10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

MSimon wrote:
I'm expecting some serious crow-eating and grovelling from you if/when it turns out to be verifiable ... okay? You are on notice. Rossi will be your master for eternity if this pans out.
And if it doesn't you will be G's servant for the rest of your life. I expect to see you cleaning the bottom of his shoes with your tongue before long.
Scepticism is fine. Manners are nice too in a civil society.
Manners are for salesmen. Engineers have little need for them. Straight talk is way more valuable. At least to other engineers.
Krivit got mad with Rossi when it became clear to him that Rossi was selling snake-oil. It tarnished the reputation of all LENR, which you will remember Krivit cares about and believes in.

There has been on this thread such a lack of judgement from some! And if there are others similar with deep pockets I guess the Rossi circus will continue selling tickets for a while.

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Replication

Post by TallDave »

Kahuna wrote: This is ancient history now. BLP was going to do Rossi type demos with their tech back in 2009 and the crickcets are still chirping over there. All Mills seems to produce are Hydrino-based technical papers. Rossi is a lot more fun :-)
Yep, that's the thing to watch for imho:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/press.shtml

BLP's first commercial customer was three years ago. They've done almost nothing since. Rossi has, as I understand it, two academic tests (that are not with Rowan University), and another customer lined up. If that keeps getting pushed back, skepticism should and will grow.

Similarly, of course, a lot of people did not expect Rossi to actually do this last test -- this is typically where "new energy" schemes peter out. This has moved beyond vaporware and is either serious (and brilliant) fraud or something interesting. He's starting to get some real attention now. I'm skeptically optimistic!
It tarnished the reputation of all LENR,
To twist around an old saw, you can't tarnish a turd. Krivit and Allan both seem a bit nuts. Rossi, too, for that matter. We shall see.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Am
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 5:21 pm

Post by Am »

tomclarke wrote:
MSimon wrote:
I'm expecting some serious crow-eating and grovelling from you if/when it turns out to be verifiable ... okay? You are on notice. Rossi will be your master for eternity if this pans out.
And if it doesn't you will be G's servant for the rest of your life. I expect to see you cleaning the bottom of his shoes with your tongue before long.
Scepticism is fine. Manners are nice too in a civil society.
Manners are for salesmen. Engineers have little need for them. Straight talk is way more valuable. At least to other engineers.
Krivit got mad with Rossi when it became clear to him that Rossi was selling snake-oil. It tarnished the reputation of all LENR, which you will remember Krivit cares about and believes in.

There has been on this thread such a lack of judgement from some! And if there are others similar with deep pockets I guess the Rossi circus will continue selling tickets for a while.
Repeat: "I, tomclarke, must check my facts before posting. I, tomclarke, must read Steven Johnson's discussion of Krivit on Vortex before really being able to understand Mr Krivit's modus operandi".

Here are some links to help you out:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 54028.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 54029.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 54027.html

And of course, Brian Josephson's experience of Krivit too:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

tomclarke wrote: There has been on this thread such a lack of judgement from some! And if there are others similar with deep pockets I guess the Rossi circus will continue selling tickets for a while.
There has also been a withholding of judgement on the part of others. Please understand the distinction.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: Look out! Better not say a word. Rossi's bitch is lurking.
See, I specifically state that I think Rossi is likely wrong, and this is your response. You are an idiot, or at least play one on Talk-Polywell. :lol:
You called me ignorant, unable to read, an idiot, and a twit long before this and you know it.

Rossi doesn't need to explain his insane ramblings. He has apologists like you to Konjecture explanations for him.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

icarus wrote:Edit: Anyone else seen the rumour that NATO is Rossi's customer?
I heard DHARMA
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Rossi redacted "for the customer". ROTFL!
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Am,

I see that the main complaint against Krivit is that he questioned some research findings. I guess that is a no-no in the CF community.

I go back and forth on CF. There is definitely something going on but the the researchers seem so obsessed with energy that they lose sight of other possible uses even if, as some posit, what we are seeing is strictly chemical.

It is the old problem "faith can move mountains but if you are not careful it can also make you stupid". What I see in the field is an awful lot of stupid.

You see a lot less stupid in nuclear power (the uranium/thorium kind) because there are real replicable measurements being done and the work is reproducible. There is also solid theory behind it.

So far there is no explanation of why some CF experiments work and the same experiments done by the same researchers (with different batches of materials) produce no results.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote: You called me ignorant, unable to read, an idiot, and a twit long before this and you know it.
In fact I did not call you that, you did. I said SOME on this forum... you appearantly decided that it applied to yourself. You indentifed me specifically by an unmistakable version of my username ("the Kite Man, big KM across his chest") and then in the same paragraph called me "Rossi's bitch". This demonstrated that your self-nomination for idiocy may be the most accurate thing you've posted in a while. :roll:

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
icarus wrote:Edit: Anyone else seen the rumour that NATO is Rossi's customer?
I heard DHARMA
What, and not Greg?

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
icarus wrote:Edit: Anyone else seen the rumour that NATO is Rossi's customer?
I heard DHARMA
What, and not Greg?
Greg is already busy with Black Light Power ;)

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Am wrote:Repeat: "I, tomclarke, must check my facts before posting. I, tomclarke, must read Steven Johnson's discussion of Krivit on Vortex before really being able to understand Mr Krivit's modus operandi".

Here are some links to help you out:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 54028.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 54029.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 54027.html

And of course, Brian Josephson's experience of Krivit too:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html
Why are you posting this dribble? All of a sudden Brian Josephson is a comspiracy expert on Krivit? *Golf Clap* Comspiracy Theories abound.....

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: You called me ignorant, unable to read, an idiot, and a twit long before this and you know it.
In fact I did not call you that, you did. I said SOME on this forum... you appearantly decided that it applied to yourself. You indentifed me specifically by an unmistakable version of my username ("the Kite Man, big KM across his chest") and then in the same paragraph called me "Rossi's bitch". This demonstrated that your self-nomination for idiocy may be the most accurate thing you've posted in a while. :roll:
"SOME" Do you really think your obfuscated personal attacks are somehow better than direct comments? Really?

Anyway, we are going in circles.

When this latest name calling started you were arguing that Rossi is merely smearing the edges of the isotopic ratios, presumably reducing NI58 to avoid unwanted radioactive products and presumably increasing NI62 and NI64 to get more reaction.

We had that discussion before. Rossi is claiming "depletion" of NI58. Yet he is also claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 "react".

Is this logically consistent? Not in my mind. Why deplete NI58 if it doesn't react? Or, is he saying that because he eliminates NI58 it doesn't react. If the former, then it is unexplainable. If the later, then your Konjecture about simple reducing NI58 is incorrect and his claim of "depletion" must be elimination. I know, I know, at one point you speculated that maybe just a reduction in NI58 is enough to make what is left not react at all. This is another konjecture and this one doesn't line up with the reality of nuclear processes. If it is there and can react, it will.

Either NI58 doesn't react so it doesn't need to be depleted or NI58 does react, creates radioactive shit, and needs to be removed almost completely. There is no middle ground.

I have documented my thoughts on the isotopic dramas that Rossi has engaged in. I even asked the source questions, some which he answered and some that he censored off his blog. He didn't print them and then say he couldn't answer like he does with many other posts. He specifically censored them!
Charlie Zimmerman
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
When discussing this with friends, I have heard consistent arguments that the isotopic ratios of Nickel don’t make sense given your claims. I have tried to understand this better, but some of the things they say are good points. Can you shed some light.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, Prof. Focardi in a recent interview talked about all nickel reacting and a series of decays which seems inconsistent with your statements of only NI62 and NI64 reacting to produce stable copper. Are you guys in agreement about the process?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman
Read question 7. I don't think you ever commented on this one. Focardi and Rossi are both saying different things regarding the process. They can't even reconcile amongst themselves for God's sake.
KitemanSA wrote:
D Tibbets wrote: What is the difference between purifying and removing contaminates? Natural abundance of 62Ni is about 4% of all nickel. I doubt purifying it to 50% would effect the (real) radiation problem much. But, even that level of purification is difficult, and expensive. And what of the isotopic analysis that someone did?
Actually the difference is enormous. It is the distinction between having to select one minor isotope out of the middle of several around it versus taking the upper end of a smear of many where 58Ni is at the very bottom end.
I have come to realized that the probability of Rossi being legitimate is inversely proportional to the number of Konjectures created to explain his BS.
To which you launched your language gymnastics on me.

Seriously, both Dan and I have raised serious questions regarding the isotopic issues. You have nothing to offer in return except Konjectures. And for this you call one or the other of us Idiots. Seriously?

Are you even aware that NI58 is SEVENTY PERCENT of Nickel. Where the heck are you even coming from? You are arguing the meaning of depletion when it is SEVENTY PERCENT of nickel?

Some Iranian lab geeks write a paper on a lab experiment and the isotopic issue is solved?!?!

Point is that I don't even believe that you are arguing in good faith. I think you are being completely disingenuous with your arguments. I think that you actually know what you are spewing is BS and that you are only spewing it to get under people's skins. This theory of mine goes hand in hand with the way you obfuscate insults so that you can later defend them by claiming that you didn't say what you most certainly said. In other words, you are trolling.

regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

bhl
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 11:52 pm

METHOD OF ENHANCING RADIOACTIVITY DECAY

Post by bhl »

Could something like this be used inside a Rossi reactor to increase beta decay of nickel?

http://tinyurl.com/3p52tcj

This is a real question, and I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

MSimon wrote:I go back and forth on CF. There is definitely something going on but the the researchers seem so obsessed with energy that they lose sight of other possible uses even if, as some posit, what we are seeing is strictly chemical.
Speaking of which, I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the spin-off technologies of hot fusion vs. cold fusion. That might be something for cold fusion researchers to look into if Rossi's E-Cat reactor lapses into obscurity.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Post Reply