Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[attaboy]

And you still haven't presented compelling evidence.

Was there ever a time when you believed in Santa Claus?

 

[catsmate]

This thread reminds me of the old Al Capp cartoon regarding SWINE. In this case it could be interpreted as Skeptics Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything.

Was there ever a time when you believed in Santa Claus?

Still with the silly insults, no evidence then?

 

[CORed]

Yep. The evidence for psychic powers, for example, works the same way. I used to read the MDC applicants subforum, and it was always the same thing. According to the applicant, their skill is "hard to control", and doesn't work if they're not "in the zone", with no "influences" nearby. The effect is always claimed to be small (telekinesis that can move a feather, but never bricks; ESP that can transmit a vague image of a house, but never numbers; astral-diagnosis that can sense vague humours or latent imbalances, but misses genders, amputations, and cancer). And the applicants, of course, always succeed at their amateurish home tests but fail under controlled conditions.

And you have applicants that spend years, or decades, "practicing" these "skills" but that never get any better at them.

So, what does the data look like? A bunch of mixed successes and failures, of exactly the sort you expect under the null hypothesis. The "failures" get written off, after the fact of course, to these mysterious subtleties. The "successes" get remembered and held up as evidence. If you try to tell the applicant, "Um, I don't believe you have any powers" they get all indignant because they remember all this evidence. A vast body of evidence.

You know, it also reminds me of something I have some experience with: Gambling. Casino games, by design have a low signal to noise ratio, with the signal favoring the house, and the noise keeping the gamblers coming back for more, because even the most addicted compulsive gambler tires pretty quickly of playing "just give me your money" unless it's fairly well disguised. Anybody who has gambled is familiar with being "on a heater" when you can't seem to lose even if you try, or on the other side of the coin when you can't win a bet if your life depended on it. Of course there are all kinds of superstitions surrounding these events, but in the end, it's just what random, noisy data looks like.

 

[dafydd]

Was there ever a time when you believed in Santa Claus?

So we can take it that you have no evidence?

 

[EHocking]

Maybe I wasn't clear, it seems from the tone of your post that you're disagreeing with me but then you post a good example of exactly what I'm talking about. The "something" in my post was referring to the experiment AND results. The ftl neutrinos are a good example, the results couldn't be replicated, and now they've found evidence of it being a measurement error in the original experiment.

The difference with all these cold fusion proponents is that they aren't wondering why it can't be replicated, and they aren't going back to see what might have gone wrong in the supposedly positive results.

Yeah, you misread my post.

I was agreeing with you. An attempt at wryness that obviously failed!
(shoulda used one of them last time...)

 

[Dancing David]

This thread reminds me of the old Al Capp cartoon regarding SWINE. In this case it could be interpreted as Skeptics Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything.

Someone Who Imparts No Evidence?

 

[Dancing David]

Was there ever a time when you believed in Santa Claus?

Why does he use Cold Fusion or LENR?

 

[EHocking]

Was there ever a time when you believed in Santa Claus?

Yes. Right up until the time I discovered science.

A very good example, because I stopped believing in cold fusion and Rossi's scam for exactly the same reason...

 

[Mashuna]

Was there ever a time when you believed in Santa Claus?

Have you stopped yet?

 

[catsmate]

Why does he use Cold Fusion or LENR?

Haven't you heard? He uses a cold-fusion powered VTOL these days, reindeer are so twentieth century.

 

[pteridine]

Seriously, pteridine: this is Cold Fusion. You know darn well that most people think it's incompetent---don't feign surprise and offense that the N+1th person has said the same thing.



Well, darn, I guess I shouldn't reject anything, just in case it turns out to be true! Pascal's Wager for everyone! "What will you say if the world ends when the world ends on the Mayan calendar?" "What will you say when Jesus comes again, and is angry that you ignored the Bible Codes?" "What will you say if the Higgs Boson is discovered at 85 GeV, and it turns out that the LEP 'exclusion' was statistical bad luck?"

Seriously, pteridine. My best reading of the evidence is that Cold Fusion does not actually happen. Therefore my best scientific prediction is that Rossi's 1 MW generator will not work, and I base my behavior on the things I actually expect to happen, not the opposite. Might I be wrong? Sure, about this and many other things. That's how science works. Adopting the scientific method includes a probability that you'll be wrong sometimes.

