10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Postby chrismb » Tue May 24, 2011 6:38 pm

seedload wrote:Not sure what all that meant (you are too smart for me) but it should be noted by the classical Oxford definition of the word skeptic, the skeptic is on the minority side, doubting of the prevailing opinion. It has a negative connotation. Classically, 'skeptic' is more like what we call a 'denier' today.


Origin of SKEPTIC
Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, from skeptikos thoughtful, from skeptesthai to look, consider.


The word's etymology sums it up nicely...!

...this implies those who are not skeptical need neither to think nor consider.

What I am describing is that I am unable to hold, or reject, a 'belief system' because there is nothing to believe or reject. There is no substance for me to consider, just hearsay observations. This is not enough to object to!

I object to people accepting the total lack of facts and making comments and suppositions on hearsay.

If someone says "I believe this stuff because Rossi has a honest face" then I would accept that for what it is, just an acceptance of faith!

But we've had 100+ pages of 'oh, its blah-de-blah nuclear this and la-la-Wisdom-Lardarse that'. Fed up with this shyte. It's so anti-science it's making my heart bleed.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Tue May 24, 2011 6:57 pm

chrismb wrote:
raphael wrote:However, to dismiss the demonstrations (NyTeknik, et al) as "not pure science" and therefore totally unworthy of consideration is an extreme view.

This is absurd. Rossi has presented nothing of scientific merit yet. No hypothesis stated, no null-hypothesis demonstrated, no numbers [excepting 3rd party hearsay], nothing repeatable, a slap-dash testing protocol that doesn't appear to have been written down, let alone reviewed by anyone. No stated conclusion. No viable theory.

What part of the demonstrations Rossi's done do you think are 'pure science' then?

[How have I gotten dragged back into this!! :x )


The demonstrations are being dismissed as unworthy of consideration. The reason given is that they are not "scientific" enough (or, not "scientific" at all). This (not because they would pass a chrismb purity test but because they have a ton of innate credibility) is an extreme (or, disingenuous) view.

One thing's for sure, there will be a mass and silent exodus from this thread the day (if/when it comes) that RossiFusion passes scientifically kosher muster.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

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

Postby chrismb » Tue May 24, 2011 7:06 pm

raphael wrote:The reason given is that they are not "scientific" enough (or, not "scientific" at all). This (not because they would pass a chrismb purity test but because they have a ton of innate credibility) is an extreme (or, disingenuous) view.


Just answer the question, then. What are the features of what Rossi has done that qualify it as being 'scientific'?

I'll give you clues as to what I would say about a 'normal' science experiment.

Objective statement of investigation.
Null hypothesis, and acceptance criteria defined.
Test protocol defined before the test.
Null test executed to check for noise factors.
Independent of the experimenter - shown that it could have been repeated by anyone.
Appropriate instruments for taking measurements.
Analysis of sources of errors and uncertainties.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Tue May 24, 2011 7:15 pm

chrismb wrote:
raphael wrote:The reason given is that they are not "scientific" enough (or, not "scientific" at all). This (not because they would pass a chrismb purity test but because they have a ton of innate credibility) is an extreme (or, disingenuous) view.


Just answer the question, then. What are the features of what Rossi has done that qualify it as being 'scientific'?

I'll give you clues as to what I would say about a 'normal' science experiment.

Objective statement of investigation.
Null hypothesis, and acceptance criteria defined.
Test protocol defined before the test.
Null test executed to check for noise factors.
Independent of the experimenter - shown that it could have been repeated by anyone.
Appropriate instruments for taking measurements.
Analysis of sources of errors and uncertainties.


Seems that we've been over this ad infinitum and then some. They were demonstrations. Not experiments. As demonstrations, they are not that easy to trash. They are worthy of consideration. They are not confirmation of anything.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Tue May 24, 2011 7:16 pm

chrismb wrote:But we've had 100+ pages of 'oh, its blah-de-blah nuclear this and la-la-Wisdom-Lardarse that'. Fed up with this shyte. It's so anti-science it's making my heart bleed.


One might wonder why you subject yourself to all that pain when you clearly have a choice to avoid it altogether.

I for one appreciate the insights and experience you offer occasionaly, but the repeated lectures on this not being pure science, a proper experiment, etc. does wear a little thin over time. I think we can all stipulate to your points. They have been well made, but have definately BEEN MADE.

If some here just want to follow this "non-scientific" yet (to us) interesting story, I'm not sure why you should care to point of wanting all to abandon discussion unless/until scientific facts that meet your standards are forthcoming. Perhaps it would be ok to just let us fools wander in the wilderness.

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

Postby chrismb » Tue May 24, 2011 7:21 pm

Kahuna wrote: They have been well made, but have definately BEEN MADE.
I guess I suffer from that complex where one is never quite sure if the recipient understood what you said.

And can you really blame me? One moment raphael says

raphael wrote:However, to dismiss the demonstrations (NyTeknik, et al) as "not pure science" and therefore totally unworthy of consideration is an extreme view.


then next he's saying

Seems that we've been over this ad infinitum and then some. They were demonstrations. Not experiments. As demonstrations, they are not that easy to trash. They are worthy of consideration. They are not confirmation of anything.


Are there two raphaels' or something? Maybe I am getting confused?

But, yes kahuna, I agree I am pacing over overly-trodden ground here and wonder why I hopped back in. I shall jolly well hop right back out again....!

Giorgio
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Tue May 24, 2011 7:30 pm

Kahuna wrote: Perhaps it would be ok to just let us fools wander in the wilderness.

