10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[seedload]

It strikes me that Ivy Matt is basically correct. Evidence for a mutually-exclusive alternative certainly counts as evidence against a proposition - ie: if existing physics says it can't happen, then odds are it can't. Lack of support in existing physics does not - ie: if the claim is enough of an edge case that the existing knowledge base merely doesn't support it, this does not imply that the proposition is wrong - though it does at least constitute a lack of evidence for said proposition, and there's no need to get emotionally (or financially) invested in it until some shows up. But the difference between "wait and see" and "not proven yet" is semantic. What I object to is the radical-skeptical position of "false until proven", which is simply bad philosophy, and which I have encountered from time to time.

Forgive me being on edge, but I was just called pathological just because I don't believe Rossi.

FYI, I basically agree with what you wrote above, except that in this case I have a particular reason for extreme doubt. One claim unsupported by the existing knowledge base is a hard pill to swallow, but one we should consider.

Two claims, unrelated technically, each individually revolutionary, and each individually resting on the extreme outskirts of their own corners of the existing knowledge base, is a different beast all together.

The day he made the second claim (revolutionary new method of cheap isotopic separation) is the day the probability of fraud went to approaching 100% in my mind.

I have a clear reason behind my strong position, despite Parallel's imagination that I don't.

regards

[D Tibbets]

....................

Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... +%28pdf%29.

This Quote, if complete and not taken out of context is miss leading. It cannot be used as justification for accepting the Rossi device.
The key flaw is not that chemical (or electrical) process could not for the claimed energy. That is true. It is also true that chemical explosives cannot produce a compact bomb that blows up a city. That does not mean a compact chemical bomb cannot blow up a neighborhood,

The important point is the energy output over time, and the input energy over time.
Do you have confidence in the input energy? Do you have confidence in the measured output energy? A black box may have anything or nothing going on within it, but that is also irrelevent to this calculation.

The output cannot be acepted based on claims. It has to be measured by acceptable and reliable means. since the steam issues have become increasingly suspicious.

The quote you gave is true, but to be significant, if should have: IF THE POWER OUTPUT... at the begining.


PS: I have been researching a Polywell configuration using permanent magnets. It uses only ~ 100 Watts of power, yet the surface becomes hot enough to fry an egg. This is obviously a net positive energy machine.
What, you want better proof? Well, you will have to buy one of them when I start mass production. The cost will only be $780,000 per copy.

Dan Tibbets

[ScottL]

As objective thinkers, scientists, engineers, physicists, and hobbyists, our goals are not to defend Rossi's work but to punch holes in it. That is the scientific method, to find errors in the fundamental understanding of the claims made. Several of Rossi's claims have been countered by many here and definitely after a review of the posts there seems to be sides.

So as an objective thinker, Parallel, I ask, where do you see holes in Rossi's line of thinking, proposed methodology, and demonstrations? I've noted you've defended it alot, but what are your concerns with it?

[parallel]

As objective thinkers, scientists, engineers, physicists, and hobbyists, our goals are not to defend Rossi's work but to punch holes in it. That is the scientific method, to find errors in the fundamental understanding of the claims made. Several of Rossi's claims have been countered by many here and definitely after a review of the posts there seems to be sides.

So as an objective thinker, Parallel, I ask, where do you see holes in Rossi's line of thinking, proposed methodology, and demonstrations? I've noted you've defended it alot, but what are your concerns with it?

I don't agree with your premise that the only objective is to punch holes in Rossi's work. How about explaining how it might work?

The objection I have to the pathological skeptics here is that they are so boringly repetitive. The demos with steam obviously leave much to be desired and I won't repeat the problems. The main concern I raised a long time ago is that without controling either the water flow or the heat output from the reactor with a feedback loop it seems unlikely that one could maintain a constant steam/exit temperature. This might mean unboiled water overflows into the drain. This only means the output is rather less than claimed. This problem did not exist for the second 18 hour experiment though.

There are sufficient unknowns that it is not possible to judge whether the device works yet. Have patience until the end of the year. Then we will probably know. From the facts available, I give it a better than 50% chance.

[ScottL]

The reason we don't jump on the Rossi-wagon, but objectively try to find ways to explain what is happening or call sam is that if every scientist jumped to the defense of every claim, we'd have way to many people believing in blacklight power...etc.

[parallel]

I don't know of anybody that has "jumped on the Rossi wagon" except Defkalion
Why would I call Sam?

[Ivy Matt]

if its a scam, can Rossi escape the fury of the spartans?

Actually, in my very tentative, highly speculative scam hypothesis, the Spartans have little to be furious about, although they could always pretend to be furious.

Of course, this is all just idle speculation with no secure grounding in reality, but what else is there to do these days?

How about getting off your lazy duff, buy some nickle powder and get us some real results!!

No, I think I'd rather complain to these guys and ask what's taking them so long.

I wonder what the attraction of Cyprus is.

It's offshore. That or lokum.

[Ivy Matt]

Whoa! Has anybody seen this? It's like déjà vu backwards.

[ladajo]

It's not clear, but it looks like Praxen DefkalionGreen Technologies (Global) Ltd. based in Cyprus, is the parent company of Defkalion Green Technologies.
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White_Paper_DGT.pdf

I wonder what the attraction of Cyprus is.

<munches popcorn>...That is curious, given that the Greeks have the crappy side of the island...<munches popcorn>...

[breakaway]

Not about scientific data but nonetheless some interesting stuff from DGT in the second interview in the clip.
http://vimeo.com/25785236

Already have sales, working on 2nd gen and other tidbits.

[ScottL]

Not about scientific data but nonetheless some interesting stuff from DGT in the second interview in the clip.
http://vimeo.com/25785236

Already have sales, working on 2nd gen and other tidbits.

They don't have first gen and they're already working on 2nd? What???

[Giorgio]

Andrea Rossi
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:18 AM
Dear J.Catania, I have already answered to this issue. To estimate a steam flow in television is ridiculous. Dry steam is not visible. All you can see is the wet portion of it. I already gave in this blog the flow-speed calculation. Some imbecile has made a comparison between our output and ne of an appliance that emits more water than steam. We cannot lose time on this. Again, only product in operation in Customers’ facilities is the test that counts. All the rest is chattering which produces more chattering, exponentially, if you fall in this trap.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

That's a bold statement. It increases my belief in his sincerity -- though he could still be wrong, of course.

Sincerity unfortunately has nothing to do with reality of his claims.
I am a strong supporter since the start of this drama that once they will finally decide to correctly check the heat produced all will boil down to measurement errors. I would like to be wrong, but everyday their claims seems less and less plausible.

[chrismb]

I can agree with the general thrust and intent of your statement, despite the apparent misunderstanding of "science" (which is really just "making human judgments based on incomplete information" coupled with an attempt to reduce the incompleteness of the information - Rossi's behaviour to date may be frustrating to observers (as is EMC2's, perhaps for different reasons), but you and chrismb remind me of sedevacantists the way you go on about peer review and restrictive definitions of the word "experiment", as if the appearance of science is more important than the substance...).

Just hold the heck on a moment here, fella!

Firstly, I don't know why you chose this moment to throw me a curve ball (always a bad idea.... you might wake me up!).

Secondly, it is not US that are claiming science, it is ROSSI. It is not for me to have to defend that I am being unduly 'scientific'. It is ROSSI who is claiming science, using academics as [unwitting?] shills and creating unauthorised 'UoB press briefings'.

This has now shown to be at least a fraud - UoB gave no such press briefings, but this was claimed when pulling in press people for his DEMO (or, as you seem to want to have it called, 'experiment').

Krivit has been very eloquent on this matter in his mark 2 report [you should read it, before spouting about my failings]. It explains step-by-step how Rossi has been intellectually dishonest by using scientific 'names' to support his claims, but then refusing to participate scientifically. Even Krivit - a cold fusion 'believer' - is now saying exactly what we [what some might term the 'non-believers'] have been saying for some time, but who keep being on the receiving end of critiques like yours.

...you and chrismb remind me of sedevacantists ...

I am just interested in the human dynamic on this, and you've encapsulated it by using yet another religious term!

What you are doing is to permit someone to operate in a bubble of claims that no-one is allowed to attempt to burst by analytical means, with the excuse along the lines that we are not yet at a point where analytical means will help determine the reality and to do so will just upset things pointlessly.

Well, my dear freind, Mr 9, if you agree with this, then I can tell you that what you are doing is exactly how religions start, and if you, and others who use the same argument, think religions are 'scientific', then we have a bit of a problem on the board.

[Giorgio]

I wonder what the attraction of Cyprus is.

Taxes.

The main issue is: "Will they ever make a profit?"

[Giorgio]

The message I got was, "this is worth a closer look, but Rossi won't let us".

Right to the point.