10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

What are you quoting and capitalizing the word "fact" for? I even went so far as to search for the word fact in my posts and I can't find it in the context of this discussion at all. Yet, you attribute it to me in quotes and in CAPITALS. And I am the liar?!?!

You used the term "is" (and its relatives like "are") a goodly number of times (this is such, those are so) in what I have been HOPING has been a technical discussion. Without modifiers like "in my opinion" the word "is" (in a technical discussion) conveys FACT.

[KitemanSA]

Stop demanding data from me because I have none to provide on your inane speculations. Stop calling me lazy for not giving it to you because I have never argued that it exists. Stop telling me that I am arguing facts that aren't facts because I never called them facts. Stop saying that my logic is flawed because they are not facts, because I don't care if they are or not and my arguments don't depend on them being so. Stop calling them opinions because I KNOW they are opinions. Stop taking some linguistic high ground, because you just look like a fool doing it. Stop acting like you are superior because you are far from it.

Fine, the please stop implying that you have the data.
POINTWISE REPLIES:

S: Stop demanding data from me because I have none to provide on your inane speculations.
K: I never asked you for data to support my speculations. YOU keep telling me that I am wrong. You keep implying technical fact to back up tyour statements. It is YOUR data for YOUR statements I am requesting. How can I learn what you seem convinced of if you won't tell be why you are convinced?

S: Stop calling me lazy for not giving it to you because I have never argued that it exists.
K: You seem very sure that Rossi's machine CANNOT be real. When asked for your basis, you imply technical reasons. What are they?

S: Stop telling me that I am arguing facts that aren't facts because I never called them facts.
K: So you herein admit that you have no facts? FACTS are what I have been searching for this whole topic. I now see that you yourself admit that your "contribution" has been pointless. Got it.

S: Stop saying that my logic is flawed because they are not facts, because I don't care if they are or not and my arguments don't depend on them being so.
K: Sorry, where did I say your LOGIC was flawed? I did note that your attempt to use mathematical operators on OPINION and then present the result as fact was flawed.

S: Stop calling them opinions because I KNOW they are opinions.
K: Wow, a breakthru! By the way, I tend to agree with your opinion re Rossi's machine.

S: Stop taking some linguistic high ground, because you just look like a fool doing it.
K: Those who are misunderstood by fools are often viewed by said fools as fools themselves. Does this apply to you?

S: Stop acting like you are superior because you are far from it. Superior? I have been BEGGING for valid technical information from YOU for months. How does that equate to me feeling "superior". It seems to me that perhaps you have been feeling superior yourself and now feel a bit less sure of yourself. Oh well.

[Giorgio]

Hence your logic was based (and depending) upon your variables being correct or not.

Ah, hence the rub. The logic does not depend on the truth/falsity of the variables. Only the RESULT depends on the truth/falsity of the variables. The logic can be perfect and still be wrong. The statement "if X then Y is a perfectly good logical statement. But if NOT X, hmm?

What is your statement that you deemed "logic" and free of variables?

This is totally baffling to me. What in the heck are you talking about here?

I'll try to be more clear.
I start a thread making an assumption that there is intelligent life in the sea.
I than start to discuss that IF there is intelligent life under the sea we should not travel on the sea because is like traveling into another nation land and could be considered an act of war.

By LOGIC I am perfectly correct, and I can argue my logic for the coming 152 pages without fear. BUT I am basing my whole logic on the assumption that there actually is intelligent life under the sea, and that they might indeed consider our doing as an act of war.

Unfortunately we do know that there is no intelligent life under the sea, and that who lives down there will not care about us traveling nor has the means to move us war.

My discussion is perfectly LOGIC, but is not worth to be considered "AS A WHOLE" a logical reasoning because based on unreal assumptions or assumptions that are not logic. In fact is not logic to think that after so many years of exploration we never found an intelligent (or organized, or territorialist) race living under the sea.
Additionally I didn't bring any real data to support my starting claim, so is also NOT LOGIC to consider them real just because I am stating them.

Hope this clarifyies.

[stefanbanev]

Hence your logic was based (and depending) upon your variables being correct or not.

Ah, hence the rub. The logic does not depend on the truth/falsity of the variables. Only the RESULT depends on the truth/falsity of the variables. The logic can be perfect and still be wrong. The statement "if X then Y is a perfectly good logical statement. But if NOT X, hmm?

What is your statement that you deemed "logic" and free of variables?

This is totally baffling to me. What in the heck are you talking about here?

I'll try to be more clear.
I start a thread making an assumption that there is intelligent life in the sea.
I than start to discuss that IF there is intelligent life under the sea we should not travel on the sea because is like traveling into another nation land and could be considered an act of war.

By LOGIC I am perfectly correct, and I can argue my logic for the coming 152 pages without fear. BUT I am basing my whole logic on the assumption that there actually is intelligent life under the sea, and that they might indeed consider our doing as an act of war.

Unfortunately we do know that there is no intelligent life under the sea, and that who lives down there will not care about us traveling nor has the means to move us war.

My discussion is perfectly LOGIC, but is not worth to be considered "AS A WHOLE" a logical reasoning because based on unreal assumptions or assumptions that are not logic. In fact is not logic to think that after so many years of exploration we never found an intelligent (or organized, or territorialist) race living under the sea.
Additionally I didn't bring any real data to support my starting claim, so is also NOT LOGIC to consider them real just because I am stating them.

Hope this clarifyies.

I would love to have this thread running as a source/review of ongoing LENR dev, frankly it is quite a zoo of characters here to have diff insights. Unfortunately it is getting too involved in quarrel of personalities what is fine in the moderate dosage though...

[Giorgio]

It is a probabilities question, since data and facts are contaminated/incomplete/obfuscated from Rossi. You must make certain assumptions to continue the discussion. Logic is fine if one presumes certain things are true to proceed. IF this THEN that. This whole thread is an exercise in that kind of speculation.

True, but we seem to have a different definition of "probability". As I learned it, "probability" requires the manipulation of RELEVANT TECHNICAL DATA.

Not completely true.
Probability can be derived also by "relevant technical data" not coming from that particular experiment but from related ones.
In this case we have plenty of these experiments and the related relevant technical data. We can manipulate them in as many ways as you like, but they all bring to the conclusion that what Rossi is claiming is not making much sense at all.
Not having any additional support from Rossi on his claims we can only judge them illogical.

You can now make all the judgments you want basing them on your feelings, but please let's not call them "logical".

[Giorgio]

Giorgio, could you be so kind as to do a paraphrase translation of this:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/let ... os-al.html

Evidently it is Chris Stemenous addressing UoB not starting E-Cat testing yet. The Google translate is not too good on this one.

Thanks

He is practically complaining that UoB should start experimental tests even if the contract has not yet been finalized by Rossi side, stating that few funds can be found to start this research if there is the willingness of the scientific establishment.
He than bashes UoB and general science for being not open to Cold Fusion research and for not reacting to the external pressure to drop the contract with Rossi.

Is a weird post, he seems to open the road to a possible break between Rossi and UoB by trying to put from now the blame on UoB for not having found the money more than on Rossi for not having paid them.

Sorry for not making a word by word translation, is 4 AM here and I really need to get some rest today

[KitemanSA]

I'll try to be more clear.

REPLIES INTERSPERSED

G: I start a thread making an assumption that there is intelligent life in the sea.
I than start to discuss that IF there is intelligent life under the sea we should not travel on the sea because is like traveling into another nation land and could be considered an act of war.
K: Well, I disagree that your "then" clause follows from your "if" clause, but for th4e sake of this discussion, I will stipulate that it follows.
G: By LOGIC I am perfectly correct, and I can argue my logic for the coming 152 pages without fear.
K: Concur.
G: BUT I am basing my whole logic on the assumption that there actually is intelligent life under the sea, and that they might indeed consider our doing as an act of war.
K: Ok.
G: Unfortunately we do know that there is no intelligent life under the sea,
K: Hmm. The dolphins and other cetaceans may argue.
But here YOU are making a contention. You are stating what you maintain is a FACT "there is no intellegent life". I have NEVER stated a fact wrt my Konjecture or any other variation there of except where I state that OTHERS have stated something. I also make statements that I do not believe some of the "facts" stated by others to be correct. I have made NO statement (at least not on purpose) that needs defence.
G: and that who lives down there will not care about us traveling nor has the means to move us war.
K: Now you are introducing totally exteranious issues into your logic. Doesn't necessarily follow. In this case, right or wrong, BAD logic.
G: My discussion is perfectly LOGIC, but is not worth to be considered "AS A WHOLE" a logical reasoning because based on unreal assumptions or assumptions that are not logic.
K: You lost me here. You SEEM to be saying "it is perfectly logical, but wrong, so it is not logical". Sorry, I find this illogical!
G: In fact is not logic to think that after so many years of exploration we never found an intelligent (or organized, or territorialist) race living under the sea.
K: I suspect some scientists would argue with the first statement. I know the THIRD statement (territorialist) is DEFINATELY wrong. You seem to be introducing unstated propositions into the eqation. This is not logical.
G: Additionally I didn't bring any real data to support my starting claim, so is also NOT LOGIC to consider them real just because I am stating them.
Hope this clarifyies.
K: And here we get to your REPEATED mistake. I don't consider my konjectures to be real, just plausible without further data. I am not stating that ANY of those processes work in the Rossi machine. Based on my reading, "internal conversion" is REAL. Also, "electron capture" as an alternative to positron emission is REAL. There are a number of technical statements I have made that are TRUE. I have never said that the final is true. I stated IF, because I DON'T now that it is true. But IF it is true then the result seems reasonable to me. the question therefore is, are the propositions true? I don't know.

[Kahuna]

Giorgio, could you be so kind as to do a paraphrase translation of this:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/let ... os-al.html

Evidently it is Chris Stemenous addressing UoB not starting E-Cat testing yet. The Google translate is not too good on this one.

Thanks

He is practically complaining that UoB should start experimental tests even if the contract has not yet been finalized by Rossi side, stating that few funds can be found to start this research if there is the willingness of the scientific establishment.
He than bashes UoB and general science for being not open to Cold Fusion research and for not reacting to the external pressure to drop the contract with Rossi.

Is a weird post, he seems to open the road to a possible break between Rossi and UoB by trying to put from now the blame on UoB for not having found the money more than on Rossi for not having paid them.

Sorry for not making a word by word translation, is 4 AM here and I really need to get some rest today

Thanks much. That is a strange post. He is supposed to be buddies with Rossi so he should know what Rossi's intensions are with regard to payment and providing hardware to UoB. Something is fishy here. Perhaps Rossi does not have the money after all.

Actually I prefer your paraphrase to a word-for-word translation. Thanks again.

[Skipjack]

Sounds to me like the mysterious "customer" decided not to pay Rossi for the E- cat after all. Maybe those sceptical of the existance of the client were right after all.
I just reverted my probability scale from 60% chance it is real, to a 40% chance it is real.

[D Tibbets]

If... Then is perfect logic, as related above. It is even a valid format for making and processing computer decisions.
But as also related, logic does not imply truth. The best comparison I can think of is all of the books written about space aliens visiting Earth. Eg: if you assume the large drawings in South America could not have been made by the 'primitives' then suppositions that aliens made them is logical. The problem is extrapolating to reality based on base assumptions that are difficult to disprove. but that does not mean the assumption is true.

It is the old argument about negative proof versus positive proof, along with magnitude of effects.

I want to go to the Moon. I can jump, so if I can jump high enough, I will reach the Moon. I think the logic is true, but is it reasonable?

Dan Tibbets

[ladajo]

Depends on how good your are at jumping, or what tool you use to jump with...

[cg66]

Apparently we will get some updated info from Brain Ahern in a couple weeks.

http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1826

Some statements will likely raise some dander here......

[stefanbanev]

Apparently we will get some updated info from Brain Ahern in a couple weeks.

http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1826

Some statements will likely raise some dander here......

You are right it definitely will:

>" just a new and unanticipated form of nanomagnetism"
....
>" IT PROVIDES A CONCISE EXPLANATION FOR THE BIOENERGETICS OBSERVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF NATURE
Source: Citi5 (http://s.tt/13NK0)"

It sounds as BS and quite apparent one...

[cg66]

You are right it definitely will:

>" just a new and unanticipated form of nanomagnetism"
....
>" IT PROVIDES A CONCISE EXPLANATION FOR THE BIOENERGETICS OBSERVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF NATURE
Source: Citi5 (http://s.tt/13NK0)"

It sounds as BS and quite apparent one...

You missed one:
"Apparently, energy localization at the nano-scale circumvents the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Source: Citi5 (http://s.tt/13NK0)"

[icarus]

Brian Ahern received his PhD in material science from MIT, holds 26 patents and was a senior scientist for 17 years in research and development at USAF Rome Lab at Hanscom Air Force Base. Ahern was the U.S. Air Force’s expert on nano-materials. Ahern has discovered the LENR phenomenon is occurring on the nanoscale and involves a formerly misunderstood and rarely explored attribute of nano-magnetism.

Apparently, energy localization at the nano-scale circumvents the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Nature evolved to take advantage of these energy exchange mechanisms available only at this size scale (which is why ordered structures can be created from chaos, such as after the big bang.) This phenomenon was identified in 1996 as Oscillons in relation to Chaos Theory, but has never been clearly understood until now.

Source: Citi5 (http://s.tt/13NK0)

http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1826

New physics!

Order from Chaos on the nano scale ... bye, bye second law.

Now that should give something for sceptics to get frothy-mouthed about.

This party is just warming up.

Angular momentum is the key. The spin of the nucleus and the rotation of the galaxies are inextricably linked.