10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[MSimon]

take the man at his word until he's proven wrong.

I'm looking for a banker who operates under that principle. I will explain to him about my secret source of cash and why it would be good business to loan me as much as I want. Pending getting the other funds moving of course. These super double secret operations take time.

[rcain]

IMHO, Brillouin theory is generally correct in describing the Rossi process, but wrong in its particulars.

I could not see theory but saw an eclectic number of not connected with each other claims from which follows nothing.

impeccable logic Joseph. I am sure.

i am assuming however, you are referring to the http://www.brillouinenergy.com/ rather than Leon Brillouin.

speaking of the former, Axil, where did you drag these people up from? (or did i just do that via google?). Hell... there are dozens of them, popping up all over the place - the US, Italy (again), Israel, now .... they're all the same thing (sort of). All getting ready for a big patent bust-up..

though so far all short of a single accepted explanation.

quite an interesting piece i havn't seen before from CBSNews 2009 - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n - touching interview at the end with Fleischmann.

will he be vindicated? we shall see.

re. Brillouin analysis (i am assuming you mean Leon), i am certain it has a significant role to play in a fuller description of what is going on. (maybe even Brillouin Energy have a good idea - but not a proven theory yet i think).

[Joseph Chikva]

i am assuming however, you are referring to the http://www.brillouinenergy.com/ rather than Leon Brillouin.

http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brilloui ... thesis.pdf

[rcain]

i am assuming however, you are referring to the http://www.brillouinenergy.com/ rather than Leon Brillouin.

http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brilloui ... thesis.pdf

(thank goodness for that ). some interesting ideas though - around page 21/22::

...Any material with a unit cell or molecule able to include reactant nuclei and obtain or exceed a Molecular Hamiltonian of 782KeV to 9.3MeV has the potential to run the Quantum Fusion process..

quite bold claims - relatively easy to prove or disprove then, i should think.

and

...The grain boundaries and defects reflect phonon energy and the intersection of enough reflections allow the reactions to start.

sounds very vague.

they seem to be attempting to take credit for the term 'Quantum Fusion'.

lets see how they come out in the rinse. i know nothing about them.

[Joseph Chikva]

i am assuming however, you are referring to the http://www.brillouinenergy.com/ rather than Leon Brillouin.

http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brilloui ... thesis.pdf

(thank goodness for that ). some interesting ideas though - around page 21/22::

...Any material with a unit cell or molecule able to include reactant nuclei and obtain or exceed a Molecular Hamiltonian of 782KeV to 9.3MeV has the potential to run the Quantum Fusion process..

quite bold claims - relatively easy to prove or disprove then, i should think.

and

...The grain boundaries and defects reflect phonon energy and the intersection of enough reflections allow the reactions to start.

sounds very vague.

they seem to be attempting to take credit for the term 'Quantum Fusion'.

lets see how they come out in the rinse. i know nothing about them.

Do you speak about chapters:
2.8 Electromigration - Quantum compression
2.9 Skin effect
2.10 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

...Any material with a unit cell or molecule able to include reactant nuclei and obtain or exceed a Molecular Hamiltonian of 782KeV to 9.3MeV has the potential to run the Quantum Fusion process..

quite bold claims - relatively easy to prove or disprove then, i should think.

Let's them prove. I would be only glad. Now I see only an eclectic mix of known and unknown (only for me) claims. And not theory explaining something.
PS: if matter+antimatter interaction (annihilation) much more energy than mentioned 782KeV to 9.3MeV can be gained.

[Ivy Matt]

Dear Mr Mark:
It is not possible, because this patent is still non disclosed to the public

Is the patent office putting a muzzle on him?

I can only repeat, for the third time: take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement. There is substantial evidence that he has discovered something, that we all agree is not proof beyond all doubt, and a number of scientists more eminent than you agree it is worth investigating. Have you already forgotten about NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell who said LENR is the most promising answer to our current energy problems?

There are too many problems with this paragraph for me to agree with it fully. I believe the response to your arguments can best be summed up by the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba.

I'm not going to call Rossi a liar or a fraud, because I have seen no significant evidence that he is. On the other hand, neither am I going to shy away from considering the possibility that he is such, or simply that he has managed to delude himself into making claims he will have problems backing away from. Whatever the case may be, I don't see sufficient evidence yet to add Rossi's energy catalyzer process to the body of knowledge we call "science".

For me, at least, whether cold fusion research is worth investigating is a separate issue. It's no skin off my nose, as I'm not on the Big Fusion gravy train. Some of the research is done with public funds, but I can think of a lot bigger wastes of public money than cold fusion research. Even if it never produces a working space heater or electric generator, it may find something useful. However, I think that, if repeatable results and useful amounts of energy can be combined with independent replication and, eventually, a working theory, cold fusion (or whatever it is) will be rehabilitated. Keep in mind that anyone who claims to have achieved net energy from fusion, whether "hot" or "cold", is going to have their claims seriously scrutinized to see if they hold up.

I'm not terribly impressed by appeals to eminent scientists. What technologies Dennis Bushnell thinks are promising is of much less import than the results he is able to achieve in his set of experiments, which in turn are of less import than the ability of various other independent laboratories to confirm his results.

quite an interesting piece i havn't seen before from CBSNews 2009 - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n - touching interview at the end with Fleischmann.

will he be vindicated? we shall see.

If you thought cold fusion was hot now, just wait till this summer, or whenever this new film is going to be released.

[rcain]

..If you thought cold fusion was hot now, just wait till this summer, or whenever this new film is going to be released.

portentious timing! lets hope other factual news is more 'conclusive' than the film. and that history does not repeat its self (which sadly it so often seems to). i look forward to watching it.

[Giorgio]

Andrea Rossi wrote this about a patent on the catalyst on February 5th, 2011 at 10:29 AM when asked how it worked.

Dear Mr Mark:
It is not possible, because this patent is still non disclosed to the public

So, you have finally realized that Rossi was talking about the secret catalyst and not about the apparatus on that post. Good, better late than never.
Now you still have to explain WHY he has to wait until he gets the patent approved on the secret catalyst before disclosing any info.
As far as I know, he has patent protection for it from the same day he deposited the patent application.
Someone with more knowledge on the subject can correct me if I am wrong.

I can only repeat, for the third time: take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement.

Why? What has he done till date that we should take his word for granted without asking ourselves any questions?
Your way of thinking is the antithesis of a scientific mind.

[rcain]

...
Do you speak about chapters:
2.8 Electromigration - Quantum compression
2.9 Skin effect
2.10 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

no. i was reading chapters 2.11 onward. but lots of 'maybe's' throughout - and in 2.8 sure, though 2.9 & 210 are just reciting known science.

...
Let's them prove. I would be only glad. Now I see only an eclectic mix of known and unknown (only for me) claims. And not theory explaining something.
PS: if matter+antimatter interaction (annihilation) much more energy than mentioned 782KeV to 9.3MeV can be gained.

indeed. though much of any 'actual' application in this matter should be reasonably straight forward to verify (though they have not yet done that, nor claim to have, from what i see). just a rough sketch of a hypothesis at this level. (i dont know where antimatter comes in to it - unless as sarcasm perhaps .. ).

[KitemanSA]

All it would take is a single, well documented, straight forward, clearly published "in your face" experiment, that could be duplicated by any reasonable experimenter. I don't mean, an experiment that works 3 out of 5 times, I mean a clear experiment that demonstrably shows net energy out that can't be accounted for by expected chemical and physical means. NO One can seem to do that with any kind of clear methodology. Devise such an experiment, and you have an elephant in the room.

It never happens.

Why do you think "it never happens"?
For chrismb it seems "it never happens" because it is not published in a journal (s)he has personally blesssed to carry the word of "science". Sorry for the sour tone, but some folks insist on playing the "roundy rosie" game (ain't science cause it ain't published, ain't published cuz it ain't science, oh, and by published I mean "in this spoecific journal").

[Giorgio]

Patent Wars - Revenge of Piantelli (Bing Tranalation)

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.a ... telli.html

A little patent-related drama between Rossi and Piantelli. I guess at least these two think they have something worth fighting over. We will see if they do.

Interesting.
I wonder why Piantelli is still refusing to go public.
Many have tried to get an interview with him, but at no avail.

By the way, the University of Bologna decided on the committee that will make the measurements on the Rossi e-Cat:

Ennio Bonetti - Associate Professor of Physics of the Matter
Enrico Campari - Associate Professor of Experimental Physics
Loris Ferrari - Associate Professor of Physics
Giuseppe Levi - Researcher of Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics
Mauro Villa - Associate Professor of Experimental Physics

I will research on them and post a brief CV on each of them if I have time later tonight.

[Giorgio]

All it would take is a single, well documented, straight forward, clearly published "in your face" experiment, that could be duplicated by any reasonable experimenter. I don't mean, an experiment that works 3 out of 5 times, I mean a clear experiment that demonstrably shows net energy out that can't be accounted for by expected chemical and physical means. NO One can seem to do that with any kind of clear methodology. Devise such an experiment, and you have an elephant in the room.

It never happens.

Why do you think "it never happens"?

I think he meant "it never happens" when these type of claims are made. Not that "it never happens" in general.
Additionally I am reading "published" as "divulged", not publishen in a specific paper.

On the other hand, IMBW on both interpretations.

[KitemanSA]

No. We're going to take the entire body of Physical Science at *ITS* word until *IT* is proven wrong.

Wow. You really have things.... hats backward.

Why would you take the word of an organic chemist over a cook on what makes a quiche tasty?

Expertice in one field does not always tranfer to another. Indeed, expertice in a different field with similar aims can be detrimental. Solid state physics requires different thought process from plsma physics, even though both have been used to control the flow of signals. I suspect strongly that during the advent of transisters, some of the vacuum tube folk proclaimed loudly that it was all a fraud. And if they had had a lock on publication (and if journel publication were NEARLY the requirement it is today) we may STILL not have transisters.

I would estimate that well over half the plasma physisists in the world say Polywell won't work. And Polywell is plasma physics, just not LTE plasma physics. So the bulk of the plasma physists who are LTE plasma physists may be fooled by their own limited view. Might physysts that work in HIGH energy nuclear reactions also be fooled by their own limited view?

So just to bring the discussion back, you are not going to take "the entire body of Physical Science at *ITS* word until *IT* is proven wrong", you are proposing to take the word of about half of the HIGH energy nuclear reaction physisists who bothered to look into the subject at their word of what low energy physical science "allows"; the half of said physists that MANDATE something other than consistent excess heat as evidence of nuclear processes (or at least nuclear processes that might lead to useful systems). Did you catch that? Half of the scientists asked by the DoE to review the literature ~7 years ago thought there was something unexplained, perhaps nuclear, happening and that further study should be funded. Of the remainder, some who appeared to disagree actually agreed but thought it could never be useful. Seems the reviewers were not as convinced as you.

You seem to be taking the LOUDmouths of HIGH energy fusion at their word about LOW energy physics. Hmm, perhaps not a path to broader understanding.

[MSimon]

I suspect strongly that during the advent of transisters, some of the vacuum tube folk proclaimed loudly that it was all a fraud. And if they had had a lock on publication (and if journel publication were NEARLY the requirement it is today) we may STILL not have transisters.

I am fortunate to have gone through that transition. The big hang up in the beginning was the poor quality of transistors (leakage, FT) and the lack of simple design information. It took me until the late 60s (and an article in Popular Electronics) before I learned how to bias a BJT. JFETS were a LOT like tubes so that was easier. MOSFETs even more so.

So how about this? Six years from the demonstration of a transistor until there was an INDUSTRY. It is now 20+ years on since P&F. We have better tools than the transistor guys had (a GCMS in every lab, etc.). And we still know nothing.

[rcain]

...Interesting.
I wonder why Piantelli is still refusing to go public.
Many have tried to get an interview with him, but at no avail.

By the way, the University of Bologna decided on the committee that will make the measurements on the Rossi e-Cat:

interesting indeed if University of Bologna should put their reputation on the line. though i suspect at best it will make some fairly 'tame' statements like 'anomalous' heat and 'no discernible mistake'. it might yet induce others to investigate further, with a little more fervor.

but that wont satisfy anyone here.

i for one only want to see the lid blown off it and any true science revealed. perhaps the (multitude of) coming patent disputes will eventually oblige. what fun.