10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Crawdaddy]

PS - unless your theories are very weird half the positive LENR results must be experimental error. Since half relate to D and half to H. The underlying hypothesised mechanisms are different and mutually exclusive. The chances of two separate unusual mechanisms both being true seems highly unlikely.

So you know most likely half the LENR positives (either D or H) are error. Does that increase your faith in the other half?

First you wrongly assert that there is a viable theory for cold fusion, then you assert that theory trumps experiment, and finally you use two incredibly poorly reasoned arguments that run counter to the very tenets of science to ask a foolish rhetorical question.

What are you thinking?

[ScottL]

PS - unless your theories are very weird half the positive LENR results must be experimental error. Since half relate to D and half to H. The underlying hypothesised mechanisms are different and mutually exclusive. The chances of two separate unusual mechanisms both being true seems highly unlikely.

So you know most likely half the LENR positives (either D or H) are error. Does that increase your faith in the other half?

First you wrongly assert that there is a viable theory for cold fusion, then you assert that theory trumps experiment, and finally you use two incredibly poorly reasoned arguments that run counter to the very tenets of science to ask a foolish rhetorical question.

What are you thinking?

I fail to see where he asserts there is a viable theory. Looks conditional at best, if there is a correct theory, it likely only supports 1 of 2 proposed mechanisms. He says its unlikely that one of these mechanisms is viable and can lead to a viable theory and even more unlikely that both are viable.

As for experiment vs. theory, 20+ years and neither has produced much of anything with regard to LENR. We're still right where we were, but with more arguing. From a personal view, I'd say show me something or shutup and stop playing the "me too" game with regard to all these "out of the woodwork" experimentors and theorists.

[303]

kiteman, you are being too fair to rossi. No one can prove he is a fake/flake , but its worth pointing out that it's rossi who is making bold and ,as yet, unsubstantianted claims

such as

over unity by significant amount

factories churning out e-cats

megawatt class units sold


yet over unity never convincingly demonstrated

factory seems to change location depending on rossi's mood

megawatt unit - per-lease (mystery colonel ?? perhaps its hannibal from a-team)

when all thats needed to convince most the people here, a decent write up with some data that makes sense , experimental setup that covers most if not all basis for error, a video without diesel generators and frankly pathetic amounts of steam

not rocket science, for a scientist, you might think


like anything u cant prove, its not 50/50 , god OR no god, e-cat ==future of power OR e-cat == less useful than a chocolate nob , have to weigh up probability of either case being true

rossi has conviction for fraud, he makes very bold statements, his demonstrations are unconvincing - it's not just random , uncalled for ad hominem attack

[polyill]

If your "judgements" were along the line of "his data don't support his claims", I would ha[v]e to agree with you and as I understand it, that would be a valid scientific statement.

But people like you are saying "he is a liar". They then present trash as evidence and are annoyed with me when I point out their "evidence" is trash.

THEY are making the "positive claim" here (he IS a liar), one that needs evidence to corroberate. Haven't seen any yet.

And no, that doesn't make me "holier than the Pope", just righteous enough!

I fail to understand why my OPINION must be a "valid scientific statement". Really.
Rossi's opinion on capabilities and performance of the so-called E-Cat,
the way he presents it, IMPLIES scientific validity, mine does not.

Likewise, since I make no scientific claims, but rather present an opinion,
what you call evidence is rather information (partly factual and partly not)
relevant with regard to my opinion, which I choose to present.
You can call it "trash", if that is the attitude you prefer, but that's not what annoys me.
Your righteousness, OTOH does. Frankly, it defies its own purpose
(like Human Rights Watch does by defending terrorists), exercised by you.

Your claim of lack of evidence for Rossi being a liar just proves my point:
all you care about is being righteous, regardless of the matter of discussion,
even at the price of loosing the matter of discussion completely
and claiming the Elephant is not there, 'cause "they" can't tell you
how many liters of elephantity does it currently contain.

That is awfully troll-like

And Kiteman, of course it does not make you holier than the Pope;
You can't be holier than the Pope, that's the point about this saying,
mmmkay?

[parallel]

Crawdaddy,
Why ask tomclarke the rhetorical question. He knows cold fusion can't happen because he has faith in hot fusion theory being complete.

Likewise he suggests Rossi writes a paper to be peer reviewed by hot fusion physicists, as if it would ever get past an editor and even if it did, they would be certain to give it a thumbs down too, no matter what proof was provided. They all are certain it can't happen. Such a paper will have to wait until there are commercial units sold - if that ever happens. I still think it likely.

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

In our blogosphere lack of evidence is apparently proof of fraud and lying. Strange world.

[Giorgio]

From time-to-time posters here have mentioned Blacklight Power (BLP) in passing while discussing the claims of the LENR folks (Rossi, DGT, etc.). BLP has been very quiet from a long time and I wondered how they could stand to be upstaged by the Italians and Greeks. Well they finally speak (press release):

http://dev.blacklightpower.com/press/052212-2/

Validation Reports here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technolo ... n-reports/

Seems like a fairly reputable group of chaps.

My personal opinion on BLP is not very high.
They tend to come out every few years with some huge announcement (normally during a new financing round), they promise a working reactor in "X" month just to disappear right after.
If I am not wrong this is the 4th or 5th type of technology/product they are announcing. Before it was the powder, than the fluid bed type reactor for power plants, now an electrolytic cell....

Is really hard to give credit anymore to a company like than.

[Giorgio]

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

Sorry, I have been out several months and maybe I missed up something here.
Did Rossi or Defkalion finally publish some real data and real life measurements?

If yes, can I have a link to those data please?

[tomclarke]

PS - unless your theories are very weird half the positive LENR results must be experimental error. Since half relate to D and half to H. The underlying hypothesised mechanisms are different and mutually exclusive. The chances of two separate unusual mechanisms both being true seems highly unlikely.

So you know most likely half the LENR positives (either D or H) are error. Does that increase your faith in the other half?

First you wrongly assert that there is a viable theory for cold fusion,

viability is not binary. None of the "theories" are viable in teh sense that none make disprovable predictions, nor do any close the gaps in mechanism.

But the point is more subtle. Of the imaginable theories D & H behave differently. In the experiments D results often use H as control (though less often vice versa). So these D experiment results are clearly invalid if H does LENR. If D does LENR then it is not likely H also does LENR (from the posited D fusion reactions).

So even if you have some mechanism that applies equally to D & H (in which case its probably not nuclear, as D & H have v different nuclear characteristics) the many experiments claiming results with D controlled by H are then invalid.

then you assert that theory trumps experiment,

When have I said that? I assert that flakey experiments do not prove anything contrary to theory well supported by countless experiments.

and finally you use two incredibly poorly reasoned arguments that run counter to the very tenets of science to ask a foolish rhetorical question.

What are you thinking?

You'll have to explain this. I can present this argument in terms of Bayesian probabilities so it flies. The basic idea is that the LENR results are very likely internally inconsistent if real. That makes chances of them being real lower. Persobnally, I can look at them and say none are convincing. But if you did not have enough info to make that judgement, the fact of known internal inconsistency would in any case make the results suspect.

Forgive me for the rhetorical question. It was an oblique way of referencing the logical (well, actually probabilistic) argument above. I'll present it more fully if you require. The assumption is that the D & H LENR experimental weight of evidence is correlated - which is reasonable given that the LENR people don't seem able to distinguish betweeen them.

Given the weight of experiment on the other (non-LENR) side, you need very high weight of evidence for teh LENR idea (its not yet a theory becasue it can't be disproved) to be likely.

[Kahuna]

My personal opinion on BLP is not very high.
They tend to come out every few years with some huge announcement (normally during a new financing round), they promise a working reactor in "X" month just to disappear right after.
If I am not wrong this is the 4th or 5th type of technology/product they are announcing. Before it was the powder, than the fluid bed type reactor for power plants, now an electrolytic cell....

Is really hard to give credit anymore to a company like than.

Agree. BLP has a very long chain of undelivered promises going back to 1990. Based on that their credibility is very low IMO. That being said, Mills has raised a ton of money ($75 Million or so) so he must be convincing someone he has something. Also, I think the validators did put there reputations on the line (although I might to if I was being paid enough).

[Kahuna]

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

Sorry, I have been out several months and maybe I missed up something here.
Did Rossi or Defkalion finally publish some real data and real life measurements?

If yes, can I have a link to those data please?

That's a definate NO.

[tomclarke]

Crawdaddy,
Why ask tomclarke the rhetorical question. He knows cold fusion can't happen

NO - I just think that on current evidence it is highly unlikely

because he has faith in hot fusion theory being complete.

I don't understand this. What do you mean by hot fusion theory? And why should it have any relationship to cold fusion.

Many of the ideas for explaining for CF-like results are not fusion at all:
WL
other weak interaction stuff
hydrinos
highly compressed bubble ideas (this is actually hot fusion, but the ideas that bubbles can compres enough is separate)

Likewise he suggests Rossi writes a paper to be peer reviewed by hot fusion physicists,

No - better would be for it to be peer reviewed by metal lattice specialists. He does not need to call it fusion. In fact all CF experiments with positive results (not that rossi has that!) are best written up as anomalous heat in metal lattice unless there is clear evidence the mechanism is fusion.

It does not matter - anomalies are interesting and if in the end it turns out to be fusion, rather than an inter-universe electron pump etc, that will be discovered

as if it would ever get past an editor and even if it did, they would be certain to give it a thumbs down too, no matter what proof was provided. They all are certain it can't happen.

see above. And in that case explain to me own the various peer-reviewed LENR papers got published? Do you need a list?

The fact is, a few reviewers may be biassed (and not just against CF), but there are many possible journals, and overall good papers get published.

Challenge - find me a really good paper which was not publishable. (Not just which has been rejected from just one journal - happens to us all - nor one where reviewers ask for changes which are not made. Again, happens to us all).

Such a paper will have to wait until there are commercial units sold - if that ever happens. I still think it likely.

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

In our blogosphere lack of evidence is apparently proof of fraud and lying. Strange world.

Three unsubstantiated assertions.

[Ivy Matt]

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

Sorry, I have been out several months and maybe I missed up something here.
Did Rossi or Defkalion finally publish some real data and real life measurements?

If yes, can I have a link to those data please?

I think you're behind the times. Rossi and Defkalion don't matter so much anymore. All that matters is that LENR is a proven fact. So many people are claiming to be making advancements (nearly all of whom were doing cold fusion research before Rossi showed up on the scene) that surely a breakthrough is just around the corner, even if Rossi and Defkalion don't come through. Of course, the inevitable breakthrough will probably be stifled if we don't grant sufficient funds for the research (beyond the $5.5 million Sidney Kimmel donated to the University of Missouri).

[Ivy Matt]

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

Maybe you could make that claim about some areas of physics, but hot fusion research is very closely tied to experimental results (one of the things that makes it so expensive). Of course, objections to cold fusion or other nuclear reactions as explanations for results obtained with hydrogen-loaded transition metals are not based so much on research into controlled fusion as on the accumulation of nuclear reaction data obtained using particle accelerators, which is generally placed in the category of nuclear or particle physics rather than plasma physics or controlled fusion research. Of course, the fields are closely enough related that there is a bit of overlap in expertise.

[JoeP]

<snip>
It does not matter - anomalies are interesting and if in the end it turns out to be fusion, rather than an inter-universe electron pump etc, that will be discovered

Sweet, someone else has read The Gods Themselves

I'm not the only one that was reminded a bit of Azimov's character Frederick Hallam when this whole Rossi thing first came out. Of course, in the book, Hallam was working with an anomalous energy source that turned out to be the real deal. With Rossi that seems farfetched.

[ladajo]

Crawdaddy,
Why ask tomclarke the rhetorical question. He knows cold fusion can't happen because he has faith in hot fusion theory being complete.

Likewise he suggests Rossi writes a paper to be peer reviewed by hot fusion physicists, as if it would ever get past an editor and even if it did, they would be certain to give it a thumbs down too, no matter what proof was provided. They all are certain it can't happen. Such a paper will have to wait until there are commercial units sold - if that ever happens. I still think it likely.

In their world, like climate science, models and theory are more important than data and real life measurements.

In our blogosphere lack of evidence is apparently proof of fraud and lying. Strange world.

And tell me again why Rossi can't just put it in a tub of water in a public demo?
And tell me again why you refuse to see clear contradictions in Rossi's ever changing story?
I have made a point of only showing Rossi-quotes. His own words.
I have sold E-cats/I have not sold E-cats.
I am doing research and testing with UoB/I am not doing research and testing with UoB.
There is radiation/There is not radiation.
I have operating factories/I do not have operating factories.
The customer is getting certifications/I am getting certifications.
I built the 1MW in America/I put it together with american parts in Bologna.
I am working with National Instruments/I am not working with National Instruments.
The customer owns it/The customer does not own it.
The customer has it/The customer does not have it.
There is a customer/There is not a customer.
etc.

I know, it is translational errors.