Talk-Polywell.org

I agree, cg66, it's hard to tell. You see the same problem in global warming.

I think Rossi is right about at least one thing: the proof will be commercial. Either his machines will work and soon be widespread, or they won't.

BTW on that topic, has anyone seen even a rough schedule of deliveries for Rossi or Defkalion? I got the impression Rossi was expecting to have some more 1MW units out the door in the next few months.

TallDave,
2-3 months for the 1 MW units.
Publish specification of the domestic E-Cats in September
Delivery domestic E-Cats starts late this year

Anyone here able to write a concise account of Widom-Larsan theory? I get how neutrons don't have to cope with the coulomb barrier but I don't understand what heavy electrons are, what comes out of the reactions and whether this is truly compatible with the results form Rossi. As I understood it, Rossi hasn't ever allowed access to what's inside the black box, so how could WLT explain Rossi's supposed results?

Likewise, anyone here understand the Lattice patent and the NASA patent app?

stefanbanev wrote:

CKay wrote:

stefanbanev wrote:>That makes it sound like the stupid deserve to be ripped off!

It is exactly how world works and it is very ethical and rational from my perspective.

Then I guess it would be unethical for someone to forewarn the gullible about a potential scam, lest it prevent them from getting the natural justice they, as people of lower intelligence, so obviously deserve?

I do not impose my point of view as the only right one, it's just my insight. The world is a noisy place with very fuzzy and complex relations with no absolutes thus, everybody does whatever he/she considers right/wrong/beneficial/entertaining etc... So, there is nothing natural or non-natural since it is matter of relative subjective perceptions - it's a beauty of this world as something seemingly concrete emerges out of this chaos and it makes interesting to see the patterns why it happens one way and/or not another. From this perspective the LENR story is really entertaining for me, it is such a mixture of science/psychology/social&political ingredients ....

I've heard that before. Everything is relative. Nothing is right or wrong by itself. Every opinion is as worthy as any other.

Yes, but only if we are talking about isolated human beings.

No if we are talking societies. In that case I strongly disagree. I think that such view, if too widespread, can be potentially poisonous to them.

In SR theory we say that any inertial frame of reference (any individual ethic) is as good as any other, but human moral is not a physic system, and we need, and have, a privileged frame of reference, the society we are part of.

That does not mean that this frame of reference is absolute, or that it has to stay freezed in time, just that you can't really devise you own set of rules about what is moral or not without interacting with "your people". And if your differences grow too far then they will ostracise you, or expel you, o something worse.

Human nature (as in psychobiology) abhors absolute liberty, no matter how fair or unfair some might find that.

And about nothing being natural or not natural, psychology has something to say, and that is that at the very least there are a few seed ethical concepts that are hardwired in the human brain. They can be found even in newborns, who have hardly have any time to learn them from their environment.

So, maybe, there are a few ethical concepts that *are* natural in humans.

CKay wrote:

Gandalf wrote:You've walked onto the stage, stepped up to the podium after someone has made a hypothetical claim, you disagree, then propose to close the stage?

Where did anyone propose closing the stage?

You asked earlier if anyone had a moral obligation to provide a forum to debate the hypothetical invisible teapot orbiting mars. Not providing a forum seems akin to closing the stage.

Gandalf wrote:Why would you bother to disagree with someone making claims that you cannot dispute?

CKay wrote:If someone makes extraordinary claims that are difficult to dispute and they, or others, seek to profit from those claims at the expense of the gullible, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to raise concerns.

If someone makes claims that have not been disputed, and someone else decides to spend money on the chance that the claims are valid, and you interfere, are you serving justice, or are you a vigilante?

Gandalf wrote:If someone makes claims that have not been disputed, and someone else decides to spend money on the chance that the claims are valid, and you interfere, are you serving justice, or are you a vigilante?

Rossi has made claims and they have been disputed. I don't think us discussing the issue interferes with his or anyone else attempts at validating said claims. Many here provide a critical view on the evidence at hand, and that should be the standard for any scientific endeavor. Proper scientific discussion allows for facts to be known and errors to be uncovered.

GIThruster wrote:Anyone here able to write a concise account of Widom-Larsan theory? I get how neutrons don't have to cope with the coulomb barrier but I don't understand what heavy electrons are,

see below
[/quote]
what comes out of the reactions and whether this is truly compatible with the results form Rossi.
[/quote]
It is not
[/quote]
As I understood it, Rossi hasn't ever allowed access to what's inside the black box, so how could WLT explain Rossi's supposed results?
[/quote]
There are indicators, ash, radiation, etc. Not consistent.

Likewise, anyone here understand the Lattice patent and the NASA patent app?

WL theory supposes that very high energy lectrons (heavy electrons) can somehow occur in lattices due to resonance phenomena. That is electrons ~ 1MeV, or 100,000 times higher than typical electronic energy levels.

The idea is that surface monolayers of protons in lattices can be quantum coherent over large areas, and the combined oscillations can then boost individual electron energy to this extraordinary level.

SPPs (surface resonances involving electrons and e-m field) are suggested as the mechnism whereby these proton oscillations happen at high amplitude.

WL theory is very vague quantitatively about how the whole heavy electron production thing works.

If ULM neutrons could be produced in this way (with heavy electron energy exactly matched to that needed so very little is left over), they would induce nuclear reactions. ULM neutrons are not easy to make, and have been studied for a long time (with various expensive methods of generation).

Things not clear in WL theory:
(1) what happens to the higher energy neutrons where heavy electron energy is higehr than needed.
(2) how can layers of protons be made quantum coherent when each proton undergoes strong e-m interactions with different local charges outside the isolated quantum system
(3) where do the very high energies needed for heavy electrons come from locally (SPP's do not have this sort of energy normally).
(4) how can there be enough heavy electrons to absorb a high energy decay products from the ULM neutron catalysed nuclear reactions. (This is needed because CF experiments do not show high energy decay products).

parallel wrote:TallDave,
2-3 months for the 1 MW units.
Publish specification of the domestic E-Cats in September
Delivery domestic E-Cats starts late this year

Interesting, so there will be a second customer fairly soon.

TallDave wrote:

parallel wrote:TallDave,
2-3 months for the 1 MW units.
Publish specification of the domestic E-Cats in September
Delivery domestic E-Cats starts late this year

Interesting, so there will be a second customer fairly soon.

That's what everyone has been told since late November or early December. This customer is supposedly an U.S. company who is fairly well known. It's only been 2 months, so time will tell.

Rossi has just admitted that he lied about shipping the 1MW unit (though of course he says it was a mistranslation, but unfortunately for him it was more than one statement on more than one occasion). He also said he was attending the US customer's site, to assist with the install and commissioning. As we now know, that never happened as the plant never shipped. He now admits that its been sitting in his workshop the whole time as he tried to sort out control and other issues.

While he has been showing a strong pattern of (being charitable) evasive behaviour since early last year, I think this is the first case where it can be shown that he is actually straight out lying to us.

So if he lies about this then is he lying about other details too?

RobL wrote:Rossi has just admitted that he lied about shipping the 1MW unit

What an unexpectedness.

RobL wrote:Rossi has just admitted that he lied about shipping the 1MW unit.

Who'd a thunk it?

I wonder what's forced him into making this admission?

Probably someone saw it.

CKay wrote:I wonder what's forced him into making this admission?

ladajo wrote:Probably someone saw it.

The 1 MW unit appears in this video supposedly shot on the January 12th. It's 49 seconds in (and in a few background shots if you look close enough). There's also a long discussion about it over on vortex.

Yup, that'll do it.

Whoops.

So what happened to "in the possession of the customer". "Being installed", "Being upgraded", working together for major improvements now they have the unit in hand, blah blah blah...
Where is the mysterious mystery "Engineer"? Is he also hiding around the corner?

Cue the rolling out of Rossi quotes decalring victory post 1MW (really <.5MW) test...

Smells like fish.