10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

SL: =seedload
KSA: =me

SL: Why do you think he is doing demonstrations? To convince people the thing works.
KSA: True, for the people he is trying to convince.

SL: So, the onus is on him to be convincing.
KSA: BUT NOT TO YOU! You aren't the center of the universe, or even a blip on his radar, I suspect. His need to be convincing TO YOU is a zero, just like you!

SL: If the amount of steam doesn't match the pressure he claims, if he overtly pours water out of a tube, if he is caught working the controls at exactly the same time that measurements change, then he isn't being convincing and it is perfectly legitimate to stand up and shout BS!
KSA: Go right ahead. It means nothing.

SL: If he ignores this perfectly legitimate reaction, doesn't try to explain, and just cries snake, then there are additional reasons to doubt him - ie, he isn't interested in being convincing (which would be easy), just in shutting you up.
KSA: You seem to think you are important. This, I doubt. You are probably LOWER than a snake on his scale.

SL: If the thing works, being convincing would be super easy.
KSA: But not necessarily wise. But that level of thought is beyond you since you are the all important center of the universe... (ha ha ha ... LOL, sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face there anymore).

SL: Since it doesn't work, then being convincing is hard, except to convince those that are willing to be fooled.
KSA: Oh my, not only omni-important but omniscient too. Will wonders never cease! Worm.

[Betruger]

SL: So, the onus is on him to be convincing.
KSA: BUT NOT TO YOU! You aren't the center of the universe, or even a blip on his radar, I suspect. His need to be convincing TO YOU is a zero, just like you!

Seedload goes by same empirical rules as everyone else in Rossi audience.

[ladajo]

Kite's rule on this are that the rules vary for the member of the audience.
If you let Rossi convince you he has something, then it is one set of rules.
If you don't let Rossi convince you he has something, then it is another set of rules.
If you speak about Rossi being non-convincing and why, then it is another set of rules.
If you speak about Rossi being a liar, then you are libelous and a liar.

In Kiteworld there is apparently flexible standards of truth as well as differing levels of citizenship and rights.

What Kite does not want to see in his argument is that he is wrong when he says that Rossi cares not for those who doubt and has no repsonsibility to them. Rossi is marketing to everyone, and the same standards apply to everyone in regard to his required level of proof that he has something. Whether or not everyone has equal understanding or capability to apply those levels of proof is another argument entirely. This is the core reason scammers like Rossi and P.T. Barnum have a market base. Out of the 100 folks they present the scam for, they will find enough that do not have the understanding or capability to apply the required levels of proof, and thus be able to be taken advantage of and part with their money. Just as Rossi can dismiss or ignore naysayers, the naysayers can dismiss and ignore Rossi, and have more right to do so as the burden of proof rests with the claimaint. Rossi claims to have something, and refuses to really prove it. Arguing that a person has no right to ask the claimant for proof of the claim is about a stupid a thing as I have ever heard. Well, I guess that trying to argue that this idea is based on "innocent until proven guilty" is probably more stupid. Asking for proof of a claim does not transfer the burden of proof from the claimant. Innocent without proof of guilt applies to accusations, not claims. This is a fundamental point of law that seems to be lost on Kite. Kite is attempting to estabilsh a false logical tail chase in which claims and accusations chase each other. He can not rationalize that the buck stops at the start. Maybe I'll go ask the invisible interdimensional mute pink unicorn in my garage what he thinks.

Kite's argument that Rossi has no burden of proof is asinine. If Rossi wants real material buy in from anyone, then he must offer real proof. He claims to be marketing a real thing to the public, so therefore he owes the public real proof. If he does not provide it, then he is nothing more than a street corner beggar. "Give me some money". Kite's other incessant head in the sand maneuver is his repeated denials of proof that Rossi has lied. The list of empty Rossi claims, lies and misrepresentations is too long to list now. And that is just for Ecat. Not even Hotcat, or his previous scams. So Kite, how many Ecats has Rossi sold now? How many customers does he have? How many times has he said he sold the first unit? How does he regulate a natural gas heater with a secret waveform? Why has he not demonstrated a gas heated device? Why does his secret sauce change on his whim? His latest claim is that his sold to U.S. customer(or was it new partner?) unit is now installed and operating in the U.S., and his american factory is now built and producing production units. How long will it be before either of those (previously made more than once) claims are changed or claimed again? How long before Florida BRC or applicable NRC executive agent shows up at his door again so he can say none of it is true again?

So about that bridge. Wanna buy it or not? The proof is once you pay me money and you drive over it you will know it is yours and real. I shouldn't tell you that the unicorn is my partner, he invented the bridge and will get 20%. He likes to be called Levi.

[krenshala]

Thank you ladajo. You have said what I wanted to in a much more coherent manner than I had typed up in the post I just canceled.

[JoeP]

You guys characterize KMs position rather incorrectly. I'll admit, from reading all these posts that he appears to like pulling your chains on this subject (perhaps an easy thing to do?) but his position is both simple and, for the most part, logic oriented.

[KitemanSA]

Thank you ladajo. You have said what I wanted to in a much more coherent manner than I had typed up in the post I just canceled.

And you both are cranio-rectally inserted. Sometimes I despare of finding an intellegent discussion on this thread.

I wonder which massively mature mental midget will come back with that epitomy of whit "I know you are but what am I?"

[paperburn1]

Challenge accepted!
I know you are but what am I
Use a spell checker and Nothing makes you look quite so foolish as spelling a sophisticated word incorrectly. Taken directly from Greek, where it means “abridgement,” “epitome” is now most often used to designate an extremely representative example of the general class: “Snow White is the epitome of a Disney cartoon feature.” The word means “essence,” not “climax,”

[paperburn1]

I will be good now

[KitemanSA]

I will be good now

What makes you think you can change now?

This is what I get for relying on technology to spell check. It would be nice if English wasn't built from 4 or 5 different languages, each with a different spelling convention. Spanish is simplicity itself to spell. Esperanto even more so. In English there are no real spelling rules... they are more like guidelines.

But I suspect you got the meaning clearly enough.

[ladajo]

You guys characterize KMs position rather incorrectly. I'll admit, from reading all these posts that he appears to like pulling your chains on this subject (perhaps an easy thing to do?) but his position is both simple and, for the most part, logic oriented.

I would disagree. Kite is attempting to argue via two methods. One is based in "free will". The idea that we are beholden to none. That is all well and good until you start trying to get things from others. He thinks Rossi can do as he pleases. On a certain level we all can, but once you start to interact with others, you incur a measure of responsibility for that interaction. If one does not, then one is now demonstrably a sociopath. Rossi is interacting with others and seeking things from them. But his actions (both current and past) demonstrate he sees it as a one sided exchange. He is a sociopath.
The other idea Kite is holding on to for this argument is the burden of truth. He has attempted to create a false circular relationship where the burden of truth and proof is coated with teflon. His argument here is that Rossi made a claim, and does not have to prove it. If Rossi made the claim to himself, and wanted nothing for it from others, then see above "free will". However, Rossi has made his claim to others in an attempt to get something from them. Therefore Rossi has now incurred a responsibility of proof to all he has made the claim to, which is the public writ large, not just some secret mythical customers. Rossi's evasion of this responsibility is fraudulent, and sociopathic. Rossi has made a claim, and therefore has incurred ownership of it. Presentation of proof can be accepted or not by those he presents it to. They retain right of refusal. He retains responsibility to reasonably satisfy proof of his claim. Any reasonable objection does not cause a shift in roles (as Kite sees it), where the doubter is now an accuser, and thus incurs responsibility to prove guilt, under the principle of innocent without evidence. Kite wants to say that the primacy of the claim is invalidated as soon as someone says the proof is lacking. That the primacy now shifts to an accusation made by the observer. This is not true. The fruit of the poison tree (slightly misapplied term here), does not become the responsibility of the party that is handling it. It is ultimately the responsibility of he who planted and grew the tree.

I fully understand that Kite does not think Rossi has something. I also fully understand that Kite's argument that Rossi has nothing to prove is wrong.
Kite has been shown this, and is now at the point that he is reduced to direct insults and ignoring the argument at all. He started with just ignoring proof that Rossi had lied both on the topic at hand, and in the past. I will say that Kite has never said Rossi's proofs were adequate, but he also claims that they do not need to be. That is wrong.

So I would say at this point that Kite has thrown in the towel in defeat, and fully expect another round of insults instead of clear thinking.

He has dug his whole deep enough that all he can do now is swear about it.

[stefanbanev]

You guys characterize KMs position rather incorrectly. I'll admit, from reading all these posts that he appears to like pulling your chains on this subject (perhaps an easy thing to do?) but his position is both simple and, for the most part, logic oriented.

I would disagree. Kite is attempting to argue via two methods. One is based in "free will". The idea that we are beholden to none. That is all well and good until you start trying to get things from others......

>That is all well and good until you start trying to get things from others.

Rossi has claimed to posses the tech available today for testing for fellows who would like to get in some commercial arrangement; it is really difficult to scum along such agenda. IF someone has failed to have a proper benchmarking of tech claimed to be available for testing today before investing THEN such "bright" investor deserves to loose money; I call it "money flow along IQ gradient - (MFAIQG)". The scum-setup "claimed to be available for testing before investment" can not last long since it is really a small fraction of curve-bell from pool of investors who may be so foolish to feed such scummy enterprise. In some respect such "cleaning" is quite useful - idiots must not manage money and if it has happened they DO then any procedure assisting MFAIQG is useful (from my perspective). Apparently "skeptics" are not potential investors so they may not have an access to the tech to have an informed opinion. Rossi' public demonstrations and the latest "undependable" testing is probably the result of his ego backed-up by some rationals why it may be useful at some extent for the business - once it's not black&white then why do not get some fame along...

[chrismb]

I have no problem with anyone "thinking" he is lying as long as they don't present it as FACT. I think there is a good chance he is lying myself. But I keep running into folk who "know" he is lying and present their "lots and lots of nothing" as "proof". Please, put up, or shut up.

The issue is that it is apparent Rossi must be lying about something.

KSA's argument that Rossi is at leisure to mislead about whatever he wants to mislead about in a bid to keep his own secrecy/business interests/whatever is, in itself, sound. It is also correct that folks who complain about it can go swivel as far as he is concerned.

But the KSA argument demanding proof of him lying is unsound, for the following reasons:

If one were to state one day that they had never done 'A' before, and the next they say they have always done 'A' on a daily basis, to then argue that they are not being deceptive would seem misconceived.

It is plain that an observer may not be able to prove 'which' it is, but that does not exclude the conclusion that 'one of' such statements is a deception.

An example: Rossi claims that 50 kg of lead surrounds the secret sauce and that this turns 'all' of the "50 to 200keV" gamma rays into heat so that there are no 'noxious' radiations (his words). This is clearly flawed somewhere - one can see that a 50kg shield of lead surrounding a cylindrical volume 300mm long and 300mm circumference would be ~27mm thick.

In that range, the half value layer for lead is around the 0.3 to 0.5mm range. Take the smaller. So his assembly of 1MW worth of reactors would put out some 6W of gamma rays past the shields. For 100keV rays, this amounts to an equivalent 'radiation source' of some 10,000 Curies.

A 10,000 Curie source is NOT a safe prospect! So either;
it does not make that much energy, or
it does not make gamma rays, or
it is not a safe device with 'zero noxious radiations', or ... whatever.

Something doesn't click. One does not need to know if it is one thing or another. It is irrelevant for the purpose, and to tease apart each possibility and say 'prove that' is nonsense.

The other 'doh' about the supposed lead shield is that he exhibits photographs of his system reaching not only red-hot temperatures, but seemingly approaching white-hot. So not only has Rossi discovered this new fusion technique that can displace litres of steam per second without causing a fast gas flow down a half inch pipe, but he has also discovered a way to avoid lead melting when it is red-hot!

[stefanbanev]

>The issue is that it is apparent Rossi must be lying about something.

What importance of your perception of "Rossi lying" is...? very little... it is an issue for you but hardly an "issue" for Rossi; ~only perception of people having access to tech is relevant (see my post above)...

[KitemanSA]

>>=chrismb
::=me
============
>>The issue is that it is apparent Rossi must be lying about something.
:: This is what I want proof of. Show me the lie.
============
>>KSA's argument that Rossi is at leisure to mislead about whatever he wants to mislead about in a bid to keep his own secrecy/business interests/whatever is, in itself, sound. It is also correct that folks who complain about it can go swivel as far as he is concerned.
:: Actually, I think I said he is under no obligation to educate you out of your confusion. There is no onus on him to show you anything more than he wants to.
============
>>But the KSA argument demanding proof of him lying is unsound, for the following reasons:

If one were to state one day that they had never done 'A' before, and the next they say they have always done 'A' on a daily basis, to then argue that they are not being deceptive would seem misconceived.

It is plain that an observer may not be able to prove 'which' it is, but that does not exclude the conclusion that 'one of' such statements is a deception.
:: I don't even care that you prove WHICH is true or false. Just show me where HE said something contradictory that isn't a simple matter is sloppy language or "forward thinking" statements not coming true.
============
>>An example: Rossi claims that 50 kg of lead surrounds the secret sauce and that this turns 'all' of the "50 to 200keV" gamma rays into heat so that there are no 'noxious' radiations (his words). This is clearly flawed somewhere - one can see that a 50kg shield of lead surrounding a cylindrical volume 300mm long and 300mm circumference would be ~27mm thick.
:: Show me this statement. Where does he say this? Was he talking about 50kg per individual ECat or total for the 100ish ECats per 1MW installation? This would be fairly incontrovertible "proof of a lie" if he actually claims to have 50kg of lead around EACH ECat. ... ... ... Then again, there was that large wrapper around each working ECat, so maybe there was room in there. Hmmm.
============
>>In that range, the half value layer for lead is around the 0.3 to 0.5mm range. Take the smaller. So his assembly of 1MW worth of reactors would put out some 6W of gamma rays past the shields. For 100keV rays, this amounts to an equivalent 'radiation source' of some 10,000 Curies.
:: My recollection is that he said that he thinks that something in the system turns gammas into soft Xrays which get stopped by a thin lead shield.
============
>>A 10,000 Curie source is NOT a safe prospect! So either;
it does not make that much energy, or
it does not make gamma rays, or
it is not a safe device with 'zero noxious radiations', or ... whatever.

Something doesn't click. One does not need to know if it is one thing or another. It is irrelevant for the purpose, and to tease apart each possibility and say 'prove that' is nonsense.
:: Ok, I get it. You know all physics and since you don't see HOW it can work, it obviously can't... QED.

Sorry, I don't buy that you are omniscient. Your opinion that it can't work holds no more sway than Dan's opinion that "it can't work cuz the reaction is endothermic". I will accept that you probably have a better training to hold a valid opinion on the matter than Dan, but new phenomena are discovered every day. Nor is it really necessary that a person know WHY something is happening. It really is only important THAT it is happening. Indeed, he may just be flat out WRONG about "no noxious radiations". Maybe he just can't read the meter and is frying himself as we speak.

But saying that something IS NOT HAPPENING because you don't see how is not logical. Saying something new and strange IS HAPPENING despite a lack of unimpeachable demonstrations is also not logical. Basically, anyone who is NOT on the fence on this is NOT LOGICAL. They have not come to a rational conclusion, they have rationalized the conclusion they have jumped to.
============
>>The other 'doh' about the supposed lead shield is that he exhibits photographs of his system reaching not only red-hot temperatures, but seemingly approaching white-hot. So not only has Rossi discovered this new fusion technique that can displace litres of steam per second without causing a fast gas flow down a half inch pipe, but he has also discovered a way to avoid lead melting when it is red-hot!
:: Different machine entirely. Haven't seen any discussion on the radiation effects or shielding of the "hot-cat" But applying the descriptions of the ECat to the hot-cat seems a bit disingenuous.

[chrismb]

:: Show me this statement. Where does he say this? Was he talking about 50kg per individual ECat or total for the 100ish ECats per 1MW installation? This would be fairly incontrovertible "proof of a lie" if he actually claims to have 50kg of lead around EACH ECat.

Mats Lewan
Publicerad 18 mars 2011 13:461 kommentar

The time was not enough when the Italian engineer Andrea Rossi met Ny Teknik's readers in a live chat about his 'energy catalyzer' last week. Therefore, we sent him another 36 of the readers' questions – and here are the answers.

Mats Carlsson: Hi, How many kilograms of lead is used in one energy catalyst chamber, reg. gamma protection ?

Rossi: About 50 kg