10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Giorgio
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Tue May 24, 2011 8:25 pm

raphael wrote:Yes, the level your expertise and insight is clear for everyone to see. Ditto in the case of chrismb. Thanks again.

Right. Thank god you came to show us our limits :roll:

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Tue May 24, 2011 8:34 pm

Giorgio wrote:
raphael wrote:They were demonstrations. Not experiments. As demonstrations, they are not that easy to trash. They are worthy of consideration. They are not confirmation of anything.

You are confused on the meaning of the terms.

Demonstration:
An explanation or experiment showing how something works.

Experiment:
A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis,

To make it short:
Demonstrations are made through experiments, and experiments are made to demonstrate.
The American Language is often stated stupidly in dictionaries, after all, this ain't France. We don't have a central body telling us how we can speak.
I believe that most Americans would disagree with your definitions. To me at least:
a demonstration is intended to show THAT something works. An experiment is intended to reveal HOW it works.
Just saying.

Carl White
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Postby Carl White » Tue May 24, 2011 8:38 pm

The bottom line is that some reputable scientists have had a close look at the E-Cat, through demonstrations (the Swedes and others) or through independent verification (Levi at Bologna), and did not condemn it as being a crock.

To me, this elevates the E-Cat above other clearly flaky energy schemes such as the Joe Cell, and companies with a supposed technology, such as EEStor, who have not demonstrated anything at all, and companies such as Steorn who have held useless demonstrations.

It does not prove that the E-Cat works, but it does give it enough credibility that I believe it should not be summarily dismissed, as some posters to this thread seemingly would like to do. Such people should instead be saying, "we'll wait for the evidence".

----

Now, concerning the "container". I'm not an engineer, but a few reasons as to why it might be more than a simple shell still occur:

1. You'd want to detect any accumulation of hydrogen gas and automatically shut down when it happens.

2. Similarly, if water starts to leak, you'd want it to shut down.

3. You'd want to coordinate the output of all of the units. I suspect their output is variable (not quite consistent) over time, and this is controlled by a feedback loop. If one or more of the units start flagging, maybe the others are brought up to compensate. So, some data collection and display of the current status, and alarm parameters. But who knows.

4. Extra shielding, in case the individual shielding of one or more units is somehow compromised.

What I'm getting at is that it doesn't seem unreasonable (to me) for Rossi's outfit to be spending some time on the design and construction of the "container".

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue May 24, 2011 10:57 pm

The bottom line is that some reputable scientists have had a close look at the E-Cat, through demonstrations (the Swedes and others) or through independent verification (Levi at Bologna), and did not condemn it as being a crock.


It wasn't a close look in the scientific sense. And despite you assertion, there has been no independent verification. In fact Rossi says that such verification even in a limited sense will not happen until the power plant is built.

Independent verification in fact will not be possible until the "catalyst" is revealed.

BTW are you an engineer? Because engineers understand real verification. i.e. from the instructions provided you can duplicate the results - from table top demo to a 1 MW (at least) power plant.

Engineers are a very sceptical lot. More so even than scientists.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue May 24, 2011 11:00 pm

OK. I got it. You are not an engineer.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Postby Kahuna » Tue May 24, 2011 11:56 pm

Speculative Renderings of Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
by Giacomo Guidi (hand translation)

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/ ... 0111.shtml

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Postby cg66 » Wed May 25, 2011 12:25 am

MSimon wrote:
The bottom line is that some reputable scientists have had a close look at the E-Cat, through demonstrations (the Swedes and others) or through independent verification (Levi at Bologna), and did not condemn it as being a crock.


It wasn't a close look in the scientific sense. And despite you assertion, there has been no independent verification. In fact Rossi says that such verification even in a limited sense will not happen until the power plant is built.

Independent verification in fact will not be possible until the "catalyst" is revealed.

BTW are you an engineer? Because engineers understand real verification. i.e. from the instructions provided you can duplicate the results - from table top demo to a 1 MW (at least) power plant.

Engineers are a very sceptical lot. More so even than scientists.


Ahh but as an engineer developing products I worry about cost and schedule and if there is no business reason to make sure other people (and possible competitors) feel good about my technology - I'm not going to waste the time or money. Now don't get me wrong I agree with you and chrismb and short-cutting the scientific method is undesirable and risky but sadly market realties sometimes win. Unfortunately Rossi's behavior could just as equally be more devious.

On a side note i'm not sure for regulatory/safety reasons Rossi would want a black box. He could very easily get derailed by various government entities.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed May 25, 2011 12:48 am

cg66 wrote: On a side note i'm not sure for regulatory/safety reasons Rossi would want a black box. He could very easily get derailed by various government entities.
I can see it now. Folks driving up to street corner purveyors and saying "psst, you got powder? No, dang it, Rossi powder! Its been a cold winter." :lol:

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed May 25, 2011 3:35 am

KitemanSA wrote:
cg66 wrote: On a side note i'm not sure for regulatory/safety reasons Rossi would want a black box. He could very easily get derailed by various government entities.
I can see it now. Folks driving up to street corner purveyors and saying "psst, you got powder? No, dang it, Rossi powder! Its been a cold winter." :lol:


I was going to ask the same question. I like your answer better.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Wed May 25, 2011 4:10 am

cg66 wrote:Ahh but as an engineer developing products I worry about cost and schedule and if there is no business reason to make sure other people (and possible competitors) feel good about my technology - I'm not going to waste the time or money.


If Rossi's got orders coming out his ears, that kind of attitude would not be difficult to understand.

Sidebar: Reportedly, the shipping-container form factor is the direction he's going with his 1mw units. From a marketing perspective, it probably makes sense. But, you're talking about a custom-engineered product with numerous non-trivial details to work through. Or, maybe not? (Let's see, where'd I put my Grainger catalog?)

http://aboutmachines.com/home/wp-conten ... G_0691.jpg
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Postby raphael » Wed May 25, 2011 4:40 am

Here's a common shipping container:

http://www.shipping-container-modificat ... _large.jpg

Here's a piece of custom-engineered equipment built in the form factor of a shipping container:

http://aboutmachines.com/home/wp-conten ... G_0691.jpg
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Wed May 25, 2011 4:48 am

raphael wrote:Can demonstrations be "not pure science" and yet be worthy of consideration?

I don't know about that. The word "consideration" has several different meanings, and I'd like to know precisely which meaning is intended before I say "yes". :wink:

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're asking. 114 pages say these demonstrations, despite not being scientific experiments according to chrismb's definition, have received some amount of consideration from various members of the forum. Beyond that, what do you expect? Consensus? :P
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Postby Luzr » Wed May 25, 2011 5:05 am

MSimon wrote:
The bottom line is that some reputable scientists have had a close look at the E-Cat, through demonstrations (the Swedes and others) or through independent verification (Levi at Bologna), and did not condemn it as being a crock.


It wasn't a close look in the scientific sense.


For me it was close enough to classify this either as working device OR _very_ elaborated scam. I do not see much room for 'measurement errors' or 'self-delusion' in this case...

Still, very elaborated scam is possible. In that case, I am really curious how he did it :)

vasimv
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:20 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby vasimv » Wed May 25, 2011 5:56 am

If Rossi can produce peltier modules 100W with 20% efficiency in small quantities - he could make demo of self-sustaining power plant with his E-Cat without any problem. As soon as he gets electricity from heat - it can be converted to any needed voltage with 80-95% efficiency.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Postby dch24 » Wed May 25, 2011 6:26 am

Ivy Matt wrote:
raphael wrote:Can demonstrations be "not pure science" and yet be worthy of consideration?

I don't know about that. The word "consideration" has several different meanings, and I'd like to know precisely which meaning is intended before I say "yes". :wink:

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're asking. 114 pages say these demonstrations, despite not being scientific experiments according to chrismb's definition, have received some amount of consideration from various members of the forum. Beyond that, what do you expect? Consensus? :P
At the risk of putting words in raphael's mouth, I believe you are exactly in sync with raphael's use of "consideration." Let's review:

Ivy Matt: "... these demonstrations ... received some ... consideration from ... the forum"

raphael: "Can demonstrations be 'not pure science' and yet be worthy of consideration?" with reference to his earlier post, "They were demonstrations. ... they are not that easy to trash. They are worthy of consideration. They are not confirmation of anything."

If you follow it further back,


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest