10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

No - we do not know this. We have no information from a truly independent 3rd party who has seen the NDA (except maybe DS, if he does).

You seem to have the same problem as Skipjack. Smith has never seen the NDA as he has never officially contacted DGT. So how can he have a problem with it? He has no idea what might be in it.

DGT have already stated the test protocol and results may/will be published.

In the original announcement of tests, I do not remember an NDA being mentioned. Why should it be? These are tests, not engineering drawings of the reactors insides.

There is a balance to be struck between getting sucked into a test process which adds validation to a scam, and being reasonably flexible.

For Smith, any NDA no doubt tips the balance. I can't say I blame him though I might myself wish to see the NDA contents first.

DFK saying rsults will be published after is not satisfactory. Who decides when this is, or what results? Are the participants allowed to publish details of the tets protocol? If not the tests are worthless. If so, what is the NDA supposed to protect?

[tomclarke]

CKay
Of course not. I base my view on facts not idle speculation like you & Skipjack.

Forgive me. This whole thread is idle speculation on the possibility that these people may have some novel technology.

Your positive view of this has no facts to back it up. While those calling scam are equally factless, the circumstantial evidence is strongly against Rossi.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think the rossibots and neo-rossibots here ( neo = Rossi is a clown with nothing, but DFK have done it) vary between:

(1) it is not extraordinary because LENR has been proved elsewhere

and

(2) the rossi demonstrations so far are extraordinary evidence

Neither view is convincing.

Of course, if DFK are genuine, rather than being much cleverer scammers than rossi, we will get evidence from properly conducted tests with credible third party verification. They certainly sound much more professional than rossi. Want to bet on it?

[KitemanSA]

Want to bet on it?

What odds are you offering?

[tomclarke]

Want to bet on it?

What odds are you offering?

Evens, that DFK/Rossi can't get LENR working to an extent which would make science community sit up and take notice.

I would accept commercial sales, as long as it was clear the product worked. (Look at Orbo, sold but non-working). I reckon scientific credibility is a lot easier than commercial sales if it does work. I would not accept commercial sales claimed to an unrevealed (or even revealed) customer who could be an associate of DFK/Rossi, without some evidence that the sold device actually works.

I normally never make bets.

Tom

[Am]

Rossi's explains (non)relationship with National Instruments:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... p-Over.jpg

Of course, he does not really address what National Instruments said. In fact, he completely misrepresents the situation to his percieved advantage.
I am curious how "discussions" translates to "Weeks of training". I speak Italian. It is beyond weak. Like his, "ooops, did I say gone? I meant sold, not gone..." line of crap.

Rossi challenges honest skepticism. I want to retain a belief that he deserves a chance to actually demonstrate. But man-o-man, he just keeps trying to talk his way out of benefit of the doubt.

And in reply, there's this here:

http://e-catsite.com/2012/02/21/ni-corr ... tatements/

After my conversation with Ms. Betts, it would seem that the word “discussion” as used in this context has a meaning with somewhat more depth, with that meaning being ongoing technical collaboration between the parties. This collaboration has been at the level that Rossi has frequently alluded to in his comments on JONP and, specifically to comments he made earlier this week. Over the past several months he has frequently stated that he was working with National Instruments on E-Cat development. I specifically asked Ms. Betts if these statements were exaggerations or outright lies on Mr. Rossi’s part and she informed me that THEY WERE NOT, and that indeed Mr. Rossi has been portraying Leonardo Corp’s work with National Instruments accurately.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

In the original announcement of tests, I do not remember an NDA being mentioned. Why should it be? These are tests, not engineering drawings of the reactors insides.

It would never occur to you that having full access to the reactors for four days, including having one opened up and the Ni powder transferred, that testers might see something that DGT considers secret and doesn't want published?

You are so certain, it reminds me of the Church and Galileo.
I offer to bet you $100 that the majority of the (7?) DGT testers conclude the COP is more than 6. Will you accept the bet?

[ladajo]

@Am,
Good find. Thanks.

It certainly muddies the waters more! I like it!

As The Rossiworld Turns! Gleeful Golf Clapping.

[Skipjack]

You are so certain, it reminds me of the Church and Galileo.

Only that Galileos claims were verifyable. So far DGTs and Rossi's claims are not verifyable.

It would never occur to you that having full access to the reactors for four days, including having one opened up and the Ni powder transferred, that testers might see something that DGT considers secret and doesn't want published?

Then offer an option to test the reactor without being able to open and watch the transfer in return for no NDA having to be signed.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

In the original announcement of tests, I do not remember an NDA being mentioned. Why should it be? These are tests, not engineering drawings of the reactors insides.

It would never occur to you that having full access to the reactors for four days, including having one opened up and the Ni powder transferred, that testers might see something that DGT considers secret and doesn't want published?

You are so certain, it reminds me of the Church and Galileo.
I offer to bet you $100 that the majority of the (7?) DGT testers conclude the COP is more than 6. Will you accept the bet?

Parallel - I can't quite see what about my post is so certain? I have merely an absence of speculation, no certainty.

You must be barking mad! How could the DGT testers ensure anything unless they are known to be fully independent and qualified? So until we know who they are and why they are there anything they say will serve as certainty only for you and other Rossibots.

Just to see why their statements might not be reliable:

If they are hoping to sell DFK devices, or otherwise in some relationship with DKF, they would have a strong motive to be positive

If they are ever-hopeful free energy junkies like you ditto.

Unless they are both scientists and careful of the many possible issues (unlike the Swedes, if you remember) their asessment of the experiment is potentially flawed.

But why do you want such fast closure? If DFK really have got what they claim it will be undeniable and a big news story quite soon.

How about just wait until mainstream serious papers write up their device as working nuclear power? That would be good enough for me, and surely must soon happen if they are real?

[tomclarke]

In fact, there are many foolproof tests, if these reactors work, that require no internal access to the reactor. They would require sustained use under normal operating conditions for a few days to be sure.

DS, BTW, seems to be advised by somone remakably uninformed about the science, which is a shame. The likelihood of tests with badly sited thermocouples etc giving spurious results is high, and requires no fraud.

But flow calorimetry sparging the output into a water tank which is repeatedly changed when it has been heated up would be foolproof. This combined with continuation for long enough time to rule out any chemical energy source in the device, and accurate results are ensured with a very unintrusive system.

The results would be impossible to fake, providing only all external power sources are ruled out, and the water tank with its temperature sensor is provided independently. (To make a continuous process for longer tests you use two tanks and swap).

The tank could be made large enough for change no more than once per day, say.

DFK, if genuine, and with a product that works, should be interested in this. It would provide very strong scientific credibility, with the massive interest and money that would follow.

I predict however that their test will be much less clear. It is almost guaranteed by their testing protocol because this provides only indirect indication of the thermal output.

I predict also some here saying:

DFK have no need to prove themselves to doubters like TC. They are busy making and selling systems. Anything else would be a distraction

To which the answers are:
(1) they seem to want this distraction, having proposed (problematic) tests themselves
(2) If I had the answer to the world's energy problems I would want the Nobel prize, and massive international recognition. And the money to scale up and streamline production.

They seem good publicists - their web pages describing the device are beautiful.

Best wishes, Tom

[parallel]

My comment

You are so certain, it reminds me of the Church and Galileo.

was for your general attitude , not just for that one post.
(Like ivory tower academia vs. LENR)
Your subsequent posts go further to reinforce that opinion, yet you cannot bring yourself to bet even $100 on the outcome. Are you starting to have doubts?
How about "if the consensus following the tests is that the COP >6"? That takes care of dubious protocols and testers. If the consensus is unclear then the bet is cancelled.

As usual, I take DGT's statements at face value. That is to say I am not certain they are true without proof, but neither do I assume that they lie, like so many skeptics here do.

DGT say they are having groups test their reactor who are well respected. Why can you not accept that as likely to be the case?

[stefanbanev]

Want to bet on it?

What odds are you offering?

Evens, that DFK/Rossi can't get LENR working to an extent which would make science community sit up and take notice.

I would accept commercial sales, as long as it was clear the product worked. (Look at Orbo, sold but non-working). I reckon scientific credibility is a lot easier than commercial sales if it does work. I would not accept commercial sales claimed to an unrevealed (or even revealed) customer who could be an associate of DFK/Rossi, without some evidence that the sold device actually works.

I normally never make bets.

Tom

>scientific credibility...

The mainstream science will defend its "right doing" up to the moment when LENR devices can be bought in Home Depot (figuratively speaking) then they may say: well, it is not exactly what we opposed, we just wanted to do it in the "proper" way and anyway at the end the science does work thanks to some dedicated scientist who in-spite of all odds continues their LENR research. Too many people have been involved in P&F debunking for a long time, they are looking for the exit strategy now (like "non fusion" excuse...). The probabilistic nature of LENR did play a significant role to sustain "statu quo" for 20+ years; yet the major contribution for this delay is an old fashion conformism + arrogance. The good news is that 20 years is relatively a small delay... plus, the timing seems just perfect in front of coming world crisis...

[parallel]

tomclarke,

Evens, that DFK/Rossi can't get LENR working to an extent which would make science community sit up and take notice.

I'd settle for that too. I think the outcome will be crystal clear one way or the other.

[stefanbanev]

tomclarke,

Evens, that DFK/Rossi can't get LENR working to an extent which would make science community sit up and take notice.

I'd settle for that too. I think the outcome will be crystal clear one way or the other.

Unnecessarily, the gray outcome is still possible, too many unknown at this point to be 100% certain it will be black and white. However it does may reduce uncertainty.

[Skipjack]

was for your general attitude , not just for that one post.
(Like ivory tower academia vs. LENR)

Which is absolutely not the case here! Again, there is absolutely no verifyable evidence that these devices work. None, nada, nihil, rien, nichts...
Galileos theories were easily verifyable by anyone, all you had to do is look up at the sky and Galileo presented both his method of observation, his theory and his documentation of all that to the public.
Now please explain to me how I am supposed to verify Rossi's and Defkalion's eleged observations without them providing us with a method, where they provide us with a workable theory and where their documentation is! Do it now, or never, ever dare again to compare Rossi to Galileo!