Ok, since videos are claims, show me a video of him scamming it!chrismb wrote: Claims... there are claims...
What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims!
Bet you'd call THAT evidence! 
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Sorry, I have also been accused of reposting the same information too many times as well. I do not mean to be deceitful. I have posted about LTI before:Crawdaddy wrote:Seedload
So you knew of Leonardo corp's close association with LTI and Rossi's personal involvement with LTI before you made vague posts about Leonardo Corp. being a scam?Tell me why there are so many companies, please!
I think I know why.
If leonardo corp is a scam then LTI is a scam and so are it's directors one of whom is the former secretary of renewable energy under Bill Clinton.
Why not post all the information you've found instead of just the information that supports what you "know"? I find your post opinionated and deceitful.
viewtopic.php?p=62485&highlight=lti#62485
viewtopic.php?p=62387&highlight=lti#62387
LTI confuses me because there is an LTI in Ohio that seems legit and then there is LTI in Mass which is harder to actually figure out. Are they the same thing? I think so because LTI in Ohio has the domain that LTI, Mass uses for emails. But, some people that are claimed to be at LTI are not listed on the LTI, Ohio web site. It is all odd and confusing.
LTI seems to do some real business. I don't think LTI is a scam. I am not sure about the current relationship to Rossi. What I have heard is that Rossi broke away from LTI and formed Leonardo Corp. in reaction to the Petrol Dragon stuff and Rossi's imprisonment. I may be totally wrong on this. LTI apparently went on its separate way, which from their web site seems legitimate - energy consulting.
LTI was involved in Rossi's ET stuff too, from what I can find out.
As far as I can see, Leonardo Corp. never actually did anything, despite the claims of products listed on the web site.
Rossi's email listed on Leonardo Corp is actually an LTI email address, so their apparently persists a close relationship where they at least let him retain and email on their servers. Since Leonardo Corp doesn't seem to actually have any physical presence, this makes some sense.
LTI seems to have a clean coal ambition that is yet to be fulfilled except in some cool little videos. I don't think this makes them a scam.
As far as LTI retaining a relationship to Rossi, either, people at LTI still believe in Rossi or people at LTI are in on it.
I find it curious that owners of LTI are insulating LTI from Rossi using a new company. I find it curious that this new company is necessary at all. It's sole role is apparently as a conduit of money.
As far as whether this is all legit, I have no resources to actually find out much. But, the entire structure and the history of false claims by all parties just says fishy to me. Which is why I bring it up.
I don't understand your post. I am not making any claims of my own. It is Rossi making claims. The onus is on him to do anything and everything that is necessary to make his point. So far he has done almost nothing to make his point.KitemanSA wrote:Ok, since videos are claims, show me a video of him scamming it!chrismb wrote: Claims... there are claims...
What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims!
finchrismb wrote:I don't understand your post. I am not making any claims of my own. It is Rossi making claims. The onus is on him to do anything and everything that is necessary to make his point. So far he has done almost nothing to make his point.KitemanSA wrote:Ok, since videos are claims, show me a video of him scamming it!chrismb wrote: Claims... there are claims...
What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims!
If you reckon a reaction of this type is likely anyway, then I agree you can take this view. After all, the experiment is merely showing what you expect. And whether it is real or fake it is no big deal.KitemanSA wrote:But there IS "evidence". Not great evidence perhaps, but many reports of significant excess heat. And so far all I've heard to the contrary (with one or two exceptions I am still running down) are statements along the line of "it can't be true because of this irrelevancy or that non-fact". It is distressing. I have seen the unit running via video. Is there anything that anyone can tell me FACTUALLY that would provide me with a reason to swing one way or the other? I am still at the "maybe its a scam, maybe its real" stage. Oh well.bcglorf wrote: Or has Hitchens put it more concisely:
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
YES, I KNOW. The evidence is not real credible. The guy LOOKS like a clown. But so did Einstein. Not as much as Rossi, but still, that is no basis to decide on. Arrghh!
Most people reckon nuclear level heat from Ni+H is v unlikely. In which case (hence this thread) positive results of the sort Rossi claims would be very significant.
The Rossi experiments all appear to have possible major experimental problems with measurement (discussed here in detail). Of course, we can't easily prove this (except on one case, where from video it was clear). But the fact this is plausible means the Rossi experiments do not provide strong evidence to change anyone's prior opinion.
Although some of the other issues, like why he continues to give flakey demos when he must know what is not flakey by now, perhaps do provide strong evidence his stuff does not work. Of course that need not change your positive view of the theoretical situation since one swallow does not a summer make.
Best wishes, Tom
Re: The Krivit Video
1. You measure the temperature of the water before it enters the pump, so you account also for any thermal load passed from the pump to the fluid.polyill wrote:Now the questions:
1. Why is the thermocouple in the canister, and not at the E-Cat inlet?
2. Why is there an extra insulation on the tube between the pump and the inlet, and no such insulation between the canister and the pump?
3. Is the power consumed by the pump measured?
4. Is it possible to tweak the pump in a way it not only pumps, but also HEATS the passing liquid?
2. To avoid any heat exchange between the water from the outlet of the pump until it enters the reactor.
3. The pump power is coming from the control box, so is included in the power measured on the main power cable.
4. yes, but if the power is coming from the main power cable and the power cable is measured than it is useless.
I strongly second this.tomclarke wrote:Although some of the other issues, like why he continues to give flakey demos when he must know what is not flakey by now, perhaps do provide strong evidence his stuff does not work. Of course that need not change your positive view of the theoretical situation since one swallow does not a summer make.
It was a general exhortation to those "dismissing with claims". YOU made a statement "What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims". YOU said the video was a "claim". Fine, show me a comparable "claim" in opposition or don't dismiss it.chrismb wrote:I don't understand your post. I am not making any claims of my own. It is Rossi making claims. The onus is on him to do anything and everything that is necessary to make his point. So far he has done almost nothing to make his point.KitemanSA wrote:Ok, since videos are claims, show me a video of him scamming it!chrismb wrote: Claims... there are claims...
What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims!
Or do you really mean that documented "claims" can be dismissed with unsupported opinion?
Ok, I went back and looked again. I have no idea how fast it was going.KitemanSA wrote:How in the heck did you come up with this?sparkyy0007 wrote: The video indicates less than 1m/s steam velocity.
Does anyone know how to extract sequenced stills from a video? Can someone to a photogrametry study on the output? It looked WAY more than 1 m/s to me.
seedloadseedload wrote:I find it curious that owners of LTI are insulating LTI from Rossi using a new company. I find it curious that this new company is necessary at all.
Companies do this all the time with new technology - prevents exposure of existing and successful company (large govt contracts) to liabilities (financial loss, product liability, etc) inherent in new technology. However not sure how fraud would impact the principles.
No, unless there are two chrismbschrismb wrote:eh? Av u got me mixed up again with someone else?KitemanSA wrote: YOU said the video was a "claim".
So if you want to be inanely picayune about it, I mentioned the video as evidence and you implied that the evidence was only claims. But your intention was clear. If that was NOT your intention, speak American from now on. You suck at English!chrismb wrote:Claims... there are claims...KitemanSA wrote:But there IS "evidence". Not great evidence perhaps, but many reports of significant excess heat.bcglorf wrote: Or has Hitchens put it more concisely:
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims!
Is this still a scientific discussion thread or is it becoming a semantic one?KitemanSA wrote: It was a general exhortation to those "dismissing with claims". YOU made a statement "What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims". YOU said the video was a "claim". Fine, show me a comparable "claim" in opposition or don't dismiss it.
Or do you really mean that documented "claims" can be dismissed with unsupported opinion?
Fine.KitemanSA wrote:It was a general exhortation to those "dismissing with claims". YOU made a statement "What can be asserted with claims can be dismissed with claims". YOU said the video was a "claim". Fine, show me a comparable "claim" in opposition or don't dismiss it.chrismb wrote:I don't understand your post. I am not making any claims of my own. It is Rossi making claims. The onus is on him to do anything and everything that is necessary to make his point. So far he has done almost nothing to make his point.KitemanSA wrote: Ok, since videos are claims, show me a video of him scamming it!
Or do you really mean that documented "claims" can be dismissed with unsupported opinion?
I'll copy the full text of the claim and post it here, with permission of the claimant(myself it so happens).
I claim the invention does NOT produce any energy from fission or fusion reactions.
See claims are EASY!
Evidence is different from a claim. If I claim I've measured 100k neutrons a second coming off a fuel I've dumped into my microwave oven, but refuse to let anyone else measure it with their instruments, I have the same level of claim that Rossi does. It amounts to exactly squat.
Show evidence beyond one man's insistence or be dismissed without evidence, as you HAVE NONE.