10KW LENR Demonstrator?
In that case, there is no chance for "hot" fusion either...MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
OK. Six years from the first demonstrated transistor to a transistor INDUSTRY.
Over twenty years from P&F to no industry. In fact no working power plant of any dimension.
I'm not saying that 6 years is enough for LENR. What I am saying is that over 20 years seems excessive.
What would be the point? No matter how sopthisticated, it would prove nothing. It could still be a scam, no matter how precise your calorimeter is.ltgbrown wrote: I hope he is right, but I am on the fence. The reason I am on the fence; why has he not done an ultra-sophisticated setup?
As I understand situation, those were _demos_ (not experiments) to catch some interest from scientists. Because only credible testing is only possibly done by somebody else. I guess he sort of succeeded.
Well, cold fusion as possible phenomenon is 20 years old. Hot fusion is known for much longer time. The engineering has not produced any verified usable results in either case.chrismb wrote:No chance for 'magnetic fusion' [alone]? I'd buy that.Luzr wrote:In that case, there is no chance for "hot" fusion either...
Polywell has had >20 years. hmmmm....
Anyway, even if you start to subdivide, fusors are know for even much longer.
If this rumor becomes news, it is certainly welcome news to me.raphael wrote:Here's a rumor for you: The academic boys at the university at Bologna have done some more rigorous (and very convincing) testing and are preparing (or, have prepared) a paper for peer-reviewed publication in a recognized scientific journal. Just a rumor....
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
Kiteman,
All I have to go by is what has been published. And P&F claimed to have been rushed by two factors IIRC. Their University wanted first credit and some one else was about to announce.
So the rush was not 2 years. It was not six months. It was (roughly) two days.
They had a WORKING model (claimed) in 1989. Where is my cold fusion water heater?
Six years after the announcement of a WORKING transistor there was a transistor INDUSTRY. Where is my cold fusion water heater?
All I have to go by is what has been published. And P&F claimed to have been rushed by two factors IIRC. Their University wanted first credit and some one else was about to announce.
I guess I did recall correctly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Announcement
In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.[25] Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[26] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.[24] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.[25]
So the rush was not 2 years. It was not six months. It was (roughly) two days.
They had a WORKING model (claimed) in 1989. Where is my cold fusion water heater?
Six years after the announcement of a WORKING transistor there was a transistor INDUSTRY. Where is my cold fusion water heater?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The difference is that for hot fusion we have an acceptable theory (it matches the rest of what we know) and the problems are of an engineering nature: can we get net energy with a device of X configuration.Luzr wrote:In that case, there is no chance for "hot" fusion either...MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
OK. Six years from the first demonstrated transistor to a transistor INDUSTRY.
Over twenty years from P&F to no industry. In fact no working power plant of any dimension.
I'm not saying that 6 years is enough for LENR. What I am saying is that over 20 years seems excessive.
Polywell and ITER are different lines of ENGINEERING. No one is saying that the energy cost (Coulomb barrier) is different in a Tok than in a Polywell. They both operate on a common scientific basis.
LENR starts with the handicap of - "totally unexpected science". Possible. So far unproven.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well I think the cases are somewhat different:Luzr wrote:In that case, there is no chance for "hot" fusion either...MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
OK. Six years from the first demonstrated transistor to a transistor INDUSTRY.
Over twenty years from P&F to no industry. In fact no working power plant of any dimension.
I'm not saying that 6 years is enough for LENR. What I am saying is that over 20 years seems excessive.
P&F claimed a WORKING model. So far no one has claimed a WORKING model of hot fusion. All the experimenters will say is: "we are on the right path and eventually, after we work out all the bugs...."
And all the hot fusion work is based on the same data tables. Smash two Ds together and we expect the following reactions in these proportions. The Tok guys and the Polywell guys do not claim a different scientific basis. Just a different engineering basis.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, let us hope it is published in a journal of better quality than Rossi's "peer-reviewed" blog.Ivy Matt wrote:If this rumor becomes news, it is certainly welcome news to me.raphael wrote:Here's a rumor for you: The academic boys at the university at Bologna have done some more rigorous (and very convincing) testing and are preparing (or, have prepared) a paper for peer-reviewed publication in a recognized scientific journal. Just a rumor....
A well-conducted and substantive experiment, with careful controls, would be publishable in a good quality journal. Let us hope we get something, and that it is good quality, but don't assume it will be definitive.
Best wishes, Tom
Doesn't work, scam, or works
Claims on the e-cat
1) There is an e-cat that has been running and providing heat in Rossi's office for 6 moths to a year
2) Many e-cats have been tested that produce heat in the 1KW to +15KW range with the side effect that those with higher KWs have started on fire or exploded
3) there are at least 96 of them out there many of which are being used on a long term basis
4) Rossi allowed 3 public demonstrations with compenant scientists able to perform tests to see if they work
5) The founders of a reasonably sized consulting company was able to test an e-cat on there own before making an investment to get North American rights to the e-cat
6) 2 universities have or should be getting (I have seen conflicting reports) e-cat to demo on their own.
From these claims I see it as very unlikely that they are all real and there is some flaw in the work like there really isn't any energy released. There is a posibility that it does not scale, blows up, sends out radiation, causes cancer etc that will make it commercially unfeasible. These either can be overcome or there will be a better better, scientific work on the e-cat, so that Rossi et al can show they we not liars, scammer, dupes, or charletons.
I would be interested to hear a credible idea of how this is still not a major breakthrough if all of the claims are true.
If you look at the science and the quality of the public demonstrations it is easy to see the possibility of a scam and not be a technical expert don't think I can add to the several 100 posts on the subject.
Nobody has brought up the size or quality of this scam if it is not real. The Italian and Swedish scientists, the energy consultants, and others are either part of the scam or they have been duped. I wonder how you convince this manypeople especially a member of the Swedish skeptics society to go along with a scam without anyone yelling from the rooftops Rossi tried to bribe me too. Aditionally, isn't the best payout on the scam to sell licences, so why would you include as part of your scam a figure who supposedly bought the North American licence.
The other posability is that these other people are being duped. Rossi has managed to make it threw 3 public demonstrations with different people, who have all failed to find the scam. They have checked different aspectts of the e-cat without find the scam or saying do to my limitations in studying the machine, I think that it is not real for X reason. There are also founders of an energy consultant business that have had complete access to an e-cat and were willing to invest money into the project and act excited. If there is a scam or significant error in the quality of the e-cat they are going to hurt their existing business.
I'll repeat that science and quality of the public demonstration leave much to be desired and would not invest my own money or time in the expection of making money based off the current information out there, but there are some reasons to hope.
Every competant person who has looks at the e-cat and does not comeback and say I found the hoax increases the posibility or it being true.
1) There is an e-cat that has been running and providing heat in Rossi's office for 6 moths to a year
2) Many e-cats have been tested that produce heat in the 1KW to +15KW range with the side effect that those with higher KWs have started on fire or exploded
3) there are at least 96 of them out there many of which are being used on a long term basis
4) Rossi allowed 3 public demonstrations with compenant scientists able to perform tests to see if they work
5) The founders of a reasonably sized consulting company was able to test an e-cat on there own before making an investment to get North American rights to the e-cat
6) 2 universities have or should be getting (I have seen conflicting reports) e-cat to demo on their own.
From these claims I see it as very unlikely that they are all real and there is some flaw in the work like there really isn't any energy released. There is a posibility that it does not scale, blows up, sends out radiation, causes cancer etc that will make it commercially unfeasible. These either can be overcome or there will be a better better, scientific work on the e-cat, so that Rossi et al can show they we not liars, scammer, dupes, or charletons.
I would be interested to hear a credible idea of how this is still not a major breakthrough if all of the claims are true.
If you look at the science and the quality of the public demonstrations it is easy to see the possibility of a scam and not be a technical expert don't think I can add to the several 100 posts on the subject.
Nobody has brought up the size or quality of this scam if it is not real. The Italian and Swedish scientists, the energy consultants, and others are either part of the scam or they have been duped. I wonder how you convince this manypeople especially a member of the Swedish skeptics society to go along with a scam without anyone yelling from the rooftops Rossi tried to bribe me too. Aditionally, isn't the best payout on the scam to sell licences, so why would you include as part of your scam a figure who supposedly bought the North American licence.
The other posability is that these other people are being duped. Rossi has managed to make it threw 3 public demonstrations with different people, who have all failed to find the scam. They have checked different aspectts of the e-cat without find the scam or saying do to my limitations in studying the machine, I think that it is not real for X reason. There are also founders of an energy consultant business that have had complete access to an e-cat and were willing to invest money into the project and act excited. If there is a scam or significant error in the quality of the e-cat they are going to hurt their existing business.
I'll repeat that science and quality of the public demonstration leave much to be desired and would not invest my own money or time in the expection of making money based off the current information out there, but there are some reasons to hope.
Every competant person who has looks at the e-cat and does not comeback and say I found the hoax increases the posibility or it being true.