Are you saying that every experiment was flawed? That every researcher was incompetent? That you know this because of your vastly superior scientific acumen?

You can make the claim that there is not yet enough [or no] evidence, in your opinion, to say that the LENR phenomenon is real. You cannot make the claim that Rossi is perpetrating fraud because you cannot yet show that there is fraud involved. Do you have evidence of fraud? Has Rossi taken your money sent it to his accounts on an FTL neutrino?
You are guilty of what you accuse others of; speculation. I see you have begun to temper your rhetoric a bit, above. I do not know your agenda with this thread but often on JREF I see a mob rule and 'piling on' so to speak. There are those who enjoy displaying their perceived superiority and the smell of blood brings out the sycophants and scavengers.
If you are a scientist, you will wait for the evidence. Remain skeptical but not speculative.

 

[marplots]

Can we at least agree that Rossi hasn't delivered on his promises? Would that be too much?

 

[Kid Eager]

Are you saying that every experiment was flawed? That every researcher was incompetent? That you know this because of your vastly superior scientific acumen?

You can make the claim that there is not yet enough [or no] evidence, in your opinion, to say that the LENR phenomenon is real. You cannot make the claim that Rossi is perpetrating fraud because you cannot yet show that there is fraud involved. Do you have evidence of fraud? Has Rossi taken your money sent it to his accounts on an FTL neutrino?
You are guilty of what you accuse others of; speculation. I see you have begun to temper your rhetoric a bit, above. I do not know your agenda with this thread but often on JREF I see a mob rule and 'piling on' so to speak. There are those who enjoy displaying their perceived superiority and the smell of blood brings out the sycophants and scavengers.
If you are a scientist, you will wait for the evidence. Remain skeptical but not speculative.

I don't know what thread you are reading to come up with that collection of hand-waving, but all Rossi has produced so far is tightly controlled demonstrations, not experiments.

The evidence is still absent, the theoretical basis for the claim is unclear at best, and pseudoscience at worst.

He has had ample opportunity to produce the goods, but all that's been presented is excuses and deflections. He has produced absolutely *nothing* material, despite much talk.

 

[ben m]

Are you saying that every experiment was flawed? That every researcher was incompetent? That you know this because of your vastly superior scientific acumen?

Can't you read? Every experiment which I have examined has been flawed. (I have given specifics in this and other threads). That is not all of the experiments, but it's the subset that the cold fusion community itself has put forward as "the best". I have spoken with experts, including calorimetry experts, who say the same thing.

If your best work is crap, then your worse work is also crap.

Suppose you walk onto a used-car-lot, and ask to see a car. "I'm going on a cross-Rockies drive, start with your most-reliable late-model cars." The owner rolls out a shiny, freshly-painted 1971 AMC Pacer, billowing smoke and clanking loudly. You open the hood and see a thrown rod, duct-taped radiator hoses, a smoking alternator, and no battery. "Seriously, show me something good or I'm walking away". The owner, all smiles, pushes forward a 1987 Ford Taurus with rear-end damage. You open the hood; the engine compartment is empty but for a tape recorder playing racecar noises. You walk away. "Sorry, you don't have what I'm looking for." He objects:

You haven't even LOOKED at the back lot yet. I've got 200, 300 cars back there. How can you walk away from these cars without examining them? Are you saying ALL of my mechanics are incompetent? That's not scientific. You need to examine the evidence first. For all you know, one of those cars may be in perfect shape.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you have evidence of fraud?

Actually everyone who can read can see evidence of fraud from Rossi: Proof of Rossi’s Deception (scientific fraud not financial fraud).
Here he is manipulating the controls to produce the results he wants the observer to see.

The lack of any credible evidence that Rossi's devices work as advertised means that any money that he has received on the basis of them working is financial fraud.

 

[Horatius]

Can't you read? Every experiment which I have examined has been flawed. (I have given specifics in this and other threads). That is not all of the experiments, but it's the subset that the cold fusion community itself has put forward as "the best". I have spoken with experts, including calorimetry experts, who say the same thing.

If your best work is crap, then your worse work is also crap.

Suppose you walk onto a used-car-lot, and ask to see a car. "I'm going on a cross-Rockies drive, start with your most-reliable late-model cars." The owner rolls out a shiny, freshly-painted 1971 AMC Pacer, billowing smoke and clanking loudly. You open the hood and see a thrown rod, duct-taped radiator hoses, a smoking alternator, and no battery. "Seriously, show me something good or I'm walking away". The owner, all smiles, pushes forward a 1987 Ford Taurus with rear-end damage. You open the hood; the engine compartment is empty but for a tape recorder playing racecar noises. You walk away. "Sorry, you don't have what I'm looking for." He objects:

Nominated!

 

[attaboy]

Still with the silly insults, no evidence then?

Do you really think that many renderings on this board deserve anything more than silly responses??

What makes you all think I need to provide you evidence. If anything, it is you who needs to make a better case for having a much better grasp of all aspects of Cold Fusion than is now indicated that you have. Moreover, it is you who needs to make a much better case in support of your show of total skepticism of Cold Fusion.

 

[TjW]

Do you really think that many renderings on this board deserve anything more than silly responses??

What makes you all think I need to provide you evidence. If anything, it is you who needs to make a better case for having a much better grasp of all aspects of Cold Fusion than is now indicated that you have. Moreover, it is you who needs to make a much better case in support of your show of total skepticism of Cold Fusion.

He's offered to consider evidence. It would appear that makes him a more reasoned skeptic than you are.

 

[attaboy]

Are you saying that every experiment was flawed? That every researcher was incompetent? That you know this because of your vastly superior scientific acumen?

You can make the claim that there is not yet enough [or no] evidence, in your opinion, to say that the LENR phenomenon is real. You cannot make the claim that Rossi is perpetrating fraud because you cannot yet show that there is fraud involved. Do you have evidence of fraud? Has Rossi taken your money sent it to his accounts on an FTL neutrino?
You are guilty of what you accuse others of; speculation. I see you have begun to temper your rhetoric a bit, above. I do not know your agenda with this thread but often on JREF I see a mob rule and 'piling on' so to speak. There are those who enjoy displaying their perceived superiority and the smell of blood brings out the sycophants and scavengers.
If you are a scientist, you will wait for the evidence. Remain skeptical but not speculative.

There's a lot of wisdom in that commentary. This JREF adventure has caused me to be a skeptic, skeptical of the motives behind this total rabid denouncement of Rossi by the JREF skeptics. If ever something seemed "fishy", this denouncement is it. You skeptics give the impression that you could be coming from a dark place. Just your trying to make the word "conspiracy" out to be a dirty word just adds fuel to the fire of suspicion surrounding your activity in this thread.

 

[pteridine]

Can't you read? Every experiment which I have examined has been flawed. (I have given specifics in this and other threads). That is not all of the experiments, but it's the subset that the cold fusion community itself has put forward as "the best". I have spoken with experts, including calorimetry experts, who say the same thing.

If your best work is crap, then your worse work is also crap.

Suppose you walk onto a used-car-lot, and ask to see a car. "I'm going on a cross-Rockies drive, start with your most-reliable late-model cars." The owner rolls out a shiny, freshly-painted 1971 AMC Pacer, billowing smoke and clanking loudly. You open the hood and see a thrown rod, duct-taped radiator hoses, a smoking alternator, and no battery. "Seriously, show me something good or I'm walking away". The owner, all smiles, pushes forward a 1987 Ford Taurus with rear-end damage. You open the hood; the engine compartment is empty but for a tape recorder playing racecar noises. You walk away. "Sorry, you don't have what I'm looking for." He objects:

Where is your evidence for your claim that Rossi is committing/committed fraud? How do you know Rossi perpetrates fraud? Has he collected any money and not delivered a unit that he was paid for? You have jumped to conclusions without evidence, not a good example to set.

You can claim that experiments were flawed but do the flaws show that LENR does not exist or does it just bring a measurement into question? Early experiments with a few percent more output than input were certainly questionable and more susceptible to fraud. When operating at 10:1 and greater, high frequency power slipping past a meter is less of a concern but a spectrum analyzer should still be part of the input power analysis. It is likely that no matter what the experiment, someone will gripe about it.

Rossi did some demonstrations and didn't let third parties instrument his units. Does this prove anything other than that he does not want people discovering the details of his device? Did someone discover a hidden wire or a rigged wattmeter?

It is apparent that more data is required. First, a third-party validation is needed. No one needs to know how the unit works to know that it works. Total input and output energies should be measured. The mass of the unit should be measured before and after. At this point, radiation need only be monitored for operational safety during assessment. Protocols like those presented at the Chennai meeting should be considered for a proper evaluation.