Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Figuring out why anyone with a shred of intelligence believes Rossi is anything other than a con man is by far the most interesting challenge in these parts. And it only gets more difficult with time.

The only justifications one hears are (1) esteemed scientists from prestigious institutions vouch for Rossi (which is a joke from multiple perspectives), or (2) there is secret information that random internet bozos have that the rest of us cannot be privvy to, or (3) (the most common answer) anyone who doubts Il Douche is an evil skeptopath and a shill for the all-powerful hot fusion industry and is just spreading fear (of actual facts in this case), uncertainty, and doubt (which is bit like crapping on a mountain of manure.)

Quote from Bob

Well..... perhaps not.

My gut feeling is that "40 people" will attend according to Rossi, but they will be under strict NDA (everything is always NDA with Rossi) and we will not hear a single peep from any of them. So can one then actually believe anyone attended? Unless they publicly confirm, what can one believe. And I do NOT mean posting "I attended and saw marvelous, wonderful things" on JONP under "Darrin" or "Jane" is a confirmation that someone actually attended!

Frank Acland wants to attend, but my gut feeling is that Rossi will not allow him. ECW is the last bastion of Rossi support. While I do not think Frank would "push the envelope" is questioning Rossi while at the test site, if the demo was so obviously bad that even Frank would not praise it, then the damage would be severe. No, I really doubt Frank will be allowed to attend. But perhaps not. Frank would take everything Rossi said as truth. He does so on his blog almost everyday.

There was a buildup of expectations in for the release of tests results with a new partner in June of 2016. It was to be a marvelous revealing of the QuarkX with the "satisfied" customer. That test reveal was the blurry blue photo. No data, no test setup, no protocol, nothing but a blurry blue photo. ECW went into orgasm with joy and the faithful accepted it without question. This all turned out to be a lie per Rossi's court deposition. There was no new partner, no new customer.

Now another test is announced and people are believing a great reveal will be made. History with Rossi has proven one thing... he always disappoints. This so called test will be no different. I feel that the test will be not much more than the blurry blue photo, perhaps with a "Gullstrom" like paper attached. Remember when people were stating Gullstrom must have been in Florida during the QuarkX test? Lewans now confirms he was not. Another disappointment, although no one really took that paper seriously, they have already forgot the fact that Gullstrom MUST have been at the test! Another deceiving story!

I ask the question again to the supporters.... "Why do you still support Rossi? On what evidence do you conclude he has the real goods? I am not asking for you to argue my criticisms, I ask of you on what factual basis do you think Rossi is truthful, to be believed and has a working LENR reactor? What is the foundation of your continued support?" Pehaps clearly outlining it will help me regain my lost faith in Rossi!

Display More

Shane,

Rossi can rustle up 40 stooges for his demo

Rossi

"they reproduced the reactor in the laboratories of the Uppsala University and followed the instructions contained in my patent.

I know the measurements have been very conservative, always considering only the lower values of the margin of error of the instrumentation."

Anyone care to hazard a translation of Rossian?

Uppsala COP=1.0? COP=10 ? COP= 1000?

Perhaps Steven Krivit is adept at Rossian as he is a ITER-speak.

Krivit's discussion of misleading ITER-speak is revealing

e.g "selfheating" does not mean "selfsustaining"

http://news.newenergytimes.net…power-amplification-myth/

Quote from Roseland67

Shane,

Rossi can rustle up 40 stooges for his demo

easy, he will just hire nameless ones from the parking lot at Home Depot as history has shown

Quote from bocijn

Perhaps Steven Krivit is adept at Rossian as he is a ITER-speak.

Krivit's discussion of misleading ITER-speak is revealing

e.g "selfheating" does not mean "selfsustaining"

http://news.newenergytimes.net…power-amplification-myth/

Display More

The problem I have with this analysis is that ITER is an experiment designed by physicists and not a power plant as it doesn't produce electricity. It is clearly designed to have extra measurement, calibration, monitoring, and safety equipment. This extra gear uses power. The data collected from ITER, good and bad, will be used to refine the next designs on the way to making a power plant. The criticism from the CF/LENR community of ITER is expected. Once fusion is proven to work in a controlled manner by physicists, what little longshot, 1 in 100+ chance, funding for CF/LENR that remains will disappear.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

The problem I have with this analysis is that ITER is an experiment designed by physicists and not a power plant as it doesn't produce electricity. It is clearly designed to have extra measurement, calibration, monitoring, and safety equipment. This extra gear uses power. The data collected from ITER, good and bad, will be used to refine the next designs on the way to making a power plant. The criticism from the CF/LENR community of ITER is expected. Once fusion is proven to work in a controlled manner by physicists, what little longshot, 1 in 100+ chance, funding for CF/LENR that remains will disappear.

That is hardly correct. ITER-style fusion would be v large scale. Even the proposed much smaller fusion reactors (an outside chance, just like LENR, except the issues are technological and fairly quickly resolved as breakers or OK) are still pretty big. Whereas LENR if it ever lived up to the promise would allow small-scale cheap power.

So the reason LENR enthusiasts are so dismissive of hot fusion is not I think competition. More it is that hot fusion, though difficult and unclear in terms of final outcome, has clear science backing it with scientific results continuing to emerge. I think that, and the apparent inequity of massive funding for hot fusion, makes LENR enthusiasts unhappy, and the shrill condemnation relates to that.

Quote from THHuxleynew

More it is that hot fusion, though difficult and unclear in terms of final outcome, has clear science backing it with scientific results continuing to emerge.

No one I know objects to the clear scientific backing. That makes no sense. By that standard, cold fusion researchers would object to natural gas turbines, wind turbines, coal, uranium fission, and every other existing energy source, since they all have clear science backing them (not to mention actual technology). The problems are:

1. There is no likely engineering path to electric power generation. Nothing has been seriously explored as far as I know.

2. The extreme radioactivity destroys the device too quickly to make it cost effective.

3. The device apparently only works on such a large scale it would not be suitable for many applications.

4. Conventional sources such as PV are likely to be much cheaper and safer.

5. The budget allocated is disproportional to the likely technology. This much money allocated to wind or PV power would likely produce a much larger ROI.

6. Conventional nuclear power such as advanced fission are safer and more cost effective. See Krakowski et. al:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf

I think if I have a minor objection to ITER NIF in the context of LENR, it is something along these lines:

• I don't get the sense that dropping a series of hohlraums into an intense laser field will ever provide a practical path to power generation (echoing Jed's point 1). If at some point they discover something valuable from that research, they'll still need to scrap the whole setup and try something new, almost from scratch. Just my hunch/intuition.
• It seems to me that if something as speculative as ITER NIF is awarded years and decades of funding, with what amounts to a blank check, an amount that is orders of magnitude less could profitably be invested in exploring the empirical claims (in contrast to theoretical ones) pertaining to LENR, in the event that there is something there. (In my view a non-trivial possibility.) If there is something shown to be there, it is much more easy to envision a viable engineering path to a practical energy source than ITER NIF, which (per the previous point) will need to be reworked even if something comes out of it.

ETA: Meant NIF (not directly pertinent to this thread) rather than ITER.

If something is hotter than it's environment, it's easy enough to extract and convert that energy into whatever form you please.

I agree with the other points above though.

Quote from Eric Walker

I think if I have a minor objection to ITER in the context of LENR, it is something along these lines:

I don't get the sense that dropping a series of hohlraums into an intense laser field . . .

That is inertial confinement fusion (laser fusion). Not ITER. ITER is magnetic confinement, a.k.a. Tokamak.

I have heard that inertial confinement is conducted mainly as a way to develop nuclear weapons. It is no longer considered a likely source of energy, given the difficulties it has encountered. It is a way of doing physical tests without setting off bombs, which would violate the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A DoE weapons guy once told Gene Mallove that the inertial confinement program is "a pimple on the ass of production." ("Production" is DoE and DoD jargon meaning the production of nuclear weapons.)

Quote from JedRothwell

That is inertial confinement fusion (laser fusion). Not ITER. ITER is magnetic confinement, a.k.a. Tokamak.

Ah, yes! My error. I was thinking of NIF. My comments would apply to NIF rather than ITER.

Quote from Zeus46

If something is hotter than it's environment, it's easy enough to extract and convert that energy into whatever form you please.

Most of the energy from a Tokamak is the form of neutron radiation. Various schemes have been proposed to convert this radiation into heat, which can then be used to produce steam to generate electricity. I think most of these methods call for a blanket of material of some sort that absorbs neutrons. That is challenging and inefficient, as you might imagine. The blanket becomes highly radioactive in a short time.

Proposals exhibited to Congress to use a Tokamak as a power source used to include schematics with a large, imaginary blank space between the block symbol for the reactor and the steam turbines. I guess that indicated "somehow we get from A to B . . ."

Quote from Shane D.

Anyway you look at it, even if the demo appears honest and authentic, there will always be doubt until a truly independent evaluation happens.

Agreed.

Quote

Last that happened, we know what IH found.

Yes we do. We discovered that IH found it to work, notwithstanding the smoke.