Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[temporalillusion]

I don't think I've read anyone rejecting it because it can't be explained by the theories of modern physics. They're rejecting it because it hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated to work.

Science changes with new facts all the time, often as a result of facts that cannot be explained with existing theories.

 

[Cuddles]

One note; A Polywell is a version of the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor which attempts to get around the fatal flaw of the Fusor, namely that the grid electrodes are destroyed by any large amount of fusion. As such, it is not cold fusion, but is electrostatic inertial confinement fusion.

Just in case anybody interpreted Aam's comments as indicating that the Polywell is some sort of CNF woo.

It's still a long shot as to whether it will ever reach break-even or whether it will find some industrial use as a neutron source, but unlike EVERY CNF scheme yet devised, fusion verifiably happens in a Fusor.

Indeed. The Polywell always seems to come up at some point in these discussions, and I'm never entirely sure why. While it doesn't receive as much attention as Tokamaks and ICF, it's absolutely established as a viable way to produce fusion and is still being funded for further research. The only real skepticism about it is whether Bussard's rather optimistic predictions of how easily it could reach break-even are actually sensible.

Even better a blog post...

alleged to be from

Christos Stremmenos


who is alleged (in other places) to be a Professor at University of Bologna

http://search.unibo.it/CMSUniboWeb/...:Cristos++cognome:Stremmenos&tab=PersonePanel

Except it is hard to find anything about him there is this:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45913.html

So maybe he stopped understanding physics is 1982?

Yeah, I had trouble finding out much about him as well. It appears he's an 80 year old chemist who became politician in the 80s, then got hooked in by Pons and Fleischmann and has been a firm believer in cold fusion ever since. Interestingly, he explicitly states that he actually has nothing to do with Rossi's work at all - his role on the board of directors of Defkalion Green Energy is purely honorary. So basically, a retired politician who was a chemist 30 years ago is associated with Rossi solely in order to give them some credibility - despite being the only person with any claim to being a scientist involved, he doesn't actually have anything to do with the science.

But to reject it out of hand because it can't be explained by the theories of modern physics is, I feel, a mistake.

But this is where the e-cat differs from your experience. The e-cat is not rejected because it can't be explained, it's rejected because there is nothing there that needs explaining. As has been discussed at length, there is just no good evidence that there is anything happening.

There's really nothing wrong with showing an effect but not being able to explain it. Just look at Einstein, who got a Nobel prize for explaining an effect no-one else had been able to explain for 20 years. The difference in that case, and presumably your own, is that the effect was clearly there, able to be demonstrated to and replicated by other scientists. No secrecy, no silly conspiracy theories and attacks on science, just publications saying "Here's what we did, here's how we did it, here's what happened. Could someone please check up on it and work out what's going on, because we're stumped" (maybe not in those exact words).

I think the problem is that proponents are conflating several different arguments made against the e-cat. Yes, it's been pointed out that not only is there no coherent theory to explain it but it actually contradicts existing theory. But on its own, that would not be enough to dismiss it outright. However, that point is not on its own, it's simply an additional point on top of all the other arguments - the evidence does not support the claims and theory does not support the claims. An experiment might show something is possible even without theory, and theory might suggest something is possible without experiments. But when both experiment and theory are lacking, there is simply no reason to accept wild claims such as those being made here.

 

[unclep2k]

I couldn't agree more attaboy. I know there is a good chance Rossi is a fraud, but the potential of this device warrants support up to the point in time we know for sure. We can all have a laugh if he turns out to be a crook, but if it is the real deal the world will change forever. Bankers seem to have managed quite well through history in spite of themselves, so I wouldn't worry too much about a little venture capital being misspent.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Cuddles

There's really nothing wrong with showing an effect but not being able to explain it. Just look at Einstein, who got a Nobel prize for explaining an effect no-one else had been able to explain for 20 years. The difference in that case, and presumably your own, is that the effect was clearly there, able to be demonstrated to and replicated by other scientists. No secrecy, no silly conspiracy theories and attacks on science, just publications saying "Here's what we did, here's how we did it, here's what happened. Could someone please check up on it and work out what's going on, because we're stumped" (maybe not in those exact words).

This is not how industrial research works at all.

You will never ever find sensitive information in a paper published by anyone involved in research funded by a for profit company. The description of Attaboy is a good example of this. The owner of his company could have easily contacted a university and said: "Here's what we did, here's how we did it, here's what happened. Could someone please check up on it and work out what's going on, because we're stumped". A company's interest, is not to understand the mechanism of action but to make profit. If finding out the mechanism of action of the additive in his releasing agent is not profitable then he won't do it. You are arguing that because Rossi hasn't openly published details of his device for others to copy he is a fraud. In the context of industrial research that is an absurd assertion.

Does this mean Microsoft should publish their code in journals and ask for help in making windows better from university professors. The shareholders would sue the crap out of them. Do you see Intel freely publishing the details of their manufacturing processes? I work in nanotechnology so I am better qualified to speak about the world of microchip technology than other areas, but I can definitively say that the knowledge needed to fabricate current generation intel processors is not published anywhere either in patents or literature.

The e-cat technology, if legitimate, is the most valuable thing ever invented. It seems to me that the lack of disclosure or minutely observed public demonstration is not convincing evidence of it being fake, specifically because that is exactly my experience with industrial research (and I doubt you could name any privately funded technology that has been given away in the manner which you suggest it should be).

Another fact to note is that investment in the e-cat has to date (at least to our knowledge) been accompanied by private demonstrations, the conditions of which are not known to us. My experience with private investment tells me that in order to attract hundreds of millions of dollars in investment interest a very high standard of performance must be met.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of any pleas for money from rossi directed to the general public. In fact all his licensing deals were in place before the first public demonstration took place. Investors have already acquired the exclusive license to the technology. If rossi were to publish the details of his invention (assuming legitimacy for arguments sake) he would be in serious legal jeopardy, as the investors in the greek and american companies would seek to recover lost revenue.

There are many inconsistencies with the disclosure argument. I do not believe it is convincing evidence of fraud. It is consistent with both fraud and legitimacy.

 

[Dancing David]

Using a decent calorimeter set up would be very legitimate as would adequate power supply measurements.

There is no demonstrated effect proprietary or otherwise.

He does not have to open up his device at all, just use a still water bath and some decent electrical devices.

there is no demonstrated effect.

Zero, zip, nada, niente, zilch.

 

[Dancing David]

My experience with private investment tells me that in order to attract hundreds of millions of dollars in investment interest a very high standard of performance must be met.

And who has invested that kind of money, anyone?

 

[Horatius]

The e-cat technology, if legitimate, is the most valuable thing ever invented. It seems to me that the lack of disclosure or minutely observed public demonstration is not convincing evidence of it being fake, specifically because that is exactly my experience with industrial research (and I doubt you could name any privately funded technology that has been given away in the manner which you suggest it should be).

...

Furthermore, there is no evidence of any pleas for money from rossi directed to the general public. In fact all his licensing deals were in place before the first public demonstration took place. Investors have already acquired the exclusive license to the technology. If rossi were to publish the details of his invention (assuming legitimacy for arguments sake) he would be in serious legal jeopardy, as the investors in the greek and american companies would seek to recover lost revenue.

There are many inconsistencies with the disclosure argument. I do not believe it is convincing evidence of fraud. It is consistent with both fraud and legitimacy.

Except that he's not going about this in an entirely private manner, is he? He's going out of his way to attract public attention to himself. He's also attempting to get patents on this device all over the world.

He can keep everything under wraps, with no obligation to explain his technology, or he can apply for patents, but there's no way he can do both at the same time. So your entire line of argument is invalid on its face.

 

[ben m]

You will never ever find sensitive information in a paper published by anyone involved in research funded by a for profit company.

Nonsense. Bell Labs.

You are arguing that because Rossi hasn't openly published details of his device for others to copy he is a fraud. In the context of industrial research that is an absurd assertion.

Secrecy in industrial research can work one of two ways.

a) "We don't want our competitors to know our market strategy." (i.e. "if ASUS finds out that the new iPad has a front-facing camera, they'd add a front-facing camera to their cheaper ripoff." "We want to sell these worthless oil-futures contracts to the chumps who don't know what we know about exploratory drilling in the Coral Sea."

This isn't what Rossi is doing---everyone knows what he's working on.

b) "We don't want our competitors to be able to duplicate our R&D."

Nobody is asking Rossi to reveal his secret catalyst, if there is one. Just to demonstrate carefully that his device works. Obviously the (disputed) facts: that the device produces heat, from nickel and hydrogen, at temperatures near 100C, for at least long, etc., are not industrial secrets. Rossi has a blog about them, for crying out loud.

If Rossi's public demonstrations were meant to be compatible with his "secrets", then an equivalent demonstration with better instrumentation would be compatible too.

Industrial secrecy is a real thing, but it's not a catch-all excuse. "This company did something inexplicable. Never mind, it must be part of the secrecy!"

Does this mean Microsoft should publish their code in journals and ask for help in making windows better from university professors.

It's more like "Should Microsoft let customers type into this mystery product they call a 'word processor'? Or should the customers settle for blurry video that purports to show a file being opened and saved?"

My experience with private investment tells me that in order to attract hundreds of millions of dollars in investment interest a very high standard of performance must be met.

Ha ha ha! Just like mortgage-backed securities, right? Just like the Madoff fund? Just like $7M Mark Twain poured into the Paige Compositor? Like the God-knows-what invested in "Magnetic Power, Inc", the Mota gasoline pill, etc.? That's right, it doesn't matter what Science says about the E-Cat: Investors Gave It Money and Investors Are Never Wrong.

Let's put it this way: let's put it in pure self-interest terms. Whatever the (purported) "investors" have put into the E-Cat, they've done it on recognizably risky basis and have presumably gotten very good terms out of Rossi---a large share of the profits, a large ownership fraction, etc.

Think about what an uncontroversial, NIST-certified-as-working ECat would get from investors. Banks would be falling over themselves to loan Rossi money on any terms he cares to name. They'll be bidding down the terms to practically zero---"Oh, Simons offered to build a billion dollar plant in exchange for 10% ownership? Shaw would accept 5% ownership." "Well, the House of Saud countoffers a $3B for 4% of the common stock."

Why would Rossi leave all this money on the table? Why skip past the world's biggest and richest investors, in favor of some anonymous risk-takers, over a matter of cheat-proofing the public demos you've already done? The obvious answer is that the demo can't be cheat-proofed, because when it's cheat-proofed it stops appearing to produce power.

 

[Thon Brocket]

Stremmenos's role

Interestingly, he explicitly states that he actually has nothing to do with Rossi's work at all - his role on the board of directors of Defkalion Green Energy is purely honorary.

Equally, if the Ecat is kosher, Stremmenos is the fixer. The owner of a technology potentially as big as this is in real danger of having it ripped off him by a rapacious government in the name of "state security" or "the people's property"; the US military, among others, has pulled that stunt on patent-holders before now; and in particular the huge taxation implications make it a real hot property. This may be a big, dangerous deal, commercially and politically. So Rossi (who has crossed swords with the Italian government in the past, and knows the score) needs to guard his position by getting arrangements set up to prevent that happening. Stremmenos is well into the Greek establishment; he has the contacts and the wheelings and the dealings to act as Rossi's "ambassador". That, perhaps, is why the factory is being built in Greece - Stremmenos has been doing the crony work to ensure that Rossi doesn't wind up getting robbed, knifed and tossed over the levee, metaphorically, and perhaps literally. This is the land of the Mafia we're discussing.

 

[Crawdaddy]

ben m

Nonsense. Bell Labs.

My graduate supervisor was a former Bell Labs researcher. They only published data they felt wouldn't make money for them, or if they felt it would enhance their core business: telecomunications. To do otherwise would leave AT&T open to lawsuits. This is exactly what google does today. They could not release something like android or google maps or gmail if they didn't think it would enhance their profits from advertising.

Think about what an uncontroversial, NIST-certified-as-working ECat would get from investors. Banks would be falling over themselves to loan Rossi money on any terms he cares to name. They'll be bidding down the terms to practically zero---"Oh, Simons offered to build a billion dollar plant in exchange for 10% ownership? Shaw would accept 5% ownership." "Well, the House of Saud countoffers a $3B for 4% of the common stock."

Why would Rossi leave all this money on the table? Why skip past the world's biggest and richest investors, in favor of some anonymous risk-takers, over a matter of cheat-proofing the public demos you've already done? The obvious answer is that the demo can't be cheat-proofed, because when it's cheat-proofed it stops appearing to produce power.

In my experience large investors expect a certain amount of small investor interest before they will commit to even meet you, nevertheless, if the e-cat demonstrated to the point where it gains mainstream acceptance such investments will be made and rossi will reap his licensing fees. At the same instant however, people with more expertise, more resources and more intelligence than Rossi or his partners will immediately begin to try and improve the process. This is why, even though the private demonstrations of the device began in 2008 (to our knowledge) there was no public announcement until 2011. If the device is real, the demonstrations to date are enough to create buzz but not competition (although some guy named Brian Ahern claims to have replicated the Piantelli process in the last few days). The strategy to date amounts to free marketing (regardless of the legitimacy of the device).

 

[ben m]

If the device is real, the demonstrations to date are enough to create buzz but not competition

So Rossi had the capability to:

a) Keep their device a complete secret from the public, and demonstrate it to small/medium investors privately; OR

b) Build a working device, and competently convince people that it works, and thus obtain a valid patent and large investments; OR

c) Build a working device, but present the public facade of a free-energy scam, with an incompetent-sounding "blog", a tinfoil-wrapped, poorly-instrumented "demonstration", and slightly dodgy "endorsements" from carefully-chosen skeptics?

They didn't do a. They didn't do b. You're saying they did (c) as a gambit for attracting investors without attracting reverse-engineering campaigns.

Do you expect me to believe that? Attracting investors? Do YOU believe that? By that standard of argument, you would take a failed demonstration as confirmation. "They must have thought there was TOO MUCH buzz so they must have rigged a nonfunctioning device to calm it down!" You would take Rossi's buying-a-yacht-and-disappearing-to-Argentina as confirmation. "He had to make the trail completely go cold to buy more time for the secret Greek R&D project!"

 

[Crawdaddy]

Ben M

They didn't do a. They didn't do b. You're saying they did (c) as a gambit for attracting investors without attracting reverse-engineering campaigns.

You are completely mis-characterizing my earlier post. Please read the available information before jumping to conclusions.

They demonstrated the device privately as early as 2008. The company that bought the license for the americas said in an interview that their own technicians set up the equipment. This is strategy a not c. Their public demonstrations have not led to any direct investment in the project (to our knowledge). If the device works a) c) b) is a viable strategy for bringing the device to market.

If the device is a fraud and Rossi starts delaying then the progression will change to... lies) c) prison). Ignoring and mis-characterizing the existing situation is unconvincing.

PS a quick perusal of the energy catalyzer discussion on wikipedia will show that Rossi did not pick the swedish scientists. The swedish technical journalist did.

PPS

Do you expect me to believe that? Attracting investors? Do YOU believe that? By that standard of argument, you would take a failed demonstration as confirmation. "They must have thought there was TOO MUCH buzz so they must have rigged a nonfunctioning device to calm it down!" You would take Rossi's buying-a-yacht-and-disappearing-to-Argentina as confirmation. "He had to make the trail completely go cold to buy more time for the secret Greek R&D project!"

This appears to be a nonsensical statement. Please try to argue a position that is reflected in my post, not that you make up in your head. Buzz does not mean attract investors. Buzz means place the idea that there is a device like the e-cat that might be out there. Your post is part of the buzz.

 

[ben m]

If the device works a) c) b) is a viable strategy for bringing the device to market.

No it's not. (a b) is a viable strategy for bringing a device to market.

(c) is nonsense. (c) is a "strategy" a rationalization you made up which allows you to ignore the flaws of Rossi's demonstrations.

Look at it this way: energy is not marketed like Pets.com, or the iPhone, or Shrek 3. It's an actual valuable commodity which everyone is already addicted to; it's totally fungible; and that everyone already buys from whatever the cheapest source is. It doesn't need stupid viral-marketing buzz. It's hard to see how it could possibly benefit from stupid marketing buzz.

You don't see British Petroleum building "buzz" about the amazing future of Albertan tar oil. Their plan for making money off Albertan tar oil is (a) figure out how to get tar oil and (b) show up at the oil market with a slightly lower sell price than anyone else.

What does "buzz" do for Rossi? His magic fuel-less Greek power plant will start running, news media and corporate energy analysts will ignore it, but Con Edison's CEO will pay attention (and place a big order) because E-Cat has been trending on Twitter?

 

[Crawdaddy]

Ben M

(c) is nonsense. (c) is a "strategy" a rationalization you made up which allows you to ignore the flaws of Rossi's demonstrations.

Sweet I am glad you acknowledge that they have already completed step a. Thank you for conceding that point so gallantly.

You don't see British Petroleum building "buzz" about the amazing future of Albertan tar oil. Their plan for making money off Albertan tar oil is (a) figure out how to get tar oil and (b) show up at the oil market with a slightly lower sell price than anyone else.

I disagree. You are making assertions that are not true. BP engages in enormous quantities of marketing designed to place their brand in the public consciousness. One has only to turn on the tv to see BP ads designed solely to raise idea in the minds of the general populous that they are not a evil polluting psychopathic scumbags. They are not directly selling their oil to some dude on the couch yet they spend millions on ads aimed at that very dude.

The notion that only a fraudster would publicize their invention without full disclosure is absurd and false. That argument is flawed.

Even if the e-cat is legitimate, strategy a c b is useful because it lets you know that something might exist. A successful demonstration in october would be more palatable and accepted more quickly taken in the context of what has already been demonstrated.

 

[attaboy]

I don't think I've read anyone rejecting it because it can't be explained by the theories of modern physics. They're rejecting it because it hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated to work.

Science changes with new facts all the time, often as a result of facts that cannot be explained with existing theories.

I don't know why you can say "They're rejecting it because it hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated to work." He's demonstrated it convincingly before top scientists, some of which are also well known to be avid skeptics.
Are you saying his methods are not precise enough?? He's demonstrated massive output to input energy ratios. Its hard to imagine that his method and equipment is so poor that improving them would nullify this massive effect. If the energy ratios were small then I could say we might have a case for nit picking over his methods. But this is not true with such a large output ratio.
At one point in this thread I was told that being a chemist, I really did not have a qualified opinion on this subject, or words to that effect. Then let me add that if E cat does turn out to be real, I predict there will be a lot of chemistry that went into Rossi's invention. And I further feel that the "secret catalyst" will be something fairly simple.

 

[attaboy]

@attaboy
Some info about investors and alleged investments can be found here:

http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer#Defkalion_Green_Technologies
http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer#AmpEnergo

Thanks summand

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know why you can say "They're rejecting it because it hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated to work." He's demonstrated it convincingly before top scientists, some of which are also well known to be avid skeptics.
Are you saying his methods are not precise enough?

Yup

He's demonstrated massive output to input energy ratios.

Nope

Its hard to imagine that his method and equipment is so poor that improving them would nullify this massive effect.

Considering the totally ineffective electrical measurements, we really don't know what energy went in.
Considering the non standard and foolish heat out put measurements, we have no idea what so ever.

If the energy ratios were small then I could say we might have a case for nit picking over his methods. But this is not true with such a large output ratio.

Except we really don't know that much about the electrical energy in or the heat out put.

they did not follow any standard protocols.

At one point in this thread I was told that being a chemist, I really did not have a qualified opinion on this subject, or words to that effect. Then let me add that if E cat does turn out to be real, I predict there will be a lot of chemistry that went into Rossi's invention. And I further feel that the "secret catalyst" will be something fairly simple.

If he allowed people to put real electrical engineering equipment up to it and real calorimetery, then we would not be having this discussion.

There would be a legitimate effect or there would not.

 

[BenBurch]

Using a decent calorimeter set up would be very legitimate as would adequate power supply measurements.

There is no demonstrated effect proprietary or otherwise.

He does not have to open up his device at all, just use a still water bath and some decent electrical devices.

there is no demonstrated effect.

Zero, zip, nada, niente, zilch.

I will happily do the calorimetry if they provide the device.

 

[BenBurch]

...
My graduate supervisor was a former Bell Labs researcher. They only published data they felt wouldn't make money for them, or if they felt it would enhance their core business: telecomunications. ...

Nonsense.

 

[ben m]

Sweet I am glad you acknowledge that they have already completed step a. Thank you for conceding that point so gallantly.

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!

I disagree. You are making assertions that are not true. BP engages in enormous quantities of marketing designed to place their brand in the public consciousness.

I guess that was a bad example. OK, let's try coal. Whose coal is generating the electricity that runs your computer right now, Crawdaddy? How much did that collier's viral advertising impact your decision to get power from their coal?

They are not directly selling their oil to some dude on the couch yet they spend millions on ads aimed at that very dude.

In BP's case, the dude on the couch is one of the voters who has the power to sin-tax BP into oblivion.

Even if the e-cat is legitimate, strategy a c b is useful because it lets you know that something might exist. A successful demonstration in october would be more palatable and accepted more quickly taken in the context of what has already been demonstrated.

"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."

The other thing is, their attempt to build buzz failed. The only people who have noticed him are the forums where preexisting free-energy crackpots, and free-energy-crackpot-debunkers, were hanging out to begin with. Other than that, the response is practically zero. Why? Because incompetent free-energy demos are a dime a dozen and not particularly noteworthy.