10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[CKay]

Still, combine the near certainty that Rossi's devices are bunk with the large numbers of people who believe otherwise, there must be some way to legitimately profit from such gullibility.

Perhaps something like ecat derivatives, the value of which would track market confidence in the 'technology'.

You would need some strict stipulations to block loopholes such as government\corporate supression conspiracy theories. There are just too many ways out for anyone on Rossi's side if it doesn't work.

For a straight bet - yeah, that's the problem.

Trading ecat derivatives would be a different matter.

[Crawdaddy]

I don't find it splitting hairs in the least. By your definition, they're all "nuclear" so I can substitute fusion for fission and say we have fusion plants powering our nation, which would be patently false. At some point people have to call it as it is and I think we're getting to that point.

WOW, have we go a miscommunication going on here!!!
I distinguish between the subset (cold fusion) and the full set (LENR). Cold fusion is LENR, LENR is not necessarily cold fusion.

I personally do not equate fusion and transmutation but I can accept the equation where the final product is larger than the two reactants. The problem is that with such a definition, the reaction n+235U=236U (which happens about 15% of the time) would be fusion. I would prefer to call it transmutation.

But you do bring up an interesting tid-bit. Is typical fission a LENR? The fuel is typically solid state. The particle causing the reaction (other than SPONTANEOUS fission) is typically a "thermal" neutron (~1eV). Is that "low energy"?
=============
WOW, we did. You were talking to DAN, not me! Ok. Oops!

Yeah I should've tagged his name next to the first part. I have trouble buying into a lot of the thing Dan professes as truth. Call me what you will, but I'm a stickler for well defined mechanisms and their descriptions. I leave the room for fusion at low energy, however; I haven't seen proof of said fusion yet.

Cold Fusion was not a name chosen by Pons and Fleischmann. It was hung around their necks. There is no difference between Cold Fusion and LENR.

You are hung up on the word fusion in Cold Fusion, but Cold Fusion does not refer to fusion it is simply a name, like Kleenex, or Jello.

As has been suggested elsewhere, the most appropriate name going forward is the Pons and Fleishmann Effect (PFE).

The article from the newenergytimes website is pure propaganda from proponents of Windom Larsen. Did you know that Steven Krivit is payed to report full time on Cold Fusion by an "anonymous benefactor" and that he has a pronounced and obvious bias in favor of Windom Larsen theory proponents? New energy times is a crank website, it is the fox news of cold fusion.

I hope that when all this is resolved that we can all raise our glasses to the originators of the field and declare the PFE is real.

[KitemanSA]

Cold Fusion was not a name chosen by Pons and Fleischmann. It was hung around their necks. There is no difference between Cold Fusion and LENR.

Many people, including myself, would disagree with you. CF may be a subset of LENR but it is NOT equal to it.

You are hung up on the word fusion in Cold Fusion, but Cold Fusion does not refer to fusion it is simply a name, like Kleenex, or Jello.

I suspect there are certain reactions that ARE "fusion" where others are not.

As has been suggested elsewhere, the most appropriate name going forward is the Pons and Fleishmann Effect (PFE).

which of the multiple varients? This strikes me as saying that since Brayrton and Rankine and Otto and ... are all thermodynamic cycles they should all be called the Heron Effect. Sorry, but that loses a lot in the communication effect.

The article from the newenergytimes website is pure propaganda from proponents of Windom Larsen. Did you know that Steven Krivit is payed to report full time on Cold Fusion by an "anonymous benefactor" and that he has a pronounced and obvious bias in favor of Windom Larsen theory proponents? New energy times is a crank website, it is the fox news of cold fusion.

Wow! The "Fox News" of cold fusion. Don't look now, but your bi-ass is showing!
And by the way, who cares if Krivit is krooked? I was responding to a bold, and IMHO incorrect, statement by Dan T.

I hope that when all this is resolved that we can all raise our glasses to the originators of the field and declare the PFE is real.

My hope is that we learn enough to discuss the various reaction paths and their benefits and issues. Like Brayton cycles have certain B&E relative to Rankine machines.

[Crawdaddy]

As has been suggested elsewhere, the most appropriate name going forward is the Pons and Fleishmann Effect (PFE).

which of the multiple varients? This strikes me as saying that since Brayrton and Rankine and Otto and ... are all thermodynamic cycles they should all be called the Heron Effect. Sorry, but that loses a lot in the communication effect.

In the P&F experiments it is obvious that fusion is not occurring. The processes involved in the Ni-H and Pd-D experiments obviously proceed by similar mechanisms and the experiments are tuned by tweaking similar variables, e.g. metal morphology and hydrogen loading. Thus the P&F effect is a term which encompasses the phenomenon very well.

The article on Newenergytimes is trying to make a distinction between cold fusion and LENR so that the authors of the theory that the site champions will garner more credit for progress in the field.

The article from the newenergytimes website is pure propaganda from proponents of Windom Larsen. Did you know that Steven Krivit is payed to report full time on Cold Fusion by an "anonymous benefactor" and that he has a pronounced and obvious bias in favor of Windom Larsen theory proponents? New energy times is a crank website, it is the fox news of cold fusion.

Wow! The "Fox News" of cold fusion. Don't look now, but your bi-ass is showing!
And by the way, who cares if Krivit is krooked? I was responding to a bold, and IMHO incorrect, statement by Dan T.

My assertions with regard to krivit are easily verified by a thorough reading of the vortex list. See the posts by former NET BoD members about krivit's bias and anonymous funding.

The whole LENR vs Cold Fusion debate is something initiated by people seeking to steal credit from P&F. The term Cold Fusion was not coined by pons and fleischmann and was propagated by people who wanted to cast the experiments in a bad light. It is well documented that P&F objected to the terminology.

[parallel]

CKay,

I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"

[KitemanSA]

As has been suggested elsewhere, the most appropriate name going forward is the Pons and Fleishmann Effect (PFE).

which of the multiple varients? This strikes me as saying that since Brayrton and Rankine and Otto and ... are all thermodynamic cycles they should all be called the Heron Effect. Sorry, but that loses a lot in the communication effect.

In the P&F experiments it is obvious that fusion is not occurring. The processes involved in the Ni-H and Pd-D experiments obviously proceed by similar mechanisms and the experiments are tuned by tweaking similar variables, e.g. metal morphology and hydrogen loading. Thus the P&F effect is a term which encompasses the phenomenon very well.

But in the claimed PF work, the outcome was 4He suggesting the possiblility of a solid state scaffold for a fusion process. With the claimed Rossi effect, the outcome was Cu. So I guess the question is, how do you define fusion? To me, D+D=He is fusion, Ni+p=Cu is transmutation. But that is just me, and others I have read. Thus DIFFERENT processes, both LENR, only one "fusion".

The article on Newenergytimes is trying to make a distinction between cold fusion and LENR so that the authors of the theory that the site champions will garner more credit for progress in the field.

Haven't read it. Don't care.

The article from the newenergytimes website is pure propaganda from proponents of Windom Larsen. Did you know that Steven Krivit is payed to report full time on Cold Fusion by an "anonymous benefactor" and that he has a pronounced and obvious bias in favor of Windom Larsen theory proponents? New energy times is a crank website, it is the fox news of cold fusion.

Wow! The "Fox News" of cold fusion. Don't look now, but your bi-ass is showing!
And by the way, who cares if Krivit is krooked? I was responding to a bold, and IMHO incorrect, statement by Dan T.

My assertions with regard to krivit are easily verified by a thorough reading of the vortex list. See the posts by former NET BoD members about krivit's bias and anonymous funding.

Might be so, WHO CARES? Immaterial to this discussion.

The whole LENR vs Cold Fusion debate is something initiated by people seeking to steal credit from P&F. The term Cold Fusion was not coined by pons and fleischmann and was propagated by people who wanted to cast the experiments in a bad light. It is well documented that P&F objected to the terminology.

WOW, can you say conspiracy theorist?

Simple questions for you, yes or no:
Is D+D=He "fusion"?
Is Ni+p=Cu "fusion"?

[CKay]

CKay,

I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"

The "proven" bit is the sticking point.

Who decides whether anomalous heat generation is proven? After all, plenty of people believe that Rossi's various (deeply flawed) demonstrations have already done this.

Nevertheless, if the details could be sorted out, I'd put up £1000 against any such thing happening this year.

[parallel]

CKay,

I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"

The "proven" bit is the sticking point.

Who decides whether anomalous heat generation is proven? After all, plenty of people believe that Rossi's various (deeply flawed) demonstrations have already done this.

Nevertheless, if the details could be sorted out, I'd put up £1000 against any such thing happening this year.

How about any of the following:
1. Independently verified performance of a device sold to a customer, at the customer's site.
2. A report from a university that has tested the device.
3. A report from a government agency confirming the performance.

I don't expect solid evidence until later this year as the domestic devices will not be available until Autumn at the earliest. There is some hope that a 1 MW plant owner will allow inspection inside six months. Defkalion - who knows.

[Crawdaddy]

which of the multiple varients? This strikes me as saying that since Brayrton and Rankine and Otto and ... are all thermodynamic cycles they should all be called the Heron Effect. Sorry, but that loses a lot in the communication effect.

In the P&F experiments it is obvious that fusion is not occurring. The processes involved in the Ni-H and Pd-D experiments obviously proceed by similar mechanisms and the experiments are tuned by tweaking similar variables, e.g. metal morphology and hydrogen loading. Thus the P&F effect is a term which encompasses the phenomenon very well.

But in the claimed PF work, the outcome was 4He suggesting the possiblility of a solid state scaffold for a fusion process. With the claimed Rossi effect, the outcome was Cu. So I guess the question is, how do you define fusion? To me, D+D=He is fusion, Ni+p=Cu is transmutation. But that is just me, and others I have read. Thus DIFFERENT processes, both LENR, only one "fusion".

The article on Newenergytimes is trying to make a distinction between cold fusion and LENR so that the authors of the theory that the site champions will garner more credit for progress in the field.

Haven't read it. Don't care.

Wow! The "Fox News" of cold fusion. Don't look now, but your bi-ass is showing!
And by the way, who cares if Krivit is krooked? I was responding to a bold, and IMHO incorrect, statement by Dan T.

My assertions with regard to krivit are easily verified by a thorough reading of the vortex list. See the posts by former NET BoD members about krivit's bias and anonymous funding.

Might be so, WHO CARES? Immaterial to this discussion.

The whole LENR vs Cold Fusion debate is something initiated by people seeking to steal credit from P&F. The term Cold Fusion was not coined by pons and fleischmann and was propagated by people who wanted to cast the experiments in a bad light. It is well documented that P&F objected to the terminology.

WOW, can you say conspiracy theorist?

Simple questions for you, yes or no:
Is D+D=He "fusion"?
Is Ni+p=Cu "fusion"?

That is a simple question. Unfortunately, they are both obviously not happening in either the Rossi or the P&F experiments. Since in the former case there would be large amounts of radioactive waste created and in the latter there would be a lethal flux of neutrons generated.

Both situations are much more complicated than your simple implied dichotomy. Fleischmann, one of the most accomplished electrochemists of his generation, was well aware of the problematic reaction mechanism and thus resisted the "Cold Fusion" name.

You are free to continue to claim that the Pd and Ni systems work by entirely different mechanisms but that implies that there are two mechanisms by which nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature. A claim that is much less likely than a single mechanism common to both material systems.

Feel free to call the reaction whatever you want, Pons and Fleischmann won't mind, they're lives are already destroyed. I am sure Rossi (who cannot hold a candle to Fleischmann as a scientist) would have come up with his e-cat all by himself if they had never existed.

[JoeP]

Gentlemen, come on now. We can't wager for trifles like quatloos.
The stakes must be higher.

[CKay]

How about any of the following:
1. Independently verified performance of a device sold to a customer, at the customer's site.
2. A report from a university that has tested the device.
3. A report from a government agency confirming the performance.

So long as in each case the verification came from a source with an absolutely impeccable, gold plate, AAA+ reputation.

For 2. and 3. that may be easy to agree upon, but I can see 1. causing difficulties.

[ScottL]

How about any of the following:
1. Independently verified performance of a device sold to a customer, at the customer's site.
2. A report from a university that has tested the device.
3. A report from a government agency confirming the performance.

So long as in each case the verification came from a source with an absolutely impeccable, gold plate, AAA+ reputation.

For 2. and 3. that may be easy to agree upon, but I can see 1. causing difficulties.

#1 can already be claimed by unknown customers and their purchases. I'd agree 2 and 3 are your best bets for stipulation. As there is quite a bit of progress in the field of LENR, I'd recommend an additional stipulation that it be Rossi's device that succeeds and not any potential competitor.

[CKay]

As there is quite a bit of progress in the field of LENR, I'd recommend an additional stipulation that it be Rossi's device that succeeds and not any potential competitor.

Yeah, hmm, I see no credible evidence for progress, and would be amazed if anyone demonstrated beyond doubt significant heat from an LENR device.

Anyway, if LENR turned out to be viable, I honestly wouldn't mind losing the bet.

[Joseph Chikva]

Anyway, if LENR turned out to be viable, I honestly wouldn't mind losing the bet.

I am not reading more this thread. Has Rossi any successes?
Happy New Year.

[tomclarke]

CKay,

I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"

The "proven" bit is the sticking point.

Who decides whether anomalous heat generation is proven? After all, plenty of people believe that Rossi's various (deeply flawed) demonstrations have already done this.

Nevertheless, if the details could be sorted out, I'd put up £1000 against any such thing happening this year.

How about any of the following:
1. Independently verified performance of a device sold to a customer, at the customer's site.
2. A report from a university that has tested the device.
3. A report from a government agency confirming the performance.

I don't expect solid evidence until later this year as the domestic devices will not be available until Autumn at the earliest. There is some hope that a 1 MW plant owner will allow inspection inside six months. Defkalion - who knows.

1) would need to be independent organisation doing the testing with reputation to lose, not paid research. Difficult.

2) would need to be a report which unambiguously verifies performance with no wiggle-room. For example, BLP will claim that Rowan reports demonstrate their stuff works but a) they do not, b) Rowan has no research reputation to lose and the academic doing the research has an uncomfortably close relationship with BLP.

3) is not a problem.