It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Admits Blacklight and E-CAT Are Real Deal !!!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by boncho
Which half assed claims exactly? I was one of the first ones to make them.
It doesn't matter who originally started making those claims, most of them are still half-assed attempts to discredit this technology by attacking the credibility of people developing it. I don't like Rossi because obviously he cares more about money than creating a better and cleaner world, but that doesn't mean the technology is not real.


Rossi never made an attempt at proving his technology, he just said he had it, said it worked and did some demos. He's made claims he has hundreds of reactors operating all over the world, yet he has a leaky one sitting around that was supposed to be delivered to his customer months ago.

People have debunked with the little material provided to them.

A proper analysis of his contraption wont happen because he doesn't want it to. His efforts have been half ass and his history speaks for itself.

I don't understand when someone blatantly lies about so many things, how anyone could take him seriously after that.

That's a put up or shut up moment.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrderThe "LE" means "low energy", it is describing a low energy nuclear reaction rather than the typical high energy nuclear reactions that need to be carefully sustained via the use of control rods and the such. I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "cold" in cold fusion to meet your own idea of what it is. They do indeed supply an initial input of energy to induce the reaction, did you even what the NASA video?


I am interpreting low to mean low, as in, low, not high. The reason hot fusion is hot is that you need all of that energy to overcome the potential barrier. There is nothing difficult about this, it's just basic high school conservation of energy. There is just not enough energy in LNER to work.

I know this because I am a physicist and understand how nuclear fusion actually works. LNER is nonsense. Pick up a book on quantum mechanics and learn it, then you can calculate for yourself as a homework exercise why this does not work.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


He has actually given enough demonstration to make even people at NASA believe it does indeed produce excess amounts of energy. He clearly doesn't want to divulge the entire inner workings yet because it will give others the ability to secure patents before he can.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boncho
 


He has actually given enough demonstration to make even people at NASA believe it does indeed produce excess amounts of energy. He clearly doesn't want to divulge the entire inner workings yet because it will give others the ability to secure patents before he can.


No actually, NASA has been conducting LENR research for a number of years now, along with SPAWAR, and Rossi announced himself and invited himself down to NASA. Paying for his own ticket there. After his discussions with them, they discussed him.

This doesn't lend credibility to him in any way.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



I am interpreting low to mean low, as in, low, not high. The reason hot fusion is hot is that you need all of that energy to overcome the potential barrier. There is nothing difficult about this, it's just basic high school conservation of energy. There is just not enough energy in LNER to work.
Errrr.... LENR are not hot because the reactions aren't extreme nuclear reactions. A typical nuclear bomb produces a "hot" nuclear reaction but what actual energy is input into the system hmmm? All they do is create a critical mass of Uranium 235 and a self sustaining nuclear reaction takes places because of the neutrons emitted as the Uranium atoms spontaneously decay. A normal nuclear reactor is much like a controlled nuclear bomb, they need to control the reaction because so much energy is released by the Uranium atoms in the process, the binding energy emitted as the atomic bonds are broken is why it is hot, and that energy is harvested as the output, but that energy doesn't create the chain reaction, the neutrons emitted by the decaying Uranium atoms sustain the reaction. It isn't "hot" because they supplied some sort of super energy input is it? The REACTION is hot and very energetic, unlike LOW ENERGY nuclear reactions. This is basic highschool physics and for you to not understand this much makes it very doubtful you are some sort of physicists pal.

edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



No actually
What do you mean "no", your own link from the NASA guys blog has him claiming it does produce excessive amounts of energy. Stop denying the facts.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



The kind of nuclear reaction where you put in less energy than you need to overcome the potential barrier in the nucleus. In other words the kind where you get something for free.


To be fair, here, we are working with limited models. Fission was considered horribly impractical as a power source for much the same reason. Then we considered the application of neutrons as opposed to electrons.

It should be considered something of a marvel that the nucleus resists fusion (and the increase in entropy preferred by the universe). A logical approach to LENR is unraveling the forces involved in resisting the fusion of the nucleus, and neutralizing them as opposed to overpowering them.

Of course, it stands to reason that natural phenomena to clue us into how to do this would be rare, as our universe is not 95% iron. It's quite possible that exotic phenomena are necessary to trigger LENR and require a far more complete and predictive field model.

In which case, we can only hope to stumble across LENR phenomena with luck and/or educated guesses. Since the physics involved would be on such a tangent to existing physics, it's difficult to give a reasonable evaluation of proposed methods outside of experimental results.

Of course, the world is waiting for these things to be demonstrated to work as advertised.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Moduli
 



I am interpreting low to mean low, as in, low, not high. The reason hot fusion is hot is that you need all of that energy to overcome the potential barrier. There is nothing difficult about this, it's just basic high school conservation of energy. There is just not enough energy in LNER to work.
Errrr.... LENR are not hot because the reactions aren't extreme nuclear reactions. A typical nuclear bomb produces a "hot" nuclear reaction but what actual energy is input into the system hmmm? All they do is create a critical mass of Uranium 235 and a self sustaining nuclear reaction takes places because of the neutrons emitted as the Uranium atoms spontaneously decay. A normal nuclear reactor is much like a controlled nuclear bomb, they need to control the reaction because so much energy is released by the Uranium atoms in the process, the binding energy emitted as the atomic bonds are broken is why it is hot, but that energy doesn't create the chain reaction, the neutrons emitted by the decaying Uranium atoms sustain the reaction. It isn't "hot" because they supplied some sort of super energy input is it? The REACTION is hot and very energetic, unlike LOW ENERGY nuclear reactions. This is basic highschool physics and for you to not understand this much makes it very doubtful you are some sort of physicists pal.

edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


I don't think you even know what energy is, let alone how energy is conserved in a nuclear reaction. Do you even know how large a nuclear potential is? Or what the interaction cross-section of a nucleon is? Or what that even means?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Do you even know how large a nuclear potential is? Or what the interaction cross-section of a nucleon is? Or what that even means?
So now you're going to avoid a rebuttal of my argument by asking some questions with some big words? Stick to the topic at hand thank you and provide a counter argument to what I said rather than changing the topic and accusing me of not knowing anything.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


You could explain it to him or at least direct it to somewhere where people are discussing the subject and the difference between strong nuclear and electro weak interactions.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boncho
 



No actually
What do you mean "no", your own link from the NASA guys blog has him claiming it does produce excessive amounts of energy. Stop denying the facts.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Excess amounts of energy in some of these cases are around 3 watts. Sometimes half a watt.

"Excess energy" not "excessive energy"



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



I don't think you even know what energy is, let alone how energy is conserved in a nuclear reaction.
First of all, everything is energy, just in different forms. Now let me explain in more simple terms how a typical nuclear reaction works.

Uranium 235 atoms spontaneously decay and release neutrons along with the binding energy that was holding the atom together.

If you put enough Uranium together the neutrons released by decaying Uranium atoms will collide with other Uranium atoms and cause them to decay also, thus releasing more neutrons and more binding energy.

When a critical mass is reached this process creates a chain reaction and the binding energy released in this process is the output energy harvested from the nuclear reaction in the form of electromagnetic thermal radiation.

Even if the binding energy of this process wasn't released, a chain reaction would still take place so long as neutrons were released.

The extreme heat released during a typical nuclear reaction is not the reason for the chain reaction, it's simply a result of atomic decay. Thus the result is a "hot" nuclear reaction which can result in a melt down if the reaction is not carefully controlled.

Of course the energy released in a nuclear reaction doesn't come from no where, it comes from the binding energy within the atoms, and can be precisely calculated. It's not a mystery where the energy comes from or how the reaction is sustained.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



I don't think you even know what energy is, let alone how energy is conserved in a nuclear reaction. Do you even know how large a nuclear potential is? Or what the interaction cross-section of a nucleon is? Or what that even means?


I'll bite.

I didn't quite see where these questions are applicable to the quoted post.

In "theory" - fusion is an entropic eventuality. Energy is not necessarily required to achieve it (in elements 1-25) so much as it is required to prevent it.

We are fortunate such an arrangement of forces exists so as to resist that eventuality.

Otherwise, you're talking about concepts that are trees within a forest. Which, while relevant to the proposed mechanics of LENR interactions - it is important to note that these are merely connected on a tangent with the proposed physics of "cold fusion" models.

New particles, unexpected particle/field interactions, etc can change what the interaction cross-section of a nucleon means (or further define it to predict other undiscovered/undefined interactions). Which makes it kind of difficult to use in an argument against a fundamentally physics-enhancing discovery.

Now - it would be different if we were talking about something completely out there - like over-unity or entropic mastery (IE - 100% efficient capture and utilization of energy) - then you would be standing on the right ground... but I'm not seeing that in this case. Though I could have missed a change in the direction of this conversation.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Wrong type of materials you are looking at.

You googled the wrong reaction. LENR research is not using Uranium. Instead, metals and and gases that aren't radioactive. Not even close.

Clarify, I should say not at all but for the most part, a completely different focus.
edit on 7-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I think the fact that there have been hundreds of experiments that show excess energy can be produced under certain conditions, and not only that, but it is unexplained by the researchers involved -shows that something is going on.

I don't really care if it is cold fusion, LENR, or some new term associated to it, but when they figure out an explanation all the grandstanding can stop.

It has to be something.

And no matter if it is something they think it is, or if it's elves farting energy from another dimension, so long as someone figures out a working theory to explain the data, the problem will be solved.

Until then, it makes no sense for people to ignore this annoying little event that seems to pop up only when it wants to.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Wrong type of materials you are looking at.

You googled the wrong reaction. LENR research is not using Uranium. Instead, metals and and gases that aren't radioactive. Not even close.
You think I don't know that? We are talking about a normal nuclear reaction for a reason. I am trying to explain that the heat energy released by a typical nuclear reaction is not what keeps it going, what keeps it going is the release of neutrons. This type of nuclear reaction could theoretically happen even if binding energy wasn't released, which is what I'm trying to get across.

Moduli said:


The reason hot fusion is hot is that you need all of that energy to overcome the potential barrier


But in fact that is completely wrong. "All that energy" is not required to keep the reaction going, all that is required is the neutrons to cause other atoms to decay and release more neutrons. "All that energy" is actually harvested and converted into electricity, and has nothing to do with overcoming "the potential barrier".

And more to the point, "all that energy" comes from the atoms themselves, it is not injected into the system to initiate the nuclear reaction and "overcome the potential barrier". Nothing is required except a critical mass of the right element.
edit on 7-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


But in fact that is completely wrong. "All that energy" is not required to keep the reaction going, all that is required is the neutrons to cause other atoms to decay and release more neutrons. "All that energy" is actually harvested and converted into electricity, and has nothing to do with overcoming "the potential barrier".

 


No he is completely right in that respect. As it takes a certain amount of energy to break the barrier that produces a nuclear reaction. See here.

That is what you were talking about with critical mass. Except the materials used in LENR research are not radioactive, and they do not operate the way Uranium does.

There was a good web page that I'm looking for which would point it out better.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


While only related on a tangent, I look to discoveries such as this: www.newscientist.com... - being a sort of indicator that LENR will be achieved (reliably) through manipulation of crystalline meta-materials as opposed to more "primitive" methods reminiscent of electrolysis.

I liken the problem to attempts to develop a hydrocarbon fuel cell from within an environment where hydrocarbons do not naturally oxidize and combust. It wouldn't be as obviously practical or possible to beings from such an environment.

I think we'll get there, eventually.

Sure, I also hope that the E-CAT is what it claims to be... but I'll be honest... even if it does, I think my way is better.... or... will be... if I could fall into the resources necessary to conduct the ground-work to develop it....



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


And more to the point, "all that energy" comes from the atoms themselves, it is not injected into the system to initiate the nuclear reaction and "overcome the potential barrier". Nothing is required except a critical mass of the right element.

 


And with some elements, it takes a star to do it. Hence the trouble they have with reproducing hot fusion.




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C


While only related on a tangent, I look to discoveries such as this: www.newscientist.com... - being a sort of indicator that LENR will be achieved (reliably) through manipulation of crystalline meta-materials as opposed to more "primitive" methods reminiscent of electrolysis.

 




I was actually just thinking about posting this. New nano materials was the first thing I thought of when I read about all the gas loading lenr tests they were doing in LENR.




new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join