- Pal
November 6, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can we know AT least date and time of the presentation of the E-Cat QX? - Translate
Andrea Rossi
November 6, 2017 at 6:44 PM
Pal:
The date will be November 24th.
The time will be 4 P.M. Miami time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
-
-
I hope they walk out in protest
Think about what you said. You should be ashamed.
Almost all the comments here are negative, almost all om ECW are positive.
Birds of a feather...
I don't know what world you live in, but in mine anyone that does not condemn Rossi for his deceptions should be ashamed. My gosh man, he rigged the Doral test by forming a shell company, fooled everyone into believing there was a real customer, with a real need for steam, and that a real product was actually being made and sold.
He lied about the mezzazine heat exchanger, and the special "recirculator pump" he is supposedly going to patent that ran the non-existent contraption. Then, after the 1MW container was padlocked, he set about destroying the plumbing so no one could reverse engineer it. Once IH turned over the plant to him as per the settlement, he could not disassemble it fast enough, and now he claims the customers do not want it. LOLs.
I could go on and on, but will save that for another day. The guy is as dishonest as they come, and he thrives on fooling others. If you ask me -just some guy on the internet interested in LENR, the longer Rossi stays in the limelight, the more the field will suffer. He is a laughingstock, and naysayers will use his fame/infamy within the community to justify their further condemning of LENR as a fringe, or voodoo science.
-
That is an unanswerable question. Suppose that you wanted to prove that aliens don't exist. So you ride a rocket to the moon and say "aha" they aren't here, so they must not exist, at least on the moon. Then you travel to Mars and do the same. The problem is, you have an infinite problem space to work out. You would need to travel to every potentially habitable planet in the known universe to confirm for each individual planet whether aliens don't exist. That presents a problem. It is quite difficult to prove a negative.
Jumping to conclusions is a cardinal sin, in my mind. That is not to say that we must therefore believe everything. That's also absurd. But when there is some evidence for a thing, the most rational position to take is to withhold strong conclusions until such thing is irrefutably proved. To me, in this instance, the only such irrefutable proof can come from the marketplace. The primary reason for this is that the scientific establishment has put up a remarkably effective blockade to peer-reviewed research and has instituted a remarkably effective reputation trap.
IHFB,
How about this,
Andrea Rossi will die of old age/natural causes without ever producing an
Energy Out>Energy In device.
No space travel, no aliens, no blockades,
just no Working Ecat, would that be enough?
-
Yes of course it makes total sense that people with a high level of scientific education would debate daily for hours on end what they think is bogus, pathological science, hokum, woowoo etc.
And then there are those that spend countless hours commenting on those silly fools that debate countless hours about this or that.
-
Jed posted this on Vortex the other day. I thought it was very good, and explained many things in LENR land. Do not know why he did not copy here, but here it is (hope you do not mind):
I regret to announce that Coolescence has closed their doors. They never
were able to replicate excess heat. I think they ran out of money, and
perhaps they ran out of gumption. That would be understandable.
Over at CMNS, Ed Storms posted a melancholy comment about this. We are not
supposed to quote CMNS but in this case I will take the liberty of quoting
a short portion:
> The skeptics will say, "Obviously, the better and more carefully the
> studies are done, the less likely the false claims would result." How can
> we respond to such a conclusion?
>
Since I can quote myself as much as I like, here is what I wrote in
response.
. . . That is a good question. I think the answer is as follows --
The most careful studies were done by people such as Mel Miles showed a
positive effect.
Coolescence tried to replicate Miles, but they failed. Miles says this is
because they made mistakes in the replication. You can ask him for details.
I conclude that they made mistakes in this replication, and in the other
replications they attempted. I assume the original studies were positive
and correct. Coolescence reported their results correctly, and these
results were negative. The disconnect is in the experimental materials or
procedures, not in the reporting.
Here is why I reached this conclusion and why I think it is plausible.
*Many Replications Fail Because This Experiment is Difficult*
There were many failed replications in 1989, including many done by
experienced scientists in well-equipped major laboratories. In most cases
these failures occured because the scientists were not electrochemists;
they did not consult with electrochemists, and they made elementary
mistakes. I described an example on p. 10 and 11 here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
There were some failed experiments conducted by experienced
electrochemists. In a few cases it is likely these were false negatives.
Here is a well-known example, by Lewis:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
This failure was not due to lack of skill or attention. Lewis did excellent
work. His paper is good. It has many useful suggestions. His failure was in
his analysis.
Even people who succeeded from time to time in cold fusion often failed.
Mel Miles worked for months before getting positive results. As I wrote
here the other day, the research project at the University of Missouri has
not worked well:
Many techniques have been described in the literature that worked a few
times spectacularly, but most of the time they do not work. They are
irreproducible. The SuperWave technique once produced, "Excess Power of up
to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h." (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acro
bat/DardikIexcessheat.pdf) I have heard that despite strenuous efforts, it
has never done that at U. Missouri.
I do not think these earlier results could be an error. 20 W is a lot of
heat. With no input power it seems unlikely to me anyone would confuse zero
watts with 20 W.
Richard Oriani told me that in his 50-year career in electrochemistry, the
Fleischmann Pons experiment was the most difficult one he did.
Experiments and technologies that fail drastically are not uncommon. As
Beaudette pointed out, to clone the first sheep, biologists had to make
hundreds of attempts before one finally worked. Billions of dollars have
been invested in rocket technology. Every rocket launch costs millions of
dollars. Rockets carry satellites worth millions more. Despite these high
stakes, rockets often explode. The technology is not reliable.
It makes no sense to say that cold may not exist because it is so difficult
to replicate. No one would claim that rockets do not exist because they are
unreliable.
*You Need A PhD in Electrochemistry*
As far as I know, everyone who replicated cold fusion had a PhD in
electrochemistry, or they worked with people who did. I am not sure about
Storms at Los Alamos, but Los Alamos is chock-full of experts in every
subject. Coolescence may have had first-class instruments but they probably
did not have the kind of expertise on tap that Storms did. I do not know
whether anyone at Coolescence has a PhD in electrochemistry. I do not think
so. That is my impression talking to Mel Miles. If professionals at a place
like Kamiokande failed for lack of electrochemical expertise, it would not
surprise me if the people at Coolescence also failed for this reason.
I do not know much about electrochemistry but I have spent a lot of time
editing papers about it and listening to people such as Mizuno, McKubre,
Miles, Bockris and Fleischman talk about it. They know a terrific amount
about the subject. Enough to write a textbook. Bockris *did* write an
authoritative textbook. Here is the point: you have to know thousands of
details about electrochemistry, if you get a single detail wrong the
experiment may not work. You will not know why.
According to Mizuno, McKubre and others, getting a PhD in electrochemistry
is like an apprenticeship. With Bockris it was like slavery, according to
Mizuno. It is something you do hands-on in a laboratory working
side-by-side with experts. It resembles surgery. You cannot learn it on
your own from a textbook.
McKubre and some others who replicated learned electrochemistry from
Fleischmann. That may have put them in a better position to replicate.
There may be details about electrochemistry that Fleischmann emphasized and
taught that were relevant to this experiment, including specifics that
Fleischmann and McKubre themselves may not realize were critical to
success. McKubre might be compared to an airplane pilot who had the good
fortune to be trained by the engineers at Boeing. He has inside knowledge
of the machine.
The other day Mizuno pointed out some errors in chemistry that he thinks
the people at Industrial Heat made when they tried to replicate his
experiment. Murray, at I.H., is an impressive guy. He has world-class
skills in calorimetry and thermal engineering. He designed and built
equipment for the US military and others, some of it costing millions of
dollars. If Mizuno were to explain these errors to him, and if the two of
them were to work side-by-side for several months, I suppose Murray could
master the chemistry. Unfortunately, Mizuno spent only a few weeks in the
I.H. lab. Murray knows a lot about chemistry and materials, but he probably
does not know the specifics needed to master this particular experiment,
because this is not his area of expertise. I may be mistaken, but I do not
think I.H. had an in-house electrochemist working on this project.
In short, people seldom master complicated science and technology without
direct, hands-on, in-person training by experts.
This is somewhat beyond the scope of the discussion, but it raises an
interesting question: How did we ever master these technologies in the
first place? For example, to learn to fly an airplane, you must train with
an experienced pilot. So how did people learn to fly in the first place?
The answer is that only two people learned without training: the Wright
brothers. They trained the first pilots, and these pilots trained others.
There is a direct line from pilot to pilot going back to the Wrights. Each
generation of pilots learns nearly everything from other pilots, and goes
on to master only a few new techniques and new equipment. Airplanes grew
bigger, more complex and took more training to master. Sometime around 1920
it became impossible for anyone to master an airplane without training. You
could no longer recapitulate the skills on your own, starting from scratch.
The process resembles the emergence of complexity in biological evolution.
No species emerges *de novo*.
-
Rothwell" Mizuno spent only a few weeks in the IH lab"
Murray " and then he came over and he spent, I don't·know if it was a week or ten days,
Mizuno " The activation process was not possible at that time. Moreover, I had only two days."
In both accurate replications and accurate recollections the fine details are important.
I am quite sure that Mizuno knows the dates of his airtickets.
-
Oh, now I see why Rossi abandoned the 1MW Ecat. It was "ready to die", along with "the reactors and many parts of it". Dang those machines! Too bad we are not in the 21st century, where those engineering problems are easily resolved...oh, wait, we are! But thankfully the 1MW, in it's "death", has planted the seed for it's offspring the QX. How touching:
Frank Acland
November 6, 2017 at 5:06 PM
Dear Andrea,
1. So far, how much more reliable is the E-Cat QX compared to the E-Cat reactors used in the 1 MW plant you ran for the year-long test?
2. When you say that after inspection you found that the 1 MW plant was “ready to die” do you mean the reactors, or other components of the plant?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi
November 6, 2017 at 6:39 PM
Frank Acland:
1- much, much more, but this is thanks to the !MW E-Cat tested for one year
2- the reactors and many parts of it
Warm Regards,
A.R.
-
Rothwell
"The process resembles the emergence of complexity in biological evolution. No species emerges *de novo*.""
I beg to differ Jed
LENR or any technology is not like "biological evolution"
Evolution is not postulated to involve an intelligent process.
Intelligent design produces technology de novo, ex animo, all the time.
Intelligent design often modifies the prototype.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
Ecat is dead .Viva EcatQX..
Perhaps Frank Acland needs to rebrand his site.
-
Parkhomov Padua! I thought it its day of glory! Physicists are mistaken, energy should be looked for on geology!
Gennaidy,
One thing that bothers me about Parkomov and Padua, is that MFMP was there also to replicate his Rossi Hotcat replication. There in Padua, he helped MFMP set up for *another* test of his reactor...the first being the failed replication in Moscow, and after helping do that, left with his granddaughter/interpreter for travel. It came to be known as the second failed MFMP/AP test. I wish AP would give an explanation.
-
"I fully believe real fusion will beat so-called cold fusion to have a working plant"
Have you seen any timeline for Wendelstein7X reaching "working plant" status??
bocjin - W7x is still an experiment where they are performing step by step science to determine the parameters necessary for a future plant. It will be many years before it results in a plant in the normal case. What I'm counting on is that once W7x verifies their version of real fusion to exacting, rigorous, standards, a smart tech savvy billionaire will jump in and take over. If the "SpaceX" scenario (where technology languished unchanged for decades until the private sector billionaires took over and we now have cheap reusable rockets almost overnight) happens with W7x, I see a working plant within 10 years.
-
Are all institutional scientists biased towards delivering the results results in small increments?
Detectable EH, cop 1.3, effect, proof of effect, papers, book, cop 1.4 repeat...
Adamenko with his proton-21 lab comes to mind. They were so exited explaining and documenting results that commercialization must be on the bottom of the list.
-
The reason why Rossi spent so much time at the IH demo site was that the version of LENR(solid fuel) that he was using was not passively controllable. Unless he was on site to adjust the reaction, then the 1 Mw plant would meltdown at some point. In contrast, the quark is passively controllable, It cannot meltdown because it is already in a plasma state. During the doral demo, Rossi tried to design a control system for the 1 Mw plant, but he was not sucessful. This controller design activity is where he spent most of his time at doral. The control of the quark is very simple in comparison to the hotcat. The controller for the quark is simplistic and very inexpensive to build since the quark cannot meltdown.
-
:Are all institutional scientists:?
Mizuno..is focussed on getting the COP up above 2.0 now and the durability/controllability up too
one paper just at the print stage now for the 2014 results.!
-
"I see a working plant within 10 years."
Maybe the same time for the Wendelstein7X HENR and the deuterium LENR reactor.
If its that long
I will already have 5KW worth of solar panels on my roof to charge the car and house.
Cost $5000/ Battery cost? $2000?
-
I see that AR has now revealed the demo date on JONP. The 24th November 2017. The place is still not public, but I am as they say 'all booked up and ready' thanks in part to some generous and unexpected donations from forum members and others. I think Rossi is cautious about being mobbed by groupies.
-
I see that AR has now revealed the demo date on JONP. The 24th November 2017. The place is still not public, but I am as they say 'all booked up and ready' thanks in part to some generous and unexpected donations from forum members and others. I think Rossi is cautious about being mobbed by groupies.
Using some logic informs the place for the demo: Florida.
-
I am as they say 'all booked up and ready' thanks in part to some generous and unexpected donations from forum members and others.
Well, the way I see it (and I think not only me but anyone who hasn’t lost his common sense) - going to Florida to check if Rossi has a working LENR reactor makes same sense as travelling to Nigeria and checking if Dr. Ibrahim Ahmed really has a gold treasury which he wants to share with others.
-
Well, the way I see it (and I think not only me but anyone who hasn’t lost his common sense) - going to Florida to check if Rossi has a working LENR reactor makes same sense as travelling to Nigeria and checking if Dr. Ibrahim Ahmed really has a gold treasury which he wants to share with others.
That will be the week after. See you there, Ahmed says such good things about you..
-
That will be the week after. See you there, Ahmed says such good things about you..
You know Ahmed too? Doing business with him?
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.