Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[pedrone]

You've been around long enough to post links, and to know how to quote posts properly.

the key " is not working, I dont know why

 

[Tubbythin]

Everything you said does not matter.

When a scientist submits a paper regarding an experiment, what does matter is:

1- The results obtained in the experiment

2- Can the experiment be replicable ?


The meaning of the experiment does not matter. Because as the experiment obtained some result, the result is what really does matter.
If the reviewer tries to get an interpretation of that experiment, his attitude is incorrect.

Of course the reviewer has not a laboratory within his brain. So, he cannot repeat the experiment into his brain, in order to verify either the results are correct or no.
So, what such reviewer must to do ?

Well, he simply must approve the publication of the paper, so that other scientist may be able to repeat the experiment, and verify if its results are replicable.

Nope. The purpose of peer review is (primarily at least) to determine whether:
a) The experiment is relevant to the journal in question.
a) The interpretation of the data and the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. To some extent the reviewer may also suggest whether the author(s) over or even under state the importance of the results/conclusions.
b) I think (though the final word lies with the editor) the reviewer(s) will often pass comment on whether the paper is interesting enough for the journal in question.

 

[John Jones]

I dont understand wy.
This cause a big confusion, because Rossi-Focardi, Mosier-Boss, and Bolotov experiments are three different technologies, and it should be very useful to the comprehension of the discussion to consider them separatelly.

Putting them into one unique topic favors a big mess

I'm not a mod, but I requested these threads be merged. They were springing-up like mushrooms, and they have one central theme - cold fusion.

Maybe you could request a separate forum for cold fusion threads. That way you could start a new thread for each article about cold fusion you ever read.

 

[pedrone]

Nope. The purpose of peer review is (primarily at least) to determine whether:
a) The experiment is relevant to the journal in question.

Only a stupid scientist will send a paper regarding an experiment for a journal he knows the experiment is NOT relevant to that journal.

Besides, as cold fusion can revolutionize not only the Theoretical Physics, but also the supply of energy to humankind, only a stupid referee would be unable to understand that such paper is of the interest of any important journal of Physics.

a) The interpretation of the data and the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. To some extent the reviewer may also suggest whether the author(s) over or even under state the importance of the results/conclusions.

A paper does not need to exhibit "interpretation" of data.

A scientific paper must to supply the data only. The meaning of them is not of interest

 

[pedrone]

Maybe you could request a separate forum for cold fusion threads. That way you could start a new thread for each article about cold fusion you ever read.

John, there is no need.
Andrea Rossi will start to sell his cold fusion reactor in October-2011, in Greece.
Then all the theoretical controvery concerning cold fusion will be over.

In the case he dont start to sell the cold fusion reactors in Oct-2011, the discussion will be over either, because we will know that his technology is a fraud.

 

[Tubbythin]

Only a stupid scientist will send a paper regarding an experiment for a journal he knows the experiment is NOT relevant to that journal.

But in some instances it is not necessarily so clear.

Besides, as cold fusion can revolutionize not only the Theoretical Physics, but also the supply of energy to humankind, only a stupid referee would be unable to understand that such paper is of the interest of any important journal of Physics.

Not, say, for a journal on computational physics.

A paper does not need to exhibit "interpretation" of data.

Yes it does. A whole list of raw data is unlikely to be published in any reputable scientific journal.

A scientific paper must to supply the data only. The meaning of them is not of interest

The meaning of the data is of paramount interest. After all its not for readers to analyse the raw data.

 

[catsmate]

Montgolfier to Wright brothers. How long?

Wright Bros. demonstration in France to supersonic flight: how long?

Gawdzilla: 120 years and one month, or 43,854 days¹TjW: 39 years and two months, or 14,311 days² 32.6% as long.


Well it's not as if the thread is going anywhere........


¹ 21NOV1783 to 17DEC1903; taking the first untethered flight with a human and ignoring the 14DEC1903 stalled flight.
² 08AUG1908 to 14OCT1947; the first public flights at Le Mans to the X-1 at Muroc.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Is this the same Bolotov that is involved with the Petite Lap Giraffe breeding program?

