• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part II - Cold Fusion Claims

pteridine said:
My NDA precludes me from providing all the details you ask for. The steam is used as steam in an over-the-fence operation in the United States. The purchaser of the steam uses it in their plant vice using a steam generator as they have no process heat. The temperature is about 110*C. The unit, as configured, is roughly 4 m^3 in volume, including all of the generation and condensate return lines, valving, etc. but not including the computer control system.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that Rossi's contraption provides a supply of 110C steam to a purchaser who has no direct knowledge of how the steam is generated?
 
pteridine said:
It is producing steam continuously. I have seen it working.
Click to expand...

You have seen video of steam. I can also make one. Does that mean I have got cold fusion ?
Or does that mean I know how to heat water using electricity ? Impartial observer will decide.


Especially knowing that that story has been going on for the better part of a decade.
 
pteridine said:
My NDA precludes me from providing all the details you ask for. The steam is used as steam in an over-the-fence operation in the United States. The purchaser of the steam uses it in their plant vice using a steam generator as they have no process heat. The temperature is about 110*C. The unit, as configured, is roughly 4 m^3 in volume, including all of the generation and condensate return lines, valving, etc. but not including the computer control system.
More information has been publically exposed of late , e.g., LiAlH4 works as well or better than gaseous H2. Other transition elements that are capable of dissolving significant amounts of hydrogen also work. I do not know if liquid phase elements work. I suspect not because of lack of grain boundaries [electric field potential] and solubility of H2, but do not know for sure.
Click to expand...

Using tri phased current.

Not fusion.
 
pteridine said:
If I have two atoms of a radioactive element, which one will disintegrate first?
Click to expand...

It is a statistical process.

But I am smelling a Rossi of the gap here : "if we have not a 100% explanation for everything then Rossi has the good". If that's your contention, that is pretty stupid sorry.

Again there is no evidence whatsoever that Rossi is using *anything* but basic electricity to produce steam , or anything else.

I may be squirting toward a yellow card here, but sorry, somebody pretending to have a NDA, when that person has come for month on the forum presenting irrelevent stuff as evidence like patent application, when that person was said skeptic base their current estimate on what is known es evidence and the lots of experimental evidence already existing which contradict Rossi, I am very doubtful. Like, there is no higher floor on the "doubt tower" here.
 
Aepervius said:
It is a statistical process.

But I am smelling a Rossi of the gap here : "if we have not a 100% explanation for everything then Rossi has the good". If that's your contention, that is pretty stupid sorry.

Again there is no evidence whatsoever that Rossi is using *anything* but basic electricity to produce steam , or anything else.

I may be squirting toward a yellow card here, but sorry, somebody pretending to have a NDA, when that person has come for month on the forum presenting irrelevent stuff as evidence like patent application, when that person was said skeptic base their current estimate on what is known es evidence and the lots of experimental evidence already existing which contradict Rossi, I am very doubtful. Like, there is no higher floor on the "doubt tower" here.
Click to expand...

Like, don't believe me. You are superfluous to the discussion.
 
pteridine said:
Like, don't believe me. You are superfluous to the discussion.
Click to expand...

What discussion ? When there is a discussion to be had, we'll have one. Until then there is nothing but a known felon pretending to have a great invention and people believing him on half backed experiment showing nothing of the sort.

Look believe him if you want. It is your decision. But we are on a skeptic forum. We require evidence. What we have so far is nada. And even you, knowing how rossi is to tight controlling everything , you also saw nothing. At best you saw a contraption which produced steam and that is it. You have no way of knowing what produced it. And since Rossi pretend he need a heater for his stuff to "control" the reaction, there were almost certainly tri phased cable or similar input of energy for the contraption. You have no way to know really what was inside, for all we know, it was a basic heater.

But continue pretending that what I say, or Ben_M say, or Giordano, or Horatio or whomever is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
pteridine said:
They may know but they don't care. This is about economics.
Click to expand...
But this discussion isn't. You don't know what they think, if they think anything, about the source of the steam. They just buy it. Good. But in what way is that of any use to us as evidence? For all we know, Rossi is generating it in his grandmother's electric kettle, and scamming potential investors by referring them to his customer who tells them, yes, the steam is produced continuously as contracted.

Steam at 110 C isn't too technically demanding a commodity to produce, is it?
 
Craig B said:
But this discussion isn't. You don't know what they think, if they think anything, about the source of the steam. They just buy it. Good. But in what way is that of any use to us as evidence? For all we know, Rossi is generating it in his grandmother's electric kettle, and scamming potential investors by referring them to his customer who tells them, yes, the steam is produced continuously as contracted.

Steam at 110 C isn't too technically demanding a commodity to produce, is it?
Click to expand...

The fact that someone is buying steam is not evidence that nuclear reactions are producing the steam. The customer is not part of any endorsement.

It is easy to make steam but the conversion of liquid at 100*C to gas at 100*C is energy intensive. Steam was selected vice electric power because any failure to produce steam is a failure of the reactor and not a complex system. Further, steam is used in many manufacturing processes which makes steam production for such or merely hot fluid for heating the most likely entry points for the technology.
 
Aepervius said:
What discussion ? When there is a discussion to be had, we'll have one. Until then there is nothing but a known felon pretending to have a great invention and people believing him on half backed experiment showing nothing of the sort.

Look believe him if you want. It is your decision. But we are on a skeptic forum. We require evidence. What we have so far is nada. And even you, knowing how rossi is to tight controlling everything , you also saw nothing. At best you saw a contraption which produced steam and that is it. You have no way of knowing what produced it. And since Rossi pretend he need a heater for his stuff to "control" the reaction, there were almost certainly tri phased cable or similar input of energy for the contraption. You have no way to know really what was inside, for all we know, it was a basic heater.

But continue pretending that what I say, or Ben_M say, or Giordano, or Horatio or whomever is irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...


All you do is whine about Rossi being a felon. Green cards are not issued to felons. Rossi has a green card. What can you conclude from this?

Then, we had the "violating the laws of physics" nonsense. What laws? The laws about nuclear reactions requiring gamma radiation ---which are not really laws, but observations. When I point out quantum entanglement and dark matter, which really change the "laws" of physics, no one has an answer. You swallow dark matter whole without ever seeing a mote of 'dark matter.' Would matter repelling matter seem to change the "laws" of physics a little? Then I ask about nuclear instability and you respond that it is statistical. What you mean is that you have observed it to be statistical but cannot explain why a specific nucleus disintegrates and another does not.
 
pteridine said:
The fact that someone is buying steam is not evidence that nuclear reactions are producing the steam. The customer is not part of any endorsement.

It is easy to make steam but the conversion of liquid at 100*C to gas at 100*C is energy intensive. Steam was selected vice electric power because any failure to produce steam is a failure of the reactor and not a complex system. Further, steam is used in many manufacturing processes which makes steam production for such or merely hot fluid for heating the most likely entry points for the technology.
Click to expand...
What is the evidence that this particular purchaser of steam, is receiving steam generated by fusion and not by mains electricity or some other conventional power source? The fact that steam is used in many manufacturing processes is a common place, and it has been supplied for thousands of years by everything from wood fired cauldrons to nuclear fission reactors. So what? There is no evidence in your account of the matter that supports Rossi's claim to have a fusion machine.

As regards the Green Card, you are stating that Rossi has never served any sentence, or been convicted, for any serious offence. You are stating that, to the best of your knowledge. I don't want to see the Green Card argument again. It is not a valid one. Merely tell us that you have no knowledge of any criminal convictions on Rossi's record.
 
Craig B said:
What is the evidence that this particular purchaser of steam, is receiving steam generated by fusion and not by mains electricity or some other conventional power source? The fact that steam is used in many manufacturing processes is a common place, and it has been supplied for thousands of years by everything from wood fired cauldrons to nuclear fission reactors. So what? There is no evidence in your account of the matter that supports Rossi's claim to have a fusion machine.

As regards the Green Card, you are stating that Rossi has never served any sentence, or been convicted, for any serious offence. You are stating that, to the best of your knowledge. I don't want to see the Green Card argument again. It is not a valid one. Merely tell us that you have no knowledge of any criminal convictions on Rossi's record.
Click to expand...

I am not providing evidence to you. I am stating the facts as I know them about the current state of the 1 megawatt unit.
With respect to the green card, I am stating that his conviction was overturned and he is therefore not a felon, as has been erroneously stated by many on this site. The green card argument is valid whether you want to see it or not. It will show up whenever someone claims that he is a felon whether you want to see it or not.
 
pteridine said:
I am not providing evidence to you. I am stating the facts as I know them about the current state of the 1 megawatt unit.
With respect to the green card, I am stating that his conviction was overturned and he is therefore not a felon, as has been erroneously stated by many on this site. The green card argument is valid whether you want to see it or not. It will show up whenever someone claims that he is a felon whether you want to see it or not.
Click to expand...
It is not a valid argument. This is worth reading, however. http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-report-on-the-petrol-dragonomar-scam-part-1a/
 
pteridine said:
You should also wear your skeptic hat for pieces like your reference.
Click to expand...
I do, believe me. I wear it for the Green Card argument too, and for the fusion with no gamma rays, and for fusion reactions that even stars balk at, resulting in observed natural ratios of isotopes. And for stories about E-cats heating factories in Italy several years ago, but of which there is now not the slightest surviving evidence ... etc, etc.
 
pteridine said:
I am still puzzled about the "laws of physics" comments. You have not seen 'Dark matter' but there it is, repelling regular matter in an explanation of an observed phenomenon. What laws might that be violating? Quantum entanglement experiments say that something strange is happening. Where are the laws of physics when you need them to untangle things?
Rossi is not saying anything so radical, only that under the conditions of his experiment, heat is produced that is not chemical. Certainly, if the phenomenon is proved to be real, it will keep everyone busy trying to figure out what is going on. I expect that another mechanism for energy release will be found under the conditions of the experiment.

If I have two atoms of a radioactive element, which one will disintegrate first?
Click to expand...
Just to point these out if it comes up again:
Dark matter attracts regular matter. It is dark energy that seems to keep the universe from collapsing. And quantum entanglement may seem spooky, but was first predicted by the laws of physics before it was observed.
 
Giordano said:
Just to point these out if it comes up again:
Dark matter attracts regular matter. It is dark energy that seems to keep the universe from collapsing. And quantum entanglement may seem spooky, but was first predicted by the laws of physics before it was observed.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. How does dark energy fit into the 'laws of physics?' Is this a convenient fudge factor that explains observation or do the laws of physics predict it?

If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?

My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
 
pteridine said:
Fair enough. How does dark energy fit into the 'laws of physics?' Is this a convenient fudge factor that explains observation or do the laws of physics predict it?

If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?

My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but not very helpful. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Even in this environment, you can draw conclusions about the stuff you do observe. And let's be honest - there's plenty of that.
 
pteridine said:
My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
Click to expand...
The "claimed phenomenon" of fusion-derived energy emitted by the Rossi contraption has not been observed either, except in conditions controlled by Rossi himself. Now this has been going on for years and years, like every other "free energy" scam, and in spite of promise after promise, we have nothing to show for it. It is a delusion, and if Rossi's collecting money, it's a fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom