Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:55 pm
Last time I checked, the thread title didn't say BLP so arguing the perpetually "in-progress" merits of BLP doesn't really belong here any more. Back on topic please.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Yes everyone sees the similarities but now they're breaking down the BLP story for the Nth time and really we should be breaking down the Rossi story.303 wrote:or to put it another way , from no cohesive theory plus magic box gives excess power, but no proof; back to rossi's no cohesive... deja vu
We disagree that any of the experiments are worth it. All that I have seen have rather obviosu flaws. Of course, if this were LENR etc it is overwhelmingly likely that completely unambiguous heat could be found, as well as unambiguous otehr signs of nuclear activity.GIThruster wrote:Says you. From what I can see, the real story is about the critics in both cases.
I'm not saying I believe Rossi or Mills. I don't believe or disbelieve. I do believe there is sufficient data to show the Rowan BLP reactor experiment generated anomalous heat well in excess of what could be generated by conventional chemical means. I also believe that experiment can be repeated by anyone who wishes, and that they have been so invited for years. Tom's protestations fly in the face of the facts--that a fair replication has been done, the paper published, the way shown for anyone else who wants to do their own replication.
Perfect example of what I'm saying about the critics. Everyone who has read the report knows you're being disingenuous here, Tom. The apparatus at Rowan was advised by places like Earthtech who had done the same study before, and the controls in the system clearly demonstrated the calorimetry was 99.97% accurate. There is no way experimental error could be masquerading as real data and anyone who has read the report knows this. And this is my point, people like you will never be convinced by facts. You have already made up your mind and you're quite willing to slander others and misrepresent the situation to support your intellectually dishonest position.tomclarke wrote:We disagree that any of the experiments are worth it. All that I have seen have rather obviosu flaws.
You believe this is true because you want to believe this is true. This is a completely counterfactual statement, however.BLP have been chasing their hypothesised effect for many years and have never got anything above experimental error (go look at the newer electrochemical cell, it is just as bad).
Everyone who reads my detailed comments above will be able to draw their own conclusion as to that.GIThruster wrote:Perfect example of what I'm saying about the critics. Everyone who has read the report knows you're being disingenuous here, Tom.tomclarke wrote:We disagree that any of the experiments are worth it. All that I have seen have rather obviosu flaws.
With respect. I read the report, and commented, on its specific details. You asume I am wrong without reading my comments?You have already made up your mind and you're quite willing to slander others and misrepresent the situation to support your intellectually dishonest position.
No, it was worth my time to check this report. It is always interesting. But not worth the much larger amount of time to replicate.Tom, I can see you're now pretending to be a chemist and going to try to analyze the experiment despite you say it is not worth your time,
No I'm not saying that. See below.that you cannot trust the people involved,
Not wrong, just incomplete, and making assumptions.that the explanations must be wrong,
No, that there could easily be such error. What makes error very likely is the inherent implausibility of the claims.that there must be experimental error masquerading as results, etc.
I would hope we all believe what we want. In my case I look at facts and get beliefs from that - I just do it differently from you in this case.It's pretty obvious that no matter what you find you're so to believe what you want.
I expect most people can separate looking at the experiment from concerns about Janssen's independence. I have seen nothing wrong in the report (there might be of course, I am not, as you point out, an expert chemist). I am just pointing out the obvious possible class of errors which is left out. Anyone with good high school chemistry can see this same as me. There are maybe other errors too that I've missed. It is pretty likely.Why would anyone think your analysis worth the time to read? You have zero credibility and have had none since you decided to slander Peter Janssen.
Looks like the results will not be available for 2 - 3 months.My reply (georgehants)—-
Mr. Rossi I fully understand what you say.
What is now needed is clear conformation from one of you customers or
certifiers etc. stating their testing results of the original E-Cat
unit.
Rossi’s reply
It will be published together with the validation of the high temp
reactor.
We are making all in one.
Warm Regsrds,
A.R.
Whow!!And are you going to comment on the Hydrofusion press release Parallel?
They say they went to 6 September Hot Cat Demo that was a fail.
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417
And have since halted investment.
Serious drama as the Rossiworld turns. Giggle.