Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I had a look at the indipendent report and it seems that I owe the half-witted Swedes an apology. It looks as though Levi, long time associate of Rossi, was the lead author of the indipendent report.

ECREP is a cliché but it's a cliché for very good reason. Rossi is a serial scammer and is making a very extraordinary claim so his proofs need to be extraordinary squared, but not only are his proofs not extraordinary they are totally non-existent. There isn't the slightest hint that anything is happening except a tube being heated by externally supplied electricity.

In the latest iteration(the device varies every time) he claims circa three kilowatts being produced from one gram of nickel powder. That's a volume of about .12 cc. The nickel goes in in naturally occurring proportions of isotopes and comes out as 62Ni and no radiation at all. In previous versions the nickel went in enriched in 61Ni and came out as copper in naturally occurring proportions of isotopes.

Rossi's claims are all utterly laughable.
 
phunk said:
The "10 years" part raises a red flag for me. No one plans that far in advance, that's the kind of number you give when you haven't worked out some major details yet.
Click to expand...

Right, people have been saying were "10 years" from artificial intelligence for, what, like the past 75 years.
 
phunk said:
The "10 years" part raises a red flag for me. No one plans that far in advance, that's the kind of number you give when you haven't worked out some major details yet.
Click to expand...
:confused: Many technology companies have roadmaps that far ahead.
 
catsmate1 said:
Hot fusion isn't new.
Click to expand...
Not in theory, no. But as a practical operation it is new. Not only that, its advent has been falsely proclaimed as imminent many times in the last five decades or so, if not longer. One would have expected Lockheed to be more wary about making predictions.
 
theprestige said:
TVs and cell phones aren't really that well-established. Just in the past ten years there's been some major changes in both those markets.
Click to expand...

Compared to commercial fusion power generation? They are decades more established than something that does not even exist yet.
 
Craig B said:
Not in theory, no. But as a practical operation it is new. Not only that, its advent has been falsely proclaimed as imminent many times in the last five decades or so, if not longer. One would have expected Lockheed to be more wary about making predictions.
Click to expand...
Not quite right, Craig B: What has been "falsely proclaimed as imminent" is better than breakeven hot fusion. Fusion itself has happened many times over the last 23 years. The Joint European Torus was the first device to have controlled nuclear fusion in 1991. From then it has been mainly an engineering issue to get beyond the breakeven point.
 
Reality Check said:
Not quite right, Craig B: What has been "falsely proclaimed as imminent" is better than breakeven hot fusion. Fusion itself has happened many times over the last 23 years. The Joint European Torus was the first device to have controlled nuclear fusion in 1991. From then it has been mainly an engineering issue to get beyond the breakeven point.
Click to expand...
I have no quarrel with that. When I stated
... as a practical operation it is new. Not only that, its advent has been falsely proclaimed as imminent many times in the last five decades or so
Click to expand...
I meant exactly what you say, that it happens but has not produced useful amounts of energy; though premature predictions of this have been made.
 
phunk said:
The "10 years" part raises a red flag for me. No one plans that far in advance, that's the kind of number you give when you haven't worked out some major details yet.
Click to expand...

Could be these guys are trying to get Govt money .
 
Last edited:
Find a wormhole and ask the ever, wishes to help Alien, what to do to make it pay. Just hit them with a big nag and say "how come you helped the Old Egyptians in all sorts of ways but will not help us"?
 
Last edited:
One thing I've noticed over the years is that when scientists say something will take 40 years to develop, they must redouble their efforts and it is done in 20. It must mean that they see a way but many things need to be done. Be nice for me to see this happen over the next 20.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom