10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[bcglorf]

and again, another what the heck are you babbling about?

I am babbling repeating your masterpiece when you admitted the possibility of existence of 700keV electron in crystal lattice.

Read up on polaritons. And where did I mention 700keV electrons? Please show me.

By the way, jacket in your beloved Rossi's device was empty or full prior the beginning of experiment?

You really seem to insist on acting the ass. "Beloved Rossi"? Do you have FACTS that disprove his endeavor or do you intend to just repeat inanities? If you have FACTS, facts that haven't been dismissed innumerable times, please provide them.

I understand you are upset, but come back and be reasonable. Rossi is making an assertion/claim without presenting any facts, that means we are not required to disprove him, it is up to him to prove himself with facts. A video/demo of a black box device doing something is not a fact. It is still entirely a matter of trusting the person, not any separate independent evidence or fact.

If Rossi really does get separate university researchers to open his box up and truly measure and replicate what is happening I am willing to bet a great deal they have an explanation much akin to Joseph's, some errors overestimating the output from what is essentially just a chemical reaction.

Moreover, until somebody gets to look inside the black box and has free reign to measure all the ins and outs, 100% of the burden of proof is on Rossi, so please stop demanding facts showing it won't work. Rossi won't even tell anyone what exactly it is that is supposed to be working, so how can anyone even try to disprove an unknown process??? It's insanity.

[KitemanSA]

What the heck are you babbling about?
For me there is not a big difference between DEMO and experiment if after that man claims something.

Well there is a fairly big difference in English.

If you can do the experiment do the same as Rossi, add flow-meter, for excluding steam to increase water flow on about 15 times and measure only delta t. Note: you should fill water jacket before starting.

My experiment is to boil water with a known electrical power input and to see the characteristics of the output steam. VERY simple. VERY limited. SORT-OF experiment.

You also should measure spent hydrogen mass and analyze nickel powder before and after experiment.
That's all.

That was done during one demo. Very small Hydrogen consumption (0.44g, IIRC) but there could have been fraud. The point, and I hope you are beginning to grasp it, is that IF there is fraud, there are MANY ways it could be happening, and harping on any one way is useless. IF there is fraud. IF there is not, how might there be sufficient mistakeage to show it not true, or how might it work if it is true. Those are the valuable guestions at this point.

FACTS?

[chrismb]

Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer

Steam output at about 3:10 Min.

This does look like it produces more 'steaminess', but the cameraman appears to give the game away.

If that were really displacing of the order of 3 litres/s of water vapour, then as he pushes the tube into the water in the bucket, it should literally be blasting big bubbles into that water - if it even stays in the bucket! It is quite clear that the 'bubble-rate' of that tube in the water is not 3 litres/s.

Again, he comfortably touches and manipulates this [supposedly 100C] tube with his fingertips, just as Rossi did.

[chrismb]

My experiment is to boil water with a known electrical power input and to see the characteristics of the output steam. VERY simple. VERY limited. SORT-OF experiment.

I was just setting up to do this test. Let's make clear the limits of what we think we know!

I have a power meter with power-factor correction on it somewhere, need to track it down!! Might need some automotive-standard tubing though, like Rossi's, to replicate the conditions lest someone objects to the differences. I have some at work I can borrow for the purpose.

[KitemanSA]

Before polaritons my dear let's learn more simple things. What to show? Are you waiting for that I will search in 180+ pages?
Fact is in very simple thing - this field or in other words the reaction between various metals and hydrogen is researched many years ago. And amateurs can not find there any novelty. And also have nothing to do there.

Oh? Go to the Kiteman Konjecture topic and look at the paper Giorgio linked. Quite interesting and evidence that "can not find there any novelty" is not necessarily true. Interesting things continue to be discovered and theorized.

And if jacket was empty before demo (as you wish) even only 750W external input would give you some steam. As only 450W can provide required 74 deg delta t.

Again, WE KNOW THERE MAY BE FRAUD ALREADY!! You do NOT need to harp on it.

[KitemanSA]

You really seem to insist on acting the ass. "Beloved Rossi"? Do you have FACTS that disprove his endeavor or do you intend to just repeat inanities? If you have FACTS, facts that haven't been dismissed innumerable times, please provide them.

I understand you are upset, but come back and be reasonable. Rossi is making an assertion/claim without presenting any facts, that means we are not required to disprove him, it is up to him to prove himself with facts. A video/demo of a black box device doing something is not a fact. It is still entirely a matter of trusting the person, not any separate independent evidence or fact.

