|
On February 02 2012 12:59 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:16 forgottendreams wrote:On February 02 2012 05:00 Traeon wrote:Time for some updates: 1) Some time ago I posted a link which showed that MIT was to hold a course about LENR. Cold Fusion Times brings us the following news: January 30-31, 2012 - Cambridge, MA. - As part of the IAP Course on COLD FUSION at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, and Prof. Peter Hagelstein demonstrated cold fusion openly for scientists and engineers. The demonstration was a two day part of the detailed, yet overview, seven day course run by Prof. Hagelstein and Dr. Swartz, and followed the first open demonstrations of cold fusion at MIT in 2003. This JET Energy NANOR(TM) demonstrated a significant energy gain greater than 10, much larger than the previous open demonstration. This exhibition is also remarkable because it confirmed the role of the nanoengineered lattice in enabling the CF/LANR activity. It followed Prof. Hagelstein sharing his breakthrough explanatory theory of cold fusion during the first 5 days. The NANOR technology of JET Energy may have already begun to shatter a few preconceived notions of skeptics and cold fusioneers. An energy gain of 10 is good enough for commercial application of the technology and makes Rossi's claims more credible (he guarantees an energy gain of 6 or higher). 2) Defkalion GT has invited qualified people to perform independent tests of their Hyperion device (the Hyperion is a Ni-H LENR reactor similar to the e-cat). Read the press release here.Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies Global Ltd. (PDGT) is ready to further allow third parties to evaluate its core technology: a multi stage LENR reaction between Nickel and Hydrogen.
PDGT has successfully completed its scientific, technological and engineering steps necessary to sustain such a reaction with results exceeding a COP of 20 and with temperatures capable to exceed 650 degrees Celsius.
As it was announced in our November 30th Press Release, a series of third party tests on Hyperion products have been scheduled to be performed within the first months of 2012, immediately after our product’s certification. The present announcement does not refer to such product tests.
With this announcement, PDGT welcomes further requests from internationally recognized and reputable scientific and business organizations interested to conduct their independent tests on “bare” Hyperion Reactors. Such independent tests have already been scheduled. 3) According to Prof. Francesco Celani, LENR researcher, the CERN will hold a LENR seminar on March 22. Source (in Italian). 4) The R&D contract between Rossi and the University of Bologna fell through. Source (in Italian)- The contract ended because Rossi never paid the first rate. - The University of Bologna is still interested in the e-cat and is willing to perform independent validation with subsequent publication of results. Mats Lewan at Ny Teknik reports that a new research deal is being worked out in collaboration with National Instruments and Rossi. Can you or anyone versed in the history of LENR/cold fusion explain what all this news accumulating is suggesting (or not suggesting)? From my elementary understanding it's starting to really seem as if cold fusion was an outright suppressed science in the past. Please remember the information in this thread is self selecting, that is, there is no incentive for it to get bumped based on a continuing lack of evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENRBe sure to read the talk page as well.
Did an hour or so searching on the links given to me by Traeon and I have to agree I didn't really see anything new to speak of, more closed demonstrations and the CERN talk being hypothetical....
So yeah I'm gonna pull back from this entire thing.
|
On January 24 2012 18:27 Manit0u wrote:Have you even read the thread and mod warning or have you just read the topic and posted your deep thoughts, facts and arguments without thinking?
Yes I've read through the thread and watched multiple video's on this, as well as being a postgraduate physics student. The contradiction is where he claims to be doing this for the good of people everywhere yet will not publish the data in the usual channels because - wait for it - he is procuring investment first. The timeless recognition he would get from releasing the details of this machine as well as the positions and monetary rewards that would follow him should be obvious if his claims were true.
Due to this obvious contradiction I have to conclude there is nothing of substance in his words.
The reason I did not post more is because I do not think this fairy hunt should deserve any more thought or words.
|
shoulda just posted that to start with
|
Well I could have but I thought the other post more succinct.
Look, even if this stuff is true, this is bad science all around. Science is about evidence, about replicating experiment. Not about shutting your ideas off to the community due to 'political' or 'financial' reasons. No serious scientist is motivated by those goals.
An inventor, sure, but not a scientist. There is seriously a huge amount of leads or half-cocked theories that a scientist could follow every day; and being good at science is about being able to intuitively know which are going to lead to breakthroughs and which are not. A working device is irrelevant - if we don't know how it works. You should at least be able to demonstrate the principles beyond a hand waving of 'cold fusion' and demonstrate those principles in various experiments one of which is your reactor. I read the NASA powerpoint presentation and they present 5 or 6 various explanations for the extra heat none of which have been ruled out.
And even if this is some sort of invented phenomenon - ie they have stumbled across this without understanding it - it would be even more import to begin with the theory and work up. I have seen no mathematics or rigour here at all; just slides full of pictures of messy lab equipment. 'Oh look, we can bring you a device and you can test it but only half of them work sometimes' etc while they with the other hand sell you the dream of cold fusion.
|
On February 05 2012 14:57 Zholistic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 18:27 Manit0u wrote:On January 24 2012 17:43 Zholistic wrote:
This is a hoax. Have you even read the thread and mod warning or have you just read the topic and posted your deep thoughts, facts and arguments without thinking? Yes I've read through the thread and watched multiple video's on this, as well as being a postgraduate physics student. The contradiction is where he claims to be doing this for the good of people everywhere yet will not publish the data in the usual channels because - wait for it - he is procuring investment first. The timeless recognition he would get from releasing the details of this machine as well as the positions and monetary rewards that would follow him should be obvious if his claims were true.
He's putting on some kind of show.
"In the field of science, however, the person who makes himself the impresario of the subject to which he should be devoted, and steps upon the stage and seeks to legitimate himself through 'experience,' asking: How can I prove that I am something other than a mere 'specialist' and how can I manage to say something in form or in content that nobody else has ever said? -- such a person is no 'personality.' Today such conduct is a crowd phenomenon, and it always makes a petty impression and debases the one who is thus concerned. Instead of this, an inner devotion to the task, and that alone, should lift the scientist to the height and dignity of the subject he pretends to serve." -Max Weber
|
An inventor, sure, but not a scientist.
Why does being an inventor rather than a scientist (or at least, an inventor first) make him wrong? Most inventors aren't scientists. At least, not pure theoreticians. Inventors invent things. Some of them are frauds, but most of them aren't.
Being an inventor doesn't make him a fraud.
Now let me state for the record that I think he's full of crap. He's done a few too many shady things, and (besides the general skepticism over the device) it's just starting to smell like a hoax. I'm just saying that your reasoning doesn't seem to justify your position.
|
On February 05 2012 15:31 NicolBolas wrote:Why does being an inventor rather than a scientist (or at least, an inventor first) make him wrong? Most inventors aren't scientists. At least, not pure theoreticians. Inventors invent things. Some of them are frauds, but most of them aren't. Being an inventor doesn't make him a fraud. Now let me state for the record that I think he's full of crap. He's done a few too many shady things, and (besides the general skepticism over the device) it's just starting to smell like a hoax. I'm just saying that your reasoning doesn't seem to justify your position.
Yea, I mean take Thomas Edison. He had almost no academical background to speak of since he could not seem to focus during his studies thus he knew nothing about science. That didn't stop him from creating phonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. He might not been a scientist but once these things were done people were actually free to use them and examine them and they actually worked.
|
I would consider Edison the first electrical engineer, but in order to create a lightbulb he needed to understand chemistry, electric currents and light radiation, so by that point he was a scientist.
|
Edison didn't invent much of what he's credited for though. Much of it was thought up by scientist employees of his. He also blatantly stole quite a few ideas from the competition. Not a great example. 
|
On February 06 2012 01:37 karpo wrote:Edison didn't invent much of what he's credited for though. Much of it was thought up by scientist employees of his. He also blatantly stole quite a few ideas from the competition. Not a great example.
Not to mention he tried to fuck over true genius of his time (Tesla) a few times.
|
On February 06 2012 02:13 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 01:37 karpo wrote:Edison didn't invent much of what he's credited for though. Much of it was thought up by scientist employees of his. He also blatantly stole quite a few ideas from the competition. Not a great example. Not to mention he tried to fuck over true genius of his time (Tesla) a few times.
LOL, Tesla, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer who among other things created the modern alternating current (AC) electrical supply system, remoting and Robotics, he even had found a way of wireless energy transfer between objects, this was back in 1891. Tesla created all his inventions by scientific methods and died poor with no money at all.
Then we have Thomas Edison,American inventor and businessman. He sat for years and by trial and error he created the light bulb after about 10.000 attempts. Nothing about his work has any indication that he used any methods, scientific or any other form of discipline to create the inventions he did. And of these 2 who are people remembering as the better "scientist"? Edison!! It's kinda like the Beta cassette vs the VHS cassette all over again.
|
|
|
They'll be discussing different models/explanations for this? Could be interesting, still a ways away though. 
|
Even LENR enthusiasts are critical of Rossi:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report-4-Rossis-NASA-Test-Fails-to-Launch.shtml
I wonder why so many people fall for this, even people in important positions.Look at Rossi's behaviour! It has fraud written all over it.
Rossi does not present a shred of substantial evidence, instead he continues to play with the hopes of the people he talks to. It's almost like a religious cult, lots and lots of empty promises and nothing ever comes from it.
|
New Energy Times is not a LENR enthusiast website. It's a lobbying platform for the Widom-Larsen theory. As such you can only expect it to produce negative views on Rossi.
|
On February 15 2012 17:25 Traeon wrote:
New Energy Times is not a LENR enthusiast website. It's a lobbying platform for the Widow-Larsen theory. As such you can only expect it to produce negative views on Rossi.
They are LENR enthusiasts, because the Widow-Larsen theory describes LENRs. But you see bias everywhere, just not in yourself. Maybe you should stop preaching and start doubting ...
|
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation.
|
On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation.
So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense."
By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere.
|
On February 16 2012 01:34 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation. So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense." By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere.
Advertising of it becoming illegal was based on racism, but the reason why it was pushed to be illegal was because of economic interest.And since you know about the racism part, you definetly know the economic side as well, for some reason you want to win an argument/you are against anything that resemble conspiracy theories.
So, saying that people who are in power and want to stay in power by any means possible is a conspiracy theory ? Yeah, right back at ya.
Just stay and think about about what free energy would do for the world.The nature of the people in power is mostly conservative, so going on free energy is a complete risk.You fail to see the implications on it.
Basic reasoning behind my thoughts is....so ok, we came from like black&white tv's to IPOD4's and we haven't gone from fossil fuel to good solar energy usage. Do the research, it's easy, just pull the numbers and see how much it was invested in solar energy research.
|
Uh so just to clarify, Rossi fans/supporters do realize the man isn't an actual scientist by now, right? He might be a talented inventor or whatever with a few patents to his name, but I read very recently that the guy actually got his "chemical engineering degree" from a sketchy "Kensington University, California", which has since been shut down due to its offering of unaccredited diplomas, doctorates, etc., all obtainable for a price in as little as four months. How is anyone still taking him seriously if he's lying about his credentials?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
