10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[KitemanSA]

* * 200 * *

[Luzr]

* * 200 * *

It does not count. You were cheating.

[KitemanSA]

Not cheating, just persistant!

(And willing to edit the past?)

[Joseph Chikva]

Only if the proposition is dependent on the precedent. We've got a logical flaw there (not that it supports Parallel). Can anyone name the logical flaw?

Harmonous logical constructions on unsteady soil would not give anything good too.
Or anyone can say that soil is steady?

Besides for time which LERN discussed there was quite possible to put experiment much better. As only doubtless data of experiment provides required steady soil.
What do you think why that was not done?

Don't get me wrong: I agree with what you've said regarding Rossi, it is just That I wan't to identify the logical fallacy of the statement:

If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

The truth of Radiation being evidence of a reaction does not follow that no radiation means no reaction.
Strictly logically: It is not true that A implying B means not A implies not B. It is a logical fallacy, but what's this particular fallacy called? I'd call it: The fallacy of negating the precedent, but I made that up just now.

That was being said in that context that Mr. Parallel attempted to prove the nuclear nature of reaction with mythical gamma-ray burst.
I answered that if so, reaction stopped as gamma ray further was lower background level.
My doubt about existence of gamma radiation is fastened if recall Rossi's performance/demo in which he shows radiation counters and claims that no any radiation.
So, "evidence" of Mr. Parallel is wrong.

[R.Nkolo]

My doubt about existence of gamma radiation is fastened if recall Rossi's performance/demo in which he shows radiation counters and claims that no any radiation.
So, "evidence" of Mr. Parallel is wrong.

Because of the Shielding!
The apparatus produce low energy gamma radiation which the reator is capable of shielding. see Video at 28:46.

[sparkyy0007]

Assuming this thing works:
Rossi stopped the test of the gamma? spectrum because it would reveal the secret.
If this is true, the issue of a self destruct mechanism is moot is it not?

[Helius]

It's The fallacy of denying the antecedent, an Invalid Argument Form, true premise but false conclusion.

The truth of Radiation being evidence of a reaction does not follow that no radiation means no reaction.
Strictly logically: It is not true that A implying B means not A implies not B. It is a logical fallacy, but what's this particular fallacy called? I'd call it: The fallacy of negating the precedent, but I made that up just now.

Hey! Right on the Money! Thanks!

[R.Nkolo]

Assuming this thing works:
Rossi stopped the test of the gamma? spectrum because it would reveal the secret.
If this is true, the issue of a self destruct mechanism is moot is it not?

As far as i recall from the video, yes he stopped the use of a spectrometer, not the test of the gamma per se.

So yes i think you're right, the use of a self destruct mechanism could be moot.

[chrismb]

If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

The truth of Radiation being evidence of a reaction does not follow that no radiation means no reaction.
Strictly logically: It is not true that A implying B means not A implies not B. It is a logical fallacy, but what's this particular fallacy called? I'd call it: The fallacy of negating the precedent, but I made that up just now.

Well, the english could be tarted up to correct this, though. For example, "if there is a reaction then there is radiation" therefore "if there is no radiation then there is no reaction". This is now semantically correct, because "A then B" implies "Not B then not A".

You've fallen prey to the fallacy of the negated inverted-fallacy fallacy.

[sparkyy0007]

As far as i recall from the video, yes he stopped the use of a spectrometer, not the test of the gamma per se.

So yes i think you're right, the use of a self destruct mechanism could be moot.

Thanks for that.



Here's a shot in the dark.
I think it's agreed the Krivit demo was debunked by chrismb.
Rossi's response to the mildly colored preliminary report by Krivit was a viscous attack, all in caps no less.
Maybe Rossi staged the demo to get a bad review from Krivit, and slam him later when the thing is actually proven.
It seems from reading some of Krivits previous comments on Rossi there may not be a lot of love between them.

One example:

Rossi and Focardi Energy Amplifier: Reality or Scam?
Posted on January 14, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit

By Steven B. Krivit

Journal of Nuclear Physics? Really?

- A web site registered in California by a secret entity.
- A “journal” that is not a journal but a blog.
- A blog name that resembles the (real) former Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics.
- A virtual “editor” comprised of a “team of scientists.”
- A “team of scientists” who’s only active participant appears to be Andrea Rossi.
- A “10 kW module reactor” that is anybody’s guess.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/ ... y-or-scam/

Rossi does state they will have a good laugh at the naysayers. Motive, revenge???

[bk78]

Regarding the Ny Teknik video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM

Turn up your headphones and listen carefully to the sequence between 3:05 and 3:10 and then again between 3:38 and 3:48. Do you notice the difference? What is Rossi doing at 3:45?
Why was the water in the bucket not hot (it should be from condensation)?

Input power may have been 370 Watts and output 2kW ... but I wonder, was it at the same time?

[Joseph Chikva]

My doubt about existence of gamma radiation is fastened if recall Rossi's performance/demo in which he shows radiation counters and claims that no any radiation.
So, "evidence" of Mr. Parallel is wrong.

Because of the Shielding!
The apparatus produce low energy gamma radiation which the reator is capable of shielding. see Video at 28:46.

Good shielding. I need not video.
As you know or "know" please answer on the following:
Energy of gamma quants?
Shielding material?
Thickness?

[Giorgio]

Once we have one data-point of hearsay, science is made!!

(... or is that religion? Sorry, maybe I'm getting the two confused here... maybe there's no difference?)

I wonder if people like parallel are actually working toward the goal of removing from people's mind the difference between religion and science......

[chrismb]

Regarding the Ny Teknik video

Turn up your headphones and listen carefully to the sequence between 3:05 and 3:10 and then again between 3:38 and 3:48. Do you notice the difference? What is Rossi doing at 3:45?

Can you please tell us what you can hear? (I have no headphones)

All I can see is that there is no steam coming when the camera guy walks up to the end of the hose, then steam appears once he is there, and then on the way back Mr Rossi is sheepishly removing his hand from the vicinity of the heater controllers. Is that box not simply the heater controller? Why does he appear to be fiddling with something there?

Are we supposed to be noticing something else!?

[R.Nkolo]

I don't have a better insight into the e-cat device than you, i'm just referring to what have been stated in the videos.
Concerning the energies, again referring to the videos, i will say far lesser than 511 kev, see video at 23:37, they didn't detect photons in this range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray# ... erminology

... Because of this broad overlap in energy ranges, the two types of electromagnetic radiation are now usually defined by their origin: X-rays are emitted by electrons (either in orbitals outside of the nucleus, or while being accelerated to produce Bremsstrahlung-type radiation), while gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus or from other particle decays or annihilation events. There is no lower limit to the energy of photons produced by nuclear reactions, and thus ultraviolet and even lower energy photons produced by these processes would also be defined as "gamma rays".[ ...

Good shielding. I need not video.
As you know or "know" please answer on the following:
Energy of gamma quants?
Shielding material?
Thickness?