10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Giorgio pretty much sums up my feelings as well.
One has to be particularily sceptic, because Rossi is making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If his claims were easily explainable with known physics or if he had at least presented a theory that explains his alleged(one always has to keep that in mind, they are alleged) results without inventing new physics, then we at least had something to discuss. Right now, IMHO we do not even have any reproducable observation and thus dont have any basis for a a theory explaining them.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: IIRC, Rossi allowed the second test because folks complained that the steam test was too unreliable
"allowed" a second test!?!

Oh! How generous of him! Clearly I misunderstand the situation - I thought the demonstrations were for him to release something into public domain. But now I stand corrected and all comes clear: The demonstrations were the opportunity he gave to the general public to prove we understood him!

Doh! Now I understand the situation!!!
While somewhat funny, your flippance does little to improve understanding.

AFAIK, and this was just recently posted IIRC, Rossi demostrated his machine out of friendship to Focardi. It wasn't his desire. So he allowed the first for Focardi, and yes, he allowed a second, third and fourth demo to assuage technical concerns (without giving away the show). At least that is how I read it. ICBW.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:Giorgio pretty much sums up my feelings as well.
One has to be particularily sceptic, because Rossi is making extraordinary claims.
ECREE. The standard skeptic's credo. And it is a good one. But real skeptics WITHHOLD judgement until the evidence is in, they don't use a lack of evidence as "evidence" to the contrary. I would be happy if folks around here withheld judgement until the evidence was in.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

tomclarke,
I look at it quite simply. I would love CF/LENR to be real. Every time there is some new interesting phenomena I wonder. But I have never yet seen anything even remotely that stands up. And I read whatever I can find that looks like it might have merit.
I gave some links earlier but don't recall you shooting them all down.
Here is another link, if you believe SRI to be competent...
Cold Fusion at SRI
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusion.pdf

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

KitemanSA wrote:
Skipjack wrote:Giorgio pretty much sums up my feelings as well.
One has to be particularily sceptic, because Rossi is making extraordinary claims.
ECREE. The standard skeptic's credo. And it is a good one. But real skeptics WITHHOLD judgement until the evidence is in, they don't use a lack of evidence as "evidence" to the contrary. I would be happy if folks around here withheld judgement until the evidence was in.
The trouble is, there is always a simplest explanation for any experimental result, which may or may not have anything to do with the researchers explanation. The simplest explanation is that Rossi is a wishful thinker on a mission, whom, according to even his most ardent advocates, is very slipshod in his experimental measurements.
I understand that Rossi's purpose was to demonstrate the E-Cat actually worked without going to the accuracy of measurement that would be desirable for a scientific paper. It didn't really matter if the results were 10% off - it would make no difference.
Personally, I think it does, especially in a field where the cart is typically pushed by the horse, where far too many advocates all over the world are chasing fortune over science, since it's 'inception' in 1989. I'm interested in Science, and Rossi's bank account focus over building evidences certainly gets in the way.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

But real skeptics WITHHOLD judgement until the evidence is in, they don't use a lack of evidence as "evidence" to the contrary.
I dont think that anybody is saying anything of the like or has made his final judgement yet (at least talking for myself, I have not). But, at least I am (and I believe Giorgio and others as well) not willing to accept any of the so called evidence presented so far as fact. And this is where we part ways with some of the other people on this board.
The so called evidence has been aquired in ways that is not showing the required dilligence and scrutiny that one should apply whenever extraordinary claims like these are made.
I may have a gut feeling on the whole situation, but at least for me it has always been a matter of "not enough facts, not enough evidence, no observation has been made yet". Everything else is IMHO pure and unfounded speculation.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

no observation has been made yet
That is pure BS. More evidence has been presented than for many scientific reports.
Now you may not believe it, but that is not the same thing. It seems clear to me that either the E-Cat is real or it is a very clever fraud. Not good enough measurements simply doesn't wash.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

Skipjack wrote:
But real skeptics WITHHOLD judgement until the evidence is in, they don't use a lack of evidence as "evidence" to the contrary.
I dont think that anybody is saying anything of the like or has made his final judgement yet (at least talking for myself, I have not). But, at least I am (and I believe Giorgio and others as well) not willing to accept any of the so called evidence presented so far as fact. And this is where we part ways with some of the other people on this board.
The so called evidence has been aquired in ways that is not showing the required dilligence and scrutiny that one should apply whenever extraordinary claims like these are made.
I may have a gut feeling on the whole situation, but at least for me it has always been a matter of "not enough facts, not enough evidence, no observation has been made yet". Everything else is IMHO pure and unfounded speculation.
You've gotta admit though, the adage "What's *he* smokin'" is a much lower threshold than he uncovered some brand spankin' new techniques that extracts huge amounts of energy from some means unknown to established science. You can't discount that which is at a lower threshold in favor of what you wish to be true. Occam's razor needs to apply, and in this case "he's got some mighty fine weed" holds sway over "new physics". Unfortunately, that it's a pipe dream is just at a lower threshold than the meager evidence that there is "cold fusion" at work. The only thing that can change that, is a well written experiment, and a release of all his data, but then, it isn't about the science.... yet. Its still about the money, and excuses of why he won't release all details.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

he only thing that can change that, is a well written experiment, and a release of all his data, but then, it isn't about the science.... yet. Its still about the money, and excuses of why he won't release all details.
Rossi says you are wrong (and I agree with him.) The only thing that will convince the skeptics is commercial sale of products. Even that will take some time.

Just out of curiosity, you accuse Rossi of fraud: so how is he making money out of it when he is paying for everything himself?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

KitemanSA wrote: While somewhat funny, your flippance does little to improve understanding.
Then I am, at least, achieving my primary purpose!!

What hope for understanding? Might as well stick with the laughs!?

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

There are lots of fraudsters from Wall St. that have been forced to move on now that more enforcement is taking place. What's to say a new breed of scammers with deep pockets wouldn't offer very hefty bribes to respected researchers for initial confirmation, or better known companies to make initial investments.

The difference between this and previous fusion scams could be in the scale and complexity.
CHoff

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

parallel wrote:It seems you think everything he does should be just to please you.
It seems to me that you do not yet realise that this is EXACTLY what he should be doing!

If you cannot please those to whom you release information, then don't release it!

No-one is sticking thumb-screws on him to do this demonstration. He should keep quiet about it if he is not prepared to 'come clean'. And there is no excuse wrt secrets. Just file a proper patent and you are safe to disclose. So your argument is, in technical parlance, shyte.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

That is pure BS. More evidence has been presented than for many scientific reports.
Scientific evidence requires independent verification. There is none of that.
Sorry to say that. But then again, you are clearly not getting what science is about.
The only thing that will convince the skeptics is commercial sale of products.
No, I want to see independent verification of the results employing methods that do not leave any room for doubt. Then I will be happy to cut back on my reservation and to actually form an oppinion on the subject.
So far, I do not have any verifyable observations to even base a theory on. You however...clearly have an opinion already.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

parallel wrote:
he only thing that can change that, is a well written experiment, and a release of all his data, but then, it isn't about the science.... yet. Its still about the money, and excuses of why he won't release all details.
Rossi says you are wrong (and I agree with him.) The only thing that will convince the skeptics is commercial sale of products. Even that will take some time.

Just out of curiosity, you accuse Rossi of fraud: so how is he making money out of it when he is paying for everything himself?
I don't accuse Rossi of fraud at all, and never have. I'm just following Occam's Razor. I think Rossi is likely guilty of overzealous wishful thinking, nothing more. Wishful thinking has a much lower threshold than fraud. The "wishful thinking" explanation and fraud both, have a lower threshold than having to rewrite 100 years worth of Physics texts because of this new science. Wishful thinking, seems to be the easiest and simplest explanation we have. Rock solid, and very accurate data, however might hold sway, allowing for repeatability, thus lowering the threshold of "New Science" to below "overzealous wishful thinking".

Something you said, however, leads me to believe this will not be the case. You implied in an earlier post that casual measurements would be good enough. I also heard that he's connected his E-cat to 240V AC.

240 VAC is great power.... and we all know that with great power comes great ..... responsibility. Responsibility in this case is to take accurate, non-casual measurements, none of this... "withing 10%" business you mentioned earlier.

It is likely Rossi believes his own stuff. He just doesn't take non-casual measurements, possibly because at some level, he may prove to himself that he can only arrive to a dead end.

I suspect there will still be discussion of this decades hence, yet with little to show for it, in both new science or products for sale.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

parallel wrote:tomclarke,
I look at it quite simply. I would love CF/LENR to be real. Every time there is some new interesting phenomena I wonder. But I have never yet seen anything even remotely that stands up. And I read whatever I can find that looks like it might have merit.
I gave some links earlier but don't recall you shooting them all down.
Here is another link, if you believe SRI to be competent...
Cold Fusion at SRI
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusion.pdf
I have read a lot of CF experiments. the best ones get replicated. The replications have never yet given consistent results clearly indicating nuclear activity.
parallel wrote: Unless I have direct experience myself that contradicts the theory or results, I take the report as probably true.
As others have said, LENR is an extraordinary theory that is difficult to fit into current physics and for which there is no clear evidence.

Extraordinary => v low probability, needs very strong evidence to become likely.

Now you are saying you will beleve a low quality report as a default position if it does not contradict your experience. I guess you see LENR as not doing this, but it sure does contradict a lot of other stuff, and must in any sane view of world be highly improbable until strong evidence is found.

The LENR community has just not been able to provide strong evidence so far. If Rossi's reactors do what some claim, they will be that strong evidence.

There was a time late 19th/early 20th C when most intelligent people believed in ghosts, mediums, etc. There was a vast volume of low quality evidence. The idea did not seem unreasonable.

large quantity of low quality evidence does not mean "there has got to be something in it" even though as humans we tend to feel that.

Post Reply