Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[pteridine]

They noted Rossi's statements about the necessity of the catalyst, and the fact that this catalyst is not identified in the patent application, so that's a win for us .

A "win for us?" What are you winning and who constitutes "us?" If the device works, will you accept a "loss?" If it works but the patent is denied, is it a tie?

You have taken this and made it into an "us against them" issue for no apparent reason. Most people on this board only want to know what is happening with the device.
If the effect is shown to be real, those that have been whining about Rossi's tactics or reject the possibility of LENR because it is outside their limited experience will quietly go away and pretend that they never argued against it without any real bases to do so. Their camp followers and sycophants will quietly follow, as usual. Most of the above have confused debunking with deriding and have merely practiced the latter.
It will be interesting to watch the actions of those who publically dismissed the phenomenon should LENR be shown to be real. I expect that scientific weaseling will reach new heights when the egomaniacs have their say.

 

[phunk]

Hey, remember a couple years ago when Rossi was supposedly already building these power plants? Where are they now?

 

[Horatius]

It will be interesting to watch the actions of those who publically dismissed the phenomenon should LENR be shown to be real. I expect that scientific weaseling will reach new heights when the egomaniacs have their say.

And if this does occur, and we all say, "Whoops, we were wrong", will you return here and renounce your insulting assumptions?


And while we're at it, will you admit that, currently, there's no good reason to suppose that this technology does work, nor to suppose that it ever will? You're awfully quick to denounce us for what you imagine our responses will be, but you still persist in ignoring the established evidence of error and outright fraud in these claims.

 

[Dancing David]

A "win for us?" What are you winning and who constitutes "us?" If the device works, will you accept a "loss?" If it works but the patent is denied, is it a tie?

You have taken this and made it into an "us against them" issue for no apparent reason. Most people on this board only want to know what is happening with the device.
If the effect is shown to be real, those that have been whining about Rossi's tactics or reject the possibility of LENR because it is outside their limited experience will quietly go away and pretend that they never argued against it without any real bases to do so. Their camp followers and sycophants will quietly follow, as usual. Most of the above have confused debunking with deriding and have merely practiced the latter.
It will be interesting to watch the actions of those who publically dismissed the phenomenon should LENR be shown to be real. I expect that scientific weaseling will reach new heights when the egomaniacs have their say.

Wow, and Rossi has done what, zero, zilch zip, nada , niente.

Nothing except a lot of fake promises.

 

[Kid Eager]

A "win for us?" What are you winning and who constitutes "us?" If the device works, will you accept a "loss?" If it works but the patent is denied, is it a tie?

You have taken this and made it into an "us against them" issue for no apparent reason. Most people on this board only want to know what is happening with the device.
If the effect is shown to be real, those that have been whining about Rossi's tactics or reject the possibility of LENR because it is outside their limited experience will quietly go away and pretend that they never argued against it without any real bases to do so. Their camp followers and sycophants will quietly follow, as usual. Most of the above have confused debunking with deriding and have merely practiced the latter.
It will be interesting to watch the actions of those who publically dismissed the phenomenon should LENR be shown to be real. I expect that scientific weaseling will reach new heights when the egomaniacs have their say.

So, once you strip away the hysteria and hypebole, somebody someday MIGHT be proven wrong IF an unproven theory unsupported by scientific evidence is found to be true?

Sure, the people in question will feel pretty silly if it is found to true. They would feel even sillier though, if they suspended the whole scientific method just so they could pretend something worked when it didn't.

Feel free to come back and gloat on that glorious day when LENR is proven to be energy positive, once you strip away all the subterfuge, misdirection and evasion.

At the moment, the emperor has no clothes, and he knows it.

 

[ben m]

If the effect is shown to be real, those that have been whining about Rossi's tactics or reject the possibility of LENR because it is outside their limited experience will quietly go away and pretend that they never argued against it without any real bases to do so.

Doubts are, indeed, sometimes proven wrong. That does not mean they are unjustified. For one example, imagine you're in a known-crooked casino and looking for the one honest roulette wheel. You stop at Wheel #1, watch the big roller betting on reds, and observe while he loses 10 in a row. You are justified in saying "the evidence suggests this is a rigged table." You might turn out to be wrong! An honest wheel *does* sometimes produce ten-in-a-row black spins! But nobody would blame at you for following the best available interpretation of the evidence.

If the effect is shown to be real, then Rossi, not his critics, will be laughed off the face of the Earth.

Rossi would have stumbled across the most important technology of the century, but been too stupid to market it as anything other than a small-time pig-in-a-poke scam. He'd have stumbled across a Nobel-worthy nuclear physics experiment, then been too stupid to analyze the results. He'd have spent years being afraid to demonstrate something that, in principle, was an easy-to-demonstrate black box---instead of producing simple tests, he produced a blog's worth of stupid excuses for his failure to perform tests. How crazy would that be?

It's as though Marie Curie had "discovered" that something weird could be separated from pitchblende ... but rather than analyzing it, she bottled it and sold it off the back of a medicine wagon as a cure for pleurisy. The world would be correct to doubt such a claim.

Also: can you think of any other scientific discovery, for which the discoverer was as scammy-sounding as Rossi? I mean, Johannes Gutenberg was a failure as an businessman, but when push came to shove, his workshop produced actual books. The Wright brothers were secretive for a while, but when they had a working flying machine, they called up the press and showed them a flight. Van Leeuwenhoek kept his lens-making technique secret, but the finished lenses were plenty of proof that the technique worked. Etc.. If H-Ni fusion is real, Rossi will stand alone in history in his scammy inability to study or explain it.