Perhaps the fools can wander in some other place if they don't like the idea to use words in their correct meaning.
There are also people that do not like the idea to see scientific dogma thrown in the trash because others are in "sensationalist" mode or unable to understand why they should use a specific set of terms.
I guess that the Mars Climate Orbiter mess didn't teach people much after all.

breakaway
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:11 am
Location: Canada

Postby breakaway » Tue May 24, 2011 7:35 pm

Rossi on his thermocouples. I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. Lab to manufacturing roadblocks is a common problem.

Andrea Rossi
May 23rd, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Dear David G
Very interesting. By the way, I know very well the thermo-electric issue, because "I drew a patent exactly for high temperature T
I Worked for years, from 1996 through 2000 in this field, and Applied Them to engines, power generators, boilers, I Worked for DOE and DOD in this field, through LTI. But There Is an Enormous problems of reliability-when from high quality manufacturing of Few gram-you-go to bulk quanties. I drew with my hand thermocouples with a very Particular directional fusion In Law had invented, obtaining a 100 watt set very, very good, TESTED in the University of New Hampshire in 1998, But to do it I Worked 3 months full time: three thermocouples are very refined metallurgy Applied to electronics. If Few atoms get a wrong position, a semiconductor Become a resistance. When we Tried to Manufacture tea for Seebeck Effect in bulk quanties, to Have acceptable costs, we got big problems and the figure of merit-ice cases Syndrome an efficiency of 20% to a 1-2%. Still interesting in power diesel generators, but not That much. Now: it Appears the Caltech team speed resolved the problems. I am Delighted to know this, sure I Will Immediately Test Their application to the E-Cats as soon as the product The Will Be In the Market.
Thank you for this very interesting information,
Warm regards,
AR

Giorgio
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Tue May 24, 2011 7:36 pm

And before someone starts to cry, let me clarify that dogma in this case is referred to the set of scientific procedures that humanity has developed in the last centuries.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Tue May 24, 2011 7:37 pm

chrismb wrote:Are there two raphaels' or something? Maybe I am getting confused?


Can demonstrations be "not pure science" and yet be worthy of consideration?

"Yes," a reasonable person might well answer.

Which is why the statement was made. The point seems rather obvious....
Last edited by raphael on Tue May 24, 2011 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

breakaway
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:11 am
Location: Canada

Postby breakaway » Tue May 24, 2011 7:43 pm

Sorry should be. I had a Google translation on.

Dear David G:
Very interesting. By the way, I know very well the thermoelectric issue, because I made a patent exactly for high temperature T.E.
I worked for years, from 1996 through 2000 in this field, and applied them to engines, power generators, boilers, I worked for DOE and DOD in this field, through LTI. But there is an enormous problem of reliability when from high quality manufacturing of few grams you go to bulk quantities. I made with my hands thermocouples with a very particular directional fusion I had invented, obtaining a 100 watts set very, very good, tested in the University of New Hampshire in 1998, but to do it I worked 3 months full time: thermocouples are very refined metallurgy applied to electronics. If few atoms get a wrong position, a semiconductor becomes a resistance. When we tried to manufacture t.e. for Seebeck Effect in bulk quantities, to have acceptable costs, we got big problems and the figure of merit is fallen drom an efficiency of 20% to a 1-2%. Still interesting in power diesel generators, but not that much. Now: it appears the Caltech team has resolved the problems. I am delighted to know this, sure I will immediately test their application to the E-Cats as soon as the product will be in the market.
Thank you for this very interesting information,
Warm regards,
A.R.

Giorgio
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Tue May 24, 2011 7:50 pm

raphael wrote:They were demonstrations. Not experiments. As demonstrations, they are not that easy to trash. They are worthy of consideration. They are not confirmation of anything.

You are confused on the meaning of the terms.

Demonstration:
An explanation or experiment showing how something works.

Experiment:
A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis,

To make it short:
Demonstrations are made through experiments, and experiments are made to demonstrate.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Tue May 24, 2011 7:59 pm

Giorgio wrote:
raphael wrote:They were demonstrations. Not experiments. As demonstrations, they are not that easy to trash. They are worthy of consideration. They are not confirmation of anything.

You are confused on the meaning of the terms.

Demonstration:
An explanation or experiment showing how something works.

Experiment:
A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis,

To make it short:
Demonstrations are made through experiments, and experiments are made to demonstrate.


So, they weren't demos at all, then?

Yes, um, very logical, Giorgio.

Thanks a ton for clearing that up.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

Giorgio
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Tue May 24, 2011 8:12 pm

raphael wrote:So, they weren't demos at all, then?

Yes, um, very logical, Giorgio.

Thanks a ton for clearing that up.

It's not a question of logic, is a question of simple and plain definitions taken from a dictionary.
You should realize that you cannot give to words a different meaning just because it pleases your logic. If you do many will not understand what is the point you are trying to express.
The example Chris made to you a couple of posts ago is showing exactly this.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Tue May 24, 2011 8:18 pm

Giorgio wrote:
raphael wrote:So, they weren't demos at all, then?

Yes, um, very logical, Giorgio.

Thanks a ton for clearing that up.

It's not a question of logic, is a question of simple and plain definitions taken from a dictionary.
You should realize that you cannot give to words a different meaning just because it pleases your logic. If you do many will not understand what is the point you are trying to express.
The example Chris made to you a couple of posts ago is showing exactly this.


Yes, the level of your expertise and insight is clear for everyone to see. Ditto in the case of chrismb. Thanks again.
Last edited by raphael on Wed May 25, 2011 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests