10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Re: Reality check

Post by chrismb »

KitemanSA wrote::: Ok, I get it. You know all physics and since you don't see HOW it can work, it obviously can't... QED.
Half value layers!?!? .... Pretty basic nuclear physics. Numpty level stuff, this is.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

stefanbanev wrote:What importance of your perception of "Rossi lying" is...? very little... it is an issue for you but hardly an "issue" for Rossi; ~only perception of people having access to tech is relevant (see my post above)...
('you'?)

The importance of Rossi lying is that he, and others of his ilk, damage the reputation of legitimate small scale fusion research.

Potentially, Rossi is committing nothing less than an ultimate crime against humanity if his fraud leads to someone, somewhere, not being able to pursue what would have otherwise turned out to have been a 'route' to viable fusion energy. 'Technological' humans will need fusion energy to survive anything more than a few thousand years. They will definitely need it to get off this planet.

Rossi's thoughts are only of himself. The damage he may cause could lead to the extinction of humans. It probably isn't that serious, but there's no particular reason not to believe that it could be that serious.

The likelihood of Rossi being the culprit in the extinction of humanity, through his belligerent fraudulent abuse of research protocols, bringing small-scale fusion research into disrepute, seems more likely than his guff ever being found to be legitimate.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Reality check

Post by KitemanSA »

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: :: Show me this statement. Where does he say this? Was he talking about 50kg per individual ECat or total for the 100ish ECats per 1MW installation? This would be fairly incontrovertible "proof of a lie" if he actually claims to have 50kg of lead around EACH ECat.
Mats Lewan
Publicerad 18 mars 2011 13:461 kommentar

The time was not enough when the Italian engineer Andrea Rossi met Ny Teknik's readers in a live chat about his 'energy catalyzer' last week. Therefore, we sent him another 36 of the readers' questions – and here are the answers.

Mats Carlsson: Hi, How many kilograms of lead is used in one energy catalyst chamber, reg. gamma protection ?

Rossi: About 50 kg
Thank you.
Does anyone know how to follow up on this? E.G. "Mr. Rossi, how do you fit 50kg of lead around that little section of pipe?"
Does anyone here know of anyone who has seen Rossi put the black insulation around the Ecat and can they tell whether the package was unusually heavy?
Chris,
As I recall, the Ecat was more like 50mm long and 40mm across. With this size, the thickness would have been much thicker than your estimate. With overlap, etc., I get a sheet more like 150x150mm, perhaps 4X as thick. By your numbers, that would result in about an additional ~150 halvings. The 10kCi is now about 1E-40Ci. That seems pretty non-noxious to me.

Ok, another "can't" bites the dust. Got more?
Last edited by KitemanSA on Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Reality check

Post by KitemanSA »

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote::: Ok, I get it. You know all physics and since you don't see HOW it can work, it obviously can't... QED.
Half value layers!?!? .... Pretty basic nuclear physics. Numpty level stuff, this is.
Nope, it is simpler than that. Seems maybe you just can't judge size? Maybe it is me.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

By MARTIN ROBINSON
UPDATED: 16:56, 4 November 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057611

'With low energy, it's possible to give a heater a certain amount of energy and to get from the same heater a superior amount of energy,' he said.
'The heat is initiated by electrical resistance. The reactors then produce another 479kWh of energy for another three to four hours without needing that initial electrical input -- the low-level nuclear reaction continues on its own.
BRC Incident Report Form:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf

I spoke with Dr Rossi conceming the construction and operation of his E-eat device. He stated the active ingresients [sic] are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hdrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energv is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowldged [sic] that no nuclear reactions occur during the process

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by MSimon »

I'm sure this got discussed already: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2 ... after-all/ I haven't been keeping up. Press of work and all that.

Link found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/29/g ... nt-1350544
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

chrismb wrote:
...The reactors then produce another 479kWh of energy for another three to four hours without needing that initial electrical input -- the low-level nuclear reaction continues on its own.
BRC Incident Report Form:
... He acknowldged [sic] that no nuclear reactions occur during the process
Nice try, but hear-say. We have no idea what the actual conversation was and since one side was coming from the "nuclear fission" side and probably has a very limited definition of what HE meant by "nuclear reaction", it is not beyond the realm of reason that Rossi asked what he meant, he said "fission", and Rossi said "nope, none of that". [[As a bit of support for this hypothetical, please be aware that the NRC defines a "nuclear reactor" as a vessel within which a sustained fission chain reaction occurs. They would not recognize Rossi's machine as a nuclear reactor, even if it does work.]]

"The end result of all communication is confusion", (some retired Admiral).

This is one reason why hear-say is not often admitted in court.

Remember, I asked for examples of Rossi contradicting HIMSELF, not some other person SAYING he contradicted himself.

Another try?

As a warning, several people have tried repeatedly to find one and all have failed. They keep bringing up cr@p that would probably get them disbarred if they did it in court, I keep wiping away the crap, but it seems that some sticks in their eyes and they can't see the cr@p for what it is.

