10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[ScottL]

Man-made global warming is much bigger scam. It would be difficult to go as far on the money in Rossi's approach without showing a working device.

We have now discussed hundreds of pages about this based on pure speculation. Independent verification is needed but Rossi gives just demos. Because E-cat is not as visual as a flying machine, observers can't be sure that it is real (or not).

Independence means that we can trust the measurement setup and devices. There should be no question whether tap water is tap water or whether you get 220 V from the socket or that the steam is dry. Trying to see from a video whether the steam output is 1,9 g/s or 0,3 g/s plus some water is something that I prefer not to do. Someone whom I trust must measure it.

He could try ....iono....giving them (e-cat) out to several academic institutions for a start with some instructions and let them try to reproduce the effects. This is generally considered the method for confirmation....published reproducible results.....but he won't, most likely because he can't and he knows it.

[TallDave]

Science is a process by which we establish truth. Whether or not someone else's behavior is scientific is irrelevant to whether we attempt to process their behavior scientifically.

I believe his contract calls for Rossi to be paid only after proof the system is actually working, so if Rossi is a fraud he is either an exceedingly clever fraud, or an exceedingly stupid one.

I remain intrigued, but skeptical. Have we identified the date by which Rossi's customer would say "Yes this is working" or "No it is not working?" While I wouldn't invest, I am sufficiently interested to mark my calendar...

[Ivy Matt]

If a new claim appears out of the blue that will add to our understanding of nature, a wait-and-see attitude is best until the claim can be corroborated by independent replication. If, however, a new claim appears out of the blue that will change our understanding of nature (based on past experiment and theory), the default position should be "not proven until proven". Our previous understanding of nature has to be shown to be either wrong or incomplete. Of course, the problem here is that different people have had different understandings of this specific area of nature since at least 1989. If problems with the physics don't bother you about Rossi's claims, the only thing you will find unusual about them is the magnitude of the claimed effect. I don't see a terribly vast difference (especially in practical terms) between either a "wait-and-see" attitude or a "not-proven-yet" attitude, but there seems to be a great deal of heated discussion generated between those who claim to hold the two attitudes.

[seedload]

and, the certainty that investors don't part with millions of dollars without doing some homework - amongst other things.

Now that is truly funny.

[Ivy Matt]

if Rossi is a fraud he is either an exceedingly clever fraud, or an exceedingly stupid one.

The thought has occurred to me that Rossi may not be a fraud—that is, that if this is a fraud, he may not be the fraud. Cui bono?

Of course, this is all just idle speculation with no secure grounding in reality, but what else is there to do these days?

[AcesHigh]

if its a scam, can Rossi escape the fury of the spartans?

[sparkyy0007]

Of course, this is all just idle speculation with no secure grounding in reality, but what else is there to do these days?

How about getting off your lazy duff, buy some nickle powder and get us some real results!!

[parallel]

and, the certainty that investors don't part with millions of dollars without doing some homework - amongst other things.

Now that is truly funny.

I'm not talking about lame investors who are conned out of a few hundred dollars.
When someone invests tens of millions of dollars they do research it. They wouldn't have that much money if they were stupid. If you don't understand that you know very little about how the world works.

[Enginerd]

I'm not talking about lame investors who are conned out of a few hundred dollars.
When someone invests tens of millions of dollars they do research it. They wouldn't have that much money if they were stupid. If you don't understand that you know very little about how the world works.

"A fool and his money are soon parted"
-popular proverb

"There's a sucker born every minute"
-credited P. T. Barnum

How much money one has does not necessarily indicate investment wisdom.

[TallDave]

When someone invests tens of millions of dollars they do research it.

Yes, but often not very effectively.

For instance, the "exciting new method of data compression!" folks are a bit a of a running joke in VC circles, as the mathematical limits have been known for a while, but every couple years another pops up with a seven figure funding and eventually fails to prototype a working device... but they still get funded, over and over.

And then there's Black Light Power...

[parallel]

TallDave,

Yeah, I know of several schemes where you wonder how the investors could have been so lame, particularly Ponzi schemes, but they are the exceptions to the rule.

The difference here is that it all hinges on whether a device actually works and there are samples for the investors to test. IF the 200 million Euros and nine investor figures are correct, that is probably the strongest proof the E-Cat is real.

