10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:12 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:
ScottL wrote: Rossi promised EEStore to the U.S. Military previously and didn't deliver, do you deny it?
If you are trying to call someone out, at least get your facts strait.

This sort of laziness is truly sad to read.

He has been compared to the eestor to clarify.

Rick Meisinger · Post by **Rick Meisinger** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:02 pm

ladajo wrote:I am waiting for the 12 year-old Kitchen Experiment by Rossi where he proves himself right or wrong. So far, in my opinion, he has not passed 8th Grade Science. He cost or effort to do so is minimal, and it defies logic that to this point he refuses to do a real experiment, but has persisted with, for lack of a better way to say it, "F" graded school science project presentations.

I am also waiting for the promised upcoming tests and hope for a higher level of scientific testing.

AR's investment may be minimal when compared to ITER/Solyndra or other government/investor backed energy ventures. His total investment is likely around 10M. Small in comparison but from AR's point of view, it looks like he is betting the majority of his resources on this venture and probably doesn't seem minimal to him. Also, if the reported sustained 16 hours/day time investment is accurate the personal effort seems to be there also.

Again, assuming reports are accurate, AR is self financing by selling his business for an amount less than 10M. He may have received a small amount at signing with Ampenergo with significant amounts to come on delivery of a working power plant. A similar agreement was signed with Defklion who defaulted on the payment. Now there are recent reports that because of this default AR has sold his personal residence to finance the completion of the 1MW plant.

If these reports turn out to be true, I admire AR or any entrepreneur who believes enough to put their own time and resources on the line.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:03 am

tomclarke,
Further to our earlier exchange about anomalous heat, you may find it interesting to read this critique of the DoE 2004 review.
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeRev ... ubmissions

Also follow the link in it here http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCresponseto.pdf
I would be interested in your comments.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:55 am

Following to provided by you link http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Report I have read:

The DoE asked 18 experts in various fields of science to evaluate the reality and value of cold fusion (LENR). A person outside of science, but concerned about the possible value of such an ideal energy source, would expect the evaluation to be done with competence, objectivity and a concern for the benefits the claims would give if true. Instead, the effort was flawed by an obvious lack of interest by most reviewers. This indifference is evidenced by serious flaws in their justification for rejecting many of the claims. Competent people can disagree about the meaning of observation and can even choose to reject claims. However, only an indifferent and sloppy reviewer comes to such conclusions based on an incomplete or false understanding of the observations. For example, most reviewers, "did not find the production of excess power convincing."

How to hammer in heads that only this (bolded) is important?
And who can say that Rossi provided evidences of excess power production in his device?
And for your note there in Fusion Science Office of DOE are really very skilled people.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:28 pm

Chikva,
What part of the "critique of the DoE 2004 review" did you not understand? It explained why DoE got it wrong.

For example, one of the reviewers, talking about cold fusion, wrote:

From a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions are not to be believed . . .

The same was true when it was discovered radium would melt its own weight of ice each day, without a noticeable change.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:23 pm

I have read only quoted by me part.
And everything written there is very understood for me.
2004? Fine. So, DOE states that like Rossi in 2011 recent researchers could not also provide evidences of excess power production.
Or Rossi did?
Understand?
Does Radium concern to production energy in industrial scale? Have I missed something? Or DOE is not only the department of energy?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:30 pm

What folks seem to miss is that even the original MIT hatchet job didn't ACTUALLY say the phenomenon doesn't happen, only that they can't see any possibility that any viable energy production process can be created from it. Sort of a "Yah, it happens, but so what? It's not viable" and the world hears "Its not real". Oh well.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:14 pm

Did I say "Its (cold fusion) not real"? No. I am only saying that its reality is less probable. And being me a young researcher choosing field of research I would not choose that.
Hot fusion is based on well known theory. Unlike cold. And I am very primitive and know only one way: first theory, then experiments, then engineering, then commercialization.
And at what stage Mr. Rossi? Commercialization? And passing preliminary stages?
By the way, how you imagine the selling in USA of device producing neutrons without licensing? Or it does not produce?

Put that device in minivan without shielding and leave at brisk street. Very useful for terrorists.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:55 pm

Chikva,

And being me a young researcher choosing field of research I would not choose that.

With any luck you will soon be out of a job. Good thinking.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:06 pm

Sounds like the 1 MW plant demo is still on schedule.

Andrea Rossi
September 24th, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Dear Simon Knight:
By half October we will explain exactly what follows:
1- where the 1 MW plant will be tested
2- all the (not confidential) characteristics of the 1MW plant (the complementary part is more reactors, of a new type that in the meantime we have developed)
3- possibly, who is the Customer, if the Customer will allow us to communicate his name.
The measurements will be made, as I said, by world top class scientists.
I can confirm that we are well in schedule, therefore all will happen in October.
I also confirm that in November we will start our commercial strategy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:51 pm

parallel wrote:Chikva,
And being me a young researcher choosing field of research I would not choose that.
With any luck you will soon be out of a job. Good thinking.

Thanks for worrying about my employment.
But regardless to my cientific preferences as I now understand you are agree too that Rossi as well as other cold fusion researchers could not demonstrate yet net power. That's all.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:00 pm

Chikva,
No

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:12 pm

Ok.
But who said:

You may claim you don't find the demos convincing and that is fair enough.

?

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:21 pm

Chikva,
That means anyone can claim the demos were not convincing. Not the same thing as saying I didn't. I think the demos showed anomalous heat. What's in doubt is how much.

ps. You don't need to shout.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:38 pm

parallel wrote:I think the demos showed anomalous heat.

Demo showed some heat with some input with unknown output. This is fact. As Rossi there for a long time told about properties of radiation counters but “forgot” to include flowmeter without which proper calorimetry is impossible. Or may you know another – more advanced method how to measure heat.
For what you claim that heat was “anomalous”?
May be or not that output is corresponds to electric input (750W) or electric input + hydrogen Ni chemical formulation which is exothermic reaction?