10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:03 pm

Ivy Matt wrote:300!

Time to start another thread?

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:45 pm

tomclarke wrote:
Kahuna wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Links please. Are you talking about Bob or John Rohner?
John

http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_V ... eligentry/
http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_V ... _12-Points
It is a major scam, anyone who doubts this has a missing or very badly calibrated scamometer.

PS Even Sterling's involvement itself is evidence, thoiugh not conclusive, that it is rubbish. He has a genius for finding scams.

It does look as an apparent BS. It sounds as a noise to disguise the signal...

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:36 am

Skipjack wrote:
no, i was not refering to a statement about rossi's setup. i was refering to an over-generalization that you made.
Forgive my generalization. If I was to address each and every incident individually, it would take to much of my time. I have very little of that.
I come here mainly for news. Every now and then, I feel the urge to comment on some usually also very broad statement. There has recently been some interesting news in the LENR scene. I find it interesting, but not in any way convincing. There are to many pieces missing to that puzzle.

Supposedly we will get some theory from Rossi on Sep 8th. Or 10th.

I have low expectations for Rossi's theory, but historically theory has emerged over time to explain confusing experiment. If the effect is real and has the claimed inputs and outputs then eventually we'll figure out why, and it doesn't really matter if that happens long after nickel-hydrogen power is a large-scale commercial reality. People today often tend to forget that science is experiment; theory is just what we use to tie experiments together.

If Rossi can do a public Hot Cat experiment, that will raise some eyebrows even if his theory is junk.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:28 pm

Hey, I am willing to be suprised. I really WANT this to be real (which is why I am still bothering reading this thread). I just currently have very little reason to believe it is anything but an elaborate hoax. Too many holes in the presentations, tooo many holes in the explanations. No experimental setup available to the public.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:44 pm

Skipjack,

You have very little patience. You can't wait a month before deciding Rossi is a fraud without hard evidence for your assertion. Pathetic.

Q & A

The last several months you have been very upbeat about two issues in your comments on this website.
1. That it soon will be enough confirmed and verified information about LENR for ordinary main stream media and journalist to write for their readers in laymen terms.
2. That you very soon will have a valid certification for your industry eCat.
Do you still have the same positive view on above issues?? ..

Thank you for your important questions.
Here are the answers: (from Rossi)
1- Yes
2- The safety certification process for the industrial plants has been made. Besides this, within October will be finished and published the indipendent validation test made by a University.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:58 pm

TallDave wrote:People today often tend to forget that science is experiment; theory is just what we use to tie experiments together.

No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:12 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
TallDave wrote:People today often tend to forget that science is experiment; theory is just what we use to tie experiments together.
No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.

Let me quote a bright friend of mine:

science is experimentation

The purpose of the experiment is not all that relevant, what matters is the result. Ultimately one's experiment may turn out to have more bearing on some theory other than the one purposefully being tested (if any).

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:48 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
TallDave wrote:People today often tend to forget that science is experiment; theory is just what we use to tie experiments together.
No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.

I do not know what science is and frankly nobody knows. From my perspective the theory can be really helpful to reduce the space of parameters to make engineering manageable - the better theory the less expensive/extensive R&D and vs verse... so far, people with "good" LENR theories do not demonstrate advantage over Edisonian gradient method ;o)

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:16 pm

No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.

Obviously not true. Just one example to falsify it.
What theory did Newton expect to falsify when he split light with a prism?
Not to mention Fraunhofer lines and red shift etc. Often an experiment is for making new discoveries, pinning down properties and to find out what happens.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:21 pm

parallel wrote:
No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.
Obviously not true. Just one example to falsify it.
What theory did Newton expect to falsify when he split light with a prism?
Not to mention Fraunhofer lines and red shift etc. Often an experiment is for making new discoveries, pinning down properties and to find out what happens.

He showed that light does not change its properties on being reflected from objects (the old theory of colour, thus falisfied) and hence derived Newton's theory of colour.

But more generally, "blind" experimentation is worthwhile when the new data is extraordinary & novel, for example any advance in astronimical instruments, new particle accelerators, or very many experiments at a time when existing theories were not highly predictive nor corresponded well to experimental data.

Arguably, such results are not themselves science, but they certainly provide suitable raw material for new science.

And new science is proposing new falsifiable theories, and testing them through experiments. Like Newton's theory of colour.

LENR experiments do not provide such new material unless the results claimed fall clearly oiutside what is possible as result of experimental error, mundane effects, etc. THere are a lot of such possible issues, so you cannot claim LENR work as even the raw material for new science unless the careful checking and elimination of false positives is done.

But LENR theories thus far are not science, because they are unfalsifiable. Such a nonpredictive theory is easy to generate, and easy to support with evidence (since any collection of effects will do this).

Inasfar as LENR reserchers have made real predictions and tested them the results have been miserable (e.g. for a fusion type theory correlation between excess heat and He4, for a neutron capture type theory the bad predictions relate to turn-off radiation. This should be observed from transient hard gammas rays which outlast the slow neutron capture (and shield) effect as the product of radioactive decays.

But slow neutron capture theories have another big problem. The proposed shield effect is unbelievable in its fidelity, and also highly suspicious because it removes the simplest to detect unambiguous sign of nuclear reactions.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:27 pm

For example, detailed astronomical observations made over many years are not themselves science. Of course astronomers now do more than observe things, they verify or falsify atronomical theories.

But an observation is not a theory, and you need no science to make very detailed (worthwhile) observations.

Experimental scientists now deserve the title because the data they collect is informed by, and compared with, scientific theory. So the whole process is in fact scientific. Completely new and surprising observations (to a scientific astronomer) will refute existing theies and may be form the starting point for new theories.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:48 pm

Actually tomclarke, you should admit your rule that no science is worthy of the name unless it is authorized by grey bearded members from the ivory tower.

However, as PESN points out, Rossi has agreements with third party scientists who are studying the E-Cat. These scientists will release the information when they are ready to, and Rossi has no say in the matter. Fioravanti’s “leaked” report is the only news we’ve been offered, but perhaps it has served to spur the third parties onward, because the reports are now about to be released.

At the E-Cat conference in Switzerland this September, an abbreviated report will be released. This will be on about Sept. 8 to the 10th. Then, in October, the University of Bologna will release their results in a more detailed and comprehensive report.

Not clear yet whether tom thinks scientists from Bologna U. are really proper scientists. The only thing we can be sure of is that measurement error will be larger than any anomalous heat detected. Even if it is as much as 10 kW.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:24 pm

Experimental scientists now deserve the title because the data they collect is informed by, and compared with, scientific theory

This is a very modern conceit, borne of the fact we understand so much more today (i.e. we have a lot of well-proven theory). But even today it is still perfectly possible to do a scientific experiment totally uninformed by theory, to gain an understanding that may provide some basis for a theory of something not yet understood.

Zelazny once wrote "No word matters. But man forgets reality and remembers words." Theories are words, experiments are reality. Whether the words have predictive value is measured by experiment.

I only split this rather fine hair to remind everyone that even if Rossi's theory is completely wrong, the experiment may still be something valuable.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:22 am

parallel wrote:You have very little patience. You can't wait a month before deciding Rossi is a fraud without hard evidence for your assertion. Pathetic.

???
I think that I have been very patient, more than 1 and a half years of patient, more than one and a half years of one worthless presentation after another. I also never said that I cant wait a few more months. I can wait all the time, but it is Rossi who has to proof his stuff to me, not the other way round. He is the one making the extraordinary claim. He never showed anything credible.
Oh and please refrain from personal attacks. It makes you look weak!

The last several months you have been very upbeat about two issues in your comments on this website.
1. That it soon will be enough confirmed and verified information about LENR for ordinary main stream media and journalist to write for their readers in laymen terms.
2. That you very soon will have a valid certification for your industry eCat.
Do you still have the same positive view on above issues?? ..

Thank you for your important questions.
Here are the answers: (from Rossi)
1- Yes
2- The safety certification process for the industrial plants has been made. Besides this, within October will be finished and published the indipendent validation test made by a University.

Yeah, he has claimed pretty much the same thing since January 2011 (actually before that) and it never happened. Bait and switch, over and over again.
It annoys me. I am not saying that I am 100% sure that it is a hoax, but I am not convinced that it is not a hoax either and Rossi has a way of keeping me believing he is a con.

However, as PESN points out, Rossi has agreements with third party scientists who are studying the E-Cat. These scientists will release the information when they are ready to, and Rossi has no say in the matter. Fioravanti’s “leaked” report is the only news we’ve been offered, but perhaps it has served to spur the third parties onward, because the reports are now about to be released.

At the E-Cat conference in Switzerland this September, an abbreviated report will be released. This will be on about Sept. 8 to the 10th. Then, in October, the University of Bologna will release their results in a more detailed and comprehensive report.

Yeah, these agreements with 3rd party scientists that Rossi claimed to have, then these same scientists denied having these agreements (like the university of Bolognia). Same with Defkalion. Remind me again, werent we supposed to get the results of the independent tests back in May? It is August now. Did these tests ever happen? What we know happened is that they sold their alleged technology for millions to some companies in other countries... I dont know what to think of that. It stinks to me.
Well, come October, we will see what happens. My prediction is that we will see another bait and switch.
When that happens, what will you do then? Will you change your opinion, or will you stay a believer?

For example, detailed astronomical observations made over many years are not themselves science.

I dont agree with that. I think that observation is very much part of the scientific process. It is ONLY a part of it, but it is an important part of it. Natural history to me is a science as well. You may not agree, but I see it that way.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:27 am

parallel wrote:
No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.
Obviously not true. Just one example to falsify it.
What theory did Newton expect to falsify when he split light with a prism.

That "white light" was white? Actually, he was trying to falsify his hypothesis that white light was made up of all colors. His hypothesis withstood the test.