TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Rossi Low Energy Nuclear Reaction confirmed? « Scientific Information « Technology
 
Sun, 26 Feb 2012, 7:55pm #3751
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

...just perhaps an intolerance of people shooting off their mouths in a negative fashion...

Sounds pretty hostile to me.

As I keep saying, I have no idea whether it works or not, and no reason to adopt a pro or anti position.

I will wait and see. Arguing about it in the way it is conducted here with people brandishing hearsay at each other is a waste of time.

Offline


Sun, 26 Feb 2012, 8:15pm #3752
Psi
EExpert
Registered: Dec, 2008
Last visit: Sun, 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 144

Tec wrote:

...just perhaps an intolerance of people shooting off their mouths in a negative fashion...

Sounds pretty hostile to me.

As I keep saying, I have no idea whether it works or not, and no reason to adopt a pro or anti position.

I will wait and see. Arguing about it in the way it is conducted here with people brandishing hearsay at each other is a waste of time.

Sorry you feel that way. I think that public conversation should be governed by a kind of civility that includes an awareness not only of the greater good but a desire for authentic knowledge. And do you know something? You may never have thought of it this way, but future shift happens.

Knowledge is not something that you learned in a book as a Freshman in college. It lives and breaths, growing and changing, finding out that what we believed ten years ago, fifty years ago, two hundred years ago, four hundred years ago, is not quite right or even entirely untrue. The Sun does not rotate around the earth. Slavery is not good. The continents do ride on tectonic plates. Cold fusion is real.

Too many people participating in discussions about alternative energy on the internet seem to think that they are god's gift to the future, while heaping a continual stream of abuse on anyone is actually even trying to bring about an improvement in human life through the reform of today's moribund, profiteering, ecologically retrograde energy system.

We all know there are scams. We don't need to be reminded of that fact. But sometimes there's also something called progress. Our job is to try to distinguish one from the other. In this thread (of which I have admittedly only sampled given its great length -- which is *itself* a testimony that something of importance may be happening here) I've seen a depressing amount of a priori character assassinations of Mr. Rossi and not nearly enough gathering of factual information from other internet sources that would actually help the participants to make an informed judgement about how to assess Rossi's claims, or those of Defkalion, or of MIT, NASA, or SRI. That is what the bright technical minds on this forum should be helping us do. The blithe cliche of ringing changes on the "since I don't believe in it, it doesn't exist" is getting tiresome.

Opposing LENR because you don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion is fine as long as you don't start accusing anyone of fraud. At that point, as far as I am concerned, you are at the limits of responsible exercise of free speech. Like I said, Tec, nothing personal.

>exit, soapbox.


Surfing the Energy debate

Offline
Sun, 26 Feb 2012, 8:31pm #3753
Oakthicket
EESUrient
Zombatar_1
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 22 Jun 2013
Posts: 2087

Psi wrote:


Everything Rossi says has merrit. I see many trying take these statements and twist them into garbage but it only makes them look like idiots.

I think Skeptics are getting pissed that Rossi, without any Physics degree, is consistantly shooting every skeptic claim down, and handily at that.

The Only thing left in the Skeptic "bag of tricks" is the fact that Rossi will Not give the demo skeptics want.

it is hilarious, Cry as you might, Rossi has you over the barrel.

Sesla, I have to agree. Rossi is acting like a man who knows exactly what he is doing, no small feat given the stakes involved here. Unfailingly polite to any honest person, he called a certain lapdog a "snake." When the snake attributed to a third party the story that Rossi was no longer working with National Instruments, he thought to get his revenge. Imagine everyone's surprise when, in the space of two days 1) Rossi says, yes, its true, we are no longer working with NI -- adding that he thought they were a fine company and that he and his people had been "taught many things" by NI, and hoped to work with them in the future, but that his customer for the 1 MW plants preferred another supplier with whom they had an established relation....gosh, who could *that* be? 2) Blogger calls NI and says, "how do you feel? Have you thrown in the towel on Rossi." NI spokeswoman says, we are very pleased to be working on LENR projects, have great respect for Mr. Rossi, and if you want to know what our relationship with him is like, please see [link to Rossi's original statement]. The snake got bit on its ass.

Its time for Y_Po to take some time out for a beer. Maybe Tec can join him with some textbooks on LENR and they can build us an E-cat that runs on Guinness and generates electricity for the EE-Su.

I always laugh at the mental manipulations true believers have to go through to twist things in their vain efforts to justify their superstitious belief in magic.

In terms of National Instruments, Rossi was caught being deceitful (once again). When this happens he pulls his usual stunt of 'coming clean'.

The Krivit report stated that National Instruments wasn't working with Rossi. That's true.

Rossi stated that he no longer was working with National Instruments. Also true. He would have said nothing, letting his true-believer nutsos continue believing he had a continuing relationship with NI. He couldn't do that because Krivit exposed him.

Previously, Rossi stated that he was in technical collaboration with National Instruments. That's deceitful. Many folks assumed that there was some kind of partnership between Rossi and NI. That was never the case.

Rossi said he was working with National Instruments on eCat development. That's deceitful. NI explained their products to Rossi, like any company trying to sell its goods.

Rossi had discussions with National Instruments. He was a potential customer for their products. That's it. There was no more, despite the yearnings of true believers.


Cherish what is most important in your life - family and loved ones.

Offline
Sun, 26 Feb 2012, 10:21pm #3754
Taylor
EEager
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 280

Question to Rossi:

[from]Enio Burgos
February 26th, 2012 at 6:24 PM
Mr. A. Rossi,
Wladimir Guglinski is a friend, I am from Brazil too, and I´d like to order one ecat (10 kW), please. Is it possible? Please, let know how to do…
Thank you, best wishes.
Enio Burgos
Rossi's answer:
[from]Andrea Rossi
Dear Enio Burgos:
Your pre-order has been accepted, Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Isn't it interesting how Oakthicket, Krivit and the rest of the scam-believers conspirists are unable to stop people from continuing to order units from Rossi?

Last edited Sun, 26 Feb 2012, 10:55pm by Taylor

Offline
Sun, 26 Feb 2012, 11:10pm #3755
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

It is because there is so many now confirming Ni/H LANR is real.

skeptics are sucking hind tit. getting left in the dust. while this phenomena is moving forward.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 12:37am #3756
mjtimber
EEcclesiastical
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 1392

seslaprime wrote:

It is because there is so many now confirming Ni/H LANR is real.

skeptics are sucking hind tit. getting left in the dust. while this phenomena is moving forward.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMUzLfooCR4wWFs1n-kBZvSAdvKzaw3uEAe_9xmHexlUR2L73n

How many chickens are there in this basket?


41 Rating - CAUTION - Abusive Poster

29,209,543,309x EESU Now Possible! (Rounded for Simplicity)

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 12:55am #3757
EEventually
EExhilarating
Ninjaneer
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 13 Dec 2013
Posts: 3696

Much of this could have been avoided if Rossi had respected the long-standing convention for using the best possible calorimetry methodology for his demonstrations. He chose to wave off these concerns and the cast him in a poor light.


“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”- Michael Crichton

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 2:20am #3758
wasmaba
Administrator
Religion_peaceful
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 20 Jul 2014
Posts: 2729

Eh, perhaps calorimetry is important.

EEventually wrote:

Much of this could have been avoided if Rossi had respected the long-standing convention for using the best possible calorimetry methodology for his demonstrations. He chose to wave off these concerns and the cast him in a poor light.

EEventually wrote:

They have enough evidence of an effect that exceeds chemical energy levels but is not as high as traditional nuclear reactions. I think there's something to it. If Roosi indeed has something, it is by serendipity because he obviously doesn't have the backgroud in calorimetry to hang with the rest of the crowd trying to characterize LENR.

EEventually wrote:

you could get really favorable results by having the inlet thermocouple have less insulation and the outlet have great insulation.

I could do it here at the house. Just put a thicker more lossy sheath in the inlet, run my how water through a well insulated bottle, then have a thin wire low mass thermocouple on the outlet. Presto, 4-5C delta-T, no power added at all.

The temperature sensing needs to be identical sensors, identical insulation, identical piping size and material. Something simple like using stainless piping in and aluminum piping out will produce a delta-T on the instrumentation.

I would want to know exact details like this to trust any calorimetry here.

I've been calculating heat balances on water based systems for over 30 years, starting with Naval nuclear systems. It would be easy to choose witnesses without the proper background, it would be easy to manipulate apparently subtle variables to get a favorable result.

I'm not saying this is being done, just that a strict attention to detail is required to get a believable data set.

EEventually wrote:

ElePhant in the room here... If you are going to demonstrate lenr, the first thing you need to become highly skilled at is calorimetry. There is little evidence of that here.

EEventually wrote:

I think it is important to make the distinction between the dueterium - palladium reaction and what is going on with the Rossi reaction. If you look at the people following up on Pons-Fleischman, they are being very careful with calorimetry. These people ARE observing an excess heat effect that has been audited by calorimetry experts who have reported satisfactory measurement techniques. None of the theories have been fundamentally proven but the excess heat is not being argued with the previous vigor because as a general rule, LENR researchers have become calorimetry experts as a prerequisite to getting any grants, for good reason. This is embarrassingly non-evident in Rossi's demonstrations but perhaps Rossi feels that the higher power output his device shows is beyond the lab level and doesn't really require lab level attention to detail. This is a mistake on his part. If he is ready to publicize his commercialization of the effect, he should bring the judges to his lab level proofing where the possibility of unambiguous calorimetry is much easier.

we really don't need a detailed theory of mechanism here, just a confidence in metrology. Rossi thinks he can skip over that and have engineers to simply go along with it. He is mistaken. He should take us back to the lab and step us along the history of progress that led up to this point.

Lens, you shouldn't lump all these things together into the same category. You do yourself a disservice by failing diligence towards the difference in approaches. Your sweeping rejection of things reminds me of TEC.

EEventually wrote:

Essentially this device is a meter cheater.

...which experts in calorimetry would be aware of. LENR researchers have become some of the most skeptical and vigorous practitioners in this field because of its own history.


EEventually wrote:

My point is that careful calorimetry is important.

The very basics of LENR calorimetry

Even if ECAT is NOT LENR, doesn't matter at all what the mechanism is. If you are trying to prove a thermal excess, you should approach thermal measurement very carefully. We both agree that this has not been done. even LENR experts must be shaking their heads at this "demonstration."

EEventually wrote:

Dutchie wrote:

What is the problem? It works! The customer tested it and bought the product! The science can follow later...
The problem I was answering was the misunderstanding of the primary differences between fission, hot fusion, and LENR. I've kept an open mind although Rossi has been consistently doing some pretty slipshod calorimetry. The simple fact that it takes almost a half megawatt to give a convincing demonstration should tell you alot about his real motivation towards giving proof.

EEventually wrote:

few thousands fusion events is absolutely impossible to measure through conventional calorimetry (measuring heat), amount of heat is in the order of nanojoules.
True. I think the reaction rate is higher than that.

Looking for resulting isotopes/transmutation is also impossible. The only way to detect fusion at such low level is gamma or neutron emission.
Also true but have we seen radiation spectrum yet, gamma/beta/alpha/neutron? Nope. We don't know if it's "low energy nuclear" or "high energy chemical." It really doesn't matter. Radiation is radiation whether its AM radio or one of the huge >10MeV gammas from Na-20. The fact that nature has avoided bridging that huge energy gap in the way matter interacts might be more about our place in nature. We have very specific and narrow E/M/gravity fields in our environment. This is a vary small subset of the range the universe provides.


EEStor’s legitimacy is a job for Carl Sagan and Sherlock Holmes. Times are a changing.
http://theeestory.com/posts/47263 TY B,TV,Nekote. http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 2:37am #3759
Fibb
EExhilarating
Head_asplode_plus
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 29 Aug 2014
Posts: 3401

#3 was


The time has come to demonstrate that ZENN is on the right path Romney/Ryan 2012

Dick Weir will not go quietly in the night.... - FMA

My grandkids won't know what it means to put gas or diesel in a car.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 2:46am #3760
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Taylor wrote:

I bought a cord of wood for my fireplace last fall. Gee, if I didn't pay for that wood then would that be free energy?

It seems to me the actual cost of Rossi's E-cat energy will be the cost of the consumables, the cost of the E-cat reactor, the cost of the pumps, pipes, electronics, unit assemble, shipping and etc. Also include the profit for the companies that will produce these products. With competition it will get cheaper, but it will not be free.

If you didn't Believe, with a capital B, that it will be so close to "FREE ENERGY!!" as makes no difference, then you wouldn't be making hundreds of posts on the subject.

If someone gave you a free cord of wood, would that get you excited enough to invest lots of money in a scammer's scheme to provide people with (almost) free firewood?

Seems rather unlikely.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 2:50am #3761
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Taylor wrote:

Isn't it interesting how Oakthicket, Krivit and the rest of the scam-believers conspirists are unable to stop people from continuing to order units from Rossi?

So far as I know, every customer who has received an E-Cat exists only in the imagination of stubbornly credulous Believers like you.

