10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:07 am

Skippy, I think what you don't get is BLP doesn't care at all if someone like you is convinced. They were looking to convince scientists who would have a clue when looking at the report.

So, if they dont care to convince me, please dont care to convince me either. With the current evidence, or rather the almost complete lack thereoff, I cant be convinced.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:12 am

I think we already agreed 160 pages ago (in this very same thread) that there were too many conflicts of personal and economic interests between BLP and Rowan to be able to trust the correctness of their scientific method.

Additionally another year has passed without them releasing any product.
That's 21 years since he founded the company and 12 years since he claimed to have a fully working excess energy reactor.....

What this forum needs is a "like" button. I think I would use that a lot for your posts, Giorgio.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:19 am

tomclarke wrote:Rowan are not a well-known research university. They do not have (I believe) a doctoral program. So my guess is any research they do will be very applied, and funded directly by industry.

Just so, but I have to ask Tom, you do understand that the Rowan BLP reactor experiment was supervised by a Cambridge guy?

Peter Jansson supervised the experiment. He's MIT and Cambridge. Who in their right mind would think Dr. Jansson would jeopardize his career over some sort of lazy reporting?

http://users.rowan.edu/~jansson/

Likewise, Rowan's stated intent, is to become the nations's number one engineering institution. Makes no sense to me to pretend they'd be involved in graft of fraud for the sake of a cheezy few thousand dollars.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:03 am

As I said, a beginners magic trick sure will fool the physicists at Lawrence Livermore...
Being from whatever university wont protect you against making mistakes, or being fooled by trickery or self delusion. We all make mistakes and we all are fooled by our own assumptions. We have to make assumptions in order to function.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:12 am

tomclarke wrote: ....
Just to knock the nail on the head. I think you have this the wrong way round.
....
When a reputable scientist comes up

tc>When a reputable scientist comes up

“reputable scientist” is getting to be a misnomer once you need to specify it ;o) though, the motives are apparent...

tc>Just to knock the nail on the head

It is quite illustrative example how “reputable scientist” should treat “non reputable scientist”. Social mammals and particularly primates exhibit a similar hostility for outsiders. Apparently it should offer some advantages once such property has proliferated... it's funny to watch a similar adaptation among "scientists".

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:34 pm

stefanbanev wrote:
tomclarke wrote: ....
Just to knock the nail on the head. I think you have this the wrong way round.
....
When a reputable scientist comes up
tc>When a reputable scientist comes up

“reputable scientist” is getting to be a misnomer once you need to specify it ;o) though, the motives are apparent...

tc>Just to knock the nail on the head

It is quite illustrative example how “reputable scientist” should treat “non reputable scientist”. Social mammals and particularly primates exhibit a similar hostility for outsiders. Apparently it should offer some advantages once such property has proliferated... it's funny to watch a similar adaptation among "scientists".

If you read my original, you will see that I was defining the behaviour expected of a reputable scientist. Not classifying scientists as reputable/non-reputable according to some sociological scheme.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I just said scientist. Anyone who uncritically accepts experimental results which are extraordinary is not a scientist. Indeed, what I don't like about the CF community is that they claim all these positive results, but then don't go on, over years, to make them more definite, testing with different methodology etc. So either they don't care about what scientists should, or (more likely) the phenomena they call positive results do not survive being retested with better methodology.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:40 pm

GIThruster wrote:
tomclarke wrote:Rowan are not a well-known research university. They do not have (I believe) a doctoral program. So my guess is any research they do will be very applied, and funded directly by industry.
Just so, but I have to ask Tom, you do understand that the Rowan BLP reactor experiment was supervised by a Cambridge guy?

Peter Jansson supervised the experiment. He's MIT and Cambridge. Who in their right mind would think Dr. Jansson would jeopardize his career over some sort of lazy reporting?

http://users.rowan.edu/~jansson/

Likewise, Rowan's stated intent, is to become the nations's number one engineering institution. Makes no sense to me to pretend they'd be involved in graft of fraud for the sake of a cheezy few thousand dollars.

There have been many famous scientists who have gone off chasing moonbeams. I don't know Jansson's qualifications, but whatever they are, they cannot assure that he is not doing this when Newton, Josephson, Penrose has all so succumbed.

I'm not saying his work is fraudulent. Just that he is wrong. It is easy to be wrong, and not always obvious. I'm also wondering why the results are not publisahable in a peer-reviewed journal. It is not true that there is a bias against CF papers, take for example the WL papers, or the ultra-dense Deuterium papers, all published.

Without fraud, a scientist who has past history of involvement with BLP and believes they have something is more likely to be uncritical and get positive results than one who is neutral.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:36 pm

The test of time is the determinant factor. The Rowan experiment was 4 years ago, where is the device now? It hasn't passed the test of time and has fallen back into obscurity.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:52 pm

Right. And two years ago the problem was longevity. Running the experiments continuously for 18 months was not long enough despite the cost in lab space.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:12 pm

GIThruster wrote:Right. And two years ago the problem was longevity. Running the experiments continuously for 18 months was not long enough despite the cost in lab space.

Do we have credible evidence of significant heat output for 18 months? That would be interesting. But then again it could just be flawed calorimetry, as in Piantelli's claims.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:36 pm

GIThruster wrote:Right. And two years ago the problem was longevity. Running the experiments continuously for 18 months was not long enough despite the cost in lab space.

You know the rule, incredible claims require credible evidence. We're told something, but we aren't shown it, unfortunately.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:32 pm

I could swear I read a press release by BLP, that they were about to sell their reactor to major eletricity providers. That was years ago. Still nothing. If a software company does that with one of their products, the whole industry makes fun of them (think of Duke Nuken Forever) and their product is called "vapor ware".
I dont see why this cant apply to a company like BLP.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:48 pm

tomclarke wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Right. And two years ago the problem was longevity. Running the experiments continuously for 18 months was not long enough despite the cost in lab space.
Do we have credible evidence of significant heat output for 18 months? That would be interesting. But then again it could just be flawed calorimetry, as in Piantelli's claims.

IIRC, yes; they ran the reactor experiments for almost 2 years before needing to make room for the next thing. I am not saying they ran the reactor continuously. I'm pretty sure all the reactors reported about to date need to have their catalyst replenished periodically. The effort for the commercial design seems to be how to continuously replenish the catalyst so they can have continual operation.

Rowan did however, collect data the entire time and it's available. If you're curious, I'd suggest writing Dr. Jansson. I haven't had any correspondence with him in more than a year, but I expect he's back from teaching at Cambridge. http://users.rowan.edu/~jansson/

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:52 pm

ScottL wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Right. And two years ago the problem was longevity. Running the experiments continuously for 18 months was not long enough despite the cost in lab space.
You know the rule, incredible claims require credible evidence. We're told something, but we aren't shown it, unfortunately.

You weren't shown it because you didn't go to visit the lab at Rowan. You had an open invite for almost 2 years. I hardly think it's BLP's or Rowan's fault if you didn't avail yourself to the evidence.

Have you even read the reports?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:27 pm

GIThruster wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Right. And two years ago the problem was longevity. Running the experiments continuously for 18 months was not long enough despite the cost in lab space.
Do we have credible evidence of significant heat output for 18 months? That would be interesting. But then again it could just be flawed calorimetry, as in Piantelli's claims.
IIRC, yes; they ran the reactor experiments for almost 2 years before needing to make room for the next thing. I am not saying they ran the reactor continuously. I'm pretty sure all the reactors reported about to date need to have their catalyst replenished periodically. The effort for the commercial design seems to be how to continuously replenish the catalyst so they can have continual operation.

Rowan did however, collect data the entire time and it's available. If you're curious, I'd suggest writing Dr. Jansson. I haven't had any correspondence with him in more than a year, but I expect he's back from teaching at Cambridge. http://users.rowan.edu/~jansson/

I'm not very curious. It seems to me that were the results significant, Jansson and others would be jumping up and down getting anomalous heat output peer reviewed. It would be big news, and good for BLP unless they have more funding than they know what to do with, and credibility with all potential custonmers already.

your understanding is consistent with some heat output but not enough to rule out chemical effects which is not interesting to me (though a chemist might want to see what is happenning in that lattice).

Tom