10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:41 pm

E-Cat World has a new interview with Rossi, with news of how he thinks he is doing.

This is all great and good, but all we have here is Rossi's word for it. Please excuse my being cynical, but I would not be surprised if his "Siemens AG helping with Leonardo Corp" turned out to be another bubble of hot air like his cooperation with UoB, UoU and NI.
So I am not going to put any value on that.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:52 pm

Reading the comments to Krivit's latest speculative post supporting W-L theory reminded me of why LENR is currently so singularly unconvincing.

As pointed out there, a physical theory without a testable null hypothesis is very suspect. taking W-L theory, what is the null hypothesis, and how is it tested?

Well the null phenomena is presumably that high energy electrons do not exist in lattices.

This is essentially untestable, because existence of LENR is premissed to be variable and dependent on factors which are difficult to be controlled.

In fact the LENR phenomena is essentially undeniable for the same reason. There is no experimental result which can disprove the existance of LENR phenomena as currently advocated.

The nearest you can get to a proper test is a way of showing that any specific purported LENR experiment is not in fact working via weak interactions.

You do this by testing the neutron shield (conveniently) claimed to be a property of LENR systems. The same high energy electrons that create ULM neutrons also offer 100% perfect gamma shielding. It seems.

Such a shield is essential because high energy gammas, a sure indicator of weak interactions, have never been observed above background level in LENR systems. It is necessary therefore to posit some speculative near-perfect shield to explain this absence. It is worth pointing out that perfect high energy gamma shields do not as far as we know exist,

The test is to shine a high energy gamma source through an LENR experiment during operation and detect the results. We could test whether there was any reduction in the gamma transmission as the experiment was switched on. If there is not 100% perfect shielding the claimed weak interactution element transmutations cannot exist because they would include many pathways with high energy gamma emmission, which is never observed.

This experiment would be great, because also, if a gamma shielding effect were observed, it would be positive evidence of heavy electrons and hence strong confirmation of W-L theory and therefore LENR.

I'm a bit surprised no-one has yet done this? there are a lot of pro-LENR experimentalists out there...

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:55 pm

Skipjack wrote:
E-Cat World has a new interview with Rossi, with news of how he thinks he is doing.
This is all great and good, but all we have here is Rossi's word for it. Please excuse my being cynical, but I would not be surprised if his "Siemens AG helping with Leonardo Corp" turned out to be another bubble of hot air like his cooperation with UoB, UoU and NI.
So I am not going to put any value on that.

Like most other Rossi non-technical interviews, believe it and heaven is just round the corner. The technical statements tend to be self-contradictory and not so believable. Even the non-technical statements were self-contradictory when Rossi was working with DGT, but now he has no-one to contradict him it is easier to talk of heaven.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:03 pm

tomclarke,

I stated (again) the reasons why your proposed metrics for the bet (essentially DKF self-selected testers being positive, or internet fans being positive) would not be appropriate

.
DGT are not selecting the testers. Their only stipulation is that they must came from well regarded institutions or universities.

I'm forecasting the internet consensus will be nearly unanimous a few weeks after the test results are reported. I gave you an out, that if it isn't the bet was off. There are more skeptics than fans on this site at least.

So your explanation doesn't fly. I think you secretly fear the Hyperions will be shown to work.

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:05 pm

parallel wrote:I'm forecasting the internet consensus

How does one go about measuring with any kind of objectivity "the internet consensus"?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:45 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,
I stated (again) the reasons why your proposed metrics for the bet (essentially DKF self-selected testers being positive, or internet fans being positive) would not be appropriate
.
DGT are not selecting the testers. Their only stipulation is that they must came from well regarded institutions or universities.

I'm forecasting the internet consensus will be nearly unanimous a few weeks after the test results are reported. I gave you an out, that if it isn't the bet was off. There are more skeptics than fans on this site at least.

So your explanation doesn't fly. I think you secretly fear the Hyperions will be shown to work.

The existence of (undiclosed content) NDAs means that we cannot know how much DGT is selecting for testers who will be pliable. I'll happily take the word of properly independent and qualified testers, but we do not know there are any such.

I won't bet against DGT's ability to put out good PR. That would influence internet opinion (assuming we could find some agreed way to measure it). Of course, it is fickle. In the end they will have no more adherents than say BLP...

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:32 pm

tomclarke,

The existence of (undiclosed content) NDAs means that we cannot know how much DGT is selecting for testers who will be pliable.

That is pathetic. The testers are allowed to publish their results and even show the test live on video.
What possible "Non Disclosure" would you object to?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:46 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,
The existence of (undiclosed content) NDAs means that we cannot know how much DGT is selecting for testers who will be pliable.
That is pathetic. The testers are allowed to publish their results and even show the test live on video.
What possible "Non Disclosure" would you object to?

Parallel, since we do not know the NDAs, nor how qualified will be any right to publish results, it is difficult to know, don't you think?

We also don't know what DFK would do to discourage critical testers: a variable content NDA that must be signed is a good way to do this.

Of course, perhaps after the imminent tests reults a number of genuinely indepenent testers will publish reports....

OOOps - but is seems the tests are being delayed. For several months.... So no light yet from this.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:06 pm

OOOps - but is seems the tests are being delayed. For several months.

Where did you see that? Link?
You are still talking about DGT I assume.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:10 pm

parallel wrote:
OOOps - but is seems the tests are being delayed. For several months.
Where did you see that? Link?
You are still talking about DGT I assume.

http://cold-fusion.ca/hundreds-of-appli ... sts-265000

Although no timescale is given, it looks as though the wait could go on for at least another couple of months before we can anticipate the tests being carried out.

polyill · Post by **polyill** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:29 pm

*looking at parallel*

Does anybody know what is an average keyboard MTBF?

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:07 am

tomclarke wrote:I think people here have a longer memory than you and will remember the post above where I stated (again) the reasons why your proposed metrics for the bet (essentially DKF self-selected testers being positive, or internet fans being positive) would not be appropriate.

Who is DKF? Do you mean DGT (Defkalion Green Technologies)?

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:12 am

Skipjack wrote:
E-Cat World has a new interview with Rossi, with news of how he thinks he is doing.
This is all great and good, but all we have here is Rossi's word for it. Please excuse my being cynical, but I would not be surprised if his "Siemens AG helping with Leonardo Corp" turned out to be another bubble of hot air like his cooperation with UoB, UoU and NI.
So I am not going to put any value on that.

While I'm not quite as certain about Rossi as you, he does appear to be a serial name dropper to be sure with little of substance ever happening. BTW, you can add NASA to your short list.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:24 am

tomclarke

Parallel, since we do not know the NDAs, nor how qualified will be any right to publish results, it is difficult to know, don't you think?

Why do you assume it should stop any test group from participating?
Sure the NDA is unknown. Can you think of even one disclosure that would effect the results being denied the light of day, when DGT say the testers are able to publish all their results? They have previously stated the NDA concerned agreeing to test procedures and presumably secret details of the device, not its performance. You are sounding desperate for a way out.

Although no timescale is given, it looks as though the wait could go on for at least another couple of months before we can anticipate the tests being carried out.

That is speculation from 11 days ago. Let's wait for DGT to comment.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:33 am

Kahuna,
Rossi has stated NI was dropped from the first 1 mW plant at the customers request. He indicates that he will continue using NI.

Likewise, Siemens visited him, to show him a turbine that could use a lower steam temperature.

Just what is "name dropping" about either of the above? He shouldn't talk to suppliers who could help him? The trolls don't like it? What?