10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[GIThruster]

I guess to be fair, NASA is not in contact since Rossi burned the bridge.

I'm not familiar. Have a source handy?

Just asking because NASA has invested significant time looking at BLP, WLT, etc. It's not as if they were like DOE and refusing to look at what pops up.

The failed "test" and "demo" visit.
Yes they looked into what he has, and gave it some thought, at least a couple of individuals did. They met with him. He made, in context, an outrageous money request ($150million) for them to pay him in order to test the Ecat.

After that. I do not think 'NASA' has talked to him in any official capacity.

Reminds of when Boeing offered to bankroll Podkletnov on his supposed gravitic anomaly. He asked for something like $100M up front with no assurances and Boeing rightly walked away from what is assuredly a con.

These kinds of details are of paramount import when looking at veracity claims. Rossi-bots would be well advised to look into issues like this carefully.

[parallel]

Crawdaddy,

Unless there was fraud in the experiment, the resistive heating of the reactor prior to the onset of cold fusion roughly calibrates the device. This is a trivial observation, anyone who spent any time thinking about it wouldn't even bother to mention it.

Not only that, anyone experienced in experimental procedure would have thermocouples and instrumentation with errors that would be trivial compared to temperatures measured.

To suggest, as tomclarke did above, that one wouldn't mount the thermocouples properly, assumes they are all as technically illiterate as Skipjack.

[GIThruster]

Crawdaddy,

. . .the resistive heating of the reactor prior to the onset of cold fusion roughly calibrates the device

Not only that, anyone experienced in experimental procedure would have thermocouples and instrumentation with errors that would be trivial compared to temperatures measured.

Where is the data on the resistive heating prior to reaction? Uisng the experimental test article as the control source is not completely out of bounds, but it does remove a host of possible explorations Rossi otherwise might have made.

In any case, where is the data? It's not enough to say I have a gremlin locked in the cupboard. To believe me, you ought to ask to see it.

[Crawdaddy]

Crawdaddy,

Unless there was fraud in the experiment, the resistive heating of the reactor prior to the onset of cold fusion roughly calibrates the device. This is a trivial observation, anyone who spent any time thinking about it wouldn't even bother to mention it.

Not only that, anyone experienced in experimental procedure would have thermocouples and instrumentation with errors that would be trivial compared to temperatures measured.

To suggest, as tomclarke did above, that one wouldn't mount the thermocouples properly, assumes they are all as technically illiterate as Skipjack.

Indeed the device would ouput 15kW before it was even turned on under those conditions. Of course the input thermocouple would not be affected by the ambient and would read the correct temperature .....

I find it surreal how this discussion is infested with ridiculous arguments presented as evidence against the legitimacy of the e-cat that go uncontested by the majority of the participants. Personally, I would lose respect for myself if I allowed my bias to trump the basic application of reason to both sides of the argument.

[CKay]

In order for the Rossi is a crook argument to be anything more than a straw man argument, one must also believe that all the credible scientists and business people who have observed and invested in the technology are not only more naive than a child but also incredibly incompetent.

Explain how questioning Rossi's credibility is a straw man argument.

You do understand what a straw man argument is?

[Crawdaddy]

Crawdaddy,

. . .the resistive heating of the reactor prior to the onset of cold fusion roughly calibrates the device

Not only that, anyone experienced in experimental procedure would have thermocouples and instrumentation with errors that would be trivial compared to temperatures measured.

Where is the data on the resistive heating prior to reaction? Uisng the experimental test article as the control source is not completely out of bounds, but it does remove a host of possible explorations Rossi otherwise might have made.

In any case, where is the data? It's not enough to say I have a gremlin locked in the cupboard. To believe me, you ought to ask to see it.

Actually, if a credible professor of physics as well as a dozens of others confirms the presence of a gremlin anecdotally you should reserve judgement until the data becomes available.

You, however prefer to sling insulting terms like Gremlin-bot around and make definitive statements about the fact that there is no Gremlin, while ignoring any evidence of Gremlins. Poor form.

[parallel]

Crawdaddy,
Yes it is weird isn't it? I can understand people who don't consider that the E-Cat or Hyperion have been proven to work yet (a safe position) but to consider all the people involved are idiots is passing strange.

In the 18 hour test, I would say it was a near 100% certainty that the input and output temperatures were measured and recorded before the experiment even started, just to check the instrumentation was working. It would stick out like a sore thumb if the two temperatures were different.

[GIThruster]

I find it surreal how this discussion is infested with ridiculous arguments presented as evidence against the legitimacy of the e-cat that go uncontested by the majority of the participants.

That's not true of me at all. I've always been completely open to examine test results as regards the BLP reactor and ECat. I'm not willing to suppose any test results verify a theory, just as the profs at Rowan never endorsed Mills' hydrino theory. Separating out judgements concerning test results from the proposed theory behind them is good practice. Linking evidence to theory is a separate issue.

Just saying, I don't think Rossi has made a serious attempt to provide the world with credible evidence. The fact he bought himself an academic credential goes very hard against his believability. The fact he tried to make huge financial gains from NASA likewise portrays him as a con artist.

It is in light of these very salient issues, Rossi needs to win his critics with the evidence, and I'm not seeing that at all. You know, he probably could have taken his claims to people like Dr. Peter Janssen at Rowan, and asked Rowan put an ECat into the calorimetry instrumentation there. One presumes this could have been done at VERY little cost, and we'd have vastly more data to look at than we do now.

So lets turn this around. Do you know WHY Rossi didn't take the ECat to Rowan for testing 2 years ago? They were certainly set up to do a thorough analysis.

[Crawdaddy]

In order for the Rossi is a crook argument to be anything more than a straw man argument, one must also believe that all the credible scientists and business people who have observed and invested in the technology are not only more naive than a child but also incredibly incompetent.

Explain how questioning Rossi's credibility is a straw man argument.

You do understand what a straw man argument is?

Pretending that Rossi is the sole actor in this drama is a strawman argument. The list of people in legal jeopardy if this device is a fraud is long and includes the entire board of directors of Defkalion as well as Rossi's partners in the US, who have been selling the rights to produce their device. The list of scientists whose reputations will be destroyed if the device is a fraud is equally long.

There are many people who will suffer legal and professional problems equal to Rossi if this is a fraud who are in a position to know the truth about the device and therefore arguments based on Rossi's credibility that don't consider the other parties involved are straw man by definition.

Many posters here seem to think that Rossi came up with the device on his own in a basement somwhere. This is also a strawman argument.

[Crawdaddy]

So lets turn this around. Do you know WHY Rossi didn't take the ECat to Rowan for testing 2 years ago? They were certainly set up to do a thorough analysis.

If you read up on the patent literature, a device similar to the one described by Rossi was patented in 1996 in germany. It is very probable that no patent can ever be issued for the e-cat, even if it works due to prior disclosures and lapsed patents.

If that is true, then demonstrating the device definitively in public would be a good way to lose money. Would you demonstrate a device in public without any patent protection? I know the owners of my start up wouldn't

[tomclarke]

Basing an argument that the e-cat is flawed on Rossi's lack of credibility is logically flawed because so many credible people with direct experience have validated the technology.

We must be living in different worlds? Please give details of even one.

In order for the Rossi is a crook argument to be anything more than a straw man argument, one must also believe that all the credible scientists and business people who have observed and invested in the technology are not only more naive than a child but also incredibly incompetent.

Would you like to list these people, with reasons why they have such unusual qualities. I see no merit in this argument, in generl, but maybe you have some specific case which we can argue?

How many people who make their living evaluating experimental data can Rossi dupe?

As many as our capable of believing a good con with a story they despartely would liek to believe. Um, what percentage of the population would that be I wonder... Maybe 30%?

I don't think scientists are above otehrs when it comes to being conned. Do you?

Don't bother mentioning James Randi type magicians tricks. The Rossi device is consistent with existing peer reviewed literature in the nickel hydrogen cold fusion area

I would agree with you there. But not quite in the way you mean. There is no hard evidence of > chemical heat output in the literature, just as there is none from Rossi's demos.

and the available data is consistent with a functioning device. It would require a great effort and extensive experience just to build a fake device that could output anything that resembled the existing data without being obvious to even a semi-qualified examiner.

I have explained, trivially how it could be done. For the Levi test all you need is a Raney Nickel - Hydrogen reaction for the 130kW transient output, and a badly sited sensor, say mounted on some metal at room temperature or the reactor housing, instead of having thermal contact only with the water output. Not difficult to make, in fact you could even make it by mistake were you as clueless as Rossi has proved himself to be.

[GIThruster]

Would you demonstrate a device in public without any patent protection? I know the owners of my start up wouldn't

Em. . .that's the first weighty explanation for what I've seen that makes sense.

You certainly have my ear. Why not bend it a little and explain in detail, why you believe Rossi has something against all odds. I'm very curious and eager to hear what you have to say.

To start, if Rossi does not have and cannot get any patent protection for his work, then what does he think will earn him a living? Does he think he can build millions of his reactors, and no one will ever look inside them to see what he has? Seems implausible to me.

I don't see a way to gain financially from an invention one does not hold a credible patent for. Enlighten me.

[Skipjack]

have validated the technology

I guess we have different understandings of the word "validate", then. Because I have not heard or seen of any such thing. The one thing that comes closest is maybe Levi's test and it was in no way perfect and we still dont have all the details about it, because Levi himself is withholding that information. Why is he doing that?

[ladajo]

In order for the Rossi is a crook argument to be anything more than a straw man argument, one must also believe that all the credible scientists and business people who have observed and invested in the technology are not only more naive than a child but also incredibly incompetent.

Explain how questioning Rossi's credibility is a straw man argument.

You do understand what a straw man argument is?

Pretending that Rossi is the sole actor in this drama is a strawman argument. The list of people in legal jeopardy if this device is a fraud is long and includes the entire board of directors of Defkalion as well as Rossi's partners in the US, who have been selling the rights to produce their device. The list of scientists whose reputations will be destroyed if the device is a fraud is equally long.

There are many people who will suffer legal and professional problems equal to Rossi if this is a fraud who are in a position to know the truth about the device and therefore arguments based on Rossi's credibility that don't consider the other parties involved are straw man by definition.

Many posters here seem to think that Rossi came up with the device on his own in a basement somwhere. This is also a strawman argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[ScottL]

I'd like to know who all these people are that were involved in the verification of the ecat. So far, I've only noted Prof. Levi as having run any tests, and we don't have access to his test data or procedures. The only other people to say anything remotely positive were Essen and Kullander, and they admitted to making some observational assumptions that could discredit the demonstration they saw. So, who are all these people?

Also, where are all these corporations and other entities with ties to Rossi and Leonardo Corp.? Who is the big U.S. entity that starts with an "N" that Rossi has contracts with exactly? Why did Rossi say he was contracting with NI and then backed out. Why did he mention MIT and the whole New Hampshire deal before any of it was set/inked/etc? Who is his mystery customer? Who are any of his mystery customers?

It's all up to DGT now and some comprehensive experimentation with repeatable results from third party investigators.