10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[CKay]

1) would need to be independent organisation doing the testing with reputation to lose, not paid research. Difficult.

2) would need to be a report which unambiguously verifies performance with no wiggle-room. For example, BLP will claim that Rowan reports demonstrate their stuff works but a) they do not, b) Rowan has no research reputation to lose and the academic doing the research has an uncomfortably close relationship with BLP.

3) is not a problem.

I would add similar caveats for 3) as for 2). The report should come from a relevant govt. department within a major democracy.

And I think I'd want a 4 month verification period from the time of publication.

[CKay]

Has Rossi any successes?

In terms of unambiguously demonstrating anomalous heat generation from an LENR device, nothing has changed since the first unsatisfactory demos.

Whether he has had any success in parting people from their money, only he, his cronies and any customers/marks can know.

[KitemanSA]

Simple questions for you, yes or no:
Is D+D=He "fusion"?
Is Ni+p=Cu "fusion"?

That is a simple question.

So why not answer them?

Unfortunately, they are both obviously not happening in either the Rossi or the P&F experiments.

Wow, All hail Crawdaddy the all knowing.

Since in the former case there would be large amounts of radioactive waste created

Say what? Preposterous. Too big a word? How bout "sillier than monkey sh!t".

and in the latter there would be a lethal flux of neutrons generated.

And this is even sillier than the last. Neutrons?

Both situations are much more complicated than your simple implied dichotomy. Fleischmann, one of the most accomplished electrochemists of his generation, was well aware of the problematic reaction mechanism and thus resisted the "Cold Fusion" name.

Good for him. So what?

You are free to continue to claim that the Pd and Ni systems work by entirely different mechanisms but that implies that there are two mechanisms by which nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature. A claim that is much less likely than a single mechanism common to both material systems.

Nice contention, but groundless. HOT Nuclear reaction happen though many mechanisms, why must "cold" be relegated to ONE?

Feel free to call the reaction whatever you want, Pons and Fleischmann won't mind, they're lives are already destroyed. I am sure Rossi (who cannot hold a candle to Fleischmann as a scientist) would have come up with his e-cat all by himself if they had never existed.

O...M...G!!! Plucking heart strings and sobs all around! By the way, what are you trying to say with this inanity?

[Crawdaddy]

[quote="KitemanSA"][/quote]

This exchange has become tiresome. I find you are a rude person.

We can re-engage in a discussion of the difference between the Pd and Ni systems when more information is available.

Until then.

[KitemanSA]

This exchange has become tiresome. I find you are a rude person.

When the situation calls for it. Ta.

[seedload]

Cold Fusion was not a name chosen by Pons and Fleischmann. It was hung around their necks. There is no difference between Cold Fusion and LENR.

Many people, including myself, would disagree with you. CF may be a subset of LENR but it is NOT equal to it.

This is like arguing whether Alchemy is actually Magic or is just a form of Magic.

[KitemanSA]

Cold Fusion was not a name chosen by Pons and Fleischmann. It was hung around their necks. There is no difference between Cold Fusion and LENR.

Many people, including myself, would disagree with you. CF may be a subset of LENR but it is NOT equal to it.

This is like arguing whether Alchemy is actually Magic or is just a form of Magic.

??? Your bias is showing.
More like whether chemistry is a subset of science or equals science.

CD seemed to be stating that "Chemistry is just another name for science" and anyone who attempts to distinguish between them has nefarious reasons.

However, given that the subject is still in its infancy, it MAY be similar to alchemists arguing whether alchemy is science or natural history!

[Crawdaddy]

CD seemed to be stating that "Chemistry is just another name for science" and anyone who attempts to distinguish between them has nefarious reasons.

You have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[KitemanSA]

CD seemed to be stating that "Chemistry is just another name for science" and anyone who attempts to distinguish between them has nefarious reasons.

You have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I tried to make sense of what you were trying to say and that is what I got. If that is not what you meant, say it clearer.

How bout just answering the simple questions I asked. At least then I would have a notion of what your definitions are.

[Joseph Chikva]

Has Rossi any successes?

In terms of unambiguously demonstrating anomalous heat generation from an LENR device, nothing has changed since the first unsatisfactory demos.

So, what is discussed about here in this thread?
Once upon a time Mr. Kiteman said that Rossi is not scientist and may be he confused temperature in K with C.
He has not answered on my question: "May be or not that he confused 750 W of power (power of electric heater) with 5kW (his claim that was not correspond to true)?”And I could not receive an answer. But received an offer to hing up if Rossi will provide any evidence in the future.
Till now entering here I am reading quite aggressive posts written by Kiteman.

[cg66]

Celani is presenting at WSEC 2012. A copy (draft?) of his abstract is here:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/anc ... 12_06.html

His presentation is titled "Progress in the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science"

http://www.uniseo.org/documents/WSECagenda_000.pdf

He indicates the transition from a positive temperature coefficient to a negative temperature coefficient of resistance caused by hydrogen loading is a key factor in anomalous heat production.

[Joseph Chikva]

Celani is presenting at WSEC 2012. A copy (draft?) of his abstract is here:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/anc ... 12_06.html

His presentation is titled "Progress in the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science"

http://www.uniseo.org/documents/WSECagenda_000.pdf

He indicates the transition from a positive temperature coefficient to a negative temperature coefficient of resistance caused by hydrogen loading is a key factor in anomalous heat production.

Before talking about mytical anomalous heat production please provide some numbers of condensed matter that is really achived. Then at the next stage please speak about coefficients either: positive or negative.
At least doesn't cause doubts the fact that Rossi's trousers are full of shit.
Or you don't agree that condensed matter is something very exotic? May be even more exotic than antimatter.

[cg66]

Before talking about mytical anomalous heat production please provide some numbers of condensed matter that is really achived. Then at the next stage please speak about coefficients either: positive or negative.

First off I was just reporting what some other researchers are looking at. You want to scratch your itch on whether the effect is real or not there are plenty of papers on the lern-cern.org website – knock yourself out. Secondly your statement is ridiculous. If the phenomenon is difficult to reproduce and control, discovering some measureable tunable physical parameter that is key to reproducing the phenomenon is critical.

At least doesn't cause doubts the fact that Rossi's trousers are full of shit.
Or you don't agree that condensed matter is something very exotic? May be even more exotic than antimatter.

I, like many here, want academic verification and I tend to ignore Rossi’s babbling and focus on what other researchers (like Celani) are doing. I’ll leave you to worry about the content of Rossi’s shorts.

[seedload]

Many people, including myself, would disagree with you. CF may be a subset of LENR but it is NOT equal to it.

This is like arguing whether Alchemy is actually Magic or is just a form of Magic.

??? Your bias is showing.

Of course my bias is showing. That was the obvious intent.

A more subtle theme to my post was to again point out how much you love to argue on the basis of semantics, faining a lack of comprehension based on a trumped up specific definition of phrasing in a feeble attempt to avoid the actual intention of the OP.

It is your specialty, probably an artifact of your days in high school debate club. Did you guys have a Latin name for that tactic?

Question is, are you a great intellectual debater or just someone who it is a pain in the ass to try to talk to?

[Joseph Chikva]

I, like many here, want academic verification and I tend to ignore Rossi’s babbling and focus on what other researchers (like Celani) are doing.

I am afraid that you are babbling too about "verification" of non discovered phenomenon.
All truly believing Christians wait for the Second Coming while Jews wait for only the First. And whether there was a Coming? Who knows? Who saw? And whether that will be in the future?
Good luck.