10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Ivy Matt
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

Well, it's as an amateur psychologist that the Rossi phenomenon most interests me, since the physics of it is so opaque (although I'd be an amateur there as well). I'm still not sure how to read the main actors, but when a Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics at the Oldest University in the World says, in effect, "I don't know how it works, and I don't want to know how it works", I have to shake my head in wonder. :?

The believers in general I find less interesting. After all, it's common knowledge that a magician never reveals his secret. No secret, no trick, no entertainment. However, there is a subset of believers who I do find rather fascinating, and that's the cold fusion scientists who, from what I have seen so far, have largely embraced Rossi. I can understand that, if you've worked on the fringes of the scientific community for twenty or so years, the taste of imminent vindication must be incredibly sweet. However, given the history of cold fusion research and fusion research as a whole, for some reason I would have expected a bit more concern that Rossi isn't dotting all his i's and crossing all his t's. If his claims turn out to be overblown, the fallout from them could damage more than himself and his immediate business and research partners.
chrismb wrote:If you [taking it as read that you have such a background] are prepared to make such fawning comments over a whole debacle of events without any scientific merit, then you have totally stumped me and my proposition that modern science is in terminal decline is proven true.
From a sample of one? Sounds like a "proof by example" in more ways than one. :roll:

Not that I necessarily disagree with your proposition, if you mean that university (i.e. publicly funded) science has gotten a bit sclerotic. But I'm sure there are many here who would agree with you on that point. :wink:
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

breakaway wrote:So far the skeptics arguments posted in this board is not conclusive. I do not believe it is fraud. If it is not real it is more likely that the measurements were not done properly and the results are not as they appear.
This, IMHO, is what this board has been stating since around 100 pages ago.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Carl White wrote:There is a distinction between "healthy skepticism" and "destructive skepticism".
Same could be said for optimism.

Anyhow, I do not see any "scientific" destructive skepticism here for the simple point that there is nothing of scientific to be analyzed.

All what we have at this point is the word of a guy stating that he has something, but no scientifically collected data to support his claims.
Until he will be willing to share his findings believing or not to him is just a matter of faith and it has nothing to do with science.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

Giorgio wrote:All what we have at this point is the word of a guy stating that he has something
Oh, really?

So that's ALL we have? ALL???

We have NOTHING MORE than the "word of a guy" ???

"A" guy???? One single, solitary guy???

To repeat the qoute: "All what we have at this point is the word of a guy stating that he has something.."

Nobody in their right mind is going to agree with this. Nobody. This is a gross and egregious misstatement of fact. Plain and simple.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

raphael wrote:Nobody in their right mind is going to agree with this. Nobody. This is a gross and egregious misstatement of fact. Plain and simple.
I agree with Gorgio (!), and I have been assessed as being in my right mind, so you have been proved wrong.

We only have his word for it that there is nothing more to this experiment that what he has declared to us. Inductive heaters under the table, water with an abnormally high H2O2, what G is saying is that this is not a repeatable scientific experiment, because no-one can repeat it. So we only have his word for it that it is something he can repeat and that there is nothing more to it.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

raphael wrote:
Giorgio wrote:All what we have at this point is the word of a guy stating that he has something
Oh, really?

So that's ALL we have? ALL???

We have NOTHING MORE than the "word of a guy" ???

"A" guy???? One single, solitary guy???
Well, it's a fact.

Form a technical point of view, Focardi himself stated that the only one who knows about this secret catalizer and the way it works is Rossi and no one else.
So, if we want to believe that the e-cat works, the only way we have (up to today) is to believe the word of Rossi.

From a working point of view the test done till date are not scientifically valid because they lack scientific method.
The same Kullander and Essén stated this when they come back from the last visit to Rossi:
Kullander and Essén wrote:At this point precise measurement is crucial if credibility in the process under study is to be established.
So, as before, if we want to believe that the e-cat works as stated the only way we have (up to today) is again to believe the word of Rossi.


You might not like it but this is the way it is, and if you have proof of something different than bring it on the table of discussion instead of complaining.

All my hopes to date are on Kullander and Essén to clarify how much of good there is in this whole story.
Do I hope for this to be real? Yes.
Do I think this is real? Since the last week less and less unfortunately.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

breakaway wrote:It appears seedload was wrong about what Google says about 116 South River Road Bedford, N.H. 03110. If you go to http://www.whitepages.com/reverse_address and do a reverse address and reverse phone for 603 668 7000 which is found on Rossi's site it gives you the guys from LTI. Perhaps Rossi is subletting an office from them or some other arrangement.
NAI Norwood Group is at that phone number - Commercial Real Estate. I know, crazy idea, I called it. They are also at that address. Weird that Leonardo Tech and Leonardo Corp both share addresses and phone numbers with NAI Norwood Group. Address I could see - different suites. But the same phone number too? Odd.

I am guessing that this is an old address for LTI. But I can't figure out how it could then be an old phone number too. I suppose there is probably someone at NAI Norwood Group who has a personal relationship with either Rossi, Cassarino, or Noceti and is forwarding mail/messages.

Now Craig Cassarino is interesting. Look at that reverse search you did. Apparently he is working for Leonardo Technologies, Inc. and he is also working for Crown Agrofuels. He has at least three other businesses if you just do a general search. You would think he would be with LTI wouldn't you? But, the business at LTI-Group.com, Leonardo Technologies Inc. is in Ohio. Call the main number and they roll off a list of extensions and employees. No Craig Cassarino. This really confuses me, because Rossi is telling us to mail ccassarino at LTI-global.com for more information on LTI.

