10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[MSimon]

My point I suppose is merely to point out that the universe is a strange place

I'm looking for a method to transmute amanita muscaria into toads. Where in your strange universe can I find such a method? Probably in a galaxy far far away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oma9uPz9YYk

I must have those plans.

Edited for a better YouTube.

[marvin57]

I say, no, no and NO again, a zillion times. This is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT how to form a theory. One starts with ALL the information inputs, then draws conclusions ON THOSE.

The totally exact and unchallengeable point is that, even from a stand point that Rossi's data is OK, why jump to a conclusion of nuclear origin. Maybe it is neither chemical nor nuclear.

Does it matter, if it produces energy?

Does it matter if the theory is unknown if a machine works?

Belay that ... sure it matters for the advancement of science, but that is not the thrust of it is it? We don't know the science, and neither I would suggest does Rossi.

But IF it works, and produces energy, it still works, and we still have the energy ... even if no-one does happen to know the science of it.

Suppose a mystic claims to have witnessed human levitation. He has conducted a number of (flawed because not controlled) demos to friendly scientists. He has a large set of people who believe the levitation is truly happenning, demonstrates it daily in a theatre to the wonder of the audience.

Applying your logic, you would reckon lack of a theory should not make us skeptical.

Not at all ... scepticism is great ... but on the same hand denial in the face of facts is downright silly. So the point stands, IF it works, and produces energy, it still works, and we still have the energy ... even if no-one does happen to know the science of it.

If it doesn't work, then the status quo remains. Every person on this forum is out exactly $0.00.

We don't know yet if it works or if it doesn't. Rossi is supposed to be building a one megawatt plant, and if that works then to my mind that is a convincing demonstration that it does work.

Until that fails, what is the point in screaming insistence that Rossi's e-cat cannot possibly work? If it does work you will look very silly. If it doesn't work ... what have you achieved? You can get to say "I told you so" and I will say, "Yes, indeed you did". Whoopee.

[marvin57]

My point I suppose is merely to point out that the universe is a strange place

I'm looking for a method to transmute amanita muscaria into toads. Where in your strange universe can I find such a method? Probably in a galaxy far far away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kMh04GooE

I must have those plans.

Haven't you understood yet? ... there are no plans. There is no theory.

This doesn't mean that it cannot work, it just means that we don't know how it could work.

[MSimon]

No plans and no theory? Well then. I'm going to get on with replication ASAP.

[MSimon]

Not at all ... scepticism is great ... but on the same hand denial in the face of facts is downright silly

And denial in the face of no facts is..........

No theory, no plans, no formula for the secret sauce. Solid my man.

Did I mention shaky evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oma9uPz9YYk

Did you hear that? They've shut down the main reactors. We'll be destroyed for sure.

[marvin57]

No plans and no theory? Well then. I'm going to get on with replication ASAP.

This sarcasm also doesn't mean that it cannot work, it just means that we don't know how it could work.

[marvin57]

Not at all ... scepticism is great ... but on the same hand denial in the face of facts is downright silly

And denial in the face of no facts is..........

No theory, no plans, no formula for the secret sauce. Solid my man.

Did I mention shaky evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oma9uPz9YYk

Did you hear that? They've shut down the main reactors. We'll be destroyed for sure.

If it does work you will look very silly. If it doesn't work ... what have you achieved? You can get to say "I told you so" and I will say, "Yes, indeed you did".

[MSimon]

No plans and no theory? Well then. I'm going to get on with replication ASAP.

This sarcasm also doesn't mean that it cannot work, it just means that we don't know how it could work.

Oh. The sarcasm was much deeper than you admit.

Replication is the essence of science.

[Giorgio]

Are you suggesting that Rossi has found a way to create Leptons on demand?

Last time I checked Muons requested energy in excess of 100 MeV to be created in lab.
And that's a lot of energy.

I suggested no such thing. I merely said that there was a actually way to overcome the Coulomb Barrier that worked at room temperature.

Well, it really adds nothing to the discussion than.
The energy required for the creation of Muons is simply too high in respect to the equipment Rossi is using.

[marvin57]

No plans and no theory? Well then. I'm going to get on with replication ASAP.

This sarcasm also doesn't mean that it cannot work, it just means that we don't know how it could work.

Oh. The sarcasm was much deeper than you admit.

Replication is the essence of science.

Agreed.

However, the lack of ability for it to be independently replicated also doesn't mean that it cannot work, it just means that we don't know how it could work.

Please note that unlike 1988 cold fusion, Rossi has produced several different e-cats for different demonstrations, and each one has apparently produced energy on demand. This is repeatability, it is just not independently verified repeatability.

[Giorgio]

Show me the peer-reviewed papers, and the repeatable experiments, wherein very high density pixie dust catalyses fusion at room temperatures.

I just released a press release on the subject. Does it counts?

2. Rossi is not asking anyone for any cash.

And who tells you that he didn't already? Are you his accountant that you know so much about his business?

[Giorgio]

I say, no, no and NO again, a zillion times. This is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT how to form a theory. One starts with ALL the information inputs, then draws conclusions ON THOSE.

The totally exact and unchallengeable point is that, even from a stand point that Rossi's data is OK, why jump to a conclusion of nuclear origin. Maybe it is neither chemical nor nuclear.

Does it matter, if it produces energy?

Does it matter if the theory is unknown if a machine works?

Belay that ... sure it matters for the advancement of science, but that is not the thrust of it is it? We don't know the science, and neither I would suggest does Rossi.

But IF it works, and produces energy, it still works, and we still have the energy ... even if no-one does happen to know the science of it.

Suppose a mystic claims to have witnessed human levitation. He has conducted a number of (flawed because not controlled) demos to friendly scientists. He has a large set of people who believe the levitation is truly happenning, demonstrates it daily in a theatre to the wonder of the audience.

Applying your logic, you would reckon lack of a theory should not make us skeptical.

Nice example.

[marvin57]

Are you suggesting that Rossi has found a way to create Leptons on demand?

Last time I checked Muons requested energy in excess of 100 MeV to be created in lab.
And that's a lot of energy.

I suggested no such thing. I merely said that there was a actually way to overcome the Coulomb Barrier that worked at room temperature.

Well, it really adds nothing to the discussion than.
The energy required for the creation of Muons is simply too high in respect to the equipment Rossi is using.

The energy required to create a Muon in the lab is in excess of 100 MeV. That amount of energy would not be available from fusion events, it is true, but it might be available, for example, if one kind of breakdown of an isotope of nickel happened to produce an anti-proton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_ant ... nihilation

"Proton-antiproton annihilation results in the emission of π mesons. On the average, ~5 pions are produced per annihilation, resulting in a mean of 3.5 gamma-ray photons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion
"The π± mesons have a mass of 139.6 MeV/c2 and a mean lifetime of 2.6×10−8 s. They decay due to the weak interaction. The primary decay mode of a pion, with probability 0.999877, is a purely leptonic decay into a muon and a muon neutrino"

One of those events could conceivably generate one or more muons (5?), each of which could conceivably catalyse thousands of fusion events.

We don't know. We don't have the physics, yet, to outright claim that "such-and-such is impossible". No such definitive statement can be made.

We don't know.

[Giorgio]

This is repeatability, it is just not independently verified repeatability.

Without independent verification you cannot claim repeatability.

[marvin57]

This is repeatability, it is just not independently verified repeatability.

Without independent verification you cannot claim repeatability.

If I can make more than one device, and each device works on demand each time I switch it on, then it is repeatable. I have repeated it.

This does not fit every single possible meaning of the word "repeatable", and I agree it does not fit the formal scientific evidence definition, but it does indeed fit a number of ordinary uses of the word "repeatable":

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&c ... d=0CCMQkQ4

It does not fit this definition: "Research is repeatable if others could do it and gain similar results and findings."

... but it does fit this definition: "the ability of a process to produce results which are essentially the same when other process parameters are held constant."

... and it also fits this definition: "In a repeatable manner, capable of being repeated"

OK, so I grant you, Rossi's demonstrations are NOT scientific research. No argument from me, I agree.

This does not mean that Rossi's devices do not work. It does not mean that they do not produce energy. It does not even mean that they do not produce fusion.