 

[Horatius]

If H-Ni fusion is real, Rossi will stand alone in history in his scammy inability to study or explain it.

In addition to this, part of the "win" for us is, even if Rossi has something, he still doesn't deserve a patent on it, because he himself admits that his disclosure of the process is incomplete.

The bargain with patents is that the government will grant and defend a monopoly on the technology, in return for a complete description of all the necessary details for implementing the technology, such that, after the patent lapses, anyone of skill in the art will be able to practice the invention without further experimentation or exercise of inventive faculties. Failure to meet that burden of description is grounds for denying a patent.

Rossi himself has said that the "catalyst" is essential for the proper function of his device, and yet, he fails to identify this catalyst in the patent application. That alone is sufficient reason to consider him a fraud - because even if his device works, he's trying to defraud the patent office by acquiring a patent without having met his burden of disclosure.

And even pro-cold fusion people should be pissed off at him for that. But instead, they come here and insult us for pointing this out.

 

[pteridine]

And if this does occur, and we all say, "Whoops, we were wrong", will you return here and renounce your insulting assumptions?

If you feel insulted, perhaps you presume too much. I was not referring to a gaggle of anonymous posters on a skeptics forum but rather to the likes of Richard Garwin, Nathan Lewis, and their self-important ilk. As to our posters, they do what they do which is to be skeptical. I don't take their comments too seriously and I am sure they don't take mine too seriously.
If it makes you feel better, I will return and say I was wrong if Rossi is a fraud. If he is not, I will not mock you if you are properly contrite.

 

[Horatius]

If it makes you feel better, I will return and say I was wrong if Rossi is a fraud.

Well, that's great. Now, other than his demonstrated attempts to defraud the patent office, his ongoing history of utter failure at meeting his own declared timelines, and his refusal to answer basic questions about his device, what would finally convince you that he's a fraud? Because obviously all of that still isn't enough.

 

[pteridine]

Well, that's great. Now, other than his demonstrated attempts to defraud the patent office, his ongoing history of utter failure at meeting his own declared timelines, and his refusal to answer basic questions about his device, what would finally convince you that he's a fraud? Because obviously all of that still isn't enough.

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it. Consider that his timeline may change because developing a new technology may not be as predictable as a Fedex delivery.
You never did say who "us" consisted of and what a "win for us" would confer on them.

 

[bruto]

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it. Consider that his timeline may change because developing a new technology may not be as predictable as a Fedex delivery.
You never did say who "us" consisted of and what a "win for us" would confer on them.

So if I show you a box and say it's a miracle box, even though it does nothing, you can't call me a fraud as long as I succeed in preventing you from seeing inside the box. Neat.

 

[Giordano]

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it. Consider that his timeline may change because developing a new technology may not be as predictable as a Fedex delivery.
You never did say who "us" consisted of and what a "win for us" would confer on them.

I've not been following this in detail. Wasn't he supposed to have a working version available by the end of February?

 

[nathan]

I've not been following this in detail. Wasn't he supposed to have a working version available by the end of February?

Which particular February? Several such deadlines passed over the last few years (though perhaps none in a February).

 

[Pixel42]

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it.

Fair enough on the face of it, but the problem AIUI is that he's been wilfully blocking such an evaluation for years and shows no sign of ever ceasing to do so. If he goes to his grave without ever facilitating such an evaluation will it still be unreasonable to assume he's a fraud?

 

[ben m]

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it. Consider that his timeline may change because developing a new technology may not be as predictable as a Fedex delivery.
You never did say who "us" consisted of and what a "win for us" would confer on them.

He claims that the box already works, that it work utterly routinely, and that the remaining R&D is on bells and whistles like anti-tampering devices. That means we're past the "unknown R&D timeline" zone and well into the "show me the box already" zone.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe he is having problems with the exploding device that stops people looking in the box.

 

[Dancing David]

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it. Consider that his timeline may change because developing a new technology may not be as predictable as a Fedex delivery.
You never did say who "us" consisted of and what a "win for us" would confer on them.

Considering he could have used a still water bath instead of his sham measures, I highly doubt it. This could have been resolved log ago with standard protocol and procedures, no need for any disclosure by Rossi. Just power in and heat out.

 

[Dancing David]

I've not been following this in detail. Wasn't he supposed to have a working version available by the end of February?

December of 2011!

 

[catsmate]

Rossi will be shown a fraud when a third party evaluation shows it. <snip>

Why is why he's so desperate to prevent independent inspection and verification, it would expose his fraud in a way only his most vehement supporters could ignore.

He claims that the box already works, that it work utterly routinely, and that the remaining R&D is on bells and whistles like anti-tampering devices. That means we're past the "unknown R&D timeline" zone and well into the "show me the box already" zone.

Yep.

 

[Horatius]

Yeah, what they all said^. If Rossi is a fraud (as all the current actual evidence suggests he is) saying you're "Waiting for third party evaluation" is exactly the same as saying "Never", because frauds have absolutely no reason to ever allow third party evaluations.

And of course, third party evaluations are exactly what all his critics have been calling for all along. Maybe if his supporters actually started asking him for this as well, instead of making up excuses for him, we'd actually get somewhere.