockris, Storms, Claytor, SPAWAR, SRI) – CR-39 tracks suggest MeV neutron emission. (SPAWAR, BARC, Takahashi, Jones, Mizuno) – Many nuclear transmutations, ΔZ = +2, +4, +6 (MHI, Mizuno, Bockris, Dash, SPAWAR) – Sensitivity to radio freq & near IR stimulation (Bockris, Letts/Hagelstein, NRL). – Emission of strong RF signals near 85 GHz (ENEA) and 1-5 MHz (NRL). From the NASA materials (slide 5): Current LENR Technology (LENR reactor 12/12 and 3/13 respectively): - Energy Produced (Wh): 62,000 / 160,000 - Power Density (W/Kg): 530,000 / 7,000 - Thermal Energy Density (Wh/kg): 61,000,000 / 680,000 - Reaction mass: 1g / 1g - Test duration (h): 96 / 116 - Max. Temp. (deg C): 496 / 308 =========================================================== Those results could only be from nuclear phenomena - chemistry is entirely unable to explain the power output, transmutations, and radiation. Links: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/ https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IE... https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcs... Get a clue - I'm trying to help you here.
api 11y ago
"More energy than can possibly be stored." For it to be a real test you'd have to exceed the total energy output of any plausible chemical system. Calculate the total amount of energy of a stoichiometric mixture of, say, liquid oxygen and kerosene, and then draw power until you have exceeded that. At that point you can be pretty damn sure it's not a chemical battery.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  Live stream it. "Ladies and Gentlemen we know for certain now that it's not a gasoline engine, it's not powered by coal nor is it fueled by a wood burning oven, stay tuned!"
zepto 11y ago
It seems like you are misunderstanding mikeash. He's saying it's ok for there to be a battery (or other store of energy) inside, because the test is only passed if the system produces more energy than could be stored inside the box.

by readams 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

This thing is supposedly a fusion device. Run it until you've drawn more energy than could possibly be provided by burning an equivalent mass of hydrogen, and then you know it must be a nuclear effect. If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device. I can accept that such a test may not be totally 100% definitive. But if the device is real then it could definitely pass. The fact that they're fucking around instead of just doing the obvious shows that they're full of it. Edit: regarding potential external effects, these devices are supposed to put out a megawatt of power. There's no solar trickery that's going to let you fake that.

admax88q 11y ago
Yes, random internet guy has the answer. > If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device. A fusion device that produces more energy than you put in but doesn't produce a shit ton of energy right now is a useful breakthough in fusion.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  > Yes, random internet guy has the answer Ideas (should) stand on their own around here. Take this lame attempt at Argument from Authority somewhere else.
  - dang 11y ago
    Please don't respond to an uncivil comment with another uncivil comment. That just makes the thread worse yet.
- striking 11y ago
  But it doesn't prove that it truly is a fusion device then. > random internet guy Are you sure you're more qualified to discuss this than the poster you're replying to? Why make a point of it if you aren't?
- mikeash 11y ago
  It's not about speed, it's about quantity. A real nuclear power source will be able to produce far more energy than any chemical system of the same mass. If you want to see if supposed nuclear power source works, run it and see if it actually does so. If you believe there's something wrong with what I'm saying, please explain, random internet guy.
Recurecur 11y ago
Hey Mike, a few things. First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. The science is in an early state, but looks to be very promising! http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-218283%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reaction%20Aircraft_0.pdf http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21... Here's a pithy excerpt: "Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics models: the Widom-Larsen Theory. The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Theory is believed to be the best explanation of the LENR process because it does not require new physics models. The phenomenon now called LENR requires relatively low temperatures or energy stimulus to initiate reactions. It is a form of nuclear energy which has conservatively been estimated to have over 4,000 times the energy density of chemical energy sources and potentially much more." The non-conservative estimate is up to 1,000,000 times the energy density of chemical reactions. :-) Imagine - virtually unlimited, guilt-free energy. It would change everything! Flying cars, colonization of the solar system...no limits!
- dcvuob 11y ago
  The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available. Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real., is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about aircraft. You are either scamming or are being scammed. In the latter case (and I'm trying to help you here), please make an effort with some serious research and re-evalaute your opinions.
  - Recurecur 11y ago
    "The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works. Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available." Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real" is entirely accurate. More than that, there is substantial, rigorous scientific evidence that LENR is real. =========================================================== From the SPAWAR materials: Experimental Results Since 1989 – Excess Heat >> chemistry (F&P, SRI, CL, Bockris, Storms, Energetics, ENEA, Miley, Swartz) – 4He, commensurate with excess heat (SRI, China Lake (CL), ENEA) – Low intensity, soft X-rays (0.5-20 kev), (SRI, CL, SPAWAR, Karabut) – Tritium Production; a species of nuclear ash (BARC, Bockris, Storms, Claytor, SPAWAR, SRI) – CR-39 tracks suggest MeV neutron emission. (SPAWAR, BARC, Takahashi, Jones, Mizuno) – Many nuclear transmutations, ΔZ = +2, +4, +6 (MHI, Mizuno, Bockris, Dash, SPAWAR) – Sensitivity to radio freq & near IR stimulation (Bockris, Letts/Hagelstein, NRL). – Emission of strong RF signals near 85 GHz (ENEA) and 1-5 MHz (NRL). From the NASA materials (slide 5): Current LENR Technology (LENR reactor 12/12 and 3/13 respectively): - Energy Produced (Wh): 62,000 / 160,000 - Power Density (W/Kg): 530,000 / 7,000 - Thermal Energy Density (Wh/kg): 61,000,000 / 680,000 - Reaction mass: 1g / 1g - Test duration (h): 96 / 116 - Max. Temp. (deg C): 496 / 308 =========================================================== Those results could only be from nuclear phenomena - chemistry is entirely unable to explain the power output, transmutations, and radiation. Links: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/ https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IE... https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcs... Get a clue - I'm trying to help you here.

api 11y ago

"More energy than can possibly be stored." For it to be a real test you'd have to exceed the total energy output of any plausible chemical system. Calculate the total amount of energy of a stoichiometric mixture of, say, liquid oxygen and kerosene, and then draw power until you have exceeded that. At that point you can be pretty damn sure it's not a chemical battery.

cmdrfred 11y ago
Live stream it. "Ladies and Gentlemen we know for certain now that it's not a gasoline engine, it's not powered by coal nor is it fueled by a wood burning oven, stay tuned!"

zepto 11y ago

It seems like you are misunderstanding mikeash. He's saying it's ok for there to be a battery (or other store of energy) inside, because the test is only passed if the system produces more energy than could be stored inside the box.