10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[vankirkc]

Rossi provides a “try it before you buy it money back guarantee”. Such deals in today’s marketplace are hard to find anymore, let alone for a nuclear reactor. That deal is real hard to beat.

Try it then. I bet you will not be given a reactor without paying money. And money back guarantees are notoriously slippery. See if you can get one in writing no questions asked.

tomclarke> he is a liar...

His investors would be really upset if he reveals the complete truth; please
tell me what benefits (besides your appreciation) Rossi&Co may gain
doing so (?) while downside is quite apparent. He is not in science
"business" he is in messy world of real business. 99.(9)% of any
marketing is a mixture of truth / semi-truth and not-telling the complete
truth. As soon as there is no legal responsibility for hiding a "complete truth" it
would be an obsessively naive to expect a "complete truth". It is exactly why companies do
a due diligence before adapting a new technology and in case of e-cat it is
a way simpler then in case of R&D where the blessing from academia is
an essential prerequisite since there is no "device" to evaluate, there is
just theory behind.

I swear this is the best board to come to to sell snake oil. There are so many true believers here.

[KitemanSA]

The psychology of this wrangle is interesting. I guess most people here are agreed about what is likely, but seem to argue a lot about how to phrase it.

True. I have a lot of trouble in my job with people screwing up statistics. Therefore I tend to be a bit anal about people screwing up statistics, i.e., "probability".

I side with seedload's more negative language.

Once he started using the term "unlikely", I agreed with him on many things.

Not because there is any proof that Rossi does not have what he claims.

Because there is no (repeat no) credible evidence he DOES have what he claims. And his beheviour adds some negative evidence.

Concur. Makes it seem a bit, or even a lot "unlikely", no?

In that case highly improbable is a charitable judgement for probability. (And you can of course translate words into probabilities howere imprecise this may be).

Bur that is my problem. Probability is NOT a "judgement", it is a calculation. "Highly unlikely" is a judgement.

You don't need specific new scientific evidence to view a way-out hypothesis which has no validating evidence as being highly unlikely.

Concur, but if you tell me it is "improbable, I will say "show me the numbers"! And by your own statement, we have none. "Probability" is a positive statement of knowledge. In this subject we are ignorant. Thus we fall back on feeling and opinion... "likelihood". Such is a valid method to make a decision when a decision MUST be made. Porbability is better it you can get it!

And that is scientific.

Here I disagree. "Likelihood" is more religion than science... or perhaps more "faith" than religion. Folk who make that judgement have faith in their unsupported opinion.

Highly unlikely does not mean impossible, nor does it mean you should not follow curiosity and explore all lose ends.

But it does mean I view anyone giving Rossi money as very very foolish.

Well duh!

[KitemanSA]

Does anyone have a link, or a quote, where Rossi himself says that 30% of the Nickel is converted to copper? Everything I find from ROSSI says 10%.

HELP!

[KitemanSA]

Third, apparently 30% of the Nickel powder is changed to copper.

Link please, please, pretty please!!! But only if it is directly from Rossi please. See my above!

[stefanbanev]

Try it then. I bet you will not be given a reactor without paying money. And money back guarantees are notoriously slippery. See if you can get one in writing no questions asked.

tomclarke> he is a liar...

His investors would be really upset if he reveals the complete truth; please
tell me what benefits (besides your appreciation) Rossi&Co may gain
doing so (?) while downside is quite apparent. He is not in science
"business" he is in messy world of real business. 99.(9)% of any
marketing is a mixture of truth / semi-truth and not-telling the complete
truth. As soon as there is no legal responsibility for hiding a "complete truth" it
would be an obsessively naive to expect a "complete truth". It is exactly why companies do
a due diligence before adapting a new technology and in case of e-cat it is
a way simpler then in case of R&D where the blessing from academia is
an essential prerequisite since there is no "device" to evaluate, there is
just theory behind.

I swear this is the best board to come to to sell snake oil. There are so many true believers here.

>I swear ....

You do not need to swear, it's really unnecessarily taking into account the
rationals you put down so skilfully. As soon as "snake oil" provides
claimed output/input ratio you should not worry how to call it; leave it to
professionals from marketing department, your job will be just to measure
accurately output/input ratio.

[seedload]

Third, apparently 30% of the Nickel powder is changed to copper.

Link please, please, pretty please!!! But only if it is directly from Rossi please. See my above!

Look, Kiteman. I would really appreciate if you would stop treating me like a child. I am not intending to make stuff up.

It would be really decent of you to start from a position that I am treating this discussion seriously and that I have serious things to add rather than assuming that I am ignorant, incapable of using 'correct' language, and consistently making stuff up. I have provided links and evidence that Rossi took that position. I have previously posted a question to Rossi where he did not deny the 30% number. I took the 30% number from a scientist who has studied Rossi's comments in detail. I am treating this completely seriously and providing factual information and my interpretation of same.

