| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On May 21 2013 01:10 Tanukki wrote: I'm guessing this was rejected by the patent offices? You can patent nearly anything: antigravity device: http://www.google.com/patents/US6960975 toe puppet: http://www.crazypatents.com/images/Large/5830035.jpg grave alarm: http://www.crazypatents.com/images/Large/500072-1.gif | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18178 Posts
On May 20 2013 23:34 Ropid wrote: Found the link on arxiv, which perhaps looks a little more legit than a pdf from a suspicious site: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Why would a pdf from arxiv be any less suspicious than a pdf from anywhere else (unless you are worried about viruses and the like). ArXiv does not peer review nor do any kind of editorial scan to ensure the paper is making evidence-based claims. This is a hoax until proven otherwise... and until Rossi lets someone (impartial) look at the inside of his magical box, or at least perform proper measurements on the outside, this is just not going to be proven in any believable way. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18178 Posts
On May 21 2013 01:17 caradoc wrote: You can patent nearly anything: antigravity device: http://www.google.com/patents/US6960975 toe puppet: http://www.crazypatents.com/images/Large/5830035.jpg grave alarm: http://www.crazypatents.com/images/Large/500072-1.gif To be fair, the toe puppet and grave alarm will work. They are entirely useless, but they are mechanically sound. I have no clue about the antigravity device: most of what I have read about manipulating zero point energy to create an engine has some serious technological restrictions, but I know that in theory it is possible. I have no background in physics, so cannot point to what is wrong with it. However, they seem to explain what it does and how it does it (even though I don't understand the latter). Rossi has publically not done the latter. He does NOT describe how it generates energy, nor does he even describe in detail what components are inside. So this should never be accepted for patenting. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On May 21 2013 01:26 Acrofales wrote: Why would a pdf from arxiv be any less suspicious than a pdf from anywhere else (unless you are worried about viruses and the like). ArXiv does not peer review nor do any kind of editorial scan to ensure the paper is making evidence-based claims. This is a hoax until proven otherwise... and until Rossi lets someone (impartial) look at the inside of his magical box, or at least perform proper measurements on the outside, this is just not going to be proven in any believable way. One of the dudes mentioned as author seems to have been asked what's up by a Swedish journalist, and he said it's not fake, he really did work on this paper. This means a bunch of university professors are tied with their name to this. That said, it's only a report about how the box behaves from the outside. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
Naturally the question as to how it works is just as interesting, and there is a 6 month follow up study planned to figure out what is causing the anomalous heat production. | ||
|
Marradron
Netherlands1586 Posts
| ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:15 Traeon wrote: Nice to see this old thread come to live again. Yes, this paper is highly interesting. The goal was to prove that the phenomenon is real. How or why it works is irrelevant in this context. It is not necessary to explain how a phenomenon works in order to prove that the phenomenon exists. Naturally the question as to how it works is just as interesting, and there is a 6 month follow up study planned to figure out what is causing the anomalous heat production. Wait a second, so they performed an experiment and are trying to find out what is happening inside the machine by examining the output and it's by-products. You would think just opening the machine or ask it's inventor what it does would be the real way to do it. This just got even more strange. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:31 Integra wrote: Wait a second, so they performed an experiment and are trying to find out what is happening inside the machine by examining the output and it's by-products. You would think just opening the machine or ask it's inventor what it does would be the real way to do it. This just got even more strange. The inventor does not want to disclose the secret just yet, presumably until he has a commercial product. It's not possible to patent chemical or nuclear reactions, so he has no patent protection. Everybody would be building e-cat clones in a few weeks if the secret additive was published because the apparatus is simple. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:31 Integra wrote: Wait a second, so they performed an experiment and are trying to find out what is happening inside the machine by examining the output and it's by-products. You would think just opening the machine or ask it's inventor what it does would be the real way to do it. This just got even more strange. Ya thats realy weird, it would under these conditions be verry easy to replicate a device wich performs exactly the same in this specific experiment. For all i know there could be some burner and a bit of petrol inside lol The way to measure and calculate the energy output is also a bit weird and far from standard i think. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:39 Traeon wrote: The inventor does not want to disclose the secret just yet, presumably until he has a commercial product. It's not possible to patent chemical or nuclear reactions, so he has no patent protection. Everybody would be building e-cat clones in a few weeks if the secret additive was published because the apparatus is simple. Bullshit, there is none-disclosure agreements for these things within the scientific field so a study would do no harm to him. And even if it was the case why did he agree on this in the first place? Every test is being done in his facilities, if he does not want to reveal his secret then why allow people to research the output and the by-products. It still makes zero sense. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:39 Traeon wrote: The inventor does not want to disclose the secret just yet, presumably until he has a commercial product. It's not possible to patent chemical or nuclear reactions, so he has no patent protection. Everybody would be building e-cat clones in a few weeks if the secret additive was published because the apparatus is simple. Any lawyers in the room? While I agree that you probably can't patent a chemical or nuclear reaction, you could certainly patent the components or processes which allow you to bring it about, no? Frankly these methods (no independent testing, testimonial based evidence, etc...) is how pseudo-scientists operate, not the real thing. That being said it very well may be real, but we have no obligation to trust anything being presented when it's done in this sketchy manner. Not gunna lie a lot of this just reeks of hoax. Commercially viable cold fusion engine, but nobody's allowed to see how it works? Even the name sounds fishy, I mean "energy catalyzer", really? That sounds like the name a hack sci-fi writer would come up with, not a legit scientific name. I mean it doesn't even make sense, you can't "catalyze" energy, at least not if you're using the scientific definition of the word, which if he's a scientist naming a scientific device, he should OF COURSE BE USING. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:48 Integra wrote: Bullshit, there is none-disclosure agreements for these things within the scientific field so a study would do no harm to him. And even if it was the case why did he agree on this in the first place? Every test is being done in his facilities, if he does not want to reveal his secret then why allow people to research the output and the by-products. It still makes zero sense. Just what I thought. After browsing around for an answer to this, there seems to be a rumor that it's because the patent application got denied and he needs independent examination to try again. Wikipedia has this sentence: "An international patent application has received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to 'offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories' and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories." He should just show his hand and let people experiment with it. China will copy the shit out of it anyways, should it work. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
I'm hoping this gets released soon. The world would change so dramatically. | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
So there's a mystery catalyst and the actual device that was running was not weighed. So, just like my previous posts in this thread, I'm very skeptical about this device. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is something inside this device that causes the surplus power output (a radioactive material was mentioned before). There is also no evidence that this 'catalyst' isn't used up in the process (a catalyst should only facilitate the reaction and not get altered or used up by it). Finally, the fact that this paper is on arXiv means nothing. arXiv is basically Rapidshare for researchers, where anyone can upload their PDFs without any form of review. Hell, they even let me upload papers to it (... that were published later though). As someone who has actually done some research in physics (PhD thesis submitted and accepted, almost done, yay!), I'm still not convinced about the validity of this device. I may be wrong of course, but if this thing is real, then Rossi is trying very hard to be unbelievable about it. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:59 hp.Shell wrote: The thing with energy devices is, even if you don't make millions by releasing the tech to the world, you will probably make millions being paid off by petrol companies to NOT release the tech. I'm hoping this gets released soon. The world would change so dramatically. Provided it works as advertised, which is not a given. Half this thread is about Rossi's past shenanigans. Also, they're being abnormally secretive about the whole thing. Secretive + guy who's been known to fake discoveries = be doubtful. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On May 21 2013 02:44 Rassy wrote: Ya thats realy weird, it would under these conditions be verry easy to replicate a device wich performs exactly the same in this specific experiment. For all i know there could be some burner and a bit of petrol inside lol The way to measure and calculate the energy output is also a bit weird and far from standard i think. It's argued in the paper why the observations of the outside of the thing don't make sense with normal reactions like using oil etc. It has to be something more towards nuclear stuff. And now there are those two or three professors and a bunch of PhDs from their research groups tied with their name to this report, so at least those guys' careers would be fucked if they pull a scam on this. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On May 21 2013 03:07 Ropid wrote: It's argued in the paper why the observations of the outside of the thing don't make sense with normal reactions like using oil etc. It has to be something more towards nuclear stuff. And now there are those two or three professors and a bunch of PhDs from their research groups tied with their name to this report, so at least those guys' careers would be fucked if they pull a scam on this. They're observing the device with very imperfect conditions for research. Nobody's going to say anything seeing how they weren't given a true hands-on. Not to mention, they didn't say anything crazy. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On May 21 2013 03:10 Djzapz wrote: They're observing the device with very imperfect conditions for research. Nobody's going to say anything seeing how they weren't given a true hands-on. Not to mention, they didn't say anything crazy. Yup, the scam argument would be Rossi arranging this to find some more investors to rip off, and it makes sense. | ||
| ||
WardiTV Invitational
Group A
ByuN vs ClassicLIVE!
ByuN vs Rogue
Classic vs Rogue
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  26732Horang2 1431Shuttle 925firebathero  143Hyun  92Zeus 72Yoon 30Aegong 25HiyA 16Shine 12[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games FrodaN3134 Grubby2799 Liquid`RaSZi2220 singsing2052 B2W.Neo431 ArmadaUGS136 KnowMe133 Harstem120 Hui .119 ToD49 |
|
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
sOs vs Scarlett
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
