10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,

There were several write ups. Perhaps you will like NyTeknik's better.

Yes, I have read also the Nyteknik articles, but they do not disclose any info that can change the previous points I stated.
Closed doors experiments and reports done by word of mouth cannot be used to give credibility to ones claims.

And even if we do want to give some credibility to this test there is still the issue of the water flow that cannot be ignored.
Without knowing the real mass flow the deltaT gives no meaningful info about the power generated.

[parallel]

Giorgio,

And even if we do want to give some credibility to this test there is still the issue of the water flow that cannot be ignored.
Without knowing the real mass flow the deltaT gives no meaningful info about the power generated.

He used a flow meter.

Therefore the flow was not constant, but by regularly noting the time and reading the input volume on a counter, he controlled the flow.

At night the counter information was recorded with a camera.

What part of the above do you not understand?

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,

And even if we do want to give some credibility to this test there is still the issue of the water flow that cannot be ignored.
Without knowing the real mass flow the deltaT gives no meaningful info about the power generated.

He used a flow meter.

Therefore the flow was not constant, but by regularly noting the time and reading the input volume on a counter, he controlled the flow.

At night the counter information was recorded with a camera.

What part of the above do you not understand?

What you seem not to catch is that this is all hearsay.
Do you have a video of it?
There was someone else there apart Rossi and company?
Can you be sure that what is told is true?

As the reply to the three above is always NO, than all what they say cannot be used as support to their claims. That's simply the way the normal world works.

[parallel]

Giorgio,

What you seem not to catch is that this is all hearsay.
Do you have a video of it?
There was someone else there apart Rossi and company?
Can you be sure that what is told is true?

As the reply to the three above is always NO, than all what they say cannot be used as support to their claims. That's simply the way the normal world works.

You previously implied there was no flow measurement. Why?
You don't believe Prof Levi when he stated to NyTeknik that he measured the flow?
Do you have to have a video to believe any scientific paper?
It seems that Professor Levi was there and apparently several others wandered in and out. It did go on for 18 hours.

With peer reviewed papers the reviewers in many branches of science (like climatology for example) don't get the see the original data. But you seem to believe stuff published in those journals without question. It seems you will seize on any pretext to run down Rossi and express disbelief in cold fusion. Why?

Why not give Ing. Rossi the benefit of the doubt until there is real evidence against him - if there ever is. It seems that you are also quite prepared to imply that Professor Levi is incompetent too.

[KitemanSA]

My feelings as well Giorgio and Tom!

Hey folks, he's damned if he do and damned if he don't! IIRC, Rossi allowed the second test because folks complained that the steam test was too unreliable (liquid fraction questions) so they went to a test guarenteed to make measureable temperature differences for significant periods.

So did he try to help folks who were concerned about the first test or was he running a complex bait and switch con? What you believe might just be proof of your prejudice.

[Betruger]

Why not give Ing. Rossi the benefit of the doubt until there is real evidence against him - if there ever is.

Because there's no real evidence in his favor either?

[Giorgio]

You previously implied there was no flow measurement. Why?

Flow measurement in scientific experiments is done according precise standards and procedures. None of these standards has been applied here, hence no flow control was done as far as I am concerned.
I have no idea what meter Dr. Levi was reading, but if was a flow meter and if they have some data, than why not just make them public with a 2 pages report?
This is the ABC of the experimental scientist. I should really not be here stating such basic and obvious facts.

You don't believe Prof Levi when he stated to NyTeknik that he measured the flow?

I am not obliged to believe someone I do not know just because he states something. If someone makes a claim is up to him to convince the others that his claim is real and not the other way around.

Do you have to have a video to believe any scientific paper?

What scientific papers? Where are the scientific papers? Do we have to go through this every single time? Geez...

It seems that Professor Levi was there and apparently several others wandered in and out. It did go on for 18 hours.

Prof. Levi has been part of Rossi team since the start. How does his presence add more credibility to this experiment and to Rossi claims?
Even if there were 30 collaborators of Rossi wandering inside the room, how does their presence help in supporting Rossi claims? Please explain your logic because I really cannot understand it.

It seems you will seize on any pretext to run down Rossi and express disbelief in cold fusion. Why?

It seems that you are also quite prepared to imply that Professor Levi is incompetent too.

All of this is what you think, not what I say.
I am limiting myself to analyze the facts and the data we have, and on this base I judge the possibility of this being real or not.

If you are interpreting this as an attack to Rossi and a predetermined disbelief in cold fusion, that's probably because you are unable to accept the possibility that this might not be real. But than this is YOUR problem, not mine.

[parallel]

Giorgio,
You wrote:

I am not obliged to believe someone I do not know just because he states something.

Having just written,

I am limiting myself to analyze the facts and the data we have, and on this base I judge the possibility of this being real or not.

You can't believe someone you don't know even if he is a professor in good standing (I suppose you don't believe most published papers then) and so discount everything written about the E-Cat, but you are "limiting yourself to analysing the facts and data" none of which you believe.

Quite funny really. How about answering my earlier question for the record: what percentage chance do you give for the E-Cat being real?

[Joseph Chikva]

Quite funny really. How about answering my earlier question for the record: what percentage chance do you give for the E-Cat being real?

I understand that the question is addressed to Georgio.
By my opinion 0%.
Good luck.

[tomclarke]

Giorgio,
You wrote:

I am not obliged to believe someone I do not know just because he states something.

Having just written,

I am limiting myself to analyze the facts and the data we have, and on this base I judge the possibility of this being real or not.

You can't believe someone you don't know even if he is a professor in good standing (I suppose you don't believe most published papers then) and so discount everything written about the E-Cat, but you are "limiting yourself to analysing the facts and data" none of which you believe.

Quite funny really. How about answering my earlier question for the record: what percentage chance do you give for the E-Cat being real?

Parallel.

This post explains the difference betwen you & some others here.

You judge what to believe in terms of your idea of the person, his status, probity, could he be a scammer.

The rest of us judge what to believe based on what is said, and how believable that is.

Scientific paper is a good example. It does not matter who writes it, if it is good this is evident when you read it (carefully) from the content. If bad (and there are many such, especially at conferences where standard can be appalling) you know that.

And no good nor bad paper will finish discussion on a topic. You will need followups, replication, to clarify and remove doubts.

A scientific paper with the demos Rossi has given, or the theory Rossi has given, would not be convincing, as you well know.

[Giorgio]

You can't believe someone you don't know even if he is a professor in good standing

He is a professor in good standing, no doubt, but he is not a researcher.
He published very little amount of papers in his academic life and, AFAIK, none of them was a research done by him as main researcher.
That's why a dozen pages ago I stated that we should look to Prof. Campari and Prof. Villa reports in the future research group.
They are both extremely experienced researchers.

and so discount everything written about the E-Cat, but you are "limiting yourself to analysing the facts and data" none of which you believe.

I can't believe something just because they state it is true without them attempting to give "at least" some evidences.
Is much different from what you are stating.

Let me put in another way that can be more clear.
You feel bad and read on the Internet that the symptoms you have could be due to "Disease X".
You go to your doctor stating that you have "Disease X" because you read it on the Internet and the symptoms match.
Will he believe you and give you a treatment for it or will he send you to make some independent analysis to check it out before?

How about answering my earlier question for the record: what percentage chance do you give for the E-Cat being real?

Told you before:

If I have to base myself ONLY on the scientific evidences so far I would have to say 90% chances of being bad interpretation of experimental result. because they have not recorded their result and their experimental setup in a scientific way.
(And this is the only REAL and PROVEN fact in all this story till now.)

If I have to base myself on the fact that Focardi is involved I'll give it 50-50 chances (just because one of my contact knows him since 20 years and he is swearing on his good faith in this whole story).

If I have to base this on my hope for it to be real than I will give him 80% of being real because it could change humanity and most of our knowledge of nuclear reactions. Than again, I was also 100% hoping to become an astronaut when I was a kid.

Dreaming is nice, but real world requires us to keep our feet well connected to the ground if we do not want to get lost in illusions.
That's why I become a man of science.

[Giorgio]

And no good nor bad paper will finish discussion on a topic. You will need followups, replication, to clarify and remove doubts.

Yes, this is an extremely important point that is generally not clear to people non into the process.
Many think that is just enough to publish a paper and all ends there.
In reality the biggest work arrives after the publication, to clarify and support your results, especially if you are claiming a deviation from current knowledge.

A scientific paper with the demos Rossi has given, or the theory Rossi has given, would not be convincing, as you well know.

Also true.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

This post explains the difference betwen you & some others here.

You judge what to believe in terms of your idea of the person, his status, probity, could he be a scammer.

The rest of us judge what to believe based on what is said, and how believable that is.

Scientific paper is a good example. It does not matter who writes it, if it is good this is evident when you read it (carefully) from the content. If bad (and there are many such, especially at conferences where standard can be appalling) you know that.

And no good nor bad paper will finish discussion on a topic. You will need followups, replication, to clarify and remove doubts.

A scientific paper with the demos Rossi has given, or the theory Rossi has given, would not be convincing, as you well know.

I don't judge things in the way you attribute to me. Unless I have direct experience myself that contradicts the theory or results, I take the report as probably true. If the subject interests me I then look for other data to confirm or refute the results. What I don't do is immediately attack the report and run down the messenger, as some seem to do here. If you or Giorgio had actually run similar experiments to Rossi and got negative results I could understand your point of view. As far as I can tell, you haven't.

In my long life I have had the opportunity to run many more experiments than most people have. I understand the difficulties of measurement much better than most scientists I've known, having had the practical experience of doing it myself. Unlike many modern engineers I can actually do the skilled things myself that later in life I told others to to do. I understand the kind of experiments Levi ran very well indeed. I understand that Rossi's purpose was to demonstrate the E-Cat actually worked without going to the accuracy of measurement that would be desirable for a scientific paper. It didn't really matter if the results were 10% off - it would make no difference.

Three confirming experiments that have been reported and clearly several more, we don't know about, have been run by the investors of the new companies that are to make and sell the E-Cat. This, together with comments like Bushnell's and other work by Piantelli (rumored to be demonstrating his own device soon) make fraud seem increasingly unlikely.

The difference between me and "some others here" is that I tend to favor experimental results over theory.

[chrismb]

IIRC, Rossi allowed the second test because folks complained that the steam test was too unreliable

"allowed" a second test!?!

Oh! How generous of him! Clearly I misunderstand the situation - I thought the demonstrations were for him to release something into public domain. But now I stand corrected and all comes clear: The demonstrations were the opportunity he gave to the general public to prove we understood him!

Doh! Now I understand the situation!!!

I guess there is not yet enough evidence for him that we do, so he did a second demonstration.

And there I was thinking it was all about him demonstrating something, and all along it was US, Joe Public, that have been failing to prove our case to him!!!

[parallel]

chrismb,

Who else but Rossi could authorize another test? You?
It seems you think everything he does should be just to please you.

What you fail to realize is that every demonstration increases the risk of his proprietary information being discovered. A significant risk without patent protection in place. Just knowing that it works is an important clue.