There seems little that is new in the last many pages of this blog. chrismb, Giorgio and seedload make some outrageous statement, then are called on it, and this is followed by pages of desperate parsing.
It would be easier to judge their biases if those three people would clearly state for the record what they feel is the percentage likelihood of the E-Cat being real.
I had already answered why Rossi didn't want to do a public demo before Giorgio brought it up again,
I earlier linked to some cold fusion experiments that had been written up and in some cases confirmed. As far as descriptions never being available to replicate the experiments I point again to Blacklight Power and Rowan. Complete specs are available and Rowan even said they would help anyone interested in doing a replication. Giorgio then took offense at me asking if Bologna U. being paid (like Rowan) would negate their reports.
There are reports of other test runs besides the three discussed here. Pretty obviously the investors in Defkalion and Ampenergo have seen test runs and there is circumstantial evidence that DOE and other government departments have been involved already. Why else would NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell make the positive statement about Rossi that he did? The cumulative evidence makes me give the E-Cat an 80% chance of being real.
Idiotic questions are posed about why Rossi hasn't applied for patents when he has, Some still can't understand why Rossi doesn't give his trade secrets away free. Of course the research he pays Bologna to do will be confidential. He has already stated it is not to confirm the E-Cat works (duh) but to help develop the next generation of them. Probably larger more stable versions, working at higher temperatures and pressures.
chrismb can't resist throwing darts at me because in his view one has to "contribute to the discussion of the Polywell" before posting anywhere on this blog. chrismb wrote "Why this forum tolerates people whose only purpose here is to talk about COLD FUSION B*LL*CKS is just one of those things I guess I will never learn."
As far as debating Polywell goes, I joined to follow its progress. I don't think some of Art Carlson's criticisms have been shot down. Dubious assumptions of quasi-neutrality, cross field transport, cusp losses and inability to maintain non-maxwellian distribution functions due to two stream instabilities, etc.
I don't have anything useful to say about that and believe experimentation is the best way to find the answers. Particularly the critical question of how it will scale up. That is why I went after the report to the Navy and tried to get them funding. I don't think chrismb's posts were quite as invaluable to Polywell's survival as he believes.
His "COLD FUSION B*LL*CKS" indicates to me what he thinks and Hank Mills writes there is a smell of the scientific establishment trying extricate themselves from denying cold fusion for 20 years here:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold ... ASA_Chief/
I am still here because I want to follow the progress of the E-Cat. Reading speculation why it is all a fraud doesn't add anything useful. There probably won't be much new news for months.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Please re-state them. I am not aware of anything I have said that is unsubstantiated/unjustified, though some seem to have been misinterpreted.parallel wrote:There seems little that is new in the last many pages of this blog. chrismb, Giorgio and seedload make some outrageous statement,
You really just simply absolutely and categorically do not get the plot, do you!? We have said nothing against 'LENR', what we've had a go at is the bizarre and incomprehensible way Rossi has gone about his demonstrations, and likewise the bizarre and incomprehensible comments that have consequently arisen here.It would be easier to judge their biases if those three people would clearly state for the record what they feel is the percentage likelihood of the E-Cat being real.
We've not touched on the subject of 'likelihood of being real' at all. Not even got to that point yet. Still trying to wade our way through all the chin-high shyte to get to a single, concrete fact. Just one totally assured piece of physical information. ANYTHING AT ALL would be a good start!!!!
How many times must it be pointed out to you that your statement (bolded above) IS NOT TRUE!!! It is the most tightly boundD Tibbets wrote: How many times do you need to read that Ni62 is the most highly bound nucleus? How many times do you need to have it pointed out that the binding energy trends reverse at Ni62, as is clear from the graph.
***PER NUCLEON***!!!
MORE NUCLEONS + MORE BINDING ENERGY!!! Uranium has a hell of a lot more binding energy than Ni.
My god, man. Get with it!
Right. Its contribution as far as relavent is IN THE VALUE. Thus , if you use the values, you have taken the effect into acount. you don't have to do it again. Any other contribution is irrelavent.D Tibbets wrote: You used the Semi- emperical mass formula as an explanation of what is occurring with nuclear binding energy, and claimed that electromagnetic (Coulomb) considerations were irrelevant. I gave a quote and the link (do you wish others?) where the contribution of Coulomb repulsion to the total binding energy is quantified.
chrismb
Nothing in the three test runs amounted to anything? Really?
