BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
That.
Merged Cold Fusion Claims
- Thread starter JoelKatz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- andrea rossi cold fusion
- Status
That.
pteridine
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
Many would claim cheating, especially those who prematurely put their scientific reputations on the line and explained how LENR could never happen.
What batteries would you use Rob? How would you know that the batteries were what they were claimed to be and that, for example, Li-ion batteries were not hidden among or inside the lead acid batteries? That is what I meant by certification. It is not difficult to monitor power from an outlet and adding the additional complications of a battery pack and inverters in the middle of a field compounds the problem.
1. What happens as the batteries are drained over the course of the experiment?
2. How would you estimate the amount of power remaining in the batteries after the experiment was completed?
3. If the device fails, would the batteries be blamed? [hint: Yes]
What has to happen is that the device should be given every opportunity to fail when operating as designed. That means it gets plugged into the power grid.
When doing experiments like this, complications are to be avoided. Batteries complicate the problem and don't provide any easy solutions. My prediction is that there will be no "batteries of the field."
You've certainly been way too credulous about Rossi, as your previous posts in this thread show. Others had highlighted some pretty significant red flags, which you chose to ignore.
I'm not an expert in a directly relevant field like ben m, but I asked some simple questions about isotopes such as:
... which went entirely unanswered.
These days it seems you're reduced to something along the lines of: "you can't be 100.0000000% certain that LENR of some sort doesn't exist or won't ever be discovered." But that's a triviality, and is a far cry from the optimistic barking about Rossi's 1MW reactor that you were doing previously.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Then why hasn't Rossi done it?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Ta Daaaaaaaa!
RobDegraves
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 787
@pteridine
You need to fully read what people write before you respond.
You might have noted that I stated that the batteries would be supplied by the people doing the testing... not by Rossi or Defkalion.... preferably by a group that is skeptical of the LENR claim.
Any batteries... as long as they supply enough power to start the reaction.
See above.
Irrelevant.
With the batteries being supplied by the testing group, none of that would matter. If there is an error, it would be on the part of the testing group, not the LENR group.
In either case, if the difference between what could possibly be supplied by batteries and what is supplied by the ecat is so slight that a measurement error is even possible... it's not much of an energy source is it.
Irrelevant.
Even the total supply of a battery should not be enough to account for the energy that is claimed to be produced by an ecat.
You really don't know how to do that?
My ipad can do that.
Hint.. no.
Rossi or Defkalion could only be blamed for what they can control. Since they would not control the batteries... they can hardly be blamed for their failure.
Plugging it into the power grid gives the ecat an endless supply of power. Yes, you can measure the power but it does give Rossi or whoever the opportunity to cheat... as has often been claimed about those tests.
Not having a large supply of power to draw from makes it impossible for the test to be cheated in any significant way.
Yes... Rossi could add some energy to the mix by inserting an extra battery or lighter or whatever... however, given the relatively small size of the device, it should be impossible to add enough extra power to account for the claimed energy output of an ecat.
To be honest Pteridine, you give the impression that you want to give the ecat people the best chance at cheating.
You need to fully read what people write before you respond.
You might have noted that I stated that the batteries would be supplied by the people doing the testing... not by Rossi or Defkalion.... preferably by a group that is skeptical of the LENR claim.
Any batteries... as long as they supply enough power to start the reaction.
See above.
Irrelevant.
With the batteries being supplied by the testing group, none of that would matter. If there is an error, it would be on the part of the testing group, not the LENR group.
In either case, if the difference between what could possibly be supplied by batteries and what is supplied by the ecat is so slight that a measurement error is even possible... it's not much of an energy source is it.
Irrelevant.
Even the total supply of a battery should not be enough to account for the energy that is claimed to be produced by an ecat.
You really don't know how to do that?
My ipad can do that.
Hint.. no.
Rossi or Defkalion could only be blamed for what they can control. Since they would not control the batteries... they can hardly be blamed for their failure.
Plugging it into the power grid gives the ecat an endless supply of power. Yes, you can measure the power but it does give Rossi or whoever the opportunity to cheat... as has often been claimed about those tests.
Not having a large supply of power to draw from makes it impossible for the test to be cheated in any significant way.
Yes... Rossi could add some energy to the mix by inserting an extra battery or lighter or whatever... however, given the relatively small size of the device, it should be impossible to add enough extra power to account for the claimed energy output of an ecat.
To be honest Pteridine, you give the impression that you want to give the ecat people the best chance at cheating.
pteridine
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
@ RobDegraves
Are you, by chance, employed in Academia? The lack of attention to detail while designing a purportedly elegant experiment hints at it.
To be honest, Rob, I am predicting what will actually happen. NASA or some other entity will test the device, as designed, without the additional complications of powering it by a giant battery pack in the middle of a field. That same giant battery pack, which would not be inexpensive, would have to run all the test equipment. That equipment might not all be suited for field use or readily transported to the field, and the power needed for it would have to be measured or supplied separately. Inverters are not 100% efficient, so losses would have to be measured for those, too. iPad calculations would be insufficient. Tents would be needed to protect the equipment and people from the weather, unless your iPad can control that, and control of the test chamber environment would also be necessary.
There are far less complications and uncertainties if the experiment is done in a climate controlled space [NASA has a few] with carefully conditioned power and surrounded by the necessary instruments. Batteries not included.
Are you, by chance, employed in Academia? The lack of attention to detail while designing a purportedly elegant experiment hints at it.
To be honest, Rob, I am predicting what will actually happen. NASA or some other entity will test the device, as designed, without the additional complications of powering it by a giant battery pack in the middle of a field. That same giant battery pack, which would not be inexpensive, would have to run all the test equipment. That equipment might not all be suited for field use or readily transported to the field, and the power needed for it would have to be measured or supplied separately. Inverters are not 100% efficient, so losses would have to be measured for those, too. iPad calculations would be insufficient. Tents would be needed to protect the equipment and people from the weather, unless your iPad can control that, and control of the test chamber environment would also be necessary.
There are far less complications and uncertainties if the experiment is done in a climate controlled space [NASA has a few] with carefully conditioned power and surrounded by the necessary instruments. Batteries not included.
Last edited:
pteridine
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
A better question might be "why hasn't Rossi done what we want him to do and why hasn't he provided the information that we want?"
Why should he provide anything to those who are not customers for his device? Apparently, he doesn't care what any blogger/forum denizen wants and is unconcerned about their opinions. People in Hell want ice water.
This seems to have degraded into a "beat up Rossi" thread for those who wish to appear to be clever. Some posters seem to have such a short attention span as to post two or three responses to a single post. I haven't determined whether it is due to a psychological problem or the desire to run up a post count. Maybe they are one and the same.
Others think that their thoughts on the validation test are original and believe that no one else has it figured out. The "propane bottle hidden in a reactor" post was a real gem.
Then there are the folks who like to explain why cold fusion is impossible. I can accept their explanation but how do we know LENR is fusion? My position has been that one cannot calculate and model if one doesn't know what the system is that one is modeling and calculating. Further, such machinations are pointless until one does the experiment and we are not in any position to do the experiment. Rossi must do that and he is busy elsewhere.
All we can conclude is that there is not enough evidence to determine if LENR is a real phenomenon.
pteridine
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
The heaters do not need to be powered by DC. Does your coffee pot or electric range have a battery pack? The control systems would have to be modified to run on DC as would the instrumentation. It is much easier and much less problematic, just from a cost and logistics standpoint, to use AC in a climate controlled building. NASA has some good engineers that can figure it out.
The battery-pack-in-the-middle-of-a-field plan isn't going to happen.
You cannot seriously pretend that Rossi conducted incompetent, mis-instrumented public demos, talked to the press, invited multiple experts to watch his demos, and bragged about his success on his blog ... but that he "doesn't care what people think" so cavalierly that he keeps his properly-instrumented-and-incontrovertible tests completely secret. Think about that for three seconds.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
You seem to have missed the fact that he HAS attempted to make it look like he provided that demonstration, while doing so in a manner that would only fool people who don't understand electricity.
pteridine
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
I don't pretend anything. He cares what potential customers think. He does not pay attention to JREF posters. In Rossi's world of Italian business, money talks.
This took longer than three seconds to type but I did think about it for three seconds.
pteridine
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
Why do you say I "missed the fact?" I have been a proponent of third party demonstrations all along. It is the only way to resolve the issue.
Do not underestimate those who attended his demonstrations. The problem was not with understanding electricity.
Last edited:
RobDegraves
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 787
So.. how much money has he made?
You don't think that a proper test, one that could not be cheated on, would bring more money? If not, I don't think you understand business much.
All your objections are completely trite. A tent? You could just have it done in a building that has the electricity shut off if you are worried. Either way, it's simply to say that he needs to do it in a place where he cannot supply extra power.
The rest of your objections are laughable. It's easy to use a battery for whatever you would use a plug in for.
As far as your prediction is concerned... I will do you one better.
I predict that both Rossi and Defkalion will do more tests that are obscure and where the results could be faked. They may or may not get a few bites but no serious business. Then they will move to another fraud.
How's that?
No.. the problem was with not understanding how fraud works.
That is why it's still not accepted by any serious scientific establishment.
Until they rectify that... it will never be accepted.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Sorry, but I don't think it's underestimating. If anyone believed his demonstrations, they either didn't look into how it was instrumented, or they didn't understand it.
Look at the image here for an example of how sloppy it is (and read for more detail):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4634261...cat-cold-fusion-machine-heating/#.T4xxFGxxM6I
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
You are very silly, Rossi or whoever can run the test with decent protocols. All that is needed is a well measured power supply and a still water bath.
those two things Rossi just can't seem to encompass.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
He doesn't have to at all, the fact that you don't understand that many of us are not degrading Rossi at all seems to be a mystery to you.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,780
That's easy; because he's a fraudster and his magic water heater is a scam.
No. He knows that proper examination of his magic water heater will show it to be a fraud. Like his previous scams.
This thread is about certain claims of low energy (cold) nuclear reactions, specifically those of Andrea Rossi and his associates. They've been dealt with in detail:
- his claimed mechanism won't work, according to well proven nuclear physics
- his claimed mechanism would show products, e.g. Copper and ionising radiation that don't exist
- he refuses to allow proper testing (not ncessarily examination of the the mechanism) of his claimed device
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
It is 6the "you are missing the big picture" gambit. It is a throw away sentence of people have a very very narrow grasp on physic, but wanting to pretend they understand more than they do. A bit similar to the "you gotta be open minded" from close minded woo.
- Status