10KW LENR Demonstrator?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:56 pm

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:07 pm

E-Cat World has a piece by Professor Louis Ferrari of the University of Bologna physics department, who will be taking part in the future investigation by the university. A google translation of the piece is also linked.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/06/07/pr ... the-crazy/

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:20 pm

If you have even a cursory knowledge of previous cold fusion episodes (or, indeed, any miraculous claim), you will know this follows the same pattern. No-one wants to be left behind, everyone clamors to be seen to be encouraging... but sooner and eventually, they drop the claims flat and declare that they never said this or encouraged that. All the same, all over again. Only difference is place is Bologna not Utah.

This is all a study in human behaviour. There is no science nor engineering, because there is only hearsay. Hearsay is the material of the psychologist, not of the rational engineer.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:16 pm

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf

Patent Office Forces E-Cat Self-Destruct Capability

To preserve intellectual property and trade secrets, Andrea Rossi is being forced to design a self destruct mechanism to be built into every E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) used by the public. This could delay the public (non-industrial) launch of the technology.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:39 pm

chrismb

No-one wants to be left behind, everyone clamors to be seen to be encouraging...

I wish you were kidding but I know you believe it. If you read up on the history of "cold fusion" you would find that the whole idea was deep sixed very effectively by the DOE kangaroo court within a few months of the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco.

I have just watched a recording of Fareed Zakaria's report on innovation. Or rather the lack of it in the U.S. We are now apparently dead last. I seriously believe people like you are part of the problem. You think you know it all. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:45 am

parallel wrote:Betruger,
KitemanSA may have said that but not Rossi.
See my previous post too.
Next you will be arguing about the meaning of "is"

Folks, please, I seem to have misread a specific statement as general and made too broad a claim as to Rossi's ability. My fault, mea culpa, DROP IT PLEASE. EVERYONE, please?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:56 am

chrismb wrote: The issue for me is the lack of a statement/description of an experiment that is REPEATABLE.

Have you gone to the reference sections of ANY of the three main subject related organizations and investigated to see whether your statement is correct? If not, how do you know the results are not repeatable?

You make statements of FACT similar to Axil's with as little back-up for your statement. Why should I listen to you any more than Axil?

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:42 am

Axil wrote:http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf

Patent Office Forces E-Cat Self-Destruct Capability

To preserve intellectual property and trade secrets, Andrea Rossi is being forced to design a self destruct mechanism to be built into every E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) used by the public. This could delay the public (non-industrial) launch of the technology.

Challenged about the need for the self destruct feature on his blog, Rossi seemed to blame his investors for insisting on it. I don't like it.

Carl White · Post by **Carl White** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:15 am

I hope this isn't a case of the predicted delays of a scam setting in.

At least it was qualified by "non-industrial". Presumably the first plant is still on schedule for October.

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:40 am

parallel wrote:Ivy Matt wrote:
Is the patent office putting a muzzle on him?
Why on earth would Rossi want to tell his competition how it works before he has patent protection, or ever, if he doesn't? What an odd thing to say.

No, the odd thing is what Rossi said. See here. Especially this:

Filers can also request that applications be published earlier than 18 months, a procedure that offers inventors provisional rights at an earlier stage.

Patent protection doesn't enter into it, because Rossi was talking about the public disclosure of the patent application, which is inevitable and quite a different thing from the actual granting of the patent—unless you mean the sort of patent protection that is automatically granted upon the publication of the patent application. We all know the reason it is "not possible" for Rossi to talk about the catalyst in detail before the patent application is published is that he doesn't wish to. The patent office couldn't care less how much he talks. The embargo is self-imposed. Rossi may have good reasons for what he's doing, but it's rather disingenuous of him to pass the buck to the patent office.

Speaking of passing the buck:

Axil wrote:
Patent Office Forces E-Cat Self-Destruct Capability

Kahuna wrote:Challenged about the need for the self destruct feature on his blog, Rossi seemed to blame his investors for insisting on it.

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:55 am

KitemanSA wrote: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".

parallel wrote:I have just watched a recording of Fareed Zakaria's report on innovation. Or rather the lack of it in the U.S. We are now apparently dead last. I seriously believe people like you are part of the problem. You think you know it all. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

chrismb wrote:The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

I think this thread could use a little more cynicism.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:06 am

Kahuna wrote:Challenged about the need for the self destruct feature on his blog, Rossi seemed to blame his investors for insisting on it. I don't like it.

Worry not, Russia has plenty of nuclear devices to dispose of. I am sure they can make a good wholesale price to Deflakion

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:13 am

parallel wrote:I note none of the self-appointed patent experts have answered my question about Pilkington's patent for float glass.

I'm not an expert, but the "self-appointed" part likely fits me. Your question was:

parallel wrote:The question is, should they have been given a patent for discovering the "know how" that is not patentable?

My answer: I don't really know and, as long as they described the process in sufficient detail that someone skilled in the art could replicate it, I don't really care. If the patent office felt like rewarding Pilkington for advancing the useful arts, I don't see it as a terrible abuse of the patent system.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Rossi, though.

Are you asking whether his catalyst patent ought to be granted? I don't believe I've opined on that yet, and there's really no point in doing so before it's published.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:25 am

KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote: The issue for me is the lack of a statement/description of an experiment that is REPEATABLE.
Have you gone to the reference sections of ANY of the three main subject related organizations and investigated to see whether your statement is correct? If not, how do you know the results are not repeatable?

You make statements of FACT similar to Axil's with as little back-up for your statement. Why should I listen to you any more than Axil?

eh!? Why would I need to when the 'inventor' si saying he needs to make his device self-destruct to stop people copying it. If there was already enough information to repeat the experiment, why whould he say such a thing!?!?

I am ABSOLUTELY sure that this experiment cannot be repeated, and known to be repeated accurately.

What argument do you have for the contrary, other than to speculate that there might be some small detail I might not have read? Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:30 am

parallel wrote:chrismb
No-one wants to be left behind, everyone clamors to be seen to be encouraging...
I wish you were kidding but I know you believe it. If you read up on the history of "cold fusion" you would find that the whole idea was deep sixed very effectively by the DOE kangaroo court within a few months of the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco.

I have just watched a recording of Fareed Zakaria's report on innovation. Or rather the lack of it in the U.S. We are now apparently dead last. I seriously believe people like you are part of the problem. You think you know it all. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

I don't think you can be serious about anything, because this is a polywell discussion forum and you have never discussed it. So you have never been serious about what you signed up here to discuss.

Nonetheless, this is cobblers because I can only be a problem if I object to this guy doing his experiment. I am getting to that point, if only for the shyte that he is generating here.

My objection is nothing to do with Rossi, it is to do with the anti-science you and your ilk are purveying about it. This anti-science is going to make it difficult for people to do small-scale genuine work in the future and be able to find routes to dissemination whose readership don't just roll their eyes and go read something else, on account of the accumulation of 'fusion crazies'.