10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Joseph Chikva]

If he DOESN'T want to "prove" it, should he do expensive experiments anyway? Seems a waste of money to me.

Seems a fraud to me.
By the way, one flow-meter, one more capacious pump (~15 fold) and one additional thermometer would cost a few tens dollars.
That's all needed for correct and doubtless experiment.

[Axil]

What does other evidence say about likelihood of Rossi being a fraud?

I have been bothered by the possibility of “fraud” in big science and speculative energy research and development for a while now. This is a good time for me to get this aggravating chip removed from my shoulder.


Let’s start with CERN. When the Higgs field was first proposed in by Peter Higgs in 1964 in a paper submitted to the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) that organization rejected it as the ravings of an unmitigated kook and unsupported by any current understanding of physical law.


Higgs beefed up the paper and it was finally published in Physical Review Letters, a publication associated with the American Physical Society.


Over time, the Higgs theory slowly gained increasing support in high energy physics as it became clear that the standard model was untenable unless this Higgs theory was real.


CERN preceded to use the search for the Higgs to justify their past work and to justify a massive 10 billion dollar rebuild of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the biggest scientific boondoggle ever created.


If CERN does not find the Hggs boson, they have a boat load of Higgsless models to justify the continuation of their pay checks and an avalanche of more bizarre predictions to further unending theoretical development as a means to increased job security into the indefinite future.


Then there is the string theorists; who after decades can’t come up with experiments to justify their work. Is that science? Where is the replication? The string guys don’t even have a first experiment to talk about.



If replication is a measure of fraud, then these string theorists have hoodwinked every institution of higher learning in the world and like a cancer pushed out valid theory from contemporary consideration.



Bill Gates has been dupe by the cigar reactor fraud and Jeff Bezos has fallen for the general atomics fraud.



How many billons have been dumped and will continue to be pumped into ITER fusion reactor that has absolutely no chance of working?



But ITER is not the only snow job to be found in fusion R&D.



http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/ ... 2011-07-29



Over a $100 billion from the USA alone in R&D resources have been funneled into these abysmal monstrosities.



Not one of these horrors has produced as much excess power as Rossi, and none has even produced any steam dripping wet or not.



Yes we must redouble our vigilance against fraud and the hypocrisy that goes along with it because it could well be the end of our science.

[Skipjack]

Then there is the string theorists; who after decades can’t come up with experiments to justify their work. Is that science? Where is the replication? The string guys don’t even have a first experiment to talk about.

I do agree on that one.

[ScottL]

Axil,

At least most of those provided peer-reviewed work showing some semblance of the scientific method. Also, theoretical work doesn't not always amount to a known experiment or experiments aren't always possible such as finding the Higgs, which clearly wasn't possible at the time of its proposal.

As for:

Not one of these horrors has produced as much excess power as Rossi, and none has even produced any steam dripping wet or not.

You're assuming....again....and again...and again....and again...that he has produced anything. Stop assuming, look at the data, and keep a skeptical eye on the project. Rossi hasn't earned anyones trust nor does he need it. If he's right, it will show, but in the meantime, I'd truly recommend not evangicalizing Rossi's work as "the word" so to speak.

[JoeP]

What does other evidence say about likelihood of Rossi being a fraud?

I have been bothered by the possibility of “fraud” in big science and speculative energy research and development for a while now. This is a good time for me to get this aggravating chip removed from my shoulder.


Let’s start with CERN. When the Higgs field was first proposed in by Peter Higgs in 1964 in a paper submitted to the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) that organization rejected it as the ravings of an unmitigated kook and unsupported by any current understanding of physical law.


Higgs beefed up the paper and it was finally published in Physical Review Letters, a publication associated with the American Physical Society.


Over time, the Higgs theory slowly gained increasing support in high energy physics as it became clear that the standard model was untenable unless this Higgs theory was real.


CERN preceded to use the search for the Higgs to justify their past work and to justify a massive 10 billion dollar rebuild of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the biggest scientific boondoggle ever created.


If CERN does not find the Hggs boson, they have a boat load of Higgsless models to justify the continuation of their pay checks and an avalanche of more bizarre predictions to further unending theoretical development as a means to increased job security into the indefinite future.


Then there is the string theorists; who after decades can’t come up with experiments to justify their work. Is that science? Where is the replication? The string guys don’t even have a first experiment to talk about.



If replication is a measure of fraud, then these string theorists have hoodwinked every institution of higher learning in the world and like a cancer pushed out valid theory from contemporary consideration.



Bill Gates has been dupe by the cigar reactor fraud and Jeff Bezos has fallen for the general atomics fraud.



How many billons have been dumped and will continue to be pumped into ITER fusion reactor that has absolutely no chance of working?



But ITER is not the only snow job to be found in fusion R&D.



http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/ ... 2011-07-29



Over a $100 billion from the USA alone in R&D resources have been funneled into these abysmal monstrosities.



Not one of these horrors has produced as much excess power as Rossi, and none has even produced any steam dripping wet or not.



Yes we must redouble our vigilance against fraud and the hypocrisy that goes along with it because it could well be the end of our science.

"Big Science," while peer reviewed, is in many ways a complete racket. Since many scientists have to compete for, and justify, public money for research, blind alleys and dead ends are investigated in perpetuity.

This is one of the complaints I think Bussard had against ITER and related projects -- even though he also had to play that game for most of his life.

This is why I am objective about Rossi. Yes, it is very, very likely he is wrong. But it is worth fully checking out. We cannot pretend that "mainstream" fusion researchers have no bias in attempting to prove or disprove his claims. Or bloggers for that matter.

I also saw a lot of this with the "Global Warming" scientists. Outright attempts to block and brand competing studies and views since they believed it would do damage to their precious funding and political objectives. Is there anthropological caused warming? Maybe, but the lines are now drawn along political and idealogical lines. If someone opposes your P.O.V. then they are reduced to an idiot and not worth considering. This is not science, if it ever was originally.

[tomclarke]

This is why I am objective about Rossi. Yes, it is very, very likely he is wrong. But it is worth fully checking out. We cannot pretend that "mainstream" fusion researchers have no bias in attempting to prove or disprove his claims. Or bloggers for that matter.

I can pretend that mainstream fusion researchers have no bias re CF. Why should they? Certainly the majority of the science community have no bias. It may not be fashionable, for understandable reasons, but it has enough supporters.

Krivit has no bias against Rossi, and an initial bias for. He did check out Rossi - and look what he found!

Your argument is weird.

I could understand it if as a CF enthusiast you wanted to check out some of the not yet understood positive CF experiments. You have something definite to go on, and a some positive evidence, however flaky.

Best wishes, Tom

But rossi? He has given us no positive evidence & much negative.

[JoeP]

This is why I am objective about Rossi. Yes, it is very, very likely he is wrong. But it is worth fully checking out. We cannot pretend that "mainstream" fusion researchers have no bias in attempting to prove or disprove his claims. Or bloggers for that matter.

I can pretend that mainstream fusion researchers have no bias re CF. Why should they? Certainly the majority of the science community have no bias. It may not be fashionable, for understandable reasons, but it has enough supporters.

Krivit has no bias against Rossi, and an initial bias for. He did check out Rossi - and look what he found!

Your argument is weird.

I could understand it if as a CF enthusiast you wanted to check out some of the not yet understood positive CF experiments. You have something definite to go on, and a some positive evidence, however flaky.

Best wishes, Tom

But rossi? He has given us no positive evidence & much negative.

My concern is that Rossi, using iterative empiricism, may have stumbled across an efficient CF/LENR reaction (IF there is such a thing). Needs to be checked out even though it is likely a scam (or self-delusion). Many things in science have been discovered in this way and unlooked-for or unknown processes and effects have born fruit.

[tomclarke]

I also saw a lot of this with the "Global Warming" scientists. Outright attempts to block and brand competing studies and views since they believed it would do damage to their precious funding and political objectives. Is there anthropological caused warming? Maybe, but the lines are now drawn along political and idealogical lines. If someone opposes your P.O.V. then they are reduced to an idiot and not worth considering. This is not science, if it ever was originally.

By thinking about groups of people, and assuming they all have common motivations (a profoundly dehumanising approach that we call racism when applied to skin colour groups) you are doing precisely what you condemn others of doing.

The politicisation of AGW arguments is alas inevitable, and unfortunate. But the vociferous and profoundly unscientific and uniniterested in truth popular comment on the internet and elsewhere is the worst offender. i'm not saying the scientists are perfect - every blemish is after all repeated 100 times on the blogosphere and used to condemn the whole. But many scientists, surprisingly, want to do science, want to understand stuff, and will go on critiquing and developing ideas as they have always done. It does not matter if a few are biassed, in fact all humans are biassed though scientists try not to be, the result, given time and criticism of past ideas, is progress.

Go do climate science. But you will find your P.O.V. may not survive what other climate scientists have done, which is carefully to check all the evidence and work out which ideas have merit and which do not.

Would you say these people are biassed? If so which way?
http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives

[Ivy Matt]

We should be looking at the industrial activity to find out the truth of Rossi's eCat. Scammers have just PR. They don't have expensive industrial facilities and commercial contracts. Money and material is not flowing. It would be nice to have an independent verification that there is a factory in Greece - a real one, not a scaffolding or a sham.

Well, we know about where it's supposed to be, but I'm not aware of any spies in Greece who have volunteered to give updates on it.

Would you say these people are biassed? If so which way?
http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives

With or without clicking on the link?

[KitemanSA]

If he DOESN'T want to "prove" it, should he do expensive experiments anyway? Seems a waste of money to me.

Seems a fraud to me.
By the way, one flow-meter, one more capacious pump (~15 fold) and one additional thermometer would cost a few tens dollars.
That's all needed for correct and doubtless experiment.

And why should he care if it seems a fraud to you? I doubt he even knows that you exist, at least as someone he thinks deserves notice.

You still aren't getting it. IF he PROVES it works scientifically he invites immediate and HUGE competition. If he can make others NOT take notice in any serious way while he creates an industry leading company, he just MIGHT survive the on-rush of competition later.

Or it could all just be a scam. Who knows?

[JoeP]

By thinking about groups of people, and assuming they all have common motivations (a profoundly dehumanising approach that we call racism when applied to skin colour groups) you are doing precisely what you condemn others of doing.

Actually I was making a point of human nature. It is common in our species to defend our turf and sources of wealth (be it money, food, power, or prestige). Yes, generalizations are completely appropriate. Your point about individual scientists is appreciated and duly noted. But a high level look at the overall AGW debate and the tactics employed by many of the key scientific groups supports my opinion as to how it devolved into junk science.

And no, "racism" is not analogous.

The politicisation of AGW arguments is alas inevitable, and unfortunate. But the vociferous and profoundly unscientific and uniniterested in truth popular comment on the internet and elsewhere is the worst offender. i'm not saying the scientists are perfect - every blemish is after all repeated 100 times on the blogosphere and used to condemn the whole. But many scientists, surprisingly, want to do science, want to understand stuff, and will go on critiquing and developing ideas as they have always done. It does not matter if a few are biassed, in fact all humans are biassed though scientists try not to be, the result, given time and criticism of past ideas, is progress.

OK, good generalization, above.

Go do climate science. But you will find your P.O.V. may not survive what other climate scientists have done, which is carefully to check all the evidence and work out which ideas have merit and which do not.

It is a tough field. Mainly since there are so many variables. And while I personally think there is some AGW effects, any proposed solution has to be balanced with the cost of reducing it, both in environmental, economic, and standard-of-living. I don't little careful and serious consideration of all such factors when listening to the various politics on both "sides." But (I think you will agree) there is really no side of the issue insofar as the truth (objective, natural) is in reality.

Would you say these people are biassed? If so which way?
http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives

A quick look at the link shows that they plan to be careful to collect data in a far more comprehensive and superior manner than what has been used in the past in order to get more objective projections. Looks like a good start to me. But I have no real opinion on this group.

[Joseph Chikva]

And why should he care if it seems a fraud to you?

Funny question.
Why he did conduct that clownery for Kvirit that you call not "experiment" but "demo"?

For your note people in science write paper and conduct experiments. Theoretists can make conjunctures if you wish
Than those conjunctures should be confirmed with properly conducted experiments (superconductivity confirmed, Higgs Boson not yet, etc).

But if you are an experimentator and claim that discovered the certain phenomenon you should check that before claiming, then other researchers independently from you should check repeatability.

People are compelled to explain you very trivial things. Though your aplomb is at level of the Nobel winners. “See my conjecture”

[KitemanSA]

And why should he care if it seems a fraud to you?

Funny question.
Why he did conduct that clownery for Kvirit that you call not "experiment" but "demo"?

Very good question. Didn't seem too wise in hind-sight.
But it may also have been on purpose; that purpose being to reduce the likelihood that someone would take him seriously enough to check his story out BEFORE he could make his company the unequivocal industry leader.
Speculation, all speculation.

For your note people in science write paper and conduct experiments. Theoretists can make conjunctures if you wish
Than those conjunctures should be confirmed with properly conducted experiments (superconductivity confirmed, Higgs Boson not yet, etc).

That is all true. But as far as I know, Rossi hasn't claimed to be doing SCIENCE here, just business. And the rules for business are NOT the same as the rules for science. To condemn a man who is doing business for not doing science is a bit ludicrous, no? And by the way, I'm not doing science either, just thinking about things and disagreeing with folks who make inaccurate scientific statements. So far, I've seen NO accurate scientific statements that demonstrate that Rossi's Reactor can't work, though a number of people have tried.

But if you are an experimentator and claim that discovered the certain phenomenon you should check that before claiming, then other researchers independently from you should check repeatability.

Yup, IF HE IS DOING SCIENCE. But he isn't.

People are compelled to explain you very trivial things. Though your aplomb is at level of the Nobel winners. “See my conjecture”

Some people are compelled to ignore basic things. Because of this, they are compelled to make idiotic statements. Then they seem compelled to "explain" to me their own idiocies. I am free to ignore their idiocies with "aplomb"!

[Joseph Chikva]

But as far as I know, Rossi hasn't claimed to be doing SCIENCE here, just business. And the rules for business are NOT the same as the rules for science. To condemn a man who is doing business for not doing science is a bit ludicrous, no? And by the way, I'm not doing science either, just thinking about things and disagreeing with folks who make inaccurate scientific statements. So far, I've seen NO accurate scientific statements that demonstrate that Rossi's Reactor can't work, though a number of people have tried.

But if you are an experimentator and claim that discovered the certain phenomenon you should check that before claiming, then other researchers independently from you should check repeatability.

Yup, IF HE IS DOING SCIENCE. But he isn't.

People are compelled to explain you very trivial things. Though your aplomb is at level of the Nobel winners. “See my conjecture”

Some people are compelled to ignore basic things. Because of this, they are compelled to make idiotic statements. Then they seem compelled to "explain" to me their own idiocies. I am free to ignore their idiocies with "aplomb"!

One more my idiotic statement.
If Rossi is doing business through scientific discovery he should obey to scientific rules.
There are many legal ways of earning money: to produce something demanding by market, trade, etc. And commercialization of inventions is one of the most complicated kinds of activity.
As there are many much easier ways.
And at certain stage commercialization means showing the working prototype.

There are also illegal ways of making money. One of them is fraud. #180 by my country's criminal legislation and person doing fraud risks to sit up to 6 years in prison (jail).

[rcain]

...
Go do climate science. ...
Would you say these people are biassed? If so which way?
http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives

upon studying their data in great depth (especially fig 1 on http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset ) i have come to an astonishing conclusion hitherto hidden from science::

avg_annual_temp_rise = nbr_weather_stations/10000 (approximately), plus or minus a bit...

amazing! the answer to AGW has been staring us in the face all along