As I said, they have not made a rational decision, they are rationalizing a decision jumped to. At this point, "I don't know" is the only logical statement I can make, though I keep looking for hard evidence one way or the other and keep getting disappointed by the "evidence" presented... both ways.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Reality check

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: :: Show me this statement. Where does he say this? Was he talking about 50kg per individual ECat or total for the 100ish ECats per 1MW installation? This would be fairly incontrovertible "proof of a lie" if he actually claims to have 50kg of lead around EACH ECat.
Mats Lewan
Publicerad 18 mars 2011 13:461 kommentar

The time was not enough when the Italian engineer Andrea Rossi met Ny Teknik's readers in a live chat about his 'energy catalyzer' last week. Therefore, we sent him another 36 of the readers' questions – and here are the answers.

Mats Carlsson: Hi, How many kilograms of lead is used in one energy catalyst chamber, reg. gamma protection ?

Rossi: About 50 kg
Thank you.
Does anyone know how to follow up on this? E.G. "Mr. Rossi, how do you fit 50kg of lead around that little section of pipe?"
Does anyone here know of anyone who has seen Rossi put the black insulation around the Ecat and can they tell whether the package was unusually heavy?
Chris,
As I recall, the Ecat was more like 50mm long and 40mm across. With this size, the thickness would have been much thicker than your estimate. With overlap, etc., I get a sheet more like 150x150mm, perhaps 4X as thick. By your numbers, that would result in about an additional ~150 halvings. The 10kCi is now about 1E-40Ci. That seems pretty non-noxious to me.

Ok, another "can't" bites the dust. Got more?
Regarding this one in particular, Rossi also says that you can blow the sucker up and no radiation is released. Inconsistent enough?
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

JoeP
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by JoeP »

I can't find it now, but roughly a couple years ago, IIRC, there were before and after weights of an E-Cat during a test/demonstration publicized in the data. A slight difference was shown due to residual water still being in the system.

Anyone recall these weights and was the entire E-Cat even over 50kg?

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by ladajo »

You guys are falling into Kites trap. Don't waste your time. He will accept no evidence on this. His head is firmly, stubbornly buried in the sand. We have had the entire shielding discussion a couple times. Kite refuses to even accept the BRC guy's own words, and discounts them as hearsay. So in Kite's court, direct witness testimony is hearsay. He also ignores that fact that Rossi has said shielding, then no shielding. And many many other direct contradictions.

Do not waste your time. He is playing a game.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

KitemanSA wrote:Nice try, but hear-say. We have no idea what the actual conversation was and since one side was coming from the "nuclear fission" side and probably has a very limited definition of what HE meant by "nuclear reaction"

This is one reason why hear-say is not often admitted in court.
'Hearsay' is, technically, material from a witness not taken in oral evidence. By that argument, unless KSA wishes to arrange a skype session with Rossi and everyone else to whom he has ever spoken then he has a total 'get-out card' for any possible eventuality of a well-reasoned argument ... and yet he purports to be looking for a well-reasoned intellectual argument?

In any case, in this instance he's wrong anyway: The BRC Incident Report Form was a record of oral evidence taken by an ex parte Government official notorised for the purpose of recording such evidence. In that case, it is 'documentary evidence' and is not hearsay.

It is similar in all western jurisdictions. In the UK it is covered by the Criminal Justice Act, 2003, Section 117:
117 Business and other documents
(1)In criminal proceedings a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—
(a)oral evidence given in the proceedings would be admissible as evidence of that matter,
(b)the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied, and
(c)the requirements of subsection (5) are satisfied, in a case where subsection (4) requires them to be.
(2)The requirements of this subsection are satisfied if—
(a)the document or the part containing the statement was created or received by a person in the course of a trade, business, profession or other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office,
(b)the person who supplied the information contained in the statement (the relevant person) had or may reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with, and
(c)each person (if any) through whom the information was supplied from the relevant person to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) received the information in the course of a trade, business, profession or other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office.
(3)The persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) may be the same person.
(4)The additional requirements of subsection (5) must be satisfied if the statement—
(a)was prepared for the purposes of pending or contemplated criminal proceedings, or for a criminal investigation, but
(b)was not obtained pursuant to a request under section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c. 32) or an order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (which relate to overseas evidence).
(5)The requirements of this subsection are satisfied if—
(a)any of the five conditions mentioned in section 116(2) is satisfied (absence of relevant person etc), or
(b)the relevant person cannot reasonably be expected to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the statement (having regard to the length of time since he supplied the information and all other circumstances).
(6)A statement is not admissible under this section if the court makes a direction to that effect under subsection (7).
(7)The court may make a direction under this subsection if satisfied that the statement’s reliability as evidence for the purpose for which it is tendered is doubtful in view of—
(a)its contents,
(b)the source of the information contained in it,
(c)the way in which or the circumstances in which the information was supplied or received, or
(d)the way in which or the circumstances in which the document concerned was created or received.
Hearsay evidence itself is admissible under particular conditions, as given in Section 114
114 Admissibility of hearsay evidence
(1)In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if—
(a)any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible,
(b)any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible,
(c)all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or
(d)the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
(2)In deciding whether a statement not made in oral evidence should be admitted under subsection (1)(d), the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
(a)how much probative value the statement has (assuming it to be true) in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings, or how valuable it is for the understanding of other evidence in the case;
(b)what other evidence has been, or can be, given on the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a);
(c)how important the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a) is in the context of the case as a whole;
(d)the circumstances in which the statement was made;
(e)how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be;
(f)how reliable the evidence of the making of the statement appears to be;
(g)whether oral evidence of the matter stated can be given and, if not, why it cannot;
(h)the amount of difficulty involved in challenging the statement;
(i)the extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
(3)Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence of a statement on grounds other than the fact that it is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.

Enginerd
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:29 am

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Enginerd »

KitemanSA wrote:Remember, I asked for examples of Rossi contradicting HIMSELF, not some other person SAYING he contradicted himself.
[-------------snip-------------]
At this point, "I don't know" is the only logical statement I can make, though I keep looking for hard evidence one way or the other and keep getting disappointed by the "evidence" presented... both ways.
Since we are dealing in the realm of belief based on hearsay with little to no evidence (i.e. religion), I see no reason to consider Rossi's claims any more valid than any other similar claims.

Muhammad never (to our knowledge) contradicted himself. Just because the moon is no longer split (per Koran 54:1-2), doesn't mean we can dismiss the Koran. Muhammad's story was consistent, so we are compelled to either believe or withhold all judgement. Right?

Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon teaches that the native Americans are descended from Jews who spoke and wrote using Hebrew and Egyptian languages, made steel weapons and had sheep, horses, wheat, and barley. Just because there is no archaeological evidence supporting any of these claims doesn't mean we can dismiss the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith's story was consistent, so we are compelled to either believe or withhold all judgement. Right?

Rossi claims to be getting some large amount of excess power (the amount varies) from something called an ecat, that may or may not consume Hydrogen and Nickel powder, and may or may not emit radiation, and may or may not involve nuclear reactions. Thus far, nobody has been allowed to replicate his process, or independently test the device using a simple delta-t check on a flow of water (without no phase transition) over an extended time period. But that doesn't mean we can dismiss Rossi and the ecat. His story is consistent, so we are compelled to either believe or withhold all judgement. Right?

Sometimes it is helpful to consider probability. What we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain. We all take chances, we all operate based on probability. Some things, when the probability is weighed in the balance, seem much less likely to be true. Rossi claims to have invented the greatest thing since the invention of fire. Fine. That would be cool. Wake me when he provides indisputable evidence for his claim. Till then, we are dealing with a religious belief, and I'm not interested.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

Enginerd wrote:Muhammad never (to our knowledge) contradicted himself.
:shock:

Kidding, right?


(... or will this be another KSAism, wherein Enginerd argues the inconsistencies in the Koran are not Mohammed's words, but are, in fact, God's words?)
Last edited by chrismb on Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Reality check

Post by krenshala »

KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: :: Show me this statement. Where does he say this? Was he talking about 50kg per individual ECat or total for the 100ish ECats per 1MW installation? This would be fairly incontrovertible "proof of a lie" if he actually claims to have 50kg of lead around EACH ECat.
Mats Lewan
Publicerad 18 mars 2011 13:461 kommentar

The time was not enough when the Italian engineer Andrea Rossi met Ny Teknik's readers in a live chat about his 'energy catalyzer' last week. Therefore, we sent him another 36 of the readers' questions – and here are the answers.

Mats Carlsson: Hi, How many kilograms of lead is used in one energy catalyst chamber, reg. gamma protection ?

Rossi: About 50 kg
Thank you.
Does anyone know how to follow up on this? E.G. "Mr. Rossi, how do you fit 50kg of lead around that little section of pipe?"
Does anyone here know of anyone who has seen Rossi put the black insulation around the Ecat and can they tell whether the package was unusually heavy?
Chris,
As I recall, the Ecat was more like 50mm long and 40mm across. With this size, the thickness would have been much thicker than your estimate. With overlap, etc., I get a sheet more like 150x150mm, perhaps 4X as thick. By your numbers, that would result in about an additional ~150 halvings. The 10kCi is now about 1E-40Ci. That seems pretty non-noxious to me.

Ok, another "can't" bites the dust. Got more?
Wiki lists Pb at 11.34 grams per cubic cm. So 50kg of Pb would be just under 4409.2 cm^3 in volume.

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

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

From the Essen Kullander report:
The central container seen in figure 3 has an estimated volume of 50 cm^3 and it contains 50g of nickel. The container has on its top, a pipe for the filling of hydrogen gas. During the running we used the rightmost one of the devices, figure 4, which is surrounded by a 2cm thick lead shield, as stated by Rossi, and wrapped with insulation, figure 5. We had free access to the heater electric supply, to the inlet water hose, to the outlet steam valve and water hose and to the hydrogen gas feed pipe. The total weight of the device was estimated to be around 4 kg.
Rossi has also managed to stick 50kg of lead into a device that weighs 4kg. Cool! Nothing inconsistent there, just some 'new physics' that is not disprovable. (!?!?)



:popcorn:
Last edited by chrismb on Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply