Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michele Comitini
Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:55:58 -0700

>> 7KW) electric power
>> 40KW) thermal power
>
> Is this output power? How much input power is required? What's the
> ratio of input power consumed versus output power generated.

I read those on 22passi.
It seems output power. I do not know anything about the input energy.

The real numbers will be available in a matter of weeks. Piantelli's
devices work with different parameters that Rossi's and
I have no idea if they need input energy to mantain the reaction under control.
Anyway if those numbers are leaking out of Piantelli's team, being
Piantelli a very cautios and discreet scientist, I bet what they are
at is very important.
 
attaboy said:
What flare up are you talking about?
Click to expand...
The flare up of appeal to authority? It was not meant other than that. If that is what has offended you, I am sorry.
I don't see any flare up.
Have you ever had to evaluate a research publication on an academic basis like I have many times?
Click to expand...
yes, for a professor, he had many and we did precises.
Have you ever written a peer reviewed research publication like I have?
Click to expand...
No, but I am a footnote.

My sister writes every quarter.
What concerns me is that you will probably take any publication you find related to the research project performed at AMES and try to poke holes in it rather that evaluate it critically.
Click to expand...
Wow, project much?

You need to read in other threads more. that is a very strange theory with no basis in fact.
I agree with you that a letter in a blog may be of questionable credibility. But when I posted that link to the blog you took it to mean that I stood lock, stock and barrel behind everything that was printed there, and it was you who flared up against me. I then stated that all I was doing was reporting a link to a blog I found, for the interest of this forum. But you still continued to come after me.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if you feel I personalized it.
You ask "Have you read anything other than this thread at the JREF?" Why is this important especially when I have so many other things going on in my life?
Click to expand...

Because it shows that you don't understand the forum, going to the source is the usual drift and process here.

ETA: I really see no personalization in the more recent posts are you offended because I asked you which research papers you liked?

If you are offended I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
The flare up of appeal to authority? It was not meant other than that. If that is what has offended you, I am sorry.

yes, for a professor, he had many and we did precises.

No, but I am a footnote.

My sister writes every quarter.

Wow, project much?

You need to read in other threads more. that is a very strange theory with no basis in fact.

I am sorry if you feel I personalized it.


Because it shows that you don't understand the forum, going to the source is the usual drift and process here.

ETA: I really see no personalization in the more recent posts are you offended because I asked you which research papers you liked?

If you are offended I apologize.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what to say about your comments on this latest post. But it does appear that we could be in the process of generating ill will. That was not my intention at all. No apology is necessary from you but I would like to offer an apology if I have been out of line.
Cheers and best wishes.
 
unclep2k

You inform us that

The real numbers will be available in a matter of weeks. Piantelli's devices work with different parameters that (sic) Rossi's and I have no idea if they need input energy to maintain the reaction under control. Anyway if those numbers are leaking out of Piantelli's team, being Piantelli a very cautious and discreet scientist, I bet what they are at is very important.
Click to expand...

I'm very pleased all this will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Note, However, that the "new energy times", at
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011...evice-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/ "Rossi and Focardi LENR Device: Probably Real, With Credit to*Piantelli" (January 19, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit)
Click to expand...

stresses the debt owed by Rossi et al to Piantelli's prior achievements (denied by Rossi on the as yet unproven grounds that Rossi's devices work, and Piantelli's don't). Krivit's description of the latter is not without interest, and it exhibits characteristics familiar to critics of canr-lenr.

If confirmed, the Rossi-Focardi development would be a significant practical development for the LENR field. Despite my earlier misgivings about Rossi’s Web site promotion, I am upgrading my skepticism about the Rossi-Focardi device to cautious optimism. ( ... )

From what I know so far, the concept demonstrated on Jan. 14 by Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi, a retired physics professor from the University of Bologna, had been discovered by Francesco Piantelli, a retired professor of biophysics with the University of Siena.

My confidence in the Rossi-Focardi work comes not only from Celani’s report but also, in large part, from my lab visits with Piantelli in 2007 and 2009 and my examination of his documentation. I remember that Piantelli let me take pictures of anything I wanted; he was not concerned that I might photograph anything proprietary. He explained to me that the proprietary aspects were the secret formulation of the nano-particle reactants and this was all in his head, he said, so there was no risk that I would reveal anything confidential.
Click to expand...

The "secret formulation ... in the head" is a very Rossian touch.

As far as Rossi’s story of a self-sustaining reactor, I am inclined to believe it. It is very similar to a story that Piantelli told me. And I have seen the melted metal in Piantelli’s lab.
Click to expand...

Now if Rossi would only be kind enough to show people "melted metal" in his lab, even if it had cooled down, none but the most curmudgeonly and pathological sceptics would remain unconvinced. We may wonder why the Piantelli device ("p-cat"?) is not yet on the market, making its inventor into the world's first trillionaire. The answer is touching; it would bring tears to a glass eye:

When I visited Piantelli, I began to understand some of the reasons that he had not moved his LENR work into commercialization. His real passion is to help heal people with cancer through his innovations in biophysics. He claims to have a very high success rate.
Click to expand...

Rossi, as is well known, is going to market the e-cat first, before getting down to the task of curing cancer-afflicted children. So perhaps the two men are different after all. But saints, both of them!
 
attaboy said:
What concerns me is that you will probably take any publication you find related to the research project performed at AMES and try to poke holes in it rather that evaluate it critically.
Click to expand...

For someone who enjoys boasting about their own scientific authority so much, you really don't seem to understand how science actually works. Having holes poked in publications is the entire point of publishing them. If the research holds up, then people won't be able to poke holes, or at least will only make small ones. But if people are able to poke holes in it, that shows that the research wasn't all that good to start with and needs more work.

This is similar to the attitude of many conspiracy theorists and other believers when they use "debunker" as an insult. What they fail to understand is that it's only possible to debunk something if it is bunk to start with. Good science will stand up to any scrutiny it is subjected to. In fact, that's the only way to show that something is actually good science. Refusing to let other people look at research because you're afraid they might find something wrong with it is classic crackpot behaviour. Any good scientist will be happy for others to look over their work so they can either support it or point out the mistakes that need correcting.
 
attaboy said:
I really don't know what to say about your comments on this latest post. But it does appear that we could be in the process of generating ill will. That was not my intention at all. No apology is necessary from you but I would like to offer an apology if I have been out of line.
Cheers and best wishes.
Click to expand...

None taken, I am used to the JREF, and my own role in it. Often I am out of line.

My comments were not meant to be attacks on you. :)
 
Craig B said:
unclep2k

You inform us that



I'm very pleased all this will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Note, However, that the "new energy times", at

stresses the debt owed by Rossi et al to Piantelli's prior achievements (denied by Rossi on the as yet unproven grounds that Rossi's devices work, and Piantelli's don't). Krivit's description of the latter is not without interest, and it exhibits characteristics familiar to critics of canr-lenr.



That Piantelli has a competing device at this time is only a 3rd party rumor but quite interesting to think about. He did a lot of the early research with Focardi and published some decent results. Dennis Bushnell sited him as one of the best lenr researches and is modeling the nasa lenr experiments after him.
Click to expand...
 
unclep2k said:
Craig B said:
unclep2k

You inform us that



I'm very pleased all this will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Note, However, that the "new energy times", at

stresses the debt owed by Rossi et al to Piantelli's prior achievements (denied by Rossi on the as yet unproven grounds that Rossi's devices work, and Piantelli's don't). Krivit's description of the latter is not without interest, and it exhibits characteristics familiar to critics of canr-lenr.
Click to expand...
That Piantelli has a competing device at this time is only a 3rd party rumor but quite interesting to think about. He did a lot of the early research with Focardi and published some decent results. Dennis Bushnell sited him as one of the best lenr researches and is modeling the nasa lenr experiments after him.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to have it look like that? :)
 
Cuddles said:
For someone who enjoys boasting about their own scientific authority so much, you really don't seem to understand how science actually works. Having holes poked in publications is the entire point of publishing them. If the research holds up, then people won't be able to poke holes, or at least will only make small ones. But if people are able to poke holes in it, that shows that the research wasn't all that good to start with and needs more work.

This is similar to the attitude of many conspiracy theorists and other believers when they use "debunker" as an insult. What they fail to understand is that it's only possible to debunk something if it is bunk to start with. Good science will stand up to any scrutiny it is subjected to. In fact, that's the only way to show that something is actually good science. Refusing to let other people look at research because you're afraid they might find something wrong with it is classic crackpot behaviour. Any good scientist will be happy for others to look over their work so they can either support it or point out the mistakes that need correcting.
Click to expand...

My hope is that certain others will read and take to heart your beautifully written explanation, but I despair it may only be perceived as a "WHOOSH" as it sails well over their heads.;):rolleyes:

CTers are SO hardheaded...

Cheers,

Dave
 
Cuddles said:
For someone who enjoys boasting about their own scientific authority so much, you really don't seem to understand how science actually works. Having holes poked in publications is the entire point of publishing them. If the research holds up, then people won't be able to poke holes, or at least will only make small ones. But if people are able to poke holes in it, that shows that the research wasn't all that good to start with and needs more work.
Click to expand...

I agree that poking holes in publications is right and necessary. But when it comes from sources that are not open minded and really don't have the expertise to do so, then that activity is open to question. E-cat is a special case where the inventor is unwilling, and with good reason I believe, to disclose critical details of the invention.
 
attaboy,

This is like stage magic; You give the audience the illusion that you have shown them all of the workings of the prop, but you haven't. So you do the trick and something surprising happens that they cannot make sense of based on what they think they know of the prop. The last thing you let them do is look at the blueprints for the illusion.

-Ben
 
:)

He doesn't have to disclose anything, just allow adequate power metering and a still water bath.

Then we would not be having this discussion. We would all be saying WOW or not...
 
Dear All

During the present lull in the discussion of the Rossi affair, may I relate a short email exchange I had on June 10th?

Having read that Rossi is referring enquiries to the Leonardo Corp, I emailed info@leonardocorp1996.com and asked:

Could you please let me know if it is at present possible to make a financial investment in the Rossi e-cat device?
Click to expand...

I almost immediately received a response, evidently from Rossi himself.

Dear Sir:
Please call us in November.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that the October release date is still on - or does it mean he's going to try to attract investment prior to the commercialisation of the e-cat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom