10KW LENR Demonstrator?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:54 pm

Giorgio, Parallel, cool down please!

For that part of your argument that I generated, my apolgies. Please drop it. Please?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:06 pm

KitemanSA wrote: First, he is a start up and probably doesn't have $ for a parallel path, PLUS it may be that reliable e-cats at that temperature may not be quite so simple. WSS!

Uhm.. maybe. I would have had a different approach to the issue, but WSS as you said.

KitemanSA wrote: You tend to ask questions rather than make statements, but sometimes I get to thinking such questions are all just a rhetorical ploy.

I leave rhetoric ploy to philosophers. I am more interested to get to the bits and bolts of the issues without filling the knowledge voids with self convictions like many are doing.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:41 pm

KitemanSA,
I agree the subject would be better ended. But Giorgio has insulted me numerous times over something where he made a mistake and is plainly wrong. Possibly it will slow him down in making derogatory remarks about Rossi if he is pinned down on this one (out of three) mistake. It was in no way your fault.

KitemanSA wrote:

Makes total sense to me if the temperature of the steam is limited to about 100° C. He said the efficiency would be about 5% which is what you would get with that input and typical output temps and typical mechanical conversion efficiencies. I didn't say he said it wouldn't work, just that it wasn't very good for it. COULD you do it? Sure. Would it be worth it? Not so sure.

Giorgio replied:

He stated several times in the replies on his website that the e-Cats can be connected in serial and parallel to increase temperature and pressure.
This is why I find strange that he also states that the e-cat is not suited for power generation.

Then, after I queried that statement "I don't believe he ever said that. Reference?" Giorgio wrote:

Why should I even waste the time to look for them and give them to you?

Now he is trying to claim he never wrote what is quoted below by copy & paste:

This is why I find strange that he (Rossi) also states that the e-cat is not suited for power generation.

Rossi never said that but Giorgio claims he did. He just won't admit that he made a mistake.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:04 pm

Parallel, you are behind any possibility of recover.

I am not going to waste more time and energy to let you understand the very basics of logical reasoning.
The poor attitude you showed in following a normal exchange between two person makes me understand a lot about your inability to see the whole picture of any argument, including your beloved Rossi.
Fortunately for me there are much smarter people to talk to in this board.
Feel free to live in your small world.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:14 pm

Giorgio,
That's pitiful. You misquote someone and then try to blame it on someone else.
Then when you run out of wiggle room you can only fall back on insults.

Did you write. "he also states that the e-cat is not suited for power generation." or not?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:16 pm

Parallel click this

viewtopic.php?p=63621&highlight=electri ... tion#63621

and this

viewtopic.php?p=63639&highlight=electri ... tion#63639

Now breathe slowly and admit you made a mistake. It's doubtful Giorgio wouldn't accept it move on.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:25 pm

Betruger,

I looked at the links. What was I expected to see?
Rossi said that E-Cats producing 100C were not very good for power generation. Of course that is true.

That is not to say E-Cats running at 500C & 50 bar would not be good for power generation. More to the point, Rossi NEVER SAID E-Cats were no good for power generation. That was just a figment of Giorgio's imagination.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:28 pm

parallel wrote:Did you write. "he also states that the e-cat is not suited for power generation." or not?

You can answer that question yourself.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:33 pm

Betruger,
KitemanSA may have said that but not Rossi.
See my previous post too.
Next you will be arguing about the meaning of "is"

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:35 pm

Who wrote KitemanSA's posts as pictured above? Giorgio? Teleported into KitemanSA's office chair?

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:36 pm

Betruger,
I was questioning Giorgio (who should know better)not KitemanSA, who wrote the quote in question.
I expect KitemanSA would admit making a mistake.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:59 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Helius wrote: All it would take is a single, well documented, straight forward, clearly published "in your face" experiment, that could be duplicated by any reasonable experimenter. I don't mean, an experiment that works 3 out of 5 times, I mean a clear experiment that demonstrably shows net energy out that can't be accounted for by expected chemical and physical means. NO One can seem to do that with any kind of clear methodology. Devise such an experiment, and you have an elephant in the room.

It never happens.
Why do you think "it never happens"?
For chrismb it seems "it never happens" because it is not published in a journal (s)he has personally blesssed to carry the word of "science". Sorry for the sour tone, but some folks insist on playing the "roundy rosie" game (ain't science cause it ain't published, ain't published cuz it ain't science, oh, and by published I mean "in this spoecific journal").

I believe such an experiment, even if unpublished in a peer reviewed Journal, but published *in detail* on the web, would, again, be an elephant in the room, if the experiment, well conducted, showed excess heat.

Perhaps a small set of graduate students would suffer some opposition from elder faculty advisors, but would not be wrong in following a well documented methodology of the hypothetical cold fusion experiment. I'm sure they would be allowed to continue, so long as the "expense" was at least worth the educational value.

I therefore think it "never happens" because the phenomenon is either too weak, non-existent, or intermittent for the hypothetical experiment to exist.

The phenomenon is at best subtle, and the worrysome thought for cold fusion enthusiasts should be that nonexistent phenomena are among the most subtle of all.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:16 pm

Helius,

There are thousands of references here. http://lenr-canr.org/

Look in the Library

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:26 pm

I therefore think it "never happens" because the phenomenon is either too weak, non-existent, or intermittent for the hypothetical experiment to exist.

The contribution that Rossi has made to the cold fusion technology is amplifying the effect some 1000 times.

He has done this by using a “secret catalyst” to greatly increase the active agent that forms the heart of the process.

The “secret catalyst” reforms hydrogen to its active form well over (1000 times over) what nickel can do when working alone.

Today, many cold fusion developers routinely produce excess heat from Ni-H or Pt-D without the aid of the secret catalyst to the tune of 10 watts.

Most people think that 10 watts (DOE-2004) of excess power is not useful.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:56 pm

Helius wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Helius wrote: All it would take is a single, well documented, straight forward, clearly published "in your face" experiment, that could be duplicated by any reasonable experimenter.
For chrismb it seems "it never happens" because it is not published in a journal (s)he has personally blesssed to carry the word of "science".
I believe such an experiment, even if unpublished in a peer reviewed Journal, but published *in detail* on the web, would, again, be an elephant in the room, if the experiment, well conducted, showed excess heat.

The issue for me is the lack of a statement/description of an experiment that is REPEATABLE. A repeatable experiment is a provable experiment. A lack of the capacity to disprove a claim shows it to be an unscientific claim. This is the very principle of science. I do not understand what the issue is here?