Well duhh! Now, do you understand that I understand that NOTHING has been proven by Rossi? Do you understand that I understand that this could easily be a fraud? I GET IT!. Do you get that I get it?
I repeat earlier statements. We know that he is not going to provide such data. UoB may provide some now, but we shall see.
All that is immaterial to what I am asking for, FACTS.
One person stated that this was not possible AT ALL because no nuclear reaction involving Ni could be exothermic. I believe I was successful at correcting him (though perhaps not DT yet ). He made a statement that appeared to be FACTUAL. Turned out not to be. Do you have a FACTUAL reason that states this can't happen?

If Rossi really does get separate university researchers to open his box up and truly measure and replicate what is happening I am willing to bet a great deal they have an explanation much akin to Joseph's, some errors overestimating the output from what is essentially just a chemical reaction.

I can't believe it will be "error"; though IF fraud is involved, I am sure they will claim so. More and more I am thinking this is either FRAUD or REAL. I have trouble believing that anyone can be that DELUDED.

Moreover, until somebody gets to look inside the black box and has free reign to measure all the ins and outs, 100% of the burden of proof is on Rossi, so please stop demanding facts showing it won't work.

But it is the ONLY thing where the overall state of knowledge can be increased in the absence of the data that we don't have. So GIVEN that we have no data from Rossi and won't get any, and UNDERSTANDING that it may be fraud, is there anything FACTUAL to state that it MUST be fraud? No? Then there is nothing left to do but wait.

Rossi won't even tell anyone what exactly it is that is supposed to be working, so how can anyone even try to disprove an unknown process??? It's insanity.

Don't know. Several folks have tried but failed. Other than arguments about how "unconvinced" you are, do you have any FACT to say this thing CAN'T work? If not, then we wait, and babble about nothingness !

[KitemanSA]

Here is a different and fun tack.

GIVEN the Krivit Video...

What ways could this be a fraud?

Let us start a list.

Anyone?

[Carl White]

The hose was lying on the floor, with both ends raised. If there was significant condensation, would it not fill up with water and then start to spray and belch water at the open end?

The simple answer No..well, kinda.

Depending on the thermal loss of the hose per meter, a boundary
condition will exist somewhere along the hose where the degree
of superheat from the ecat will keep the steam from condensing.
After that boundry some condensation will occur keeping the hose at 100C.
If the hose is long enough, all the steam will condense leaving only
so called saturated water (water just at the point of vaporization)
http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/st ... -water.asp
If the hose is longer still, the sensible heat of the water will try to keep the
hose at 100C but it will loose the battle with the temperature exponentially falling to amb.
If you integrate the temperature loss along that length you end up with the entropy of the steam at the ecat, or any other boiler.
Condensation of the steam releases a lot of energy and in such a short
hose, only a small amount of water condensing is enough to keep the hose at 100C,
but not above (at atm pressure anyway)
The rest of the uncondensed vapor builds a slight pressure
against the condensate blocking the hose and blows it out.
If there is enough vapor, it won't fill up but it will belch as
you put it.

Does this clarify.. or mudify?

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand... but what if it is wet steam that is entering the hose? Is the apparent absence of intermittent bursts of water any evidence that it is mostly dry?

[KitemanSA]

My experiment is to boil water with a known electrical power input and to see the characteristics of the output steam. VERY simple. VERY limited. SORT-OF experiment.

I have a power meter with power-factor correction on it somewhere, need to track it down!! Might need some automotive-standard tubing though, like Rossi's, to replicate the conditions lest someone objects to the differences. I have some at work I can borrow for the purpose.

I am presuming that you will use something like an electric tea-pot or cup boiler? One interesting piece of data to collect is the RATED power vs the measured. Just for interest you know.

So is your source going to be near 5kW? If not, some thought needs to be given to scaling. Heat transfer wrt LT steam doesn't scale real well.

[bcglorf]

Don't know. Several folks have tried but failed. Other than arguments about how "unconvinced" you are, do you have any FACT to say this thing CAN'T work?

That's exactly the heart of the problem. If I put a collection of undeclared chemicals into a microwave, fire it up and declare that net energy is produced beyond what chemical reactions can explain it amounts to the same claims Rossi is making. It's fine if he or I want to play with something like that. The line is crossed when he and I start arguing with others about if our devices CAN work. He and I do NOT get to demand FACTUAL evidence that our devices can't work, and declare they are working in the absence of proof. The absence of proof disproves the claim he and I are making, and the burden is on he and I to provide facts demonstrating that it IS(more than just can) working.

Do you not understand how important that distinction is? You are arguing the same logical fallacy used by countless conspiracy nuts the world over, that if people can't disprove your idea, it must not be dismissed. Which is why I stated, anything that can be asserted without evidence CAN be dismissed without evidence. If you agree with this observation, then what evidence has Rossi provided that requires any kind of counter evidence from someone dismissing him? Thus far I've seen nothing from Rossi that amounts to any evidence outside his own personal declarations that his device works and is not just a fraud.

[raphael]

Here is a different and fun tack.

GIVEN the Krivit Video...

What ways could this be a fraud?

Let us start a list.

Anyone?

Here's another "fun" idea for a list.

To wit, a list of the persons/entities who have the most to lose if RossiFusion really performs as advertised.

a suggested entry: the Russian Federation.

[KitemanSA]

Don't know. Several folks have tried but failed. Other than arguments about how "unconvinced" you are, do you have any FACT to say this thing CAN'T work?

That's exactly the heart of the problem. If I put a collection of undeclared chemicals into a microwave, fire it up and declare that net energy is produced beyond what chemical reactions can explain it amounts to the same claims Rossi is making. It's fine if he or I want to play with something like that. The line is crossed when he and I start arguing with others about if our devices CAN work. He and I do NOT get to demand FACTUAL evidence that our devices can't work, and declare they are working in the absence of proof.

I see no where that Rossi is demanding factual proof that it doesn't work. I am asking for facts. I want to learn. IF this is impossible, I want to find out about it. Rossi be danged!

The absence of proof disproves the claim he and I are making, and the burden is on he and I to provide facts demonstrating that it IS(more than just can) working.

Of course. It would be assinine for Rossi to demand proof it doesn't work as support for a claim that it does. I am not Rossi. I can ask for ANY factual reasoning I want. If you have some, I'd love to hear it. No? Oh well, I'll have to wait.

Do you not understand how important that distinction is? You are arguing the same logical fallacy used by countless conspiracy nuts the world over, that if people can't disprove your idea, it must not be dismissed.

I am not arguing ANYTHING. I am seeking knowledge with which to improve wisdom. Inanities don't help.

Which is why I stated, anything that can be asserted without evidence CAN be dismissed without evidence. If you agree with this observation, then what evidence has Rossi provided that requires any kind of counter evidence from someone dismissing him?

Dismiss him all you want. I cannot control your decision making processes. My processes include gathering as much data and rationale as I can BEFORE deciding. That is what I am doing. Can you help? Do you have FACTS I can gnaw on? If not, well, thanks for wasting so much of my time!

Thus far I've seen nothing from Rossi that amounts to any evidence outside his own personal declarations that his device works and is not just a fraud.

Agree. So what? Do you have any fact to state it MUST be a fraud?

[TallDave]

So it sounds like if Rossi wants to persuade more people, more independent tests that carefully measure output power would be helpful.

OTOH, I suspect if it does turn out Rossi is wrong the commercial implementation will fail before very many such tests are done. As with Blacklightpower, keep an eye out for the absence of success...

[Joseph Chikva]

What the heck are you babbling about?
For me there is not a big difference between DEMO and experiment if after that man claims something.

Well there is a fairly big difference in English.

If you can do the experiment do the same as Rossi, add flow-meter, for excluding steam to increase water flow on about 15 times and measure only delta t. Note: you should fill water jacket before starting.

My experiment is to boil water with a known electrical power input and to see the characteristics of the output steam. VERY simple. VERY limited. SORT-OF experiment.

You also should measure spent hydrogen mass and analyze nickel powder before and after experiment.
That's all.

That was done during one demo. Very small Hydrogen consumption (0.44g, IIRC) but there could have been fraud. The point, and I hope you are beginning to grasp it, is that IF there is fraud, there are MANY ways it could be happening, and harping on any one way is useless. IF there is fraud. IF there is not, how might there be sufficient mistakeage to show it not true, or how might it work if it is true. Those are the valuable guestions at this point.

FACTS?

There in that youtube demo/presentation/experiment was nothing about hydrogen consumption. And that is fact.
If you are so interested to put experiment let's act. For free I advice you to not waste a time.
And what are you waiting from me? Would you like to involve me in this undertaking? If yes, thanks - no.

[chrismb]

I am presuming that you will use something like an electric tea-pot or cup boiler? One interesting piece of data to collect is the RATED power vs the measured. Just for interest you know.

So is your source going to be near 5kW? If not, some thought needs to be given to scaling. Heat transfer wrt LT steam doesn't scale real well.

I have an electric kettle, and I was going to rig it up to a variac to try different power ratings - first off at the rated power (at full voltage).

I am also thinking to try it on a gas stove - 'calibrated', Rossi-style, by letting it run at full burn and weighing how much boils off in a given time, partly because I've also pondered before on the total power output of a gas hob.

Not sure why I am doing this, but bottom line is that I don't really know what a given quantity of 'steam power' looks like. Some initial 'set up trials' (whilst I was making a coffee!) suggest the flow rate of visible steam isn't actually that much in the kW range, but pipes and geting close to it is all too hot to touch and be close to. Maybe the next visitor should take a thermal camera rather than visible. Also check how much Rossi sweats under scrutiny!