10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[raphael]

chrismb says:

"He should say .... I haven't got the foggiest how it works! I strapped it together and noticed that it produced energy."

Maybe Rossi wanted to do this (but instead some smart feller convinced him he needed to throw in some "theory stuff" to pacify the peanut gallery...).

[chrismb]

Maybe Rossi wanted to do this (but instead some smart feller convinced him he needed to throw in some "theory stuff" to pacify the peanut gallery...).

Why stick his theory into the patent as well, then? If he thinks examiners are 'peanut gallery' types [whatever that means, but it sounds pejorative] then he'll get his comeuppance soon enough.

The moment someone buys one of his 'reactors' as an outright commercial purchase is the moment he has lost commercial control of his special-soup pixie dust. The pixie dust is what he should be patenting, not a metal tube and a pile of cockamamie theory. I just don't get what he's about. It all looks so wrong. Makes no sense.

I guess one only has to make enough sense to enough people prepared to part with their cash, and thus the world turns....?

[raphael]

chrismb says:

"Why stick his theory into the patent as well, then? If he thinks examiners are 'peanut gallery' types [whatever that means, but it sounds pejorative] then he'll get his comeuppance soon enough."

I couldn't agree with you more regarding this point. Lay out what you have IN THE PATENT APPLICATION, don't try to dress it up with mumbo jumbo, and let the chips fall where they may.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fell ... poonerisms

[Giorgio]

Giorgio says:

"We are just rebutting arguments from people claiming that there are already evidences that Rossi device is working without any doubt and there is no need of further investigations."

This is total and outrageous BS.

When challenged to give an example of even one such person making such a claim, Giorgio cannot and attempts, instead, to change the subject.

You and Axil are two of such persons.
Now, how does this adds something usefull to the discussion?

[raphael]

[quote="Giorgio"][quote="raphael"]Giorgio says:

[raphael]

Giorgio says:

"We are just rebutting arguments from people claiming that there are already evidences that Rossi device is working without any doubt and there is no need of further investigations."

This is total and outrageous BS.

When challenged to give an example of even one such person making such a claim, Giorgio cannot and attempts, instead, to change the subject.

You and Axil are two of such persons.
Now, how does this adds something usefull to the discussion?

How's this for adding something useful: You, sir, are a cad and a liar.

Now, where's that link that even remotely suggests that I said what you allege that I said?

[Giorgio]

Helius says:

"No. It isn't a prerequisite. The request for cash is the attempt to 'close' (in salesmanship parlance) the scam, at least for that 'investor'."

So, it's a definite scam already because Rossi "might" at some future date attempt to close a deal?

At some future date, pigs "might" also fly.

More outrageous BS.....

He is not stating that, he is stating something different.
Try to read it again without bias.

Additionally, there is the "quote" button on the top o the reply window. Use it if you want to quote someone, otherwise it becomes difficult to follow your posts.

[Giorgio]

How's this for adding something useful: You, sir, are a cad and a liar.

Now, where's that link that even remotely suggests that I said what you allege that I said?

Explain your position than and possibly without adding petty comments as no one really cares about those here.

[raphael]

How's this for adding something useful: You, sir, are a cad and a liar.

Now, where's that link that even remotely suggests that I said what you allege that I said?

Explain your position than and possbily without adding petty comments, no one really cares about those here.

Give it up, Giorgio. You made a patently false statement regarding my position which you can't back up; and, you're now trying to obfuscate the matter. Do you not realize how obvious this is?

Moreover, this is an unfortunate syndrome for you...

[Giorgio]

How's this for adding something useful: You, sir, are a cad and a liar.

Now, where's that link that even remotely suggests that I said what you allege that I said?

Explain your position than and possbily without adding petty comments, no one really cares about those here.

Give it up, Giorgio. You made a patently false statement regarding my position which you can't back up; and, you're now trying to obfuscate the matter. Do you not realize how obvious this is?

Moreover, this is an unfortunate syndrome for you...

And what is your position? Maybe you didn't realize, but no one here really understood it. Enlighten us, please.

[tomclarke]

double post deleted

[tomclarke]

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.

Absolutely. Rossi claims his 1MW plant will be lots of what he now has. In which case all that would be needed to convince me & others would be just one of those units, in place, making power continuously over a few weks.

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.

No-one on this board is saying it cannot possibly work. we are saying, like real levitation, that it would be very extraordinary for it to work, and so we don't view this as remotely likley without extraordinarily good evidence.

I am saying (not sure about others) that the evidence Rossi has provided so far, although superficially impressive, is in fact not even good. Just as we can all be fooled by a good magician so it is easy to overestimate the validation from this set of experiments.

I think that you and others treat Rossi CF differently from levitation, because you can imagine some theory (muons etc) that would make CF work, and you have not the same confidence in a theory (Mach effect etc) that would make levitation work.

I would agree that (true, non-magnetic) levitation is even more unlikely than CF. But you seem to be saying that even though CF is very unlikely, whenever somone claims CF the rational approach is to say nothing about whether the claims are likely for as long as the evidence provided is weak. There are lots of people in the wider world taking these tests as strong evidence that Rossi some new long-term power source. Including Essen!

There are things that would convince me this was indeed likely. For example, a good experiment with careful independent checks. But not the quality of evidence so far.

I think some here are arguing that a much lower standard of evidence is needd here to move a rational assesment to "likely" because CF is a plausible, though not understood, mechanism for the claimed results. I would argue against that.

It is not boolean proof/no proof. It is about what quality of proof is needed when the claims are extremely unlikely. Which means that how unlikely are the claims must matter.

In this case they are not just unlikely because it is difficult to find a workable CF mechanism. It is because all the other facts around the Rossi demos seem to go against any such mechanism. And if there is no CF mechanism, and the demos show ED way above chemical, we have something like free energy. That is as intrinsically unlikely as Mach Effect. (Indeed Mach effect would allow free energy).

I would of course be ecstatic if Rossi demo'd a working reactor - it would be exciting not just for the usefulness but because the theory would be interesting.

Best wishes, Tom

[chrismb]

I would of course be ecstatic if Rossi demo'd a working reactor

I'd be as miserable as heck, because it'd give succor to those that think this kind of 'approach' is a genuine attempt at introducing new tech into the public eye. Can't you imagine how insufferable these types of advocates would be in the future with any new tech of equally dubious demonstrations? It'd be a conman's charter! It'd be the classic mock auction con writ large where they flog you something genuine in the first few lots, then pull you into a pile of shyte later on.

So long as he keeps all his pixie dust and potions secret whilst still trying to claim 'blagging rights' in public, I hope he fails. Once he has made an enabling disclosure, then I will commute that to hoping it works and he gets full credit for it.

[rcain]

Isotopic concentrations in Rossi experiments.

I'm doing this myself - please ignore other stuff above.

Rossi claims to use 64Ni, 62Ni enriched nickel, says that these work, 58Ni, 60Ni do not.

This is from comments on the Rossi blog
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 2#comments
April 8th Rossi unambiguously states that he enriches.

Frankly, reading these comments, you get the impression Rossi is a major BSer, and says this because it is what he needs to get stable Cu from proton capture, his claimed mechanism. But leave that aside. If he is not lying, then this is what he has found.

Enriching for 64Ni (1%) & 62Ni (3%) will make his powder a good deal more expensive - leave that aside.

it seems implausible that slow neutron capture would be much higher cross section for 62Ni, 64Ni when compared with 58Ni, 60Ni - leave that aside. Perhaps someone has these cross sections?

If slow neutron capture is the mechanism, as proposed by W-L:

64Ni + n -> 65Ni + gamma
65Ni -> 65Cu + beta (2.5 hour lifetime)

62Ni+n -> 63Ni +gamma
63Ni -> 63Cu + beta (100 year lifetime)


Natural abundance (also ratio found in measured Rossi ash)
63Cu (70%)
65Cu (30%)

There is no way the 63Cu ash can appear over 3 months due to the long lifetime of 63Ni.

Also, these reactions would make ash highly radioactive after 5 hours (Rossi claims not)

Also, the residual 63Ni would make the ash radioactive even after months. this was not detected by the Swedish people who were given an ash sample.

It is what I mean about CF holes. When you look in detail about what might happen given some miracle nuclear mechanism you find nothing like what you should have. On contrary, you find no radioactivity, isotopic concentrations as naturally ocurring, etc.

Best wishes, Tom

... so... back to the grist...

thanks for that summary Tom.

i was considering trying to do that myself.

however, i was actually more interested in a side-by-side comparison of the isotope inventory of Piantelli, with that of say Miley, (since Miley suggests his own results showed pretty good correlation wth WL-theory predictions).

i'm aware there are significant differences in their methods (and that is something else i wanted to look at). however, the approaches, indeed the whole (ULEN, Lattice, CF...) LENR field seem to indicate some strikingly similar phenomenon at work. it is also supprisingly well researched, notwithstanding the numerous scams and debacles on the way.

i specifically wanted to ignore Rossi's results, since they are unreliable and imprecise.

i have a link to a paper from Miley that looks promising - does anyone have a link to a definitive paper by Piantelli? also, i cant get hold of the original WL-theory paper - anyone got a copy?

maybe i'm barking up the wrong tree, but i'm interested. (Ultra Low Energy Neutrons - very tantilising)

thanks

[Giorgio]

i cant get hold of the original WL-theory paper - anyone got a copy?

I do have the link to it at the office. I will try to log in the backoffice and get it for you.

maybe i'm barking up the wrong tree, but i'm interested. (Ultra Low Energy Neutrons - very tantilising)

thanks

Tantalizing yes but, as you will see from the paper, they had to make all type of assumptions and semplifications to get to the final model.
As we all know, the possibility of a theory being validated is inversely proportional to the number of "if" that they place in the theory itself