Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
unclep2k said:
Ben M I have no doubt if you were allowed to test Rossi's device, and to your amazement you found it valid, within moments of your published data, cynics in many forums and blogs would be posting that you are a bone head, your testing methods are flawed, and you proved nothing.
Click to expand...

Wrong, that is way the methods are used rather than

"An unknown amount of water was converted to an unknown amount of steam"

Now people may question the results, but that is the whole point. Instead of an unknown volume of water raised to an unknown temperature , we would have a known volume of water raised to an known temperature. Then the question becomes "How much electrical energy went in"

Nice hand waving on your part.

Here is the deal, the burden of proof is on Rossi, your argument that people would doubt any standard of proof is false, he has not met the standard, that is the real problem.

Be sure to check in December 1 will you?

Then we can see, has Rossi made a real test or will he continue with these weak tests?
 
unclep2k said:
Ben M I have no doubt if you were allowed to test Rossi's device, and to your amazement you found it valid, within moments of your published data, cynics in many forums and blogs would be posting that you are a bone head, your testing methods are flawed, and you proved nothing.
Click to expand...
And? If his methodology wasn't flawed, who cares what they think? There's always going to be cynics, even if it was the world's most perfect test there would still be some idiot who would think there's a problem with it.

Or are you going the conspiracy route? They are keeping cold fusion from the masses to protect their....coal?
 
I'll be here Dec 1. I'm not sure myself about Rossi, but there are people that wouldn't believe in this device if they were boiling to death in the water it was heating.
 
Ben m

Remember that step A was "don't produce anything". Rossi has completed step A. So have I. So have you. So has Tom Bearden. So has the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program. Congratulations to all of us!
Click to expand...

That was not step A go back and read your own post. Please try to argue your points with a consistent argument.

"Prior to a White House press conference unveiling the actual captured alien spaceship, NASA officials posted shaky amateur UFO videos on YouTube, with links to a cryptic Area-51-themed blog."

"Genzyme had its complete-cure-for-all-cancers tested and ready to go. Six months before unveiling it, they started sending out spam emails promoting herbal Viagra products. Just to build pro-Genzyme buzz, you see, and make the cancer cure more palatable."
Click to expand...

These statements are utterly pathetic. They don't rise to the level of play-ground discourse.
 
unclep2k said:
Ben M I have no doubt if you were allowed to test Rossi's device, and to your amazement you found it valid, within moments of your published data, cynics in many forums and blogs would be posting that you are a bone head, your testing methods are flawed, and you proved nothing.
Click to expand...



So, if you think most or all of us here would reject actual evidence of ground-breaking new science just because it contradicts established theory, how do you explain the fact that none of us are having this same discussion about high-temperature superconductors? They were discovered about the same time "cold fusion" was "discovered", and screwed up accepted theory just about as much as real cold fusion would, and yet, no serious scientist denies that high temperature superconductors are real.

Can you figure out why that is?
 
Horatius said:
So, if you think most or all of us here would reject actual evidence of ground-breaking new science just because it contradicts established theory, how do you explain the fact that none of us are having this same discussion about high-temperature superconductors? They were discovered about the same time "cold fusion" was "discovered", and screwed up accepted theory just about as much as real cold fusion would, and yet, no serious scientist denies that high temperature superconductors are real.

Can you figure out why that is?
Click to expand...

Oooh! Oooh! I know! I know!

wiki said:
They reported their discovery in the April 1986 issue of ‘’Zeitschrift für Physik’’. Before the end of the year, Shoji Tanaka at the University of Tokyo and then Paul Chu at the University of Houston had each independently confirmed their result. A couple of months later Chu achieved superconductivity at 93 K.
Click to expand...
 
unclep2k said:
I'll be here Dec 1. I'm not sure myself about Rossi, but there are people that wouldn't believe in this device if they were boiling to death in the water it was heating.
Click to expand...

We know that heat came out and we know electricity went in, the problem is that the measurements were so poor we can't say much else.

I am not doubting anything other than the fact that the effect is undemonstrated.
 
Craig B said:
attaboy

Wealthy investors don't get wealthy by falling for scams on a regular basis: true enough.

However, an exceedingly effective way of getting wealthy is by investing in a scam, knowing it to be a scam, and then selling out before the scam blows up. This is known as the "Greater Fool" principle.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure these investors can be pretty "slick". But do you truthfully believe they are trying to pull the "Greater Fool" principle, especially since they know they might eventually have to find some really great fool which is unlikely for them to find.
 
Teemu said:
Where does this concept, that all scientists are the same and they can give competent opinions from all fields of science, come from? Nobody thinks that people trained in humanities can give professional opinion of everything related to liberal arts. Hanno Essén is a docent of theoretical physics, whose main research and teaching subjects seems to be classical mechanics. So his specialization is about as well suited for Rossi experiments as Steven E. Jones' expertize is suited for structural engineering. A student with one summer in laboratory doing calorimetry and instrumentation would be more competent to supervise Rossi experiments. Sven Kullander is nuclear physicist, but they are usually not that specialized in measuring the inputs and outputs of miniature energy devices either. If Rossi wanted to end the debate, he could send the device to professional laboratory, and they could tell within 24 hours if it is real or not, without opening it, so Rossi could write a contract to protect his secrets. But for some reason he prefers to do the tests with people who don't really have proper specialization and are already so old that they are unlikely to learn quickly so that they won't become too competent...


Well, for their public test, the they measured the air humidity instead of steam dryness, so...
Click to expand...

Come on now, I can't believe that you would believe that Essén and Kullander would get involved with this if they weren't certain that either 1) they personally had all the qualifications to evaluate E-cat or 2) they could count on others with greater expertise to jump in and help evaluate what they had observed from the Rossi demo. Do you have any idea of how much guts it took for these two to get involved with this in the first place??
 
attaboy said:
Do you have any idea of how much guts it took for these two to get involved with this in the first place??
Click to expand...



Actually not very much. Skeptics and scientists love getting involved in weird stuff. Heck, we've had more than one person just in this thread offer to test Rossi's device for him.
 
excaza wasn't high temperature superconductivity first proposed as a mathematical model and later confirmed with experiments? Quite different from an inventor putting together bits and pieces of past research, adding his own touch, and coming up with something that works. If Ross's new fire does indeed work, it worked before anyone knew why.
 
unclep2k said:
excaza wasn't high temperature superconductivity first proposed as a mathematical model and later confirmed with experiments? Quite different from an inventor putting together bits and pieces of past research, adding his own touch, and coming up with something that works. If Ross's new fire does indeed work, it worked before anyone knew why.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, there goes the point soaring over your head. And no.


They still don't know exactly why it works.
 
Thon Brocket said:
Not quite sure what you're driving at here, Aep, but I reckon we're in agreement on the real danger of a government ripping Rossi off. This isn't the right forum for arguing about the ethics of it.
Click to expand...

No we are in disagreement. What I said is that there is no step whatsoever to have any invention protected against a governement. Anybody telling you that they take step to protect an invention against any governement on earth is telling a big fat lie.

You can't outgun government - Hell, that's the definition of government - so you have to outthink them. There are strategies available (none guaranteed to work, of course) to protect yourself. Use multiple jurisdictions. Make your contacts work for you. Wheel. Deal. Be nimble. And so forth. If this thing is real, that seems to me to be where Stremmenos will be earning his money.
Click to expand...

Eminent Domain. *POOF* Finished. No outsmarting.

I'm not taking a position on any of that. Like a lot of people have already said, I'll keep my powder dry until October.
Click to expand...

*shrug*
 
unclep2k said:
Ben M I have no doubt if you were allowed to test Rossi's device, and to your amazement you found it valid, within moments of your published data, cynics in many forums and blogs would be posting that you are a bone head, your testing methods are flawed, and you proved nothing.
Click to expand...

That is the cop out of free energy conspiracy theorist. Fact is a solid result (with proper experimental procedure) is much harder to deny than an half assed one given under suspect circumstance.
 
excaza said:
Unsurprisingly, there goes the point soaring over your head. And no.


They still don't know exactly why it works.
Click to expand...

Bingo!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity


Two decades of intense experimental and theoretical research, with over 100,000 published papers on the subject,[6] have discovered many common features in the properties of high-temperature superconductors,[7] but as of 2009, there is no widely accepted theory to explain their properties. Cuprate superconductors (and other unconventional superconductors) differ in many important ways from conventional superconductors, such as elemental mercury or lead, which are adequately explained by the BCS theory. There also has been much debate as to high-temperature superconductivity coexisting with magnetic ordering in YBCO,[8] iron-based superconductors, several ruthenocuprates and other exotic superconductors, and the search continues for other families of materials.
Click to expand...


We don't understand superconductivity in these materials very well, but it's trivially easy for any interested person with the needed skills and equipment to replicate pretty much any of the experiments that have been done.

Contrast that to two decades of cold fusion work, where we're having essentially the same argument with them about how to do calorimetry properly that we had with them 20 years ago.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom