10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

No, science is experimentation conducted with the express aim of negating a hypothesis derived from a theory. All else is natural history.

Obviously not true. Just one example to falsify it.
What theory did Newton expect to falsify when he split light with a prism?
Not to mention Fraunhofer lines and red shift etc. Often an experiment is for making new discoveries, pinning down properties and to find out what happens.

He showed that light does not change its properties on being reflected from objects (the old theory of colour, thus falisfied) and hence derived Newton's theory of colour.

But more generally, "blind" experimentation is worthwhile when the new data is extraordinary & novel, for example any advance in astronimical instruments, new particle accelerators, or very many experiments at a time when existing theories were not highly predictive nor corresponded well to experimental data.

Arguably, such results are not themselves science, but they certainly provide suitable raw material for new science.

And new science is proposing new falsifiable theories, and testing them through experiments. Like Newton's theory of colour.

And your argument that such results are not science is correct. It is the simple recording of nature, i.e., natural history. And the data recorded forms the basis of all theories from which hypotheses are drawn and exeriments conducted that can prove them wrong. If the experiment cannot prove the hypothesis wrong, it is back to natural history.

Some folks seem to get upset about such activity being called natural history. What is so wrong with natural history?

[GIThruster]

There is no significant consensus as regards what qualifies as science and what does not. Most empiricists require falsifiability in a scientific theory for it to qualify as such, but evolution is not especially falsifiable nor is is repeatable nor even in the strictest sense, directly observable--yet people generally have no trouble accepting it as science.

I think for practical purposes in the case of Rossi, we are justified to insist upon quality observation, repeatability and falsifiability in the theory behind it. Surprisingly, the biggest trouble is with the falsifiability portion since Rossi hasn't got any cogent theory.

Science, and all empiricism requires at its base, a rational theory as well as observations. Thats why when I judge various technologies that claim to be "emergent" I want to see both. If you don't require both, you get stuck with a much broader category that includes people like Rossi and Searl, and since there's no real theory, there's no way to create hypotheses that can be falsified. That does seem to me to be pressing the boundaries not just of what makes good science, but what makes science at all.

[KitemanSA]

There is no significant consensus as regards what qualifies as science and what does not. Most empiricists require falsifiability in a scientific theory for it to qualify as such, but evolution is not especially falsifiable nor is is repeatable nor even in the strictest sense, directly observable--yet people generally have no trouble accepting it as science.

Evolution is a subject, like "physics" (or maybe more of a phenomenon like gravity) and can be treated scientifically or not. Darwin proposed a theory regarding it which further accumulation of data has falsified. It has been replaced by another theory (punctuated equilibrium if I recall correctly) and has been quite nicely tied to genetics which is entering into the experimental era. It seems to be a science to me.

[Joseph Chikva]

Darwin proposed a theory regarding it which further accumulation of data has falsified.

Facts?
For example there was seen with opened eyes the Rossi's falsification e.g. in his "5kW show and if I recall correctly you defended him saying "it is demo and not experiment".
Now you are speaking about falsification of man whose name we all remember for at least of 150 years.
And I am not sure that anybody will remember Rossi even in next 15 years.

[Skipjack]

but evolution is not especially falsifiable nor is is repeatable nor even in the strictest sense, directly observable

Not true. E.g. the breeding of domesticated animals or plants is evolution at work, only that the humans are taking the part of natural selection.
So it is very easily repeatable in experiment.
There are several populations of humans that have also seen a kind of mutation. One example is that tribe of canibalistic people that is resistant to prions, since they kept eating the brains of their dead for centuries only thost with the mutation that made them resistant survived.
Another example is the way fashion in many western societies has affected the look of women. E.g. when smaller hips became popular in womens fashion, it caused a shift in the population towards smaller hip bones.

Evolution is a subject, like "physics" (or maybe more of a phenomenon like gravity) and can be treated scientifically or not. Darwin proposed a theory regarding it which further accumulation of data has falsified. It has been replaced by another theory (punctuated equilibrium if I recall correctly) and has been quite nicely tied to genetics which is entering into the experimental era. It seems to be a science to me.

Well both are theories of evolution, one is phyletic gradualism, a gradual evolution, the other is a more sudden punctual evolution (punctuated equilibrium. Personally, I think that there really are both effects at work in varying degrees. You can not see a gradual evolution in the fossil records, because even a couple of centuries are too short to really show up in fossils, but they are long enough to cause a change.

[parallel]

Skipjack wrote:

"I think that I have been very patient, more than 1 and a half years of patient, more than one and a half years of one worthless presentation after another. I also never said that I cant wait a few more months. I can wait all the time, but it is Rossi who has to proof his stuff to me, not the other way round. He is the one making the extraordinary claim. He never showed anything credible.
Oh and please refrain from personal attacks. It makes you look weak!"

You may think what you like. You don't believe Rossi has ever demonstrated LENR: others like me disagree with you. You certainly don't have any solid proof that Rossi is a fraud yet you keep saying you think he is.

You go on about how patient you are and how so much time has passed since his first demonstration. Others, with more experience of the world, know that the typical cycle from design through certification to manufacture takes about two years. How long has it been again?

Another thing Rossi appears to have got right is his forecast that no demonstration will ever convince the pathological skeptics, only the sale of working units will do that. QED. Has Celani convinced the scientific establishment?

[Joseph Chikva]

Others, with more experience of the world, know that the typical cycle from design through certification to manufacture takes about two years. How long has it been again?

Those "experienced" people also believed Rossi when he tried to sell his "1 MW plant" without any certification.
Now after failures of all his demos you are starting yourself the talk about certification?
I asked that for the beginning: "Does the device producing any form of radiation such as neutrons, gamma, etc. not need any certification"?
At what price Rossi made his first sale to his first "very happy" customer? Not at 1 or two millions? Had he right to sell that time?
This all are pity and laughable. Ok, let's wait for certification now. Good luck.

[ladajo]

The only true fact when speaking of Rossi is that he has proved nothing other than a talent for spinning words and intent.

Even his latest "leaked" (right) photos show that he continues to be full of shyte. Sealed chamber, high temps/pressures, high heating input via wires that appear 50% too small, wrong color emitted for claimed heat, and so on and so on.

Rossi is poop.

If I had a nickel for every time he has claimed something that turned out to be misleading or outright false, I would have more money than Rossi has milked out of the stupid blind faith believers he preys upon.

[parallel]

Chikva

As most people know, but not you apparently, the military (like many large corporations) does not need certification for equipment they buy. They run their own tests.

[Joseph Chikva]

Chikva

As most people know, but not you apparently, the military (like many large corporations) does not need certification for equipment they buy. They run their own tests.

Really?
I also remember that someone of members of this board sent request to Rossi on buying of his 1 MW plant. And immediately received an answer. Then several pages of these 302 or 303 here was a discussion how expensive or cheap is Rossi's price of 1 kW of installed capacity.
I believe that person who sent request made that from the name of large military contractor.

[Skipjack]

You certainly don't have any solid proof that Rossi is a fraud yet you keep saying you think he is.

No, I said that he does a good job at making himself appear like a fraud, by contradicting himself, over and over again. I do not say that he is a fraud with absolute certainty. But he does not do a good job at making me feel confident. I would be too affraid to do business with him right now. I would not trust him.

Others, with more experience of the world, know that the typical cycle from design through certification to manufacture takes about two years. How long has it been again?

I am not asking for a finished product, I am asking for a conclusive demonstration of his claims and Defkalions for that matter. Both seem to be licensing their technology to other companies for millions. So in their minds it is advanced enough to be sold, but not advanced enough to be demonstrated and tested in a real test?
The other issue I have with him is 1.5 years of flip flopping on tests that are allegedly going to happen at universities in Bologna, then Upsala, then again Bologna, but these keep being denied by the actual people there and they never happened. He is still talking about them happening soon, its been "in two months" for 1.5 years now. That is where I am loosing my patience.

Others, with more experience of the world

Hillarious

[303]

rossi's statements and answers to questions are indistinguishable from a bot,

taken at face value, he has flat out lied his ass off from the beginning, his 'demonstrations' have yet to demonstrate the e-cat can even boil an egg without help from the national grid

we all kinda hoping for an energy breakthrough, but tbh i really hope rossi hasnt got anything because a) e-cat looks like crap, like a bunch of plumbing parts badly welded together sourced from the local tip b) i prefer scientists to be dour, serious people who avoid making promises they cant hope to keep c) i like science to have a theory, papers, a trail of info that leads to development of new technology, whereas the only paper trail e-cat has is the amount of loo roll needed to clean up the horseshit surrounding it

[Joseph Chikva]

e-cat looks like crap, like a bunch of plumbing parts badly welded together sourced from the local tip

Does not matter to what e-cat is look like or how well or badly it is welded. We hear about Rossi about one year and till now he could not provide anything credible. He does not know or does not want to show proper calorimetry and, so, all his claims are not well stated. And that is a problem and not the quality of welding.

[KitemanSA]

Darwin proposed a theory regarding it which further accumulation of data has falsified.

Facts?

Wikipedia.

[GIThruster]

Evolution is a subject, like "physics" (or maybe more of a phenomenon like gravity) and can be treated scientifically or not. Darwin proposed a theory regarding it which further accumulation of data has falsified. It has been replaced by another theory (punctuated equilibrium if I recall correctly) and has been quite nicely tied to genetics which is entering into the experimental era. It seems to be a science to me.

I'm just trying to be fair in reporting to you that there is no single criteria for what qualifies as "science". This is the sort of thing people argue about. Contrary to what most people think, the scientific theory of evolution does not meet the criteria most people set for what entails a scientific theory.

Punctuated Equilibrium is the name for a specific mechanism inside the proposed theory of evolution, proposed to explain the fossil record. Fact is, in debates with creationists, Stephen Jay Gould was eventually forced to admit that there is no evidence for evolution as it was being taught until that time. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but evolution was supposed to explain what we find in the fossil record and it doesn't, so PE was created from the debate to explain the fact we do not find what are called "transitional forms" in the record. If earlier versions of evolution were to be taken as true, all forms should be in a sense transitional, and we would see a record of constant change. We don't. So PE was created to better describe what we do find in the fossil record.

You can ignore what Skippy says when he posts on this issue. As with most things, he has no idea what he's talking about. Evolution specifically stipulates that given time, and mutation and environmental pressure often described as "survival of the fittest" but what is better called the "un-survival of the unfit", living creatures will generate new structures with new capabilities. This evolutionary adaptation has never been witnessed and is indeed, outside the realm of observation because of the vast periods of time over which is is supposed to occur. Insects changing color has nothing to do with the kinds of structural creation that evolution proposes. There has never been, nor will there likely ever be an observation of this mechanism, and obviously the evidence of "transitional forms is entirely missing, so if this theory could be falsified, it would have been long ago.

Nothing against evolution. I believe in evolution and I think it's the scientific handling of the evidence we have, but the theory proposes vastly more than what we'll ever be able to observe. By definition is is not repeatable because the theory specifies that the process was unguided, and it's hard to see how it could be falsified in any way since it's been alive and well since back when it didn't actually explain any of what we see.