Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rossi implies an association with a company called Leonardo Technologies, a genuine company involved in legitimate alternative energy systems, though his claim that one of the company's staff, Richard Noceti, in on the board of Rossi's fake "journal". In reality this is untrue; neither Leonard nor Noceti have any connection to Rossi.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Have you searched new funding?

Cassarino: Absolutely, we are in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies,

...try to get new investors.
Click to expand...

Please try to make your arguments consistent people. A company can't be reputable on the one hand and trying to scam investors on the other.
 
unclep2k said:
Sorry guys. You may be on the wrong side of this issue. Maybe your educations got in the way.
Click to expand...

There are no "sides." Education and physics still rule. Until a plausible theory, coupled with reasonable and repeatable test is demonstrated, cold fusion will remain the fantasy it is.

Crawdaddy said:
Please try to make your arguments consistent people. A company can't be reputable on the one hand and trying to scam investors on the other.
Click to expand...

I would recommend reading about the financial issues with this recession.
 
Hindmost said:
I would recommend reading about the financial issues with this recession.
Click to expand...

I would recommend folks learn how to use the quote and multi-quote function, so we know who there're quoting.

But that's just me.
 
Crawdaddy said:
More information:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. And what a good article it is. Very short on technical data, but what there is is, well, entertaining and illuminating.

You do understand, I hope, that Rossi has been adamant from the beginning that no neutrons are emitted as part of his process. This didn't make a whole lot of sense, given that his patent application specified energy thermalization by means of a boron lining to the reactor tube or borated water as a primary heating medium.

Then we had the public demo, and there was no mention of boron anywhere.

Now, we have
Rossi: The E-Cat, after 15, 20 years of expected life is just a piece of steel, lead, ceramic, boron, with residual nickel powder inside. All recyclable. No radioactive waste left, of course.
Click to expand...

No mention of copper tubing, of course, which casts some (that is, a whole lot of) doubt on the representation of the demo'd E-cat as representative of the current design. But the question is: why boron? Boron isn't a good absorber of gamma radiation. Ah, but it is a classic neutron absorber. And you can expect neutron flux to induce secondary radiation. But there's no secondary radiation, right? Rossi says so.

It's all very mysterious.

Then there's
In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV. I think no 59Cu is produced.
Click to expand...

Well, of course no 59Cu is formed. Rossi himself has stated that no 58Ni is used. How could he have forgotten this? After all, he has clearly invented a super-cheap method of isotope separation, in order to allow replenishment costs to be around 100 euros. So how could he forget this?

It's all very mysterious.

And then there's this gem
Karl-Henrik Malmqvist: When Edison invented the commercial light bulb he tested over 6000 vegetable growths for the most suitable filament material. How many mixtures/versions of the catalytical materials have you tested until the present one?

Rossi: Tens of thousands of combinations.
Click to expand...

Now bear with me here, while I do a little basic math.

Let's assume 2 hours to test a potential catalyst. After all, you have to load the treated nickel, button up the hydrogen line, connect the initiating heater (connected, of course, directly to the nickel), close up the coolant system, verify the instrumentation, pressurize the hydrogen, activate the heater, monitor the coolant flow, and wait to see what happens. Whether the compound works or not, you then have to reverse the whole procedure, and then you try again. And none of this addresses the time and effort required to treat the nickel samples with each compound in the first place.

If Rossi spent 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks per year doing nothing but testing compounds, he would manage 1000 tests per year. So what else has he been doing for the last 20 years?

It's all very mysterious.

Crawdaddy, you have criticised me for superficial research, but this sort of thing is exactly why superficial reasearch is all I need. Rossi can't seem to keep his statements straight, and that is one of several reasons I don't believe him.
 
Crawdaddy said:
Please try to make your arguments consistent people. A company can't be reputable on the one hand and trying to scam investors on the other.
Click to expand...
What are you trying to say? As I said:
Rossi implies an association with a company called Leonardo Technologies, a genuine company involved in legitimate alternative energy systems, though his claim that one of the company's staff, Richard Noceti, in on the board of Rossi's fake "journal". In reality this is untrue; neither Leonardo nor Noceti have any connection to Rossi.
Click to expand...
Rossi has no real connection with this company (LTI Global); he does have a similarly named company Leonardo Corporation used in his earlier scams.
LTI have no involvement with Rossi and his claim that one of their staff is on the board of his "journal" is untrue.
 
