10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

"Cheaply"? Didn't we have that discussion too. Multiple people objected that the paper didn't demonstrate that anything was cheap. You are konjecturing again.

Worse, I am ASSuming that what a third world country can do, a first world country can do "cheaply". I would point out to you however that they were seperating each isotope individually and I don't think that is needed. Also, the field density needed for that kind of seperation can now be obtained by permanent magnets. And finally, I noted that it would probably be cheaper and faster to use centrifugal effects on micro-drops of molten Nickel. All of which seem reasonabley cheap to me.

EVERY time I see someone make a statement about "new physics" I ask for an example and I keep getting tripe.

Cold fusion is new physics. Jeez. (other than muon catalyzed)

Specifically what new physics is required. Your statement might just mean you don't understand physics well enough to know how it works. You ignorance and my ignorance does not demonstrate a need for "new physics".

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

Folks like Axil are "true believers". Their religion prohibits them from being reasoned with. Folks who argue based on science should be held to a higher standard. So far, you haven't met said standard. Trolling, or an attempt as SCIENTIFIC discussion. I believe the latter.

I think it is funny how you excused all of the points that people were bringing up about the inconsistencies in Rossi's story, each time pointing to a marginal possibility that there was another explanation, even going so far as to konjecture the other possibilities yourself, to only now start to doubt Rossi based on his nasty "personality" issues.

Very scientific of you.

I am as apt to make personality related assessments as the next person. I just try VERY hard not to get that confused with scientific inquiry. This is something you would do well to emulate.
First, I have acknowledged the inconsistancies from day one. The inconsistancies are NOT scientific data, unless you are maybe doing an in depth psychological study. I do not ever recall having denied the inconsistancies. I merely noted that the inconsistancies are not SCIENTIFIC data. Whenever anyone used said inconsistancies as "proof" that there was fraud or a scam or whatever the term was, I noted that it was not proof, giving logical plausible explanations for the appearant inconsistancy. I would then conclude (often) with a reiteration that I was middle of the road on the issue (reducing likelihood over time). But those assessments are OPINIONS, not facts. I try to keep them separate. Shouldn't you?

[seedload]

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.

First, I would say it is unlikely that Rossi has a proton accelerator inside the reactor.

Which is totally immaterial since the invention calls for a beam of pHotons, not pRotons. Getting beams of photons is increasingly easy with quantum dots.

Thanks, I did not read carefully. Good catch.

[MSimon]

It is proof of nothing.

Precisely

[MSimon]

Hasn't it struck you that Rossi DOES NOT WANT PROOF? If he proves it there will be immense competition immediately. By keeping us guessing, he may be protecting his heiny.

Or his fraud. Given his pedigree I think fraud is the most likely explanation.

[Giorgio]

As has been pointed out ad nauseam the publicly available data does not come from experiments. The e-cat has been demonstrated in public.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Why have there been no public "experiments" to prove the function of the e-cat? I don't care to wildly speculate.

How can you judge something if you do not question the way in which it is presented to you?

[Crawdaddy]

It is proof of nothing.

Precisely

Excellent we agree. Now you can stop pretending that the demonstrations are evidence of fraud.

[Giorgio]

It is proof of nothing.

Precisely

Excellent we agree. Now you can stop pretending that the demonstrations are evidence of fraud.

You should stop pretending the opposite, IMHO.

[Crawdaddy]

As has been pointed out ad nauseam the publicly available data does not come from experiments. The e-cat has been demonstrated in public.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Why have there been no public "experiments" to prove the function of the e-cat? I don't care to wildly speculate.

How can you judge something if you do not question the way in which it is presented to you?

I am making a preliminary judgement, not to discount the e-cat device out of hand.

This is based on my observation that 99.9% of Ph.D. holding physical scientists would laugh in the face of an anyone with a criminal record for fraud who walked into their office and said "watch this uncontrolled demonstration of cold fusion!". 99.999999% of Ph.D. holding physical scientists would refuse to risk their reputations and jobs backing such a person.

The unproven assumption that there has been a well controlled validation of the e-cat's function is what is causing me to reserve judgement on its legitimacy. Because of my personal perspective as a physical scientist this assumption carries more weight than assumptions about the reason for demonstrations. Also the e-cat has been in development since at least 2008 (when the ampenergo validation took place), and so was developed in obscurity for over 2 years.

I prefer not to speculate about the reason for the public demonstrations because there are too many variables to account for.

[Crawdaddy]

Precisely

Excellent we agree. Now you can stop pretending that the demonstrations are evidence of fraud.

You should stop pretending the opposite, IMHO.

I have only ever said that the demonstrations do not rule out legitimacy.

[KitemanSA]

I have NEVER argued that Rossi "IS" doing anything.

And why do you attack anyone who says something sceptic about the ecat?

I don't. Indeed, I am increasingly sceptical myself. But when people use "scientific" reasons to "support" their skepticism, I ask for the science (or in one case the statistics). When people make final judgements based on fallacy (or lack of real data) I question their reasoning. When people state their opinion, I go my merry way.

I can think of several ways to massively reduce the content of Ni58 in a sample of natural Ni without spending the bank.

No, you can't.

Mind reader are you? Know what I can think of do you? That is a rare gift. You shouldn't waste it here. Go forth unto the world and read minds. Make millions on outsider trading.

Since I don't know what the process is, I couldn't say, but maybe it is a poison like Xenon in a fission reactor. They have to put extra reactivity to overcome the poisoning from Xenon. Maybe he is just getting the poisoning down to a managable level.

Explain how Rossi (or anyone else) was supposed make this discovery, when at the time he is supposed to have decided to invent a new form of enrichment, he didn't even have a theory how his reactor works.

Maybe he noticed something on Piatelli's nickel rods that made him think of it. Obviously, that is just a guess. But I am not sufficiently omniscient to "know" what he couldn't know.

As another possibility, perhaps the "internal conversion" coefficient for Cu59 is too close to zero assuring that any reaction there produces a high energy gamma. If this is the case, keeping the 58Ni low may keep the gamma production in check.

Besides that i think this "internal conversion" stuff is nonsense, please give us a few NUMBERS how low you expect the Ni-58 content to be, so that, with kWs of reactor power, no gamma is detected outside with a gamma scintillator (as it is obvoiusly the case now).

Do you think that internal conversion is nonsense or that it is nonsense applied here? Are you aware that IC is an accepted alternate means for excitation energy removal? Are you aware that 55Fe has an IC coefficient very near zero meaning that most of the excitation energy is released as gamma?
I am not sufficiently up on the details to determine if Cu59 has a high or low ICcoefficient. Do you know? That would be a helpful addition to the conversation. I have not been able to find it.

After you did that, I suggest, you check the istope spectrum from before and after the powder was in the reactor (you find it somewhere on krivits site). While you are at it, explain why there is more copper in the "after" spectrum than there was nickel in the original powder, and why the spectrum is mainly iron and almost no nickel at all.

You know, I've seen claims of isotope evaluations. I've never seen one on the Rossi output. I've seen traces from Piantelli's work that has been attributed to Rossi, but none of his stuff. Link please?

No, some third-world country dude shows what he is able to do cheaply and it suggests the requirements are not as difficult as you make them out to be.

Cheaply? Where was that shown?

Not shown, opined. But the no one has shown the contrary either. The only thing I've seen is the cost of 5 or 6 nines fine 58Ni. That stuff is expensive. But this is not the same thing at all.

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 is my impression, too.

Easily impressed are you? You have a right to your impressions, wrong as they may be.

Folks like Axil are "true believers". Their religion prohibits them from being reasoned with.

A little kid that claims there is a coffe cup between mars and jupiter, and, when beeing told that this is nonsense, always attacks people saying "Where does this require new physics?" "You cannot disprove it" "Why don't you hang yourself if the cup is found?" is not any better.

Did anyone show the kid a series of pictures of the coffee cup? Did the person say it was nonsense becasuse it was scientifically impossible; that is would take "new physics" for a coffee cup to be between Mars and Jupiter?

If you start a nonsense argument, take it to the end in your own mind before putting it on paper. Maybe you won't look quite so ridiculous.

[MSimon]

It is proof of nothing.

Precisely

Excellent we agree. Now you can stop pretending that the demonstrations are evidence of fraud.

Evidently you missed my nuance.

[Crawdaddy]

Precisely

Excellent we agree. Now you can stop pretending that the demonstrations are evidence of fraud.

Evidently you missed my nuance.

You are as nuanced as a container truck full of rancid olive oil.

[KitemanSA]

You are as nuanced as a container truck full of rancid olive oil.

0e 0e !

[seedload]

EVERY time I see someone make a statement about "new physics" I ask for an example and I keep getting tripe.

Cold fusion is new physics. Jeez. (other than muon catalyzed)

Specifically what new physics is required. Your statement might just mean you don't understand physics well enough to know how it works. You ignorance and my ignorance does not demonstrate a need for "new physics".

This isn't an argument. This is simple contradiction.

Physics is "understanding". It is our understanding of the physical world. Saying the we "don't understand physics well enough to know how it works" is basically saying that we need "new physics".

The fact that radiation existed before Marie Curie named it doesn't mean that the discovery wasn't "new physics". The physics were new (our understanding of nature) even though the physical properties were not new.

By definition, if we don't understand it, it is new physics.

I am as apt to make personality related assessments as the next person. I just try VERY hard not to get that confused with scientific inquiry. This is something you would do well to emulate.

I see.

First, I have acknowledged the inconsistancies from day one. The inconsistancies are NOT scientific data, unless you are maybe doing an in depth psychological study. I do not ever recall having denied the inconsistancies. I merely noted that the inconsistancies are not SCIENTIFIC data. Whenever anyone used said inconsistancies as "proof" that there was fraud or a scam or whatever the term was, I noted that it was not proof, giving logical plausible explanations for the appearant inconsistancy. I would then conclude (often) with a reiteration that I was middle of the road on the issue (reducing likelihood over time). But those assessments are OPINIONS, not facts. I try to keep them separate. Shouldn't you?

Why on earth would one restrict oneself to assessing the likelihood of fraud to purely scientific standards. Fraud isn't a scientific concept. It is a criminal concept. Criminal standards often call upon one to access circumstantial evidence in order to make a logical conclusion regarding the likelihood that someone is or has committed an offense.

The fact that this fraud is potentially being committed under the guise of pseudo science doesn't change the fact that this is about fraud, not about science.

I have said this from the start.

Now, scientific evidence can be part of what you look at, but restricting yourself to science is not logical.

Funny thing is that the standard of personality shouldn't be considered in any case, scientific investigation or criminal investigation.

You are rejecting the relevance of logical conclusions drawn from circumstantial evidence and focusing entirely on the barely existent and easily faked scientific evidence.

Not only that, but then you insist on insulting those who try to come to conclusions based on the whole of the evidence rather than just the scant scientific morsels that may or may not have been extended by various conjectures.

Finally, I never said I had any "proof". "Proof" is a word you are attributing. I just said that my perception of the stacked improbabilities made me think that the likelihood that this is real is approaching zero. I stand by that.

[icarus]

And if you want to invest in Piantelli that could be an alternative outlet for your scepticism of Rossi .... (unless you also think he is also a fraud, deluded, incompetent, has idiotic set-ups, running an elaborate scam, etc, etc)

http://ecatnews.com/?p=581

I'm more interested to know how it might be possible to:

a) verify that there are indeed 6-7 MeV protons present?

b) how highly energetic protons may come about in such a Ni-H cell?