10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[tomclarke]

I on the other hand have made NO claims. I have no certainty on the issue. This seems to be the logical state to be at this point in time. To me, lack of data in either direction should result in lack of certainty.

Almost everything in science is logically uncertain, because science is inductive, and can never be 100% proved. But very little is completely uncertain.

A lot in science can be judged highly improbable/improbable without having the level of near certainty that say QED has. LENR not due to nuclear reactions comes under that category. That is a judgement, not a religious belief.

Given that background, Rossi's statements and demo's have less than neutral credibility. In other words however likely LENR is, Rossi LENR is a bit less likely. That is a judgement, not a religious belief.

When people say: "I'm sure the Rossi device does not work", they probably mean "I think the likelihood of its working is vanishingly small".

It is religious faith to believe something about which there is no evidence.

In this case there is lots of evidence, just no absolute certainty.

[KitemanSA]

As you say, we won't agree.

Just a note on the "unambiguous detected" theme.

If you look at the LENR conference talks you find, in spite of many conscientious individuals, a distinct lack of experimental care.

Really? What I see is usually a lack of money.

What would happen if a competent mainstream scientist discovered something weird? Like the > c neutrinos?

Would they suppress or ignore the result? No, they would be excited. They would check and cross-check for possible errors, and perform more measurements to tie things down. Only then would they throw the experiment open to others to disprove, with enough data to make this worthwhile.

Sounds like P&F were trying to do before they were outed. And you know how they were treated when they were.

Because the data was so carefully analysed, the experiment carefully described, the obvious problems nailed, it would present a challenge for everyone else. (As the neutrinos do). Fairly quickly (I guess < 1 year for neutrinos) there would be a resolution.

And how many millions if not billions will be spent doing all this? Further, to what extent are these scientists facing a barrage of people saying "neutrinos are noncense and should never be discussed or published"? No bucks sucks.

That is the standard of work needed to make progress when experimentation is difficult, as is calorimetry.

I would call the neutrino measurements unambiguous. They are still probably wrong: but they are the quality that is needed to challenge expectations. And this has nothing to do with the receiver of the information.

And the measurers are being paid big bucks and running HUGELY espensive data collection devices (all paid from the tax payers purse). Is it any wonder they can take huge pains?

Anything less, and the strong probability is that the experiment is wrong.

Which experiment are we talking about here, some of the CERN work or Piantelli or P&F? I hope you are not foolish enough to list Rossi's stunts as experiments.

Let me qualify that. Suppose LENR is rubbish. We expect some fraction (say 10%) of experiments to give anomalous results which appear to support it. We expect that with great care the errors in these can be discovered - without great care they will remain question marks. We expect that since this care require lots of time, money and high quality people it will not often be applied. Of course good mainstream scientists will be excited, apply the necessary care, but not publish because they identify the errors

In which case they are NOT really acting properly as scientists. PUBLISH those results, ALL the results, ambiguity or none.

People like you & parallel etc look at the large number of experiments with anomalous results and think: Ahah! Any one of these experiments wrong is say 90% chance. But there are 50 experiments. Chances of them all being wrong are 0.9^50 = 0.5% So LENR is 99.5% proved!

You obviously missread my words. I have no certainly either way on LERN. I am developing an ever increasing mistrust of Rossi. As I stated elsewhere, if his process is as good as claimed, he SHOULD be able to do an unambiguous demo. I recognize that there are certain business reasons not to, but still...

Further, there will be an idea that because good mainstream scientists do not do this stuff somehow they are suppressing things.

No, when scientists give press conferences stating things they can NOT know about using the prestige of their institution to give weight to their spewings, THAT I call suppression. When people misquote the results of studies to maintain a position of opposition, THAT I call suppression. When scientists DON"T publish their findings at all, THAT I call suppression. The fact that a scientist is disinterested in the subject and does nothing related to it is human nature.

I will leave it to you to identify the flaw in this reasoning, which is profoundly human and affects many.

TA DAA

Difficult experiments give anomalous results most of the time, until all the errors have been nailed. The LENR people (mostly) just don't bother to nail down all errors. When they do this, the results go away or become explicable chemically.

Perhaps you have had time to look at all the experiments and tracked them all down to a final conclusion that is agreed to be as you state. Somehow, I doubt it. Thus, I suspect what is more likely is that you read a study where some "scientist" made that claim, provided one or two situations where it seemed to him to be that way, and you have been convinced. I have not been convinced either way.

And because calorimetry is specialised, and the errors can be weird and complex, popular presentations of their work appear convincing. Even decent scientists not specialising in calorimetry can fail to see sources of error, and (if they lack proper caution) be convinced.

All true, which is one reason I an not yet convinced.

[tomclarke]

What would happen if a competent mainstream scientist discovered something weird? Like the > c neutrinos?

Would they suppress or ignore the result? No, they would be excited. They would check and cross-check for possible errors, and perform more measurements to tie things down. Only then would they throw the experiment open to others to disprove, with enough data to make this worthwhile.

Sounds like P&F were trying to do before they were outed. And you know how they were treated when they were.

No, P&F gave a press conference before they had even published! the neutrino people held of publishing to strengthen the paper when it finally appeared. No press info until a decent paper was out there putting the facts on the table.

Because the data was so carefully analysed, the experiment carefully described, the obvious problems nailed, it would present a challenge for everyone else. (As the neutrinos do). Fairly quickly (I guess < 1 year for neutrinos) there would be a resolution.

And how many millions if not billions will be spent doing all this? Further, to what extent are these scientists facing a barrage of people saying "neutrinos are noncense and should never be discussed or published"? No bucks sucks.

The neutrino people had respectable scientists saying things like "it is probably not true but this is a beautiful paper". And many scientists since then have been looking at the paper trying to find loopholes with no money needed.

That is the standard of work needed to make progress when experimentation is difficult, as is calorimetry.

I would call the neutrino measurements unambiguous. They are still probably wrong: but they are the quality that is needed to challenge expectations. And this has nothing to do with the receiver of the information.

And the measurers are being paid big bucks and running HUGELY espensive data collection devices (all paid from the tax payers purse). Is it any wonder they can take huge pains?

No, but that is not relevant to the argument. The work needed to make LENR measurements better does not require lots of money, just lots of care & time from a good experimenter. The most promissing LENR experiments get this. they then stop being most promissing.

Anything less, and the strong probability is that the experiment is wrong.

Which experiment are we talking about here, some of the CERN work or Piantelli or P&F? I hope you are not foolish enough to list Rossi's stunts as experiments.

All of the experiments where the claimed interpretation is LENR and there is no published paper. Also those where the interpretation leads to LENR and there is a published paper (such as the weird and wonderful heavy deuterium crowd). Though these are a bit less unlikely.

After all, any credible evidence for LENR would be exciting and get published like a shot.

Let me qualify that. Suppose LENR is rubbish. We expect some fraction (say 10%) of experiments to give anomalous results which appear to support it. We expect that with great care the errors in these can be discovered - without great care they will remain question marks. We expect that since this care require lots of time, money and high quality people it will not often be applied. Of course good mainstream scientists will be excited, apply the necessary care, but not publish because they identify the errors

In which case they are NOT really acting properly as scientists. PUBLISH those results, ALL the results, ambiguity or none.

Rubbish. If I have an experiment which is badly arranged and thus has no useful results, telling others this is supremely boring. Unless they are CF fans who have wish-fullfillment fantasies. An experiment, for example, which has a reading in range with error bars [-1,1] and analysis shows that [-1,0] would prove antigravity has ambiguous results, but no interest.

People like you & parallel etc look at the large number of experiments with anomalous results and think: Ahah! Any one of these experiments wrong is say 90% chance. But there are 50 experiments. Chances of them all being wrong are 0.9^50 = 0.5% So LENR is 99.5% proved!

You obviously missread my words. I have no certainly either way on LERN. I am developing an ever increasing mistrust of Rossi. As I stated elsewhere, if his process is as good as claimed, he SHOULD be able to do an unambiguous demo. I recognize that there are certain business reasons not to, but still...

OK. I apologise for bracketing you with parallel. But the even-handed approach towards Rossi shows a lack of understanding of probabilities.

Further, there will be an idea that because good mainstream scientists do not do this stuff somehow they are suppressing things.

No, when scientists give press conferences stating things they can NOT know about using the prestige of their institution to give weight to their spewings, THAT I call suppression. When people misquote the results of studies to maintain a position of opposition, THAT I call suppression. When scientists DON"T publish their findings at all, THAT I call suppression. The fact that a scientist is disinterested in the subject and does nothing related to it is human nature.

Scientists talking rubbish is not suppression, it is not all scientists being sensible. In common with other humans.

Scientists not publishing findings that add to the sum of human knowledge is either suppression or bad writing.

How would this suppression work? Its pretty difficult in an open society to do this, and scientists are a cantankerous bunch.

I will leave it to you to identify the flaw in this reasoning, which is profoundly human and affects many.

TA DAA

Difficult experiments give anomalous results most of the time, until all the errors have been nailed. The LENR people (mostly) just don't bother to nail down all errors. When they do this, the results go away or become explicable chemically.

Perhaps you have had time to look at all the experiments and tracked them all down to a final conclusion that is agreed to be as you state. Somehow, I doubt it. Thus, I suspect what is more likely is that you read a study where some "scientist" made that claim, provided one or two situations where it seemed to him to be that way, and you have been convinced. I have not been convinced either way.

But you talk as though you have been convinced. If you truly just cannot say whether the experiments are correct you have no reson to chnage your expectations about what is likely. You would have to be weird indeed for CF to seem likely a priori.

And because calorimetry is specialised, and the errors can be weird and complex, popular presentations of their work appear convincing. Even decent scientists not specialising in calorimetry can fail to see sources of error, and (if they lack proper caution) be convinced.

All true, which is one reason I an not yet convinced.

[/quote]

Consider. A whole load of people also put together complex electromechanical systems which appear to provide inertia-less thrust. My guess is you are not so even-handed in this case. Why not?

[Giorgio]

Does anyone have any more information on the timing of the Uppsala tests referred to by Professor Petterson?

I have long thought that the real value of the E-Cat is not in its commercialization, as I suspect Rossi is being very naive as to the readiness and acceptability (especially from a health & safety perspective) of his device, but rather in validating the viability of H-Ni LENR in general with the resulting rush of funding and top minds to do further R&D. I suspect that the Uppsala tests (if conclusive) would go a long way toward unleshing those resources.

I have no idea about the Uppsala test date, but I do not think that Rossi will give to them anything until he has sold the 1 Mw plant to someone.
At the same time I feel that no one will buy this plant unless tests are conducted in a fail proof way, or in an environment where you can actually measure the produced heat.

Ever seen a dog trying to bite his tail?
It looks to me the same situation Rossi is in right now.

[nferguso]

I wondered about the 1MW of power emerging from the 2" pipe shown in the pictures of the power plant container. I know there's no direct conversion of power units to force or thrust, but from information munched off the web (about the Saturn V rocket, fwif), I see some attempts to relate the two units.

One example suggested 1 MW (h) can be associated with a peak force of ~30000 kg. Guessing that the container weight 5 kg, if the container were on wheels it would immediately start to accelerate at 5 g's. That would be worse than being catapulted off an aircraft carrier.

Is my munging plausible? Have I slipped a decimal?

To think of it another way, 1MW (h) is roughly 1/5 the rating of a typical railroad locomotive. I can imagine that kind of power gifting a container on wheels with that kind of acceleration. Anyway I wouldn't want to be standing in front of the container when it was lit up.

[parallel]

You're assuming that most of the energy is converted to velocity/thrust. It isn't.

[Skipjack]

Guessing that the container weight 5 kg

More like 5 tonnes, not 5 kg... that is three decimals off.

[KitemanSA]

Sounds like P&F were trying to do before they were outed. And you know how they were treated when they were.

No, P&F gave a press conference before they had even published! the neutrino people held of publishing to strengthen the paper when it finally appeared. No press info until a decent paper was out there putting the facts on the table.

IIRC, it was the dean of their college that called the press conference and basically made them present. Not quite the same thing.

[Betruger]

Guessing that the container weight 5 kg

More like 5 tonnes, not 5 kg... that is three decimals off.

Kinda hard to believe he meant 5 kg IE did the calculation by 5 kg and not 5 tons. Tonnes.

[KitemanSA]

Because the data was so carefully analysed, the experiment carefully described, the obvious problems nailed, it would present a challenge for everyone else. (As the neutrinos do). Fairly quickly (I guess < 1 year for neutrinos) there would be a resolution.

And how many millions if not billions will be spent doing all this? Further, to what extent are these scientists facing a barrage of people saying "neutrinos are noncense and should never be discussed or published"? No bucks sucks.

The neutrino people had respectable scientists saying things like "it is probably not true but this is a beautiful paper". And many scientists since then have been looking at the paper trying to find loopholes with no money needed.

The "neutrino people" mostly have (directly or indirectly) government paid jobs and many of the "respectable scientists" also have such jobs and may very well be paid to review said papers politely. AND most would expect to be published because of it. My point about the VAST difference in money available to the two groups is still valid, money buys respectful treatment if nothing else. I would also note that it is the "neutrino" type scientists (aka high energy physicists) that are most NASTY about their condemnation in the popular press. Why would many "other" scientists subject themselves to that sort of vitriol?

[KitemanSA]

No, but that is not relevant to the argument. The work needed to make LENR measurements better does not require lots of money, just lots of care & time from a good experimenter.
.
.
Let me qualify that. Suppose LENR is rubbish. We expect some fraction (say 10%) of experiments to give anomalous results which appear to support it. We expect that with great care the errors in these can be discovered - without great care they will remain question marks. We expect that since this care require lots of time, money and high quality people it will not often be applied.

Which is it? Doesn't or does?

[KitemanSA]

All true, which is one reason I an not yet convinced.

Consider. A whole load of people also put together complex electromechanical systems which appear to provide inertia-less thrust. My guess is you are not so even-handed in this case. Why not?

There have been a number that have been amply demonstrated to be false. But that "mach effect" whatever in that other thread is still an unknown - undecided for me.
Theories change. Understanding about the outcome of theories change. Technologies allowing different effects to be realized change.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

[icarus]

Oh how I wish the "sceptics" like tomclarke would put anthropogenic global warming theory to the "assumption of fraud" scepticism that is dolled out to anyone outside the institutional science cathedrals ... like LENR theories.

[Kahuna]

Does anyone have any more information on the timing of the Uppsala tests referred to by Professor Petterson?

I have long thought that the real value of the E-Cat is not in its commercialization, as I suspect Rossi is being very naive as to the readiness and acceptability (especially from a health & safety perspective) of his device, but rather in validating the viability of H-Ni LENR in general with the resulting rush of funding and top minds to do further R&D. I suspect that the Uppsala tests (if conclusive) would go a long way toward unleshing those resources.

I have no idea about the Uppsala test date, but I do not think that Rossi will give to them anything until he has sold the 1 Mw plant to someone.
At the same time I feel that no one will buy this plant unless tests are conducted in a fail proof way, or in an environment where you can actually measure the produced heat.

Ever seen a dog trying to bite his tail?
It looks to me the same situation Rossi is in right now.

Good analogy. I have an email into Petterson and a post to Rossi. Will share if I get any info.

[tomclarke]

Oh how I wish the "sceptics" like tomclarke would put anthropogenic global warming theory to the "assumption of fraud" scepticism that is dolled out to anyone outside the institutional science cathedrals ... like LENR theories.

But I don't assume fraud. I just assume science is difficult and complex, so experiments need to be carefully controlled and analysed before they yield useful data.

How I wish those advocating simplistic anti-AGW arguments had the same understanding of complexity!