10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:01 am

Sounds fair to me. They are saying they don't have any credible evidence their stuff works and will emerge from the shadows if/when they do.

It won't stop some here from assuming they cannot be chasing moonbeams, and this means LENR exists...

Kahuna wrote:A new DGT statement regarding testing:

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/2 ... Update.pdf

DEFKALION STATUS UPDATE
Following our absence from the public sphere, the following is a status update:
We are conducting analyses of our materials using XRF and ICP-MS. We are committed that this analysis be done with the highest standards. To ensure these high standards, we are using multiple laboratories in Europe. When those results are available, we shall present them in the appropriate forum.
We also have designed and are operating a fully instrumented flow calorimeter to measure the power production of our reactor. Outside scientists and engineers are measuring the input power as well as our flow calorimeter output performance. All these results will be presented when we are confident that they will withstand the scrutiny demanded by our own interests in product development, and the scrutiny of our customers.
We thank you for your continued interest in our challenging and important work load.
More waiting...

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:52 am

tomclarke

Sounds fair to me. They are saying they don't have any credible evidence their stuff works and will emerge from the shadows if/when they do.

It won't stop some here from assuming they cannot be chasing moonbeams, and this means LENR exists...

It seems that you have overlooked Defkalion's statement that they will be presenting a paper showing results at the upcoming LENR conference in August.

One would think that Defkalion would know if they had positive results before committing themselves to presenting a paper.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:58 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke
Sounds fair to me. They are saying they don't have any credible evidence their stuff works and will emerge from the shadows if/when they do.

It won't stop some here from assuming they cannot be chasing moonbeams, and this means LENR exists...
It seems that you have overlooked Defkalion's statement that they will be presenting a paper showing results at the upcoming LENR conference in August.

One would think that Defkalion would know if they had positive results before committing themselves to presenting a paper.

Uh. In science. Honest science. Negative results are as important as positive results. No brass ring. But a contribution has been made.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:34 pm

Another LENR Conference Starts Today
July 1, 2012

There seem to be an abundance of meetings about LENR going on these days — this is one that is starting today at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg Virginia, USA:

International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium, ILENRS-12

A glance at the list of attendees shows some familiar names: Rob Duncan, Dennis Bushnell, Michael McKubre, Peter Hagelstein and Jed Rothwell are names that I recognize. The announcement on the front page of the site reads:

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) offer the prospect of clean, inexpensive, limitless, nonfossil renewable energy. The symposium will review LENR’s current theoretical and experimental status, including updating recent results. Expert panel discussions will evaluate the present state of the art and define future directions, including establishment of criteria for creating university-based, state-of-the-art LENR research and development centers.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/anoth ... rts-today/

MSimon, Of course negative results are important. It is just that Defkalion would not be presenting a paper if that was all they had.

Sorry skeptics, there just too many scientists involved in this now for there to be no fire beneath the smoke.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:23 pm

Sorry skeptics, there just too many scientists involved in this now for there to be no fire beneath the smoke.

There were a lot of scientist involved in phlogiston. Only smoke.

There were a lot of scientists who were sure Einstein was wrong. Only smoke.

A LOT of scientists proves nothing. A power plant proves something. HTS MRIs proves something.

I await their equivalent of an atomic bomb.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:02 pm

MSimon,
Your examples were about quibbling with theories. What I was talking about was independent groups producing experimental data of anomalous heat.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:33 pm

parallel wrote:MSimon,
Your examples were about quibbling with theories. What I was talking about was independent groups producing experimental data of anomalous heat.

"Anomalous heat" and power plants are two different things. One may not lead to the other.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:25 am

A LOT of scientists proves nothing. A power plant proves something.

This is what Rossi is fond of saying almost word for word.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:58 am

Axil wrote:
A LOT of scientists proves nothing. A power plant proves something.
This is what Rossi is fond of saying almost word for word.

Indeed. The difference is that Rossi is also saying he has that power plant, but he is unwilling or unable to submit it to scrutiny, or even to end use demonstration in any meaningful way.

Dan Tibbets

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:56 pm

parallel wrote:MSimon,
Your examples were about quibbling with theories. What I was talking about was independent groups producing experimental data of anomalous heat.

Personally, I think comparing cold fusion to something like high temperature superconductivity is a better illustrative comparison.

Same decade of announced discovery. Similar revolutionary potential. Same scientific community. Same huge press reception and speculation on potential. Same lack of an initial theory. Similar need for new physics. Similar problems with initial replication of results. Same scientific stampede towards replication.

Cold fusion died with the majority of the scientific community because it could never be reliably duplicated and had no workable theory. A tiny community of enthusiasts carried on and we are still waiting for the next conference or paper that will show us the light.

Meanwhile, high temperature superconductivity overcame replication problems, was conclusively demonstrated, quickly won a Nobel prize, saw a four fold improvement in temperature in a year, has had over 100,000 papers published, has reasonable theory, has found two classes of high temperature superconductors and is beginning to see commercial applications.

It is the same story within the same scientific community happening in the same decade. One revolutionary discovery passes scrutiny and is heralded. The other doesn't come close.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:31 pm

There was one other difference between the two techs, the HTSC wasn't "outed" before it was ready. Unlike P&F, the Swiss team had the time to get their ducks in a row. The Swiss didn't have stupidvisors asking for megabucks of Fed $ in their initial press release.

WizWom · Post by **WizWom** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:22 pm

seedload wrote: Cold fusion died with the majority of the scientific community because it could never be reliably duplicated and had no workable theory.

Well... not quite. Cold Fusion suffered badly from the perception that Pons & Fleishman were not rigorous or honest.

The experiments showed fairly quickly (by 1995) that there were small amounts of cold fusion happening in deuterium loaded metals.

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:03 pm

National Instruments sponsored a talk by Dr. Robert Duncan Vice-Chancellor Research University Missouri on the topic of cold fusion.

They published the video on their website.

https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC ... _CcPYPOY4g

58 minutes. Fairly interesting.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:50 am

seedload wrote:
parallel wrote:MSimon,
Your examples were about quibbling with theories. What I was talking about was independent groups producing experimental data of anomalous heat.
Personally, I think comparing cold fusion to something like high temperature superconductivity is a better illustrative comparison.

Same decade of announced discovery. Similar revolutionary potential. Same scientific community. Same huge press reception and speculation on potential. Same lack of an initial theory. Similar need for new physics. Similar problems with initial replication of results. Same scientific stampede towards replication.

Cold fusion died with the majority of the scientific community because it could never be reliably duplicated and had no workable theory. A tiny community of enthusiasts carried on and we are still waiting for the next conference or paper that will show us the light.

Meanwhile, high temperature superconductivity overcame replication problems, was conclusively demonstrated, quickly won a Nobel prize, saw a four fold improvement in temperature in a year, has had over 100,000 papers published, has reasonable theory, has found two classes of high temperature superconductors and is beginning to see commercial applications.

It is the same story within the same scientific community happening in the same decade. One revolutionary discovery passes scrutiny and is heralded. The other doesn't come close.

It is the same story within the same scientific community happening in the same decade. One revolutionary discovery passes scrutiny and is heralded. The other doesn't come close.

http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm

Wrong again as usual and still living in a dream world.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:50 am

Axil wrote:
http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm

Wrong again as usual and still living in a dream world.

It means only that invited parties are not interested in such collaboration. However, it does not mean they are not interested to have such tech. In some cases they may have ongoing R&D in house in such case they likely will not even reply; for others, the right offer should be made to have their attention... btw, the bookkeeping of "offenders" is a quite indicative signature ;o)