What? Wait... is he also doing commercials for DirectTV now??

 

[pedrone]

Not, say, for a journal on computational physics.

What a hell cold fusion can be of interest for computational physics?

And why a hell a cold fusion researcher would send a cold fusion paper to a computational physics journal?????????

The meaning of the data is of paramount interest. After all its not for readers to analyse the raw data.

Coming frrom a guy who thinks that a cold fusion researcher would send a paper to a computational physics journal, I doubt if somebody can take seriously the things you say.

 

[pedrone]

What? Wait... is he also doing commercials for DirectTV now??
[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/6a0112793ddf7b28a40133f551fe58970b-pi.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, he followed the Einstein's example, who worked in a patent department.

And here a good question can be put: if Einstein should be alive, would he validate the patent for the Andrea Rossi reactor ?

 

[Hindmost]

What a hell cold fusion can be of interest for computational physics?

And why a hell a cold fusion researcher would send a cold fusion paper to a computational physics journal?????????



Coming frrom a guy who thinks that a cold fusion researcher would send a paper to a computational physics journal, I doubt if somebody can take seriously the things you say.

for information...an intense study of the posts on this forum has clearly shown that there tends to be an inverse relationship between numbers of smileys in a post and science content. (peer reviewed)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Srsly?

Yes, he followed the Einstein's example, who worked in a patent department.

And here a good question can be put: if Einstein should be alive, would he validate the patent for the Andrea Rossi reactor ?

 

[John Jones]

Only a stupid scientist will send a paper regarding an experiment for a journal he knows the experiment is NOT relevant to that journal.

Besides, as cold fusion can revolutionize not only the Theoretical Physics, but also the supply of energy to humankind, only a stupid referee would be unable to understand that such paper is of the interest of any important journal of Physics.


A paper does not need to exhibit "interpretation" of data.

A scientific paper must to supply the data only. The meaning of them is not of interest

It's obvious you've never been published in a scientific, peer-review journal.

 

[John Jones]

John, there is no need.
Andrea Rossi will start to sell his cold fusion reactor in October-2011, in Greece.
Then all the theoretical controvery concerning cold fusion will be over.

In the case he dont start to sell the cold fusion reactors in Oct-2011, the discussion will be over either, because we will know that his technology is a fraud.

I doubt it. There has been a dearth of supporting scientific evidence since Pons and Fleischmann made their press announcement 22 years ago. It's naive to think the cold fusion woo will stop in a mere 6 months.


I predict you will disappear from the 'controversy', or proclaim a conspiracy of silence to an ever-shrinking, increasingly sceptical audience.

 

[John Jones]

What a hell cold fusion can be of interest for computational physics?

And why a hell a cold fusion researcher would send a cold fusion paper to a computational physics journal?????????

You have committed a logical fallacy known as Moving The Goalposts.

You specifically said earlier: "...such paper is of the interest of any important journal of Physics."

 

[BenBurch]

Then I suppose the radiactivity was already measured by those researchers who penetrate into the mouth of the volcanos in activity.

...

Um, magma pools in volcanoes are not from the same types of material as exist in the core of the planet.

 

[BenBurch]

Um, magma pools in volcanoes are not from the same types of material as exist in the core of the planet.

ETA: http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html

 

[Horatius]

John, there is no need.
Andrea Rossi will start to sell his cold fusion reactor in October-2011, in Greece.
Then all the theoretical controvery concerning cold fusion will be over.

In the case he dont start to sell the cold fusion reactors in Oct-2011, the discussion will be over either, because we will know that his technology is a fraud.

So, if this one guy's failure will end the discussion, why is it that none of the failures of earlier cold fusion devices has ended the discussion?


An article from 1997 describing 7 different "cold fusion" type devices, none of which have shown up as any sort of marketable product:

http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_5_8.html


Or how about this, from 2005:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/24/research.highereducation2

Both sides say what's needed to break the impasse is the production of a working, cold fusion device. According to Scott Chubb at the Naval Research Laboratory, Roger Stringham of First Gate Energies in Hawaii described just that at a cold fusion conference in France last year. "He puts 200W in and 400W comes out. That's a device, it's a heater. It's probably the first cold fusion device."

