10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[parallel]

tomclarke,
I did not see your post before posting mine that followed. I conclude you still decline the bet. No real surprise: I thought you had doubts.

On the basis of your assumption you argue that my suggestion of bad sensor positioning is impossible.

That's right. Do you really believe the instrumentation would not be switched on and checked before Levi started the test?

If the output temperature showed the same of the (low) input temperature, it was not being falsified by higher ambient temperature and your speculation about bad placement would not hold water.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

Essentially you are saying there would be NO temperature difference between the two test cores.

That is REALLY easy to measure. But you won't bet on it.

[Skipjack]

I think your views are based on the idea that Rossi, or Levi conducting a test of Rossi's stuff, would do this in a carefuly scientifically valid way.
We cannot know.

I think that Levi even said that this was NOT a full academic test of Rossi's device, but merely a preliminary test in preparation for a larger series of tests that were supposed to be happening soon after at UoB (and also at Upsala). Krivit has asked Levi whether he would provide his test data and protocols, etc and never got it. IIRC, Levi later admitted that this test would not have satisfied the critics due to the fact that it was never meant as an academic test. I have to look this up, but I am pretty sure that I am not mistaken here.

Does anyone here seriously believe it is impossible to measure the temperature difference between the two cores?

I would like to see them switch the Ni powder half way through the test from one reactor to the other as a control.

[CKay]

Basically, the bet is "does it work or doesn't it work"?

And the problem is how that is decided one way or the other - particularly the impossibility of proving a negative, that the Hyperions don't work.

I think it extremely likely that they don't work, but suspect that the tests will be inconclusive, that there'll be questions about the objectivity, independence and repute of the testers, questions about the scientific rigour of the tests themselves (as with Rossi's various demonstrations), or just a lack of information, so that we'll be no closer to a definitive answer even after these tests.

In other words, the bet you've offered is: heads you win (the hyperions are shown to work) tales you don't lose (the tests are inconclusive, so the bet is cancelled). Why would anyone take you up on that?

[stefanbanev]

What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens. More precisely, he has never seen any evidence that it does. As this has been researched over at least 20 years he concludes that it is a fantasy.

If there is zero anomalous heat the outcome should be clear beyond all doubt. The testers won't find any and the general conclusion will be it has all been a fairy tale.

If it does work, there will probably be some haggling over the value of the COP, but that is not what the bet is about.

Basically, the bet is "does it work or doesn't it work"?

Tests were due to start today. There isn't much time left for the bet. I conclude tomclarke has got cold feet.

>What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens.

It's definitely not correct in my case ;o) TC does demonstrate in my opinion an extreme POV, so extreme that he deserves to be called a "believer" but it is also correct for you as well, just you sit on an opposite side of the bench. It is not constructive to keep an extreme positions; I personalty consider that LENR is very likely to be a viable tech yet the available information is very noisy and corrupted by the bias insights plus once it is going to commercialization the marketing BS makes matter even worse; this should be taking into account by LENR critics when they try to treat marketing BS as an evidence that LENR is a BS. There is no place for science once people try to make money from tech... it is what many skeptics have failed to see.

[parallel]

Ignoring my own advice and feeding the trolls.

Skipjack

I would like to see them switch the Ni powder half way through the test from one reactor to the other as a control.

That is the specified procedure.

CKay

And the problem is how that is decided one way or the other - particularly the impossibility of proving a negative, that the Hyperions don't work.

If there is no difference in temperature between the two test cores, the Hyperion doesn't work. It's that simple.

[CKay]

CKay

And the problem is how that is decided one way or the other - particularly the impossibility of proving a negative, that the Hyperions don't work.

If there is no difference in temperature between the two test cores, the Hyperion doesn't work. It's that simple.

But we don't even know who's running these tests! We don't know what precautions if any they've taken to rule out foul play (eg. hidden wires, induction coils, peroxide in the water.. etc). We know very little about precisely how these test will be carried out. And certainly not enough for the results to be used to settle a bet.

And my suspicion (and it is just that - a suspicion) is that Defkalion are running a con. And *if* that is the case, I would expect them to have thought up some way to rig the tests to give a positive result.

So, it really isn't as simple as you suggest...

[parallel]

stefanbanev,

It's definitely not correct in my case ;o) TC does demonstrate in my opinion an extreme POV, so extreme that he deserves to be called a "believer" but it is also correct for you as well, just you sit on an opposite side of the bench.

How many times do I have to say it? I don't believe the E-Cat or (definitely) the Hyperion have been proven to work. I have said this at least six times already. I think it very likely that the E-Cat works and therefore so does the Hyperion. I enjoy tweeking tomclarke's nose about the Hyperion as he professes to be such a pure member of the scientific consensus and believer of the standard model. Particularly, he believes in AGW, which is nonsense, but harder to disprove.

[stefanbanev]

stefanbanev,

It's definitely not correct in my case ;o) TC does demonstrate in my opinion an extreme POV, so extreme that he deserves to be called a "believer" but it is also correct for you as well, just you sit on an opposite side of the bench.

How many times do I have to say it? I don't believe the E-Cat or (definitely) the Hyperion have been proven to work. I have said this at least six times already. I think it very likely that the E-Cat works and therefore so does the Hyperion. I enjoy tweeking tomclarke's nose about the Hyperion as he professes to be such a pure member of the scientific consensus and believer of the standard model. Particularly, he believes in AGW, which is nonsense, but harder to disprove.

>How many times do I have to say it? I don't believe the E-Cat or (definitely) the Hyperion have been proven to work.

Sorry, I've missed such admission, so we have "minus one believer". It wold be great to have "minus two believers"... ;o)

[tomclarke]

What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens. More precisely, he has never seen any evidence that it does. As this has been researched over at least 20 years he concludes that it is a fantasy.

If there is zero anomalous heat the outcome should be clear beyond all doubt. The testers won't find any and the general conclusion will be it has all been a fairy tale.

If it does work, there will probably be some haggling over the value of the COP, but that is not what the bet is about.

Basically, the bet is "does it work or doesn't it work"?

Tests were due to start today. There isn't much time left for the bet. I conclude tomclarke has got cold feet.

>What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens.

It's definitely not correct in my case ;o) TC does demonstrate in my opinion an extreme POV, so extreme that he deserves to be called a "believer" but it is also correct for you as well, just you sit on an opposite side of the bench. It is not constructive to keep an extreme positions; I personalty consider that LENR is very likely to be a viable tech yet the available information is very noisy and corrupted by the bias insights plus once it is going to commercialization the marketing BS makes matter even worse; this should be taking into account by LENR critics when they try to treat marketing BS as an evidence that LENR is a BS. There is no place for science once people try to make money from tech... it is what many skeptics have failed to see.

My position is pretty average. I think LENR is unproven and highly unlikely. Not impossible. About as possible as FTL neutrinos.

Where I differ from some others here is that I see more clearly the flakiness of the CF-LENR "evidence".

[ScottL]

That's a big step for you, Parallel. I agree it hasn't been proven, but I sit 2 steps away in the unlikely position. I don't feel its conclusively been proven not to work, so I leave the possibility open that it may, however; the circus that has followed it is very distasteful in my opinion. Whatever all of us may or may not agree on, we can say that Rossi's process is not of the scientific method as he neither has to prove to anyone or show evidence. I think that DGT is trying to go a more scientific route, but may be prone to the exact same issues Rossi has, but in a less obvious way.

[tomclarke]

stefanbanev,

It's definitely not correct in my case ;o) TC does demonstrate in my opinion an extreme POV, so extreme that he deserves to be called a "believer" but it is also correct for you as well, just you sit on an opposite side of the bench.

How many times do I have to say it? I don't believe the E-Cat or (definitely) the Hyperion have been proven to work. I have said this at least six times already. I think it very likely that the E-Cat works and therefore so does the Hyperion. I enjoy tweeking tomclarke's nose about the Hyperion as he professes to be such a pure member of the scientific consensus and believer of the standard model. Particularly, he believes in AGW, which is nonsense, but harder to disprove.

I don't "believe" in anything, parallel.

[digression]
There are two issues in AGW.

(1) the climate models in which current orthodoxy rests are exceptionally complex, The set of inferences needed to determine what is their reliability very large, dificult for any one person to be an expert and reach independent judgement.

Summary: estimating feedback factor (and hence whether anthropogenic CO2 doubling or tripling will have bad effect) is very uncertain.

(2) The various anti-AGW arguments which say "it is obviously not a problem" are naive, and wrong. There is no simple way to determine the unknowns. The arguments which say "It may be a problem, but we should do nothing" are either political, or wrong. If political I'm not that interested: we make these difficult decisions about which risks to run, which risks to spend money trying to stop. If arguing we should do nothing, a priori, because it is uncertain, that is muddleheaded. We insure against many risks, both individually, and as a society.

Summary: the AGW risk is large, uncertain: what we choose to do about it is political.

Now stefan or parallel may choose to brand me a believer for these ideas. That is OK, I can take it. But it is a Bayesian type of believer, not a theological one.
[/digression]

[Skipjack]

That is the specified procedure.

I must have missed that. Was that specified in the PDF- file?

I don't feel its conclusively been proven not to work

It is much harder to proof a negative (sometimes even impossible).
This is why so called "inconclusive tests" have to be treated more negatively than positively. It should be much easier to proof that is does work.

[CKay]

How many times do I have to say it? I don't believe the E-Cat or (definitely) the Hyperion have been proven to work.

Really? That's not the impression you gave in that article you wrote for your local newspaper.

[stefanbanev]

What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens. More precisely, he has never seen any evidence that it does. As this has been researched over at least 20 years he concludes that it is a fantasy.

If there is zero anomalous heat the outcome should be clear beyond all doubt. The testers won't find any and the general conclusion will be it has all been a fairy tale.

If it does work, there will probably be some haggling over the value of the COP, but that is not what the bet is about.

Basically, the bet is "does it work or doesn't it work"?

Tests were due to start today. There isn't much time left for the bet. I conclude tomclarke has got cold feet.

>What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens.

It's definitely not correct in my case ;o) TC does demonstrate in my opinion an extreme POV, so extreme that he deserves to be called a "believer" but it is also correct for you as well, just you sit on an opposite side of the bench. It is not constructive to keep an extreme positions; I personalty consider that LENR is very likely to be a viable tech yet the available information is very noisy and corrupted by the bias insights plus once it is going to commercialization the marketing BS makes matter even worse; this should be taking into account by LENR critics when they try to treat marketing BS as an evidence that LENR is a BS. There is no place for science once people try to make money from tech... it is what many skeptics have failed to see.

My position is pretty average. I think LENR is unproven and highly unlikely. Not impossible. About as possible as FTL neutrinos.

Where I differ from some others here is that I see more clearly the flakiness of the CF-LENR "evidence".

>My position is pretty average. I think LENR is unproven and highly unlikely. Not impossible. About as possible as FTL neutrinos.

Well, "FTL neutrinos" requires a way more radical revision of foundation, while CF merely relays on "assembly quantum mess", it is really a complex computational task to model as well the analytic solutions have proved to be very complex to handle; so, no surprise that experimental observations reported first; in the similar way as hi-temp superconductivity...

I do think that "non-collapse"..."multiverse" insights pave the way to get through rigid standard model while FTL-neutrinos may likely be the result of technical flaws (I would love to be wrong here)...