MOTTO
Uncertainty is the worst of all evils until the moment when reality makes us regret uncertainty. (Alphonse Karr)
It is better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot. ( Anatole France)
Uncertainties are not additive and never make up a certainty. (Graffiti on my phosphenes)
Uncertainties are endemic to LENR even from the initial Cold Fusion years. LENR will fly high and glorious in direct proportion to its ballast of uncertainties discarded. I thought about this when I read the nice and smart post at E-Cat World:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/06/09/if-you-were-in-andrea-rossis-shoes-what-would-you-have-done-andy-kumar/ Successful, with 57 comments. I would put the reverse question:
"If you were in Andrea Rossi's moccasins ("Don't judge any man until you have walked two moons in his moccasins") what would you NOT do from what he has done?"
And I give my own, fast answer(s) to this question now.
a) I would have not been produced systematically so many uncertainties , I would have been made in 2011 the "perfect experiment" with closed heat balance even if it could give a lower COP. See please:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html
b) I would have been followed a completely different patenting strategy because i hate to create vulnerabilities for myself- it is very counterproductive;
c) In no circumstances would I been so sadist to perform a 400 days experiment, communicating results only when it is ready as that with the 1MW plant, it is an act against the nature of research
I understood from the start that Rossi had problems, many of them control of heat is disputed here by Axil and friends, and he has solved them how he could. He will not borrow me his moccasins, I guess. He still has plenty of enemies and deniers.
His future depends on the certainties he will create.
You can find many uncertainties in the daily information.
DAILY NEWS
1) Comment on the Lugano Report by Thomas Clarke
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?usp=sharing
2) Follow LENR on Twitter in Real Time
3 ) Ricerca scientifica pilotata. Il caso della fusione fredda (o LENR)
Scientific research is not free, here Roy Virgilio writes about the Celani case.
Go from my way with LENR for generation of energy
They all cannot explain from where the excess energy comes. Even if they are not cheaters and it is not bout measurement errors: without an explanation there is no chance to scale up the experiments. Thy are therefore even not at the half so advanced as Cadarache.If it works than the explanation is first not so vital, the cause /reason can be reserched after too. It is important first to to bring the device on the market as fast as possible.
Joachim Durchholz 09.06.2015 23:18
Wut.Bürger answered
You cannot bring it to the market if you are not scaling up first from a laboratory size to a real Energy generator. And you cannot scale it up if you have not understood it at least in principle.
Uncertainty is the worst of all evils until the moment when reality makes us regret uncertainty. (Alphonse Karr)
It is better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot. ( Anatole France)
Uncertainties are not additive and never make up a certainty. (Graffiti on my phosphenes)
Uncertainties are endemic to LENR even from the initial Cold Fusion years. LENR will fly high and glorious in direct proportion to its ballast of uncertainties discarded. I thought about this when I read the nice and smart post at E-Cat World:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/06/09/if-you-were-in-andrea-rossis-shoes-what-would-you-have-done-andy-kumar/ Successful, with 57 comments. I would put the reverse question:
"If you were in Andrea Rossi's moccasins ("Don't judge any man until you have walked two moons in his moccasins") what would you NOT do from what he has done?"
And I give my own, fast answer(s) to this question now.
a) I would have not been produced systematically so many uncertainties , I would have been made in 2011 the "perfect experiment" with closed heat balance even if it could give a lower COP. See please:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html
b) I would have been followed a completely different patenting strategy because i hate to create vulnerabilities for myself- it is very counterproductive;
c) In no circumstances would I been so sadist to perform a 400 days experiment, communicating results only when it is ready as that with the 1MW plant, it is an act against the nature of research
I understood from the start that Rossi had problems, many of them control of heat is disputed here by Axil and friends, and he has solved them how he could. He will not borrow me his moccasins, I guess. He still has plenty of enemies and deniers.
His future depends on the certainties he will create.
You can find many uncertainties in the daily information.
DAILY NEWS
1) Comment on the Lugano Report by Thomas Clarke
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?usp=sharing
2) Follow LENR on Twitter in Real Time
Scientific research is not free, here Roy Virgilio writes about the Celani case.
http://www.ingannati.it/2015/06/09/ricerca-scientifica-pilotata-il-caso-della-fusione-fredda-o-lenr/
4) A German paper with "Vox populi- vox dei" comments
Energy from fusion a second closer
Fusionsenergie: Näher an der Sekunde dran
– Jennifer Lepies
It speaks about an US hot fusion company Tri Alpha Energy but the comments refer to LENR too, and I have found them quite symptomatic
They all cannot explain from where the excess energy comes. Even if they are not cheaters and it is not bout measurement errors: without an explanation there is no chance to scale up the experiments. Thy are therefore even not at the half so advanced as Cadarache.If it works than the explanation is first not so vital, the cause /reason can be reserched after too. It is important first to to bring the device on the market as fast as possible.
Joachim Durchholz 09.06.2015 23:18
Wut.Bürger answered
You cannot bring it to the market if you are not scaling up first from a laboratory size to a real Energy generator. And you cannot scale it up if you have not understood it at least in principle.
However I go out anyway from that 90% of the LENR researchers in reality are in reality Investment-swindlers- people who believe they have discovered something
and all they need is funding for the next size of prototypes and then nothing comes out. Their primary activity is not research and/or engineering but calming down and
defaruding investors.
defaruding investors.
look to Rossi. He has received for years high publicity n Telepolis but he lets nobody to look in his generators anddoes not want to explain how it works, supposedly from fear of industrial espionage- I do not believe a word he says because if he had something of value in hand , he would have long ago applied for new patents.
OTHER
5) Alain Coetmeur's pro-LENR miniature
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=11164108
It is perfectly safe to wait for the produce to be industrial.
What make me react is more when people try to convince others that it is not real, without having the available data, and without expression of just reasonable uncertainty.
About "conspiracy" , I don't support that theory.,it is not conspiracy, it is known phenomenon in organization and markets (I survived to Internet and Subprime groupthink). Denying it happened is breaking history. I know it is hard to admit, as science have a super-human image, but as now I have many contact with scientist, I know it is very human.
If you follow the story of Bockris, you will see clear bullying, horsemanure in the mailbox... other scientist like Miles were moved to the stock. Papers like Oriani were rejected despite positive review (please explain that with peer-review theory, without involving bias). You probably did not investigate long enough on that subject to know those episodes, I have an unfair advantage I agree.
It is also quite strange for people who imagine that thousands of experiments were manufactured, to claim that official science (claimed official only when it does not do cold fusion, instantly fringe when a military or national lab replicates LENR) is always right, while history show example of the opposite. Dislike for conspiracy theory is science at least should be coherent, and not reserved to the handful of experimenters who interpreted their failure as evidence of absence and proposed refuted theory of artifacts.
We should better calm. there is no conspiracy, just usual human-made science.
Please don't say LENR does not exist, as it is unscientific, unreviewed claim, and challenge hundreds of reviewed papers. However some results are dubious, and could be ignored until confirmed better. Not all, that is all the point.
About industrial claims like E-cat or Brillouin, it is rational to be cautious, both to prepare for an industrial revolution (Statoil, NTVA, Airbus, Elforsk are preparing), or as a business of technical failure. staying away from that is a good idea, but is is hard as the impact is huge.
Re: What do you guys think of claims for stuff like cold fusion?
What make me react is more when people try to convince others that it is not real, without having the available data, and without expression of just reasonable uncertainty.
About "conspiracy" , I don't support that theory.,it is not conspiracy, it is known phenomenon in organization and markets (I survived to Internet and Subprime groupthink). Denying it happened is breaking history. I know it is hard to admit, as science have a super-human image, but as now I have many contact with scientist, I know it is very human.
If you follow the story of Bockris, you will see clear bullying, horsemanure in the mailbox... other scientist like Miles were moved to the stock. Papers like Oriani were rejected despite positive review (please explain that with peer-review theory, without involving bias). You probably did not investigate long enough on that subject to know those episodes, I have an unfair advantage I agree.
It is also quite strange for people who imagine that thousands of experiments were manufactured, to claim that official science (claimed official only when it does not do cold fusion, instantly fringe when a military or national lab replicates LENR) is always right, while history show example of the opposite. Dislike for conspiracy theory is science at least should be coherent, and not reserved to the handful of experimenters who interpreted their failure as evidence of absence and proposed refuted theory of artifacts.
We should better calm. there is no conspiracy, just usual human-made science.
Please don't say LENR does not exist, as it is unscientific, unreviewed claim, and challenge hundreds of reviewed papers. However some results are dubious, and could be ignored until confirmed better. Not all, that is all the point.
About industrial claims like E-cat or Brillouin, it is rational to be cautious, both to prepare for an industrial revolution (Statoil, NTVA, Airbus, Elforsk are preparing), or as a business of technical failure. staying away from that is a good idea, but is is hard as the impact is huge.
6) Andrea Rossi
June 10th, 2015 at 9:18 AM
Frank Acland:
I can say that so far we are positive about what is going on, but the final results could still be either positive or negative.
We are constantly controlling the plant and many modifications are made during the operation.
Warm Regards
A.R.
June 10th, 2015 at 9:18 AM
Frank Acland:
I can say that so far we are positive about what is going on, but the final results could still be either positive or negative.
We are constantly controlling the plant and many modifications are made during the operation.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Can it be positive for 399 days and eventually negative?
AXIL DIXIT AND GETS FEEDBACK
AXIL
Rossi came up the Mouse and Cat architecture to solve the control problem. The open source LENR community have experienced a large number of reactor blowouts when the reactor is fully loaded with fuel.
The open source community could keep at the single reactor method for N number of years, or do what Rossi did to solve the control problem...that is to go with a clustered reactor architecture.
IMHO, it seems near impossible to solve the reactor blowout problem when it took Ross years to solve this issue. Why reinvent the wheel when Rossi has shown the way.
|
4:45 PM (20 hours ago)
 | | ||
It is not all that productive for us to discuss the Cat and Mouse structure when we have never seen an example of one in operation. Who really knows what Rossi is doing or what he is referring to? The replicators should keep moving in the same direction as they are at the this time until further evidence is obtained.
I think the problem runs deeper than just a cat and mouse thing. I have a strong suspicion that Rossi is keeping us concentrated upon the high temperature devices while he works at break neck speed to get the actually useful lower temperature ECAT into production. The replicators are fighting enormous temperature problems while he is playing with normal materials.
Dave and further:
I think the problem runs deeper than just a cat and mouse thing. I have a strong suspicion that Rossi is keeping us concentrated upon the high temperature devices while he works at break neck speed to get the actually useful lower temperature ECAT into production. The replicators are fighting enormous temperature problems while he is playing with normal materials.
Dave and further:
I don't think that anyone but Rossi and his colleagues can answer that question at this time. I have read everything that he has written about the Cat and Mouse and he has not revealed any details of consequence. Why do you suppose he gave a HotCat to the independent third party testers that did not have that structure? It could be that what we are testing has that system built in and we do not realize which component is the Cat or Mouse.
Rossi also states that the HotCat operates much better than the regular ECAT. How can this be true if the HotCat does not have the cat and mouse system operational? Too many statements without any valid support.
Dave
and Alain Coetmeur:
I disagree with Axil position.
The lugano calorimetry is dubious, because the lack of calibration at high temperature.
however the protocol itself, freedom to test, show that the manufacturer, IH, was confident in a positive test.
The isotopic shift show something serious happened, maybe not so poweful, but LENR.
the fact that lugano was an independent test show that E-cat is not a scam. thus the ferrara tests are genuine, and the conspiracy theory could be dumped.
the calibration at ferrara was correct, the emissivity controlled, and the COP was clearly high.
it would be suicidal for IH to send a mild COP reactor to Lugano.
my position is that Lugano test have to be redone with the experience of the last one.
for Parkhomov-style experiments based on Lugano test, I think there are many tricks that we ignore, and many useless tricks that we imagine... It will be slow and hard to replicate.
The lugano calorimetry is dubious, because the lack of calibration at high temperature.
however the protocol itself, freedom to test, show that the manufacturer, IH, was confident in a positive test.
The isotopic shift show something serious happened, maybe not so poweful, but LENR.
the fact that lugano was an independent test show that E-cat is not a scam. thus the ferrara tests are genuine, and the conspiracy theory could be dumped.
the calibration at ferrara was correct, the emissivity controlled, and the COP was clearly high.
it would be suicidal for IH to send a mild COP reactor to Lugano.
my position is that Lugano test have to be redone with the experience of the last one.
for Parkhomov-style experiments based on Lugano test, I think there are many tricks that we ignore, and many useless tricks that we imagine... It will be slow and hard to replicate.
Augusto D. Macchiavelli
How to Study Efimov States in Exotic Nuclei
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00601-015-0998-4#page-2
Joe Eck finds superconducting transition at 141C which is above soldering temperaturehttp://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/joe-eck-finds-superconducting.html
Joe Eck finds superconducting transition at 141C which is above soldering temperaturehttp://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/joe-eck-finds-superconducting.html
Yes, Peter uncertainty is an evil malady. I have always suggested to eliminate that stage by deciding that my best alternative is to decide to do what I think is right (best) and then stay that course. Sometimes it means suffering but it certainly preserve one's sanity.Sometimes (when you make the correct decision) it is very rewarding. Even in WW1 they knew 'no man;s land ' was bad news.
ReplyDeleteTo the Rossi question; I agree with you that he would have benefited from another approach. However we were not in his moccasins so we do not know. Referring to my philosophy above; I would not have walked the same path. Perhaps I would have success perhaps I would be facing failure.
However, I do not want to judge him nor advice him (to little information). If I had the understanding it sounds like many vorts have, I would make my theory, build a contraption, test it and then report it. Patent it if you so prefer.
I find it somewhat meaningless with advice and theories that never becomes free of that uncertainty.
The endless chatter from the 'peanut gallery' of lenr produces the major problem in the field. A "peanut gallery' is defined as being those people sitting in the cheap seats! Those cheapskates opinions/gossip are worth less than the price of their 'cheap seats.'
ReplyDeleteIt is the endless nattering of the denizens sitting in the cheap seats, notably baited by the abundant trolls therein that makes the field seem moribund, which it is. Talk has always been cheap and a characteristic of braggarts, boffins, buffoons, and buncos, all seen here and other lenr cabals in small but noisy numbers.
Those who can DO, those who can't Talk (teach). Rossi is clearly a man who knows how to DO and for that strength of character he is subjected to endless nattering from those who are demonstrably unable, unwilling, and unrelenting in doing nothing but talk.