BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave.
Merged Cold Fusion Claims
- Thread starter JoelKatz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- andrea rossi cold fusion
- Status
You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave.
Where does this concept that all scientists are the same and they can give competent opinions from all fields of science come from? Nobody thinks that people trained in humanities can give professional opinion of everything related to liberal arts. Hanno Essén is a docent of theoretical physics, whose main research and teaching subjects seems to be classical mechanics. So his specialization is about as well suited for Rossi experiments as Steven E. Jones' expertize is suited for structural engineering. A student with one summer in laboratory doing calorimetry and instrumentation would be more competent to supervise Rossi experiments. If Rossi wanted to end the debate, he could send the device to professional laboratory, and they could tell within 24 hours if it is real or not, without opening it, so Rossi could write a contract to protect his secrets. But for some reason he prefers to do the tests with people who don't really have proper specialization and are already so old that they are unlikely to learn quickly so that they won't become too competent...
Last edited:
You what? The hot fusion people scooped that decades ago. Remember, the question at hand is not whether cold fusion can be used in a practical, commercially viable power plant, it's simply whether cold fusion exists at all. Hot fusion managed that decades ago, but there is still not a single piece of reliable evidence for cold fusion. Of course, building a power plant would be one way of providing evidence, but it's so far from the easiest way of doing so that you'd have to be utterly insane to take that route rather than just performing a very simple experiment to prove fusion is actually happening. Or of course, simply a scammer.
Take hot fusion, for example. Not only is proven to be possible, break-even was achieved almost 60 years ago. But merely knowing that it is possible does not mean we know how to harness it in a controlled manner to provide electrical power, and so decades have been spent trying to work out the best ways to use the known phenomenon. Cold fusion, on the other hand, expects us to believe that the practical applications will be available and in general usage before they've even managed to demonstrate that there is a phenomenon to investigate. Really, why would anyone believe they can control the process well enough to build a power plant when they can't even convince anyone that there is a process for them to control?
I guess it's time to toss another respected skeptic off the island...
Eric Krieg is now a crackpot.
[free_energy] Fwd: Free Energy On The RightSunday, May 8, 2011 3:42 PM
From: "erickrieg@verizon.net" <erickrieg@verizon.net>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
People,
I am interested to hear of what sounds like fairly well done
experiments to investigate the near FE claims of Rossi (they call the
energy source LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) - it purports to
be on the level of what Blacklight Power has been claiming for over 10
years. There may well be a skeptical analysis showing it all to be a
scam or delusion - I just haven't seen one yet. Looks to me the most
promising claim in years.
<snip>
<end message>
Eric Krieg is now a crackpot.
[free_energy] Fwd: Free Energy On The RightSunday, May 8, 2011 3:42 PM
From: "erickrieg@verizon.net" <erickrieg@verizon.net>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
People,
I am interested to hear of what sounds like fairly well done
experiments to investigate the near FE claims of Rossi (they call the
energy source LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) - it purports to
be on the level of what Blacklight Power has been claiming for over 10
years. There may well be a skeptical analysis showing it all to be a
scam or delusion - I just haven't seen one yet. Looks to me the most
promising claim in years.
<snip>
<end message>
Focardi and his group are apparently the only people who claim to have spotted anything in Ni-H systems before Rossi. So no, the question whether there is something in Pd-D systems isn't really relevant when it comes to whether Rossi is a conman or not.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Which Eric Krieg is that ? The congressionist/guy from phact.org with the 10K$ free energy challenge for which all web page seems to end in a 404 ?
"There may well be a skeptical analysis showing it all to be a
scam or delusion - I just haven't seen one yet. Looks to me the most
promising claim in years."
For all I care you could tell me that hawking might be say the same, it would be a meaningless by authority.
ETA: and if did not find good argument against rossi's claim, he did not search very deep. Even on this forum there has been quite a few involved discussion on the Ni-H fusion.
"There may well be a skeptical analysis showing it all to be a
scam or delusion - I just haven't seen one yet. Looks to me the most
promising claim in years."
For all I care you could tell me that hawking might be say the same, it would be a meaningless by authority.
ETA: and if did not find good argument against rossi's claim, he did not search very deep. Even on this forum there has been quite a few involved discussion on the Ni-H fusion.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I guess that is a not really data and evidence. Maybe you could address the flaws in the measurements in Rossi's system?
Teemu
Focardi and his group are not the only people who work with Ni-H systems as the bare minimum of research will convince you. Your premise is false.
The question of whether Pd-D systems actually demonstrate cold fusion is important to framing the argument. My previous posts argue that the observation of cold fusion in this system means that arguing that the rossi device is fraud because cold fusion has never been observed is arguing from a false premise.
Of course as soon as you convince yourself that cold fusion research results are valid the rossi device becomes very much less interesting.
Focardi and his group are not the only people who work with Ni-H systems as the bare minimum of research will convince you. Your premise is false.
The question of whether Pd-D systems actually demonstrate cold fusion is important to framing the argument. My previous posts argue that the observation of cold fusion in this system means that arguing that the rossi device is fraud because cold fusion has never been observed is arguing from a false premise.
Of course as soon as you convince yourself that cold fusion research results are valid the rossi device becomes very much less interesting.
I should have said more accurately: Before Rossi, the only ones who were open about what they were doing related to Ni-H, not being secretive like Patterson and Mill's BLP, possibly trying to cash in, were Focardi and his associates. At least Focardi and his associates was only ones who had papers in that lenr-canr.org . Or if there was couple more, it is still just handful, not much compared to Pd-D papers on that site.
Last edited:
Yevgen Barsukov
Student
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 49
Does it describe the secret catalyst? In this case please send a link to the
patent (or patent number).
If it does not, than this patent is invalid for the reason that device
can not be replicated by anybody without this information.
Regards,
Yevgen
Yevgen Barsukov
Student
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 49
One thing to keep in mind is that tungsten is a metal that has a highly
energetic oxidation reaction with water or oxygen (think burning Magnesium
to get an idea of energy involved). Usually it is not observed
because of its extreme high melting point, and passivated oxide layer.
But under high-voltage spark (plasma) discharge, temperature is high enough
to cause a direct reaction between tungsten and water - that is why
tungsten electrode quickly becomes corroded AND the more it is corroded
(e.g. the higher is surface area for reaction) them more of "un-accounted"
energy they observe! This is evident in Naudin's replicator device (because
he is specifically stating it and showing photographs of corroded
electrode), but the principle is the same with Japanies experiment as well.
The solution is simple - they need to weigh the tungsten before and
after the reaction (after they need to remove oxide layer first). The difference
will explain the energy delta.
Regards,
Yevgen
Belz...
Fiend God
The hallmark of the quack.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
This is a key point. Anyone who claims anything about a patent, but who can't quote the patent number, is likely making things up. Every issued patent will have a number printed on its front page, so anyone who has claimed to see the patent should be able to quote the number. If they can't, it's likely they've never seen it.
Many of them seem to be just attempts to theoretically explain Patterson's results, many of them just refer to Patterson's paper, can you actually point out the independent repeats done by outsiders. Why has Ni-H subfield of cold fusion been so dominated by secretive wannabe-trillionaires like Patterson, Mills (BLP), and now Rossi?
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
ACtually then italian patent number/link was provided, I went there there is nothing but a number and to whom it was given, no description, nothing.
Worthless.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Nobody believes this enough to take a $100 wager?
Amazing how woo vanishes as soon as money is on the line.
Amazing how woo vanishes as soon as money is on the line.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
So small that if it were represented by a sand grain in the middle of the Sahara, it would still be too large in proportion to the desert.
- Status