10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:18 pm

Here is an interesting piece on the NASA video from Steven Krivit

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/ ... s-at-nasa/

In it he intimates that Zawodny and NASA have validated the Widom-Larsen Theory (WLT) and not given credit for their discovery to WLT in the video. Krivit who seems like the chief cheerleader for WLT these days (as opposed to a scientific journalist) calls Zawodny on his lack of attribution. Worth a look me thinks...

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:39 pm

MSimon wrote:
ScottL wrote:
parallel wrote:ScottL
There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though.

I wonder why you have this urge to post drivel. It would improve the signal to noise ration of this thread if you would keep your word and quit, as you said you would many pages back.

In the time you save, you could possibly educate yourself by reading the 3000 odd papers listed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 59670.html


I post what I post because you make incredible claims that are repeatedly found to be incorrect, half-truths, or in the case of that link an out and out lie. I found no data reports, science reports, nor elemtrary school reports on continuous functioning of any LENR devices. I did however; find a lot of bickering going on. Sadly I wasted my time hoping you were capable of anything more than a child's comprehension of the subject.

Secondly, your reading comprehension has degraded I fear. I stated back in September that I would not speak on the matter until October. By my calculations, that month has long passed and I am free by keeping my own set deadline to speak again on this topic.

Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't post absolutely meta-physical garbage everytime you think you've come up with a miraculous explanation for Rossi's device. He's not designing his lattices or cavities or anything else for that matter. The "signal to noise ratio" would be greatly corrected if you simply didn't post anything outside of known facts, which you've never done amazingly enough.


This is why I LOVE hanging out with engineers.


ScottL posted "There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though."

Then he complains when I provide him with too many papers showing, contrary to his comment, everything that he asked for.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:03 pm

parallel wrote:ScottL posted "There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though."

Then he complains when I provide him with too many papers showing, contrary to his comment, everything that he asked for.


Why not be reasonable - given finite lifetimes - and give links to what you consider the three best papers ranked in your preferred order and start with #1.

You are the expert in the field. How about doing some filtering?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:52 pm

I haven't followed this as closely as some of you, and I wondering -- what is the favored explanation (from proponents) for the natural copper ratio problem? Rossi appears to have left it at "I can't say for confidentiality reasons."

EDIT: Ah, later on it appears he implies this is because he enriches Ni62 and Ni64.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:09 pm

"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Postby ScottL » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:13 pm

MSimon wrote:
parallel wrote:ScottL posted "There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though."

Then he complains when I provide him with too many papers showing, contrary to his comment, everything that he asked for.


Why not be reasonable - given finite lifetimes - and give links to what you consider the three best papers ranked in your preferred order and start with #1.

You are the expert in the field. How about doing some filtering?


I don't think he realizes he linked me to an argument with no discernable attachments nor reports as he claims. I'm still waiting for the light to turn on.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:59 pm

parallel wrote:
MSimon wrote:
ScottL wrote:
parallel wrote:ScottL
There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though.

I wonder why you have this urge to post drivel. It would improve the signal to noise ration of this thread if you would keep your word and quit, as you said you would many pages back.

In the time you save, you could possibly educate yourself by reading the 3000 odd papers listed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 59670.html


I post what I post because you make incredible claims that are repeatedly found to be incorrect, half-truths, or in the case of that link an out and out lie. I found no data reports, science reports, nor elemtrary school reports on continuous functioning of any LENR devices. I did however; find a lot of bickering going on. Sadly I wasted my time hoping you were capable of anything more than a child's comprehension of the subject.

Secondly, your reading comprehension has degraded I fear. I stated back in September that I would not speak on the matter until October. By my calculations, that month has long passed and I am free by keeping my own set deadline to speak again on this topic.

Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't post absolutely meta-physical garbage everytime you think you've come up with a miraculous explanation for Rossi's device. He's not designing his lattices or cavities or anything else for that matter. The "signal to noise ratio" would be greatly corrected if you simply didn't post anything outside of known facts, which you've never done amazingly enough.


This is why I LOVE hanging out with engineers.


ScottL posted "There are no data points, setup information, nor anything else that implies a run time longer than 4-5 hours so far. I wouldn't mind seeing the data sheets on such a run though."

Then he complains when I provide him with too many papers showing, contrary to his comment, everything that he asked for.


Quantity is not quality. Nor is it clear to me there are any papers proving your point. When challenged, why not select the best proof of your point and we can debate it.

Always pointing us to 3000 papers etc is not helpful, and does not prove your point.

cgray45
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:15 pm
Contact:

Postby cgray45 » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:18 am

tomclarke wrote:
Always pointing us to 3000 papers etc is not helpful, and does not prove your point.


Or to be blunt, explain why Rossi can't seem to even handle pre-graduate level work in terms of being able to devise a method to accurately measure his energy production.

These are not minor issues-- saying you're generating about 1MW or even 500+KW when the heat output looks more liek what I get from my teakettle pretty much throws you out of the "we should take you seriously" area.

Rossi is a fraud, or delusional, and he is doing the LENR community no favors, because it is already seen in a dubious light by mainstream scientists and this makes it worse.

We're not even talking about science here-- we're talking about someone who is taking the classical scammer route or playing up his invention while doing everything he can to avoid having it tested-- he talks about Bologna, or NASA and then we find it that HE was the one who after the headlines died, changed the terms to keep NASA from testing it, and then hasn't paid the U of B their fee so they won't test it.
Check out my blog-- not just about fusion, but anything that attracts this 40 something historians interest.

kunkmiester
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:53 am

Evil is evil, no matter how small

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:36 am

kunkmiester wrote: http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media ... /lenr.html

Any thoughts on this?
As I can understand the talk is about claims of non-proven opportunities.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:10 pm

cgray45 wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
Always pointing us to 3000 papers etc is not helpful, and does not prove your point.


Or to be blunt, explain why Rossi can't seem to even handle pre-graduate level work in terms of being able to devise a method to accurately measure his energy production.

These are not minor issues-- saying you're generating about 1MW or even 500+KW when the heat output looks more liek what I get from my teakettle pretty much throws you out of the "we should take you seriously" area.

Rossi is a fraud, or delusional, and he is doing the LENR community no favors, because it is already seen in a dubious light by mainstream scientists and this makes it worse.

We're not even talking about science here-- we're talking about someone who is taking the classical scammer route or playing up his invention while doing everything he can to avoid having it tested-- he talks about Bologna, or NASA and then we find it that HE was the one who after the headlines died, changed the terms to keep NASA from testing it, and then hasn't paid the U of B their fee so they won't test it.


It has been clear from the start that Rossi is a joker: and consistently so. What stripe of joker (scammer, idiot who believes his own inconsistency) who can tell. But he does not have much understanding of science or would be less obviously inconsistent.

That said, the interesting thing is why so many folks get excited about his claims. I think this is largely because he is personally (others have claimed) very convincing, certainly appears honest, and has been clever in getting some technical people on his side. There will always be enough of technical people willing to suspend critical judgement (or maybe who never exercise critical judgement) when presented with promises of miracles.

That of course is the problem with LENR. It promises miracles, and so those interested in it will often be seekers after miracles. Not always the best scientists. Not helped by a few Nobel prize winners in different fields also attracted by miracles. (Rather like famous physicists turning highly and weirdly mystical in their retirement, a common phenomenon).

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:38 pm

tomclarke wrote:
cgray45 wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
Always pointing us to 3000 papers etc is not helpful, and does not prove your point.


Or to be blunt, explain why Rossi can't seem to even handle pre-graduate level work in terms of being able to devise a method to accurately measure his energy production.

These are not minor issues-- saying you're generating about 1MW or even 500+KW when the heat output looks more liek what I get from my teakettle pretty much throws you out of the "we should take you seriously" area.

Rossi is a fraud, or delusional, and he is doing the LENR community no favors, because it is already seen in a dubious light by mainstream scientists and this makes it worse.

We're not even talking about science here-- we're talking about someone who is taking the classical scammer route or playing up his invention while doing everything he can to avoid having it tested-- he talks about Bologna, or NASA and then we find it that HE was the one who after the headlines died, changed the terms to keep NASA from testing it, and then hasn't paid the U of B their fee so they won't test it.


It has been clear from the start that Rossi is a joker: and consistently so. What stripe of joker (scammer, idiot who believes his own inconsistency) who can tell. But he does not have much understanding of science or would be less obviously inconsistent.

That said, the interesting thing is why so many folks get excited about his claims. I think this is largely because he is personally (others have claimed) very convincing, certainly appears honest, and has been clever in getting some technical people on his side. There will always be enough of technical people willing to suspend critical judgement (or maybe who never exercise critical judgement) when presented with promises of miracles.

That of course is the problem with LENR. It promises miracles, and so those interested in it will often be seekers after miracles. Not always the best scientists. Not helped by a few Nobel prize winners in different fields also attracted by miracles. (Rather like famous physicists turning highly and weirdly mystical in their retirement, a common phenomenon).


You make some good points Tom. It has been interesting to me however, that all (as far as I know) technical people close to Rossi or the demos have either been supportive or silent. I even heard reports that he got a standing ovation from the audiance after the Oct 6th demo. Most of the big rocks are being thrown by those furthest from the action. A fair number of these folks have reputations/careers to protect so I would think they would be more vocal if they suspected fraud just for CYA if nothing else.

At this point I'm not convinced Rossi has the goods, but I'm ever more inclined to believe that he really thinks he has them (or at least did when he conducted the demos). If this was a scam from the beginning, I want the book/movie rights.

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:39 pm

tomclarke wrote:
cgray45 wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
Always pointing us to 3000 papers etc is not helpful, and does not prove your point.


Or to be blunt, explain why Rossi can't seem to even handle pre-graduate level work in terms of being able to devise a method to accurately measure his energy production.

These are not minor issues-- saying you're generating about 1MW or even 500+KW when the heat output looks more liek what I get from my teakettle pretty much throws you out of the "we should take you seriously" area.

Rossi is a fraud, or delusional, and he is doing the LENR community no favors, because it is already seen in a dubious light by mainstream scientists and this makes it worse.

We're not even talking about science here-- we're talking about someone who is taking the classical scammer route or playing up his invention while doing everything he can to avoid having it tested-- he talks about Bologna, or NASA and then we find it that HE was the one who after the headlines died, changed the terms to keep NASA from testing it, and then hasn't paid the U of B their fee so they won't test it.


It has been clear from the start that Rossi is a joker: and consistently so. What stripe of joker (scammer, idiot who believes his own inconsistency) who can tell. But he does not have much understanding of science or would be less obviously inconsistent.

That said, the interesting thing is why so many folks get excited about his claims. I think this is largely because he is personally (others have claimed) very convincing, certainly appears honest, and has been clever in getting some technical people on his side. There will always be enough of technical people willing to suspend critical judgement (or maybe who never exercise critical judgement) when presented with promises of miracles.

That of course is the problem with LENR. It promises miracles, and so those interested in it will often be seekers after miracles. Not always the best scientists. Not helped by a few Nobel prize winners in different fields also attracted by miracles. (Rather like famous physicists turning highly and weirdly mystical in their retirement, a common phenomenon).


You make some good points Tom. It has been interesting to me however, that all (as far as I know) technical people close to Rossi or the demos have either been supportive or silent. I even heard reports that he got a standing ovation from the audiance after the Oct 6th demo. Most of the big rocks are being thrown by those furthest from the action. A fair number of these folks have reputations/careers to protect so I would think they would be more vocal if they suspected fraud just for CYA if nothing else.

At this point I'm not convinced Rossi has the goods, but I'm ever more inclined to believe that he really thinks he has them (or at least did when he conducted the demos). If this was a scam from the beginning, I want the book/movie rights.

Aero
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:26 pm

kunkmiester wrote: http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media ... /lenr.html

Any thoughts on this?


Yes. This is not the place for a serious post. This thread is all about beating up on Rossi so you should create a new thread and ask your question anew.
Aero

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:32 pm

kunkmiester wrote: http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media ... /lenr.html

Any thoughts on this?


See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 384163.ece

From ECat.com
Readers of Andrea Rossi's website Journal Of Nuclear Physics, has been asking questions lately about pricing. The initial price of the 1 MW plant was set to $2M per unit. Now, only two months later, the price has dropped to $1,5M to reflect the success in recent developments. The large cost cut can be attributed to several factors including:

A close and successful collaboration with the first (still undisclosed) customer
New favorable and scaleable production processes
Strong partners within manufacturing, software and logistics

For more information regarding the two ECAT-models please read more on the ECAT product information page. As a service to all readers of Andrea Rossi's website Journal of Nuclear Physics, ECAT.com is updating the FAQ section daily where all questions are indexed, tagged and fully
searchable. Go the ECAT-FAQ here. There are currently 65 answered questions regarding the 1MW Plant.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aero, jnaujok and 10 guests