Edit. Left out quotation marks
How long will it take before sitting on the fence becomes uncomfortable?We've not touched on the subject of 'likelihood of being real' at all. Not even got to that point yet. Still trying to wade our way through all the chin-high shyte to get to a single, concrete fact. Just one totally assured piece of physical information. ANYTHING AT ALL would be a good start!!!!
Nothing in the three test runs amounted to anything? Really?
Edit. Left out quotation marks
Yup.parallel wrote:Nothing in the three test runs amounted to anything? Really?
Calculating a flow rate by a flow into a bucket, and then, thereafter, plumbing it into a flow restriction doesn't seem to be an ideal way of calibrating a system!! The flowrate thereafter will depend on the head of pressure of the water, the pressure drop across the apparatus, thermal dependency of that pressure drop, maybe even the composition of this water. No monitoring of the water temperature going in, &c...
As the 'power output' measurements were totally dependent on this way of measuring it, and because the 'power output' was only some 4-5 times more than the power input (but there again, later we find there were two heaters whereas before only one was dislosed, so who the hell knows the 'energy multiplier' supposedly involved here), this all adds up to margins that - as you say - don't amount to anything.
... and all of this being hearsay from 3rd parties to boot! If this was something which Rossi wants people beyond the demonstration to consider legitimate, why doesn't he publish his own account of it?
Remember also, this is an experiment by a man who has a 'blog' to which he selects the questions he wants to answer. My question - why doesn't he heat up the kit first, before adding hydrogen [and if there is residual H in there, then wait until the 'power' subsides] - this question was rejected. Why?
chrismb,
Well, come on then. What do you state for the record as the chances of the E-Cat being real?
From wiki.
Well, come on then. What do you state for the record as the chances of the E-Cat being real?
From wiki.
Do you think Levi is totally incompetent or a liar?Bologna, February 2011 test
Another test, lasting 18 hours, was performed in Bologna, from February 10-11, 2011, by Levi and Rossi, and was not public.[18]
According to Levi, the process was 'ignited' by 1,250 watts for five to ten minutes, and power was then reduced to 80 watts (for the control electronics). Cooling was supplied by tap water and flow volume was monitored.
As reported by Ny Teknik, "Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts."
Levi calculated consumption of hydrogen at 0.4 grams. “In my opinion, all chemical sources are now excluded,” he told Ny Teknik.
Again with this 'crazy' way of looking at something. The chances are either 0 or 100%. Why do I need to make an a priori guess!?parallel wrote:chrismb,
Well, come on then. What do you state for the record as the chances of the E-Cat being real?
If you were to come to me with a dollar and say "If this turns out to be false, I give you the dollar, if it turns out to be true then you give me $1 million" then even though I think such a bet might look favourable I couldn't take it, because
a) I don't have $1M to bet with, and
b) I do not believe there is ANY outcome that you would consider to have proved it false. This thread could still be running in 200 years time and your great great grandchild is arguing with mine about the work that Rossi's great great grandchild has been pursing (because his GGGdaddy never got 'accepted' in his lifetime) and your GGGchild STILL wouldn't accept that it doesn't work.
Last edited by chrismb on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll give Rossi a 15% chance of being real. What he has done is given 3 demonstrations of a black-box as it were and then said "Tada!" Unfortunately magicians can do the same and without complete empirical evidence, all we have is that tada statement.
Here is what we have:
1. Rossi's claim
2. 3 inconclusive at best demonstrations
3. Lack of theory
4. Lack of evidence said device did what was claimed.
If I told you the Earth's core was full of chocolate, you'd probably dismiss my claim. If I went into a cave and walked out with a handful of chocolate, you'd probably still dismiss my claim or at least I'd hope so. This is exactly what Rossi has done. He has made a claim (earth chocolate), ran a black box that's warmer (cave chocolate), and now you believe him.
Here is what we have:
1. Rossi's claim
2. 3 inconclusive at best demonstrations
3. Lack of theory
4. Lack of evidence said device did what was claimed.
If I told you the Earth's core was full of chocolate, you'd probably dismiss my claim. If I went into a cave and walked out with a handful of chocolate, you'd probably still dismiss my claim or at least I'd hope so. This is exactly what Rossi has done. He has made a claim (earth chocolate), ran a black box that's warmer (cave chocolate), and now you believe him.
...and you stil give it 15%!!ScottL wrote:If I told you the Earth's core was full of chocolate, you'd probably dismiss my claim. If I went into a cave and walked out with a handful of chocolate, you'd probably still dismiss my claim or at least I'd hope so. This is exactly what Rossi has done. He has made a claim (earth chocolate), ran a black box that's warmer (cave chocolate), and now you believe him.
