10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[MSimon]

Are you implying that we should take Rossi experiments as art and not as science?

I have been calling it an art project for quite some time (a week or two - heh). Maybe Kite and I are on to something.

[MSimon]

I suspect time will just make this story fade away like if never existed.
At least this looks the attitude Rossi is taking from his latest posts:

Classic scam techniques. No publicity. No requests for cash from investors.
Obviously he is a fraud and all this will fade away even as working units are sold on the open market.

Evidently he has a big fish already hooked and doesn't want him breaking the line. So yes. Classic scam technique.

In the scam world this part of the scam is called the blowoff. i.e. how to leave town with the loot before anyone important notices.

[rcain]

So Kite, why does it have to be some sort of BEC in your K2 Konjecture; whats wrong with SPP's (surface plasmon polaritons), as in the Widom Larson Theory?

It doesen't; there's absolutely nothing wrong with SPPs. But that is K1. What I am not sold on is the external creation of a neutron. I am less and less opposed to it as I learn more.

At one time I had believed that the reaction must ABSORB a neutrino. Now I find out it can happen with the release of one. Thus it is more plausible than I had thought when I developed K1.

On the other hand... IF Rossi is not flat out lying... the only thing I could come up with that seemed to fit the characteristics was a proton absorbtion reaction which seems to allow that 58Ni is less reactive than 64Ni and odd isotopes of even numbered elements are less reactive...

WL might be very true, but not cover the Rossi reaction.

I suspect that time will tell.

well, i don't think there can be many who would insist that 'nothing' is going on down here (at LENR level); notwithstanding of any particular judgments on Rossi's claims.

i was having a quick trawl through other work in the field -

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/19 ... ations.pdf :: - NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATIONS IN THIN-FILM NICKEL COATINGS UNDERGOING ELECTROLYSIS - George H. Miley and James A. Patterson - 1996

came up as pretty interesting and cites much other credible work around that time all with similar results. (Miley has been at this stuff for decades!).

in particular, Miley, suggests/suggested 'then')::

... ....
The use of thin-film coatings originates from the “swimming electron layer” (SEL) theory proposed earlier (Hora, Miley, et al. [5]; Miley et al. [12]; Miley et al. [14]), which suggests that nuclear reactions are assisted by the use of multilayer thin films with alternating metals that have large differences in Fermi energy levels. The resulting increase in electron density at the film interface is shown to “squeeze” excess electrons between ions, greatly reducing the Coulombic barrier, thus enhancing the nuclear reactions. This theory was first studied using thin-film Pd/Ti coatings sputtered onto a large stainless steel substrate electrode (Miley et al. [14]). Those experiments were terminated due to flaking of the films off of the electrode soon after loading and heating occurred. However, the results were very encouraging, since high excess heat (estimated to be kW/cm3 at the interface regions) was observed for minutes prior to the disintegration of the thin films
...

his use of dielectric films/layers in this and similar experiments, to my mind lends some further weight to the idea that SPP's - or more precisely perhaps LPP's (localised plasmon polaritons) - are involved somehow in Coulombic screening (Yukawa potential?).

coming across papers like this also::
http://www.cfeis.com/images/KasagiJscreeningp.pdf :: - Screening Potential for Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter - J. Kasagi - 2008

have a feeling it wont be long before someone out there cries 'Eureka!'...

[KitemanSA]

I am NOT claiming this IS, just that it COULD be. After all, lack of evidence of existance is NOT equal to evidence of lack of existance.

I am too rational for this way of thinking.

To me it is the height of rational thinking to keep an open mind about things until a decision is required. WRT Rossi, no decision has been required of me. So, I keep an open mind.
Are you truly saying that you think that bolded statement is IRrational? Wow.

I KNOW that meso-american indians were dropping large stones onto mammoths to good effect WELL before Galileo dropped those balls from the tower of Pisa. Art vs. Science, ya know.

Uhm.. I fail to see how this can be relevant to the discussion.

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?

Are you implying that we should take Rossi experiments as art and not as science?
If that's the point I can't but agree, but someone should advise Rossi too!

Well, you are progressing, grasshopper. It MAY BE that Rossi is developing his art like a blacksmith practices his art and many other ARTISANS practiced their arts for MILLENIA before science caught up and turned many "arts" into engineering.

So we have a difference of definition here. Seems to meet all the characteristics of a BEC. If it Looks like a BEC and Shakes like a BEC...

Do you see any condensate of non interaction Bosons at ground state in a Laser?
Do you see a condensate AT ALL in a Laser?

Yes. All photons are in the same state. The fact that they were created within the condensate rather than "condensed" from outside changes nothing, IMHO. But ICBW.

[KitemanSA]

well, i don't think there can be many who would insist that 'nothing' is going on down here (at LENR level); notwithstanding of any particular judgments on Rossi's claims.

Really? Did you read the beginnings of this and i's parent topic? MANY posters on this forum were ADAMANTINE in their opinion that LENR is false. Seems MOST of them have mderated their proclaimations a bit.

Me, I'm proud to say.... "I don't know".

I keep asking for specific data that will allow me to decide one way or other, but...

[Giorgio]

I am NOT claiming this IS, just that it COULD be. After all, lack of evidence of existance is NOT equal to evidence of lack of existance.

I am too rational for this way of thinking.

To me it is the height of rational thinking to keep an open mind about things until a decision is required. WRT Rossi, no decision has been required of me. So, I keep an open mind.
Are you truly saying that you think that bolded statement is IRrational? Wow.

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.
Can you really say that with all what we have (not) seen till now from Rossi we should still give him some benefit of doubts?
The man had all the possibility to make at least one correct step to support his cause yet he choose to be obscure, incompetent, irrational and fishy.
Really, how can you still take as potentially possible any word coming from him?

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?

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, simply because till now Rossi showed nothing.
The only thing that he has heated till date is the air coming out of his mouth, but I wouldn't dare to call that an unproven phenomena.

Are you implying that we should take Rossi experiments as art and not as science?
If that's the point I can't but agree, but someone should advise Rossi too!

Well, you are progressing, grasshopper. It MAY BE that Rossi is developing his art like a blacksmith practices his art and many other ARTISANS practiced their arts for MILLENIA before science caught up and turned many "arts" into engineering.

Again, real products coming from real phenomena cannot be taken as example of claims of a person that showed no phenomena nor credible product till now.

Yes. All photons are in the same state. The fact that they were created within the condensate rather than "condensed" from outside changes nothing, IMHO. But ICBW.

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.

[TallDave]

I wonder when we'll find out who Rossi's new "normal" customer is. I have to think within a few months someone is going to say something.

Interesting that Ahern cancelled his big presentation at the last minute. Oops...

[MSimon]

his use of dielectric films/layers in this and similar experiments, to my mind lends some further weight to the idea that SPP's - or more precisely perhaps LPP's (localised plasmon polaritons) - are involved somehow in Coulombic screening (Yukawa potential?).

If this is in fact correct then we are good to go. But it might be difficult to get semiconductor chips for a while. Because the above is 2/3rds of what is done in a semiconductor fab.

[rcain]

his use of dielectric films/layers in this and similar experiments, to my mind lends some further weight to the idea that SPP's - or more precisely perhaps LPP's (localised plasmon polaritons) - are involved somehow in Coulombic screening (Yukawa potential?).

If this is in fact correct then we are good to go. But it might be difficult to get semiconductor chips for a while. Because the above is 2/3rds of what is done in a semiconductor fab.

how do you mean exactly?

do you mean you are surprised something (LENR?) has't been observed already in this field (given the supposition above)?

or use of Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERPS) perhaps? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_En ... ectroscopy

[MSimon]

his use of dielectric films/layers in this and similar experiments, to my mind lends some further weight to the idea that SPP's - or more precisely perhaps LPP's (localised plasmon polaritons) - are involved somehow in Coulombic screening (Yukawa potential?).

If this is in fact correct then we are good to go. But it might be difficult to get semiconductor chips for a while. Because the above is 2/3rds of what is done in a semiconductor fab.

how do you mean exactly?

do you mean you are surprised something (LENR?) has't been observed already in this field (given the supposition above)?

or use of Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERPS) perhaps? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_En ... ectroscopy

I mean semiconductor fabs will be devoted to production of LENR devices for a while. Nothing more - nothing less.

[rcain]

If this is in fact correct then we are good to go. But it might be difficult to get semiconductor chips for a while. Because the above is 2/3rds of what is done in a semiconductor fab.

how do you mean exactly?

do you mean you are surprised something (LENR?) has't been observed already in this field (given the supposition above)?

or use of Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERPS) perhaps? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_En ... ectroscopy

I mean semiconductor fabs will be devoted to production of LENR devices for a while. Nothing more - nothing less.

oh!

yes, it would be interesting to see some cross-over effect like that - even if in research, let alone production - supposing that is, there is really any common ground, and any real LENR effect as we are supposing. but i'd also suppose we don't really need that level of absolute precision to see such effects - a spoon full or two of ceramic nano-beads with sugar frosty nickel coating might suffice, in the right environment.

here's to supposing....

[rcain]

well, i don't think there can be many who would insist that 'nothing' is going on down here (at LENR level); notwithstanding of any particular judgments on Rossi's claims.

Really? Did you read the beginnings of this and i's parent topic? MANY posters on this forum were ADAMANTINE in their opinion that LENR is false. Seems MOST of them have mderated their proclaimations a bit.

Me, I'm proud to say.... "I don't know".

I keep asking for specific data that will allow me to decide one way or other, but...

well, yes, know what you mean. i am pretty open minded on the whole about LENR - there does seem a lot of very good quality research out there all suggesting 'something' is happening ('sometimes').

re: 'missing data' - have you thought of contacting Miley directly - perhaps bounce your K2 idea off him also?

[KitemanSA]

I am too rational for this way of thinking.

Are you truly saying that you think that bolded statement is IRrational? Wow.

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.

Can you really say that with all what we have (not) seen till now from Rossi we should still give him some benefit of doubts?

Don't you have doubts? If not, why not?

The man had all the possibility to make at least one correct step to support his cause yet he choose to be obscure, incompetent, irrational and fishy.

Yup, or crazy like a fox. Are you sure his name aint Volpe?

Really, how can you still take as potentially possible any word coming from him?

Becasue I need not decide yet. (By the way, I don't provide MUCH weight to his statements, but I like playing with the "what if" scenarios.)

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.

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?

simply because till now Rossi showed nothing.

Others don't agree with you. I lack any real data one way or the other.

The only thing that he has heated till date is the air coming out of his mouth, but I wouldn't dare to call that an unproven phenomena.

That is quite a statement. You seem totally decided.

Are you implying that we should take Rossi experiments as art and not as science?
If that's the point I can't but agree, but someone should advise Rossi too!

Well, you are progressing, grasshopper. It MAY BE that Rossi is developing his art like a blacksmith practices his art and many other ARTISANS practiced their arts for MILLENIA before science caught up and turned many "arts" into engineering.

Again, real products coming from real phenomena cannot be taken as example of claims of a person that showed no phenomena nor credible product till now.

Sorry, your creadance is not data either. He has shown a real physical object. The report is that it made steam at greater than input. Others doubt the reports. No hard data.

Yes. All photons are in the same state. The fact that they were created within the condensate rather than "condensed" from outside changes nothing, IMHO. But ICBW.

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.

[KitemanSA]

re: 'missing data' - have you thought of contacting Miley directly - perhaps bounce your K2 idea off him also?

No. I am a national expert in a totally different field. I wouldn't like to mar that reputation on this.

You are welcome to forward it if you think it sufficiently interesting.

[rcain]

re: 'missing data' - have you thought of contacting Miley directly - perhaps bounce your K2 idea off him also?

No. I am a national expert in a totally different field. I wouldn't like to mar that reputation on this.

i'm sure Giorgio will be relieved to hear that admission.

You are welcome to forward it if you think it sufficiently interesting.

i'll have a dig around. i dont know how, or even if, he might respond to a such a request, out of the blue. but he is one of the few researchers in the field who's answer i'd trust.