Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
pedrone said:
Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of esoteric people chasing a myth will never change the fact it's a myth.

But cold fusion is not chased by esoteric people. It's chased by scientists worldwide, among them some Nobel Laureate.
Do you see the difference ?
Click to expand...

You know, I missed this before. Anyone also see that he built a straw man by inserting the word "esoteric" in?

This is like a lesson in Logical Fallacies Employed In The Wild. :D
 
If only we could harness the energy of pedrone's enthusiasm for cold fusion :)
 
pedrone said:
ElMondo, I read everything about cold fusion.
And along the years I have realized that some intriguing results are pointing out that cold fusion really occurs.

Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of esoteric people chasing a myth will never change the fact it's a myth.

But cold fusion is not chased by esoteric people. It's chased by scientists worldwide, among them some Nobel Laureate.
Do you see the difference ?
Click to expand...
Relatively few physicists believe cold fusion is possible; there are cranks and fools in every profession. As for Nobel winners, they're not exempt from believing in nonsense; a few such have been mentioned another example is Linus Pauling.
 
pedrone said:
There is a new theory proposed in the Andrea Rossi blog, where it's stated that there is need a new nuclear model to explain cold fusion: <nonsensical rubbish snipped>
Click to expand...
I'd suggest submitting his ideas for peer review, rather than his fake "journal", supplying evidence of the truth of his claims and allowing independent examination of his magic water heater would be better first steps.
Oh and explaining why the board of his "journal" has a decades dead psychologist and a chemist who repudiates any knowledge of the matter as members would be nice too.......
 
EvilSmurf said:
... As for Cold Fusion, there's 2 reasons why researchers go after it:
1) A practically guaranteed Nobel Prize
2) A whole big pot of gold, and the potential to make both environmentalists and energy suppliers very very happy.
Click to expand...
Two more:
3) Bragging rights, unto the seventh generation, perhaps
4) A guaranteed argument-stopper: "So you think that I'm a gin-soaked jackass? Okay, show of hands; How many gin-soaked jackasses in this room hold the sole patent for a personal home-fusion system, and also won the nobel Prize for Physics? I see that only my hand is raised. Sucks to be you, dunnit?"

Nearly every face-to-face conversation I've had with pseudo-scientists included a declaration from them that they would flaunt their triumph in the faces of those who scoffed at them.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
Do you think I have to trust what Ben M claims ?
Click to expand...

Pedrone, if your attitude is "I trust whatever the cold fusion researcher says", then why are you on this forum? Also, you should be preparing to make a fortune by (a) short-selling oil and gas stocks and (b) sending your life savings to Rossi et. al.

If you really think that they're 100% competent nuclear physicists, and that all of the claims in their press releases are true as stated, then they've already done it.

If you're interested in discussing whether or not they've done it, you need to listen to alternatives.

a) The ScienceDaily article does not even *mention* backgrounds.

b) Background neutrons produce exactly the same detector signals as any other neutrons. That's what makes them a background.

c) Track-etch detectors are notoriously hard to calibrate; see, for example, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2004.11.010 . You need better-than-average stats knowhow, even by nuclear physics standards, to make even vaguely correct signal-to-background statements with this technology. Do you have evidence of that stats knowhow? No, you have a press release that you ate right up because you think it tells you what you wanted to hear.
 
catsmate1 said:
I'd suggest submitting his ideas for peer review, rather than his fake "journal", supplying evidence of the truth of his claims and allowing independent examination of his magic water heater would be better first steps.
Click to expand...
Suppose a peer review journal publishes Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment.

Will the publication to change the results obtained in the experiment ?
 
ben m said:
Pedrone, if your attitude is "I trust whatever the cold fusion researcher says", then why are you on this forum?
Click to expand...
Is here a place to discuss FACTS, obtained in scientific experiments, or is it a place where I have to accept everything claimed by you and other guys?

The triple tracks observed in Mosier-Boss experiment are not something that a fusion researcher "says".
It's interpretation was made by experts in intepreting CR-39 tracks:
Johan Frenje at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert at interpreting CR-39 tracks produced in conventional high-temperature fusion reactions, says the team's interpretation of what produced the tracks is valid.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br&source=www.google.com.br

Have I trust you, or an expert at interpreting CR-39 ?
:eek:
 
pedrone said:
Is here a place to discuss FACTS, obtained in scientific experiments, or is it a place where I have to accept everything claimed by you and other guys?

The triple tracks observed in Mosier-Boss experiment are not something that a fusion researcher "says".
It's interpretation was made by experts in intepreting CR-39 tracks:
Johan Frenje at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert at interpreting CR-39 tracks produced in conventional high-temperature fusion reactions, says the team's interpretation of what produced the tracks is valid.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br&source=www.google.com.br

Have I trust you, or an expert at interpreting CR-39 ?
:eek:
Click to expand...

Boy, did you cherry-pick the wrong quote. Did you read one paragraph further?

"I must say that the data and their analysis seem to suggest that energetic neutrons have been produced," he says, although he would like to see the results confirmed quantitatively.
Click to expand...

Yes, like I said: CR-38 detects energetic neutrons. The pits they are seeing are probably energetic neutron pits. However, like I said, energetic neutrons are everywhere and merely detecting them is no proof at all that they're coming from some particular hunk of metal. That is something you could prove (or disprove) with either (a) much detectors and minimally-competent quantitative analysis, or (b) the same crappy CR-38 detectors and extremely carefully controlled quantitative analysis.

Why are you telling me that the detection is "above background", while your source is telling me that the detection is not even "quantitative"? One of you is wrong.
 
Here's a question from a non-physicist (me): What's the supposed detection of the "triple tracks" supposed to signify? I'm being told here that it indicates a fusion event, but I'm not being told why it supposedly indicates a fusion event. There's no explanation for the "why"; it's merely being asserted as being significant.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Here's a question from a non-physicist (me): What's the supposed detection of the "triple tracks" supposed to signify? I'm being told here that it indicates a fusion event, but I'm not being told why it supposedly indicates a fusion event. There's no explanation for the "why"; it's merely being asserted as being significant.
Click to expand...

Supposedly it's from the reaction 12C + n --> alpha alpha alpha n.

The question is: Why focus on this bizarre, rare reaction? Why not measure the neutron flux from ordinary elastic scattering (single tracks)? Why not thermalize the neutrons and measure the captures?

Because they're not really doing serious neutron measurements---the sort where you put together a complete and accurate picture of the neutron flux vs. energy, or time, or distance, etc.. Rather, they're looking for anything that can vaguely pass as an "LENR confirmed" press release. Triple tracks? Triple tracks = neutrons! Yes! That hits the confirmation bias button! We're done measuring, get that press release out!
 
BenBurch said:
You don't need this explanation by Wm. of Ockham's argument, because there are already adequate explanations of this phenomenon that only invoke know physical principles.
Click to expand...

Ockham argument does not mean that nothing is missing in known physical principles invoked.
Why the nucleos of Earth is so active after billion years of existence ?
 
ben m said:
Yes, like I said: CR-38 detects energetic neutrons. The pits they are seeing are probably energetic neutron pits. However, like I said, energetic neutrons are everywhere and merely detecting them is no proof at all that they're coming from some particular hunk of metal. That is something you could prove (or disprove) with either (a) much detectors and minimally-competent quantitative analysis, or (b) the same crappy CR-38 detectors and extremely carefully controlled quantitative analysis.
Click to expand...
ben m, two questions to you:

1- Are you an expert in interpreting CR-39?

2- Did you see the CR-39 of Mosier-Boss experiment ? Did she invite you to anayse the CR-39?
 
pedrone said:
Suppose a peer review journal publishes Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment.
Click to expand...

Do you know how peer-review works? There's usually a step where the reviewers ask hard questions about the paper---questions like "Why do you claim to have interpreted the data from a humidity probe as a 'steam dryness'?", and "Can you show all of your thermometer calibration data?".

I don't think Rossi's result will still be a result at all if the measurements are done competently. That's the whole point.

I don't think a reviewer would accept the paper without demanding competent data-collection and reporting. In a press conference or a Web page, you can blow off criticism and tough questions. If you blow off a peer-reviewer, they're entirely within their rights to say: "Your revised manuscript failed to address the reviewers' objections. In light of this, we regret to inform you that we cannot publish your work."
 
EvilSmurf said:
As for Cold Fusion, there's 2 reasons why researchers go after it:
1) A practically guaranteed Nobel Prize
2) A whole big pot of gold, and the potential to make both environmentalists and energy suppliers very very happy.
Click to expand...
Only stupid men can try to get cold fusion with the aim to award the Nobel Prize if they know that cold fusion is impossible.

What a hell do they think?

Perhaps this: "Oh, I know that cold fusion is impossible. But if I succeed to get it, I will receive the Nobel Prize"
 
pedrone said:
Suppose a peer review journal publishes Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment.

Will the publication to change the results obtained in the experiment ?
Click to expand...
No but it'd suggest that the results claimed by Rossi actually happened rather than being the product of incompetence, wishful thinking or fraud.


Actually ben m put it better than I was going to so I'll just paste his post for you to ignore ..
ben m said:
Do you know how peer-review works? There's usually a step where the reviewers ask hard questions about the paper---questions like "Why do you claim to have interpreted the data from a humidity probe as a 'steam dryness'?", and "Can you show all of your thermometer calibration data?".

I don't think Rossi's result will still be a result at all if the measurements are done competently. That's the whole point.

I don't think a reviewer would accept the paper without demanding competent data-collection and reporting. In a press conference or a Web page, you can blow off criticism and tough questions. If you blow off a peer-reviewer, they're entirely within their rights to say: "Your revised manuscript failed to address the reviewers' objections. In light of this, we regret to inform you that we cannot publish your work."
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom