Page 197 of 424
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:25 pm
by parallel
MSimon,
You pump the device for a long time. After pumping it emits energy in excess of the immediate amount going in. Then it seems to stop.
I guess the reports of it going on continuously for months means that the scientists involved can't read a clock or don't know what day it is...
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:40 pm
by ScottL
parallel wrote:MSimon,
You pump the device for a long time. After pumping it emits energy in excess of the immediate amount going in. Then it seems to stop.
I guess the reports of it going on continuously for months means that the scientists involved can't read a clock or don't know what day it is...
I think you're using the wrong word. I wouldn't call them reports as much as claims. There's no documented report in existence. There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:35 am
by Coolbrucelong
Putting their words in my mouth- Tom Clarke ( and perhaps others) claim the difficultly of replication exhibited by LENR experiments strongly suggests that the occasional experimental results are likely a result of experimenter confusion and bias an not evidence of an actual phenomena.
They have a point. How could this LENR stuff be banging around for decades without someone having produced a really conclusive experiment?
However consider this. My sister in law is a neuro-physiologist. Her claim of fame is that she can do DNA sequencing from a single cell- if I remember correctly what she told me. On average it takes her something like 150 attempts to get a successful sequencing. Other workers in that narrow specialty need twice as many or more attempts to be successful. So she is a hot shot.
Obviously this experimental process is highly non-repeatable. As such does this mean there is no underlying biological phenomena? How difficult must replication be before you can be reasonably sure your "successes" are spurious?
Like Tom I am suspicious that LENR has been so hard to pin down and so difficult to reproduce. However it does seem to me LENR experiments have become much more repeatable and there does seem to be a lot more physical evidence for LENR than can be easily explained away by experimenter confusion and selection bias.
Still it would be very nice to see a LENR experiment success rate in the same league as a major baseball batting average.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:25 am
by parallel
ScottL
There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though.
I wonder why you have this urge to post drivel. It would improve the signal to noise ration of this thread if you would keep your word and quit, as you said you would many pages back.
In the time you save, you could possibly educate yourself by reading the 3000 odd papers listed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 59670.html
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:24 am
by tomclarke
Coolbrucelong wrote:Putting their words in my mouth- Tom Clarke ( and perhaps others) claim the difficultly of replication exhibited by LENR experiments strongly suggests that the occasional experimental results are likely a result of experimenter confusion and bias an not evidence of an actual phenomena.
They have a point. How could this LENR stuff be banging around for decades without someone having produced a really conclusive experiment?
However consider this. My sister in law is a neuro-physiologist. Her claim of fame is that she can do DNA sequencing from a single cell- if I remember correctly what she told me. On average it takes her something like 150 attempts to get a successful sequencing. Other workers in that narrow specialty need twice as many or more attempts to be successful. So she is a hot shot.
Obviously this experimental process is highly non-repeatable. As such does this mean there is no underlying biological phenomena? How difficult must replication be before you can be reasonably sure your "successes" are spurious?
Like Tom I am suspicious that LENR has been so hard to pin down and so difficult to reproduce. However it does seem to me LENR experiments have become much more repeatable and there does seem to be a lot more physical evidence for LENR than can be easily explained away by experimenter confusion and selection bias.
Still it would be very nice to see a LENR experiment success rate in the same league as a major baseball batting average.
Specifically, I am complaining because there are no conclusive single experiments, so the analogy here does not quite work.
Actually there was one, but it turned out to be incorrect (Krivit was famous for pointing out the fictitious data analysis).
Furthermore, the LENR people claim that they now know how to replicate (reliably) the LENR experiments. Yet still no conclusive experiment...
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:26 am
by tomclarke
parallel wrote:MSimon,
You pump the device for a long time. After pumping it emits energy in excess of the immediate amount going in. Then it seems to stop.
I guess the reports of it going on continuously for months means that the scientists involved can't read a clock or don't know what day it is...
Or, like Rossi, have duff experimental protocols...
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:32 am
by tomclarke
Were LENR a question of sighting some rare bird that could in principle migrate to a given location, but had never before been observed to do so, you might get 1000s of hopeful reports from amateur bird-watchers.
You would winnow those down looking for positive evidence, and in the end, perhaps some lucky twitcher would have good enough proof. Or perhaps not.
Would you say the bird had been seen because of the 1000s of hopeful near-misses?
In the case of LENR the proposition is much less likely than sighting a migratory bird. We have the thousands of amateur reports, but none meet the test of hard evidence.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:24 pm
by parallel
tomclarke,
Or, like Rossi, have duff experimental protocols...
Of course. Any result showing anomalous heat
must be experimental error. You say so: what more proof than that is needed?
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:59 pm
by GIThruster
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... JkmDztMprA
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/01/nasa- ... -research/
I knew NASA was checking into this, but I didn't expect them to do a 2 minute video. Have to wonder if this is Rossi at work.
Still, looks like NASA's guy on the job is impressed with WLT.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:20 pm
by FutureMan
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:23 pm
by GIThruster
Yeah, but we've known for 6 months that NASA was doing their own test of WLT. What we don't know is if/what they found anything. They weren't doing a Rossi replication, but rather their own design, IIRC.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:27 pm
by FutureMan
It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:28 pm
by parallel
FutureMan wrote:It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation
You still don't get it. LENR is impossible. All reports of anomalous heat are bogus. tomclarke says so.
Edit added.
For example see
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 60936.html
Not followed up because of people like tomclarke
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:00 pm
by ScottL
parallel wrote:ScottL
There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though.
I wonder why you have this urge to post drivel. It would improve the signal to noise ration of this thread if you would keep your word and quit, as you said you would many pages back.
In the time you save, you could possibly educate yourself by reading the 3000 odd papers listed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 59670.html
I post what I post because you make incredible claims that are repeatedly found to be incorrect, half-truths, or in the case of that link an out and out lie. I found no data reports, science reports, nor elemtrary school reports on continuous functioning of any LENR devices. I did however; find a lot of bickering going on. Sadly I wasted my time hoping you were capable of anything more than a child's comprehension of the subject.
Secondly, your reading comprehension has degraded I fear. I stated back in September that I would not speak on the matter until October. By my calculations, that month has long passed and I am free by keeping my own set deadline to speak again on this topic.
Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't post absolutely meta-physical garbage everytime you think you've come up with a miraculous explanation for Rossi's device. He's not designing his lattices or cavities or anything else for that matter. The "signal to noise ratio" would be greatly corrected if you simply didn't post anything outside of known facts, which you've never done amazingly enough.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:14 pm
by ScottL
parallel wrote:FutureMan wrote:It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation
You still don't get it. LENR is impossible. All reports of anomalous heat are bogus. tomclarke says so.
Edit added.
For example see
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 60936.html
Not followed up because of people like tomclarke
Please, direct link me to a report containing not just pretty graphs, but a report containing a section on possible experimental error and follow up experiments to eliminate those errors from consideration. Contrary to your belief, I think there's a chance of LENR, I just don't believe it resides with Andrea Rossi.