BTW, Richard Noceti, isn't in that list of names rattled off on that phone message either.

Anyway, all pretty odd for legit businesses.

Here is what he has to say on the matter.
Andrea Rossi
May 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 PM
Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- I am absolutely not interested to the skepticism, since we are manufacturing the reactors which in october will start their operation in the market
2- there is no reason why I have to disclose where we manufacture our reactors. Our Customers will receive the reactors in their factories, they are not interested about the manufacturing sites. Our NON-Customers have no reason to know anything at all about this issue.
3- The reactors are manufactured by Leonardo Corporation, while LTI (Leonardo Technology Inc.) is the company with the exclusive commercial license of Leonardo Corp. in the Americas and Caribeans.
For any info about LTI, please coontact them directly:
ccassarino@lti-global.com
Warm regards,
A.R.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Carl White wrote:There is a distinction between "healthy skepticism" and "destructive skepticism".
I would dispute not only your thesis, but the very foundation of what you are discussing.

I cannot be a skeptic on the Rossi-tisserie because there is nothing to be skeptical about. A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something. For me, there is no place in this so far for any 'belief'.

Let's look at the facts as far as I understand them;

1) I have refuted his claims regarding nuclear reactions directly to him, and he has said to me [see his blog] that he is not concerned about getting to the bottom of the theory because he is simply getting on with it. The theory is for someone else to figure out. Fair enough, I cannot 'not believe' in his claim of nuclear reactions if he's said he's not sure about that and gives it over to others.

2) He has claimed heat from H and Ni. There is plenty of history of people getting anomalous heat from H and Ni. So, no contest there. What is there 'not to believe'?

3) He has written up no accounts of his 'demonstrations', so I cannot 'not believe' them. All the figures and numbers that have come up are hearsay only, and are all highly dubious for the reasons I have already well-stated these 100 pages over.

What I will agree to 'not believing' is that he is going to have running MW reactors by the end of the year. I am able to 'not believe' this, because it is an actual claim of something concrete that either will, or will not, be but that there is a route that can be claimed for doing this. Now, he may not achieve that for a whole variety of reasons which may or may not be related to his stuff not working as claimed, and we will never know what actually goes on. Therefore it can be 'not believed'.

A skeptic is someone who doubts a position that others accept. I don't argue that the position of those 'believers' is wrong here, I argue with their logic for believing it. This doesn't make me a skeptic, in my language, it makes me an active advocate to enourage them to test their understanding of what they think is real. And it would be my position that it is never wrong to challenge someone's reasons for accepting something because it either gives them more strength of conviction if they are right (or obstinate or bloody-minded), or helps them correct their errors of reasoning otherwise (if they are wrong and open-minded).

I see nothing destructive in my mode of questioning and challenging. Therefore, I would conclude that anything destructive is consquent to the recipient of my scorn reacting destructively to it.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

chrismb wrote: I don't argue that the position of those 'believers' is wrong here, I argue with their logic for believing it. This doesn't make me a skeptic, in my language, it makes me an active advocate to enourage them to test their understanding of what they think is real.
Well said.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

breakaway wrote:For those of you who believe it is fraud what is your best idea on how this could be accomplished.
When David Copperfield went through the Great Wall of China, he did it by hitching a ride on the camera boom that was specially designed to give the TV audience one continuous shot from one side to the other. The mechanics of measurement was the means to the trick.

So, what is going from one side to the other and what could be hitching a ride?

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

raphael wrote:Ladajo, my posts are what they are. Characterize them as you please.

I will point out one minor item. To wit, I recently attributed the words of one of the participants here to another of the participants. The mistake was called to my attention and I immediately acknowledged it. Moreover, I expressed my regrets for the error....
Raphael,
What exactly do you want?
If you want folks to have faith in Rossi, fine, but allow those folks to grow their own vice accept what you insert.
Many here wish and hope that Rossi is on to something, myself included. However to date, Rossi while puttin gon a good show, has focused his efforts to commercialization, and while he has a right to do so, it is not helping his credibility given his past, and his unwillingness to generate faith with a real experimental setup run by impartial folks.
The proof of the pudding in any science is that it can be replicated by others. Rossi has thus far avoided and denied this.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

chrismb wrote:
raphael wrote:Nobody in their right mind is going to agree with this. Nobody. This is a gross and egregious misstatement of fact. Plain and simple.
I agree with Gorgio (!), and I have been assessed as being in my right mind, so you have been proved wrong.

We only have his word for it that there is nothing more to this experiment that what he has declared to us. Inductive heaters under the table, water with an abnormally high H2O2, what G is saying is that this is not a repeatable scientific experiment, because no-one can repeat it. So we only have his word for it that it is something he can repeat and that there is nothing more to it.
The "science" is eagerly awaited and Rossi's "leisurely" pace of delivering an appratus to Uppsala (or, other legit institution) is not in his favor.

However, to dismiss the demonstrations (NyTeknik, et al) as "not pure science" and therefore totally unworthy of consideration is an extreme view.

Sidebar: I have no connection with Oxford University. Never have had. This is a misconception on this thread but not one of my making.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I agree with Gorgio (!), and I have been assessed as being mindless, so you have been proved wrong.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

[Oddly, ITER is now described as 'just engineering'
And bad engineering at that.

The blanket (if it ever gets built) requires tht neutron loss be no greater than 10%. Engineering wise that is going to be VERY difficult.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

chrismb wrote:A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something.
IN THE LACK OF EVIDENCE. A person who refuses to believe something, even with lots of evidence, is a moron. Example: moon landing deniers.

Post Reply