Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
BeAChooser said:
You still don't get it. This isn't science. This is engineering. And engineering is also about results. So is making a profit. Even when the government won't cooperate by issuing a patent. :D
Click to expand...

By "Science", I mean, the Science of Metrology by which ACTUAL, QUANTITATIVE results can be obtained which will tell if there ACTUALLY IS any effect worth mentioning (signal) hidden amongst all this NOISE.

Believe as you desire, and be well, but we have been talking past each other, all this time, with no relief in sight until ACTUAL measurement DATA are presented.

Cheers,

Dave
 
Aepervius said:
but here around engineer work is based on science.
Click to expand...

"here around"? LOL!

Dr. AR Dykes, British Institution of Structural Engineers, 1976 - "Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance."

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
"here around"? LOL!

Dr. AR Dykes, British Institution of Structural Engineers, 1976 - "Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance."

:D
Click to expand...

You can cite those guy as much as you want, but the fact stays that all definition of engineering I know of clearly agree with what I ctied : the art of using science and known property of materials to reach a goal on cost, security and so on.

From the oplace where you quoted the Fung snippet :
The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET)[1] has defined "engineering" as:

[T]he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property.
Click to expand...

So really cite how many guys as you want, but the definition is pretty clear to me : application of scientific principle.
 
unclep2k said:
You can stay with John Bockris a bit if you want. He was exonerated of the early criticism and his work was confirmed. By the University of Illinois for one. I have a friend that is a chemist and he says Brockis is considered a bit excentric by some, maybe a bit arrogant by some, but most in the field consider him one of the best chemists to ever walk the planet. Did you read about him at the link I posted earlier? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bockris
Click to expand...

First of all, I was not the one who had researched that individuals background; I was merely observing that what they reported didn't look promising...

I have a friend that is a chemist and he says ...
Click to expand...

I have a friend who is clairvoyant, who assures me that anyone who disagrees with me is Demon Possessed ... So, what's your point?

I really don't CARE what someone's reputation or achievements were in the past... If they have gone over the edge in the situation at hand, what THEY say matters not a whit...

YOU appear to "Want To Believe", So Be It, Shine On...
I think I am more centered, but that is MY opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.:rolleyes:

Cheers,

Dave
 
BeAChooser said:
You still don't get it. This isn't science. This is engineering. And engineering is also about results. So is making a profit. Even when the government won't cooperate by issuing a patent. :D
Click to expand...

Excuse me, in engineering measurements are often taken to a high degree of precision. What are the error bars and precision on Rossi's methods?

"I think the bridge will hold, but I used these totally inaccurate measures of the strength of the materials. My gut says they are accurate. I don't know the level of accuracy."

Uh huh, that sounds like an engineer to me. :D
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
You can cite those guy as much as you want, but the fact stays that all definition of engineering I know of clearly agree with what I ctied : the art of using science and known property of materials to reach a goal on cost, security and so on.
Click to expand...

Just curious. Are you an engineer?

And which came first? Engineering or science?

Which reminds me of a joke:

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were given a red rubber ball and told to find the volume. The mathematician measured the diameter and evaluated a triple integral, the physicist filled a beaker with water, put the ball in the water, and measured the total displacement, and the engineer looked up the model and serial numbers in his red-rubber-ball table.

:D
 
CaveDave said:
First of all, I was not the one who had researched that individuals background; I was merely observing that what they reported didn't look promising...



I have a friend who is clairvoyant, who assures me that anyone who disagrees with me is Demon Possessed ... So, what's your point?

I really don't CARE what someone's reputation or achievements were in the past... If they have gone over the edge in the situation at hand, what THEY say matters not a whit...

YOU appear to "Want To Believe", So Be It, Shine On...
I think I am more centered, but that is MY opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.:rolleyes:

Cheers,

Dave
Click to expand...

Well Bockris is a great chemist whether one believes or not. I was offended when his name slandered. Lenr was just a small bit of his work. He did continue his lenr research under great hostility and name calling ( there was even a book written to discredit him) which says a lot for his character.
 
BeAChooser said:
Just curious. Are you an engineer?

And which came first? Engineering or science?

Which reminds me of a joke:

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were given a red rubber ball and told to find the volume. The mathematician measured the diameter and evaluated a triple integral, the physicist filled a beaker with water, put the ball in the water, and measured the total displacement, and the engineer looked up the model and serial numbers in his red-rubber-ball table.

:D
Click to expand...
And so when you engineer an engine to turn buring feul in heating, how does an engineer measure the heat output and efficiency of a device, say they have a number of models to evaluate. Do they use an unknown volume of water and heat it to an unknown temperature, and then try to measure the relative humidity of an unknown volume of stream?

Also with an inaccurate measure of the feul.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Just curious. Are you an engineer?

And which came first? Engineering or science?

Which reminds me of a joke:

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were given a red rubber ball and told to find the volume. The mathematician measured the diameter and evaluated a triple integral, the physicist filled a beaker with water, put the ball in the water, and measured the total displacement, and the engineer looked up the model and serial numbers in his red-rubber-ball table.

:D
Click to expand...

A Surveyor, a Welder, and an Oilfield Roughneck were given three large steel spheres, and left alone without instruction to see what they would do.
Later:
The Surveyor announced proudly: "I arranged them in a perfect Equilateral triangle, precisely one billionth the average Earth diameter, aligned perfectly with the axis of the Celestial Sphere!"
The Welder reported: "I welded them into a form that will sit stably on ANY surface, using a fusion technique where the interatomic bonds of the product are stronger than the parent materials!"
The Roughneck, after he was located and awakened looked startled: "Balls?... What balls?... I haven't seen 'em... Oh, you mean THEM balls... Well, I lost the first 'un right off... The second one broke - not MY fault... and the other is in my lunch pail - I wuz gonna' take it home an' SELL it..."

[/DERAIL]

And the POINT of this exercise was...?:rolleyes:

Dave
 
unclep2k said:
Well Bockris is a great chemist whether one believes or not. I was offended when his name slandered. Lenr was just a small bit of his work. He did continue his lenr research under great hostility and name calling ( there was even a book written to discredit him) which says a lot for his character.
Click to expand...

To reiterate:

I did NOT do the research on the person, I was merely commenting on what someone else was REPORTING.

I was meaning that FURTHER research by that REPORTING person, which apparently would be into OTHER subjects from a LIST that YOU had evidently indicated contained supporting documentation for YOUR P.O.V., Was HIGHLY likely to be as unsatisfying as the first name s/he had picked from YOUR list.

Please address the correct poster if you don't like the results of YOUR list being investigated.

Dave
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
"here around"? LOL! Dr. AR Dykes, British Institution of Structural Engineers, 1976 - "Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance."

:D
Click to expand...

I don't think Aepervius is a native English speaker, and he occasionally misses on minor grammatical points. He manages nonetheless to write intelligibly and intelligently, and I don't think your mockery is appropriate.
 
unclep2k

You ask Cave Dave, but may I respond too?

Did you read about him at the link I posted earlier? H t t p : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bockris
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not very happy with it, in particular:

Bockris turned to metal to metal transmutation and achieved success in 1994 when he discovered new nuclei found in palladium after prolonged evolution of hydrogen thereon. The new materials found within palladium were verified by nuclear physicist George Miley, University of Illinois and Tadahiko Mizuno, University of Hokkaido.
Click to expand...

No relevant published works by these authors are referenced in the wiki article.

Bockris experienced hostility to this work in the beginning. Now in 2011, at least a dozen journals accept work in the field of low energy and nuclear reactions (solid state nuclear chemistry).
Click to expand...

Dozen journals not named. Not even one named.

He was exonerated of the early criticism and his work was confirmed
Click to expand...

May I instead refer you to "h t t p :// everything2.com/title/John+Bockris".

So Bockris moved on to alchemy. He funded this new stage in his research with $200,000 from a convicted felon named William Telander. He then brought a "self-described researcher and inventor from Tennessee" named Joe Champion into his lab. Champion instructed Bockris and his assistants in the proper procedures to turn garbage into gold. In four separate experiments, they ignited a mixture of potassium nitrate, carbon, and various salts to produce small amounts of gold. Not surprisingly, once Champion left Bockris' group, they could not get the technique to work.

Bockris got a lot of press for this nonsense, and other chemists at Texas A&M felt that their reputations were being sullied by the connection. When the alchemy started in 1993, their patience ran out. Mike Epstein's editorial in the Journal of Scientific Exploration describes what happened next:

A petition signed by 23 of the 28 distinguished professors at Texas A&M called on the university provost to strip Dr. Bockris of his title as distinguished professor. The petition follows a letter written by 11 full professors in the chemistry department (out of the department's 38 full professors) calling on Dr. Bockris to resign and remove the "shadow" he has cast over the department. The petition from the distinguished professors said "For a trained scientist to claim, or support anyone else's claim to have transmuted elements is difficult for us to believe and is no more acceptable than to claim to have invented a gravity shield, revived the dead or to be mining green cheese on the moon. We believe that Bockris' recent activities have made the terms 'Texas A&M' and 'Aggie' objects of derisive laughter throughout the world..."

No dice. Bockris kept his job. He also won the 1997 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics for his efforts.

Bockris tried to organize a conference on Cold Fusion at Texas A&M as recently as 1997 but the university put its foot down and refused to allow the use of its conference halls. In the words of Frank Cotton, another professor of chemistry at the school, the seminar was cancelled after the speakers list was published because "they're all kooks and charlatans."
Click to expand...
 
CaveDave said:
By "Science", I mean, the Science of Metrology by which ACTUAL, QUANTITATIVE results can be obtained which will tell if there ACTUALLY IS any effect worth mentioning (signal) hidden amongst all this NOISE.

Believe as you desire, and be well, but we have been talking past each other, all this time, with no relief in sight until ACTUAL measurement DATA are presented.

Cheers,

Dave
Click to expand...

Don't confuse him with facts. "Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Wilson Reagan
 
BeAChooser said:
But the soundness of the companies is irrelevant to my offer involving the escrow account. In that case, you aren't investing in the companies. You are simply betting me whether Rossi's claims are true or not. This has to do with your certainty about that. If Rossi's claims about his device are fraud (or the result of bad measurements), then you win. If not, I win. It won't matter how sound the companies' financials are or what their business plan says. :D
Click to expand...

It does matter unless I've misread. He could fail or win based on something other than a working device, couldn't he? What will we know differently then that we don't know now?

For example, if we were having this conversation a year ago, it would be pretty much the same and everything that happened since would keep the fog rolling.
 
Craig B said:
unclep2k

You ask Cave Dave, but may I respond too?



Yes, but I'm not very happy with it, in particular:



No relevant published works by these authors are referenced in the wiki article.



Dozen journals not named. Not even one named.



May I instead refer you to "h t t p :// everything2.com/title/John+Bockris".
Click to expand...

I've never heard the story about the felon..don't have a clue if that's true or not. Most of the stuff referenced to that post dated to the early 90's when he was under great criticism for his work with cold fusion. He was the first to confirm tritium and it was more than suggested fraud was involved. His work was later confirmed by George Miley of the university of Illinois. Here is a link that shows what he was put through. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/taubesfabrication/TritiumDiscoveredByBockrisAtTexasA&M.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom