10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[KitemanSA]

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.

There seem to be a VERY few yeasayers, and large number of naysayers, and a spectrum of sceptics like you and me. I kind o wish the YSs and NSs would pipe down a bit. It is getting difficult to discuss this thing with all the yelling going on.

[GIThruster]

I can't claim to have put adequate time into the Rossi issue to be perfectly conversant about what he's doing, but I would make a couple observations.

First is, the place of skepticism in science is often misunderstood. It is a necessary part of scientific method, because science is contingent upon ruling out alternative explanations. This does not necessitate an attitude of habitual skepticism, and in fact this is just as wrong as habitual optimism. In my experience, the most emotional disagreements in these boards generally come from people arguing attitude, and the proper attitude to do science is neither optimistic nor pessimistic--it is rational. Both optimism and skepticism have integral parts to play in doing good science.

Second thing I would mention is that what Rossi is doing, does not really qualify as "science". Since he does not have an explanation for the mechanism he says he's observed, he also has no explanation for why he's built what he's built. This is the identical situation as the Searl nonsense, the Russian Searl-rippoff, the Podkletnov nonsense, and the dozens of other contrived experiments that claim to have an explanation, such as "it's ZPF" but do not in fact make such an explanation. Explanation is the heart of science. If you're not explaining, you're doing something else, like alchemy.

It's noteworthy that people tend to go with "almost explanations" much more readily that real explanations that violate our previous beliefs and noetic structure. Hence, people will more readily believe Rossi is onto something, because he's hand-waved at a possible explanation we might embrace (LENR), than they are to accept Blacklight power's explanation of a process that violates what we currently believe about the Bohr model. This despite we all know, that the history of science is mostly that of us disproving current scientific paradigms!

Tom Clark has mentioned several times that he's not familiar with any LENR experiments that have been successfully replicated, and neither am I. But if you read back to his post on the last page, and see what he's asking for, it's a shocking thing to realize these criteria he's laid out ARE satisfied by the BLP people. They DO have independent replication.

Yet, look at this forum. . .people are much, much more interested in supposed LENR than in the Blacklight process. I find that truly stunning, and a perfect example of our resistance to reexamine our current paradigms as described in Thomas Khun's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[MSimon]

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

BLP? That gets you negative replication points around here.

In this work, potassium chloride and potassium iodide salts containing a new form of hydrogen (hydrino) were synthesized.

This mysterious hydrino has been unavailable for replication outside of the "Cold Fusion" or whatever it actually is circles.

Fortunately Rossi is not using Hydrinos. Or potassium chloride or potassium iodide. So what ever was replicated was not what Rossi was doing. In so far as it is possible to tell.

[cg66]

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.

MSimon - Agree. In the mean time its fun to discuss. And if it goes that way I still have a ton to learn about Polywell.

[Giorgio]

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.

Who?

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 HAPPEN"... All the "without doubt" seems to be coming from the "its a scam" side, not the "well, maybe not", side.

Who retorted against who?
I have always claimed that there might be something there and I have stated this several times, yet no one retorted against me.
Maybe it all depends on how people express their point of view.
Or do we have to bend to the logic that science must prove itself just enough to convince the "reasonable person" and not caring to convince scientists?

Remember how much crap happened in history because someone was able to convince the "reasonable persons" about his ideas without anyone actually verifying those claims.

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!

And that's why I stated "My opinion". You can have your and I do have mine.
What's the point?

No experimental setup.

Not an experiment.

No experimental procedures.

IBID

"No experimental setup/procedures" is equivalent to say "not an experiment". Without the first you do not have the latter.

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.

Tomclarke already replied to this.

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!

Well, he did public experiments, and he made public claims.
If you do that and refuse to talk about your "experimental methods" people will start to see potential scams there.
After all the "experimental methods" are not something secret, they are just what the word says, methods.

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.

Either one or the other will suffice, even if I prefer a replication done in a scientific way.

[parallel]

tomclarke wrote:

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.

I didn't think many had read the patent that I linked on page 66
If the US patent office doesn't care about theory how come they won't consider a patent involving cold fusion?
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicat ... 44A1&KC=A1

You can see that he went after the reaction chamber first but mentions "A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyzer materials are used."

CLAIMS
1. A method for carrying out an isothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in -that said method comprises injecting hydrogen into a metal tube filled by a nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars, in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment, thereby generating energy. 2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyzer materials are used.
3. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said high temperature is preferably from 150 to 500<0>C. 4. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said nickel powder filled metal tube at a pressure preferably from 2 to 20 bars.
5. An apparatus for carrying out an exothermal reaction by a method according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a metal tube filled by a nickel powder and heated to a set temperature, hydrogen being further injected into said metal tube. 6. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder contains catalyzer materials.
7. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a non-constant pulsating pressure.
8. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said temperature is variable.
9. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube is coated, on an outside thereof, by a jacket of water and boron, or steel and boron, and by a lead layer.
10. An apparatus according to claim 9, characterized in that said lead layer is coated by a steel layer.
11. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a steel pipe therethrough a flow of water, or other fluid, is caused to flow, said steel pipe being anempted in a heat exchanging relationship with said metal tube.
12. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder is a nickel isotope powder.
13. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder is replaceable by a copper powder. 14. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said apparatus is an apparatus module susceptible to be series and/or parallel coupled with like apparatus modules.
15. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said exothermal reaction is a multiple exothermal reaction, adapted to provide different atoms depending on an amount of protons interacting with nickel nuclei.

[tomclarke]

I have looked at the BLP stuff. I do not know of replicable non-chemical effects. Of course they provide "black box" for 3rd party testing. The results of this testing showed heat generated from the black box. They did not show heat beyond that acheivable by chemical means.

BTW the guys who did this testing, Rowan, are not credible 3rd party testers. Nor are they credible chemists, and their report claiming they can't think of a chemical reaction would produce observed heat may be true but is no evidence for BLP claims.

Best wishes, Tom

[GIThruster]

Fortunately Rossi is not using Hydrinos. Or potassium chloride or potassium iodide. So what ever was replicated was not what Rossi was doing. In so far as it is possible to tell.

Quite so. I wasn't intimating that Rossi is looking at the BL process. I'm just saying, that the BLP explanation, is highly advanced, intricate and detailed and forms a serious "explanation" despite it says our current paradigm is flawed, whereas Rossi's claims of LENR do not. He has not explained the process, and given he claims he does not understand it, one is hard pressed to know why he would have built anything at all!

This is just what we see in Searl, the Searl rip-off in Russia, the dozens of magnetic motors claiming ZPF explanations--explanations that are certainly NOT explanations and do not even account for why an experiment would have been pursued.

[parallel]

MSimon wrote:

BLP? That gets you negative replication points around here.

I really don't care about that. I'm not saying I believe in Mill's theories but I don't think there is much doubt that Rowan U. replicated BLP's anomalous heat device - several times - including using materials bought independently. Follow the link if you don't believe me.

[GIThruster]

I have looked at the BLP stuff. I do not know of replicable non-chemical effects. Of course they provide "black box" for 3rd party testing. The results of this testing showed heat generated from the black box. They did not show heat beyond that acheivable by chemical means.

BTW the guys who did this testing, Rowan, are not credible 3rd party testers. Nor are they credible chemists, and their report claiming they can't think of a chemical reaction would produce observed heat may be true but is no evidence for BLP claims.

Best wishes, Tom

Well I have seen both, and the people at Rowan are credible. The NIAC grant work done about a decade ago was credible, as is the work on their reactor these last two years. Dr. Jansson had an open invite to anyone who had an interest, to examine in as much detail as they like, their replication process, and that's about as open science as one can get.

But I am not posting here about BLP. I was really posting about the nature of "explanation" inside scientific method.

[parallel]

tomclarke wrote:

BTW the guys who did this testing, Rowan, are not credible 3rd party testers. Nor are they credible chemists, and their report claiming they can't think of a chemical reaction would produce observed heat may be true but is no evidence for BLP claims.

What evidence do you have to back up your extreme claims?

I've seen plenty of the usual deniers make things up on blogs but no proof at all about what you claim.
I'm rather surprised you would pass on second-hand gossip.

[MSimon]

I have read:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPI ... Report.pdf

and in fact they do not claim replication. They do claim they have observed the same "anomalies" and go with BLP's explanation.

These results are supportive of the possibility of having lower electronic states of hydrogen.

In other words all that has been replicated is possibility.

Which is not proof of anything.

If these claims are verified then it is reasonable to envision a potentially novel and revolutionary energy source.

Conclusions

From the experimental results obtained, it can be concluded that the calorimeter system is both accurate and precise at measuring the heat evolved from a thermal decomposition of known reactants. The accuracy of the calorimeter was established with heater calibration runs, since DC current and voltage measurements and hence input power and energy measurement can be performed more accurately than chemical reactions. It was possible to provide a measure of the calorimeter accuracy using the energy generated by a known chemical reaction. All in all, the calibration runs proved that the calorimeter is accurate within one percent of the power input by a resistive heater, and the chemical control heat runs gave strong indication that there are no significant differences between heat loss mechanisms. The Rowan University team is confident that the calorimeter is very accurate, and will continue to complete calibration, control and heat runs to verify BlackLight Power’s claims.

So all that has been done is to replicate the calorimitry. Not the same as experimental verification of power production.

====

Better luck next time. Maybe there is actually a report that verifies device operation. If you know of one I'd like to see it. In the mean time I'm not going to waste my time with the other reports. I'm going to assume they are of similar quality.

Of course if you have a relevant section that proves your point (replication) post it here and I'll take a look.

So far you got nothing.

So typical.

[Giorgio]

Tom Clark has mentioned several times that he's not familiar with any LENR experiments that have been successfully replicated, and neither am I. But if you read back to his post on the last page, and see what he's asking for, it's a shocking thing to realize these criteria he's laid out ARE satisfied by the BLP people. They DO have independent replication.

Their "independent replication" was paid in advance with few hundred thousands dollars donations:
http://www.rowan.edu/provost/grants/act ... forweb.pdf

So much for the word "independent"

[MSimon]

I don't think there is much doubt that Rowan U. replicated BLP's anomalous heat device - several times

The pdf link provided

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPI ... Report.pdf

makes no such claims. You did read the report didn't you?

Updated to include the link.

[parallel]

MSimon,

In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, “In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions.”

I'll find the link to Jansson's report if it will make you happy.