10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Post by Crawdaddy »

tomclarke wrote:
To summarize the discussion:

You link me an experiment you consider "well done" that tried to replicate an effect observed on tungsten cathodes that did't even use a tungsten cathode and looks like it was conducted in about a week by amateurs.
It is better conducted than the original
Let us be perfectly clear here. Have you read the original conference report? The link you provided was not the original research. It was an informal summary!

The debunking paper you linked did not use a tungsten cathode. Do you understand what this means? It means that there could never be tungsten mediated cold fusion because there was no tungsten! The paper you linked was by definition not a replication and definitely not well done.
I link you a paper that represents years of work and a few hundred thousand dollars of research that utilized the most advanced spectroscopic instrumentation available and you don't even read and understand it before dismissing it.
I think the cost of equipment has no relationship to the quality of argument a research paper. I hope you do too. Using the most advanced instrumentation is great, because it allows detection of ever smaller quantities of contaminants. In this case that detection is not clear (even the authors admit not clear for one of the possible results). I'd want somone who knew this stuff well to comment before believing that the other result was clear.

BTW, they said they were verifying the Sm result with Mossbauer. have they?
They did not say they were verifying, they said their system could be verified by mossbauer. Why do you twist words to skew things to your point of view? It is as if you are peddling a point of view rather than examining the evidence.
Summary:
No control
No before/after comparison
No theory for why +8 (and nothing else) should happen
v expensive eqpt
Do me a favor, explicitly describe what you would consider a control. I would suggest that a sample with an MgO rather than CaO barrier/lattice matching layer that shows no transmutation under the exact same procedure qualifies. It eliminates contamination from everything but the CaO layer, which is ruled out by the SIMS depth profile data.

There are not one but 3 before and after comparisons in the paper: XPS, SIMS and XRF. One can clearly see one peak growing and the other declining! Explain how that can be the result of contamination.

The fact that there is no theory presented does not mean that the experiment is wrong. Does it make high temperature superconductivity disappear? Are you even a scientist!?

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

Defkalion wrote:As it was announced in our November 30th Press Release, a series of third party tests on Hyperion products have been scheduled to be performed within the first months of 2012, immediately after our product’s certification. The present announcement does not refer to such product tests.

With this announcement, PDGT welcomes further requests from internationally recognized and reputable scientific and business organizations interested to conduct their independent tests on “bare” Hyperion Reactors. Such independent tests have already been scheduled.


So evidently there are tests currently being conducted by a third party contracted by PDGT to perform them in their labs. Normally, one would assume that these tests are going well and have inspired the confidence of the firm to invite others to participate and confirm the PDGT sponsored tests. It may also mean that results of the first round of tests will be published well before those of the invitees.

If all this actually happens (still a BIG if), I would think it will put a lot of pressure on Rossi to stop playing games with his tightly controlled (and flawed) demos and allow some truly independent testing. Even so, a Rossi's COP and Temp pale to what PDGT is promising. Should be interesting...

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

Crawdaddy wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
To summarize the discussion:

You link me an experiment you consider "well done" that tried to replicate an effect observed on tungsten cathodes that did't even use a tungsten cathode and looks like it was conducted in about a week by amateurs.
It is better conducted than the original
Let us be perfectly clear here. Have you read the original conference report? The link you provided was not the original research. It was an informal summary!

The debunking paper you linked did not use a tungsten cathode. Do you understand what this means? It means that there could never be tungsten mediated cold fusion because there was no tungsten! The paper you linked was by definition not a replication and definitely not well done.
I link you a paper that represents years of work and a few hundred thousand dollars of research that utilized the most advanced spectroscopic instrumentation available and you don't even read and understand it before dismissing it.
I think the cost of equipment has no relationship to the quality of argument a research paper. I hope you do too. Using the most advanced instrumentation is great, because it allows detection of ever smaller quantities of contaminants. In this case that detection is not clear (even the authors admit not clear for one of the possible results). I'd want somone who knew this stuff well to comment before believing that the other result was clear.

BTW, they said they were verifying the Sm result with Mossbauer. have they?
They did not say they were verifying, they said their system could be verified by mossbauer. Why do you twist words to skew things to your point of view? It is as if you are peddling a point of view rather than examining the evidence.
Summary:
No control
No before/after comparison
No theory for why +8 (and nothing else) should happen
v expensive eqpt
Do me a favor, explicitly describe what you would consider a control. I would suggest that a sample with an MgO rather than CaO barrier/lattice matching layer that shows no transmutation under the exact same procedure qualifies. It eliminates contamination from everything but the CaO layer, which is ruled out by the SIMS depth profile data.

There are not one but 3 before and after comparisons in the paper: XPS, SIMS and XRF. One can clearly see one peak growing and the other declining! Explain how that can be the result of contamination.

The fact that there is no theory presented does not mean that the experiment is wrong. Does it make high temperature superconductivity disappear? Are you even a scientist!?
Still the contamination is possible even for this setup it is highly unlikely -once you have a lot of trials you may have a freaky result if probability of contamination is not zero, apparently the persistence is not in short supply among CF enthusiasts ;o) TC is quite well shielded, as I've said it is hopeless; I'm not sure that LENR heater from Home-Depot may make him to consider a possibility that MAYBE LENR is a real phenomena.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Giorgio wrote:
parallel wrote:
till then i will give them the benefit of doubt
You guys must be weakening. Or has the backpedaling started?

Before you were all so certain it was fraudulent, fake, criminal or any other insult you could make up, without any proof.
You do the fanboy work in an excellent way Parallel.
Too bad that Rossi is not as good as you are in supporting his claims.
Not much left now but for the name-calling to really get cranked up I guess. Since "science" is clearly not your strong point, maybe that is all that is left?

So if Rossi is such a chump you must have some great discoveries to your name Giorgio to speak with such arrogant authority, do tell .... mmmm ?

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

icarus wrote:Since "science" is clearly not your strong point,...
And yours? What is "science"? Permanent chewing of fans "If that works"? That is my friend not science. But only belief in miracles.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

icarus wrote:So if Rossi is such a chump you must have some great discoveries to your name Giorgio to speak with such arrogant authority, do tell .... mmmm ?
A year after the first semi-public demonstration, and I'm still wondering what great discoveries Rossi has to his name. :?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

parallel wrote:Despite all the cries about Rossi renigging on a contract with Bologna U. the outcome is not clear. B.U. write:
However, the Department of Physics has made available its experience and its equipment to carry out independent measurements on the production of heat by equipment called E-cat in order to provide an answer to the entire scientific community and the general public about the phenomenon. RESULTS OF MEASURES WILL BE PUBLISHED.
So possibly Rossi is going to supply both B.U. and Uppsala in Sweden(?) with E-Cats in order not to be upstaged by Defkalion's third party testing now open to all.
Your analysis may be off.

I took that as, "We will test your thingy, if you let us, and in doing so, we will publish whatever we see."

I see no indication of continued agreement or direct relationship interest. All I see, is that UoB has said, like many others, that they will do an independant test and publish results if they are given access to an E-Cat. Completely neutral statement. And if you take it in context of the previous agreement cancellation (because did not deliver), it is mossibly even a little more damning to Rossi given his complete lack of response about the issue.

It is typical Rossi though, once he runs a path and milks it for all the Spin he can, he moves on like it never existed. It would appear to be some sort of reality adjustment on the fly by him.

Independant Tester, "Dude, it doesn't do what you said..."
Rossi, "Sure it does, next tester please..."

Rossi Press Release, "We have demonstrated conclusively after a number of independant testers, that E-Cat delivers..."

Testers, "No, we never saw it with net gain..."
Rossi, "Next please..."

However it turns out, The Rossiworld Circus sure is fun to watch.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

icarus wrote:Not much left now but for the name-calling to really get cranked up I guess. Since "science" is clearly not your strong point, maybe that is all that is left?

So if Rossi is such a chump you must have some great discoveries to your name Giorgio to speak with such arrogant authority, do tell .... mmmm ?
Trolling....Trolling....Trolling down the river....

Icarus, if you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.

[rounding to Feb.]
1 year since first public demonstration.
11 months since claimed contract with UoB
9 months since UoB signed contract
8 months since Rossi signed contract
5 months since Nasa and private customer walk away
4 months since mystery customer demonstration and purchase
1 month since plant sighted still in Rossi factory
1 month since cancellation of UoB contract due to failure to deliver

8 months until claimed production of home units

What a ride...

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

ScottL wrote:
icarus wrote:Not much left now but for the name-calling to really get cranked up I guess. Since "science" is clearly not your strong point, maybe that is all that is left?

So if Rossi is such a chump you must have some great discoveries to your name Giorgio to speak with such arrogant authority, do tell .... mmmm ?
Trolling....Trolling....Trolling down the river....

Icarus, if you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.

[rounding to Feb.]
1 year since first public demonstration.
11 months since claimed contract with UoB
9 months since UoB signed contract
8 months since Rossi signed contract
5 months since Nasa and private customer walk away
4 months since mystery customer demonstration and purchase
1 month since plant sighted still in Rossi factory
1 month since cancellation of UoB contract due to failure to deliver

8 months until claimed production of home units

What a ride...
Well, it is a free show, no reason to complain, just ignore if it is not interesting...

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

stefanbanev wrote:
ScottL wrote:
icarus wrote:Not much left now but for the name-calling to really get cranked up I guess. Since "science" is clearly not your strong point, maybe that is all that is left?

So if Rossi is such a chump you must have some great discoveries to your name Giorgio to speak with such arrogant authority, do tell .... mmmm ?
Trolling....Trolling....Trolling down the river....

Icarus, if you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.

[rounding to Feb.]
1 year since first public demonstration.
11 months since claimed contract with UoB
9 months since UoB signed contract
8 months since Rossi signed contract
5 months since Nasa and private customer walk away
4 months since mystery customer demonstration and purchase
1 month since plant sighted still in Rossi factory
1 month since cancellation of UoB contract due to failure to deliver

8 months until claimed production of home units

What a ride...
Well, it is a free show, no reason to complain, just ignore if it is not interesting...
The Rossi show is tons of fun for sure, Icarus' comments, however; lack any insight or intelligence.

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

Defkalion says they have some appointments for their Hyperion testing invitational.

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... ?f=4&t=955

I would assume at least some will issue public statements. Should be interesting.

Carl White
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Post by Carl White »

Defkalion Promises Flow Calorimetry for Additonal Hyperion Tests:

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1998
Defkalion wrote:Our decision to ask first for such “bare” reactor independent test before any full product independent tests (including flow calorimetry) is based on the knowledge and experience gained from previous similar tests in other CF/LENR devises in the past. If someone tries to prove everything in one test (excess heat energy from LENR and performance and stability and functionality etc), the tested system and its testing becomes complicated and LENR skepticism survives.

What we ask to be mainly checked/confirmed through this first series of “bare” reactor tests is very simple:

Do Hyperion reactors stable/controlled produce excess heat energy, that is LENR and not chemical nor from any “hidden source” originated, or not?

Following several expected third party independent positive confirmations on this rather simple question, then we have scheduled a second series on tests with flow calorimetry on Hyperion complete systems equipped with reactor(s) of the same technology and configuration. Conditions for such flow calorimetry (ie hot water or steam, measure the primary cooling system or the secondary or both etc) will be upon the requests of the independent testers of such second series of tests. There the COP of the Hyperion system as well as its functionality, system stability and overall safety can be also checked and measured.

Thank you for understanding our independent testing strategy.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I'd say that's perfectly sensible. Look at what happened at Rowan. Despite the test clearly demonstrates more energy than could possibly be accounted for from any sort of chemical reaction, the skeptics refuse to admit this and even take to slandering the staff at Rowan for finding something people don't generally want to believe is possible.

I'm think the trouble with the E-Cat is probably less, because Widom-Larsen theory does propose an explanation that does not violate our current scientific paradigms; but Rossi's background does generate a lot of skepticism all on its own.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

GIThruster wrote:I'd say that's perfectly sensible. Look at what happened at Rowan. Despite the test clearly demonstrates more energy than could possibly be accounted for from any sort of chemical reaction, the skeptics refuse to admit this and even take to slandering the staff at Rowan for finding something people don't generally want to believe is possible.

I'm think the trouble with the E-Cat is probably less, because Widom-Larsen theory does propose an explanation that does not violate our current scientific paradigms; but Rossi's background does generate a lot of skepticism all on its own.
I thought it was established that Rowan was funded by BLP and that's where the skepticism came from. You can't provide major funding and request confirmation on such a method/device, that's a conflict of interest.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

ScottL wrote:
GIThruster wrote:I'd say that's perfectly sensible. Look at what happened at Rowan. Despite the test clearly demonstrates more energy than could possibly be accounted for from any sort of chemical reaction, the skeptics refuse to admit this and even take to slandering the staff at Rowan for finding something people don't generally want to believe is possible.

I'm think the trouble with the E-Cat is probably less, because Widom-Larsen theory does propose an explanation that does not violate our current scientific paradigms; but Rossi's background does generate a lot of skepticism all on its own.
I thought it was established that Rowan was funded by BLP and that's where the skepticism came from. You can't provide major funding and request confirmation on such a method/device, that's a conflict of interest.
Look at the care taken with FTL neutrino measurements, and how (rightly) no-one believes it till replicated.

All BLP need is a black box which:

(1) generates more energy than could be the case chemically. That was not the case in the Rowan test, since the total heat out is relatively low compared with reactant mass. The Rowan guy (deeply compromised by BLP association and funding) claims this is smaller than could be available chemically. Do we believe his un-peer-reviewed calculations?

(2) Having got an interesting result (which does not seem to be the case here) we would need completely indepenent replication.

If they have what they claim it would not be difficult to get both of these, of course.

Tom

Post Reply