10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[ScottL]

Unfortunately, there will never ever......ever....ever... be uncontestable proof. The volumes of linked data, quotes, blog posts, demonstrations contained in these 700 or so pages equates to nothing and it will remain so (my opinion). We at best will judge the amounts of information we've read and have a position and that position can be said to always be subjective. Furthermore since Rossi owes us nothing and has provided us with nothing, I move to suspend this discussion entirely. We can continue arguing over nothing or we can move on to topics that show promise where claimants are actively trying to engage communities like ours openly.

[ladajo]

Furthermore since Rossi owes us nothing and has provided us with nothing

See, this is a point I disagree with. By making a public claim, and seeking public money, Rossi does owe something.

But in any event, Kite, you can think what you want. I don't care what you think about Rossi. What I do care about is that you repeatedly ignore things, and also try get others to do your legwork in this discussion. You want your cake and Edith too, you want the whoel thing served up on a silver platter. You have been very disengenuous with the entire discussion, and that is wrong. You make no real effort to contribute, yet you continue to comment. It really does make you look silly.

I think until you do something on your own, in an effort to participate and contribute on this topic, I will no longer react to your posts on Rossi. Until you do something actually useful, I think it is pointless to engage you anymore on this. Kind of like your opinion about Joe. The irony is a bit painful for me. Cause I think a lot more of you than Joe.

PS: My 1.21 Gigawatts was tongue in cheek humor. It was also intentional to misrepresent power and energy, just like Rossi.

[Betruger]

What a scientific fraud. Rossi, if scientific fraud was actually meaningful to average public morality, oughta be tried and condemned for his behavior; condemned not with some schadenfreudian punishment but with plain simple boot to the ass from ever again hampering proper R&D. He's nothing but a parasitic cockblock.

What a scientific idiocy. Rossi is not a scientist and applying scientific criteria to him is... well, dumb.

Let's play with words, yeah?

[paperburn1]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:
"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:
"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing
In my world we call that person Johnny Obtuse

[MSimon]

Rossi is not a scientist and applying scientific criteria to him is... well, dumb.

Really? So evidence no longer counts? Marvelous.

[chrismb]

Rossi is not a scientist and applying scientific criteria to him is... well, dumb.

Really? So evidence no longer counts? Marvelous.

This is what chrismb used to refer to as 'post-modern science'.

It is a democratisation of science.

One does not need to be 'a scientist' to 'do science', and then that person cannot be criticised for not following the scientific method. Brilliant!

The 'doing of science' no longer needs to be 'scientific'.

This forum is repleat with this stuff. Science is about either making predictions based on agreed known stuff, or trying to deduce knowledge from observing things that are agreed to behave in a particular way.

'Post-modern science' involves imagining a possible/questionable/dubious outcome or observation, then imagining how it could be explained. (This is 'science fiction', not 'science'.)

(As opposed to 'religion', where an explanation is imagined for something that no-one even attempts to claim is provable.)

The laws of physics are now subject to democratic values. Laws of thermodynamics are anti-capitalist, so should be banned. Coulomb repulsion is anti-democratic and homophobic. Chromatography discriminates because of colour, and moves are now being made to outlaw discriminatory diffusion in several countries. 'Brown'ian motion - gee! Ohm's law was even subject to a motion in Parliament to have it repealed, but fortunately there was too much resistance.

[chrismb]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:
"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:
"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing
In my world we call that person Johnny Obtuse

So what you're saying is "blah..blah..blah". It's wrong because it's not right?

[ladajo]

I think he is saying that it is "not right" because it is "wrong".

In any event, another fine example of Rossi evasiveness an half answer. Notice how he skips the real question.

Steven N. Karels
July 3rd, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

When asked the question “Any chance that you or the US manufacturer will present at the ICCF-18 conference?” you reponded “Impossible”. Could you please clarify?

Possible reasons for “Impossible”

a. Insufficient time (too busy) to prepare a submission – perhaps a later conference?
b. You view them as competitors likely to take your intellectual property?
c. Some other reason?

Andrea Rossi
July 3rd, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Steven NKarels:
Total lack of time even to attend only. I can’t work more than 16 hours per day, and still I have not time to make all I have to make.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

And in another post, is he selling Ecats or not? Hostory would say yes, now he says no. So which is it? I am still waiting for BRC or whichever NRC Executive agent to show up again...

David Linebarger
July 3rd, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Hi Rossi, can you give some kind of indication when you will start selling E-cats to the public, or for public utilities. Like is it likely that within the next 6 months, or year, or two years, or more you will probably start selling e-cats. Some kind of indication as to when were getting close to that time.

Regards.
David L

Andrea Rossi
July 3rd, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Daved Lenebarger:
Our USA Partner and world Licensee for the manufacturing is the sole in charge to determine the sales of energy and/or plants.
I have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other Scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far.
As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing that technology to determine its potential and its uses.
I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues 24/7 in the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

And lastly, in my opinion, a Rossi false "appeal to authority" that he is important and validated:

Andrea Rossi
July 3rd, 2013 at 8:11 AM
To the Readers:
Very interesting publication on arXiv: 1304.5379v [physics.acc-ph].
By the way gives evidence that the most important articles in Physics are published also on arXiv.
A.R.

[paperburn1]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:
"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:
"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing
In my world we call that person Johnny Obtuse

So what you're saying is "blah..blah..blah". It's wrong because it's not right?

No I am saying If you take only a small part of any argument you can "win" regardless if its true on not by misrepresenting the facts and exaggeration of your version of the outcome. what is necessary in this case is to take the complete story and review it to understand the the most probable outcome of the truth. Taking small bits of a story and disproving then does not show the entire picture. In the case of Rossi this is required to understand his ECAT and realize he is most likely just a fraud. KITE is the undisputed king of the straw man fallacy on this board. hugging the center line never taking a risky position.

[MSimon]

Rossi is not a scientist and applying scientific criteria to him is... well, dumb.

Really? So evidence no longer counts? Marvelous.

This is what chrismb used to refer to as 'post-modern science'.

It is a democratisation of science.

One does not need to be 'a scientist' to 'do science', and then that person cannot be criticised for not following the scientific method. Brilliant!

The 'doing of science' no longer needs to be 'scientific'.

This forum is repleat with this stuff. Science is about either making predictions based on agreed known stuff, or trying to deduce knowledge from observing things that are agreed to behave in a particular way.

'Post-modern science' involves imagining a possible/questionable/dubious outcome or observation, then imagining how it could be explained. (This is 'science fiction', not 'science'.)

(As opposed to 'religion', where an explanation is imagined for something that no-one even attempts to claim is provable.)

The laws of physics are now subject to democratic values. Laws of thermodynamics are anti-capitalist, so should be banned. Coulomb repulsion is anti-democratic and homophobic. Chromatography discriminates because of colour, and moves are now being made to outlaw discriminatory diffusion in several countries. 'Brown'ian motion - gee! Ohm's law was even subject to a motion in Parliament to have it repealed, but fortunately there was too much resistance.

LOL!

[Axil]

In pursuit of a better understanding of LENR, I wanted to find out what was behind some of the latest ideas about the nucleus as recently developed by orthodox physics. This includes strong and weak force equivalence called in the physics game “S-duality”.

At first glance, it seems to me that the guy who thought this “S-duality” idea up does not believe in quarks.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9407087.pdf

Electric-Magnetic Duality, Monopole Condensation, And Confinement In N = 2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory

N. Seiberg
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Rutgers University,

N. Seiberg bases his theories on monopoles and Dyons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyon

“In physics, a dyon is a hypothetical particle in 4-dimensional theories with both electric and magnetic charges. A dyon with a zero electric charge is usually referred to as a magnetic monopole. Many grand unified theories predict the existence of both magnetic monopoles and dyons.

Dyons were first proposed[1] by Julian Schwinger in 1969 as a phenomenological alternative to quarks. He extended the Dirac quantization condition to the dyon and used the model to predict the existence of a particle with the properties of the J/ψ meson prior to its discovery in 1974.”

Schwinger was a true believer in cold fusion and a Nobel Prize winner who was ostracized for that belief by the scientific community.

Schwinger was hands down smarter than Richard Feynman.

After 10 years, these “out of the box” ideas as gaining some traction among the who’s who in physics.

The Higgs theory fits into all this nicely.

IMHO, I think that the roots of LENR and zero point energy lies deep inside this rat’s nest of incomprehensible nuclear concepts and string theory.

One idea that string theory has advanced is equivalence between theories even if the theories all look different mathematically.

Five consistent versions of string theory were developed before it was realized in the mid-1990s that these theories could be obtained as different limits of a conjectured eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory.

In quantum field theory, Seiberg duality, conjectured by Nathan Seiberg, is an S-duality relating two different supersymmetric QCDs. Seiberg was able to put the two theories together into a combined duel theory. The two theories are not identical, but they agree at low energies. More precisely after some math adjustments involving the gauge coupling constant, both theories behave in the same way.


Seiberg has been able to avoid mind lock about his theory from the quark lovers because of the mathematical equivalence mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiberg_duality

This also involves an interchange of the electrically charged particles (quarks) and magnetic monopoles.

The roots of these ideas comes from the strong-weak duality derived from the generalization of the electro-magnetic symmetry of Maxwell's equations.
============================================================
Reference:
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m632.pdf

Experimental observation and analysis of action of light magnetic monopoles on multilayer surfaces


I am interested in the similarities between the electromagnetic anomalies that have been reported by the Proton-21 experiment with those reported by LeClair in his cavatation experiment.


This “particle” could well be a magnetic vortex current that is mobile well beyond its location of creation. Like a nano-sized ball lightning, this vortex current is attracted to a solid surface where it induces nuclear reactions as a result of its unique electromagnetic nature.


LeClair may have erroneously connected the water crystal that he sees with the action of this magnetic vortex current.


If this current as large enough, this vortex currents may well be capable of passing though solid obstructions such as reactor walls as has been reported by LeClair and with ball lightning.


The referenced paper shows that these vortexes can travel a considerable distance from there points of creation and are very light in mass and may well be massless.


LeClair has presented clear experimental evidence showing the action and mobility of these vortexes and so have STANISLAV V. ADAMENKO and VLADIMIR I. VYSOTSKII in the above reference.

There is a LENR strength component that changes the character and the types of nuclear processes and transmutation produces that are manifest in various LENR reactor reactions.

In the Rossi reactor, the strength level of the reaction is the weakest in this example. The Rossi reaction only affects transmutation of Ni62 and Ni64 in the nickel powder

There is other transmutations going on but we will keep the discussion about nickel in the Ni/H reactors.

In the DGT reactor, the strength of the LENR reaction is on an intermediate level. The DGT reactor can affect the nuclei of Ni58 and Ni60 as well as Ni62 and Ni64. And the heaviest transmuted element observed is lead.

On the other side of the coin, in the LeClair reactor, the LENR reactor is the strongest reaction observed. This LENR reaction level can affect nuclei with both even and odd number of nucleons. This type of reaction can produce heavy elements well into the transuranic range.

Interestingly, LeClair reports that both the chlorine stable isotopes Cl35 and Cl37 are transmuted into unstable chlorine nuclei Cl39 from LeClair as follows:

“The radiation emitted by the reactor left nuclear tracks, burned the hole pattern of the core into the clear PVC core enclosure, activated high neutron absorption cross-section 39Cl (56 minute half-life) in the chlorine of the PVC core enclosure….”

The LeClair reactor breaks the even nucleon rules where only even nucleons are affected by the reaction.

I don’t buy the LeClair theory of how cavatation produces transmutation from zero point energy.

Transmutation occurs because of Higgs field monopole disruption as anopole magnetism is sufficiently strong to cause the Higgs dual superconductivity in the nucleus to be disrupted with the formation of anapole magnetic nuclear filaments. Quarks tend to realine along these lines of anapole magnetic force. In this way newly configured elements are generated where quarks are reordered and reconfigured.

Cavatation fits into the general whispering wave resonator polariton LENR theory in this way explained as follows:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/AminiFthestudyof.pdf

The Study of Cavitation Bubble- Surface Plasmon Resonance Interaction For LENR and Biochemical processes

All these reactors produce anapole magnetic fields of varying strength that affect the stability of nuclei in close proximity to the anapole current vortex(aka monopole).

There is much randomness in this transmutation process where anopole fields can vary widely in strength. Because of this range in strength, sometimes fusion occurs and sometimes fission occurs as the quarks are rearranged.

This process has nothing to do with high pressures or temperatures; it all comes down simply to the production of ring currents and magnetic disruption of Higgs superconductivity in the nucleus that this anapole magnetic field produces.

In the case of the cavatation bubble, the bubble acts as a micro-whispering gallery resonator where polariton vortex ring currents produce a negatively charged plasmid whose anopole magnetic beam is pointed at the nearby solid surface.

In sonoluminescence, the dark mode cavity confinement of the polariton plasmoid breaks down and energy from the plasmoid escapes to the far field as ultra-violet and deep blue light as the cavatation bubble collapses.

When the dark mode is maintained in the cavatation bubble, the polariton plasmid vortex stays together long enough to affect the atoms on the surface of the solid material being eroded.

The Proton-21 reaction is similar to that produced by LeClair and may well be as strong resulting is similar levels of transmutation.

In closing, please note that both LeClair and Proton-21 observe gamma radiation up to 10 MeV. This indicates that Bose Einstein condensation (BEC) as produced in the Rossi and DGT NI/H reactors is not required for the production of the LENR reaction. Its role is restricted to the thermalization of Gamma radiation.

However, the intrinsic well ordered nature of the LENR reaction does leave the ash produced by the reaction stable without producing radioactive isotopes.

[Joseph Chikva]

Until you do something actually useful, I think it is pointless to engage you anymore on this. Kind of like your opinion about Joe. The irony is a bit painful for me. Cause I think a lot more of you than Joe.

Yes, he more than Joe likes Rossi as well as he likes Polywell. Both (Rossi and Bussrad) are the same for me. As both try (tried for Bussard) to get financing in not viable concepts.
You like Polywell and do not like Rossi? Oh, you very smart if so.
• And in what Kiteman a lot more than me? Because he've got physics intensive courses for militaries? Yes, it's better than to get academic course for engineers and physicists. And reading manuals and pushing buttons according those manuals is more than at least two decades of experience in design-development of high-tech things.
• Your behavior is very emotional (so, less rational) when talk concerns Polywell. May be or not because of lack of knowledge in physics? Bu Polywell is your favorite toy.
• Or when someone calls in question your vision of arrangement of the world where everything rotates round the USA. When the whole world knows that the USA loses positions of the world leader in favor of China, and you aren't sure of it because some guys professionally engaged in China work on the same floor as you.
• Or when someone asks what there will be an accuracy at Chinese or Russian or even the Palestinian rocket if there to insert the same sensors as into the American. Answer: I was with visit in Draper's laboratory. While answer is simple: if the talk is about inertial guidance, performance of sensors causes accuracy. And not national identity.

[MSimon]

I look forward to the discovery of the anapole dancers.

[ladajo]

Until you do something actually useful, I think it is pointless to engage you anymore on this. Kind of like your opinion about Joe. The irony is a bit painful for me. Cause I think a lot more of you than Joe.

Yes, he more than Joe likes Rossi as well as he likes Polywell. Both (Rossi and Bussrad) are the same for me. As both try (tried for Bussard) to get financing in not viable concepts.
You like Polywell and do not like Rossi? Oh, you very smart if so.
• And in what Kiteman a lot more than me? Because he've got physics intensive courses for militaries? Yes, it's better than to get academic course for engineers and physicists. And reading manuals and pushing buttons according those manuals is more than at least two decades of experience in design-development of high-tech things.
• Your behavior is very emotional (so, less rational) when talk concerns Polywell. May be or not because of lack of knowledge in physics? Bu Polywell is your favorite toy.
• Or when someone calls in question your vision of arrangement of the world where everything rotates round the USA. When the whole world knows that the USA loses positions of the world leader in favor of China, and you aren't sure of it because some guys professionally engaged in China work on the same floor as you.
• Or when someone asks what there will be an accuracy at Chinese or Russian or even the Palestinian rocket if there to insert the same sensors as into the American. Answer: I was with visit in Draper's laboratory. While answer is simple: if the talk is about inertial guidance, performance of sensors causes accuracy. And not national identity.

Joe,
You are a smart guy. You are also convinced folks do not take you seriously. This tends to make any discussion you have with others a bit acidic. And you well come across as arrogant, dismissive, and angry in your statements. It also gives you a tendancy to speak strongly on things you know not. I think you know some stuff Joe, and I also think you don't know some stuff.
I think it is really funny when you say things like,

someone calls in question your vision of arrangement of the world where everything rotates round the USA

. But I can assure you that most see it as childish lashing out.
I also applaud your conditioned loyalty to all things Soviet. You claim to hate them, but at every turn you like to say they did (do?) it better. It is a little ironic when you consider your angry and sarcastic intention comments like "everything rotates around USA". The Soviet stuff doesn't work well Joe. Like many countries that bought Soviet stuff, China has found this out as well. Look to see who buys what stuff, look to see when they change what they buy. Understand that these purchases are based in access, cost, quality and neccessity (in that order). You will find that most move past cost once they realize they have tossed some money in the trash. China on the other hand is focusing to what they see as neccessity. They love(d) to buy Soviet stuff, so they can reverse engineer it, and then make their attempts to better it. This saves them time, money and effort in engineering and research. But the end results are not neccessarily better than other stuff they just could have bought from someone else if they had access too.
I, of all people aroud here at Talk Polywell have tried to engage you the most Joe. But I don't think you see that. I think you see another person that doesn't take you seriously. Please realize Joe, that it is okay for other people to know stuff that you don't know. The same applies for them.

As far as comparing Rossi and his Ecat to Bussard and Polywell. Well, hmmm. Not much useful to say on that. But I'll give it a shot. Where Polywell may have a shot, and it is by no means certain as I have always said, where Rossi has no real chance at all. But that said, it serves absolutely no purpose to try and compare the two efforts (apples/oranges), other than some kind of anger based outburst.

[KitemanSA]

Rossi is not a scientist and applying scientific criteria to him is... well, dumb.

Really? So evidence no longer counts? Marvelous.

Expecting him to fork over the evidence for free in a way that could ruin his business plans would be dumb. Condemning him for not being dumb is also dumb.

Evidence counts a lot, which is why I keep demanding it from those that would condemn him. I feel no need to demand evidence the other way since that act is covered so well by so many others on this forum.

I find it odd that so many would feel the need to jump to a conclusion and then try so hard to make me jump too. I suppose they are all Myers Briggs "Judger" types and are constitutionally incapable of withholding judgement. I am a "Perceiver" type and feel no such need. So if you want to convince me, bring me FACT, not thinly disguised opinion.

Oh, and make the fact relevant to the issue.