|
On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy.
It really really seems mega impossible in every way.
Just wait for someone who knows what they are talking about to come and shit on the paper, and then we can join in 
|
Germany6287 Posts
On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. Show nested quote +http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Show nested quote +Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC.
If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works.
If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim.
|
On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim.
About those core principles and "breaking" those, I tried searching around, and I found this paper here the best hint that there can be something going on:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatioa.pdf
A replication of those experiments:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Higashiyamreplicatio.pdf
Then some more experiments from the Mitsubishi Heavy Industry guys from the first paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYlowenergyn.pdf
I don't know why stuff like this happening is never mentioned in media, normal journals and at Uni. It could be everyone's scared shitless of what happened in 1989 with Pons+Fleischmann.
|
On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim.
I didn't say proof him wrong. I said, you look like an idiot if you go ahead and call everything bullshit (which is btw a claim, since obviously something happened) without anything to back it up. One of the six dudes is the chairman of the swedish skeptics society, another one is a highly respected (internationally) researcher in bologna. That's just the two i checked. Both have alot to lose, and guess what: none of those actually say "it's fusion!". What they say is: "well, we can't explain rationally what's happening there - this SHOULD not be possible".
And that's exactly what i think. Isotopes shouldn't change without a nuclear reaction. Yet it apparently/allegedly happened. The only way you could get that to happen as we know it, is to physically replace materials.
Quite lame for an explanation, don't you think?
Again, i do not think that he invented cold fusion or something. But i'm certainly interested in what he did, because older "explanations" don't really apply to this experiment.
Edit: and no, if i say i invented a perpetuum mobile, it's my job to prove it by giving it to a third party to confirm. This is not what happened here. It's not rossi claiming stuff. It's a third party confirming stuff (edit2: well, roughly anyway). If you call bullshit, explain why those partially (didn't check all) well known and respected researchers are wrong/lying.
|
On October 11 2014 09:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim. I didn't say proof him wrong. I said, you look like an idiot if you go ahead and call everything bullshit (which is btw a claim, since obviously something happened) without anything to back it up. One of the six dudes is the chairman of the swedish skeptics society, another one is a highly respected (internationally) researcher in bologna. That's just the two i checked. Both have alot to lose, and guess what: none of those actually say "it's fusion!". What they say is: "well, we can't explain rationally what's happening there - this SHOULD not be possible". And that's exactly what i think. Isotopes shouldn't change without a nuclear reaction. Yet it apparently/allegedly happened. The only way you could get that to happen as we know it, is to physically replace materials. Quite lame for an explanation, don't you think? Again, i do not think that he invented cold fusion or something. But i'm certainly interested in what he did, because older "explanations" don't really apply to this experiment.
Wait, has this paper even been published yet?
I would hold your horses before claiming that older explanations don't apply.
The whole thing is so bizarre.
Everyone should do the correct thing and view this with extreme skepticism until the paper is published and has been reviewed independently.
|
On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy.
Fair enough, it's not properly published. If the observations made were compromised in any way, then of course all bets are off. But that's harder to reconcile with the fact that these observations were made by people who, from a bit of Googling, are fairly well established in their respective institutions (Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology). It's a lot harder to believe that a bunch of people who are in safe, comfortable positions would decide to intentionally throw their lot in and conspire with Rossi. That leaves the possibility of them getting duped by Rossi in some way that can account for what was written by these Swedish researchers.
|
On October 11 2014 09:20 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 09:17 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim. I didn't say proof him wrong. I said, you look like an idiot if you go ahead and call everything bullshit (which is btw a claim, since obviously something happened) without anything to back it up. One of the six dudes is the chairman of the swedish skeptics society, another one is a highly respected (internationally) researcher in bologna. That's just the two i checked. Both have alot to lose, and guess what: none of those actually say "it's fusion!". What they say is: "well, we can't explain rationally what's happening there - this SHOULD not be possible". And that's exactly what i think. Isotopes shouldn't change without a nuclear reaction. Yet it apparently/allegedly happened. The only way you could get that to happen as we know it, is to physically replace materials. Quite lame for an explanation, don't you think? Again, i do not think that he invented cold fusion or something. But i'm certainly interested in what he did, because older "explanations" don't really apply to this experiment. Wait, has this paper even been published yet? I would hold your horses before claiming that older explanations don't apply. The whole thing is so bizarre. Everyone should do the correct thing and view this with extreme skepticism until the paper is published and has been reviewed independently.
