10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[rcain]

interesting video of Miley here - http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay#p/u/2/N1m2wQevFAY - presenting at a recent ( i think) cold fusion discussion. ( Miley's report begins at 5 minutes and 30 seconds and his statement about his LENR device begins at 17 minutes and 55 seconds).

striking similarities between the work he has been doing, what he is claiming, and what Rossi is claiming (albeit any similarity between the two gentlemen stops there, imo).

mention of (current?) NASA interest also.

(though i also note, MIley had his LENR research budget pulled, way back in 99 ( http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... skill.html )

ps:: seems to be some sort of resurrection of the Patterson Power Cell idea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell - which at least got granted a patent.

pps. quite a well written potted history here - http://e-catsite.com/the-e-cat-and-the- ... ower-cell/ - albeit i get the impression the blogger is a pretty solid LENR-believer, with a url like that n'all.

[Giorgio]

No, I am saying that one should be rational enough to have an open mind and at the same time to be able to classify the "potentially possible" from the ridiculous.

For some reason, you seem beholden to make a decision about this. I find that a bit irrational. I need not make that decision now. Till I DO have to, I will seek information, real, solid, information upon which to make a decision. None has been provided, so I remain undecided. I have an opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. It will do until I must decide. Until then, I seek.

Seek on making a decision on LENR or on Rossi?
On the first I agree, on the second I am amazed that you still think there is room to give him the benefit of doubt.
This has been a grotesque gallery of scientific horrors, starting from the January test with a dosing pump delivering (according Rossi of course) 250% more flow than the model rated amount (A DOSING PUMP!!!), with ignorance in understanding the difference between Energy and Power, with an RH probe used to measure a gas phase density while attempting to determine a steam dryness fraction (so many illogic statement here I laughed for 2 hours), public tests with no public data, NASA tests that fails to give any meaningful result, invisible customers, reports plenty of errors, sorry, of horrors...........

When is enough nonsense enough for you to take a decision? Should I continue the list?

Let me ask you straightly, do you believe in Fortune tellers and in Astrology? If you do not, how do you reconcile this with the principle you expressed?

No, but then I don't "believe" in Rossi either.
But do you now see where you have gone? It has become a matter of BELIEF to you, hasn't it. We are starting to argue religion. Your faith vs my lack of it.

Nice attempt at twisting my logic, but I am not going to fall for it.
This is not a matter of faith and it has never been. This is a simple matter of judging what one is offering as support to his claims against what he is claiming.
Faith is blindly believing (or objecting) him without weighting the positive and negative information he supplied to support his claims.

Really? Isn't it obvious that people purposefully used gravity for beneficial effect without knowing it scientifically? And WELL before the first scientific demonstration of it? Might Rossi be doing the same thing, in effect? Using a phenomenon before it had been scientifically proven?

No is not obvious at all,

Really? Do you REALLY think that it is not obvious that people used gravity to their benefit before Galileo? Really? Honestly?

Maybe I am wrong, but I feel you are just trying to be polemic here.
You are mixing the use of an unknown phenomena without claiming to understand it, with the claim to have mastered an unknown phenomena while being unable to show how to use it.
The difference is so huge that I refuse to believe that you are unable to grasp it.

Let me put it in another way.
A BEC is the result of a series of state of matter. If one of these conditions is missing you cannot call it a BEC.
Lasers are missing some of the conditions to be called BEC.

Please provide more info on the conditions missing. I see none, but I am not an expert. Illumination please.

Just one will be enough. No ground state.

[rcain]

Giorgio, i am really beginning to think you have gone to much to the 'dark side' (or do i mean 'light side').

there is after all still some finite, (and i would say significant) possibility that eg: Rossi has stumbled upon something, as many others have, but has found himself 'inadequate to expressing' it properly (despite his extensive and criminal experience in such matters). he also sucks at calorimetry and i dare say his welding is a bit shit. he's also hopelessly overstretched on the 'commercial' side of things.

coincidentally, he is also Italian; and 'Italians' have their ways.

at the end of the day, he is just 'Rossi' - the 'Rossi Phenomenon'

what he's 'stumbling' around, ('....bless!'), is what a whole lot of other people are 'stumbling around' and what they've variously 'been at', on the 'quiet', or in the past for the last 5 decades.

it seems they are all starting to emerge out of the woodwork, raise their heads above the commercial and legal parapet; i'm certain its not just a side effect of Google - though it sure does help.

i am more inclined now to compare Rossi's claims to those of Miley, Defkalion, others. Rossi has simply gone 'full-tilt' to market, ahead of anyone else - who variously, now seem 'spurred on' to pursuit.

'LENR' on the other hand - i am open minded.

if one amasses all the recorded 'similar anomalies' over the past 50 years - i am forced to conclude that something is definitely 'going on down there', at that scale, that we really haven't got a grasp of. but we have already got pretty much what we need, by way of 'known physics', to work it out.

i believe that when we do finally, truly, 'twig', how it works, we'll also learn how best to exploit it; and i think that process will be very fast.

Rossi is simply the first to the Klondyke, but he ain't actually struck gold yet... quite.

My hunch is, its not 'if', but just a matter of 'when' all this 'gels'...

Interested to see whether UOB don't end up preferring a research partnership with one of the other 'players' - eg: Univ Illinois, NASA, DOD, the EU (heaven forbid!), China, the Greeks ...

the plot thickens.

@Kite - I've PM'd you about em to Miley.

[Giorgio]

rcain,

you need not to try to convince me that there might be something going on at LENR level, as I am confident that there is indeed something not clear and potentially groundbreaking in more than one experiment I have read about.
I am more inclined to analyze Prof. Piantelli LENR claims or Dr. Cardone Piezonuclear claims, but not anymore the one of Rossi.

Even if he might have indeed stumbled upon something new and revolutionary, his whole attitude in the last 12 months made him loose to my eyes any whatsoever credibility and any benefit of doubt I was giving him.

Maybe I have slipped over the "dark side" as you said, but I still think that the scientific method is the only way to prove one's claims and as long as Rossi will object to use this method I will object him.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

No, I am saying that one should be rational enough to have an open mind and at the same time to be able to classify the "potentially possible" from the ridiculous.

For some reason, you seem beholden to make a decision about this. I find that a bit irrational. I need not make that decision now. Till I DO have to, I will seek information, real, solid, information upon which to make a decision. None has been provided, so I remain undecided. I have an opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. It will do until I must decide. Until then, I seek.

Seek on making a decision on LENR or on Rossi?

Both, actually. On Rossi, my current leanings are toward the negative. On LENR, more toward the positive. But,,, I don't know, so I seek.

On the first I agree, on the second I am amazed that you still think there is room to give him the benefit of doubt.

AMAZE away to your hearts content!

This has been a grotesque gallery of scientific horrors, starting from the January test with a dosing pump delivering (according Rossi of course) 250% more flow than the model rated amount (A DOSING PUMP!!!), with ignorance in understanding the difference between Energy and Power, with an RH probe used to measure a gas phase density while attempting to determine a steam dryness fraction (so many illogic statement here I laughed for 2 hours), public tests with no public data, NASA tests that fails to give any meaningful result, invisible customers, reports plenty of errors, sorry, of horrors...........

I suspect this is where we differ. I see nothing "scientific" about anything Possi has done. Thus I see no "scientific horrors". In truth, I kind of see a guy who has a VERY uncooperative tiger by the tail. But my sight is VERY foggy and that may not be a tiger but a lyin.

When is enough nonsense enough for you to take a decision? Should I continue the list?

Until there is definitive scientific evidence one way or the other, or until I must personally make a decision because something of value is on the line.
No amount of YOUR discomfort will cause me to choose, one way or the other.
When you say, "In my opinion, it is all a scam", I reply, "you are entitled to your opinion, and I tend to sympatize with your opinion".
When you state, "it is all a scam", I request your data, the REAL proof that is the basis for your decision. So far, everyone's "proof" amounts to "I don't understand it and I don't like him, so he must be a scammer".

Let me ask you straightly, do you believe in Fortune tellers and in Astrology? If you do not, how do you reconcile this with the principle you expressed?

No, but then I don't "believe" in Rossi either.
But do you now see where you have gone? It has become a matter of BELIEF to you, hasn't it. We are starting to argue religion. Your faith vs my lack of it.

Nice attempt at twisting my logic, but I am not going to fall for it.
This is not a matter of faith and it has never been. This is a simple matter of judging what one is offering as support to his claims against what he is claiming.
Faith is blindly believing (or objecting) him without weighting the positive and negative information he supplied to support his claims.

You SEEM to blindly believe that your understanding of the universe is full and complete and you know that his process doesn't fit in to it, so he lies. Oh and by the way, you don't understand his reasons for acting the way he does and thus his odd behavior is more proof that he lies. This APPEARS to be a matter of faith to me. I have faith in the long term scientific process, and not much else. Certainly not Rossi, nor you! I seek DATA, not opinion, not faith.

No is not obvious at all,

Really? Do you REALLY think that it is not obvious that people used gravity to their benefit before Galileo? Really? Honestly?

Maybe I am wrong, but I feel you are just trying to be polemic here.
You are mixing the use of an unknown phenomena without claiming to understand it, with the claim to have mastered an unknown phenomena while being unable to show how to use it.

It seems unlikely to me that Rossi has MASTERED anything. My analogy might be that Rossi is like the first caveman that hurled a stone he could lift blindly over a cliff down upon a herd of Ms (mastadon, mammoth, whatever) and found one dead at the bottom when he got there. What he DIDN'T notice was that his stone hit an outcrop and dislarged a large bolder on the way down. It was the bolder that killed the M. He goes back and tells the tribe, hey, I've discovered a great way to kill Ms. When trying to do it again, all he does is piss off an M with the rock he could lift. He is obviously a scammer, right?

Let me put it in another way.
A BEC is the result of a series of state of matter. If one of these conditions is missing you cannot call it a BEC.
Lasers are missing some of the conditions to be called BEC.

Please provide more info on the conditions missing. I see none, but I am not an expert. Illumination please.

Just one will be enough. No ground state.

Nice statement, evidence? Aren't photons ALWAYS effectively in their "ground state"?

[parallel]

The rabid E-Cat deniers jumped to conclusions, knowing little or nothing of the history, and then defended them against the evidence rather admit they were wrong.

See http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... srael.html for earlier work. Why did these deniers not jump all over those too?

Rossi seems to have cracked the repeatability problem, but others have obtained high COPs in the past.

[rcain]

The rabid E-Cat deniers jumped to conclusions, knowing little or nothing of the history, and then defended them against the evidence rather admit they were wrong.

See http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... srael.html for earlier work. Why did these deniers not jump all over those too?

Rossi seems to have cracked the repeatability problem, but others have obtained high COPs in the past.

quite an interesting little archive of someone's there - shame it goes stale around 2003 (10th International Cold Fusion Conference)

see:: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/ ... is-stigma/ - for one answer to your question - i think they 'did'.

still, glad to see it hasn't dampened spirits for next years jamboree - the 17th International Cold Fusion Conference - Aug 2012 - http://iccf17.org/

[Giorgio]

I suspect this is where we differ. I see nothing "scientific" about anything Possi has done. Thus I see no "scientific horrors". In truth, I kind of see a guy who has a VERY uncooperative tiger by the tail. But my sight is VERY foggy and that may not be a tiger but a lyin.

Doh', I don't understand this.
As you see nothing scientific in his work than you cannot judge him from a scientific point of view and thus you give him the benefit of doubts?
Doesn't make much sense to me.

When is enough nonsense enough for you to take a decision? Should I continue the list?

Until there is definitive scientific evidence one way or the other, or until I must personally make a decision because something of value is on the line.
No amount of YOUR discomfort will cause me to choose, one way or the other.

Ehe, be sure that I feel no discomfort here, I have much more warring issues to attend everyday than Rossi saga
I am just trying to point out some obvious (for me) incongruence in this story that should make clear to anyone that even if Rossi has something, this something is much different from what he is claiming to have and that trying to figure out even a small bit of truth out of his lone words is just plain nonsense.

When you say, "In my opinion, it is all a scam", I reply, "you are entitled to your opinion, and I tend to sympatize with your opinion".
When you state, "it is all a scam", I request your data, the REAL proof that is the basis for your decision. So far, everyone's "proof" amounts to "I don't understand it and I don't like him, so he must be a scammer".

That's your way of seeing it.
For me I never stated that he is a scammer, but just a self delusional pseudo scientist with a good tongue. The proof of his self delusional attitude I listed (partially) in my previous post. I didn't see any comment from you on those points except a blunt rejection of them, but this does not make them less true.

Nice attempt at twisting my logic, but I am not going to fall for it.
This is not a matter of faith and it has never been. This is a simple matter of judging what one is offering as support to his claims against what he is claiming.
Faith is blindly believing (or objecting) him without weighting the positive and negative information he supplied to support his claims.

You SEEM to blindly believe that your understanding of the universe is full and complete and you know that his process doesn't fit in to it, so he lies. Oh and by the way, you don't understand his reasons for acting the way he does and thus his odd behavior is more proof that he lies. This APPEARS to be a matter of faith to me. I have faith in the long term scientific process, and not much else. Certainly not Rossi, nor you! I seek DATA, not opinion, not faith.

Read back my statement in bold and tell me how it differs from what you just stated.

Please provide more info on the conditions missing. I see none, but I am not an expert. Illumination please.

Just one will be enough. No ground state.

Nice statement, evidence? Aren't photons ALWAYS effectively in their "ground state"?

Evidences of what? That is the way a BEC is formed. Take any paper on BEC and you get al the evidences you need.
I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

[MSimon]

I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

I think he doesn't get the bit about the population standing on its head.

[KitemanSA]

As you see nothing scientific in his work than you cannot judge him from a scientific point of view and thus you give him the benefit of doubts?
Doesn't make much sense to me.

That is plenty ok, it isn't required to.

Until there is definitive scientific evidence one way or the other, or until I must personally make a decision because something of value is on the line.
No amount of YOUR discomfort will cause me to choose, one way or the other.

Ehe, be sure that I feel no discomfort here, I have much more warring issues to attend everyday than Rossi saga
I am just trying to point out some obvious (for me) incongruence in this story that should make clear to anyone that even if Rossi has something, this something is much different from what he is claiming to have and that trying to figure out even a small bit of truth out of his lone words is just plain nonsense.

See, even you have doubts.

[KitemanSA]

When you say, "In my opinion, it is all a scam", I reply, "you are entitled to your opinion, and I tend to sympatize with your opinion".
When you state, "it is all a scam", I request your data, the REAL proof that is the basis for your decision. So far, everyone's "proof" amounts to "I don't understand it and I don't like him, so he must be a scammer".

For me I never stated that he is a scammer, but just a self delusional pseudo scientist with a good tongue. The proof of his self delusional attitude I listed (partially) in my previous post. I didn't see any comment from you on those points except a blunt rejection of them, but this does not make them less true.

Ok, in this I may have missed something. Let us shorten it to SDPsScGT. If it is your opinion that he is a SDPsScGT, the I will say, you may very well be right. But if you STATE that he is, I will ask if you have any real evidence.
And no, I don't think your inability to understand his game plan is necessarily evidence that he is a SDPsScGT.

Nice attempt at twisting my logic, but I am not going to fall for it.
This is not a matter of faith and it has never been. This is a simple matter of judging what one is offering as support to his claims against what he is claiming.
Faith is blindly believing (or objecting) him without weighting the positive and negative information he supplied to support his claims.

You SEEM to blindly believe that your understanding of the universe is full and complete and you know that his process doesn't fit in to it, so he lies. Oh and by the way, you don't understand his reasons for acting the way he does and thus his odd behavior is more proof that he lies. This APPEARS to be a matter of faith to me. I have faith in the long term scientific process, and not much else. Certainly not Rossi, nor you! I seek DATA, not opinion, not faith.

Read back my statement in bold and tell me how it differs from what you just stated.

Again, the difference seems to be that you think that no scientific evidence of existance equals scientific evidence of non-existance, and I do not.

Just one will be enough. No ground state.

Nice statement, evidence? Aren't photons ALWAYS effectively in their "ground state"?

Evidences of what? That is the way a BEC is formed. Take any paper on BEC and you get al the evidences you need.
I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

It is possible. But you SEEM to be defining something by how it is formed, and I define something by what it is. It is almost like saying that ice isn't ice unless it freezes from a liquid. Sorry, I don't agree. Ice is solid water no matter HOW it got that way.
You do realize we may be arguing inconsequetial minutia here.

[KitemanSA]

I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

I think he doesn't get the bit about the population standing on its head.

You are right, I don't get that. Explain?

[MSimon]

I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

I think he doesn't get the bit about the population standing on its head.

You are right, I don't get that. Explain?

Look up "Laser population inversion". Heh.

[Giorgio]

I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

I think he doesn't get the bit about the population standing on its head.

Heh, maybe he should try to stand on his head too!

[Giorgio]

As you see nothing scientific in his work than you cannot judge him from a scientific point of view and thus you give him the benefit of doubts?
Doesn't make much sense to me.

That is plenty ok, it isn't required to.

Of course is not, you are free to run your logic thoughts the way you like most, it was just a personal consideration but I can assure you that I can survive it

I am just trying to point out some obvious (for me) incongruence in this story that should make clear to anyone that even if Rossi has something, this something is much different from what he is claiming to have and that trying to figure out even a small bit of truth out of his lone words is just plain nonsense.

See, even you have doubts.

I never thought of me like the bearer of the truth so, while I feel that I am pretty right in my considerations on Rossi based on actual information, I am also ready to be proven wrong at any time.