Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[ben m]

And in the latest news:

Hey look! Yet another company that formed out of nowhere, in the years since Rossi's scam started, and that has produced nothing but Rossi-related press releases!

Hey look, yet another supposedly-interested and active party that hasn't acquired an actual device---despite, according to their own PR, being in the business for two years---instead basing their investment decisions on Rossi's carefully-staged IR-camera-based "test"!

Hey look! Another company that isn't Siemens, or GE, or Mitsubishi, or Honeywell---the sort of company with actual engineering expertise to evaluate claims like Rossi's!

Co-conspirator or victim? Sounds like "victim" to me. The supposed investor is a guy five or six years out of college whose expertise seems to be "encouraging entrepreneurship" (a perfectly respectable pursuit!) rather than "understanding thermodynamics".

Maybe we can send him a message? HEY JT VAUGHN, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL HEAT LLC., CHEROKEE PARTNERS, PLEASE READ THIS. A number of people on this board are experts in nuclear physics, thermodynamics, general physics, and also (because of the nature of this particular board) in professional deception, the sort of deception practiced by scam artists selling fake technology. The prevailing analysis here is that Rossi is a scammer, who packages up ordinary electric heaters and lies (mostly incompetently) about their electrical input, heat output, and transmutation chemistry. The main question has not been whether the devices work but when does he stop the buildup and start the payoff, i.e. where does he find a victim and start cashing their checks. You may have answered that question! I'm very sorry. If you want professional advice on how to test a purported cold-fusion device, and avoid being duped, you can find that advice here. You are welcome to log into the board and post publicly or to PM (private message) me or other posters.

 

[Horatius]

Hey look! Another company that isn't Siemens, or GE, or Mitsubishi, or Honeywell---the sort of company with actual engineering expertise to evaluate claims like Rossi's!

Co-conspirator or victim? Sounds like "victim" to me. The supposed investor is a guy five or six years out of college whose expertise seems to be "encouraging entrepreneurship" (a perfectly respectable pursuit!) rather than "understanding thermodynamics".

Yeah, "victim" was my take on it as well. Note that this "Industrial Heat" company is a start up that seems to have received money from a larger investment firm.

Tom Darden, who co-founded Cherokee Investment Partners, a series of private equity funds specializing in cleaning up pollution, is a founding investor in Industrial Heat.

This guy Tom Darden sounds pretty serious:

http://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-darden/

with billions in investment funds to work with. But you'll note his background is in environmental work, not physics or engineering.

A person posting here:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/01/industrial-heat-sinks-money-into-e-cat-cold-fusion-technology/

indicates that Cherokee invested $12 million, of which $11 million went for buying the intellectual property from Rossi.

So, that looks like the payout Rossi has been looking for. Not a bad hourly wage for three years worth of "work".

 

[manifesto]

No. The problems with cold fusion is that no-one has shown anything is happening.

What?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Ahhh, you guys with all that newfangled cold fusion stuff. It surely needs time to ripe. I mean, if we go for "who can milk it the longest time". Just take a look at the "Searl Effect Generator" scam. That one is going on for _decades_. Seriously, invest some time on looking that stuff up. It's unbelievable. And not only can it produce electricity, it can also defy gravity (so you can use it for spaceships) and heal people! All that cam to Searl in some dream about hopscotch!

Give the Rossi scam some time, it's basically just a newborn at this stage. :-D

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Dancing David]

What?

So far we lack any good evidence of anything happening, like calorimetry with a still water bath for example.
The evidence is underwhelming at best.

Welcome to the JREF!

 

[manifesto]

So far we lack any good evidence of anything happening, like calorimetry with a still water bath for example.
The evidence is underwhelming at best.

Welcome to the JREF!

Thank you!

If you're talking of Rossi's stuff i agree, we are still waiting for independent testing. Are you saying that this is true also for all the peer reviewed scientific papers on LENR/cold fusion published in mainstream journals for the last 25 years?

 

[Dancing David]

Start your citations and then we can discuss the specifics.

 

[CORed]

Start your citations and then we can discuss the specifics.

I would also cite the complete lack of any practical application in 25 years as pretty good evidence that there is little or nothing to cold fusion/lenr. If it worked as claimed, it would be ridiculously simple to put the apparatus in a pressure vessel and generate steam to run a generator. This is, of course, pretty much what Rossi claims to have done, but he has gone to great lengths to avoid a properly conducted test.

If there were anything of significance to cold fusion, somebody would be using it to generate electricity, heat buildings, or both.

 

[ben m]

If you're talking of Rossi's stuff i agree, we are still waiting for independent testing. Are you saying that this is true also for all the peer reviewed scientific papers on LENR/cold fusion published in mainstream journals for the last 25 years?

Basically yes. You have labs that claim to reproduce their own stuff over and over. (Never improve, or stabilize, or measure better---only reproduce.) You have various groups attempting to reproduce others' setups and getting different results, frequently negative. (You also have lots of cold-fusion-enthusiast conference proceedings that pretend to be "mainstream journals". )

Overall, no, it's a field with approximately the same scientific record as free-energy or reactionless-thrust or gravity-shielding. The only way to find something that looks like a "reproducible result" is to lower your quality standards a long way.

 

[manifesto]

Start your citations and then we can discuss the specifics.

Well, I'm not a physicist but I've been looking at this lecture: MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014, with Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz, and I find Hagelstein's model for LENR very interesting.

Maybe someone here could comment on it?

I'm not allowed to post links, but it's easy to google.


("You are only allowed to post URLs to websites after you have made 15 posts or more.")

 

[manifesto]

I would also cite the complete lack of any practical application in 25 years as pretty good evidence that there is little or nothing to cold fusion/lenr.

Well it's not easy to do multi disciplinary research on a completely new phenomenon without funding.

If it worked as claimed, it would be ridiculously simple to put the apparatus in a pressure vessel and generate steam to run a generator.

Claimed by who?

This is, of course, pretty much what Rossi claims to have done, but he has gone to great lengths to avoid a properly conducted test.

I agree.

If there were anything of significance to cold fusion, somebody would be using it to generate electricity, heat buildings, or both.

One step at a time.

 

[manifesto]

Basically yes. You have labs that claim to reproduce their own stuff over and over. (Never improve, or stabilize, or measure better---only reproduce.)

This is not entirely true. Progress have been made, but I agree, it's not easy to do real science outside the scientific community.

You have various groups attempting to reproduce others' setups and getting different results, frequently negative.

Yes, we're still waiting for 100% reproducibility, but there is hundreds of studies corroborating excess heat and other products that can be explained only by something nuclear. I's enough with just ONE of this experiments being correct, to completely change everything.

(You also have lots of cold-fusion-enthusiast conference proceedings that pretend to be "mainstream journals".)

Well, I can see the difference.

Overall, no, it's a field with approximately the same scientific record as free-energy or reactionless-thrust or gravity-shielding.

So, where is the science in those cases?

The only way to find something that looks like a "reproducible result" is to lower your quality standards a long way.

1. Observation

2. Corroborating observations

3. Reproducibility

4. Theory

5. Implementations

We are between 2 and 3 at this moment.

 

[catsmate]

Basically yes. You have labs that claim to reproduce their own stuff over and over. (Never improve, or stabilize, or measure better---only reproduce.) You have various groups attempting to reproduce others' setups and getting different results, frequently negative. (You also have lots of cold-fusion-enthusiast conference proceedings that pretend to be "mainstream journals". )

Overall, no, it's a field with approximately the same scientific record as free-energy or reactionless-thrust or gravity-shielding. The only way to find something that looks like a "reproducible result" is to lower your quality standards a long way.

This. Like the claims for telepathy, precognition et cetera.

Well it's not easy to do multi disciplinary research on a completely new phenomenon without funding.

Cop out.

Claimed by who?

Anyone with a secondary school level understanding of mechanics, or even history. Steam engine.
If the various magic machines proposed over the years actually did what was claimed, turning this into usable energy would be simple.

One step at a time.

But the first step, actually showing there is a phenomena to be examined, hasn't happened.

 

[catsmate]

This is not entirely true. Progress have been made, but I agree, it's not easy to do real science outside the scientific community.

Cop out, again.

Yes, we're still waiting for 100% reproducibility, but there is hundreds of studies corroborating excess heat and other products that can be explained only by something nuclear.

Rubbish. There are hundreds of claims. Cite those that have stood up to independent, expert scrutiny. Most of the claims have been kept well away from skeptical examination.

I's enough with just ONE of this experiments being correct, to completely change everything.

Irrelevant. Proof of the reality of any number of phenomena would be a truly paradigm shifting change in human knowledge. This has absolutely no effect on the truth.

So, where is the science in those cases?

There is no evidence for such phenomena. Just like there's no evidence for:

• extra-terrestrial visitation of this planet
• telepathy
• precognition
• post-mortem communication
• homeopathy
• effectiveness of prayer to change reality

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

1. Observation

2. Corroborating observations

3. Reproducibility

4. Theory

5. Implementations

We are between 2 and 3 at this moment.

No. "You" have yet to show actual observations.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Well it's not easy to do multi disciplinary research on a completely new phenomenon without funding.

I'll ask you the same question that i have asked many others who claimed "free energy" or "cold fusion" before:

Imagine you are a company that produces and sells electricity, or heat. Since you are a company, you want to make profit. The more, the better. Right now you have a system that requires you to build huge power plants, and then continously pay for fuel to keep them running.

Now some technology comes along that will allow you to build small, simple plants, with no or neglible fuel costs.

What are you going to do? Continue to build expensive plants and buy fuel, or grab that other stuff? Even if that other stuff would not yet be commercially viable, would you rather let it go, or spend money on making it commercially viably?

Mind you, you could have the patents (and thus virtually a monopoly) on this. You would make more profit than anyone else.

Now consider that this stuff is allegedly "ready for use" since decades. And still, you build big power plants and buy fuel.

Why is that?

Claimed by who?

For example, by Rossi (in this case). He claims to have that system working. Not only that, he claims to have had that system in use for a while. It would be trivially simple for him to have it tested by external groups.

I agree.

Then why did you ask the previous question?

One step at a time.

Problem is that there isn't even a first step yet. All there is are wild claims, that no one else can reproduce. It always boils down to some special ingredient. In Rossi's case some magic catalyst. Others use magic magnets, etc.

The first step is: Show that there is an effect and have it reproduced by independat groups. If that is done, then we know that there seems to be something. So far, that has not happened.

Keep in mind that this is not about some exotic and rare effect that may happen to one in a billion atoms. This is, allegedly, an effect that has to happen in huge quantities, since it is, allegedely, able to produce massive amounts of excess heat.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[manifesto]

Cop out.

What?

Anyone with a secondary school level understanding of mechanics, or even history. Steam engine. If the various magic machines proposed over the years actually did what was claimed, turning this into usable energy would be simple.

What lenr-claim are you referring to?

the first step, actually showing there is a phenomena to be examined, hasn't happened.

So, you disregard Fleishmann & Pons' original findings of excess heat. Why?

 

[Christian Klippel]

So, you disregard Fleishmann & Pons' original findings of excess heat. Why?

Because no one was able to reproduce it. You know, that "science" thing. Someone finds out something and publishes it. Others look at it and try to reproduce it. The more people can reproduce it, the more validity it has. Fun thing: initially it is absolutely unimportant to be able to explain _how_. All that is important is that it happens. Once that is established, people have something to look at and figure out why that is.

Stuff like "free energy" or "cold fusion" is very quick to provide explanations as to how it happens. But utterly lacks the proof that it happens at all.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[manifesto]

Cop out, again.

Again, what?

There are hundreds of claims. Cite those that have stood up to independent, expert scrutiny. Most of the claims have been kept well away from skeptical examination.

So, you have examples of sceptical examinations?

Irrelevant. Proof of the reality of any number of phenomena would be a truly paradigm shifting change in human knowledge. This has absolutely no effect on the truth.

I was referring to the black swan argument.

There is no evidence for such phenomena. Just like there's no evidence for:

• extra-terrestrial visitation of this planet
• telepathy
• precognition
• post-mortem communication
• homeopathy
• effectiveness of prayer to change reality

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, the difference here is all the well done experiments published in peer reviewed mainstream journals, often by world leading scientists in the case of LENR-studies, but not in your examples above.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Well, the difference here is all the well done experiments published in peer reviewed mainstream journals, often by world leading scientists in the case of LENR-studies, but not in your examples above.

Then you should have no problem to name & cite them, right? For that matter, none of the other proponents should have such a problem either. But strangely, no one ever does. Why is that?

So, what are these mainstream journals, and who are these world leading scientists? Oh, i see, you added an "in the case of LENR-studies" there. Is that like "mainstream journals" and "world leading scientists" in astrology? Like, you know, horoscopes published in mainstream newspapers?

Seriously, show what you have, and better make damn sure that there really is something in the first place. If you can't do that: welcome to the way of the Dodo. One that tries to fly, for that matter.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[ben m]

Yes, we're still waiting for 100% reproducibility, but there is hundreds of studies corroborating excess heat and other products that can be explained only by something nuclear. I's enough with just ONE of this experiments being correct, to completely change everything.

You can walk into the nations' physics departments and find thousands of unpublished papers containing the (easily reproducible) claim that the speed of light varies by 10% from day to day. Why haven't you heard of it? Because the papers in question are the undergraduate lab reports, and the research is "reproducible" only in the sense that the same mistakes occur over and over.

Would you have said, in response to my first sentence, what you said in response to cold fusion?

I's enough with just ONE of this experiments being correct, to completely change everything.

1. Observation

2. Corroborating observations

3. Reproducibility

4. Theory

5. Implementations

That is a ridiculously linear picture of science. Here is a better picture:



After several passes through "refutation", we're now somewhere in one of the loops orbiting through "some fans object --> confusion" over and over.