10KW LENR Demonstrator?

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:57 pm

Kite wrote:I wouldn't go so far as to say LIKELY, but not impossible.
Uninspiring
<<He has a history of overblown claims.>> True!
Doesn't inspire lots of trust
He MAY be deluded
I will grant you his ego may be bigger than his ability.
Doesn't obviate the potential for invention.
Nor is it impossible that the demo was run at a much lower power than normal

Hmm.... why do you deride people who don't believe so much given your own hedging.

Previously, you asked others for a percentage chance of this being real. What is your percentage? For the record.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:01 pm

Kite wrote:As far as I can tell, he has claimed technologies, not miracles. As to likelyhood, I wouldn't go so far as to say LIKELY, but not impossible.

Kite wrote:IF this thing works as implied in the video he is getting 6.6 TIMES as much energy out as in. That is a flippin miracle.

Funny. Now, you only need to admit one more miracle

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:17 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Then he wrote: Do you find the fact that Leonardo Corporation, a 14 year old company, does not seem to exist in any real sense odd? (ie, web site phone number bogus, web site address bogus, web site advertised product non-existent, web search presence invisible, no apparent factory).
Actually, no. Many SMALL "engineering firms" consist of a desk in a house. Most "factories" of small engineering firms consist of job shops, not in house manufacturies. As to the lack of...phone... link please?

Not the lack of a phone, but the wrong phone number.

http://leonardocorp1996.com/

Call the number.

If you are interested in providing/getting facts, please help me in my search for a single bit of evidence of the existence of something called an ION Genset anywhere in the world other than on his own web site(s).

You see, to me it is not just that Leonardo Corp. appears impotent, it is that the web site provides evidence of claims of being able to produce large scale things from completely inadequate facilities with no evidence of these 'things' even existing. The web site is evidence of a pattern of deception, IMHO, which is otherwise evidenced by additional failed claims.

You are correct, I am not talking facts exactly, more circumstancial evidence, which puts people in jail in other contexts.

I wonder why you continue to challenge others for "facts" while you present none of your own. News flash. There are no facts. Just a ever growing list of improbabilities that when multiplied together create an overall chance that this is real that approaches zero (my opinion). That is my position and I strongly feel that it is not one that you should so easily dismiss or determine to be ignorant.

regards

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:39 pm

Seedload

Not the lack of a phone, but the wrong phone number.

this article will answer your question.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 179019.ece

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:13 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:Seedload

Not the lack of a phone, but the wrong phone number.
this article will answer your question.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 179019.ece

I didn't ask a question. Ampenergo does not explain anything.

Actually, it makes me all the more suspicious.

Leonardo Corp. is in charge of production. It is impotent (supported opinion). Leonardo Technologies Inc. is supposed to be involved in some way that I don't understand. Rossi says they are. Leonardo Corps website lists an address that is actually Leonardo Tech Incs. address. Ampernergo is formed to gather up the money and is founded by Leonardo Tech Incs people. EON is the 'factory' where Rossi claims that an ECAT is running right now. EON Gensets don't seem to exist but Leonardo Corp sells them in the US according to their web site. Meanwhile there is Defkalion Green Technologies which is Greek and it is supposed to be a doing European production, but wasn't good enough to use for the first 1MW plant production. Instead he used Leonardo Corp in the US for an inexplicable reason (what factory? Why build in the US for Europe?). Have you seen Defkalions website? Sheesh. I think I left out another investment arm of the little empire.

Tell me why there are so many companies, please!

I think I know why.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:31 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Jeez! Any other fusion project would KILL for a Q=6.6!!!
You are mixing apples with oranges.
Look. I don't care if I am mixing apples and aardvaarks. IF this thing works as implied in the video he is getting 6.6 TIMES as much energy out as in. That is a flippin miracle. All prior LENR systems were in the Q<.1 arena. IF this thing works it is a game changer. Seeing folks here disparage it because it is "only" 6.6 is just amazing.

If my grandmother would have something she'll become grandfather.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:42 pm

seedload wrote: Hmm.... why do you deride people who don't believe so much given your own hedging.

I "deride" the "all knowing" (Axil?) and those who make decisions before their time without real data; especially the latter who use spurious arguments to bolster their "decision". I don't recall ever deriding (other than perhaps in jest) anyone who made statements of their OPINION when it was labeled such.
Can you detect the distnction between
"Its a scam because non-fact 1, non- fact 2..."
"I suspect it is a scam because non-fact 1, non- fact 2..."? One I deride and argue the non-fact. The other I just argue the non-fact!

Then he wrote: Previously, you asked others for a percentage chance of this being real. What is your percentage? For the record.

I voted "plausible".
As I have stated several times, I believe it can be one of 3 things, a scam, a delusion, or a reality. I can figure several ways for it to be each, so I just don't know.

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:43 pm

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Then he wrote: Do you find the fact that Leonardo Corporation, a 14 year old company, does not seem to exist in any real sense odd? (ie, web site phone number bogus, web site address bogus, web site advertised product non-existent, web search presence invisible, no apparent factory).
Actually, no. Many SMALL "engineering firms" consist of a desk in a house. Most "factories" of small engineering firms consist of job shops, not in house manufacturies. As to the lack of...phone... link please?
Not the lack of a phone, but the wrong phone number.

http://leonardocorp1996.com/

Call the number.

If you are interested in providing/getting facts, please help me in my search for a single bit of evidence of the existence of something called an ION Genset anywhere in the world other than on his own web site(s).

You see, to me it is not just that Leonardo Corp. appears impotent, it is that the web site provides evidence of claims of being able to produce large scale things from completely inadequate facilities with no evidence of these 'things' even existing. The web site is evidence of a pattern of deception, IMHO, which is otherwise evidenced by additional failed claims.

You are correct, I am not talking facts exactly, more circumstancial evidence, which puts people in jail in other contexts.

I wonder why you continue to challenge others for "facts" while you present none of your own. News flash. There are no facts. Just a ever growing list of improbabilities that when multiplied together create an overall chance that this is real that approaches zero (my opinion). That is my position and I strongly feel that it is not one that you should so easily dismiss or determine to be ignorant.

regards

Or has Hitchens put it more concisely:
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:58 pm

Chris.

Right, but intention or ingenuity isn't my point, the order of observation and theory is. Kepler didn't wake up one morning, tabula rasa, with a theory of motion, then later find to his delight that Tycho Brahe had recorded a stack of observations that happened to support his theory. And of course Galileo's theory that he was observing Jovian satellites was the result of an observation that these "stars" (as he initially thought them to be) behaved unusually (and that observation, later confirmed by Clavius, began the process of overturning Aristotelian geocentrism for good).

That's why I hold out some hope for the likes of Prins, Woodward, Rossi, etc. -- they have observed things standard theory has difficulty explaining. Now it may turn out, as with the Pioneer anomaly, that their observations will turn out not to have consequences for theory for any of a variety of reasons, but such observations are generally how we get new theories.

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:07 pm

TallDave wrote:Chris.

Right, but intention or ingenuity isn't my point, the order of observation and theory is. Kepler didn't wake up one morning, tabula rasa, with a theory of motion, then later find to his delight that Tycho Brahe had recorded a stack of observations that happened to support his theory. And of course Galileo's theory that he was observing Jovian satellites was the result of an observation that these "stars" (as he initially thought them to be) behaved unusually.

That's why I hold out some hope for the likes of Prins, Woodward, Rossi, etc. -- they have observed things standard theory has difficulty explaining. Now it may turn out, as with the Pioneer anomaly, that their observations will turn out not to have consequences for theory for any of a variety of reasons, but such observations are generally how we get new theories.

I think you meant to say the following:
"They have observed things that current measurements have difficulty explaining."

The distinction is extremely important. Until multiple people can accurately confirm measurements of data that theory has trouble with, the problem is not theory but experiment. Otherwise ever redneck with delusions of grandeur gets to badly measure the in/out of his air conditioner and declare he's observed results modern theory can't explain.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:09 pm

bcglof --Measurements don't make predictions or explanations, theories do. Measurements just are.

Though I agree of course that measurements must be confirmed and replicated.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:17 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
sparkyy0007 wrote:Some observations on the Rossi demonstration video released by Kervit.
Reasonably good video quality.
...
Another 10% insulation loss from the reactor leaves 4kW - 0.4kW - 0.4kw - 598W = 2602W for steam generation.
IF the 7kg/hr was converted to dry steam at 100C, the power out was ~5kW according to Giorgio.. I calculated 4.99 so I guess we did the same calc.

I agree with your and Giorgio's calc however, I was calculating the absolute minimum enthalpy we should see at the output of the hose taking into account worse case system heat losses. The video indicates less than 1m/s steam velocity. The steam cannot be not superheated, even if 100% dry at the boiler (which is impossible).
My point is (in this demonstration anyway) considerably less than 2000W of energy is exiting the hose as steam.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:37 pm

seedload wrote: You are correct, I am not talking facts exactly, more circumstancial evidence, which puts people in jail in other contexts.

I wonder why you continue to challenge others for "facts" while you present none of your own.

I don't have any nor have I ever claimed to. Nor have I made decisions based on my lack of data.

Then he wrote:News flash. There are no facts.

Then why do you seem insistant on deciding? There are those who jump to a conclusion and then search for "facts" to support the decision (you?). There are those who let the facts lead them to a conclusion (me).

Then he wrote:Just a ever growing list of improbabilities that when multiplied together create an overall chance that this is real that approaches zero (my opinion).

Again, "probabilities" imply data not at hand. I guess you might say there is a low probability, but your confidence level on that statement HAS to be zero. And if there is zero confidence in a statement, why state it? (I am talking STATISTICAL confidence, not how warm and fuzzy you FEEL about the topic).

Then he wrote: That is my position and I strongly feel that it is not one that you should so easily dismiss

Your opinion is your opinion and no better than anyone elses. I am sorry if not being special upsets you. It truly is nothing personal!

Then he wrote: or determine to be ignorant.

But you JUST STATED that you have no data. You ARE ignorant. So am I. So is everyone on this forum, I would guess. Don't feel HURT by it. Do something about it, or accept your ignorance. MSimon seems to revell in his!

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:39 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: Hmm.... why do you deride people who don't believe so much given your own hedging.
I "deride" the "all knowing" (Axil?) and those who make decisions before their time without real data; especially the latter who use spurious arguments to bolster their "decision". I don't recall ever deriding (other than perhaps in jest) anyone who made statements of their OPINION when it was labeled such.
Can you detect the distnction between
"Its a scam because non-fact 1, non- fact 2..."
"I suspect it is a scam because non-fact 1, non- fact 2..."? One I deride and argue the non-fact. The other I just argue the non-fact!
Then he wrote: Previously, you asked others for a percentage chance of this being real. What is your percentage? For the record.
I voted "plausible".
As I have stated several times, I believe it can be one of 3 things, a scam, a delusion, or a reality. I can figure several ways for it to be each, so I just don't know.

There are no facts. Therefore, you would do better to just assume that everyone is stating their opinion rather that demanding particular phrasing. (OPINION)

What I say is my opinion. (FACT)

Life is full of making decisions in the absence of "real data". We call this experience. I am just commenting on the things that I see that are feeding my experience to lead me to the conclusion that this is likely a scam. I see others doing the same thing with potentially other conclusions. We are all looking for other evidence to guide our experience. Our conclusions may change or they may not. We are just talking here. (OPINION)

Your demand for 'facts' is silly given this obvious context. (OPINION)

Being technical about what are facts and what are opinions is just absurd given what "real data" we actually have. (OPINION)

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:42 pm

Seedload

Tell me why there are so many companies, please!

I think I know why.

So you knew of Leonardo corp's close association with LTI and Rossi's personal involvement with LTI before you made vague posts about Leonardo Corp. being a scam?

If leonardo corp is a scam then LTI is a scam and so are it's directors one of whom is the former secretary of renewable energy under Bill Clinton.

Why not post all the information you've found instead of just the information that supports what you "know"? I find your post opinionated and deceitful.