[seedload]

You just look for negative things to reinforce your near religious belief and don't even consider the positive things. You didn't mention even one! That is what makes you a pathological skeptic.

I am not pathological because pathological implies a pattern of disbelief. I think Rossi is a scam. That is my belief - IN THIS CASE. I don't believe everyone is a scam. Heck, I don't even think that LENR in general is a scam. There may be something real to LENR reactions or there may just be a conglomeration of mistaken/hopeful results. I don't know.

[seedload]

if its a scam, can Rossi escape the fury of the spartans?

I suspect that the secret sauce production will go awry at some point, that the cause will be unknown, and that they will be continuously close to figuring out how to make the stuff consistently again. It will be impossible to prove whether the stuff actually worked in the first place. I will be impossible to prove fraud.

FYI, Defkalion is not producing the secret sauce. The secret sauce is going to be produced by a second company. Therefore, it will be hard to get money back from Defkalion in a claim of fraud if they aren't the ones who are f'ing everything up.

The secret sauce makers are Praxen DefkalionGreen Technologies (Global) Ltd.. Who owns that? I am not sure. But, since the secret sauce will be claimed to be a trade secret and IT of Praven, I wonder how easy it will be to go after Praxen to get money from Defkalion when the sauce is Praxen's trade secret and Defkalion, where the money was originally invested, wasn't even a part of producing the secret sauce in the first place.

MHO is that this is all being set up to make it hard to get Rossi or anyone else for that matter.

[93143]

Okay, first off, I am not talking about the Rossi reactor. I haven't been following this issue closely enough to have an opinion on the Rossi reactor. I'm talking about the philosophy of science.

I am certainly entitled to express my f'ing opinion on whether something is likely or not based on my examination of it! If I suspect fraud, then it is not only warranted for me to declare so, it is moral to do so. Unless you think letting people get fleeced is moral. I don't.

I haven't been following the thread closely enough to be certain I'm criticizing you for something you actually did, rather than something you were accused of and sounded like you were defending. If I have implied a false accusation, I apologize.

But my point stands, since it is a general statement. What I'm saying is that you don't get to declare something a fraud until sufficiently conclusive evidence exists that it is. You may certainly express your opinion that it is likely to be a fraud (which is all you did in your most recent posts), but if you are intellectually honest you must admit the possibility that it isn't.

The original statement I objected to was this:

There are far too many ridiculous claims in the world to adopt a wait and see attitude to all of them.

This is a general statement, and it seems to imply an unscientific radical skepticism.

We are humans. We make judgments based on incomplete information all the time. Some are better at it. Some are worse. But, it is what we do. Science is supposed to be designed to take the human factor out of making these judgments. It is obviously deficient at this in many areas. But, in the total absence of science, then we are back to making human judgments based on incomplete information.

I can agree with the general thrust and intent of your statement, despite the apparent misunderstanding of "science" (which is really just "making human judgments based on incomplete information" coupled with an attempt to reduce the incompleteness of the information - Rossi's behaviour to date may be frustrating to observers (as is EMC2's, perhaps for different reasons), but you and chrismb remind me of sedevacantists the way you go on about peer review and restrictive definitions of the word "experiment", as if the appearance of science is more important than the substance...).

In this case, I have incomplete information that leads me to think this is a fraud and I will say as much, TYVM.

I have never denied you that right. All I said was that you don't get to express certainty that it is a fraud until such is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It strikes me that Ivy Matt is basically correct. Evidence for a mutually-exclusive alternative certainly counts as evidence against a proposition - ie: if existing physics says it can't happen, then odds are it can't. Lack of support in existing physics does not - ie: if the claim is enough of an edge case that the existing knowledge base merely doesn't support it, this does not imply that the proposition is wrong - though it does at least constitute a lack of evidence for said proposition, and there's no need to get emotionally (or financially) invested in it until some shows up. But the difference between "wait and see" and "not proven yet" is semantic. What I object to is the radical-skeptical position of "false until proven", which is simply bad philosophy, and which I have encountered from time to time.

[There does appear to be some evidence for Rossi's device, but it appears to me that from the limited perspective of the general public it is not conclusive. I will go no further than that.]

[parallel]

It's not clear, but it looks like Praxen DefkalionGreen Technologies (Global) Ltd. based in Cyprus, is the parent company of Defkalion Green Technologies.
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White_Paper_DGT.pdf

I wonder what the attraction of Cyprus is.