Emet said:
I was referring to the 2 quotes by Crawdaddy. I'm trying to follow this discussion, and learn something.

My apologies to all. :o
Click to expand...

Ahh...I see now...

The science part of this thread sort of ended a bit ago. It's all sooper seekrit stuff now. (and likely will be forever)

glenn
 
I just learned something from Crawdaddy. His last link was very interesting. A former official of DOE is investing in Rossi. Even if it's a fraud that's interesting.
 
Crawdaddys link mentions 3 additional demonstrations which were conducted in the US and attended by scientists sent by the investment group. They were unable to discover fraud. Thats interesting even if not proof.
 
catsmate1

Your argument is that Leonardo Technologies is a reputable company and that shows what a fraud Rossi is. Yevgen Barsukov posted a comment implying that the company Ampenergo, a spin off of Leonardo Technologies run by LT executives, that has agreed to market the e-cat in the Americas is run by fraudsters.

You can't both be right. Even though you are both so convinced of the fact that this is a fraud that you can't be bothered to do even cursory research on the topic, it is inconsistent to claim that the two positions can be used to justify the same view. You should be arguing with Yevgen Barsukov not me.

Hindmost
The science part of this thread sort of ended a bit ago. It's all sooper seekrit stuff now. (and likely will be forever)
Click to expand...

I agree. Very few contributors to this thread have read and understood the existing literature on cold fusion even the most basic leading references like the storms review or the body of italian Ni-H papers.

Whatroughbeast
Let's assume 2 hours to test a potential catalyst. After all, you have to load the treated nickel, button up the hydrogen line, connect the initiating heater (connected, of course, directly to the nickel), close up the coolant system, verify the instrumentation, pressurize the hydrogen, activate the heater, monitor the coolant flow, and wait to see what happens. Whether the compound works or not, you then have to reverse the whole procedure, and then you try again. And none of this addresses the time and effort required to treat the nickel samples with each compound in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is prime example of a false premise, much like your earlier assertion about the geometry of the resistive heating elements. As a professional research scientist I get paid to devise ways of testing 10000 variations on a material combination without building 10000 prototypes. In the case of this device all Rossi would have to do is determine an appropriate variable to measure (e.g. nanoparticle dimension, hydrogen loading etc.) and then devise a quick way of measuring that variable. Rossi could then choose the most promising material and use that to refine his prototypes. While interesting, your calculation is not a good example of Rossi being inconsistent.

Rossi has demonstrated a tendency to make contradictory statements and has a history of questionable behavior. Levi, Focardi, the swedes, Leonardo Technologies, etc. do not. Rossi has been demonstrating his devices since 2008 according to his US partner Ampenergo. Ampenergo is run by experienced energy contractors with DOE credentials and a multi-million dollar energy consulting business. Are you saying that these people were taken in so easily that they failed to account for the superficial inconsistencies and questions that even a child could come up with, like controlling the input power? The revelation that Rossi has credible partners doesn't mitigate your misgiving even slightly?

My estimate of 25% probability of legitimacy is heavily weighted by the fact that Rossi lacks credibility. If he had good credentials my estimate would be significantly higher. If Rossi was a saint, what would you think about this device then?
 
Last edited:
Seems like some people on this blog have forgotten science is modeled after nature, not the other way around. We don't know as much as we would like to think. It is very possible that existing theorys are incomplete. Nature may have differnet ways of doing the same thing.
 
Crawdaddy said:
Hindmost


I agree. Very few contributors to this thread have read and understood the existing literature on cold fusion even the most basic leading references like the storms review or the body of italian Ni-H papers.
Click to expand...

Thats very Funny! :D

When I asked you to reveiew what Hindmost had to say earlier (starting around pg 5 of this thread) , you ignored it. When I asked you to cite specific research, you declined.

So what discussion of the italian Ni-H papers do you want to discuss?
What part , specifics, of Storm's review do you want to discuss?
 
Here are some relevant posts that you should repond to Crawdaddy, while you are deciding what you think is the evidence we should consider.


ben m said:
My goodness. I was expecting incompetence, but this is incompetence beyond my expectations.

The only power-in instrumentation is a "WATTS UP" power meter, a sort of cheap consumer grade device you'd buy at Home Depot when you're doing a home energy audit. It can't sample faster than once per second. There's no voltmeter. No ammeter. No oscilloscope. No true-power-measuring eddy current meter.

The H2 input was not monitored at all. No flowmeter, no bottle scale. Nothing. They report looking at the pressure gauge---by which they mean the coarse dial gauge on the high-pressure bottle---and seeing no change.

The only power-out instrumentation is a cup of water (collecting "steam") and, at the end of a long cool pipe, a relative humidity probe which they mistake for a "steam dryness" probe. (A steam dryness probe wouldn't do anything in that position even if you had one.)

And the data is presented primarily in the form of digital photos of a computer screen with graphs on it. What the heck?

So, yeah, I'll tell you exactly what is going on. They pumped 1kW of electric power into their thingamabob. The unmetered hydrogen did some PV work too, and probably some chemistry, but that's not the big problem. Their ordinary heat sources made some water boil. The boiling water contains a mix of steam and ordinary droplets---the steam takes energy to make, the droplets basically don't. This cloud ran down their pipe, condensing all the way, trickled past past their indifferent "steam quality probe". They then imagine that all of the water had been boiled, and calculate the energy required. Unsurprisingly, this number is much greater than the electric power consumed.
Click to expand...

Hindmost said:
What logical fallacy would that be? Your claim is still an argument from ignorance. Nuclear reactions like this would produce a fairly wide range of energetic gammas and X-rays. Not finding any is a sure indication that nothing nuclear is happening.

you can run the stuff yourself to see if this is "unknown". Link:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/exfor/exfor00.htm

glenn
Click to expand...

ben m said:
Several comments.

"One of many pathways"? What makes you think that there are nuclear-energy-releasing pathways that don't include high-energy radiation? Levi's claim, if true, requires that nuclear binding energy (several MeV stored in a non-ground-state configuration of a ~5 fm ball of protons and neutrons) is released somehow---it has to stop being binding energy and turn into thermal energy. If you know of a list of options other than high-energy radiation, I'd like to hear it.

Since Levi knows that there is no radiation from his device, why did he stuff it with lead?

On logical fallacies: your statement is equivalent to "Harry Potter really does fly on a broomstick. You keep citing 'gravity' and 'lift' and 'aerodynamics' but that just shows that you are assuming a particular mechanism."
Click to expand...

ben m said:
"If the thermal data are accurate?" I don't see any thermal data that could possibly be accurate. We have a report of water dripping out of a pipe. The pipe had no useful instrumentation whatsoever. Am I supposed to multiply that quantity of water by 2200 J/g and pretend that it is "thermal data" whose accuracy I should take seriously? Why would I do that? That wouldn't be sufficient evidence for the efficiency of my home teakettle, much less for the overturning of nuclear physics.

If I took all data that seriously, I would have to assume that my university's Junior Lab is in a magical room where the speed of light varies by a factor of 10,000,000 from one table to the next. :)
Click to expand...

Hindmost said:
ben m already answered about the nuclear reaction part of this. As to the logical fallacies you claim I am using...the rule on the forum here is: you provide the evidence for your claim.



Nuclear reactions produce lots of high energy stuff...there is too much evidence over the decades for that. Take a look at this link to see what happens as a minimum when charged particles are bounced around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

It is concluded as a hoax or a bad mistake by Rossi et al as it goes against basic physics principles. The unknown mechanism would have to cancel EM repulsion for fusion of nickel and a proton. Normal x-ray/gamma radiation that is a product of such reactions doesn't exist in the data. Doesn't that give you a bit of a pause to consider there is no evidence of any nuclear reaction.

glenn
Click to expand...
 
unclep2k said:
Seems like some people on this blog have forgotten science is modeled after nature, not the other way around. We don't know as much as we would like to think. It is very possible that existing theorys are incomplete. Nature may have differnet ways of doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it is up to the person proposing a theory to explain how it works and what data support it.

When a proponent of a theory is unable to provide good data and evidence that copes with confounding factots, then it is upon the proponent to provide adequate demonstrations of teh theory.

Your sitting there and pointing out that existing theories will be adjusted , modified and added to is extraneous, we all know that. Just like mentioning heavier than air flight and Gallileo and Einstein in such a hand wavy fashion.

they had demonstrations that were adequate. Rossi DOES not.

The problem there is no good demonstration of LENR or cold fusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom