@Alan: thanks for “fixing it” for me. Please enlighten me: what past successes can you cite for Rossi? Clearly he has impressed you with his accomplishments. What are they?
-
-
The IH doral test was a battle to thwart the theft of Rossi's IP by venture capitalist who had no intention of making good on their commitment to pay when all means were fair to use in that struggle.
This is batty on many levels.
First, there is no evidence that I.H. did not intend to pay. On the contrary, they did pay $11 million, which indicates they intended to pay more.
Second, even if we assume for the sake of argument that I.H. intended to steal the product, Rossi's antics would not have prevented that. I.H. would have known from their own tests that the machine works. Rossi's fake tests, his fake customer, his imaginary Mezzanine heat exchanger, and his preposterous Penon report would not have prevented I.H. from stealing anything.
Third, this cannot be falsified. Anything that Rossi did might fit this imaginary scenario. If doing a fake test or fraudulently representing yourself as a third-party customer would somehow prevent I.H. from stealing the technology (which it would not), he might just as well have done other unethical and illegal things, such as signing up new customers in violation of agreements with I.H., or burning down the warehouse. There is nothing he could do that would not somehow fit this imaginary scenario.
-
Yes, true science is having an open mind, but it also is very critical thinking. Science is not about looking through Rose Colored Glasses. It is about facts, methods and results.
I could not agree more.
-
Thus during the pulse the ITER plasma will create more energy than it consumes.
This is a quote from the Japanese ITER team? It is an odd thing to say. All fusion reactions below the iron limit produce more energy than they consume. They are never endothermic.
If you take into account the energy needed to drive the equipment and the instruments, some plasma fusion reactors produce less fusion energy than the energy needed to produce the reaction. But just looking at the energy going into the plasma and coming out, the balance is always positive. Perhaps they meant that ITER will produce more plasma fusion energy than all of the inputs to the reactor during the test run.
-
Hmmm.... does history have any importance at all?
History is definitely helpful here. It recently occurred to me that Rossi might be attempting a transition to the Blacklight fundraising model. BrLP have for years now shown DPS's (dog and pony shows) to investors and supporters on a periodic basis. To my knowledge, none of the DPS's have been rigorous and instead have just given supporters a tantalizing glimpse of BrLP apparently crossing a new milestone. Supporters continue to be devoted to BrLP. Their zeal is not dimmed by the lack of rigor of the DPS's. Nor is it dimmed by documents such as GUT-CP (Mills's masterwork), which, to someone with a basic ability in mathematics, looks like a diversion.
BrLP have successfully pursued this fundraising strategy for decades to obtain many millions of dollars from investors.
-
@Alan: thanks for “fixing it” for me. Please enlighten me: what past successes can you cite for Rossi? Clearly he has impressed you with his accomplishments. What are they?
A lot of people much smarter (and better physicists) than me think that Rossi has something. That is what impresses me, as well as the increasing number of commercial and other researchers looking at Ni/H as well as Pd/D.
-
This is a quote from the Japanese ITER team? It is an odd thing to say. All fusion reactions below the iron limit produce more energy than they consume. They are never endothermic.
The text in quotes in my post is a direct cut-and-paste from the Web page that Krivit referenced. I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I can't argue directly with your assertion. However, I do know that NIF was supposedly the first fusion reactor to reach 'breakeven', i.e. fusion energy out = power put in. So in principle ITER is a significant improvement over that. I suspect there are some terms that need to be clarified here (i.e. the opposite of what Krivit does) as well as in the NIF situation. It does require a bit of study to make sure one is following the details correctly.
If you take into account the energy needed to drive the equipment and the instruments, some plasma fusion reactors produce less fusion energy than the energy needed to produce the reaction. But just looking at the energy going into the plasma and coming out, the balance is always positive. Perhaps they meant that ITER will produce more plasma fusion energy than all of the inputs to the reactor during the test run.
The Japanese say what they meant, and they say essentially what you just did. During the actual burn, they are above breakeven. But ITER is not currently envisioned as a continuous burn reactor, thus it is overall at or below breakeven. They want to get to continuous operation, but are unsure how to do that or even if they can given ITER's design. The next gen reactor is supposed to do that though.
-
I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes. These doctors knew MUCH more about medical matters than you and I do. Nevertheless, they were idiots. It is quite easy to find smart people who believe stupid things. It is especially useful when the stupid things they believe are what you yourself want to believe.
-
I wish you Alan Smith to find the definitive answer.
Instead of predicting what will happen, could we just define, ex-ante, what we consider as :
1- a successful evidence it works
2- a definitive evidence Rossi have nothing
3- an impossibility to conclude
this is what should be done in science before you start a study... (at least in epidemiology&al to avoid p-hacking, or moving target)...
Anything like a demo for me is 3, and given past story, a 2.
real independence of measurement, freedom to touch and install independent instruments, with multiple converging measurement method, open the possibility of 1.
i still remember of Defkalion Milano show, and the trick that Luca found, while indeed freedom to measure the electric power was real, but the flow measurement was totally under control.
Time to redisplay the Milano show and cry.
-
However, I do know that NIF was supposedly the first fusion reactor to reach 'breakeven', i.e. fusion energy out = power put in.
Ah. That is another definition. The term is a little slippery.
"Breakeven" might also refer to:
The ability to self-sustain. That is, outputting enough energy at high enough Carnot efficiency to convert the energy to electricity and keep the reactor going.
Commercial breakeven. Outputting enough energy to power a significant number of buildings, not just the power plant.
Economic breakeven. Outputting power at a cost that is reasonably competitive with other sources of energy. I doubt that plasma fusion will ever cross this line, although with some breakthroughs, I suppose it might.
The Ivanpha Solar Power Facility in California is an example of a technology that will probably not cross this line. It was too late. By the time they built it, solar PV was much cheaper. If they had built it 20 years earlier the cost might have started to fall and it might be competitive.
The Vogtle fission generator now being constructed in Georgia will not cross this line. I predict that no more fission reactors will be built.
I doubt that plasma fusion will ever be cost effective, safe or practical. See this study from Los Alamos for details:
-
My only prediction about the November demo: those who expect a
triumphdisaster will claim to have seen one, regardless of what actually happens.My only prediction about the November demo: those who expect a
triumphdisaster will claim to have seen one, regardless of what actually happens.FTFY.
Rossi's genius is that he so orchestrates things that a demo that does not prove anything, but is so circumscribed that it cannot be shown bogus - obviously neither triumph nor disaster - will be seen as a triumph.
All he has to do is avoid very obvious errors. After 10 such triumphs some people on this blog and more on ECW are convinced his stuff must work.
THH
-
I don't think a demo will prove anything definitive. Test driving a new Ferrari is great fun but it doesn't prove it won't overheat in traffic or reliably start on a cold wet morning. But how could somebody from this place not go to see what's cooking- this is LENR-Forum after all.
-
I don't think a demo will prove anything definitive. Test driving a new Ferrari is great fun but it doesn't prove it won't overheat in traffic or reliably start on a cold wet morning. But how could somebody from this place not go to see what's cooking- this is LENR-Forum after all.
I certainly support people attending. I wish I could myself. I am sure I would get kicked out because I would ask some fundamental and appropriate questions!
I think why many people are "frustrated" with this event is the very reason WHY it is being given. Rossi will not be performing a true test, it will be a "dog and pony" show as Eric describes. I think EVERYIONE is agreeing this will be the case. No independent measurements, checks or even close inspection of the setup.
So then WHY the demo? Eric probably hit it square on the head. Rossi is trying to obtain more money from someone!
Now a true and honest person would prove that his device actually works. At least Brillioun is seemingly going down that road to some extent. But inviting some hand selected people to attend a demo that proves absolutely nothing, is in reality a very negative event. It is the same as Steorn and others.
So one must also ask WHY is Rossi doing this? What attitude SHOULD I have going into it?
I believe he is giving this demo for two reasons:
1) Perhaps mainly, he is a obsessed with attention and praise. His early statements about giving to kids with cancer, then a period about God and then the snakes and puppets. His language was always one that
attempted to garner sympathy and praise. His continual posting on his own blog, where he censors everything but positive posts is indicative he may be addicted to attention.
2) He is attempting to obtain another investor, who he wants to give him money without real due diligence. Just as Eric has stated, it has worked with BLP... hey, why reinvent the wheel so to speak.
What real benefit will a demo be, given to hand selected people who already sing his praises and have proven to be supporters? What really is will the accomplish? Will it be the world changer Axil has stated?
Hardly! Will it disprove anything for Mary Y? No. So what is the purpose?
I can only hope that Alan and others will attend and perhaps observe something that is solid and conclusive. If not, in my opinion, they should report exactly what they found... that this demo was nothing of substance and that it's purpose was surely for something other than showing the QuarkX worked in any manner. This in itself would not be a positive outcome.
-
If the technology is real, convincing people will be hard unless a really independent test, with cross instrumentation, is organized.
In that case , there great question will be why the Doral fiasco was organized, and if it can be considered as a fraud to convince a partner to flee (as it was presented for the Swedish team, "a magnificence").
If there is nothing to see, given the Doral clear fiasco, that could never be credible to witnesses, there is a possibility the pony show will be ridiculous, so ridiculous that it will be clear and definitive.
I expect none of the two conclusions, and I'm worried in advance. I can be wrong, and I will be happy to be.
-
I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes. These doctors knew MUCH more about medical matters than you and I do. Nevertheless, they were idiots. It is quite easy to find smart people who believe stupid things. It is especially useful when the stupid things they believe are what you yourself want to believe.
The measure of intelligence is not made by IQ tests, university degrees, and professional titles, but what one does with their knowledge and abilities.
-
However, I do know that NIF was supposedly the first fusion reactor to reach 'breakeven', i.e. fusion energy out = power put in.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news…through-nif-uh-not-really
The COP on this best run was 0.0077
In response to a post that I produced in support of NIF, I personally talked to a NIF worker who confronted Moses about the fraud that he was perpetrating. This person was fired as a result of his negative attitude. I also talked to Per Peterson who also worked on the NIF about this and he did not deny it. Per was too politically astute to tell the whole truth though but he did not deny the assertion.
https://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/people/per_peterson
Anyone concerned about fraud in nuclear energy development should consider the NIF where the fraud level runs into the billions and counting.
-
can only hope that Alan and others will attend and perhaps observe something that is solid and conclusive. If not, in my opinion, they should report exactly what they found... that this demo was nothing of substance and that it's purpose was surely for something other than showing the QuarkX worked in any manner. This in itself would not be a positive outcome.
I shall certainly attempt to be as comprehensive and accurate when reporting as I can be. No point in going otherwise. As for hard questions, I have some to ask, but cannot of course guarantee they will be answered.
-
I don't think a demo will prove anything definitive. Test driving a new Ferrari is great fun but it doesn't prove it won't overheat in traffic or reliably start on a cold wet morning. But how could somebody from this place not go to see what's cooking- this is LENR-Forum after all.
There will be a ton of accusations about such things as wet steam, hidden wires, wireless power transfer, high frequency power determination, and so on after the demo is completed. Will your attention to these type SCAM issues be such that you can assure the public that the detractors of this demo will be properly countered or supported?
-
"pathoskeptic technofascism" - wow, is that a thing? Or is it just nonsense?
From your fellow "skeptic":I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes.
Technofascism is exactly what it sounds like: entrenched industrial and financial interests profiteering from commercialized products, who socially engineer the dominance and ongoing commercialization of their products, and prevent the emergence of competition, through coercion (hence the "pathoskepticism"). Most of the time, it's stealthy ("you don't want to lose your lab budget, do you?"), but sometimes people die (eg. Eugene Mallove). Between the "respected scientific types" who laugh at the idea of LENR, and the hitman taking out a way too vocal activist, there's all kinds of stuff, such as astroturfing. -
You can read in what you want.
You stated Rossi had OFTEN claimed the FACTORY was a magnificence.
He never said that. You are simply wrong. Not a question of interpretation.