Chubb is equally excited about rumours of a breakthrough at a Las Vegas company called Innovative Energy Solutions. In November, it issued a press release heralding "clean energy technology" to "generate six times (12MW) more electricity than it consumes (2MW)". Rod Foster of the company says the technology is based on cold fusion, but could offer no more information about how it works.

Here's what looks to be the press release mentioned above:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...struct-clean-energy-power-plant-75425302.html

The finished plant will apply iESi's clean energy technology to generate 12 megawatts (MW) of power per hour for Norwood Foundry, which expects to market approximately 10 MW of that power per hour to external entities. It is expected that in excess of 80 percent of the power generated will be sold at a premium as "Green Power" energy. The revenue to be generated through the joint venture project is expected to exceed $6 million annually.

Under the joint venture, iESi is responsible for the implementation of its revolutionary clean energy technologies, while Norwood will finance the project. ACS Engineering of Calgary, Alberta, has been retained to provide EPC services to the joint venture project. The plant is slated to be fully operational by the third quarter of 2005.

If you're really keen, you could try contacting Norwood Foundry and asking them how their plant is doing:

http://www.norwoodfoundry.com/contact.htm



Or how about this, from 1998:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar2/coldfusn.htm
http://www.ourglocal.com/ieee/?c=5808

In a paper presented at the American Nuclear Society's 33rd Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion ("Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology"), Davis and McGraw explain why more patents are likely to be issued, even by the perennially biased U.S. Patent Office:

Many scientists, engineers, and investors have given cold fusion serious attention since Pons and Fleischmann discovered it in the mid-to-late 1980s. The New Energy Partners venture capital firm, for example, has supported companies with working prototypes, and several prototypes are being tested to determine heat output levels and reaction rates. Approximately 1500 papers from technical journals and conferences have reported some degree of replication of the cold fusion effect (800 in U.S.); 300 related patent applications have been developed in the U.S.; and 100 patents have been granted in Japan.

Or, from 2008:

http://atomic-motor.blogspot.com/2008/05/japanese-use-nanotechnology-to-enhance.html

Prof. Y. Arata Plans Demonstration at Osaka University

May 14, 2008

Osaka National University Prof. emeritus Yoshiaki Arata has announced a lecture and demonstration of his latest cold fusion reactor, on May 22, 2008, starting at 1:30 p.m. (subject to change). A photo of the reactor is shown below. The lecture will be on the 1st floor of Arata Hall on the university campus, and the demonstration will be later, on the 3rd floor.

Do you notice how they all make the same sorts of claims as the current crop of cold fusion promoters? And have you noticed that none of them have ever produced a device that undeniably works?

How many more such failed efforts will it take before you begin to ask them for evidence before you accept their pronouncements?

 

[Tubbythin]

What a hell cold fusion can be of interest for computational physics?

Kind of my point.

And why a hell a cold fusion researcher would send a cold fusion paper to a computational physics journal?????????

Erm. You said (my bolding):

Besides, as cold fusion can revolutionize not only the Theoretical Physics, but also the supply of energy to humankind, only a stupid referee would be unable to understand that such paper is of the interest of any important journal of Physics.

So unless you are claiming there are no important Computational Physics journals (I'd beg to differ), you should be asking yourself that question, not me.

Coming frrom a guy who thinks that a cold fusion researcher would send a paper to a computational physics journal, I doubt if somebody can take seriously the things you say.

I don't think they would (though some crackpots might be desperate enough to get their work published that they'd try). I was refuting your "point" regarding cold fusion and the appropriateness of the journal.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, however I prefer to take seriously their opinion than yours

And you would be wrong, except in their area of expertise. Where they have no expertise, and we are both lay , then their opinion is as good as mine. And where I am an expert, and they are lay, I would wager that you should trust my opinion more than theirs, but that would be doing the same argument from authority that you keep doing.

But seeing how you think "modern physic is wrong" I think the point will be lost on you.