Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[dafydd]

And nobody has shown you a free quark either.

But they have been detected.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061213174346.htm

 

[Farsight]

And they last for 10^-25 seconds. The quark model has got some problems coming daffyd.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh! - - Are you back on that again kick again, David. You just don't get it, do you?

In regards to Rossi, that is what will dispel any doubts.

 

[ben m]

U

I'm not wrong. Fusion is actually achieved through pressure. This pressure is achieved in hot fusion by slamming fast-moving particles together. And by the way, that's quite easy to do, as per the Farnsworth fusor. It's an engineering problem to make a fusion power plant rather than a physics problem.

No it's not. It's achieved via high-velocity collisions, which can be obtained at any pressure whatsoever. When you do the physics, you find that the temperature tells you what fraction of collisions result in fusion, and the pressure only tells you how many collisions there are.

The important thing is pressure! That's how you overcome the Coulomb barrier.

Nnnnno. No it's not.

 

[pteridine]

pteridine

Of course scientists make errors. Outside the field of physics we have Piltdown Man and the planet Vulcan, along with innumerable other errors and delusions. And a few swindles too. But these things are corrected as well as perpetrated by scientists. An observer permitted closely to examine Blondlot's "detection" of N-rays (a level of intrusion that Rossi never permits!) was able to adapt Blondlot's apparatus to demonstrate that his findings were illusory.

But if science frequently harbours delusions and fraud, the field of "free energy" for its part contains nothing except these things, fraud overwhelmingly predominant. This is all the more true when "investments" are being garnered.

Rossi is a proven and inveterate liar, as has been demonstrated many times, most recently and above all in the Florida Board of Radiation Control affair. Explain that if you can. Rossi enthusiasts usually employ the "Big Energy world conspiracy of which the Florida state inspectors are a part" defence. Is that your view?

And could you please answer the question put to you: how long do you intend to give Rossi to produce the goods before you give up on him? Or will you spin this nonsense out for ever?

My point all along has been that there is not enough information to conclude anything. The many experiments that show that something unusual is happening are waved away as "incompetent" by those that lack scientific curiousity and smugly assume that they have all the answers. Lacking data, these same geniuses claim that LENR can't happen when all they can really conclude is that no definitive experiment has yet been done. This is called 'bias.'
You may call Rossi what you want, whine about how experiments or demonstrations were done or not done, assume that you are aware of all experiments and demonstrations, and try to imply that he is a career criminal. It is true that he has not yet allowed the device to be examined in detail but unlike Blondlot, he is not an academic but a businessman. You may also state that LENR is an unlikely possibility based on the physics that you know or think you know. What you can't yet do is to claim that LENR doesn't exist because the definitive experiment hasn't yet been done.
You ask "how long do you intend to give Rossi to produce the goods before you give up on him? Or will you spin this nonsense out for ever?"
I intend to wait for a definitive experiment to draw conclusions. It may take longer than the impatient wish it to take but instant gratification is not a characteristic of new technology development.
Your second question is an example of what scientists call 'bias.' You don't know that this is 'nonsense' but your use of the word implies an emotional response, like several on this board. Some seem to be scientists outside of their comfort zone and some seem to be non-scientists following the lynch mob.
If the effect is real, would LENR upset your applecart like it will BenM's or would you welcome it?

 

[Craig B]

pteridine

Re your

Your second question is an example of what scientists call 'bias.' You don't know that this is 'nonsense' but your use of the word implies an emotional response, like several on this board. Some seem to be scientists outside of their comfort zone and some seem to be non-scientists following the lynch mob.
If the effect is real, would LENR upset your applecart like it will BenM's or would you welcome it?

That is most unfair. If you want to see emotional responses look at almost any of the Rossi fanboy websites. It is the custom of posters there to accuse sceptics of suffering from mental pathology and being shills of Big Energy, etc etc. If you wish me to prove this, I can easily do so. But you know it already, so there's no need. Sceptics are frequently banned, and derided in outrageous terms. For doubting Rossi I have been described as "moral slime".

Would I welcome superabundant, cheap non-polluting energy? Of course I would! I would be delighted at such a prospect. I hope and wish it to be true. But my hopes are not beliefs. It is on such hopes that swindlers prey, and it is only by employing reason that we can resist their blandishments. If Rossi is right I will be the first to congratulate him. But like Oliver Twist I approach the beadle with my bowl, asking not for gruel, but for more evidence, please, sir. And like Oliver I am rebuffed.

 

[RobDegraves]

@pteridine

My point all along has been that there is not enough information to conclude anything. The many experiments that show that something unusual is happening are waved away as "incompetent" by those that lack scientific curiousity and smugly assume that they have all the answers. Lacking data, these same geniuses claim that LENR can't happen when all they can really conclude is that no definitive experiment has yet been done. This is called 'bias.'

Why does this sound a lot like an argument for the existence of God?



1. Any theory, until proven via repeatable experiments or definitive data can be categorized into two groups.

A. Possible or even likely, based on what we currently know. However, until it's proven, it has a long way to go. Hawking radiation is an example of this.

B. Impossible or unlikely, based on what we currently know. Until some solid evidence is brought up, these types of theories are generally not seriously investigated because it would be a waste of time. Unicorns, elves and Gods are examples of this, so is Rossi's ecat.




2. You really would need to prove that something interesting is going on, and not actual incompetence, fraud or simple error. Error is responsible for a great deal of incorrect theories in science and it's not surprising that it's the first thing that scientists look for when examining a controversial theory.


Skeptics like you have here however, more often look for sources of fraud in cases like the Rossi ecat. This is for a number of reasons.

1. Scientists tend to be easy to trick via deliberate fraud. People like Randi for example, are trained to look for deception, scientists generally speaking are not.

2. Consistent lack of clear evidence is more often due to fraud than to simple error.

3. Frauds tend to ask for money before all the evidence is clear. This is what Rossi is doing and it's a hallmark of fraud.

 

[Farsight]

No it's not. It's achieved via high-velocity collisions, which can be obtained at any pressure whatsoever. When you do the physics, you find that the temperature tells you what fraction of collisions result in fusion, and the pressure only tells you how many collisions there are.

The high pressure occurs when the collision occurs. Look at the kinetic theory of gases and say the wiki shaped charge article. Then think in terms of just two protons slamming into each other head on. As they collide the pressure mounts, and eventually overcomes the coulomb barrier.

My point all along has been that there is not enough information to conclude anything. The many experiments that show that something unusual is happening are waved away as "incompetent" by those that lack scientific curiousity and smugly assume that they have all the answers. Lacking data, these same geniuses claim that LENR can't happen when all they can really conclude is that no definitive experiment has yet been done. This is called 'bias'...

Good post pteridine.

 

[catsmate]

Yes. You used the "no proof in decades" argument. One could use this argument against a lot of things in physics. Some of which are accepted as a given.

Scientists and engineers have attempted numerous times to replicate supposed cold fusion experiments, all have failed. The original results have alternate, and far more plausible, explanations.

And nobody has shown you a free quark either.

Is this supposed to mean something?

There isn't much happening in the LHC either. That was ten billion. ITER is sixteen billion and rising. Fusion is something that might be of save-the-planet importance, so if the US Navy and others want to try and make it happen on a benchtop that's fine by me. It ought to be fine with you too.

Sigh. Please don't confuse cold fusion with real science.

 

[catsmate]

My point all along has been that there is not enough information to conclude anything.

Yes and you've been repeatedly shown you are wrong.

The many experiments that show that something unusual is happening are waved away as "incompetent" by those that lack scientific curiousity and smugly assume that they have all the answers.

Because they've been shown to be flawed, fraudulent or unrepeatable.

Lacking data, these same geniuses claim that LENR can't happen when all they can really conclude is that no definitive experiment has yet been done. This is called 'bias.'

Nope. Perhaps you should actually study what science is and how it works.

You may call Rossi what you want,

Yes. I'll continue to call him a convicted fraudster with a new scam.

whine about how experiments or demonstrations were done or not done,

In a manner that allowed them to be faked and without independent checking.

assume that you are aware of all experiments and demonstrations,

Show us some that you don't think we know about.

and try to imply that he is a career criminal.

I'd say his history and convictions do that far better than any of us.

It is true that he has not yet allowed the device to be examined in detail

Red herring. There's no need to examine the workings of Rossi'd magic water heater, just properly measure the input and output energies. Rossi doesn't allow this, ergo reasonable people are suspicious.

but unlike Blondlot, he is not an academic but a businessman.

For certain definitions of "businessman".

You may also state that LENR is an unlikely possibility based on the physics that you know or think you know.

Given that I (and others here) know far more physics than you (or Rossi) I'd say that's a given.

What you can't yet do is to claim that LENR doesn't exist because the definitive experiment hasn't yet been done.

But lots of experiments have been tried. All failed.

You ask "how long do you intend to give Rossi to produce the goods before you give up on him? Or will you spin this nonsense out for ever?"
I intend to wait for a definitive experiment to draw conclusions.

That'll never happen with Rossi, he'll collapse the scam eventually and leave with what money he's been able to extract from the gullible.

It may take longer than the impatient wish it to take but instant gratification is not a characteristic of new technology development.

Rossi's been claiming he'll deliver for many months, claiming that he has working versions of his magic water heater yet he's utterly failed to actually show then off. It's a fake.

Your second question is an example of what scientists call 'bias.'

Please don't try and lecture me or other here about science, you just make yourself even sillier.

You don't know that this is 'nonsense'

Yes I do actually.

but your use of the word implies an emotional response,

No it's just an excellent descriptive term, in the "something absurd or fatuous" sense.

Some seem to be scientists outside of their comfort zone and some seem to be non-scientists following the lynch mob.

So, what are your qualifications?

If the effect is real, would LENR upset your applecart like it will BenM's or would you welcome it?

It'd be a useful energy source, fairly irrelevant to me personally though I suspect the societal changes with eventually be significant.
Unlike your and the other believers I have no ego investment in cold fusion, one way or the other.

 

[ben m]

Then think in terms of just two protons slamming into each other head on. As they collide the pressure mounts, and eventually overcomes the coulomb barrier.

These aren't lumps of clay, they're quantum-mechanical particles. The repulsion between them is not mechanical, but electrostatic. The method of overcoming this repulsion is kinetic, not a "mounting" force.

Physics has words to describe this, but pressure is not one of them.

 

[attaboy]

pteridine

Re your That is most unfair. If you want to see emotional responses look at almost any of the Rossi fanboy websites. It is the custom of posters there to accuse sceptics of suffering from mental pathology and being shills of Big Energy, etc etc. If you wish me to prove this, I can easily do so. But you know it already, so there's no need. Sceptics are frequently banned, and derided in outrageous terms. For doubting Rossi I have been described as "moral slime".

Would I welcome superabundant, cheap non-polluting energy? Of course I would! I would be delighted at such a prospect. I hope and wish it to be true. But my hopes are not beliefs. It is on such hopes that swindlers prey, and it is only by employing reason that we can resist their blandishments. If Rossi is right I will be the first to congratulate him. But like Oliver Twist I approach the beadle with my bowl, asking not for gruel, but for more evidence, please, sir. And like Oliver I am rebuffed.

Could you please list some of these Rossi fanboy websites because I've never run across such sites unless you include his own e-cat site.

 

[Dancing David]

My point all along has been that there is not enough information to conclude anything. The many experiments that show that something unusual is happening are waved away as "incompetent" by those that lack scientific curiousity and smugly assume that they have all the answers.

Nope, if the experiments are poorly designed then they are poorly designed.

Sophistry shall avail you not.

 

[Dancing David]

The high pressure occurs when the collision occurs. Look at the kinetic theory of gases and say the wiki shaped charge article. Then think in terms of just two protons slamming into each other head on. As they collide the pressure mounts, and eventually overcomes the coulomb barrier.

Nope that is impossible, it is the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle which allows the protons to fuse.

You really don't understand Coulomb barrier, and how that works> as the pressure rises so the distance will decrease and the repulsion will increase. At some point they are close enough for a small number of them to cross the coulomb barrier with a quantum factor.

But at no point does the pressure overcome the Coulomb barrier.

 

[catsmate]

These aren't lumps of clay, they're quantum-mechanical particles. The repulsion between them is not mechanical, but electrostatic. The method of overcoming this repulsion is kinetic, not a "mounting" force.

Physics has words to describe this, but pressure is not one of them.

Nope that is impossible, it is the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle which allows the protons to fuse.

You really don't understand Coulomb barrier, and how that works> as the pressure rises so the distance will decrease and the repulsion will increase. At some point they are close enough for a small number of them to cross the coulomb barrier with a quantum factor.

But at no point does the pressure overcome the Coulomb barrier.

I suspect that "Farsight Physics" may be somewhat different from real physics, in the same way that "Farsight General Relativity" is rather different from actual relativity.

 

[ctamblyn]

The high pressure occurs when the collision occurs. Look at the kinetic theory of gases and say the wiki shaped charge article. Then think in terms of just two protons slamming into each other head on. As they collide the pressure mounts, and eventually overcomes the coulomb barrier.

You're overcomplicating things. Perhaps this is a simpler way of looking at it...

Look at the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (which, if you were happy with that kinetic theory article you linked, is good enough for present purposes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution

From that article you can see that in an ideal gas the momentum distribution of the particles is detemined by the temperature but not the pressure.

Furthermore, when the two protons you mention collide, the probability that they will form a deuterium nucleus depends only on the momenta and spins of the protons. We can neglect spins, since they are either random if no external field is present, and we just average over them, or otherwise fixed by some external influence. Either way, they are not affected by pressure.

Now, hopefully, you can see that the reaction rate depends on temperature but not pressure.

 

[pteridine]

@pteridine
Why does this sound a lot like an argument for the existence of God?

Skeptics like you have here however, more often look for sources of fraud in cases like the Rossi ecat. This is for a number of reasons.

1. Scientists tend to be easy to trick via deliberate fraud. People like Randi for example, are trained to look for deception, scientists generally speaking are not.

2. Consistent lack of clear evidence is more often due to fraud than to simple error.

3. Frauds tend to ask for money before all the evidence is clear. This is what Rossi is doing and it's a hallmark of fraud.

You can only pray for an existence of God experiment. An LENR experiment can be designed and executed. I make an argument for not reaching conclusions, prematurely.

1. Scientists look for cause and effect. While sleight of hand may work for a while, it doesn't work for long.

2. That is your opinion. I think it is probably more often due to poorly executed experiments.

3. Rossi does not ask for money before a demonstration. He asks that money be placed in escrow and when the device meets the agreed on specifications, the money is transferred. Would you still say that this is a hallmark of fraud?

 

[pteridine]

pteridine

Re your That is most unfair. If you want to see emotional responses look at almost any of the Rossi fanboy websites. It is the custom of posters there to accuse sceptics of suffering from mental pathology and being shills of Big Energy, etc etc. If you wish me to prove this, I can easily do so. But you know it already, so there's no need. Sceptics are frequently banned, and derided in outrageous terms. For doubting Rossi I have been described as "moral slime".

Would I welcome superabundant, cheap non-polluting energy? Of course I would! I would be delighted at such a prospect. I hope and wish it to be true. But my hopes are not beliefs. It is on such hopes that swindlers prey, and it is only by employing reason that we can resist their blandishments. If Rossi is right I will be the first to congratulate him. But like Oliver Twist I approach the beadle with my bowl, asking not for gruel, but for more evidence, please, sir. And like Oliver I am rebuffed.

Some sites are selective and banish those who disagree. Many of the 911 sites and some holy roller sites will not brook any dissent. Fortunately, JREF has no such inclinations and here all may state their positions. My position is as stated previously; there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion regarding LENR, as of yet, but the phenomena will be investigated by those with scientific curiousity until it is resolved.
"Come, Oliver! Wipe your eyes with the cuffs of your jacket, and don't cry into your gruel; that's a very foolish action, Oliver." -Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Ch. 3

 

[Craig B]

Could you please list some of these Rossi fanboy websites because I've never run across such sites unless you include his own e-cat site.

Have a look at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator Steve Krivit has an even more exhaustive list somewhere, but I don't seem to be ble to find it. Rossi's own "peer-reviewed" site is hilarious, with his ravings about snakes and clowns and puppeteers. The peers who review it (if such there be) must be off their heads.

 

[mike3]

He is dragging his feet because he has nothing. A scammer at best, and idiot at worst for believing his own claim. I could present you all the evidence since I followed that saga for a long time (vapor speed, poor/inexistent gamma shielding compared to emission band and emission intentsity, rossi adminting himself to official in the US there is no gamma , no fabric etc...etc....).

So you're saying an idiot is worse than a scammer? I disagree. Scammers actually intentionally go out and hurt people for their own gain. Idiots don't (or it's not a defining characteristic of them).