10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:20 pm

tomclarke wrote:You might ask why does Rossi keep on doing these flakey experiments. After all feeding output into a tank and measuring tank temperature at end would do fine. And be easy.

It would eliminate nearly all sources of error.

But of course, if Rossi has tried this, he will find it does not work. So he needs an experimental protocol that does work.

There are quite a number of those.

I suppose that Prof Levi and Defkalion are all liars too?
My, you are even most desperate than I thought to hang onto your beliefs.

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:22 pm

Tomclarke,

Too bad the output of the device was a single opening and the majority of the internal structure of the device is a high surface area heat exchanger, rather than an "insulated hot metal slug". Please see the pictures and reports freely available online.

Why don't you postulate a design that actually might fit the observed geometry of the ecat. That insight might actually be of value.

It would be much much easier to fake the result simply by altering the internal electronics of the thermocouple controller. Which would be very easy to do.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:27 pm

Crawdaddy,
We should probably back off. ee-tom may start to blubber or have a breakdown if LENR is proved, when he knows it is impossible.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:35 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:Tomclarke,

Too bad the output of the device was a single opening and the majority of the internal structure of the device is a high surface area heat exchanger, rather than an "insulated hot metal slug". Please see the pictures and reports freely available online.

Why don't you postulate a design that actually might fit the observed geometry of the ecat. That insight might actually be of value.

It would be much much easier to fake the result simply by altering the internal electronics of the thermocouple controller. Which would be very easy to do.

Sorry, a wide range of architectures would fit my thought experiment. The "hot nuggest" need not be very large, and indeed most could be a heat exchanger.

Of course, there are other ways this anomalous result could be obtained, typically bad siting of thermocouples...

The point is, if I publicised my improved TE-cat you & parallel would be wetting yourselves saying LENR was proved?

Or would I need a fake engineering degree from a US Uni for you to believe me?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:39 pm

parallel wrote:Crawdaddy,
We should probably back off. ee-tom may start to blubber or have a breakdown if LENR is proved, when he knows it is impossible.

Well I don't know its impossible, and would love for it to be right.

But whenever I see positive LENR evidence it has holes. Not surprising really, because clear evidence would be nobel Prize & big news.

You reckon this is just because LENR is difficult. But if it is really based on nuclear energy scales getting Q >> 1 should be as easy as getting Q ~ 1 in some flaky experiment. No physical limit to high Q, and it should have been clearly demonstrated by now.

then there are all the other anomalies, no transmutation (beyond experimental error, no high energy particles, etc.

So I'm overall pretty pessimistic.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:41 pm

tomclarke,

Ah, I see all your other devices failed and you had to resort to "bad measurements" as I forecast.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:43 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,

Ah, I see all your other devices failed and you had to resort to "bad measurements" as I forecast.

Parallel -

If that is your reply to the above - let's hope you never apply for a job as an experimental scientist?

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

This whole thing may very well be a fraud, but making up an absurd explanation that is physically impossible based on readily available evidence is not a good way to prove it.

Being a material scientist I am familiar with ultra high k dielectrics and used to lurk at eestory. I found the arguments against the devices legitimacy fairly convincing though they may yet surprise with an "outside the box" solution(unlikely). Can the same person come up with this garbage and post it? Amazing.

If tomclarke is indeed ee-tom then he should be well aware that his postulated device is absurd and I am forced to conclude that he is simply a troll.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:47 pm

tomclarke,

There doesn't seem to be any satisfactory explanation for LENR yet, but you have to admit the evidence is piling up. I suppose you saw that post above from Defkalion?

Edit added following tom's later post. I have done a lot of experimental science but am now retired, so unlikely I will be applying for a job. Thanks for the thought though.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:49 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:This whole thing may very well be a fraud, but making up an absurd explanation that is physically impossible based on readily available evidence is not a good way to prove it.

Being a material scientist I am familiar with ultra high k dielectrics and used to lurk at eestory. I found the arguments against the devices legitimacy fairly convincing though they may yet surprise with an "outside the box" solution(unlikely). Can the same person come up with this garbage and post it? Amazing.

If tomclarke is indeed ee-tom then he should be well aware that his postulated device is absurd and I am forced to conclude that he is simply a troll.

I'll ignore the character stuff, and deal with your criticism of the thought experiment. True, it is somewhat contrived. But all the elements are possible in a genuine E-cat which has been optimised to do well in this sort of test without any malice. Rossi is not getting X100 Q, and his measured X1.2 (?) Q could easily be got on this way with fluctuating flow rates very likley in a device that is as unstable as his appears to be.

And that leaves out other errors. The point is that my error is quite subtle. You and parallel - I bet - could not think outside the box enough to see it before I pointed it out. I am sure rossi, given his limited grasp of physics, would not realise this was an issue.

Even Mats Lewan, although obviously aware of an issue, thought that his "conservative" minimum deltaT solved the problem.

I did too, till I thought about it.

Few people here realise how difficult is experimentation - and how easy to get anomalous results.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:52 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,

There doesn't seem to be any satisfactory explanation for LENR yet, but you have to admit the evidence is piling up. I suppose you saw that post above from Defkalion?

Edit added following tom's later post. I have done a lot of experimental science but am now retired, so unlikely I will be applying for a job. Thanks for the thought though.

In that case let us hope you applied better critique to your own methodology than you do to Rossi's?

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:54 pm

Could the boiling heard 3.5 hrs after power switch be due to vapor pressure or is the pressure inside not high enough? I remember watching an experiment in college where they were able to "boil" water without heat, so wanted to make sure this isn't a possibility.

On a side note, the ecats look like they've gone through some oxidization. Kind of remind me of those trays from catering services with the little burner underneath. Rossi should replace the units with something that's going to last I think.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:57 pm

tomclarke,
The measured Q was x3 and that was following startup. Presumably better with a longer run.. (Contrary to your intilal negative number) Defkalion reported it was typically 20:1

You have no idea how well I can think outside the box but you come across as supremely arrogant. I object to the way you insult Rossi without proof.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:02 pm

ScottL.
No, the pressure is not high enough.
The problem of furring will be solved with a closed loop and possibly a different fluid - as I posted a long time ago.

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:10 pm

tomclarke wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:Tomclarke,

Too bad the output of the device was a single opening and the majority of the internal structure of the device is a high surface area heat exchanger, rather than an "insulated hot metal slug". Please see the pictures and reports freely available online.

Why don't you postulate a design that actually might fit the observed geometry of the ecat. That insight might actually be of value.

It would be much much easier to fake the result simply by altering the internal electronics of the thermocouple controller. Which would be very easy to do.
Sorry, a wide range of architectures would fit my thought experiment. The "hot nuggest" need not be very large, and indeed most could be a heat exchanger.

Of course, there are other ways this anomalous result could be obtained, typically bad siting of thermocouples...

The point is, if I publicised my improved TE-cat you & parallel would be wetting yourselves saying LENR was proved?

Or would I need a fake engineering degree from a US Uni for you to believe me?

If you demonstrated your device I would laugh.

If you managed to:

get a career professor with several cold fusion publications and a 20 year track record on honest research to agree to partner with you,

convinced another young professor with everything to lose to support you

gave your device to an american company for 3 days so that they could examine all the internal components and satisfy themselves that your device is real

had a press conference where the greek minister of energy endorsed your device

and repeatedly demonstrated your device in public with several well educated and respectable observers in attendance

Then:

I might make posts on a forum pointing out the flaws in the reasoning of others who fail repeatedly to make rational arguments against the e-cat's legitimacy, while maintaining a guardedly hopeful opinion of the devices legitimacy myself.

I freely admit that the e-cat has not been demonstrated conclusively in public. I also don't thing that rossi would have gotten anywhere near as far as he has without doing some fairly conclusive demonstrations in private. Anyone like Focardi or Levi would demand a control experiment and a thorough examination of the inside of the device and electronics before endorsing the device. If I am wrong about that then it is not a failure of Rossi, but of the investors and professors who are closely associated with the device.

Regardless of whether the device is a fraud or not, pointing out that your imagined mechanism of fraud is a "hand-waving", "just-so" story that doesn't fit the available information does not make me a pants wetting Rossi lover.

It just means I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.