10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Axil]

is Axil Rossi going to go off on one again

My opinion on the Rossi demo has yet to reach full conclusion. In fact, the additional information that Giorgio has recently and graciously supplied has engendered further opinion pursuant to additional opportunity for discussion. I would, if permitted, continue to further consider this subject.

raving about how magical this is

When technology is unique and foreign to the common experience of the masses and is presented in a manor that is not fully understood and/or explained it is usually considered magical.

As a relativistic concept, many manifestations of our current technology if presented without explanation to the common folk of the 12th century back then would be universally and understandably considered there both magical in nature and in scope.

Magic is rooted in a subjective psychological and perceptual persona facilitated by powerful autosuggestion within the unconscious mind as a expression of a deeply needed aspect of human nature to explain and make scene of the unexplainable.

It is my desire to raise LENR at least in my own mind out of the realm of the magical to a well ordered and fact based understanding of this concept throughout its broader purview. I consider this thread as a valuable means to that end.

and that I am somehow ignorant of basic scientific experimentation?

This perspective is foreign to my opinion and I am at a loss at how such an impression could be perceived. I consider your opinion as a valuable resource in my quest to understanding the issues and concepts being discussed. Any failing in our discourse must be by necessity rooted in my incomplete understanding of the subject rather than in yours.



Please do not take my testing of concept as a personal slight of your opinion or competence. On the contrary, participation in the discussion on this thread is a great privilege that has been denied to me in other less tolerant and more conservative venues.

[parallel]

Giorgio wrote. "I used to do it daily while working in chemical industry.
Not so diffucult as you can think."

I very much doubt you did that to an accuracy of <0.1 gm. I find it most unlikely that the device with water flowing through it could be weighed to that accuracy.


quote "Not so diffucult as you can think."

Yes it is. I have done many experiments including measuring the amount of 1" tape, moving at 120"/sec through a container in a random stack, when the desired mean was about 15 ft. The original suggestion was to weigh it but that didn't work.

[chrismb]

Please do not take my testing of concept as a personal slight of your opinion or competence. On the contrary, participation in the discussion on this thread is a great privilege that has been denied to me in other less tolerant and more conservative venues.

OK. Sorry. You should say what you want to say. It's been sounding quite partisan to me so far, though, so I was reacting to that.

But please do be cautious about assuming reported results are right or wrong. They are results taken by people who normally have vested interests in the experiments they are running, and many results suffer 'experimenter bias' - in many different fields.

[chrismb]

We were talking about weighing the device before & after operation. But in reality that proves nothing.

It may prove nothing. Point is, it is a bit of data you would expect to collect in a well-designed study. You don;t go missing data simply because it might not show anything.

They measured the mass of the tank of H2 [and got it wrong]! Why not the reactor?

The important bit of protocol to get right is to raise the cell to full operating temp before admitting H2. Clearly, the heat activates processes for which an H2 flow is not require - that is evidenced at the end of the test. So, if one were to fail to look for residual fuels present before the test, then one is simply saying that at the end of the test, the reactor was generating heat from nothing at all!

err...... in the normal world of sanity, that would tend to prove there are other sources of energy within the device other than the flow of H2 during the test.... but we have strayed oh-so-far from that world...

[cgray45]

What Chrismb said-- *especially* in fields like this, where the scinetific community is already very skeptical, you must take very pain that there is absolutely nothing anyone can find wrong about your methodology. You'll have enough people saying " it can't be that!" without having to add in the people who are syahing: "well, it could, but honestly, we can't tell because of the flaws in your demo."

[Giorgio]

Giorgio wrote. "I used to do it daily while working in chemical industry.
Not so diffucult as you can think."

I very much doubt you did that to an accuracy of <0.1 gm. I find it most unlikely that the device with water flowing through it could be weighed to that accuracy.

And why do you need an accuracy of <0.1 gm as a first instance?

Additionally all you need is a delta weight versus time as the experiment progresses.
This will tell you any leftover water inside the reactor during the experiment evolution and at the end of it.

Hydrogen consumption can be calculated separately, and its' consumption is several order of magnitudes less than water weight, so it will not effect final results.

We have 16 ltr of water going into this machine and all we want to understand is if all of it is getting out or not. Not much difficult to set up IMHO.

quote "Not so diffucult as you can think."

Yes it is. I have done many experiments including measuring the amount of 1" tape, moving at 120"/sec through a container in a random stack, when the desired mean was about 15 ft. The original suggestion was to weigh it but that didn't work.

You see, you are making their same mistake. You just gave me partial info on an experiment you made without actually saying anything consistent.
How can I decide if your failure in getting to the target was because of impossibility of reaching it or due to your inability to reach it?

Was it a Lead tape? a Copper Tape? a Plastic tape? What thickness? What width? was a winding process or an unwinding process? Manufacturing? or dosing or reactants?
You are not giving to me exact details about your experimental environment and your experimental set up and this places me in the inability to judge the quality of your failure or success in reaching the desired goal.

This is exactly what is happening with this experiment.

[parallel]

Cgray45,
You didn’t answer my question. What was “incredibly sloppy”?

Quote: “you must take very pain that there is absolutely nothing anyone can find wrong about your methodology”

Even that would not be enough. The skeptics would claim they were lying, or the instrument calibration was off, or it was all CGI or something.

[parallel]

Giorgio,
Quote: "You see, you are making their same mistake. You just gave me partial info on an experiment you made without actually saying anything consistent.
How can I decide if your failure in getting to the target was because of impossibility of reaching it or due to your inability to reach it?"

You said that I couldn't understand the difficulty. I gave you an example to illustrate that I could.

It doesn't matter, but it was buffer storage of magnetic tape to a drive with <1.5 mili-second start/stop time (1000g acceleration of the tape when the 10" tape spool could not be accelerated that fast.) (Edit added. To repeat - 1" wide tape @ 120"/sec)
It couldn't be weighed accurately enough - the noise was too great, but I came up with another method that was satisfactory. This was before your time, before RAM was available.
I understand my explanation is not good enough because the experiment was not conducted under strict scientific conditions

[Axil]

The additional information recently pointed to by Giorgio bolsters my initial impression that the Rossi demo was not directed to win over support from the science establishment but was aimed at generating wider commercial support for his machine. His intent was to assure and advance commercial interests in his device without exposing any key intellectual content. He cannot gain intellectual content protection at this stage in the development of the LENR technology. This is understandable since it usually takes an inventor of a game changing technology many years of struggle to accomplish this. Exposing intellectual content was a risk for him that he did his best to minimize but from situations as yet unknown to us he felt compelled to take that risk.

Gleaned from history, as illustrative of the case in point was the first successful test of Edison’s light bulb conducted back on October 22, 1879; it lasted only 40 hours.

And yet, on October 8, 1883, the US patent office ruled that Edison's patent was based on the work of William Sawyer and was therefore invalid. Litigation continued for nearly six years, until October 6, 1889, when a judge ruled that Edison's electric light improvement claim for "a filament of carbon of high resistance" was valid. Warn down by this effort, and faced with a possible protracted court battle with Joseph Swan, whose British patent had been awarded a year before Edison's, he and Swan compromised by forming a joint company called Ediswan to manufacture and market the invention in Britain.

If LENR technology does finally breakthrough into the mainstream of science, any successful developer of a LENR based product should expect intellectual property contention orders of magnitude greater and more aggravating than those endured by Edison.

I am left with the impression that Rossi fells no need to follow any rules to appease “the chattering class” in the scientific community who have be a long standing source of humiliation and frustration for him. His interest is strictly commercial and the audience he wants to impress is the people who will build and field his device.

Those commercial interests must weight the risk reward balance in their contemplation of the Rossi device. For the early technology adopters, the risks are great but so too are the potential rewards. This calculation is not an easy one.

[Giorgio]

You said that I couldn't understand the difficulty. I gave you an example to illustrate that I could.

Actually I never stated that you couldn't understand the difficulty. On the contrary, I stated that IS NOT difficult to implement.

Than we can discuss about magnetic tape weighting as much as you like, not that milligram weighting at 120"/sec has much to do with the issue to check Kgs of weight on a minute scale, which is the problem we have to solve IMHO.

This was before your time, before RAM was available.
I understand my explanation is not good enough because the experiment was not conducted under strict scientific conditions

My first PC was a ZX80 and I was already a teen. I am probably older than you think
And yes, any experiment not conducted under strict control of fundamental variables cannot be used as a basis to validate a theory.
That unfortunately is the type of barriers we have to impose on scientific progress due to the too many dishonest adventurer out there.

[parallel]

Giorgio,
You are quite correct: you said "Not so diffucult as you can think."
Which I took to mean you thought I could not understand the difficulty.

My first computer was an Exidy Sorcerer in 1978. The computer tape drive was long before that.

Someone on the cutting edge of developing new things does not worry so much about it being acceptable to those in the ivory towers. In fact it is certain it will not be acceptable at first. Do you suppose I cared about scientific acceptance in developing a new tape drive? Rossi has already made it clear that he doesn't. He wants commercial acceptance.

The problem is that the system makes it difficult to get patent protection outside of accepted science. Edit added. My guess is that a major reason for the public demo was to help get a patent.

[Giorgio]

I am left with the impression that Rossi fells no need to follow any rules to appease “the chattering class” in the scientific community who have be a long standing source of humiliation and frustration for him. His interest is strictly commercial and the audience he wants to impress is the people who will build and field his device.

Those commercial interests must weight the risk reward balance in their contemplation of the Rossi device. For the early technology adopters, the risks are great but so too are the potential rewards. This calculation is not an easy one.

Of course he does not have any need or obligation to follow rules dictated by others. It's his company and his invention, he can do and behave as he pleases.

All the point here is only that if you want to make a public test, do it in a way that it will really support your case and not backfire.

Not having a mass balance check (among the other mentioned points) is something that leaves too much space to speculations and many who might have a genuine interest will retreat.
Businessmen are not gamblers.

Than, again, best of luck to Ing. Rossi on the test of his 1 MW machine.
We are all here just waiting and dreaming to yell to the web that his reactor works. Once we have suitable and sustainable data of course

[tomclarke]

The additional information recently pointed to by Giorgio bolsters my initial impression that the Rossi demo was not directed to win over support from the science establishment but was aimed at generating wider commercial support for his machine. His intent was to assure and advance commercial interests in his device without exposing any key intellectual content. He cannot gain intellectual content protection at this stage in the development of the LENR technology.

Fair enough. that is what it looks like to me as well. Two points:

(1) He or others should not then complain about lack of scientific interest

(2) In fact an experiment that would generate scientific interest could be done under black box conditions and need reveal nothing of the IP. Also if scientists were impressed it would obviously make it easier to gain funding - though I expect he will manage it from this demo.

weighing the vessel would be useful

Absolutely - extra data always useful and this one pretty critical since it puts upper limit on chemical energy available.

If the vessel only holds 1lt you might think that would limit things. I guess not, since the vessel walls themselves could easily be involved in chemical reactions. In any case as black box you can't tell the internal dimensions of the vessel.

What bugs me is that if this were something beyond chemical it would be so easy to construct and run a water-tight black box experiment. Perhaps not so easy to get all the things right, but there are many people who can help with that. But lots of excess heat out is a very simple and easily measurable phenomena.

[parallel]

This report has now gone on line.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... eports.pdf
It gives the radiation & neutron count.

Elsewhere I read that the device has 2 cm of lead shielding.

[JLawson]

I understand my explanation is not good enough because the experiment was not conducted under strict scientific conditions

There is something to be said for a "We'll try this and see if it works" approach.

Does it work?
Is it repeatable?
How does it work?

Get "Yes" on the first two, and the third will eventually follow.