10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

Hey, folks. After being conditioned early by his bombastic attitude to stay away from his posts, I finally actually read some of Axil's screeds and between the obnoxious holier than thow attitude he sometimes comes up with some interesting snippits. Now all I have to do is choose between the pain of reading his stuff and the gain of the snippits.

Oh the pain, oh the gain...

Axil problem is that he takes pieces of different papers or researches and sticks them together to make a theory.
The main problem of doing this is that the starting conditions of the various experiments are never the same, so you end up with a big mess.

It is like if you try to build a wall using rocks, wood and bricks without using a common binder. It can't work.

Edited to fix spelling.

[chrismb]

Axil's word-salads may well contain some snippets of interest. The issue is the difficulty of picking out the snippets of interest!!!!

[Tech]

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-now-what.html

Some info on the dryness of the steam.

[TallDave]

The next year or so will be interesting. Either Rossi will fall down on commercial implementation as Blacklightpower seems to have, or... well.

Maybe it's worth remembering that most of the time science has advanced not because someone had a great theoretical notion and proved it with experiment, but rather because someone noticed something odd in the experimental realm (that current theory couldn't explain) entirely by accident and set out to explain or exploit it, often taking many wrong turns in either process.

Unfortunately, the advance-by-accident paradigm says some unfortunate things about our ability to advance technology as things become more complex (one is presumably increasingly less likely to stumble onto the basis of increasingly advanced tech) but it holds out some hope for the Woodwards and Rossis.

[chrismb]

Maybe it's worth remembering that most of the time science has advanced not because someone had a great theoretical notion and proved it with experiment, but rather because someone noticed something odd in the experimental realm (that current theory couldn't explain) entirely by accident and set out to explain or exploit it, often taking many wrong turns in either process.

I am unconvinced by that as a generalising statement. For sure, some of the more remarkable chapters of science have gone that way, but, still, it always took the right persons to comprehend its significance, go back, and deliberately try to repeat something they noticed. And I think only 20% or so of such advancements have been made that way.

Most have been quite deliberate quests for particular things.

What did you have in mind as 'noticed... by accident'? Name 5 great figures who made names for themselves 'by accidental observations', then we can discuss the list....

[Giorgio]

Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

[Giorgio]

From the video:

Power IN = 0.75 Kw
Power OUT = 5 Kw
COP = 6.6

With each new test the COP gets lower and lower, and a value of 6.6 is even below many geothermal system available.

Everyone is free to reach his own conclusions.

[chrismb]

If the power in is under-reading by 20%, and the heat out is over-reading by 20%, then my air conditioner is just about beating it.

What are the measurement uncertainties here?

[Giorgio]

I doubt we can define them. They might as well be similar to the one you mentioned.

I was also reading a comment by someone correctly pointing to the fact that the steam coming out of the pipeline was little in respect to the expected amount according Rossi claims (7 Kg/h = 3.25 lt/sec).

I have watched that part of the video few times and indeed the steam coming out from the line does not look like a flow of 3 lt/sec....

[Ivy Matt]

Your fear that a cold fusion reactor will kill polywell is not well founded because no one knows what the future will bring and energy production is too important to be left to only one provider.

Wait, what? I didn't realize Chris was on "our" side.

[Ivy Matt]

I've done a little looking and can't find a reason why something like this CAN'T work. Do you have one? I have no idea whether ROSSI's works or not, but it wouldn't upset my world view if one of these H:Ni systems is finally proven to produce nuclear reactions. Do you have FACTS to add to the discussion? Relavent facts?

Anyone?

Whether it can or can't work (not a subject I'm prepared or qualified to debate), the claim of 10 kW power output from a hydrogen-nickel device is a new one, as far as I know. Such a device, with 10 kW of output power, would be useful, and would certainly have a beneficial impact on the world's energy supply, not that I need to tell anyone here that.

On the other hand, the fusion field is littered with the corpses of experiments that were given funds based on overoptimistic promises, or were claimed to have produced useful amounts of energy, only to have the claims debunked or, at least, not found to be reproducible. Even a Nobel prize-winning physicist whose name should be known to all those who are interested in nuclear fusion once called a press conference to announce a breakthrough in fusion, only to have to issue a retraction later.

So, anyway, I guess what I'm saying is essentially the same thing seedload said about balance of proof. In science a new claim is unproven until it is found to be reproducible under certain conditions. I don't know how the balance of proof works in the field of investment, however....

[KitemanSA]

But I am asking YOU for facts. I already know HE is not going to provide them. I am asking YOU to provide FACTUAL arguments about this one way or the other. Or are you, like him, just f@rting into the wind?

I've gotten ~3 people to actually provide fact based reasoning (faulty, but fact based) on why this can't work. I believe I have been successful in dismissing all said arguments. Are there any others?

Look, I have provided facts, in respect to those that are attainable. You have said that you consider them irrelevant and me ignorant. The only facts that I can look at are those that are evident, and in looking at those, I find Rossi's claims highly unlikely.

From an earlier post that you ignored.

These are the things that I have chosen to learn about Rossi's claims:
1) He claims multiple miracles - exponentially more unlikely.

As far as I can tell, he has claimed technologies, not miracles. As to likelyhood, I wouldn't go so far as to say LIKELY, but not impossible. Since after a very few days of thinking about this I have come up with one means I consider plausible for each "miracle", I can't consider this "fact".

2) His businesses appear to be non-functional and fake in many respects.

His American business partners appear SMALL. Given "SMALL", the facilities as discussed in prior posts are uninspiring but I've seen worse. Again, this is an opinion ("appear"), not a "fact".

3) He has a history of overblown claims.

True! Pillory the egotist!

4) The natural isotopic ratio of the copper ash makes no sense.

I've seen nothing by anyone except folks on this forum. Do you have a first hand source? I'd love to see it. This is so far the closest to being a fact.

5) He is starting to make typical paranoid claims. Spies, threats, blackmail, etc.

Doesn't inspire lots of trust, but insanity doesn't NECESSARILY mean fraud. Nor does it mean he couldn't have invented something remarkable.
Again, this is interpretation, not fact.

Do you find the simultaneous discovery of reproducible high energy LENR and revolutionary cheap isotopic enrichment likely?

If the first is dependant on the second, then the likelihood of the two happening is identical, i.e., the first has zero chance until the second, and then it may have been a given. (When it is time to railroad...) Since I have seen TWO plausible explanations of the cheap enrichment (thanks Axil for the second... brrrr I can't believe I just said that! ) then I don't find it all that remarkable. Remember, we are talking ENRICHMENT, not extraction. Also remember that unlike Uranium, the stuff you want is the heavy stuff which makes it the FIRST part enriched by a centrifuge, not the last.
Once again, interpretation or "feelings", not fact.

Do you find the fact that Leonardo Corporation, a 14 year old company, does not seem to exist in any real sense odd? (ie, web site phone number bogus, web site address bogus, web site advertised product non-existent, web search presence invisible, no apparent factory).

Actually, no. Many SMALL "engineering firms" consist of a desk in a house. Most "factories" of small engineering firms consist of job shops, not in house manufacturies. As to the lack of...phone... link please?

Do you find Rossi's history of overblown claims concerning?

Yes. But that just indicates ego, not necessarily fraud. He MAY be deluded about his ability to make it happen. We shall see. And "feeling" not fact.

Do you find the apparent natural copper isotopic ratios of the resultant ash unexplainable? If not, please explain.

Read "Kiteman Konjecture" in General.

Do you find his recent rantings regarding spies/etc. at all damning to his claims?

To his claims, no. To his mental health...
Is it paranoia if there really are spies?'
"Feeling", not fact!

Finally, does the combination of the above questionable claims concern you in any way.

Concern me? No. This is just a pass time. I find the whole issue fascinating, plausible, but TOTALLY unproven. Would it upset me if it turned out false? Not in the slightest. Would it shake my world view if it turned out true? Ditto!

So I ask again, do you have FACTS that would tend to disprove this process. Perhaps I should clarify and ask for TECHNICAL facts, not things like the "fact" that a coffee machine was removed.

[Maui]

Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

My wife just walked in while I was watching this and found Rossi so funny she burst into tears she was laughing so hard.

[KitemanSA]

Did you dismiss my arguments? I gave them a while back in response to the challenge.

No, but when I got to them it was time to go to work so I put it off till now. Thanks for bringing them forward. It is nice not to have to dig for them.

FACT - proposed system does not fit into current physics without something very extraordinary (like 700keV electrons in a lattice). Even then the ash residues do not match what would be expected.

The whole point of something NEW is that it doesn't meet what is expected. And since I have identified (in only a few days of thought and research) a plausible explanation for something like this, an explanation WITHIN current physics, I can't accept your first statement as "fact". Since the first statement implies this is something "unexpected", how can there be an expectation of the output? Until I see fact on the output, I will have to withhold further discussion. Link?

FACT - 20 years of experimenting with Ni-H and other metal-hydrogen systems has led to no publishable & repeatable experimental evidence of non-chemical heat generation

This is simple to make into a "fact". Just deny credance to any published report of reproducibility. And didn't that independant study by that U in Italy generate excess heat with a Piantelli cell but then state it didn't work? Too much to study. To many details to keep straight.
By the way, anyone know who besides the Italians are studying H:Ni systems?

FACT - Rossi's statements on his blog about what he is doing are self-contradictory

Sample?

FACT - Rossi has previously promised cheap energy from new technology, this did not work.

As I recall, the system DID work in prototype but was not producible in scale. Not quite the same thing. I will grant you his ego may be bigger than his ability.

FACT - Rossi has been in trouble with the law

OMG, we can't ever trust anyone who has been in trouble with the law. Galileo? In trouble with the law! MAD, a SCAMMER! Don't trust him. The moons of Jupiter don't exist. Maybe it is just them EYE-talians

FACT - Rossi's public demos do not show nuclear-level heat output, because it is not clear what their heat output is.

Opinion, but the closest so far to fact. All I can say is that folks who should be able to tell state that the heat had to be nuclear (or fraud). This however is worth discussion, a bit later.

FACT - Rossi's only (non-public) demo with easy to measure heat output ran with output temperature below ambient therefore making measurement error of output very possible.

??? Of what are you speaking? Data please.

FACT - Rossi treats polite and favourably disposed journalists as snakes in the grass when they ask technical questions.

It has been suggested that he is paranoid. Doesn't obviate the potential for invention.

The first two facts mean that you need very good evidence before it is rational to expect any such a system to work. The remaining facts show why the Rossi evidence is not very good.

The first two opinions prove nothing except that this (if it works) is new to most people. But hey, there are a couple of interesting points in there.

[KitemanSA]

Personally, I dismissed the potential of a mistake the day that he claimed the second miracle of cheap isotopic enrichment. This is either a lie or not a lie - not a mistake - with not a lie being exceptionally unlikely. Just my take.

The cheap isotopic enrichment was a give away.

To what?

But maybe it just means he does not understand what is an isotope

To me, that is the LEAST unlikely of the two parts. Seems folks are not as familiar with nano-scale effects as they are with bulk effects. Nano-scale can do weird and wonderous things, and if he is making nano-powder Ni, who knows!