10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by Kahuna »

parallel wrote:Kahuna,
Rossi has stated NI was dropped from the first 1 mW plant at the customers request. He indicates that he will continue using NI.

Likewise, Siemens visited him, to show him a turbine that could use a lower steam temperature.

Just what is "name dropping" about either of the above? He shouldn't talk to suppliers who could help him? The trolls don't like it? What?
I am no troll and you should know that if you read this blog carefully. I see valid points on both sides of this issue and I think much uncertainty remains - I just call them all as I see them in both directions. I have said several times that I do not believe Rossi is prepatrating a premeditated scam for money.

That being said, I have observed that Rossi tends to mention high profile organizations as if he were in a much stronger relationship with them than actually exists. So far, I can't think of one of these that has amounted to anything of substance. For the record, I would be very happy to see the Siemens press release regarding a formal releationship with Rossi.

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

Post by parallel »

Kahuna,
I don't think you are a troll. I don't feed the trolls.

Too much has been made of the various relationships. NI as you may recall actually confirmed their relationship was good.

Nobody from Rossi's camp have suggested any relationship with Siemens, just that they had demonstrated something that looked interesting. It was interesting, which was why Rossi mentioned it.

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

Post by Skipjack »

BTW, you can add NASA to your short list.
And the MIT ;)

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

Post by Kahuna »

parallel wrote:Too much has been made of the various relationships. NI as you may recall actually confirmed their relationship was good.
Agreed, but I follow this whole saga pretty carefully and to listen to Rossi, you would believe that NI was in Bologna working hand-in-hand with him on a retro-fit of the 1MW plant control system.

I do think Rossi has had discussions with NI and they have perhpas offered some free consulting to him. But I also think that most of those listening and reading Rossi, assumed it was much more and Rossi certainly did not disuade them from that notion. For example, I just listened to his Smart Scarecrow interview and he definately left the impression that he and NI were working partners even if he did not say it outright. Thats all I'm saying...

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Post by Carl White »

tomclarke wrote:http://cold-fusion.ca/hundreds-of-appli ... sts-265000

OOOps - but is seems the tests are being delayed. For several months.... So no light yet from this.
I looked at this web page. All they seem to say is that Defkalion's web site has not been updated since January 23rd (which is not true; the last press release was made then, but they have since been posting to their forum on the website). They speculate:
Cold Fusion Canada wrote:Although no timescale is given, it looks as though the wait could go on for at least another couple of months before we can anticipate the tests being carried out.
Not the several months you extend it into, but that's irrelevant anyhow, seeing as Defkalion has announced (on February 16th) that tests would begin on February 24th:
Defkalion wrote:Also note that our first independent official tests are starting on 24th of February 2012.
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... 3&start=10

So far as we know, then, the tests have already begun.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

He indicates that he will continue using NI.
Did he actually say that? I thought he just said he liked and respected them.
And NI said, pretty clearly, they are currently doing nothing with Rossi. My impression was also, that when they did talk to him, it was a slaes engineering conversation. I based that on what they said, to include the follow up final back peddle by them.

Rossi claimed "weeks of training". NI said they only talked about what pieces parts he could use. The same treatment they give any potential customer was how they stated it.

P, I really think you may be reading more into it than there is.

What do you think about Rossi's refusal to post any photos of his "Factory"?
He claims it is being set up here in the states. He hints at it being either Mass or FLA, but then says if he posts any photos, everyone will instantly know where it is, and then it will be a mob scene and no work will be accomplished.
I find it odd he says that, considering everyone knows where his "test lab" is in Italy. It even has the never departing "1MW" unit (which in case you forgot he clearly stated was re-instrumented by NI, but, oh, not now), and there is no mob scene there.
Andrea Rossi
January 20th, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Dear Stefan:
As I answered to Giuseppe B., I never said that the 1 MW E-Cat has been already delivered to the Customer, probably it has been a misunderstanding due to not precise translation. As I repeatedly said, the 1 MW E-Cat is still in our Bologna Factory to complete the control system upgrading we are making with National Instruments and to make modifications asked from the Customer. The plant will be delivered in the next 1, maximum 2 months.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


I would also say that it is pretty easy to take some photos inside a building such that no-one will know where the building is located. Not a challenge at all.
What gives? The man begs to be doubted. It does not help him at all.

I fully appreciate your perspective to separate the man from the E-Cat. I get that most folks argue the issue incorrectly as Circumstantial Ad Hominem and/or a Burden of Proof. But, I would add in Rossi's case, he has offered no real proof to date, and bases most of his argument on rhetoric. It is just so frustrating that he could easily prove if he actually has something. I for one, will not accept he has it, until it is demonstrated realistically. That said, I also fully understand that I can not prove he doesn't have it. And that said, Rossi's behavior is sure not self-supportive, so that does not help either. Thus, in the aggregate, as you know already, although I can not prove he doesn't have it, my current qualitative assessment is that odds are he doesn't.

As the Rossiworld Turns. We shall see.

Edit: Added the comment from Rossi about NI working on 1MW instrumentation.
Last edited by ladajo on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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)

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

Post by tomclarke »

parallel wrote:tomclarke
Parallel, since we do not know the NDAs, nor how qualified will be any right to publish results, it is difficult to know, don't you think?
Why do you assume it should stop any test group from participating?
Sure the NDA is unknown.

That is speculation from 11 days ago. Let's wait for DGT to comment.
Parallel - this is, I am afraid, a classic example of double-think.

I am assuming nothing. I'm just saying that I don't know, and therefore relying on the test reults (in the absence of this knowledge) is not safe.

Now I will be overjoyed should the tests be safe (difficult given the stated test protocol, but not impossible) and validated by qualified parties.

You are saying my not accepting your bet terms means I worry e-cats will work. Like everyone else here I would happily pay $100 for e-cats to work. My uncertainty about the testing, with only DGT PR and no knowledge of testers, is quite different. Nor is it necessary for me to prove the tests are bad. Maybe they will not be. But at the moment it remains unclear.
Last edited by tomclarke on Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by tomclarke »

Carl White wrote:
tomclarke wrote:http://cold-fusion.ca/hundreds-of-appli ... sts-265000

OOOps - but is seems the tests are being delayed. For several months.... So no light yet from this.
I looked at this web page. All they seem to say is that Defkalion's web site has not been updated since January 23rd (which is not true; the last press release was made then, but they have since been posting to their forum on the website). They speculate:
Cold Fusion Canada wrote:Although no timescale is given, it looks as though the wait could go on for at least another couple of months before we can anticipate the tests being carried out.
Not the several months you extend it into, but that's irrelevant anyhow, seeing as Defkalion has announced (on February 16th) that tests would begin on February 24th:
Defkalion wrote:Also note that our first independent official tests are starting on 24th of February 2012.
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... 3&start=10

So far as we know, then, the tests have already begun.
Well you may well be right, this does not look very reliable. But we will see. Since the tests take only a short time (according to what we know of the protocol), after 3 days we should surely have the first published results, if they are really hapenning?

Or do the undisclosd NDAs prohibit any result publishing until all tests are complete. In that case, when will that be? Do we have a cutoff?

Perhaps these questions will be answered positively in the near future. Till then, given the track record of DGT nonexistent, empty statements coiunt little in the face of extraordinary claims.

There are two problems with LENR (CF) claims:

(1) the science on which they rest is extraordinary, inherently unlikely, with no coheent theory. (For example WL theory, the nearest candidate for this, does not fit with the claimed experimental evidence, which remains incoherent as would be expected of miscellaneous experimental errors.

(2) this class of claim (offering free energy) is, like miracle cures, one of our dreams. There is a strong track record of people promising these claims, and not delivering. Whether these promises are fraudulent or genuine is not the point.

If you ignore this, and treat DGT as a company promising a new unproven technology of a more mundane sort, you would still be skeptical. Small companies tend to over-egg their products. The chances of problems here are much higher.

Of course, were this a small company, by now there would be a credible demonstration of the technology. And if the claimed tests are this, I will leap on the bandwagon happily.

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

Post by tomclarke »

Kahuna wrote:
parallel wrote:Kahuna,
Rossi has stated NI was dropped from the first 1 mW plant at the customers request. He indicates that he will continue using NI.

Likewise, Siemens visited him, to show him a turbine that could use a lower steam temperature.

Just what is "name dropping" about either of the above? He shouldn't talk to suppliers who could help him? The trolls don't like it? What?
I am no troll and you should know that if you read this blog carefully. I see valid points on both sides of this issue and I think much uncertainty remains - I just call them all as I see them in both directions. I have said several times that I do not believe Rossi is prepatrating a premeditated scam for money.

That being said, I have observed that Rossi tends to mention high profile organizations as if he were in a much stronger relationship with them than actually exists. So far, I can't think of one of these that has amounted to anything of substance. For the record, I would be very happy to see the Siemens press release regarding a formal releationship with Rossi.
Siemens and NI are potential suppliers of kit to Rossi. They will supply anyone willing to buy, and have exploratory talks with Rossi as with any other customer. This does not even mean that Rossi is going to spend money on their kit.

Now if Rossi had a similar PR relationship with a potential customer, it would be much more interesting...

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

First info from my inside source at UoB regarding the NDA.

He will ask permission directly to chairman of the department to release to me a copy of the NDA. In case the chairman will refuse a direct release of these documents to me, he will ask the proper procedure so that I can get a copy in an official way.
He already anticipated that there is no info whatsoever inside, just the NDA conditions to receive the relevant info to test the eCat at a later stage.
Will keep you guys posted as it evolves.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

tomclarke wrote: .....
(1) the science on which they rest is extraordinary, inherently unlikely, with no coheent theory. (For example WL theory, the nearest candidate for this, does not fit with the claimed experimental evidence, which remains incoherent as would be expected of miscellaneous experimental errors.

(2) this class of claim (offering free energy) is, like miracle cures, one of our dreams. There is a strong track record of people promising these claims, and not delivering. Whether these promises are fraudulent or genuine is not the point.
......
>(1)....

It is curious you consider the condition such as "no coherent theory" in eye of beholder as the evidence supporting the falsehood of "LENR" observations. In the same way you may debunk the observation of dark matter or even gravity. Needless to say that multiple frame works have been proposed to explain the LENR, apparently, from point of view of authors it is quite coherent insights; so, the allegation "no coherent theory" is clearly a relative POV and it mostly reflects you ability/disability to see its coherency.

>(2) this class of claim (offering free energy) is, like miracle cures, one of our dreams....

"free"... "miracle"... "cures"... "dreams" - apparently you carefully choose the best words to back your position ;o)
Last edited by stefanbanev on Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Skipjack »

In the same way you may debunk the observation of dark matter or even gravity.
Not comparable. Both the results of dark matter and gravity have been observed repeatedly and by many and there are commonly known methods and means for doing that. It is very different with LENR, since the observed phenomena are usually very weak and also not easily reproduced.
There are only 3 people claiming stronger effects and their results have not been reproduced elsewhere, since their setup is obviously a secret.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

Skipjack wrote:
In the same way you may debunk the observation of dark matter or even gravity.
Not comparable. Both the results of dark matter and gravity have been observed repeatedly and by many and there are commonly known methods and means for doing that. It is very different with LENR, since the observed phenomena are usually very weak and also not easily reproduced.
There are only 3 people claiming stronger effects and their results have not been reproduced elsewhere, since their setup is obviously a secret.
I mostly addressed the methodological mistake and did not compare these areas. I do agree it is different domains for the reason that "dark matter" and similar areas do not involve the significant practical monetary implications contrarily to "CF", once significant financial interests are involved it is getting too noisy...

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

stefanbanev wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
In the same way you may debunk the observation of dark matter or even gravity.
Not comparable. Both the results of dark matter and gravity have been observed repeatedly and by many and there are commonly known methods and means for doing that. It is very different with LENR, since the observed phenomena are usually very weak and also not easily reproduced.
There are only 3 people claiming stronger effects and their results have not been reproduced elsewhere, since their setup is obviously a secret.
I mostly addressed the methodological mistake and did not compare these areas. I do agree it is different domains for the reason that "dark matter" and similar areas do not involve the significant practical monetary implications contrarily to "CF", once significant financial interests are involved it is getting too noisy...
The clarification for Skipjack:

"methodological mistake", in this case, is to derive the falsehood of LENR observation from disability to see the coherent theory behind, it was the point one (1) out of two listed by TC. Besides, it is quite unorthodox insight to set the dependency of likelihood of LENR from the mental abilities to see the coherency of proposed mechanisms behind... (pls excuse me if you perceive this joke as too harsh, it just expresses my point very well)
Last edited by stefanbanev on Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by tomclarke »

stefanbanev wrote:
tomclarke wrote: .....
(1) the science on which they rest is extraordinary, inherently unlikely, with no coheent theory. (For example WL theory, the nearest candidate for this, does not fit with the claimed experimental evidence, which remains incoherent as would be expected of miscellaneous experimental errors.

(2) this class of claim (offering free energy) is, like miracle cures, one of our dreams. There is a strong track record of people promising these claims, and not delivering. Whether these promises are fraudulent or genuine is not the point.
......
>(1)....

It is curious you consider the condition such as "no coherent theory" in eye of beholder as the evidence supporting the falsehood of "LENR" observations.
You misunderstand me. The problems is that there is no theoretical proposal which explains the (incoherent, inconsistent) collection of LENR observations. It is not that no theory supports falsehood. But that coherent theory makes hypothesis much more likely.

In LENR case there is no scientific theory that is falsifiable. That is pretty weak.

There are several which attempt explain dark matter observations. And they are falsifiable, because they make other measurable predictions.
In the same way you may debunk the observation of dark matter or even gravity.
No, because the observations here are well above threshold of experimental error. However it is true that we do not currently have a good idea of what causes (the observations) and current ideas on this may turn out very wrong. But at least (see above) current theories are falsifiable and can be compared.
Needless to say that multiple frame works have been proposed to explain the LENR, apparently, from point of view of authors it is quite coherent insights; so, the allegation "no coherent theory" is clearly a relative POV and it mostly reflects you ability/disability to see its coherency.
It is a matter of checking the corpus of experimental results against the (multiple) theories. Any one theory, if accepted, will explain some but not all of the central LENR observations.

So you must regard a fair number of them as experimental error even if you accept any of the existing LENR theories.

For example: H/X systems are not compatible with D+D fusion theories. Weak interaction theories are not compatible with D/X system results (which tend to indicate D+D fusion). I can go into moe details if you like.

Weak interaction theories are also not compatible with element transformation results - because they would require a broader spectrum of products than is seen. But then neither are D+D fusion theories.

The list goes on. If you have a candidate theory you think a better fit to observations please say, it can be discussed.

That does not mean LENR is untrue, but it means the existing theories are not a good fit to the experimental data and therefore probably not true. That (Bayes) makes LENR a good deal less likely than some other explanation for the results - e.g. experimental error. Since they all remain tantalisingly marginal, or non-repeatable, that is plausible.
>(2) this class of claim (offering free energy) is, like miracle cures, one of our dreams....

"free"... "miracle"... "cures"... "dreams" - apparently you carefully choose the best words to back your position ;o)
Use different words. my point is that things people badly would like to have tend to attract interest for that reason. Look at all the free energy scams out there. I don't see LENR as a scam - with possible current exceptions, and technically it is cheap energy, not free energy, but the same wish-fulfillment issues tend to affect it.

Post Reply