|
On May 21 2013 01:08 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 01:01 NicolBolas wrote:On May 20 2013 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:
If the report mentions nothing about the workings tho its pretty useless. We already knows what it does as a black box. What is needed for people to believe this is the miracle power they say it is would be the inner workings. Nonsense. How it works is (for the purposes of making money) completely irrelevant. The question is whether it actually does work. And by "work", I mean: 1: Produces more energy than it consumes directly. This should be easy to detect. 2: Produces more energy that it takes to fuel. What exactly do you have to put into it to sustain the reaction? How pure do the fuels have to be? You should be able to detect if the "fuel" claimed is actually necessary without breaking the black box, simply by swapping another kind of "fuel" that has similar enough properties. 3: Produces more energy than it takes to run (maintenance costs and such). When do these things End of Life? What do you have to do to replace elements? How often does it break down? Etc. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here. I'm no physicist, far from it, but it is my understanding that one of the governing laws of this universe is that energy cannot be created out of nothing. In other words, there is no device which produces more energy than it consumes. All that these devices do is take energy from one form and convert it into another, more useful form (which, as far as I know, is done with less than 100% efficiency in all cases).
The point I was getting at is that we don't really care how it does what it does. It doesn't matter what goes on inside the box. What matters is what it takes to make it happen (ie: the energy, fuel, and maintenance), and whether getting the results require less energy input or not.
If it produces more energy than is directly put into it (ignoring the fuel, as fuel only requires the energy to acquire the fuel: usually, mining, refining, and transporting it, not creating it), then it produces a net gain of energy. If the fuel is cheap and readily available, or it only needs relatively little fuel to produce energy, then that's good. And if it doesn't need high maintenance or produce a lot of waste, then you've got something that really works.
You don't need to look inside the box to answer these questions.
The problem is that the "research" done here doesn't answer these questions. Science can analyze a black box device very well. This was not a scientific investigation to find the truth. It was a propaganda piece intended to shore up support for the device.
|
On May 21 2013 04:57 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 03:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't think it works, plain and simple.
the situation is such that rossi must be an incredibly selfish man or a liar.
assuming the ecat works and he detailed his work in a scientific journal, other people would definitely copy it, but no one would be able to claim it was anyone but his work. he'd win a nobel, collect pretty much every award out there for an alternative energy source (and combined, those are definitely substantial) and be time's man of the century. even if he did not profit financially directly from his invention, his reputation as the inventor would ensure that he'd be set for life extremely comfortably. Being covered in awards is fine and dandy... Being a multi billionare is a bit better while being covered in awards. It'd be better for him to guise the product until his commerical model rather then show it. I'm still on the fence, just as everyone should, he has reasonable reason to keep it secret meaning that its just his word we can believe which means we can take it for a grain of salt and wait. There's no reason anyone should deny or support his claims since they're just him talking and a few eye witnesses.
That might be reasonable if Rossi was not a known charlatan. This would not be the first fraud he tried to cloak in the garb of science. When you're dealing with someone who's known to be dishonest, it's best to assume dishonesty unless there's a reason to believe otherwise.
In any case, I take exception to the idea that he has a reason to keep it secret. If this does indeed work, why does he need to keep it secret so badly? If it does indeed work, why was his international patent application rejected? It's been years; if he had a legitimate device, it would have been covered long ago.
So no, I don't buy it. It has a smell about it.
|
On May 21 2013 03:26 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
Scientific thinking outside of science is not strong these days.
This is so sad and so true. Scientific thinking really should be drilled into people's heads much more deliberately much earlier on in school, or something. It's ridiculous.
On May 21 2013 04:09 mijagi182 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 04:01 Traeon wrote:
Gotta love how people ignore the the seven scientists who made the study. They are:
Giuseppe Levi, physicist from University of Bologna.
Evelyn Foschi, Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics.
Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér from Uppsala University, Sweden.
Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (also former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society).
They are willing to put their names on the study and would not do so if they weren't 100% sure that it's real. No studies will do until we send our TL Skeptics Society squad to Rossi! 
Oh don't be so melodramatic
How about a study that observes and analyzes the mechanisms by which the 'black box' achieves its creation of energy, rather than one that does not?
|
On May 21 2013 06:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 03:26 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
Scientific thinking outside of science is not strong these days. This is so sad and so true. Scientific thinking really should be drilled into people's heads much more deliberately much earlier on in school, or something. It's ridiculous.
That is generally a problem in my experience. In school, when you get taught about science, you get told the results and it is often kind of dogmatic. The whole scientific methology that is the basis of those results is often neglected
|
At this point, the most interesting thing about this thread is the fact that NASA has apparently created a low energy nuclear reactor that for all intents and purposes duplicates what Rossi claims to have discovered. We don't even need to focus on Rossi anymore; we can follow NASA's legitimate claims and research.
Rossi is just a sideshow. If anyone wants to read up on this remember to read the mod note at the top of the OP. They have a number of hypotheses on how this is occurring, although I don't understand how it works I can list a few: Electron screening, Band states, shrunken hydrogen, ultra low momentum neutrons, dislocation loops, and bose-einstein condensates. Just read the paper linked in the OP!
edit: At least in my experience in elementary school, teaching the scientific method was very important. But that was specifically something that was done for science, not emphasized in non-scientific contexts. To be frank I think it should be common sense to everyone, that you look for evidence before coming up with beliefs. It doesn't have to be so rigorously defined (i.e. purpose, equipment, procedure, results, discussion, conclusion).
|
On May 21 2013 06:02 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 04:57 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 21 2013 03:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't think it works, plain and simple.
the situation is such that rossi must be an incredibly selfish man or a liar.
assuming the ecat works and he detailed his work in a scientific journal, other people would definitely copy it, but no one would be able to claim it was anyone but his work. he'd win a nobel, collect pretty much every award out there for an alternative energy source (and combined, those are definitely substantial) and be time's man of the century. even if he did not profit financially directly from his invention, his reputation as the inventor would ensure that he'd be set for life extremely comfortably. Being covered in awards is fine and dandy... Being a multi billionare is a bit better while being covered in awards. It'd be better for him to guise the product until his commerical model rather then show it. I'm still on the fence, just as everyone should, he has reasonable reason to keep it secret meaning that its just his word we can believe which means we can take it for a grain of salt and wait. There's no reason anyone should deny or support his claims since they're just him talking and a few eye witnesses. That might be reasonable if Rossi was not a known charlatan. This would not be the first fraud he tried to cloak in the garb of science. When you're dealing with someone who's known to be dishonest, it's best to assume dishonesty unless there's a reason to believe otherwise. In any case, I take exception to the idea that he has a reason to keep it secret. If this does indeed work, why does he need to keep it secret so badly? If it does indeed work, why was his international patent application rejected? It's been years; if he had a legitimate device, it would have been covered long ago. So no, I don't buy it. It has a smell about it.
I agree with you, except on the point that someone said that he kept certain parts a trade secret, which would make almost any patent office reject his application.
|
On May 21 2013 05:52 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 01:08 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 21 2013 01:01 NicolBolas wrote:On May 20 2013 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:
If the report mentions nothing about the workings tho its pretty useless. We already knows what it does as a black box. What is needed for people to believe this is the miracle power they say it is would be the inner workings. Nonsense. How it works is (for the purposes of making money) completely irrelevant. The question is whether it actually does work. And by "work", I mean: 1: Produces more energy than it consumes directly. This should be easy to detect. 2: Produces more energy that it takes to fuel. What exactly do you have to put into it to sustain the reaction? How pure do the fuels have to be? You should be able to detect if the "fuel" claimed is actually necessary without breaking the black box, simply by swapping another kind of "fuel" that has similar enough properties. 3: Produces more energy than it takes to run (maintenance costs and such). When do these things End of Life? What do you have to do to replace elements? How often does it break down? Etc. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here. I'm no physicist, far from it, but it is my understanding that one of the governing laws of this universe is that energy cannot be created out of nothing. In other words, there is no device which produces more energy than it consumes. All that these devices do is take energy from one form and convert it into another, more useful form (which, as far as I know, is done with less than 100% efficiency in all cases). The point I was getting at is that we don't really care how it does what it does. It doesn't matter what goes on inside the box. What matters is what it takes to make it happen (ie: the energy, fuel, and maintenance), and whether getting the results require less energy input or not. If it produces more energy than is directly put into it (ignoring the fuel, as fuel only requires the energy to acquire the fuel: usually, mining, refining, and transporting it, not creating it), then it produces a net gain of energy. If the fuel is cheap and readily available, or it only needs relatively little fuel to produce energy, then that's good. And if it doesn't need high maintenance or produce a lot of waste, then you've got something that really works. You don't need to look inside the box to answer these questions. The problem is that the "research" done here doesn't answer these questions. Science can analyze a black box device very well. This was not a scientific investigation to find the truth. It was a propaganda piece intended to shore up support for the device.
Actually, the most recent research posted was an independent study that did answer the question regarding if it generated more energy than was directly put into the device. After reading the whole report its safe to say that at least the report is solid (ofc thats assuming their instruments for the measurement itself hadnt been tampered with, but that can be said for any study). The scientist conducting the study are also very legit.
Any uncertainties when it comes to measuring techniques were also discussed in the actual report along with the fact that most of their concerns were corrected before the secondary test.The final numbers presented were also very conservative.
This is of course not any kind of proof in itself, one study alone never proves anything. The only thing which can be concluded is that the results are highly interesting and that further studies are warranted.
|
On May 21 2013 04:01 Traeon wrote:
They are willing to put their names on the study and would not do so if they weren't 100% sure that it's real.
That's patently untrue. If they were 100% sure it's real they would have said: "We're 100% sure it's real."
Instead they said it does produce energy and they can't really explain how. Those are two very different statements.
|
On May 21 2013 06:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
How about a study that observes and analyzes the mechanisms by which the 'black box' achieves its creation of energy, rather than one that does not?
Such a study is planned to start this summer and last 6 months. The current study was just to prove that the phenomenon exists.
|
|
|
On May 21 2013 06:44 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 06:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
How about a study that observes and analyzes the mechanisms by which the 'black box' achieves its creation of energy, rather than one that does not? Such a study is planned to start this summer and last 6 months. The current study was just to prove that the phenomenon exists.
I don't think that's true. I may have misunderstood, but it seemed like they again just want to look at this reactor from the outside, the same test like this one, but over half a year instead of just a week.
|
On May 21 2013 07:14 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 06:44 Traeon wrote:On May 21 2013 06:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
How about a study that observes and analyzes the mechanisms by which the 'black box' achieves its creation of energy, rather than one that does not? Such a study is planned to start this summer and last 6 months. The current study was just to prove that the phenomenon exists. I don't think that's true. I may have misunderstood, but it seemed like they again just want to look at this reactor from the outside, the same test like this one, but over half a year instead of just a week.
They are going to do another examination of the produced output and the by-product, they are not actually going to examine the machine itself. Ya I don't fucking understand it either.
|
On May 21 2013 06:44 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 06:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
How about a study that observes and analyzes the mechanisms by which the 'black box' achieves its creation of energy, rather than one that does not? Such a study is planned to start this summer and last 6 months. The current study was just to prove that the phenomenon exists.
I think all it proves is that putting energy into the black box causes more to come out. It doesn't prove how, which is the important part. For all we know there is some kinda gimmick at play, without the answer to "how?"
|
On May 21 2013 11:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 06:44 Traeon wrote:On May 21 2013 06:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
How about a study that observes and analyzes the mechanisms by which the 'black box' achieves its creation of energy, rather than one that does not? Such a study is planned to start this summer and last 6 months. The current study was just to prove that the phenomenon exists. I think all it proves is that putting energy into the black box causes more to come out. It doesn't prove how, which is the important part. For all we know there is some kinda gimmick at play, without the answer to "how?"
This isnt true, unless the conditions for measuring were false it does demonstrate an energy output higher than what any known chemistry can produce. With Rossi's reputation its not hard to believe such a thing, but if you believe that it proves that more energy comes out than what you put in and you buy the numbers presented when measuring, the conclusion is that no conventional energy source comes even close to the energy output of this box.
The phenomenon itself also seem to exist within the current laws of physics.
|
|
|
This guy should be arrested. Worst case scenario, he's wasted a countless amount of other people's time and money. BEST case scenario he's a fucking real-life Bond villain.
|
... I'm still waiting. And it's been two years since the OP.
|
Since someone already bumped the other thread (shorter and older one) and remainded me of this. I might as well ask it here. Any news on the subject? I am especially interested in NASA research. Did they provide some reliable data? I kinda wish it to be true, but is smells so fishy....
|
yeah yeah its coming .. you just have to wait a little bit more ...
|
Oh hey, this thread again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
