Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
attaboy said:
You and Craig do make some good points. I must admit there does seem to be a lot of fluff in that power point presentation. But I really don't think you're going to get this data you want. For one thing, there's far too much secrecy going on to expect much useful data to be available. For me, the fact that MIT and NASA are involved is quite convincing, not to mention maybe another half dozen entities with some claim to being credible.
Click to expand...

Been down this road, what exactly is MIT's and NASA's involvement.

And where is the data?

:)
 
MIT's involvement is that, in 1986, they hired an engineer; in 1989 this engineer latched onto the idea of cold fusion and didn't let go. Therefore, for the past 20 years, this one guy's publications and conferences and whatnot all have the words "MIT" on them somewhere.

"MIT" doesn't do research. MIT is a collection of independent PIs who research things. The MIT administration may or may not support a given PI's research---are they building new research centers for you? Hiring more people in your field? Featuring you on its home page? Giving you promotions? In the "field" of cold fusion, yes, there's one MIT employee who is a fan of it. This employee gets zero MIT support, interest, or promotion for this line of work.

That doesn't mean that you can put "there's cold fusion research at MIT" and "there's organic semiconductor research at MIT" and imply that cold fusion research is therefore a serious thing. It's just that one guy.
 
trebor said:
Well, as for NASA there seems to be this from NASA watch:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/06/cold-fusion-upd.html

It seems as of a year ago all there was is a patent application... This is starting to sound vary familiar.
Click to expand...


Money Quote:

Langley is funding LENR research as an initial, exploratory study of a low technology readiness level, high-risk, high-payoff technology through its Creativity & Innovation (C&I) fund and the Center Innovation Fund (CIF).
Click to expand...


Read that as, "It probably won't work, but if it does, we'll be rich, so **** it, we'll toss them a few bucks".
 
I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.
 
attaboy said:
I don't know why I waste my time here.
Click to expand...
To sharpen up your debating skills? Get other points of view? Learn from people who are more informed than you? If it's none of these things then perhaps you are wasting your time here...

Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info.
Click to expand...
Unlike some others I have made the effort to read up on all the readily available info. For me the facts are quite convincing. Cold Fusion may be possible, but so far nobody has demonstrated how to do it.
 
attaboy said:
You mean like Randi claiming to be bosom buddies With Carl Sagan in that sordid video.
Click to expand...
No I don't mean that, about which I know nothing. I mean the big lists of names of alleged believers in Cold Fusion which are offered by its fanboys in lieu of non existent evidence.
 
attaboy said:
I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.
Click to expand...

The readily available info is:

a) A string of SPAWAR pseudo-papers showing an utterly inadequate understanding of high-energy neutrons, the detection thereof, the specific detectors they used, and generally anything whatsoever to do with calibration.

b) A bunch of videos of Rossi doing nothing whatsoever.

c) A handful of amateur-hour theory papers with flat-out sign errors, wrong numbers, and nonexistent nuclei.

d) Pons and Fleischmann's original crappy calorimetry---now, what, a quarter-century ago?---and its predictable result reporting a calorimetry error.

e) The collection of early-90s attempted "replications", in which various competent high-sensitivity groups disagreed with P&F, and the occasional claims to disagree with P&F were in direct proportion to the incompetence of the claimant?
 
attaboy said:
I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.
Click to expand...


So again, you can't present evidence and then make some whining noises. It would appear you have a personal belief that you can not support with the data.
 
attaboy said:
I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.
Click to expand...

If it's so readily available, why haven't you been able to show it?
 
ben m said:
e) The collection of early-90s attempted "replications", in which various competent high-sensitivity groups disagreed with P&F, and the occasional claims to disagree with P&F were in direct proportion to the incompetence of the claimant?
Click to expand...

I assume you meant "and the occasional claims to agree with P&F"
 
trebor said:
It seems as of a year ago all there was is a patent application... This is starting to sound vary familiar.
Click to expand...
I took a look at the application and it seems more applicable to atomic-level imaging than directly related to LENR. The development of instrumentation to make good observations at that level and verify or falsify LENR could make the investment worthwhile.
 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.
 
attaboy said:
I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.
Click to expand...

Ha LOLOLOL, thank you thank you very much you made my day. That made me laugh to tears. You obviously have no idea of what you are speaking about.
 
Crawdaddy said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.
Click to expand...

Yawn. I have seen a lot of crap in arxiv. So that abstract don't change anything. Call me back when it is published and readable.

FYI anomalous heat was also reported by others and even P&F and we all know where we are 25 years later.

ETAETA : and again the same people : Levi & Rossi. Not exactely independent. And again no radiation beside EM measured, the content not being exposed, etc...
 
Last edited:
Crawdaddy said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.
Click to expand...
G. Levi, one of the authors of the paper, produced similar material in 2011. He's one of Rossi's collaborators.
Jan. 11, 2011 – University of Bologna Professor Giuseppe Levi writes and distributes press release for Rossi’s Jan. 14, 2011 press conference and demonstration.
Jan. 14, 2011 – Levi organizes press conference and conducts Rossi Energy Catalyzer demonstration. Levi performs “Test 2″ with the involvement of other University of Bologna professors.
Jan. 21, 2011 – University of Bologna professors Levi and Bianchini publish reports on their test of Rossi’s Jan. 14, 2011 demonstration.
Feb. 10-11, 2011 – Rossi, Levi and Passerini perform sub-boiling test on Ross’s device.
Feb. 23, 2011 – Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik writes: “In the morning of February 10, the inventor and engineer Andrea Rossi initiated a new controlled experiment in Bologna…With him was the physicist and researcher Giuseppe Levi from the University of Bologna, who also supervised the public demonstration in January. Together they ran the unit for 18 hours.”
Click to expand...
I will look up the other authors.
 
Crawdaddy said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.
Click to expand...
Here's another of the authors in April 2011 in New Energy Times. http://www.freeenergytimes.com/2011...lyzer-believe-it-produces-a-nuclear-reaction/
The swedish web site NyTeknik has a report from Swedish physicists Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander who have a conducted a new test of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer and in their opinion some kind of nuclear reaction must be taking place to produce the amount of energy they measured.
In a detailed report they stated “Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.”
The two researchers tested a smaller version of the E-cat than had been used by different testers earlier this year. This one achieved a power output of 4.4 kW.
Kullander said “My belief that there is an energy development far beyond what one would expect has been strengthened significantly as I have had the opportunity to see the process for myself and perform measurements.”
Essén reported,“Everything that we’ve found so far fits together. There is nothing that seems to be strange. All people seem to be honest and competent,”
Click to expand...
In my view there is plenty strange about Rossi and his machine. Almost nobody takes him seriously now, and Essén was at best overly credulous in his approach to that contraption.
 
Last edited:
Crawdaddy said:
You guys are the storm troopers.
Click to expand...
No we're people awaiting evidence, not just claims. That "paper" is silly.

  • no proper measurement of heat output, relying on a thermal imager
  • no proper measurement of energy input
  • "It was not possible to evaluate the weight of internal steel cylinder or caps because because E-Cat HT was already running when the test began." Has anyone seen such sloppy methodology in real science?
Garbage science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom