10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

The correct way to make this test is by avoiding the steam phase altogether.

Which statement basically proves to me that you have NOT bothered to read or investigate closely the actual evidence. In the 18 hour test, they did PRECISELY that....."avoided the steam phase altogether".

"parallel" specifically pointed that out to you:

3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.

It looks to me like YOU have not bothered to investigate the issue.
1- The 18 hours test was not public.
2- No report was issued.
3- It was conducted by Rossi and Levi.
4- The water hoose was connected directly to the water tap, "estimated to be 1 l/s"

Very useful indeed.....

Anyhow, enlighten me. What evidences do you extract from it?

"I" find the evidence very encouraging. Not absolutely conclusive, but certainly not nearly as nebulous as is being claimed here. My credentials: PhD chemist, forty years practicing science, 24+ patents, and two R&D100 awards. I'm no physicist, but I'm a damned good experimentalist, and the setups and methods given aren't nearly as full of holes as you seem to think. "Low budget", definitely. But having worked for both large and small companies, I can tell you that I've done some pretty good science with rigs no more complex than exhibited here.

Well I do also find their claims intriguing and different from any other claim I have seen to date, but from there to just blindly believe them is a long shot.
You say you are an experimentalist and a chemist and yet you do not find any issues in their reports or in their experimental setup?
Good grief.....

[chrismb]

I've been more or less lurking on this thread all along, and my opinion is one of sheer disgust at the laziness of the naysayers. A bunch spouting off without having bothered to look at the evidence. ...

"I" find the evidence very encouraging. Not absolutely conclusive, but certainly not nearly as nebulous as is being claimed here. My credentials: PhD chemist, forty years practicing science, 24+ patents, and two R&D100 awards.

I'm pretty disgusted that someone could both have such an opinion and be using the title PhD! That title stands for everything that should be good about science - a demand for rigorous analytical procedures and to drill down into every ambiguity. If it is true that you have a PhD then you need to think a lot more carefully about what you call 'evidence' and who you call lazy.

The 'naysayers', as you call them, are merely bringing into sharp focus the contradictory attitude of Rossi and his 'demonstration'. On the one hand he seems to want the world to know how brilliant he is, on the other he's refusing to let anyone question him over his methods to see if that is true.

The 'naysayers', as you call them, have not said 'this cannot be', they have said, 'no evidence has been offered, and the hearsay material fed into Rossi's own website (purporting to be a 'nuclear journal') is a self-serving, self-adulatory soup and we're fed up hearing people-of-faith waxing lyrical over it'.

I cannot comprehend how you have interpreted any of the hearsay presented as being 'evidence'. I've not seen a single shred of material substantial enough to be called 'evidence'. Would you care to illustrate what you consider acceptable as a 'piece of evidence'?

[Maui]

I'm pretty disgusted that someone could both have such an opinion and be using the title PhD! That title stands for everything that should be good about science - a demand for rigorous analytical procedures and to drill down into every ambiguity. If it is true that you have a PhD then you need to think a lot more carefully about what you call 'evidence' and who you call lazy.

The 'naysayers', as you call them, are merely bringing into sharp focus the contradictory attitude of Rossi and his 'demonstration'. On the one hand he seems to want the world to know how brilliant he is, on the other he's refusing to let anyone question him over his methods to see if that is true.

The 'naysayers', as you call them, have not said 'this cannot be', they have said, 'no evidence has been offered, and the hearsay material fed into Rossi's own website (purporting to be a 'nuclear journal') is a self-serving, self-adulatory soup and we're fed up hearing people-of-faith waxing lyrical over it'.

I cannot comprehend how you have interpreted any of the hearsay presented as being 'evidence'. I've not seen a single shred of material substantial enough to be called 'evidence'. Would you care to illustrate what you consider acceptable as a 'piece of evidence'?

Well, now wait a second. I count myself as more in the skeptical camp than the believer camp, but I think you are somewhat missing Warthog's point.

When the skeptics in here say a piece of evidence doesn't exist, that's often not technically the case. Usually it exists to some degree, but dismissed because the testing method was less-than-perfect or the reporter is not deemed to be trustworthy. I can see how it can be frustrating to see it argued that the evidence doesn’t exist, because it clearly does. It’s simply a matter of what standards one is holding the evidence to.

I think Warthog is coming from the mindset that if he were playing in the lab himself, this evidence would compel him to believe that he really had something. If your goal is to decide for yourself if you have something that justifies more investment and in improving/refining it, I think Warthog is probably correct that the types of tests/demos we’ve read about are adequate.

However, this is clearly a different perspective than most in here are taking: that the demos are intended to scientifically demonstrate that there are no other known explanations for the phenomenon. It seems clear to me they are intended/promoted as such. And from that perspective, there may be loads of “evidence”… but its largely worthless.

[Giorgio]

Well, now wait a second. I count myself as more in the skeptical camp than the believer camp, but I think you are somewhat missing Warthog's point.

I think you are missing chrismb point.
Evidence in science has a specific meaning and must meet specific criteria. Is not enough for someone to say something or make a report to claim it is evidence.

When the skeptics in here say a piece of evidence doesn't exist, that's often not technically the case. Usually it exists to some degree, but dismissed because the testing method was less-than-perfect or the reporter is not deemed to be trustworthy. I can see how it can be frustrating to see it argued that the evidence doesn’t exist, because it clearly does. It’s simply a matter of what standards one is holding the evidence to.

I think Warthog is coming from the mindset that if he were playing in the lab himself, this evidence would compel him to believe that he really had something. If your goal is to decide for yourself if you have something that justifies more investment and in improving/refining it, I think Warthog is probably correct that the types of tests/demos we’ve read about are adequate.

However, this is clearly a different perspective than most in here are taking: that the demos are intended to scientifically demonstrate that there are no other known explanations for the phenomenon. It seems clear to me they are intended/promoted as such. And from that perspective, there may be loads of “evidence”… but its largely worthless.

What you are referring to is called indications , not evidences.
There are potential indications that something might be happening here, but there are no evidences for now.

[rcain]

the most positive indication of intent i have seen so far from Rossi and Focardi is

Rossi tells IE, “We are making a thorough series of tests with the University of Bologna, which will be 12 months
long with a reactor in operation 24 hours per day. During
this year we will make a long theory of measurements and
tests, also in collaboration with CERN researchers. A report
will be made at the end of the 12 months of measurements.”

source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRtherossikw.pdf (March/April 2011)

if and when University Bologna and/or CERN put 'their names' to an announcement of independent replication, under full disclosure, i am sure the world will really sit up. to be sure, there will be less doubt.

i take wathogs point about 'reasonable' evidence, though sadly i must also agree with much of Gieorgio's and Chrismb's retort above: these are extrordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence. they have not yet provided that 'level' of proof, nor, more importantly, 'scrutiny'.

[Skipjack]

I am siding with chrismb and Giorgio. There simply is not enough hard evidence to make any conclusions. The so called evidence produced so far does not count as scientific evidence because it was not produced by measurements and methods of observation that live up to the standards that you would expect from something called by that name.

[Ivy Matt]

Thanks for the heads up, rcain. If CERN agrees that Rossi's device produces heat through non-chemical means, heads will turn for sure. Not just because they have name recognition, but because they've been on the skeptical side before. For the same reasons, if they claim it doesn't work, I don't think anyone's opinion will change, believer or skeptic. I think the last time I checked Jed Rothwell's site was in February. Scott Chubbs' paper is from March, and I'm not certain how willing Rossi still is to let CERN get their hands on one of his E-Cats. He's changed his mind on that sort of thing before, but I'd like to see him give CERN a chance to try to prove him wrong.

From LENR-CANR.org I also found a link to this interview with Christos Stremmenos, a University of Bologna professor and early backer of Rossi. He is also on the Defkalion Green Technologies board. I think it's interesting to hear from all the different players in this drama. I don't have much to add to Stremmenos' interview except this: the development of science probably can't be stopped permanently, but it can be held up for a little while. Models do follow experimental evidence, but if the theorists have to guess at what the experimental evidence actually consists of...well, you get Axil and his 1001 hypotheses.

Also, something I found of interest that Akira Shirakawa posted on vortex-l: Marco Celestino, Piantelli's patent consultant (interviewed in "The Magic of Mr. Rossi"), has challenged Rossi's patent application. Of particular interest to me (and, I would suppose, most of us), from "Observations by third parties", filed April 29:

Amended claim 2 is not patentable under art 83 EPC.

Claim 2 recites

2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said method comprises the further step of providing catalyzer materials in said tube.

The description refers only generically to a catalyzer (catalytic action of optional elements, WO 2009125444, page 5, lines 11-12, without any further description of the optional elements).

A person skilled in the art has no possibility to understand which catalyzer materials are used, and which property or function the catalyzer has with respect to the nickel core.

[MSimon]

Mr. Simon, you as well as many here know the important thing is that muon catalyzed fusion is possible

Well yes. Lots of things are possible. Proof of actual events requires evidence.

BTW LENR (or what ever it actually is) is a reality as far as I'm able to tell. Rossi? Well I'm not sure from what I have seen so far if he has anything.

We see a lot of this around here. Look back at the EEStor threads. Lots of "measurements". Unlimited belief among some. The next REVOLUTION. Everything will be different. As I recall they kept it going for 4 or 5 years.

Rossi might be able to keep it going for longer. Or not.

BTW - "we have a contract to deliver...." was the last ploy of the EEStor folks before interest (faith?) died.

[raphael]

The correct way to make this test is by avoiding the steam phase altogether.

Which statement basically proves to me that you have NOT bothered to read or investigate closely the actual evidence. In the 18 hour test, they did PRECISELY that....."avoided the steam phase altogether".

"parallel" specifically pointed that out to you:

3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.

It looks to me like YOU have not bothered to investigate the issue.
1- The 18 hours test was not public.
2- No report was issued.
3- It was conducted by Rossi and Levi.
4- The water hoose was connected directly to the water tap, "estimated to be 1 l/s"

Very useful indeed.....

Anyhow, enlighten me. What evidences do you extract from it?

"I" find the evidence very encouraging. Not absolutely conclusive, but certainly not nearly as nebulous as is being claimed here. My credentials: PhD chemist, forty years practicing science, 24+ patents, and two R&D100 awards. I'm no physicist, but I'm a damned good experimentalist, and the setups and methods given aren't nearly as full of holes as you seem to think. "Low budget", definitely. But having worked for both large and small companies, I can tell you that I've done some pretty good science with rigs no more complex than exhibited here.

Well I do also find their claims intriguing and different from any other claim I have seen to date, but from there to just blindly believe them is a long shot.
You say you are an experimentalist and a chemist and yet you do not find any issues in their reports or in their experimental setup?
Good grief.....

Giorgio, your responses are trending distinctly towards demagoguery.

Please identify any/all of the "blind believers" that you continue to rail against. Are you referring to anyone posting on this thread? Or, are said "believers" some straw men that you've concocted?

Please also tell us where Warthog said he had "no issues" with the setup.

Are you saying that Rossi and Levi are part of a cabal?

Are you implying that the means via which the water flow (in the 18-hour test) was calculated was completely bogus?

Demonstrations using methodology that doesn't conform to the highest of standards can still be extremely valuable. Failure to recognize this is not good reasoning and it isn't good science either. Duh.

[MSimon]

Georgio & racain.

1. No such meter exists, as described, so it can hardly be "correct."
2. You know more about their business than they do that you can pontificate?
3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.
4. The water flow was measured. Maybe not as well as possible. Can't you read?

What meter are you referring to in #1? Are you saying that a sufficiently accurate measurement can't be done?

Re: #4 - water flow and temperature are the whole deal. Bucket collection?

Typically if your phenomenon is in the 10% range of total (energy flows, water flows etc) you want a meter good to 1% or better. If several quantities are involved you want to go closer to .1% accuracy for your individual measurements. For things like electrical power you want to do the multiplications at high speed in real time. i.e. get a utility calibrated meter. Data should be logged in real time. Calibration traceable back to a National Standards institute. The idea is that the experiment should be 10X as accurate as the minimum error. i.e. if 10% voltage fluctuations matter you should measure voltage to 1% or better.

Without doing that sort of thing you can't provide evidence.

And some experiments are impossible - measure the weight change in an object from atomic disintegrations.

[MSimon]

Demonstrations using methodology that doesn't conform to the highest of standards can still be extremely valuable.

Yep. If anything interesting happens they tell us that better measurements need to be made to verify the phenomenon.

So far we have: something interesting happened.

Experimental error or something else? It will be interesting to find out.

[MSimon]

1 l/s for 18 hours = 1* 3600 * 18 liters = ~= 65,000 liters about 16,000 gallons. About 65 MT of water.

1 l/s ~= 16 gal (US) a minute.

That is a LOT of fluid.

For illustration purposes suppose the energy input to that 65 MT was 2,000 joules/s. What is the temp rise? 4.2 KJ raises 1 Kg of water about 1 deg C. @ 1/l/s = 1 Kg/s - 2,000 watts will raise that 1 Kg/sec about 1/2 deg C.

So are inlet and outlet temps measured to better than .05 deg C? Doubtful. I'd be glad to see the evidence to the contrary though.

[93143]

The reported power level was 15-20 kW over most of the test.

[MSimon]

The reported power level was 15-20 kW over most of the test.

Thanks!

That says a 4 deg C rise. Which says calibration to better than 1/2 deg C. Only modestly difficult. Was it done?

[93143]

No idea. I've been mostly staying out of this thread; it's the sort of topic where I could easily waste a lot of time on a flame war over an issue I don't really have a strongly-polarized opinion on...

My source for the number is here.