10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Giorgio]

I will be there shouting to everyone that they did not think the technology worked all along, and worked hard to suppress it.

Worked hard to suppress it? I think you do not understand that people here have much more important issues to follow everyday than wasting their time in "suppressing" ecat technology.

[GIThruster]

That is where we disagree.

I believe that absolute proof of the E-Cat has been provided.

Perhaps then, the trouble is with what you consider "absolute proof". Have you been exposed to evidence that has never found its way into this forum? If so, surely we'd all like to see it. If not, then it really doesn't come down to the evidence so much as your appraisal of it. Is there some reason everyone here ought to bow their knee to your enviable skills and reading of the facts?

[Joseph Chikva]

By the way, I'll keep on writing here even if every cynic on the forum ignores me. I'm here, and going no where. I'm not writing to impress the cynical pukes that try to keep us in the dark ages.

Conjurer’s assistant told.

[tomclarke]

My comment

You are so certain, it reminds me of the Church and Galileo.

was for your general attitude , not just for that one post.
(Like ivory tower academia vs. LENR)
Your subsequent posts go further to reinforce that opinion, yet you cannot bring yourself to bet even $100 on the outcome. Are you starting to have doubts?
How about "if the consensus following the tests is that the COP >6"? That takes care of dubious protocols and testers. If the consensus is unclear then the bet is cancelled.

As usual, I take DGT's statements at face value. That is to say I am not certain they are true without proof, but neither do I assume that they lie, like so many skeptics here do.

Now who is making arrogant assumptions in absence of facts?

"General attitude!"

My general attitude is that making extraordinary claims is easy, fun, but should not be taken seriously without extraordinary proof.

I don't assume that people lie. But nor do I accept their possibly mistaken or duplicitous extraordinary assertions without strong evidence.

The scientific community does not behave as you and some others claim. I'd like to see facts to back up your assertions. I can produce a string of highly implausible LENR papers which have been published, both theory and experiment. That does not look to me like a scientific community unwilling to look at facts contrary to its received wisdom.

There is a strong opinion that isolated results cannot be trusted, that any results cannot be trusted without careful checking. That comes from the experience of how difficult it is to do science, how easy it is to make mistakes. TH Huxley:
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing”


The strongest argument against LENR phenomena being real (in adition to the fact that they are extraordinary, occam's razor) is exactly that so much TLC has been lavshed upon the ideas.

Thousands of experiments. Good theoreticians trying to think of mechanisms. And thus far the experimental results remain tantalisingly inconclusive. If LENR exists it is difficult to see why there have not been clear calorimetric results (for example). Such results would make everyone sit up and take notice.

The startling results have all been very complex, and difficult to interpret, and inconsistent with any plausible theory. They have come from ion beam sputtering spectroscopy (your japanese stuff, or the dense deuterium Swedish work) where the data indicates the results very indirectly, with many possibilities for error. You want to see followups. In the case of the Swedish work the followups muddy the picture, making initial apparaentrly clear results much les clear. with your Japanese work I have not seen followups etc.

DGT say they are having groups test their reactor who are well respected. Why can you not accept that as likely to be the case?

Because DGT are an interested party engaged in a publcity campaign (fact). Where the reality is (like other LENR) tantalising and unclear they will want to put the best spin on things. That is if they are straight. Given their area of operation (near free energy miracle technology) and their associates (Rossi) there must be a substantial question as to whether they are straight.

However no doubt if experiments prove positive and independent 3rd parties are involved we will hear about it. The parties here may well be independent - I just don't know. So I won't take a bet on that basis. Especially because Kullander & Essen looked independent on paper but did such a poor job of checking the Rossi setup, and in the end said that they assumed everything Rossi said was true. Unwise, as we now know.

[Joseph Chikva]

I don't assume that people lie. But nor do I accept their possibly mistaken or duplicitous extraordinary assertions without strong evidence.

That may happen from the beginning. But then? Kitemane once said: "Rossi is not scientist and easily can confuse temperature in C with temperature in K"
I asked: "May be by wrong measurement he has confused 5 kW with 750 W of electric input?"
And have not received an answer.

[Skipjack]

I also think it is everyone's duty to defend true scientists (like Rossi) from the cynical naysayers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method. You should read up on that! True scientists employ the scientific method. They need not defending. They need verification.

a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

Any scientific theory is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.

You understand that this is a principle of science, that others are allowed to test your claims and verify or falsify them. True science is all about that.

He is a qualified scientist and he gave the numbers and calculations that matter.

No, he did not. Where is his hypothesis? Where is the description of the experimental setup so that others can verify and falsify it in independent tests? There is nothing like that. Without these things, this is not science. It is a theater!
All we have is his word that he did conduct these tests and the word of a hand full of people that watched a bunch of botched tests that might just as well have been rigged.

I will insult the die-hard skeptics day and night, because they have already insulted every human being on this planet by contributing to the suppression of the E-Cat technology.

How have we supressed anything? All we have been doing is ask for more information and tests! It is Rossi who is supressing his own success by refusing to perform some simple tests in setups that we have described here on this forum several times.
And insulting people is not science either. It is the job of the scientist to defend his theory against attacks. It is called "testing a theory". But in Rossi's case we have not even heard a theory. So there is no theory for us to test. All we got are a few measurement results in setups that we can not reproduce here and with not quite clear results.

If you read a few pages back in several of the threads on the topic here, you will see that I used to be borderline supportive of Rossi's claims. I however have turned into a skeptic lately because absolutely none of his claims materialized.
1. Where are the promised tests at Upsala University? Rossi cancelled them.
2. Where are the promised tests at the University of Bologna? Rossi cancelled them.
Without these tests Rossi only has the preliminary test (as Levi himself stated) at UoB and Levi himself said that he needed to perform more and more thurough tests before he will publish definitive results. He originally stated that he was going to publish details about his preliminary tests, but then never did that.
All the other tests excluded the public in some way and a lot of important measurements were not performed.

I'm looking forward to when all the cynics on this board and elsewhere are exposed as the non-scientists they are!

Uhm, that is not going to happen for the reasons of scientific method I just told you above. Science is all about skepticism. It is about questioning results. It is about testing theories. It is about defending theories against possible attacks by others. A true scientist allows this to happen and will welcome the opportunity and challenge to defend his work, because if he succeeds in defending his theory with the power of test- results, independent verification and math (not with name calling), his theory becomes more solid.
But in Rossi's case we have not even been presented with a theory yet.
All we have are observations that are not testable by us because we have no information about the experimental setup.
So really, the skeptical scientists here, at the MIT or elsewhere will not loose their credibility, even if Rossi succeeds, because they have done nothing wrong.

I'm trying to be a voice for the truth. The truth is what matters here.

people often observe what they expect to observe. Until shown otherwise; their beliefs affect their observations (and, therefore, any subsequent actions which depend on those observations, in a self-fulfilling prophecy). This is one of the reasons (mistake, confusion, inadequate instruments, etc. are others) why scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. The scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility, diminishes the effects of cognitive biases.

[ladajo]

I think what we have in our new self-proclaimed Rossibot, is another Aslan. To think, two Young Lions here in the wild, together at the same time. Maybe one will eat the other...

Young Drip, it would appear that all it took was one post to get you to leap down the path I predicted. I am sorry. You now have a long climb back up to where anyone is going to take you seriously. I really do regret that.

Cite and analyze an Ecat run and prove your point. I posit that you cannot do so, and will be reduced to handwaving, speculation and emotional discourse. This will eventually lead to you insulting someone, and then declaring that non-believers are bad, and not just bad, but puppets and snakes sharing in a global conspiracy to deny real science.

Please take your time here as an opportunity to learn. That, afterall, is why most of us are here. We indulge ourselves in science, debate, and methodology in the company of some great minds. Apparently, you have missed that, and arrived here thinking this is some sort of Junior High School Social Event where you get to proclaim that your sports team captain is the coolest guy ever, and no one dare challenge it.

Open your mind, see the opportunity that really exists here. You may be really surprised how the "non-scientists" here will challenge your notions, and expand your horizons.

Or you can continue to dig your hole, the one which I outlined I thought you may choose up front. Please don't.

And if you have access to Levi's actual report, please share. He has posted nothing in public that we are aware of other than some taken out of context commentary. Something concrete would be useful.

[KitemanSA]

The report is out there.

Aha! The nasoneX Files!

[parallel]

My comment

You are so certain, it reminds me of the Church and Galileo.

was for your general attitude , not just for that one post.
(Like ivory tower academia vs. LENR)
Your subsequent posts go further to reinforce that opinion, yet you cannot bring yourself to bet even $100 on the outcome. Are you starting to have doubts?
How about "if the consensus following the tests is that the COP >6"? That takes care of dubious protocols and testers. If the consensus is unclear then the bet is cancelled.

As usual, I take DGT's statements at face value. That is to say I am not certain they are true without proof, but neither do I assume that they lie, like so many skeptics here do.

Now who is making arrogant assumptions in absence of facts?

"General attitude!"

My general attitude is that making extraordinary claims is easy, fun, but should not be taken seriously without extraordinary proof.

I don't assume that people lie. But nor do I accept their possibly mistaken or duplicitous extraordinary assertions without strong evidence.

The scientific community does not behave as you and some others claim. I'd like to see facts to back up your assertions. I can produce a string of highly implausible LENR papers which have been published, both theory and experiment. That does not look to me like a scientific community unwilling to look at facts contrary to its received wisdom.

There is a strong opinion that isolated results cannot be trusted, that any results cannot be trusted without careful checking. That comes from the experience of how difficult it is to do science, how easy it is to make mistakes. TH Huxley:
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing”


The strongest argument against LENR phenomena being real (in adition to the fact that they are extraordinary, occam's razor) is exactly that so much TLC has been lavshed upon the ideas.

Thousands of experiments. Good theoreticians trying to think of mechanisms. And thus far the experimental results remain tantalisingly inconclusive. If LENR exists it is difficult to see why there have not been clear calorimetric results (for example). Such results would make everyone sit up and take notice.

The startling results have all been very complex, and difficult to interpret, and inconsistent with any plausible theory. They have come from ion beam sputtering spectroscopy (your japanese stuff, or the dense deuterium Swedish work) where the data indicates the results very indirectly, with many possibilities for error. You want to see followups. In the case of the Swedish work the followups muddy the picture, making initial apparaentrly clear results much les clear. with your Japanese work I have not seen followups etc.

DGT say they are having groups test their reactor who are well respected. Why can you not accept that as likely to be the case?

Because DGT are an interested party engaged in a publcity campaign (fact). Where the reality is (like other LENR) tantalising and unclear they will want to put the best spin on things. That is if they are straight. Given their area of operation (near free energy miracle technology) and their associates (Rossi) there must be a substantial question as to whether they are straight.

However no doubt if experiments prove positive and independent 3rd parties are involved we will hear about it. The parties here may well be independent - I just don't know. So I won't take a bet on that basis. Especially because Kullander & Essen looked independent on paper but did such a poor job of checking the Rossi setup, and in the end said that they assumed everything Rossi said was true. Unwise, as we now know.

You are so certain Tom, why not take me up on the $100 bet?
Surely you can't be starting to doubt the scientific consensus.

[KitemanSA]

Folks, you really don't need to quote the entire long posting in order to make a 1 or 2 line response. Please, selectively quote.

[tomclarke]

You are so certain Tom, why not take me up on the $100 bet?
Surely you can't be starting to doubt the scientific consensus.

I'm happy for a $100 bet. But we need to have agreed conditions. What is your proposal?

[tomclarke]

I'm not going to play games with you.

The tests in 2011 showed conclusive proof of excess heat.

There were a couple tests I am aware of that had problems due to leaking water. However, test after test showed excess heat.

Perhaps my favorite example is the 18 hour test performed by Dr. Levi in which the device produced 10 to 15 kilowatts of constant output. The output also spiked at one point to 120-130 kilowatts, which required them to throttle down the system. This was a simple test in which the temperature of water was increased.

Of course like most of the pseudo-skeptics with agendas, you will probably claim that we cannot trust the data because Dr. Levi is involved in a conspiracy with Rossi.

Since Dr. Levi's data isn't available, I remain unconvinced. Show me the data report and I'll look though it. If you want to argue with the big boys you gotta cite data, not rumors and hearsay. Repeating a comment does not make it true. So as I requested previously, cite any test with data. I'll gladly read through any reports.

The report is out there. I do not have to quote it in this forum.

Those who have been following saga (and who are not die hard cynics) already know of it and the many other tests that have been performed. The tests show that the technology works and produces huge amounts of excess heat.

Feel free to bash me, attack me, or belittle me. I don't care, because I know I'm right.

I just hope the cynics who have been attacking Rossi will resign from any science related job they may have when they realize their neibors are using home E-Cat units.

Of course they won't, because the cynics are the most disgusting human beings on the planet. In their twisted warped mind they think they are defending science from the "danger" of an unproven concept.

nasonex - for some reason I keep reading your id as nanosex!

Anyway, I'm just hoping that an exchange of facts has the potential of changing your "I know I'm right" view.

I followed the Rossi tests with great interest, and increasing dissapointment. They all had severe issues which makes extrapolating from the claims to the reality impossible. In some cases the issues are known (from careful analysis of video) in other cases we have not enough information to be sure, but there are still clear red flags.

So, Levi's 18 hour test. You say it produced 10's of kW peaking at 100's of kW. I think you mean this one:

February 2011, updated March 2011

On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. Compared to the January 14 test, they used a much higher flow rate, to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. This is partly to recover more heat, and partly because Celani and others criticized phase-change calorimetry as too complicated. There were concerns about the enthalpy of wet steam versus dry steam, and the use of a relative humidity meter to determine how dry the steam was. A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. These are approximations:

Duration of test: 18 hours
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.
Cooling water input temperature: 15°C
Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours

The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.

3,000 L/h is 793 gallons/h, which is the output of a medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump.

The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for tests before Jan. 14. Input power was high on that day because there was a problem with cracked welding, according to the Levi report.

18 hours * 16 kW = 288 kWh = 1,037 MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26 kg of gasoline (7.9 gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.

Impressive.

Now, tell me, how was that output power calculated? What are the error bars? Is the above summary accurate?

This little snippet might help...

Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts.

I'll await your comment and then fill in the gaps.

[Ivy Matt]

I know that people are going to scream and yell because I called Rossi a true scientist.

What knowledge has Rossi contributed to the world?

[ladajo]

That snakes can be puppets? At least that seems to be his hypothesis. Now, we see if he can develop it into a theory, and then test it using a combination of qualitative and quantitative study.

Oh, that would mean he would have to do real science and research. Ummm...never mind. Sorry. Went out on a limb there.

[Skipjack]

My biggest problem was that the output temperature during the Levi- test was basically room temperature. Without knowing the temperature in the environment, how much of that might have contributed to the heating of the water? I dont know. Nobody knows, because very little information has been published and/or critical measurements have not been made.