10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[tomclarke]

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.

No, a straw man argument is where one party presents a distorted, and easily refutable, version of his opponent's position.

None of the examples you claimed to be straw men do that - thus, they are straw men. *shrug*

That is because you have a distorted view of the facts. You think that your strawman arguments are not strawmen. It's like a meta strawman.

You present critiques of the device that ignore essential details of the story.

For instance, Rossi has no credibility therefore his device is a fraud is a strawman argument because a version of his device is being developed by an entirely unrelated company defkalion.

You present your argument as though defkalion doesn't exist.

BTW I am up 2500$ on my nickel investment.

That is itself false logic. If Rossi has no credibility but was (once) working closely with DGT claiming to use his device, that makes DGT look distinctly suspect. Does it not?

[parallel]

tomclarke,

parallel. I get quite annoyed that you either don't think, or score cheap debating points.

Not mounting thermocouple properly to measure moving liquid temperature is pretty easy. You might clamp it to the outside of a tube reckining that any error would be underestimate of output power. LOL. But this is Rossi doing the clamping. His output thermocouples tend to be buried inside the sealed reactor housing. I'm sure you see the potential problems...

I assume you were not able to read or digest my post below.

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.

I don’t get annoyed with you. Why assume malice when simple stupidity can explain it?

You still haven’t taken me up on my bet. Should I assume your religious faith in the “nothing new is ever discovered & we’re too busy to even look” ivory tower physicists is wavering….?

[CKay]

You still haven’t taken me up on my bet. Should I assume your religious faith in the “nothing new is ever discovered & we’re too busy to even look” ivory tower physicists is wavering….?

He'd be daft to accept the bet.

- The majority of the test groups report a measured COP >6

But who are the test groups? If they're not respected, truly independent bodies with reputations to lose, then why should anyone believe them? For all we know, they could be shills for Defkalion.

- The protocol used and analysis of the results to be judged acceptable by >70% of the blogosphere

yeah, right - opinion on 'the blogosphere' is quantifiable like that.

- Inconclusive results or no general agreement from said blogosphere cancels the bet.

= pretty much guarantees that either side can wriggle out of the bet whatever the outcome.

[Skipjack]

assumes they are all as technically illiterate as Skipjack.

Dude, in my experience most people are technically much less literate than I am. Also, your personal attacks are totally unfounded, but you probably know that.
I think that you clearly lack the imagination and the knowledge needed to understand how easily people can be fooled and even fool themselves.
I would recommend reading up on Jacques Benveniste and water memory and how he and his entire team of reputable scientists kept fooling themselves for months until a group of skeptics, hired by the editor of Nature came in and cleared the whole thing up.
So dont tell me that I am technically illiterate simply because I am trying to keep all options for an explanation open until we have more solid evidence one way or the other.

[stefanbanev]

You still haven’t taken me up on my bet. Should I assume your religious faith in the “nothing new is ever discovered & we’re too busy to even look” ivory tower physicists is wavering….?

He'd be daft to accept the bet.

- The majority of the test groups report a measured COP >6

But who are the test groups? If they're not respected, truly independent bodies with reputations to lose, then why should anyone believe them? For all we know, they could be shills for Defkalion.

- The protocol used and analysis of the results to be judged acceptable by >70% of the blogosphere

yeah, right - opinion on 'the blogosphere' is quantifiable like that.

- Inconclusive results or no general agreement from said blogosphere cancels the bet.

= pretty much guarantees that either side can wriggle out of the bet whatever the outcome.

>yeah, right - opinion on 'the blogosphere' is quantifiable like that.

It's one of criteria and definitely it is more creditable then single sample (yours) of what is "respected, truly independent bodies"; you have your idea of what it is - other opinions may vary.

[stefanbanev]

assumes they are all as technically illiterate as Skipjack.

Dude, in my experience most people are technically much less literate than I am. Also, your personal attacks are totally unfounded, but you probably know that.
I think that you clearly lack the imagination and the knowledge needed to understand how easily people can be fooled and even fool themselves.
I would recommend reading up on Jacques Benveniste and water memory and how he and his entire team of reputable scientists kept fooling themselves for months until a group of skeptics, hired by the editor of Nature came in and cleared the whole thing up.
So dont tell me that I am technically illiterate simply because I am trying to keep all options for an explanation open until we have more solid evidence one way or the other.

> how easily people can be fooled and even fool themselve

It is TRUE but it works equally well both ways...

[ladajo]

Yup.

[CKay]

>yeah, right - opinion on 'the blogosphere' is quantifiable like that.

It's one of criteria and definitely it is more creditable [...]

But it's not quantifiable, so the >70% can neither be proved nor disproved.

[...]then single sample (yours) of what is "respected, truly independent bodies"; you have your idea of what it is - other opinions may vary.

Which has no bearing on the point I was making. Either party entering into a bet that hinged upon the judgement of a third party (or parties) would first need to know who that third party was. In the case of the Defkalion tests, we don't know that.

[stefanbanev]

>yeah, right - opinion on 'the blogosphere' is quantifiable like that.

It's one of criteria and definitely it is more creditable [...]

But it's not quantifiable, so the >70% can neither be proved nor disproved.

[...]then single sample (yours) of what is "respected, truly independent bodies"; you have your idea of what it is - other opinions may vary.

Which has no bearing on the point I was making. Either party entering into a bet that hinged upon the judgement of a third party (or parties) would first need to know who that third party was. In the case of the Defkalion tests, we don't know that.

> In the case of the Defkalion tests, we don't know that.

Yet. So far LENR mountains a good momentum to keep an eye on; why to jump to the final conclusion if it is still unfolding...

[CKay]

> In the case of the Defkalion tests, we don't know that.

Yet. So far LENR mountains a good momentum to keep an eye on; why to jump to the final conclusion if it is still unfolding...

Who said anything about a final conclusion?

I was merely pointing out why Tom would be foolish to accept the bet that Parallel offered. :shrug:

[stefanbanev]

> In the case of the Defkalion tests, we don't know that.

Yet. So far LENR mountains a good momentum to keep an eye on; why to jump to the final conclusion if it is still unfolding...

Who said anything about a final conclusion?

I was merely pointing out why Tom would be foolish to accept the bet that Parallel offered. :shrug:

>Who said anything about a final conclusion?

Good.

>I was merely pointing out why Tom would be foolish to accept the bet that Parallel offered.

My apology, I've missed the context of your post...

[parallel]

What several posters above seem to have missed is that tomclarke does not believe LENR ever happens. More precisely, he has never seen any evidence that it does. As this has been researched over at least 20 years he concludes that it is a fantasy.

If there is zero anomalous heat the outcome should be clear beyond all doubt. The testers won't find any and the general conclusion will be it has all been a fairy tale.

If it does work, there will probably be some haggling over the value of the COP, but that is not what the bet is about.

Basically, the bet is "does it work or doesn't it work"?

Tests were due to start today. There isn't much time left for the bet. I conclude tomclarke has got cold feet.

[Skipjack]

It is TRUE but it works equally well both ways...

Never claimed that I was infallibel, but then I would also never claim to have come to a final conclusion about anything, because I simply dont have enough evidence whatsoever to do that!
That is the main problem after all. I have nothing to make conclusions from, especially in Rossi's favor. In contrary, there are many inconsistencies that look less than favorable for Rossi. Nobody here is getting to a final conclusion about him and his stuff, I am sure.
But we skeptics simply refuse to take anything he says at face value.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

parallel. I get quite annoyed that you either don't think, or score cheap debating points.

Not mounting thermocouple properly to measure moving liquid temperature is pretty easy. You might clamp it to the outside of a tube reckining that any error would be underestimate of output power. LOL. But this is Rossi doing the clamping. His output thermocouples tend to be buried inside the sealed reactor housing. I'm sure you see the potential problems...

I assume you were not able to read or digest my post below.

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.

I don’t get annoyed with you. Why assume malice when simple stupidity can explain it?

You still haven’t taken me up on my bet. Should I assume your religious faith in the “nothing new is ever discovered & we’re too busy to even look” ivory tower physicists is wavering….?

Re bet: we do not seem able to agree on validation. I do not accept DGT's NDA signing and unknown testers. (I would need much more info)

I do not accept "blogosphere vote". And it would be difficult to measure!

Re thermocouples.

For somone who claims to be open-minded, you make an awful lot of assumptions!

I think your views are based on the idea that Rossi, or Levi conducting a test of Rossi's stuff, would do this in a carefuly scientifically valid way.

We cannot know. But we can note that Rossi's open tests have been probably scientifically invalid, in a number of differnt ways. We can also note the paucity of information in the reports that have emerged from this test. Somehow, all Rossi's tests have an easily closed loophole. It is a different one each time. This loophole is small deltaT and lack of normal careful recording of in and out temperatures.

On the basis of your assumption you argue that my suggestion of bad sensor positioning is impossible.

If you really have this iron-clad certainty about something very tendentious (in fact I guess most here would go the other way if asked) I take back my annoyance. I will just work round the aspects of your thought processes which are fixed.

Best wishes, Tom

[parallel]

Further to my comment above...
The test runs two identical cores side by side: one with Ni powder, one without. After two days the powder is transferred to the other core and the two cores run another two days.

Does anyone here seriously believe it is impossible to measure the temperature difference between the two cores?

As the tests will be carried out by 7(?) groups, who are supposed to be well recognized, I find it likely that even people on this blog will be able to recognize a few of them.

Therefore the only risk tomclarke would take with the bet concerns whether LENR is real. Despite his protestations of belief in the standard model and the impossibility of LENR, his refusal shows doubt.