10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Axil]

Bad experiments and false conclusions.

Or is it biological palladium latices working together with biological negative hydrogen super molecule factories - a biological quark soup if you will? Or is it something more mundane like mini biological cyclotrons - which wouldn't be much evidence for LENR anyway?

No, believers in the Kervran effect are just the kind of people who would believe Rossi and BLP - IMHO.

Exactly. This factoid cannot be true because there is no way theory can be made to explain it so way even look into it.

What? You confuse me. I have read about it and it is garbage, in my opinion.

I suppose that you have looked into it and find it compelling.

But what confuses me is that your support of LENR including Rossi's seems married to very specific conditions of metal latices or nano particles and 'special' circumstances that happen when hydrogen is densely packed into them. But, biological transmutation can't be using these mechanisms, can it? I don't think so. So, what are the mechanisms? Another something new and unexplainable by modern physics? Is this yet another LENR type reaction that is unexplained but with totally different mechanics?

How far down do you wish to drive unlikely in your beliefs?

I don't think you get any support for LENR from biological transmutation gobbledygook. Rather, I think believing in both just demonstrates a propensity to believe.

I have never studied biological transmutation because it was so outside traditional theory.


But cold fusion should reduce to an underlying global principle that can explain every aspect of all its manifestations.

So I decided to do a surface level validity check of my latest Rossi process causation theory against some of the outlying manifestations in cold fusion.

Sometimes checking limits of a concept is revealing.


Where intensive thought into the Rossi reaction has finally led me is that there is a possibility of Rydburg matter may be a contender in the global causation principle.

In one way or another, I think Rydburg matter has a place in all instances of cold fusion phenomena that I know about.

In biological systems I think Rydburg matter may be configured as negative hydrogen ions as in the Rossi reactor.

In biological systems, negative hydrogen ions are better known as antioxidants.

But to get deep into this subject will necessitate an in depth understanding of biological systems.

All this is far and away premature, since the Rossi process must first be revealed and understood.

Please don’t criticize me for revealing my most deep and preliminary thoughts to you. I think you deserve such intellectual intimacy and can be trusted not to belittle it.

[parallel]

seedload,

Try not to make juvenile jumps to conclusions so often.
Where did I say I believed it?

It would also help if you occasionally added actual content.

[GIThruster]

For this type of evidence to be credible it would need peer review by others to check calorimetriic methodology, and possibility of unnacounted exothermic reactions in material.

All evidence is "credible" given it is gained in proper ways, such as using the proper scientific protocols. Adding peer review doesn't grant credibility. It provides validation, which is a separate issue.

Given Rowan has participated in a completely open process for two years, including an open shop for anyone to view the way their work has been done, I don't think you can make an argument against either the credibility nor veracity of the finding. Worse still, I have to say, Tom; is it beneath you to participate in character assassination of Dr. Jansson, even if only through innuendo. The Wiki piece does the same, so perhaps you were led into it, but just saying--this sort of thing is almost always where the arguments go when people are confronted with the evidence at BLP. It's shabby reasoning, and worse behavior to try to dishonor a guy like Jansson because you don't want to believe the evidence.

My original point, was to bring to the fore, the issue of what amounts to a scientific "explanation", and I pointed out that people are much more willing to consider the possibility of a LENR experiment than a BLP experiment, because of the preconceived notions people have. I'll make the point again.

There is no evidence of perverting influence in the Rowan experiment. There is no evidence of perverting influence in the Harvard Smithsonian experiment. All the people involved in these experiments would seem to have vastly more to lose by doing bad science than they would stand to gain, so character assassination arguments intended to discredit the experimenters make no sense, and the people who participate in that sort of argumentation really should be ashamed of themselves. They are not reacting to the nature of the data, the science, the protocols used, etc. People who stoop to such arguments in the absence of evidence of misconduct, are reacting to their own internal angst at the possibility, our current scientific paradigms are wrong--and acting out of such fear is always going to be a self-defeating behavior, IMHO.

Now lets compare all this to the LENR issue at hand. Given guys like Rossi do not have a working explanation for their findings, one is forced (not "tempted, really "forced" is the proper term) to ask why they would have built anything at all. How do you build anything, if you don't at least believe you understand the underlying principles?

So just saying, my criteria for judging emergent technology has always included these two requirements: that there be adequate theory to "explain" the effect claimed, and that there be empirical evidence to support the claims. Additionally, because I cannot claim to be en expert in every field I judge, I require peer review publications.

BLP has published everywhere it can for almost 20 years. They present in front of the American Chemical Society every year. They're not welcome in physics conferences because of the nature of their claims--they're claiming to be the vanguard of a scientific revolution, and should expect the kind of resistance they've seen this last quarter century. Rossi is completely different. There are those who can say this detail or that detail, does not fit into what we believe we know about life, the universe and everything, but they're not making claims that would necessarily make our current scientific paradigm's wrong--so people generally grant them at least and ear to hear.

Think about it--the LENR folks have almost no theory, almost no explanation (certainly not a functional one) and almost no data. BLP is the opposite yet they get the jeers. Just saying folks, this all has much more to do with our emotional construction, and our hesitance to consider anything that would require a reorganization of our noetic structures, than it concerns scientific method.

[seedload]

seedload,

Try not to make juvenile jumps to conclusions so often.
Where did I say I believed it?

Not a jump.

The experiments are reported to have been replicated several times.

Do you really believe that stuff?

See the "?". It is a question. Do you really believe this stuff? I notice that you didn't answer. Also, see your quote about replication. It is strong indication that you do.

It would also help if you occasionally added actual content

My addition is that this is becoming more and more obviously a scam to me.

How about your prior claims that he is only using his own money and will only take money for delivery of working systems. Now, it seems, he has already taken money.

How much do you pay for the agreement?

Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential.

Have you paid anything to Rossi yet?

Cassarino: Yes we have.

Or how about your claims that there is no mechanism for a scam because he is only selling the working thing.

Have you searched new funding?

Cassarino: Absolutely, we are in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies, because it’s not just a technology we’re creating in the industry here.

Or how about this?

Under the agreement, a newly formed company, Ampenergo, will receive part of the royalties on all sales of licenses and products built on the energy catalyzer in the Americas.

So, my addition is that the mechanisms for a scam are now in place. Your claims that it couldn't be are false and that the stakes of his legitimacy have just been raised.

My guess is that the delivery of a working system will be delayed while 'sales' of licensing continue (BLP, EEStor, etc. etc. etc.).

BTW, I reserve the right to be 'juvenile' in regards to this matter. Compulsion towards blind faith is quite child like too.

[seedload]

Please don’t criticize me for revealing my most deep and preliminary thoughts to you. I think you deserve such intellectual intimacy and can be trusted not to belittle it.

If find your treatises on potential LENR theory to explain Rossi's 'discovery' to be a bit of a disjointed amalgamation which doesn't make any sense to me. You seem to ping-pong between theories without regard for where you have been before. This is the result of your revealing your deep and preliminary thoughts to us in some sort of singular brain-storming session. It is normally expected that no thoughts or ideas are "belittled" when brain-storming because all thoughts can trigger something in someone else. But, since you are the only one participating and since this is a news thread, is it really that surprising that your public flow of consciousness results in some confused reactions? A quark soup of reaction, if you will.

regards

[RobL]

Old 1998 paper (submitted 1996) where Focardi, Piantelli et al report 30-60W out of a sealed 50cc reaction vessel loaded with a few nickel plated metal rods and roughly 1 bar hydrogen heated to 700K by a resistor:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

Note there is no 'secret sauce' in this paper - simple nickel plating and a methodology for loading the hydrogen (vac baking, pressure or temp pulses to establish reaction). Based on this replication would be pretty straight forward

There is obviously a group of italian academics who really believe this is real - and they have been very quiet in the mid 2000's - perhaps realising they were onto something big.

[rcain]

thanks RobL - that was exactly the sort of paper i was looking for - and as you say, importantly,

there is no 'secret sauce' in this paper

...reading...

btw - just taken a quick read though the WL-theory paper provided by Giorgio, and whilst most of it is well over my head, theres lots still to chew over. is anyone interested in starting a new thread over on general on its merits/demerits?

[Kahuna]

My first reaction to the Ampenergo news was disappointment that this was another new company made up of old Rossi cronies (a la Defkalion). I must admit that I did not know nor look into the principles tho. Here is alernative take on things by Jed Rothwell:

I do not know whether these people have corrupt connections with government.
I do not know what that is in reference to. I do not consider Rossi's
previous research with thermoelectric chips to be in any way corrupt, or
even unusual. That's a value judgement in which Beene and I cannot disagree
more.

Corrupt or not, I do know a few things about these people, and one is that
they are not stupid. They are not gullible. I have heard they did test the
machines carefully. More extensively than Levi or E&K, needless to say. I
have also heard they paid Rossi a lot of money. I do not know how much, and
it is none of my business, but it is millions of dollars. He deserves every
penny.

So, if you are looking for more of what might be called legalistic, or
circumstantial non-experimental proof that Rossi is no scammer, this is
it. I myself prefer quantitative experimental evidence.

You can be sure that people like this do not hand over millions of dollars
without careful testing. Rossi's claims are not nebulous. They are not
theory-based like Mills'. He says he inputs ~100 W and output ~10,000 W
continuing for weeks. That isn't hard to verify. You can be darn sure these
people did verify it.

- Jed

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40 ... 46985.html

I guess since one of the Ampenergo principles is a former DOE Exec, some are speculating that he saw the E-Cat and then retired in order to cash-in as a private citizen. Thus the government corruption comments in the quote.

[MSimon]

Let us look at another rather difficult chemical process and see how it moved from demonstration to production.

Bell Labs was building transistors in 1948. By 1954 there was a transistor INDUSTRY.

So let us look at Cold Fusion. P&F disclose in 1989.

In February 2002, the U.S. Navy revealed that researchers at their Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989, by releasing a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

So where is the industry? We are now 21 years on.

Now if there was a useful theory we would see continuous improvement based on that theory. But everyone has a different theory (not bad - theories evolve with evidence) and no theory seems to be able to show what needs to be done for improvement. So we have a blind "try this or this or that" kind of experimentation going on. Kind of like chemistry before Gibbs and Mendeleev.

So what does this tell us:

Either CF is extraordinarily difficult or it is not real.

And where does that lead?

If it is difficult it may not be commercial i.e. do you ever get your input energy back when you account for processing the materials for operation?

It is more than possible it could wind up like muon catalyzed fusion: it works. But you can't get net energy out of the process given the "cost" of making muons.

[MSimon]

Directory:Andrea A. Rossi Cold Fusion Generator (E-Cat)


They also claim to be going into production, with the first units expected to ship by the second half of October of this year, with mass production commencing by the end of 2011. The first units will be used to build a one megawatt plant in Greece. This one megawatt plant will power a factory that will produce 300,000 ten-kilowatt units a year.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... _Generator

So in 5 or 6 months we should know something.

[MSimon]

Rossi says the device runs at full power for 6 months: why is that not long enough for you?

Does that explain my position?

Yet folks around here say "Dr. Bussard says" and anyone who calls them on it is chided. Goose, gander?
Data are lacking, judge not yet.

Well Bussard uses known physics in a novel way. He requires no special and previously unobserved particles or special sauce and finally I know Tom Ligon and trust him.

Even Art Carlson after much disagreement and much back and forth says, "maybe" about Polywell.

[MSimon]

I swear that the couches burned a little hotter than they should have.

I always preferred to drop the couches from a 3rd floor balcony to precondition them.

[Axil]

But, since you are the only one participating and since this is a news thread, is it really that surprising that your public flow of consciousness results in some confused reactions? A quark soup of reaction, if you will.

Sorry to confuse you but the fault for the confusion is all Rossi’s.

I responded to Rossi’s generous flow of design commentary over these past months as it became available. As you know, Rossi has answered thousands of questions about all sorts of issues. The many theories that I posted here were each shot down in their turn by ongoing and progressive Rossi revelations.

Many times readers of my posts pointed out inconsistencies between the posts and Rossi’s many pronouncements. This was very helpful.

I had always thought that the way to tell if a scam was in play was to test everything that Rossi said as well as his other associated participants for consistency.

But in the end, Piantelli explanation of the Ni-H theory rings true to me and fits all the thousands of pieces of Rossi stuff floating around up till now and this theory is consistent with know quantum theory.


PS. IMHO, W-L theory does not work for the Rossi reactor.

[Skipjack]

Well Bussard uses known physics in a novel way. He requires no special and previously unobserved particles or special sauce and finally I know Tom Ligon and trust him.

And IIRC Bussard said "we should check it out and give it a chance, I BELIEVE IT WILL WORK". He never tried selling his call for more testing as a finished, working reactor.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

Your quotes from wiki do little to justify your damning comments.

BTW the guys who did this testing, Rowan, are not credible 3rd party testers. Nor are they credible chemists, and their report claiming they can't think of a chemical reaction would produce observed heat may be true but is no evidence for BLP claims.

You know as well as I do that the mainstream journals are unlikely to publish anything that shows any support for Mills, for the same reason they won't publish papers on cold fusion in general. They will publish a paper from MIT debunking cold fusion even though it turned out that MIT had apparently altered the experimental results to hide the excess heat they found when replicating Pons & Fleischmann,

Do you really think that because an institution provides funds to a university that automatically negates the value of what they discover? Where do you think universities get their research money from? If it is from a government grant does that mean the results will be biased towards government policy? I know that happens sometimes, but to discard all work based on the source of funding is nonsense.

I'm not commenting on the existence of hydrinos because the spectral analysis is not in my area of expertise. I do understand the calorimetry experiments and I haven't seen anyone criticize the work of Rowan U. in this regard. It seems they have done excellent work and it shows they repeatedly found excess heat generated in quantities ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known exothermic reactions.

How come you wrote:

If hydrinos really exist it is sort of suprising that BLPs best efforts produce heat output no more than 5% greater than that expected from chemical reaction of the reactants.

Have you actually read the paper?
http://users.rowan.edu/~jansson/blackli ... er2009.pdf

I read the 2010 papers, on grounds that more recent would be more accurate. I read 5% excess heat (3% measured, with 2% for calibrated calorimeter losses).


However this appears to be their calibration reaction paper. Sorry!

Looking at the other paper which claims energy output X2ish over possible. They have worked out the theoretical energy from a single reaction which does not exhaust all the reactants. They assume this is most likely. They therefore have no reliable way of knowing what is the total chemical energy from their reactants, especially because this complex mixture could lead to unusual products.

Also, without peer review, I hav no way of knowing what mistakes they are making when calculating reaction enthalpy. Do they have reactants & products in the right form?

If they could conclude definitely that there was ~X2 excess heat the findings would be highly publishable. It is not necessary to mention BLP in such a publication, and anomalous results are always interesting.

We started this because I asked for replicable results. Well theses results, whatever they mean, may be replicable. But unless done by groups other than Rowan there is no replication, because methodological, experimental, or theoretical errors can of coirse be repeated by the same group.

Best wishes, Tom