10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[stefanbanev]

The misuse of the prefix "patho" assigned infers an unwillingness or inability to accept any claim, not just Rossi's claim, but any claim. I don't believe in Rossi's claims due to the evidence or lack there-of. We'll know 100% if his devices are mass produced by the end of the year. The frustrated part of me wishes we'd receive an apology from the believers, but that will never happen. The empathetic part feels for what will be a very disappointing end result for them.

There will never be a disappointment. These things don't end, they peter out, and before the last gasp of hope disappears, a new 'thing' replaces the prior, renewing hope and promise with no lessons ever learned. Rossi's appear even as BLPs slowly fade away.

See the following:

You are definitely welcome to be skeptical it's not a crime... As well as to have more tolerance for people who does not share your level of skepticism would be welcome as well... Any kind of believe is an extreme, the believe in scam as well as believe in LENR. The believe is a result of lack of evidences and at this point (in my opinion) there is no a definitive facts supporting any side. So far, all evidences (from my perspective) are circumstantial/indirect thus, the assessment of probability is a personal choice... very likely (in my opinion) LENR is a practical tech and quite soon will make a dramatic impact; who first will come to market is irrelevant for me... when - is more interesting... By the way, the pathological skepticism is an admission of own mediocrecy, once someone has failed to make a splash they deny such ability for others (as self-defense) and in-fact, in 99% cases they turn out to be right just because any breakthrough of such magnitude is really a rare event...

Notice that the conversation is shifting away from 'Rossi' to 'LENR' in general and the discussion of belief and skeptisism is being treated as if we were discussing LENR all along with no more mention of Rossi in particular.

Interesting. I wonder if the author even recognized he was doing this? Hmmm...

I'm curious why it is interesting for you? I guess it probably goes
along the "accomplishment complex" ;o) Anyway, the "shape" of
wave function depends on mind anticipation so, a positive insight has
an utilitarian sense (at least for majority of branches)...

Some fresh update for LENR:
http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian ... ril-10-14/

[seedload]

The misuse of the prefix "patho" assigned infers an unwillingness or inability to accept any claim, not just Rossi's claim, but any claim. I don't believe in Rossi's claims due to the evidence or lack there-of. We'll know 100% if his devices are mass produced by the end of the year. The frustrated part of me wishes we'd receive an apology from the believers, but that will never happen. The empathetic part feels for what will be a very disappointing end result for them.

There will never be a disappointment. These things don't end, they peter out, and before the last gasp of hope disappears, a new 'thing' replaces the prior, renewing hope and promise with no lessons ever learned. Rossi's appear even as BLPs slowly fade away.

See the following:

You are definitely welcome to be skeptical it's not a crime... As well as to have more tolerance for people who does not share your level of skepticism would be welcome as well... Any kind of believe is an extreme, the believe in scam as well as believe in LENR. The believe is a result of lack of evidences and at this point (in my opinion) there is no a definitive facts supporting any side. So far, all evidences (from my perspective) are circumstantial/indirect thus, the assessment of probability is a personal choice... very likely (in my opinion) LENR is a practical tech and quite soon will make a dramatic impact; who first will come to market is irrelevant for me... when - is more interesting... By the way, the pathological skepticism is an admission of own mediocrecy, once someone has failed to make a splash they deny such ability for others (as self-defense) and in-fact, in 99% cases they turn out to be right just because any breakthrough of such magnitude is really a rare event...

Notice that the conversation is shifting away from 'Rossi' to 'LENR' in general and the discussion of belief and skeptisism is being treated as if we were discussing LENR all along with no more mention of Rossi in particular.

Interesting. I wonder if the author even recognized he was doing this? Hmmm...

I'm curious why it is interesting for you? I guess it's probably going
along the "accomplishment" complex ;o) Anyway, the "shape" of
wave function depends on mind anticipation so, a positive insight has
an utilitarian sense (at least for majority of branches)...

Some fresh update for LENR:
http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian ... ril-10-14/

No, just an academic interest.

Did you consciously or subconsciously change my position to being about 'LENR' in general rather than being about Rossi specifically? Or did you just not know what I have been talking about these last 500+ pages?

[ladajo]

Regarding that last point, I can't seem to find out where Rossi clarified his intentions with regard to the "public" device. Reference, please?

4. a) You mentioned recently that a plant was being built that would be
open to the public. b) Is this plant going to be purchased by a customer
who has agreed to allow people to visit? c) Can you provide a rough time
when this might be open?
ONLY PEOPLE SELECTED BY US, IN DUE TIME WE WILL GIVE THIS INFORMATION

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/rossi ... questions/

and...

Franco
April 8th, 2012 at 9:13 AM
Dear Ing. Rossi,

during last interview by Oliprice.com You spoke about the possibility that a 1MW plant could be “soon opened to public”.

If possible, can You confirm this and, in case, to give us news about?
Thank You, good work and Happy Easter!

Kind Regards

Andrea Rossi
April 9th, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Dear Franco:
I confirm, in due time invitations will be issued.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

http://rossilivecat.com/

[stefanbanev]

There will never be a disappointment. These things don't end, they peter out, and before the last gasp of hope disappears, a new 'thing' replaces the prior, renewing hope and promise with no lessons ever learned. Rossi's appear even as BLPs slowly fade away.

See the following:
Notice that the conversation is shifting away from 'Rossi' to 'LENR' in general and the discussion of belief and skeptisism is being treated as if we were discussing LENR all along with no more mention of Rossi in particular.

Interesting. I wonder if the author even recognized he was doing this? Hmmm...

I'm curious why it is interesting for you? I guess it's probably going
along the "accomplishment" complex ;o) Anyway, the "shape" of
wave function depends on mind anticipation so, a positive insight has
an utilitarian sense (at least for majority of branches)...

Some fresh update for LENR:
http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian ... ril-10-14/

No, just an academic interest.

Did you consciously or subconsciously change my position to being about 'LENR' in general rather than being about Rossi specifically? Or did you just not know what I have been talking about these last 500+ pages?

Your position!!? Are you a megalomaniac? it's quite funny...

[ScottL]

Stefanbanev,

I think you're misinterpretting or mistranslating what seed was saying. We're talking about Rossi and his e-cat, not LENR as a whole. You're successfully proving seeds point when you change the subject from the impressive fiasco Rossi is putting on to LENR and by way, giving believers of Rossi, a way out of the conversation. We're discussin Rossi, not LENR as a whole.

[tomclarke]

When Rossi first made his claims many (including me) thought: "Wow, if this is real it is great". That was what the LENR types thought, and why Krivit was initially very positive - Rossi was using materials that seem vaguly compatible with W-L theory, which is the nearest to a respectable mechnaism that LENR has come up with.

There are many internet watchers who think the evidence for LENR so compelling that there is clearly "something hapenning" and so Rossi has just hit the magic nanopowder. From that POV you have a good positive scientific prior probability.

However careful observation of all Krivit's wriggles, and especially the ducking and diving over anything scientific, the isotopic composition results, etc, I have gone from

"It is not likely, because Rossi has a history of incorrect miracle science claims, and people have been looking at LENR for a long time without success, but let us watch it"

to

"None of the 13 or so claimed demos have offered evidence of nuclear reactions, when if Rossi had what he says making a convincing demo would be very easy. Trivial in fact. Also Rossi has exhibited clearly deceitful beheviour in a way classically consistent with unfounded claims".

End result I see much less chance of Rossi having anything than before. There is just zero positive evidence, and much negative, since the start. The apparently postive but on close examination flawed demos are taken as a whole damning negative evidence.

But it seems some of those who started with a much more positive view of LENR see the same sequence of scientific mistakes, secrecy, bogus claims to have partners and commercial developments, as making the Rossi story more likley to be real than at first.

To be fair, most of the LENR supporters while initially interested in Rossi now want distance themselve sfrom him because his standard of experimental evidence is even lower than theirs, and more importantly it seems likely he is dishonest. (My judgement is that very few of the LENR people are dishonest. They are admirable people chasing a possibility that would be wonderful if true but is probably not).

It is just a shame that the internet is so democratic (read, full of those without a clue, who are unwilling to dig down and inform themselves) that Rossibots can remain a powerful force.

And it is surprising that Parallel, who I think does sometimes dig down and inform himself, sees the weight of all the evidence from Rossi as positive when it does not seem like that to anyone else.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

And it is surprising that Parallel, who I think does sometimes dig down and inform himself, sees the weight of all the evidence from Rossi as positive when it does not seem like that to anyone else.

While I find it odd that you:
1. Don't believe LENR exists despite the increasing evidence, public demos and papers by scientists like Miles. If you can't see that it is no surprise you can't wait to see if Rossi has something, but instead jump to conclusions and accuse him of fraud. Who is he robbing?

2. Think you and your few fellow skeptics on this blog make up the whole world. Do you really think I am alone in finding it likely that Rossi has stumbled onto something?

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

And it is surprising that Parallel, who I think does sometimes dig down and inform himself, sees the weight of all the evidence from Rossi as positive when it does not seem like that to anyone else.

While I find it odd that you:
1. Don't believe LENR exists despite the increasing evidence, public demos and papers by scientists like Miles.

We were talking about Rossi here, not LENR. People like Miles have been doing LENR demos and papers for a long time. I would love to find one of these which was replicable and well reported and had extraordinary results. If as you think LENR is real that would be very easy to find since Miles claims replicable results. The latest thin-film stuff does not seem to have been properly reported anywhere. But if it was really what is claimed, it would be very big news, and you will not have long to wait before the rest of the world takes notice.

If you can't see that it is no surprise you can't wait to see if Rossi has something, but instead jump to conclusions and accuse him of fraud. Who is he robbing?

I am quite careful not to accuse people of fraud, even when the evidence points in that direction. Look at my past posts. Al i accuse Rossi of is making incorrect claims about his e-cat, and statements on his blog which are provably false (through self-contradiction).

2. Think you and your few fellow skeptics on this blog make up the whole world. Do you really think I am alone in finding it likely that Rossi has stumbled onto something?

No. There is a common aspect of human nature - we see patterns everywhere. Thus early myths provided explanations of the world before science.

The internet feeds into this by amplifying the unusual and suppressing the mundane. If somone does an LENR experiment with claimed unusual results that will be big news on the internet sites that follow LENR. It will be reported in a positive way and not subjected to the expert criticism needed to find out whether it is real or broken. Experiments with negative results will never be reported.

So it is not surprising we find internet groups believing almost anything. I think it is good that such diversity should flourish, but it does mean you can't take the fact that there are like-minded people out there has validation.

In fact you can't even take a democratic poll of US citizens (one example) as validation because that would put creationsim/ID ahead of evolutionary theory as an explanation for life. Crowd sourcing predictions may work for some areas of knowledge but I don't see it as good for for science.

As for why I'm not convinced by LENR. Very few LENR experiments get peer reviewed and published. Those that do are highly speculative and show interesting anomalies (which explains why they are published) but do not in any way validate LENR. The authors may suggest LENR as one explanation for the anomalies, but do not (in peer reviewed papers) seriously assert this, since there is no evidence for such assertion. The dots have never yet joined up. When I look through the results myself (peer reviewed or not) I find nothing that survives a careful examination. A very large number of "could be LENR or experimental error" results does not mean LENR is likely. Only the positive errors will get reported (as possible LENR) so you cannot average them and reckon this is smoke that implies a fire somewhere.

On one side of this you can claim the scientific estanblishment is blind to new ideas. It seems unlikely. There are many many bright young scientists open to new ideas and who with something new will make their careers. LENR (if it exists) is pretty easy to prove beyond shadow of doubt, and just one such proof will gain a "young Turk" a Nobel prize and guaranteed high-flying career.

In fact you can see this process stimulating the theoretical guys. Widom and Larsen would become very famous if their theory, or a close variant, proved correct. Certainly, as NASA guys have realised, it should be relatively easy to prove experimentally if it is correct. What happenned to that NASA experimental attempt to validate LENR? No positive result yet? You can be sure that we would hear any positives, but not that we would hear negatives.

So on the other side the absence of LENR proof, replicable and clear of experimental error, after 20 years of efforts, counts strongly against LENR.

Best wishes, Tom

[parallel]

tomclarke,

As I said, it is difficult for you to accept the possibility that the E-Cat works because you don't believe LENR is real. That is, unless you have changed your mind.

You HAVE accused Rossi of fraud in the past. Remember I objected to that?

You wrote that I was alone in thinking Rossi might have something. Your last verbose post attempts to backtrack that comment and fails.

[parallel]

toomclarke,
I suppose you don't find this convincing because it was not published in your favorite, dry journal?
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... tdemo.html

Quite a number of young Turks were present. Do you think they will get Nobel Prizes?

[tomclarke]

toomclarke,
I suppose you don't find this convincing because it was not published in your favorite, dry journal?
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... tdemo.html

Quite a number of young Turks were present. Do you think they will get Nobel Prizes?

Parallel,

I am sure you don't find it convincing. It is a summary which leaves out all the experimental details. These are crucial. The calorimetry used here (although it is not clearly described) is prone to error. Precise information about thermocouple position and differences between control and NANOR runs would be needed to see what are the uncontrolled variables that could lead to this result.

Although the figures look as though they are well beyond experimental error, that is because deltas are shown. The raw results are probably much less spectacular and could easily be generated by experimental issues. Unfortunately we do not know what experimental issues there are. Nor do we have the raw results. So it is not possible to evaluate this.

I certainly hope for a proper write-up of this experiment so we can see what it means. I'm not holding my breath however...

Tom

PS - I don't care about journal publication, except that I know (perhaps you do too) that to get publication in a decent journal usually requires a lot of work checking, cross-checking, writing things properly, making explicit any implict assumptions. All of which is easily seen in the quality of the paper. I'm happy to read free internet papers if of the same standard. I only get bored reading so many which are dissappointing. Of course, there are lousy peer-reviewed papers too, no system is perfect.

In fact there is a move afoot to ensure that all science publicly funded and done in the UK is published free on the internet. I welcome this.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

I agree most of the important details were missing from that summary. I have read more elsewhere.

My point was that the experiment ran for over a month and there were sufficient competent people there, probably many of the students too, to make it likely that LENR was demonstrated. I don't assume that the scientists there were lying. Neither do I assume the people who ran/watched Rossi's experiments were incompetent or lying.

Glad to read your comments on publications though. Otherwise the Wright Brothers would not have flown for decade after they actually did. Scientific American were sufficiently skeptical that they actually refused to publish a paper on it. Not much has changed.

[Ivy Matt]

4. a) You mentioned recently that a plant was being built that would be
open to the public. b) Is this plant going to be purchased by a customer
who has agreed to allow people to visit? c) Can you provide a rough time
when this might be open?
ONLY PEOPLE SELECTED BY US, IN DUE TIME WE WILL GIVE THIS INFORMATION

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/rossi ... questions/

Thanks. I suppose the fact that the answer is in all caps confirms that it is, in fact, Rossi's own words.

I certainly hope for a proper write-up of this experiment so we can see what it means. I'm not holding my breath however...

Well, supposedly Hagelstein is going to make a presentation on it at the LENR workshop going on in Italy this week, so maybe we'll see.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

I agree most of the important details were missing from that summary. I have read more elsewhere.

My point was that the experiment ran for over a month and there were sufficient competent people there, probably many of the students too, to make it likely that LENR was demonstrated. I don't assume that the scientists there were lying. Neither do I assume the people who ran/watched Rossi's experiments were incompetent or lying.

Glad to read your comments on publications though. Otherwise the Wright Brothers would not have flown for decade after they actually did. Scientific American were sufficiently skeptical that they actually refused to publish a paper on it. Not much has changed.

I think what will happen is that given all the details the results could mean what is stated, or there could be some experimental effect - e.g. different thermal characteristics between control and active thin-film samples. Now given there is no certainty, no-one can say it does not work. But equally it does not prove anything without much more careful checking. I await this with interest.

One of the characteristics of the calorimetry used is that consistent power misreadings over indefinite time can occur. Recalibration doe snot help this is if the source of the error is difference between control and active sample.

Nor do I think students taking a class on cold fusion are likely to spend a lot of time critiquing their professor's pet experiment?

[cgray45]

Yes, pathological SNAKES!

On a plane?