10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[parallel]

TallDave

but I'd be betting that over the long term these kinds of devices will tend to mysteriously stop producing energy.

Rossi claims to have had an E-Cat running for at least two years. He claims that they need to be refueled every six months.

Seems to me that proof of fraud needs to be as well documented as proof of working. No one here has yet seen enough proof to believe the device is real, beyond all doubt, yet the evidence for it being real is significantly greater than that it is all a fraud.

That it can't be explained by standard physics is no proof of anything.

[Giorgio]

Seems to me that proof of fraud needs to be as well documented as proof of working. No one here has yet seen enough proof to believe the device is real, beyond all doubt, yet the evidence for it being real is significantly greater than that it is all a fraud.

The only evidence of it being real are the one that has been offered to us by Rossi, and hence their value is quite limited/useless.

[Tech]

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 166552.ece
Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer

[Giorgio]

As I said before, these are interesting experiments, but they do not solve the main issues at stake here.

Correct measurements of mass flow, generated heat and consumed power can be easily verified with 300 euro worth of equipment.
Until that will be done all sort of willing/unwilling errors and mistakes can be considered, and this will reduce/nullify the value of these experiments.

Additionally, on march 29 the COP was 15, now in these last two experiments the COP is 8, which is not so exceptional as before IMHO.

[parallel]

Giorgio

The only evidence of it being real are the one that has been offered to us by Rossi, and hence their value is quite limited/useless.

Apart from the most recent tests by Ny Teknik mentioned above, it is not just Rossi. Why do you discount the various professors and engineers who have witnessed the tests? You seem to assume that they are all gullible and only someone more expert like you could detect trickery.

You obviously have not yet followed the link in the post above your most recent one. Further, what proof do you offer that it is fraudulent?

[chrismb]

Seems to me that proof of fraud needs to be as well documented as proof of working. ...

That it can't be explained by standard physics is no proof of anything.

This isn't how science works. Period.

The Scientific Method works by presenting enough information that the same experiment could be repeated by anyone, anywhere or at any future date, no guesses, no supposition, the requirement is that the self-same experiment can be repeated and the self-same results obtained.

Anything less is not science.

[chrismb]

Why do you discount the various professors and engineers who have witnessed the tests?

Because they are unwise in participating in something that purports to be 'scientific' but clearly isn't. And it would be unwise to put your trust and faith in the unwise.

[Giorgio]

Apart from the most recent tests by Ny Teknik mentioned above, it is not just Rossi. Why do you discount the various professors and engineers who have witnessed the tests?

To have professors and engineers witnessing an experiment were dubious standards of quality are implemented adds little to the main point which is to FIX those elements to reduces experimental errors.
Not understanding this issue means not understanding the vary basics of the scientific method.
Enough to say that, in the article linked above by Tech, those very same professors and engineers are stating:

At this point precise measurement is crucial if credibility in the process under study is to be established.

Looks like they do agree with me.

You obviously have not yet followed the link in the post above your most recent one.

If you actually took the care to read what I wrote you will find that not only I did follow it, but I pointed out yet another issue in them.
In the March 29th experiment we have a COP of 15.
In the April 19/28 experiments we have a COP of 8.

It looks like on every new test they make we have different results.

Further, what proof do you offer that it is fraudulent?

I am not saying is fraudulent the same way I am not saying is credible.
What I am stating is that to judge these experiments you need to do them in a scientific way. Until that will be done you can have all sort of errors popping in and making you believe something while something else is happening in reality.

Unless a proper scientific method will be applied to these experiments they will prove nothing and just add confusion.

[Giorgio]

Seems to me that proof of fraud needs to be as well documented as proof of working. ...

That it can't be explained by standard physics is no proof of anything.

This isn't how science works. Period.

The Scientific Method works by presenting enough information that the same experiment could be repeated by anyone, anywhere or at any future date, no guesses, no supposition, the requirement is that the self-same experiment can be repeated and the self-same results obtained.

Anything less is not science.

Perfectly expressed!

[parallel]

chrismb,
You miss the point. The objective was a demonstration that the E-Cat works. As Rossi said, MIT (or you) can buy an E-Cat later this year and do all the validation you desire. He is not about to divulge the inner workings before having patent protection or possibly having to keep it a trade secret if the patent office continues to refuse to grant patents about cold fusion.

You and Georgio need proof in stating that it doesn't work and implying that Rossi is a fraud, or what you write is libelous. Your opinions, without anything to back them up, are worth less than the demonstrations you criticize.

[rcain]

Seems to me that whilst there remains as yet no definitive technical data to support the issue either way, the balance of the weight of evidence is slowly tipping in Focardi-Rossi's direction.

Assuming no foul play, the order of magnitude of result so far obtained are highly significant, far outweighing likely error factors.

What becomes less doubtful is the 'fact' that the thing actually works! The fact that NO ONE, nor Focardi or Rossi themselves, knows actually HOW it works, is another question.

The companies who have recently placed orders for these devices shall surely have something to say on the matter if the machines dont work. Assuming no foul play there too, I am sure of that.

The issue of 'repeatability' remains, as does the issue of 'full transparency'.

As I recall the last attempt at 'indpendent replication, failed and was much flawed in any case. 'Nuances' of the device were to blame, and we are only to 'believe' that these have now been ironed out.

So some further 'fully independent' attempt(S) at replication, would seem appropriate. I await with anticipation.

More worrying for me was the refusal to allow full spectrum radiation anaylsis around and throughout the device. Some doubtful grounds were given at the time. Though I see since that Focardi-Rossi claim to have performed some radiation tests themselves (using asymetric slits) to try and support an early beta decay model in order to explain things.

Certainly not good enough yet.

Rapidly getting to the stage where better professional management of the whole excersize should be bought in, imho. Focardi and Rossi themselves are getting rapidly out of their depth, when it comes to taking such a thing to market, or indeed to the scientific community.

Only full transparency of their method, plus multiple succesful replications elsewhere will truly make this thing astonishing, and bring them the reputation, hopefuly they deserve.

That has to be their aiming point from here on, otherwise they can only go downhill and into obscurity. If public disclosure and patent law cannot grant that at least, all is futile. If they cannot see the sense in such a course, their honesty must be bought into (further!) question.

[parallel]

Remember your previous criticisms?

Ny Teknik reported:

In the new tests, Ny Teknik aimed to reduce measurement uncertainty in three ways:

1. The ammeter used to measure the input current, from which the total power consumption is calculated, were calibrated by us against other instruments.

2. Total water-flow input was measured by weighing.

3. By calibrating the temperature-sensor probe in boiling water, we have as far as possible ensured that there is only vapor at the outlet of the energy catalyzer.

The last point has been discussed intensively. To assess developed energy, it’s essential that all the water flowing into the energy catalyzer evaporates, given that the phase change – evaporating water into steam – requires much more energy than mere heating.

Shortly before the test on April 28, we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade.

The probe, which sits just below the outlet of the energy catalyzer, later during the test showed temperatures of about 100.5 degrees centigrade.

Therefore it cannot reasonably be in contact with water, thus there should be only water vapor (steam) at the outlet.

Alternatively, the probe is subjected to other heating, but probably not electrical as the temperature curve during start-up is quite uneven.

During the April 28 test, we also checked the steam flow through the outlet hose regularly. Some steam was reasonably being condensed back into water in the three-meter-long tube that was exposed to air and was thus at a slightly lower temperature, and a small amount of water was observed coming out of the hose.

The amount of water coming out before boiling was clearly larger, and this was initially measured.

We also controlled all other equipment and checked that there were no hidden connections from the floor or walls.

To safely exclude the transfer of external wireless energy, we measured electromagnetic fields from 5 Hz to 3 GHz. No increase could be noted except for a slight increase at the power-grid frequency of 50 Hz, close to the electrical resistor positioned around the reactor.

[Giorgio]

You and Georgio need proof in stating that it doesn't work and implying that Rossi is a fraud, or what you write is libelous. Your opinions, without anything to back them up, are worth less than the demonstrations you criticize.

We need not to bring any proof because we are not implying anything except that the experiment are done without a correct scientific method and no replication has been made by an independent researcher. This is already proven and clear to everyone.
Either you do not know the meaning of the word libel or you do not understand what we are writing.

[Giorgio]

Remember your previous criticisms?

Ny Teknik reported:

......snipped.....

You forgot to quote their most important statement:

At this point precise measurement is crucial if credibility in the process under study is to be established.

[parallel]

Giorgio,

You forgot to quote their most important statement:

Quote:
At this point precise measurement is crucial if credibility in the process under study is to be established.

So, what is wrong with Ni Teknik's trials?
That they didn't check for unobtainium in the insulation?
It couldn't be that the E-Cat actually works.