10KW LENR Demonstrator?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:14 pm

Enginerd wrote:A uniquely specious variant on Argumentum ad populum.

You've come to the right forum for some of that.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:17 pm

or not.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:25 am

Kahuna wrote:More new cold fusion reactor claims although very short on details. Axil may be interested in the fact that this approach reportedly uses an oxide of Zirconium rather than Ni:

http://pesn.com/2011/03/30/9501800_Zirc ... om_Poland/

Thanks for the heads up.

I have formed and option on this new Bolotov LENR reactor and will post on it directly. The mechanism of operation is not in the slightest related to the Rossi reactor. The Bolotov reactor does not use hydrogen; instead I believe that it uses nano plasmoids like those produced on a larger scale in the focus fusion reactor.

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:45 am

Enginerd wrote:
Giorgio wrote:This is the first time in my life that I see data coming from "many blogs in the Internet " as a data source to try to prove a scientific theory....
A uniquely specious variant on Argumentum ad populum.

I see it more as a failure to determine the primary source. Which admittedly is odd, considering that the publisher of the paper is likely the source of the figure.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:40 pm

About 25% of the radioactive nuclear waste inventory from fuel pellets is zirconium. After it is purified, it remains a beta emitter with a half-life of 1.53M years. Its beta emissions are only 90 keV (max.).

There is also a large inventory of CANDU zirconium pressure tubes that have been embrittled by hydrogen saturation and neutron-induced deformation.

If not a scam (NAS), the Bolotov reactor could decontaminate this nuclear zirconium (50,000 ton stock pile est. in North America) and turn it into precious metals at a nominal cost.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:43 pm

Another scam!?

Oh boy...

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:28 pm

chrismb wrote:
Enginerd wrote:A uniquely specious variant on Argumentum ad populum.
You've come to the right forum for some of that.

I think their should be a Latin name for an argument that consists of nothing more than refuting logic by providing a Latin name for said logic.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:45 pm

I don't see how anyone can complain about Rossi's plans. A test at a major university. More tests this year in cooperation with CERN. Commercial sales starting this year or next. The 'deniers' should be running out of things to complain about.

What more do they want? Any knew ideas?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:52 pm

Felis qui nihil Latine loquitur.

(I'll await to be corrected on my Latin grammar!)

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:55 pm

Axil wrote:I don't see how anyone can complain about Rossi's plans.

Spoken with the zeal of a true convert.

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:58 pm

Can this be relevant?
It is LENR or beam-target fusion?

http://webbshop.cm.se/System/ViewResour ... 06_42W.pdf

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:43 am

Torulf2 wrote:Can this be relevant?
It is LENR or beam-target fusion?

http://webbshop.cm.se/System/ViewResour ... 06_42W.pdf

This looks similar to General Fusion's concept.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:41 am

chrismb wrote:Felis qui nihil Latine loquitur.

(I'll await to be corrected on my Latin grammar!)

Apart Felis (that should be Felix), it is excellent.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:02 am

Axil wrote:I don't see how anyone can complain about Rossi's plans. A test at a major university. More tests this year in cooperation with CERN. Commercial sales starting this year or next. The 'deniers' should be running out of things to complain about.

What more do they want? Any knew ideas?

I do not see anyone complaining about Rossi plans.
On the contrary, everyone is eager to see them completed and the results offered to the public so we can also analyze them.

What we are complaining about is the total lack of scientific method that has been shown until now. A lack that cannot be excused when you make such huge claims.

I said it before, this is Rossi company and Rossi invention, he can manage them as he likes and he does not have to listen to anyone if he does not want to.
Yet we feel (at least I do) to have the obligation to point out the fallacies of such a doing, and this regardless if this invention really works or not.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:24 am

What we are complaining about is the total lack of scientific method that has been shown until now. A lack that cannot be excused when you make such huge claims.

…and this regardless if this invention really works or not.

I ran across this post by Brian David Josephson regarding the Rossi Reactor. 3/27/2011

Brian David Josephson, (born 4 January 1940; Cardiff, Wales) is a Welsh physicist. He became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson Effect.

I disagree with your statement that the mechanism is what counts. Take for example aspirin. This was used as a drug long before the mechanism was understood -- what mattered was that it cured your headache or whatever. Similarly with the Rossi reactor, as long as it produces cheap energy, that is what is primarily important.

As far as Josephson is concerned, the proof is in the pudding.

You might say that Josephson has fell along way down the rat hole since he won the Nobel Prize in physics; and condensed matter physics at that.

On the other hand, if the pope of condensed matter physics can excuse this mortal sin of science, how come you can’t?