"please, please, pretty please!!!" is just obnoxious sarcasm from someone who believes to have cornered me in a lie. I have no idea why you are being like this to me. None.

But, if you insist, sorry, sir, you did not catch me.

Pierre Clauzon
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 AM
Dear Andrea,

You have explained the observed abnormal heat by transmutation of Ni to Cu and then may-be back to Ni.
Could you tell us if, due to your lengthy experiments, you were able to measure the content of Cu in the Ni powder and/or the change of the isotopic aboundance of the Ni?

Best regards Pierre

Andrea Rossi
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2

regards

[seedload]

The psychology of this wrangle is interesting. I guess most people here are agreed about what is likely, but seem to argue a lot about how to phrase it.

True. I have a lot of trouble in my job with people screwing up statistics. Therefore I tend to be a bit anal about people screwing up statistics, i.e., "probability".

I side with seedload's more negative language.

Once he started using the term "unlikely", I agreed with him on many things.

Not because there is any proof that Rossi does not have what he claims.

Because there is no (repeat no) credible evidence he DOES have what he claims. And his beheviour adds some negative evidence.

Concur. Makes it seem a bit, or even a lot "unlikely", no?

In that case highly improbable is a charitable judgement for probability. (And you can of course translate words into probabilities howere imprecise this may be).

Bur that is my problem. Probability is NOT a "judgement", it is a calculation. "Highly unlikely" is a judgement.

You don't need specific new scientific evidence to view a way-out hypothesis which has no validating evidence as being highly unlikely.

Concur, but if you tell me it is "improbable, I will say "show me the numbers"! And by your own statement, we have none. "Probability" is a positive statement of knowledge. In this subject we are ignorant. Thus we fall back on feeling and opinion... "likelihood". Such is a valid method to make a decision when a decision MUST be made. Porbability is better it you can get it!

And that is scientific.

Here I disagree. "Likelihood" is more religion than science... or perhaps more "faith" than religion. Folk who make that judgement have faith in their unsupported opinion.

Highly unlikely does not mean impossible, nor does it mean you should not follow curiosity and explore all lose ends.

But it does mean I view anyone giving Rossi money as very very foolish.

Well duh!

Guess it depends on the probability vs the payoff. The expected value could be immense even with a very low probability of success.

Anyway, judgement calls are not religion, they are educated guesses. Attaching probability to educated guesses is a common practice in situations/fields where there is incomplete information. Using the math of probability when assessing judgment calls and their attached probabilities is also a common practice in many fields.

regards.

[KitemanSA]

Third, apparently 30% of the Nickel powder is changed to copper.

Link please, please, pretty please!!! But only if it is directly from Rossi please. See my above!

Look, Kiteman. I would really appreciate if you would stop treating me like a child. I am not intending to make stuff up.

It would be really decent of you to start from a position that I am treating this discussion seriously and that I have serious things to add rather than assuming that I am ignorant, incapable of using 'correct' language, and consistently making stuff up. I have provided links and evidence that Rossi took that position. I have previously posted a question to Rossi where he did not deny the 30% number. I took the 30% number from a scientist who has studied Rossi's comments in detail. I am treating this completely seriously and providing factual information and my interpretation of same.

"please, please, pretty please!!!" is just obnoxious sarcasm from someone who believes to have cornered me in a lie. I have no idea why you are being like this to me. None.

But, if you insist, sorry, sir, you did not catch me.

I am sorry that I wrote so poorly that you took that meaning. That had not been my intent. I was purely seeking a more clear understanding of what has actually been claimed. I tried to find it on the site and was singularly unsuccessful. My thanks for the quote and link. I do appreciate it.

Pierre Clauzon
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 AM
Dear Andrea,

You have explained the observed abnormal heat by transmutation of Ni to Cu and then may-be back to Ni.
Could you tell us if, due to your lengthy experiments, you were able to measure the content of Cu in the Ni powder and/or the change of the isotopic aboundance of the Ni?

Best regards Pierre

Andrea Rossi
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2

regards

Again, thank you, I do appreciate it.

And here is another point of inconsistancy for your list. Here he says 30% and in the NyTeknik "answers" article he implys 10% (100%-90%); both in the same 6 month period. Hmmm.

Mats Johnson: How much of the nickel is left in the charge after 6 months? How much copper?

Rossi: 90% is recyclable as a fuel, the difference goes as scrap Ni back to the supplier

L.Eliasson: Can a used charge be refined and reused?

Rossi: yes, for the 90%

[KitemanSA]

Highly unlikely does not mean impossible, nor does it mean you should not follow curiosity and explore all lose ends.

But it does mean I view anyone giving Rossi money as very very foolish.

Well duh!

Guess it depends on the probability vs the payoff. The expected value could be immense even with a very low probability of success.

But as has been pointed out, we know nothing of the probabhiliy, at least I have seen nothing that supports a calculation of probability. And "judgement" without probability IS based on the faith that one's mental world map is accurate and that it covers this case.

Anyway, judgement calls are not religion, they are educated guesses.

Which is why I hedged my statement to "faith".

Attaching probability to educated guesses is a common practice in situations/fields where there is incomplete information. Using the math of probability when assessing judgment calls and their attached probabilities is also a common practice in many fields.

I would love to attach a probability to my mental map of this situation. But I can't. So I will EITHER, choose to use my current map which I know doesn't NECESSARILY cover this situation as it it DOES cover this situation OR I will recognize that it may not and seek to build a mental map that does. Some folks insist on doing the former. I choose the latter.

To the folks who choose the former, I point out where their staements are inconsistent with their objectives; (e.g., stating probability where only likelihood exists).

Your decision processes are in your hands.

[seedload]

And here is another point of inconsistancy for your list. Here he says 30% and in the NyTeknik "answers" article he implys 10% (100%-90%); both in the same 6 month period. Hmmm.

Mats Johnson: How much of the nickel is left in the charge after 6 months? How much copper?

Rossi: 90% is recyclable as a fuel, the difference goes as scrap Ni back to the supplier

L.Eliasson: Can a used charge be refined and reused?

Rossi: yes, for the 90%

I also find the second point in that post by Rossi a bit 'off'. Remember that this came before his enrichment claims.

2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.

This answer seems odd if the isotopic ratios were changed before the operations. Not technically incorrect, but just odd given that he manipulates the isotopic ratios prior. If he knows this, the phrasing just seems off to me. He doesn't talk about testing the ratios before the operations. Nothing specific.

But, more specific is why he would need to go to the University of Padua to get more info on the isotopic ratios of the ash. Being that he has invented a revolutionary method of enrichment, one would think he already has the resources in place to look at the ratios, no? If he doesn't, then how does he even claim depleting NI58 or enriching 62/64? My curiosity about his revolutionary work on isotopic mixing continues.

[Jded]

Regarding the inconsistencies: is it possible that some rough (and cheap) process results in removing e.g. almost all Ni58, a big chunk of Ni60 (slightly heavier) while leaving almost all Ni 62 and all Ni 64? Not eliminating or separating precisely, but rather roughly and incompletely sorting according to mass and chopping off the lower range at some arbitrary point - so that the ratio of 62+64 in what's left could end up about 30%? I'm ignorant about methods of isotope separation, but I'm guessing that precision should be what is expensive.

The 10% value might then be from previous version of the process or from different cutt-off point.

Not that I believe Rossi, I'm just trying to make sense of what he says. And if 58 and 60 are safe and don't break the reaction, I don't know why he even bothers - the reactors aren't exactly heavy right now.

[KitemanSA]

Regarding the inconsistencies: is it possible that some rough (and cheap) process results in removing e.g. almost all Ni58, a big chunk of Ni60 (slightly heavier) while leaving almost all Ni 62 and all Ni 64? Not eliminating or separating precisely, but rather roughly and incompletely sorting according to mass and chopping off the lower range at some arbitrary point - so that the ratio of 62+64 in what's left could end up about 30%? I'm ignorant about methods of isotope separation, but I'm guessing that precision should be what is expensive.

I have suggested such a simple method in my "Kiteman's Konjecture" in the "General" thread. I am still working on the isotope enrichment numbers.

The 10% value might then be from previous version of the process or from different cutt-off point.

Not that I believe Rossi, I'm just trying to make sense of what he says. And if 58 and 60 are safe and don't break the reaction, I don't know why he even bothers - the reactors aren't exactly heavy right now.

Perhaps, but I THINK the 10% came AFTER the 30%. ICBW.

[Joseph Chikva]

I have suggested such a simple method in my "Kiteman's Konjecture" in the "General" thread. I am still working on the isotope enrichment numbers.

My poor little friend, in all probability Rossi has squeezed out the isotope enrichment issue when has been driven into the corner by correct questions.
So, relax and enjoy.

[seedload]

... in all probability Rossi has squeezed out the isotope enrichment issue when has been driven into the corner by correct questions.

Yes, that.

[seedload]

I have suggested such a simple method in my "Kiteman's Konjecture" in the "General" thread. I am still working on the isotope enrichment numbers.

Fluorify uranium, strain it, repeat. Sounds simple. Compare to spin molten nickel, zap off outer layers, let harden. Calling it simple and stating it simply doesn't make it simple.



Note that enriched uranium increases U235 from 0.72% to >2%. Countries have trouble doing this.

Rossi is claiming to get the NI62/NI64l to >30%.

This is why I keep calling Rossi's process a miracle. It would take one.

There are only like four elements in the world that anyone regularly enriches and they are all for nuclear reasons. Hydrogen is easy cheesy because of the substantial mass difference between the isotopes. Otherwise, you got your work cut out for you.