Right. Thank god you came to show us our limitsraphael wrote:Yes, the level your expertise and insight is clear for everyone to see. Ditto in the case of chrismb. Thanks again.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
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.Giorgio wrote:You are confused on the meaning of the terms.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.
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.
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: 517
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 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".
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".
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.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.
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.
Speculative Renderings of Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
by Giacomo Guidi (hand translation)
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/ ... 0111.shtml
by Giacomo Guidi (hand translation)
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/ ... 0111.shtml
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.MSimon wrote: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.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.
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.
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."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 was going to ask the same question. I like your answer better.KitemanSA wrote: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."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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If Rossi's got orders coming out his ears, that kind of attitude would not be difficult to understand.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.
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
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
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
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".raphael wrote:Can demonstrations be "not pure science" and yet be worthy of consideration?
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?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
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...MSimon wrote:It wasn't a close look in the scientific sense.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.
Still, very elaborated scam is possible. In that case, I am really curious how he did it
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 wrote: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".raphael wrote:Can demonstrations be "not pure science" and yet be worthy of consideration?
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?
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,