I am sceptical, don't get me wrong. I said a couple of times that i don't think he "invented" cold fusion. But i still recognize the numbers, and that's quite the amount of energy coming out of that stick. I'm thoroughly interested in where it actually came from.
|
On October 11 2014 09:23 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 09:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 11 2014 09:17 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim. I didn't say proof him wrong. I said, you look like an idiot if you go ahead and call everything bullshit (which is btw a claim, since obviously something happened) without anything to back it up. One of the six dudes is the chairman of the swedish skeptics society, another one is a highly respected (internationally) researcher in bologna. That's just the two i checked. Both have alot to lose, and guess what: none of those actually say "it's fusion!". What they say is: "well, we can't explain rationally what's happening there - this SHOULD not be possible". And that's exactly what i think. Isotopes shouldn't change without a nuclear reaction. Yet it apparently/allegedly happened. The only way you could get that to happen as we know it, is to physically replace materials. Quite lame for an explanation, don't you think? Again, i do not think that he invented cold fusion or something. But i'm certainly interested in what he did, because older "explanations" don't really apply to this experiment. Wait, has this paper even been published yet? I would hold your horses before claiming that older explanations don't apply. The whole thing is so bizarre. Everyone should do the correct thing and view this with extreme skepticism until the paper is published and has been reviewed independently. I am sceptical, don't get me wrong. I said a couple of times that i don't think he "invented" cold fusion. But i still recognize the numbers, and that's quite the amount of energy coming out of that stick. I'm thoroughly interested in where it actually came from.
The thing that boggles my mind the most about this is the lack of mainstream media attention.
Remember when some dudes thought they had found something travelling faster than the speed of light. It took the BBC 12 hours to film edit and broadcast a 1 hour documentary about it. Massive news.
This would be bigger and more important, and there's nothing.
|
I think the dudes who thought they found particles going faster than light were researchers at CERN, not some random guy who won't actually tell anyone how his product works.
|
On October 11 2014 09:25 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 09:23 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 09:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 11 2014 09:17 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:
[quote]
Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim. I didn't say proof him wrong. I said, you look like an idiot if you go ahead and call everything bullshit (which is btw a claim, since obviously something happened) without anything to back it up. One of the six dudes is the chairman of the swedish skeptics society, another one is a highly respected (internationally) researcher in bologna. That's just the two i checked. Both have alot to lose, and guess what: none of those actually say "it's fusion!". What they say is: "well, we can't explain rationally what's happening there - this SHOULD not be possible". And that's exactly what i think. Isotopes shouldn't change without a nuclear reaction. Yet it apparently/allegedly happened. The only way you could get that to happen as we know it, is to physically replace materials. Quite lame for an explanation, don't you think? Again, i do not think that he invented cold fusion or something. But i'm certainly interested in what he did, because older "explanations" don't really apply to this experiment. Wait, has this paper even been published yet? I would hold your horses before claiming that older explanations don't apply. The whole thing is so bizarre. Everyone should do the correct thing and view this with extreme skepticism until the paper is published and has been reviewed independently. I am sceptical, don't get me wrong. I said a couple of times that i don't think he "invented" cold fusion. But i still recognize the numbers, and that's quite the amount of energy coming out of that stick. I'm thoroughly interested in where it actually came from. The thing that boggles my mind the most about this is the lack of mainstream media attention. Remember when some dudes thought they had found something travelling faster than the speed of light. It took the BBC 12 hours to film edit and broadcast a 1 hour documentary about it. Massive news. This would be bigger and more important, and there's nothing.
Well one would at least expect the daily mail to jump on it, but i don't see a conspiracy. More like people being careful to not release fraud-news, which would make rossis wallet explode. If it is a scam, it would be exactly what he wants.
|
Skepticism and suspicion will continue to be his habitat until he abandons hope of being the big $$ winner of the tech or gets paid to power something big for a good time-frame. Tiny tests aren't going to win over academics in droves, but it's really the only way to keep a lid on whatever catalyzes his reaction (Just assuming it works for sake of argument). Without private buyers with large applications, he'll just remain an unproven charlatan.
I am glad the neutrino "omg its faster than light" story was widely publicized a couple years ago. It had reputable scientists unable to explain their findings, and still met with skepticism just considering how many fundamental assumptions (call them laws if you wish) it would violate if true.
But damn I'd be scratching my head if indeed he had anything not taking up a room changing a regular Ni-58 Ni-60 mixture into a predominantly Ni-62 blend. I mean even screw the power generation aspect, it's tough to accomplish that in small setups even if you could input oodles of energy. (EDIT: I mean, without generating detectable radiation simultaneously. Something that could pass that smell test)
|
But damn I'd be scratching my head if indeed he had anything not taking up a room changing a regular Ni-58 Ni-60 mixture into a predominantly Ni-62 blend. I mean even screw the power generation aspect, it's tough to accomplish that in small setups even if you could input oodles of energy.
Dunno if you're knowledgable, what known energysource that size could output 1,5mW in 32 days? Assuming they didn't fiddle with the measurements - is there anything?
|
Germany6287 Posts
On October 11 2014 09:23 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 09:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 11 2014 09:17 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:55 m4ini wrote:On October 11 2014 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On October 11 2014 08:34 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 11 2014 05:58 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2014 03:28 ch33psh33p wrote:On October 10 2014 22:17 oBlade wrote:
The paper is a lot of nothing. There are hydrogen ions in water, that doesn't mean you can boil water on your stove, drop a penny in and watch the copper undergo nuclear transmutation into zinc.
What conditions are there in this chamber of secrets that allow nuclear reactions that otherwise happen in supernovae? with none of the pesky associated radioactivity? Did you read the paper? Nickel 62 came out. Not just "hydrogen ions in water" I did not read every word of all ~50 pages if that's what you're asking. I'm not a professional debunker so I don't have an incentive to find every hole and piece of sophistry. My post was a little shorter but it's a pretty easy experiment that should make anyone notice how ridiculous the e-cat claim is. It is not far from putting a penny in boiling water and expecting it to turn into zinc by absorbing hydrogen ions from the water. I so wish you could just put hydrogen gas next to a metal with one of the highest nuclear binding energies on the periodic table and watch it spontaneously absorb nucleons into its nucleus with no radiation besides ANOMALOUS HEAT. But no. Cold fusion belongs only as the plot to a Hogan's Heroes episode. These claims get old fast and since "reactors" have been built there's no excuse for the absence of extraordinary evidence to complement these claims. Why aren't physics journals amazed and full of research about theoretical mechanisms for these miracle technologies? What's more likely, that the laws of nature have been turned upside down or a con man is lying? I have a device here in my one room apartment private experimental laboratory of scientific research called the o-cat a.k.a. oBlade catalyzer, it's a cardboard box plugged into a wall socket, and inside the box I put a 1kg lead brick. I measured the isotope abundance in the lead fuel and it agreed with natural abundances. I then injected the hydrogen gas and other additives and when I measured the result it was 1kg of 197-Au. You can read my paper, 197-Au came out. Pure gold. I can't speculate as to the mechanism of the nuclear transmutation but it's not outside the realm of possibility that cold fission has taken place. There was anomalous heat also but that had nothing to do with the cardboard box catching on fire after I plugged it into the wall. So as you can see the o-cat is the solution to both the world's energy and economic problems. Shall I PM you my Paypal for more details on this investment opportunity...? I skipped the math, since it's gibberish to me, but I think you should at least read the paper before crapping on it. That's what people who rationally analyse a claim do. The claim being tested here is that there is a device that outputs energy at a rate not accounted for by present knowledge. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. "Doesn't fit into current models, therefore bullshit" is a pretty poor perspective to have. What's presented in the paper constitutes extraordinary evidence for which the authors cannot explain, if you have a mechanism to explain the facts reported in the paper, feel free to have a crack at it, otherwise you're the one making claims for which there is no evidence. It is not a paper, it is shit this guy made up having no credible source backing him up. Trying to build a fusion reactor in your kitchen is not science, it's lunacy. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline To not look like an idiot, you kinda would have to proof the "third party researchers" ("6 credible researchers from sweden and italy") as not credible. As long as you can not, you're on the same level as Rossi. Just making bs up with nothing to back your claim. PS: i do think he's an idiot, and that it's a fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there still is a possibility that i'm wrong. Your dismissal of it using plausibility on present knowledge is therefore baseless. The earth is flat though. And the sun goes around it. Sincerly, 100-500 BC. If I google the names of the scientists all that comes up are articles about the Rossi scam. If you think people can just make ridiculous claims that ignore core physical principles (keyword : coulomb barrier) and then put the burden of proof on someone else I don't think you understand how empirical scientific research works. If you claim that you have created a perpetuum mobile device it is not my task to falsify your claim. I didn't say proof him wrong. I said, you look like an idiot if you go ahead and call everything bullshit (which is btw a claim, since obviously something happened) without anything to back it up. One of the six dudes is the chairman of the swedish skeptics society, another one is a highly respected (internationally) researcher in bologna. That's just the two i checked. Both have alot to lose, and guess what: none of those actually say "it's fusion!". What they say is: "well, we can't explain rationally what's happening there - this SHOULD not be possible". And that's exactly what i think. Isotopes shouldn't change without a nuclear reaction. Yet it apparently/allegedly happened. The only way you could get that to happen as we know it, is to physically replace materials. Quite lame for an explanation, don't you think? Again, i do not think that he invented cold fusion or something. But i'm certainly interested in what he did, because older "explanations" don't really apply to this experiment. Wait, has this paper even been published yet? I would hold your horses before claiming that older explanations don't apply. The whole thing is so bizarre. Everyone should do the correct thing and view this with extreme skepticism until the paper is published and has been reviewed independently. I am sceptical, don't get me wrong. I said a couple of times that i don't think he "invented" cold fusion. But i still recognize the numbers, and that's quite the amount of energy coming out of that stick. I'm thoroughly interested in where it actually came from.
Who says it did? A few years ago they claimed that their "catalyzer" operated because of a 'secret additive' that only Rossi knows. This is some Scientology level of nonsense. None of their experiments have ever been able to be reproduced in a controlled environment. If I show you a photoshopped picture of Bigfoot in my basement would you believe he exists because I caught him on camera?
|
On October 11 2014 09:38 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +But damn I'd be scratching my head if indeed he had anything not taking up a room changing a regular Ni-58 Ni-60 mixture into a predominantly Ni-62 blend. I mean even screw the power generation aspect, it's tough to accomplish that in small setups even if you could input oodles of energy.
Dunno if you're knowledgable, what known energysource that size could output 1,5mW in 32 days? Assuming they didn't fiddle with the measurements - is there anything? That's what's confounding the scientists: If you believe the test and trust the equipment and nobody falling asleep on the job, there is no explanation for the photographed assembly and the measurements. But like I said, even if it DIDN'T generate power and instead consumed it, some device that small changing isotopic compositions is ludicrous. If I wanted to do it, I'd have to drug the scientists and switch the trays with something I'd made in the lab, there's just no way.
|
The guy lives on people giving him the benefit of the doubt. Same as for his previous con jobs.
I don't have the physics baggage to debunk it myself. But all the things are stacked against him: impossible by current knowledge, no other scientist working on it (independently), many scientists already claiming it is pseudo-science, no one really talks about it, some sites actually debunking articles (google it they are there), known con artist, always hiding stuff, self publishing, the list goes on.
It's either the biggest conspiracy ever and the guy is an oppressed scientific genius, or the guy is pulling another con.
I'll let you decide, keep giving him the benefit of the doubt if you wish. I won't even give him the benefit of the doubt sorry. This is the exact same level of pseudo science being done by young earth creationists.
Some debunk sources which you are free to debunk yourselves since that seems to be the criteria to be able to trust something or not around here (of a previous scamy report):
http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/
These tests were NOT true and independent tests by any stretch of the imagination. We will state our position again for all to see. Until Andrea Rossi allows a true independent test of his devices – a test that includes no person connected with Andrea Rossi or any of his companies, at test that includes only people who have absolutely nothing to gain or lose from the test either way, a test done out of the control of Rossi, a test done off any property owned or managed by Rossi, a test done at a major laboratory or university – there will always be the possibility that the test was rigged and/or the results incorrectly evaluated and/or the methodology deliberately lacking in true scientific rigor. Period, end of discussion.
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/
The authors of the paper did not perform an independent test; instead, they were participants in another Rossi demonstration and performed measurements on one of Rossi’s devices in his facility.
The authors of the paper lack full knowledge of the type and preparation of the materials used in the reactor and the modulation of input power, which, according to the paper, were industrial trade secrets.
|
Those arguments you quoted, those were supposedly fixed with this second test. They had the device for 32 days in their own lab. They took measurements of the materials used in the reactor at the start and after the test.
It's true that they are kind of connected to Rossi as they are the same guys as in the first test.
|
Someone will debunk the second test, another excuse will be put forward, and the con lives on like that.
At least take some new guys to make it believable, jesus.
|
On October 11 2014 10:20 rezoacken wrote:The guy lives on people giving him the benefit of the doubt. Same as for his previous con jobs. I don't have the physics baggage to debunk it myself. But all the things are stacked against him: impossible by current knowledge, no other scientist working on it (independently), many scientists already claiming it is pseudo-science, no one really talks about it, some sites actually debunking articles (google it they are there), known con artist, always hiding stuff, self publishing, the list goes on. It's either the biggest conspiracy ever and the guy is an oppressed scientific genius, or the guy is pulling another con. I'll let you decide, keep giving him the benefit of the doubt if you wish. I won't even give him the benefit of the doubt sorry. This is the exact same level of pseudo science being done by young earth creationists. Some debunk sources which you are free to debunk yourselves since that seems to be the criteria to be able to trust something or not around here (of a previous scamy report): http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/Show nested quote +These tests were NOT true and independent tests by any stretch of the imagination. We will state our position again for all to see. Until Andrea Rossi allows a true independent test of his devices – a test that includes no person connected with Andrea Rossi or any of his companies, at test that includes only people who have absolutely nothing to gain or lose from the test either way, a test done out of the control of Rossi, a test done off any property owned or managed by Rossi, a test done at a major laboratory or university – there will always be the possibility that the test was rigged and/or the results incorrectly evaluated and/or the methodology deliberately lacking in true scientific rigor. Period, end of discussion. http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/Show nested quote +The authors of the paper did not perform an independent test; instead, they were participants in another Rossi demonstration and performed measurements on one of Rossi’s devices in his facility. Show nested quote +The authors of the paper lack full knowledge of the type and preparation of the materials used in the reactor and the modulation of input power, which, according to the paper, were industrial trade secrets.
Read through the page, he "debunked" the new paper as well. Even though to me it looks like some butthurt person actively trying to find semantics to shit on. So much so that i looked a bit around and found another blog,
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/analyzing-shutdownrossicom-site.html
who basically reviews the page. They appear to be acquainted.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
This is his blog on the last paper.
Further looking into it, that "shutdownrossi.com" apparently is managed by somebody called Steven B Krivit, who incidentally is part of your second source as well.
Interesting things about that person: http://world.std.com/~mica/DisingenuousKrivit20072.pdf
Nothing changed though. Still don't believe rossi, nor your sources (which have even less scientific content, funny enough). Still am curious where the 1,5mW came from, and where the Ni-62 suddenly came from without detectable radiation.
edit: a 15 year old sneaking in and switching the stick for another stick with a different blend is kinda not good enough for an explanation.
|
The thing is that I doubt you'd find the true source of it until someone independent can truly inspect the whole device.
|
On October 11 2014 12:01 rezoacken wrote:
The thing is that I doubt you'd find the true source of it until someone independent can truly inspect the whole device.
If it works that won't happen for quite a while. He would make more money not taking out patents on it until he has to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
