10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[tomclarke]

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.

Yet I don't notice anyone ripping Edison a new one and calling him a scammer even though he did no science, just development and invention.

Edison is famous now because his lightbulbs were replicable. And worked.

[Giorgio]

Anybody want to comment on the suggestion that the "internal heater" is in fact a system to create the W-L ULMN thingees?

I do not see how it could.
You need to have a laser or something equivalent to create enough non-equilibrium on the metallic hydride to give rise to the formation of the higher mass electrons and, in turn, of the low momentum neutrons.

[KitemanSA]

Of course it might work, no one here claimed that we know for sure that it does not work.

There are a LARGE number of people who have stated clearly that this is a scam, period, end of story. They are stating it does not work, period, end of story. Your statement above is mistaken.

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 completely wrong.

Please show me anyone (except maybe axil) who is making that statement. I have seen a lot of "there is evidence but we wont know until" and some "a number of otherwise reliable witnesses have made statements about its function the supports it working" and other such PLAUSIBILITY supporting statements. Indeed, Ive seen a number of retorts against folks who state that such things "CAN'T HAPPEN"... All the "without doubt" seems to be coming from the "its a scam" side, not the "well, maybe not", side.

What we know now is just that something might be happening.
If it is due to a mistake in experimental procedures, a willing fraud or if it is real is something that NO one can say right now.

My opinion so far is that the evidences are not in favour of Rossi.

You know that statement about opinions. They are like a$$holes, everyone has one and only your own smells sweet!

No experimental setup.

Not an experiment.

No experimental procedures.

IBID

No independent verification.

Define "independant". Does someone who comes in from the outside and winds up supporting Rossi's claims loose their "independance"? If so, there can NEVER be any "independant" verification. If not, there seems to already have been some.

No communication with critics.

What little I've read about his blog suggests he communicates with critics regularly. He just wont comment about "experimenal methods" since he isn't doing public experiments. If I were such a critic, I guess I'd just have to lump it!

Anyhow, I am still waiting to see a test done in a scientific way before judging him.

Good luck. I am just waiting for a demonstration to be unambiguous.

[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.

thanks Giorgio, i would very much appreciate that.

It should be this one:
http://iris.lib.neu.edu/cgi/viewcontent ... s_fac_pubs

[MSimon]

OK. Dissolved oxygen:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dissolvedoxygen.html

Let us assume 10 mg per liter. Is that enough to produce 4 KW when used to burn hydrogen? Perhaps one of our chemical engineering friends would like to give it a shot? I could do it but it has been rather a while.

[Axil]

Part2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD81qF-cIIc&NR=1


Now, this is interesting:

The guy (a patent attorney) asks why in the patent there is no mention of the catalyst, while he now states that there is a catalyst. The guy next points out that IF there is a catalyst and the catalyst is not disclosed into the patent than the patent will be null and void and cannot be enforced.
(surprise surprise)

Levi reply: I used the term catalyst as a material, but we are talking about the same "object", let me call it an object and I know it exists because Rossi declares that it exists, even if I never cared to check what this object is made of.
(He switched from the word catalyst (intended as a chemical material) to the word catalyst intended as an object that acts as a catalyst.)

The next guy states that he is puzzled by the issue that Prof. Levi believes Rossi without caring to know what the catalyst is.
Prof Levi declares that he does not care because he saw the machine working, so he really does not care about what the catalyst is or is made of.

I humbly ask the experts in patent law that frequent this thread to share their judgment about the intellectual property protection afforded a “method” of catalytic activity that is provided as opposed to the catalyst as a “material”.

More specifically, “my current theory of catalytic spill over activity” in operation as the active agent in the Rossi reactor is the production of negative hydrogen clustered ions using electrical and/or activation of graphite possibly coated with a low work function electron emitter and/or hydride host such as cesium or lithium.

Is such a mechanism protected as intellectually protected property without specific disclosure of its existence and explanation of its operation?

[tomclarke]

Define "independant". Does someone who comes in from the outside and winds up supporting Rossi's claims loose their "independance"? If so, there can NEVER be any "independant" verification. If not, there seems to already have been some.

Independent => somone who checks for themselves, does not accept anything given by Rossi (Essen states he is not, in this sense, independent).

Credible => somone who checks every aspect of experiment carefully for possible errors. No-one has done this properly yet, though some aspects of the experiment have been checked.

Without credible, independent, observation the demos are worth only posts on intenet forums. Like all those other CF experiments with interesting results...

[cg66]

Oh. The sarcasm was much deeper than you admit.

Replication is the essence of science.

Yet I don't notice anyone ripping Edison a new one and calling him a scammer even though he did no science, just development and invention.

Edison is famous now because his lightbulbs were replicable. And worked.

True but did Edison's company wait for replication of long-lasting filaments by third parties to start commercialization?

[tomclarke]

Part2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD81qF-cIIc&NR=1


Now, this is interesting:

The guy (a patent attorney) asks why in the patent there is no mention of the catalyst, while he now states that there is a catalyst. The guy next points out that IF there is a catalyst and the catalyst is not disclosed into the patent than the patent will be null and void and cannot be enforced.
(surprise surprise)

Levi reply: I used the term catalyst as a material, but we are talking about the same "object", let me call it an object and I know it exists because Rossi declares that it exists, even if I never cared to check what this object is made of.
(He switched from the word catalyst (intended as a chemical material) to the word catalyst intended as an object that acts as a catalyst.)

The next guys states that he is puzzled by the issue that Prof. Levi believes Rossi without caring to know what the catalyst is.
Prof Levi declares that he does not care because he saw the machine working, so he really does not care about what the catalyst is or is made of.

I humbly ask the experts in patent law that frequent this thread to share their judgment about the intellectual property protection afforded a “method” of catalytic activity that is provided as opposed to the catalyst as a “material”.

More specifically, “my current theory of catalytic spill over activity” in operation as the active agent in the Rossi reactor is the production of negative hydrogen clustered ions using electrical activation of graphite possibly coated with a low work function electron emitter such as cesium or lithium.

Is such a mechanism protected as intellectually protected property without specific disclosure of its existence and explanation of its operation?

No, not unless there is a replicable by others procedure for acheiving this catalysis. It would have to have stated merit independent of the undisclosed material.

And patent examiners don't care about theories.

If, for example, it was stated to increase reaction efficiency for a range of materials (which could include the secret catalyst) that would be OK providing it was described properly and non-obvious.

[tomclarke]

Edison is famous now because his lightbulbs were replicable. And worked.

True but did Edison's company wait for replication of long-lasting filaments by third parties to start commercialization?

We are all agreed that if Rossi has commercialisable energy production, he is the bees knees.

Where we disagree is the liklihood of this happenning based on current info.

Certainly what has currently been demoed is not commercial.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

To save time I simply did a google search for replicated experiments. There are very many more references of course.

Try
http://www.scribd.com/doc/959393/Cold-F ... xperiments
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-prev ... ze=largest
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPI ... Report.pdf

[KitemanSA]

Yet I don't notice anyone ripping Edison a new one and calling him a scammer even though he did no science, just development and invention.

Edison is famous now because his lightbulbs were replicable. And worked.

So will Rossi take his place beside Edison? We'll have to wait and see, no?

[cg66]

Edison is famous now because his lightbulbs were replicable. And worked.

True but did Edison's company wait for replication of long-lasting filaments by third parties to start commercialization?

We are all agreed that if Rossi has commercialisable energy production, he is the bees knees.

Where we disagree is the liklihood of this happenning based on current info.

Certainly what has currently been demoed is not commercial.

Bees knees? Who says that? - just kidding. I agree with your points (and not sure how i got put in one a group of "we" that isn't your group of "we" -and I'm not sure i want a label at this point). I would love Rossi's device to be true. Am i as skeptical as some probably not but i am still skeptical. So until November i'll keep watching.

[MSimon]

Scam?

In the audio transcript there are claims of $200 million in investment money available and the investors are happy.

Now suppose only .1% has been actually committed? $200,000. Why haven't they used some of that cash to better instrument the demo?

And why Greece? Well they have the advantage of being desperate. Desperate men will grasp at straws.

[MSimon]

cg66,

Prediction - come October/November there will "minor difficulties" (supply? construction? something else?) that will delay construction for 6 months.

The delays will continue until interest and money go away.