The Playground

@'Thomas Clarke. I read almost all your posts and although I don't always agree with all your conclusions, I find your points thought through mostly intelligent, and even if some people are over whelmed by repetition sometimes I appreciate the amount of effort you put into them. I also appreciate the debates you have about facts with others on the forum. It does not matter who is right or wrong if we learn and gain something from the process. I would say for the most part I do learn something. This for me is what the LENR-Forum is all about. It really is the right place for those kind of discussions.

The court action between LC and IH I feel should be resolved there. I strongly expected Darden and Rossi will keep their evidence, disagreements, discussions and resolutions to that legal forum. That would look professional to me and reliable. It serves no useful honest process to spill everything out on the web forums.

Like everyone, however, I am as curious interested to know the truth as the next person, for me I tend to believe one side more as you know. Others tend to believe the other side. That's normal. But the key word is tend. It's not one side against the other as no one knows directly the facts. I would say even the apparent opponents of IH in this particular scenario were very happy a year ago when we all saw them supporting LENR in general.

Like everyone as well I find the "facts" presented by Dewey and Jed interesting especially if they turn out the real facts. and the debate about their validity also interesting. I don't want to dry up that well if it generates interesting information and debate.

I did feel over whelmed by the tidal wave of comments, but I suppose it could be some kind of constructive interference from two opposing points of view where both sides hold strongly to their original view points and those views get repetitive. I guess you can recognize that situation from both sides your self.

What doesn't look good is the divide and conquere style trying to force people into two camps. Either you are for us or not, and if you are not then you are idiots or sock puppets for some other master, or pay master, and deserve all kinds of abuse. I could not believe it when I heard some saying they are keeping logs of their perceived opponents and evaluating them in some kind of threatening way. That really looks strange and uncomfortable to me. I guess and hope it was a joke of course designed to express their frustration. This aggressive style though does not look good if it officially represents either side. And affects people's perception including mine of the orginisations they represent.

The other thing that disturbs me is that it can affect people's view of LENR generally. I know you are a skeptic but I think even you would not want it to just disappear but would like to see it seriously considered and discussed.

A relatively quiet case in court would do no real harm its normal for parties in business arrangements to have legal disputes that need to be resolved in court.

Imagine, however if you had just found out about LENR now and and only just started to read these forums. You would not see all those serious discussions and debates from the past just a lot of speculation about the ecat performance and some very ugly debate beyween 2 factions. The reality of diverse and informed debate between many different opinions in the crowd would be lost? Would you be inclindto read more if you read this stuff?

Stephen

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Sifferkol - if you cannot see the large errors in the Lugano report - and ignore the multiple people here on all sides of the argument who admit those large errors - you should be ashamed of yourself. Given such large errors lack of publication is not censorship. Arxiv is designed for pre-publication of stuff of publisahbel quality. Go to Vixra if you have something more flakey.

Perhaps arXiv's rejection of the Lugano report was advantageous on some level for Rossi's aims, as you suggest. I doubt that the report was rejected on the basis of errors, as implied above. There were errors that were immediately apparent (e.g., the lack of calibration), but not the kind that a gatekeeper at arXiv quickly skimming over the paper would necessarily have noticed. On its face, the Lugano report is one of the more detailed, systematic presentations of LENR research, orders of magnitude better than many of the conference proceedings. The reason it was rejected from arXiv is more likely to have been the topic matter (LENR, E-Cat/Rossi) and the controversy surrounding it.

Quote from Eric

On its face, the Lugano report is one of the more detailed, systematic presentations of LENR research, orders of magnitude better than many of the conference proceedings. The reason it was rejected from arXiv is more likely to have been the topic matter (LENR, E-Cat/Rossi) and the controversy surrounding it.

That is possible, or, more directly, the status of the previous paper from the same authors which was never submitted for "real" publication. Arxiv is supposed to be for papers that stand some chance of being published and if the previous paper did not get that, why should this one? A paper on this subject making substantive claims (as in the abstract) will either be world headlines shortly after publication, or be unpublishable.

Quote from Stephen

Imagine, however if you had just found out about LENR now and and only just started to read these forums. You would not see all those serious discussions and debates from the past just a lot of speculation about the ecat performance and some very ugly debate beyween 2 factions. The reality of diverse and informed debate between many different opinions in the crowd would be lost? Would you be inclindto read more if you read this stuff?

Quote from Alain

note that opinion on Rossi is not opinion on LENR.

yes.

Stephen, I take your point. There is a sound reason for polarisation over LENR at an intellectual level. It is logically difficult, given the vast amount of claimed evidence, to see LENR as "quite likely but unproven". You can reckon it is very likely (as some new physics effect) proven. Or that there is no significant evidence for it to outweigh the extraordinary nature of it and therefore it is very likely not real. The chances of the strength of evidence from experiments exactly balancing the a priori unlikelihood are pretty small.

Still, I'm not sure that is they way people come to views, and given the psychology the us and them stuff comes from some tribal feeling. This is not helped by some LENR supporters who behave as though LENR is a pseudo-science (which it may be) and treat mainstream scientists as though they are either evil or mentally defective.

Personally I separate my views about the participants here from my views about likelihood. And separate it completely from the question of whether LENR is likely.

Thus I'm perfectly happy for IH to support LENR research - research is always good. You can easily see this as noble, even if you think their chances of success are low. However I don't like deception. Rossi has in many ways publicly exhibited a lack of truthfulness which I personally dislike, even though deception is not identical to fraud - which would be where more people exhibit revulsion. And people here like Mats have gone along with this to the extent of not properly considering the technical evidence. Although there are always many uncertainties in this story the (technical) evidence for Rossi's pattern of deceptive behaviour is undeniable.

I think views must likely be polarised over Rossi. Either IH (presumably also Tom Darden) have been acting fraudulently, or Rossi has. Taking sides is not about whether or not you support LENR, or think it likely, but about whether or not you support Rossi. I find the evidence against giving Rossi any credence very strong indeed, and am happy to enumerate it. To give him credence is to accuse IH and Tom Darden of fraud. That is a serious matter. It is (slightly) different from the result of the court case, where speculation is only human but we just don't yet have much evidence to go on.

@Thomas Clarke, I agree there is nothing wrong from taking a stance on LENR at an intellectual level, it helps to explore a view point and makes debate easier I suppose. But I think there are also some who approach it from a broader spectrum point of view especially on particular issues, theories and concepts, devices etc point of view.

With regard Rossi we for sure have different opinions based on different data, different approaches and different experiences, but I suspect we respect each other. I certainly do you. I suspect niether of us is comfortable with character assassination either. Which is why I prefer these kinds of disputes to be resolved in the proper place in court.

i do very much agree with your view point about main stream scientists. I wanted to take that route at one point and was close to it somehow, but instead ended up working as an engineer. I can only be an enthusiast now. But I read papers everyday on a large range of subjects purely out of interest. The depth of knowledge and technical skills and mathematical skills that are their normal bread and butter work are far more than I have at my finger tips. Their skills are remarkable and there acievements also important. There are many on these forums who have great concepts and some also with equal mathematical and technical skills to main stream scientists, but I wish more main stream scientists would engage with the process, and evaluate and debate the data and concepts presented. I think many main stream scientists excel in their specific fields but that LENR lies at the interfaces between these fields. Still we need those detailed skills of those individual experts.

.

Quote from sifferkoll

Well, that was not the issue, was it Renzzie? I was merely pointing out that Dewey Weaver deliberately distort the facts for his own purposes; ie. lying.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a true statement. A true statement for most Rossi-supporters.

Quote

The most impressive test EVER CONDUCTED of the E-Cat that has been openly discussed was performed by Dr. Levi using water flow calorimetry. A reactor (after a very short initial heat up period in which a couple kilowatts of electrical power was applied) produced an average of fifteen kilowatts for eighteen hours. For a period of time, the reactor went out of control and the output spiked up to 130 kilowatts. I've been told by a source that the ENTIRE MODULE (not simply the internal reactor) was starting to glow from the heat. Dr. Levi called Andrea Rossi, who urged him to vent hydrogen to reduce the pressure (in these early systems that used only a tiny amount of lithium high pressure seems to have been needed to trigger the reactions) and the output stabilized downwards. All of this took place while the control box was only consuming about a hundred watts which was mostly used to power its internal components, with none going to the reactor.

Yes, Mats obtained reports from a number of observers, including Jed, who thought it (for different reasons in each case) impressive.

Only some considered the issue of thermocouple errors and therefore discounted any output heat - but in the end most agreed this this was significant therefore there was no evidence of output heat.

None of the observers considered Ascoli's: "active core model", and therefore most felt the long "no input" boiling period was evidence of LENR.

Unfortunately this long period of heat flow can easily be explained by a massive hot central core, decoupled thermally from both the heater and the primary liquid (you need this to explain the time constants, again this possibility was not considered by the one reporter who felt time constants proved the device must have LENR). The numbers from the weight fit.

This was a supremely clever test. And its analysis unusually complicated. But no evidence of LENR when you open your mind to a "loosely coupled 3 element heater/hot core/primary" model.

It does show the care needed when inferring LENR from apparently otherwise impossible results. In science, just as with magic, it is not natural for even technically astute humans to think of all possibilities.

Rends - You need to check your bias as a moderator. You are showing emotion and appear to have a tainted view of this issue. Not very becoming for an LENR-Forum moderator.

Have you seen Curbina anywhere?

(sorry for the cross post)

Dewey Weaver Could you spend a bit more time on the ERV report with an open mind and check if the 100.1C value that you saw everywhere could just be a placeholder for Penon to calculate a conservative value of power?

Is there another column for output temperature in the raw data? Is there one for pressure?

My belief is that Penon calculated power needed to heat water from 99.9 to 100.1C, thus being conservative.

As long as ouput water was significantly past the boiling point (and the other columns of data would confirm that), I don't see what would be wrong with that.

L.C. - Additional "ERV" information will be forthcoming but at a tactical pace. Curious minds on Team Rossi also want to know when IH will respond to Rossi's filing and I can share that the plan timing and strategy are "delicious".

Quote from Dewey Weaver

L.C. - Additional "ERV" information will be forthcoming but at a tactical pace. Curious minds on Team Rossi also want to know when IH will respond to Rossi's filing and I can share that the plan timing and strategy are "delicious".

What will be the first LENR product that IH will put on the market and when with that occur?

Axil - the QuackX is expected to be ready for market soon after the R&D is finished. It is an incredible system. Mach 8 steam velocity, a built-in flashlight, bumwarmer, can be ganged for speeds up to warp 10, etc, etc.... We're all very excited about the new developments. Of course that all depends on how the testing goes, be it positive or negative. F-something or F-somethingsomething. Massive production strategies will ensure that massive deposits can be taken in all at the same time. Massive robotic armies will rush this stellar technology to market at prices so low that the strategy ensure that no one else can enter. It is possible that so much free heat will come from these little pups that we may be able to declare the end of winter as we know it. Billions will be sold then possibly built and maybe even shipped in record time. It is a very exciting time.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Axil - the QuackX is expected to be ready for market soon after the R&D is finished. It is an incredible system. Mach 8 steam velocity, a built-in flashlight, bumwarmer, can be ganged for speeds up to warp 10, etc, etc.... We're all very excited about the new developments. Of course that all depends on how the testing goes, be it positive or negative. F-something or F-somethingsomething. Massive production strategies will ensure that massive deposits can be taken in all at the same time. Massive robotic armies will rush this stellar technology to market at prices so low that the strategy ensure that no one else can enter. It is possible that so much free heat will come from these little pups that we may be able to declare the end of winter as we know it. Billions will be sold then possibly built and maybe even shipped in record time. It is a very exciting time.

From the response above to a simple question, as a person invested in the LENR technology you seem you be quizzical about its prospects.

But again I ask seriously, when will IH produce a LENR product, and when will that product be released?

Axil - You ask your question in "The Playground" and you expect a serious answer?

Since I don't want to have to venture over into the more structured and mature part of this forum, I'll share my thinking. LENR R&D remains in the present phase for this sector. At the point where a technology verifies in a fully characterized setting then applied engineering can be considered as part of the path to productization and commercialization. Verification and characterization work phase continues.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Axil - You ask your question in "The Playground" and you expect a serious answer?

Since I don't want to have to venture over into the more structured and mature part of this forum, I'll share my thinking. LENR R&D remains the present phase for this sector. At the point where a technology verifies in a fully characterized setting then applied engineering can be considered as part of the path to productization and commercialization. Verification and characterization work phase continues.

Where can I go to get an answer?

Axil - go read the Books of Siffer.

Speaking of - a newly translated verse is in from the recently discovered scrolls:
2nd Book of Siffer, Chap 3, Verse 11:
"You shall put two stone hearts on the shoulders of the Ecat as memorial stones for the sons of P.R.
So that Siffer may bear their names before the overlord."

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Yes, Mats obtained reports from a number of observers, including Jed, who thought it (for different reasons in each case) impressive.

Only some considered the issue of thermocouple errors and therefore discounted any output heat - but in the end most agreed this this was significant therefore there was no evidence of output heat.

None of the observers considered Ascoli's: "active core model", and therefore most felt the long "no input" boiling period was evidence of LENR.

Unfortunately this long period of heat flow can easily be explained by a massive hot central core, decoupled thermally from both the heater and the primary liquid (you need this to explain the time constants, again this possibility was not considered by the one reporter who felt time constants proved the device must have LENR). The numbers from the weight fit.

This was a supremely clever test. And its analysis unusually complicated. But no evidence of LENR when you open your mind to a "loosely coupled 3 element heater/hot core/primary" model.

It does show the care needed when inferring LENR from apparently otherwise impossible results. In science, just as with magic, it is not natural for even technically astute humans to think of all possibilities.

Display More

Thomas I think Hank and you talk about different occasions. Hank speeks of a test performed by Levi in 2011. A test with no released protokoll and no other witness. I think it is this test Hank means http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304

You are talking about a test performed in oktober 2012 2011 in front of Mats and many more. http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717