Kahuna wrote:Let's hope Giorgio can hook up with Krivit for our own little Talk-Polywell interview.
Up to now I got no reply from him and my comment on his blog is still with the "Your comment is awaiting moderation" tag line.
If anyone has his private mail drop him a message or drop me a PM with his mail.
Meantime tomorrow I will have a chat with an old friend that knows Focardi and could give me some head ups about what's going on in UoB.
If I get know anything interesting or worth posting I'll do so tomorrow night.
chrismb wrote:I thought we'd just keep hassling the next Rossiphile as they turn up... seems fair sport to me. It's not like the world seems short on people like this.
I think this thread reached its peak Rossiphile count some time ago. For various reasons I don't expect another influx, although I could, of course, be wrong about that.
One of those reasons is that PESN's "Patent Office Forces E-Cat Self-Destruct Capability" story seems to have produced a (no doubt unintended) widespread disillusionment among the true believer type, who can't understand why the greedy buzzard doesn't just release his secret knowledge to the world so all of mankind can benefit.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
Kahuna wrote:Let's hope Giorgio can hook up with Krivit for our own little Talk-Polywell interview.
Up to now I got no reply from him and my comment on his blog is still with the "Your comment is awaiting moderation" tag line.
If anyone has his private mail drop him a message or drop me a PM with his mail.
Meantime tomorrow I will have a chat with an old friend that knows Focardi and could give me some head ups about what's going on in UoB.
If I get know anything interesting or worth posting I'll do so tomorrow night.
Thanks Giorgio, that would be interesting. My guess is they have a bunch of academics all excited & optimistic, but that when stuff is properly tested it will collapse. After all, Rossi is claiming heat output which can be unambiguously observed, even if we have not yet seen demos that do this.
tomclarke wrote:Thanks Giorgio, that would be interesting. My guess is they have a bunch of academics all excited & optimistic, but that when stuff is properly tested it will collapse. After all, Rossi is claiming heat output which can be unambiguously observed, even if we have not yet seen demos that do this.
I think the UoB R&D will be where this thing takes off or dies. If Rossi actually delivers the E-Cat (and the funding) to UoB, it will be a clear indication that he thinks it's real (no fraud/scam). Then once it is subjected to "proper" testing we should find out in pretty short order if he really has anything close to the claims or if he has been diluding himself. The Greek install is going to be way too private with too many insiders to offer much validation IMHO.
That's why it will be very interesting to see what Giorgio comes up with vis-a-vis the reality and schedule for the UoB R&D program.
Kahuna wrote:Looks like Steve Krivit (New Energy Times) is going to get a look at the E-Cat in operation (and film it) and an interview with Focardi, Levi and Rossi today and tomorrow. Steve seems pretty well founded technically and may be able to elicit some valuable information for us.
I am now in Milan and will be in Bologna in a few hours. Today I am to see the E-Cat, interview Rossi’s collaborator Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna department of physics.
Kahuna wrote:Looks like Steve Krivit (New Energy Times) is going to get a look at the E-Cat in operation (and film it) and an interview with Focardi, Levi and Rossi today and tomorrow. Steve seems pretty well founded technically and may be able to elicit some valuable information for us.
I am now in Milan and will be in Bologna in a few hours. Today I am to see the E-Cat, interview Rossi’s collaborator Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna department of physics.
Today is June 16. And?
As I stated above, Passerini has posted some preliminary stuff and promises more this weekend. Based on what he said so far, he is going to say some glowing stuff, but I think he is a technical lightweight and a bit caught up in his new reflected fame so I don't expect anything of much substance from him.
I'm sure Krivit will also post in good time (positive, negative or still agnostic) when he has compiled it all. I guess he did pretty long interviews with Rossi & Focardi and also one with Levi so he has a bit to do. Steve strikes ma as a pretty serious guy so I think he will be careful in his conclusions and they will probably be worth something. When his post comes, you should see it here:
Joseph Chikva wrote:I have seen who is Steve Krivit and New Energy Times after my posting.
And it appears for me that he is also apologet of the same.
Also I have seen the following: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-FAQ.shtml
Is "Cold Fusion" Real?
This is really four different questions.
Q1. Are LENRs genuine nuclear reactions?
A1. Yes.
Q2. Is the underlying process or processes responsible for the observed LENR phenomena the result of a fusion process?
A2. Probably not.
Q3. Are LENRs sources of useful energy?
A3. Not yet.
Q4. Is LENR better than "cold fusion"?
A4. Yes.
Probably? You are waiting for opinion of this man who has created not a small site, maintains it and says "probably" on fundamental thing?
Sorry Joseph, I mistook your post for a honest question and tried to be helpful. I will not make that mistake again.
Kahuna wrote:Sorry Joseph, I mistook your post for a honest question and tried to be helpful. I will not make that mistake again.
Honesty or dishonesty has nothing to do with discussing issue.
Let’s admit I am putting the question dishonestly.
So, probably that is not fusion and discussed here on at least 50 pages the binding energy per nucleon has nothing to do with LERN.
As developers of LERN till now do not know the nature of process. Even if that process is really observed.
Nickel-not Nickel, Copper-not Copper.
Are you seeking honesty or are you seeking the true?
Joseph Chikva wrote: So, probably that is not fusion and discussed here on at least 50 pages the binding energy per nucleon has nothing to do with LERN.
Sorry? Where did this assessment come from? AFAIK, binding energy per nucleon has EVERYTHING to do with LENR (supposing they exist). What Krivit seems to have been saying in the answer to question 2 above is that the LENR is probably not "fusion" per-se but a different nuclear reaction.
Pleae note that it becomes a symantics issue. E.g., is Ni+p "fusion" or something else. Krivit seems to be defining it as "something else".
The problem is there are guys in every board like Chikva who thinks they are smarter or know more than someone who actively seeks answers like Krivat. These boards are great for spewing opinions but it is unreasonable to buy into these opinions over first hand witnesses.
breakaway wrote:The problem is there are guys in every board like Chikva who thinks they are smarter or know more than someone who actively seeks answers like Krivat. These boards are great for spewing opinions but it is unreasonable to buy into these opinions over first hand witnesses.
I see another problem.
There are guys who permanently seek perpetuum mobile.
And "first hand witnesses" can be the conjurer or assistant of conjurer. Or a lop-eared assistant from a hall.
And this your right to name focus as miracle.
Joseph Chikva wrote: So, probably that is not fusion and discussed here on at least 50 pages the binding energy per nucleon has nothing to do with LERN.
Sorry? Where did this assessment come from? AFAIK, binding energy per nucleon has EVERYTHING to do with LENR (supposing they exist). What Krivit seems to have been saying in the answer to question 2 above is that the LENR is probably not "fusion" per-se but a different nuclear reaction.
Pleae note that it becomes a symantics issue. E.g., is Ni+p "fusion" or something else. Krivit seems to be defining it as "something else".
Yes if that is nuclear reaction.
If you have a chemical reaction binding energy per nucleon has nothing to do with process.
"Something else" as I understand means nothing else as "nothing".
KitemanSA wrote:What Krivit seems to have been saying in the answer to question 2 above is that the LENR is probably not "fusion" per-se but a different nuclear reaction.
I guess he is talking about the hypothesis that a proton and electron can be catalysed into a neutron, and thereafter it is the WL theory. I guess if someone really wants to believe this, then in reality there is nothing yet that really says 'no possible way!'.
I stand by my previous statement, though - if we were likely to see it, then I think odds on that it'd have popped up elsewhere by now in the enormous panoply of human endeavour.
The issues with Rossitron are deeper than just not having a good theory, though. My issues with it are not theoretical, they are most surely practical!
breakaway wrote:The problem is there are guys in every board like Chikva who thinks they are smarter or know more than someone who actively seeks answers like Krivat. These boards are great for spewing opinions but it is unreasonable to buy into these opinions over first hand witnesses.
I have never found it very useful to "discuss" something with someone who has totally made up their minds on a subject. You try to discuss and they just pontificate. I like a forum mostly full of people who are somewhere well between 0% and 100% certain.
I'm very far from the smartest guy in this room so I just try to be of some service to the discussion where I can and enjoy the rest. To me, this is a very interesting story from a lot of different angles no matter how it turns out and I just enjoy the diversity of discussion among the open minds that frequent these parts.