But go ahead and prove me wrong: Name at least one customer who has actually taken delivery of a working E-Cat.

You know, an actual name. And not some vague hint like "Some organization beginning with the letter 'N'."


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:09am #3762
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Psi wrote:

We all know there are scams. We don't need to be reminded of that fact.

Obviously some people do need to be reminded that every single claim for "FREE ENERGY!!", for hundreds or thousands of years, has always turned out to be mistake, delusion, or fraud.

Psi wrote:

But sometimes there's also something called progress. Our job is to try to distinguish one from the other. In this thread (of which I have admittedly only sampled...

Then clearly you haven't read much of this thread, since enough evidence has been presented ten times over to cause any reasonable to think Rossi appears to be a fraud.

Psi wrote:

...given its great length -- which is *itself* a testimony that something of importance may be happening here)

Yes, it's a testament to how powerful self-delusion is. It's so powerful that even when some people are told directly and clearly that something is a scam, and they are shown proof which any reasonable person ought to find convincing, they nevertheless continue to defend the scammer because they so desperately want to Believe in "FREE ENERGY!!"

An interesting case study in psychology. Not physics.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 4:36am #3763
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

EEv wrote:

These people ARE observing an excess heat effect that has been audited by calorimetry experts who have reported satisfactory measurement techniques. None of the theories have been fundamentally proven but the excess heat is not being argued with the previous vigor because as a general rule, LENR researchers have become calorimetry experts as a prerequisite to getting any grants, for good reason.

I agree (BTW) with wasmaba's reprint of your points re Rossi. I'll add one. The Levi 18 hour experiment claiming high Q with in/out temperatures of 7C/11C can similarly be explained by insulation on output sensor being less good than input. but really the ways to go wrong in calorimetry are very many and various - Rossi claims positive results under conditions it would be trivial to get erroneous results.

I agree also that there is excess heat from these reactions. Enough people have reviewed teh data and commented on this.

I don't agree there is excess heat that indicates non-chemical source. (Metal lattices loaded with H or D are complex, and the chemical phenomena are not fully understood, so the chances for energy release beyond that expected are pretty good).

I don't agree that difference between H and D in results indicates nuclear, since H and D have different chemical properties due to 100% difference in mass. Also attempts to correlate heat with other D+D reaction products (He3, gamma) have failed. This is not negative enough to rule out clear experimental data with high levels of heat excess. But negative enough to make even very clear differences between H and D likely chemical not nuclear.

I have not seen any of these results with good calorimetry that indicate excess heat beyond that plausible via chemical effects. I would be interested in any that you thought did that?

In absence of such results there is a phenomena - heat from metal lattices loaded with D or maybe H - that deserves further investigation but no strong evidence for nuclear reactions. Since these are inherently unlikely (difference in energy scales) they would not be the preferred theory without definite evidence.

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 4:47am by ee-tom


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 5:05am #3764
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

psi wrote:

In this thread (of which I have admittedly only sampled given its great length -- which is *itself* a testimony that something of importance may be happening here) I've seen a depressing amount of a priori character assassinations of Mr. Rossi

Rossi had documented dubious character before making LENR claims
and not nearly enough gathering of factual information from other internet sources that would actually help the participants to make an informed judgement about how to assess Rossi's claims, or those of Defkalion,

The point is that Rossi & Defkalion, unlike all the other LENR people, claim things which if true could be easily demonstrated as provably something new. Too much enbergy for anything chemical.

That is why this thread is so long. The other LENR stuff is mired in possibility of experimental error, alternate explanations for excess heat, etc.

In this context Rossi's a priori bad character, and bad behaviour over his claims, are all highly relevant.

or of MIT, NASA, or SRI. That is what the bright technical minds on this forum should be helping us do.

I agree. Evaluating this stuff is important. It is highly unclear that such an evaluation leads to positive results.

The theories proposed are essentially unfalsifiable, because in absence of an understood mechanism any negative result can be explained as needing very specific but unknown conditions not met.

How long, in that case, should people go on evaluating them? Probably we come back to it whenever significant new evidence is claimed. Like Rossi.

The blithe cliche of ringing changes on the "since I don't believe in it, it doesn't exist" is getting tiresome.

Well yes, but no more tiresome than the equally strong "I do believe it, so it is true".
Opposing LENR because you don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion is fine as long as you don't start accusing anyone of fraud.

The difficulty here is that when people make almost certainly untrue claims we cannot usually determine whether there is fraud. But it is still proper to point out that the possibility of fraud is more likely than the claims being true, if this is the case.

You don't have to be scientifically informed to do this. Lens is not so, but notes that claims of this general class have been made many times before and always turned out false.

At that point, as far as I am concerned, you are at the limits of responsible exercise of free speech. Like I said, Tec, nothing personal.

Free speech must include the right to question dubious claims. If a parties behaviour fits may previous cases where fraud has ocurred, it is proper to point that out. You don't have to say fraud is certain.

The reverse argument is poisonous. It goes: I can't think how Rossi's claims could be false, given all he has said, without Rossi being a fraud. I cannot prove him a fraud. Therefore his claims must be likely.

You can see why this is disliked on this thread.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 5:13am #3765
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

The negative side here is just saying: Rossi has no strong evidence, therefore we think his claims untrue.

Similarly (though less strikingly) for other LENR claims.

It is not saying, we can prove Rossi false, or we can prove Rossi a fraud. The claims are so extravagant that such proof is not needed to reckon them highly unlikely. And given the secrecy proving such claims false is always difficult. A lot of the other stuff Rossi has said has been proved false.

But Rossi annoys a lot of people, both those who support other LENR claims and those who don't, because he makes claims with much less evidence even than the other LENR people. Of course, his claims are more striking, and he is on all accounts a personally convincing person so they gain a lot of publicity.

You can see the injustice from the point of view of somone doing LENR research.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 9:34am #3766
CaptainObvious
EEager
Duh-duh1233387823
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 346

Rossi talks about working with Siemens on electricity generation with the energy catalyzer

Ecat World interviewed Rossi and published the notes

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/rossi-talks-ab...

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 9:49am #3767
Taylor
EEager
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 280

Lensman wrote:

Taylor wrote:

I bought a cord of wood for my fireplace last fall. Gee, if I didn't pay for that wood then would that be free energy?

It seems to me the actual cost of Rossi's E-cat energy will be the cost of the consumables, the cost of the E-cat reactor, the cost of the pumps, pipes, electronics, unit assemble, shipping and etc. Also include the profit for the companies that will produce these products. With competition it will get cheaper, but it will not be free.

If you didn't Believe, with a capital B, that it will be so close to "FREE ENERGY!!" as makes no difference, then you wouldn't be making hundreds of posts on the subject.

If someone gave you a free cord of wood, would that get you excited enough to invest lots of money in a scammer's scheme to provide people with (almost) free firewood?

Seems rather unlikely.

Wrong: I did not say not almost free wood, I said free wood and meant "free" firewood. 8ball's post(which you omitted) stated "free energy" not almost free. You are twisting everyone's words around....

So, I take your above post as more proof of your back-peddling, where you are no longer claiming the E-cat is "perpetual motion". You are in fact that there are consumables being consumed the E-cat device. If you are no longer claiming "perpetual motion", as you did hundreds of previous posts, then this is indeed a paradigm shift.

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 10:47am by Taylor

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 9:57am #3768
korkskrew
EErudite
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 79

mjtimber wrote:

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMUzLfooCR4wWFs1n-kBZvSAdvKzaw3uEAe_9xmHexlUR2L73n

How many chickens are there in this basket?
All of them?

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 12:00pm #3769
Oakthicket
EESUrient
Zombatar_1
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 22 Jun 2013
Posts: 2087

korkskrew wrote:

mjtimber wrote:

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMUzLfooCR4wWFs1n-kBZvSAdvKzaw3uEAe_9xmHexlUR2L73n

How many chickens are there in this basket?
All of them?

Chickens or egg on someones face.


Cherish what is most important in your life - family and loved ones.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 12:32pm #3770
parallel
EEluminated
Registered: Aug, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 682

ee-tom

The Levi 18 hour experiment claiming high Q with in/out temperatures of 7C/11C can similarly be explained by insulation on output sensor being less good than input.

Your pseudo science sounds plausible on first sight. But as I have already pointed out, for the 18 hour experiment the instrumentation would have been set up before firing up the E-Cat. If the insulation on the input & output thermocouples (or the thermal connection between couple and pipe) was indeed different this would have shown up as a difference in temperature between the two. Levi would not throw his career away with such an elementary mistake.

This only leaves fraud as an explanation. In which case, why don’t the skeptics show some proof of Rossi seeking gullible investors or indeed just who has given him money. Who has been swindled?

That Rossi hasn’t got a “proper degree” is another frequently repeated blunder and ad hominem by those who can’t be bothered to do their homework and make up things as they go along.

When Rossi was 19 and 20 years old he was in college and played in sports 8 hours a day. He won the “Italian Champion of road race” at 20 and the “junior world record of 24 hour race” at 19. At the University of Milan, Rossi majored in Physical Science and Chemistry and then went on to study Philosophy under Professor Ludovico Geymonat and in 1973 when he was 23 he graduated with a degree in Philosophy.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 12:34pm #3771
jnissen
EElevated
Homer
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 16 May 2012
Posts: 472

CaptainObvious wrote:

Rossi talks about working with Siemens on electricity generation with the energy catalyzer

Ecat World interviewed Rossi and published the notes

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/rossi-talks-ab...

OK one more association that is meaningless. Rossi's associations tend to be what ever he ran across at the time. If I were a sales person for Siemens I would certainly talk to anyone who is into boiling water and creating steam! For Rossi to claim it's anything more than this is ludicrous.


Jim

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 12:39pm #3772
parallel
EEluminated
Registered: Aug, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 682

For Rossi to claim it's anything more than this is ludicrous.

For you to suggest Rossi has claimed this is anything more than Siemens showing him a possible solution for power from low temperature steam, is what is ludicrous.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 1:12pm #3773
Futureman Almighty
EErudite
Egg_on_face
Registered: Jan, 2011
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 85

Look Lens, MIT/NASA among other are all falling for a "perpetual motion" scam. [/Snark}

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/...

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 1:30pm #3774
CaptainObvious
EEager
Duh-duh1233387823
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 346

Defkalion tests should be done by tomorrow I suppose.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:02pm #3775
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

parallel wrote:

ee-tom
The Levi 18 hour experiment claiming high Q with in/out temperatures of 7C/11C can similarly be explained by insulation on output sensor being less good than input.

Your pseudo science sounds plausible on first sight. But as I have already pointed out, for the 18 hour experiment the instrumentation would have been set up before firing up the E-Cat. If the insulation on the input & output thermocouples (or the thermal connection between couple and pipe) was indeed different this would have shown up as a difference in temperature between the two. Levi would not throw his career away with such an elementary mistake.

This only leaves fraud as an explanation. In which case, why don’t the skeptics show some proof of Rossi seeking gullible investors or indeed just who has given him money. Who has been swindled?

That Rossi hasn’t got a “proper degree” is another frequently repeated blunder and ad hominem by those who can’t be bothered to do their homework and make up things as they go along.

When Rossi was 19 and 20 years old he was in college and played in sports 8 hours a day. He won the “Italian Champion of road race” at 20 and the “junior world record of 24 hour race” at 19. At the University of Milan, Rossi majored in Physical Science and Chemistry and then went on to study Philosophy under Professor Ludovico Geymonat and in 1973 when he was 23 he graduated with a degree in Philosophy.

Parallel. You are making a lot of strong assumptions here, on little evidence. I do not. It is the difference. Why do you think there is no careful writeup from Levi? In the absence of this I don't think his report threatens his career any more than Kullander's did his. Even with it, I doubt any threat.

As for Rossi. A degree in philosophy has about zero relevance. The physical science and chemistry qualification I have not examined. If real it makes the many technical mistakes on his blog look deliberate, don't you think? But my guess (from his mistakes) is that if you check the syllabus and/or Rossi's grades that he learnt very little physics and chemistry.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:10pm #3776
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

Futureman Almighty wrote:

Look Lens, MIT/NASA among other are all falling for a "perpetual motion" scam. [/Snark}


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/...

The rewards are so great that it is not surprising (and it is proper) for a few people to look at LENR. It has been like that for 20 years, but fashion come and go and this one is currently suffering Rossi circus inflation.

All that means is there is no innate bias in the scientific establishment against LENR. At least in the case of NASA it is clearly one or two scientists who personally have high hopes (and who see massive rewards, must be a strong inducement). It does not make the chances of it working high.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:26pm #3777
parallel
EEluminated
Registered: Aug, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 682

ee-tom.

Parallel. You are making a lot of strong assumptions here, on little evidence. I do not. It is the difference. Why do you think there is no careful writeup from Levi? In the absence of this I don't think his report threatens his career any more than Kullander's did his. Even with it, I doubt any threat.

As for Rossi. A degree in philosophy has about zero relevance. The physical science and chemistry qualification I have not examined. If real it makes the many technical mistakes on his blog look deliberate, don't you think? But my guess (from his mistakes) is that if you check the syllabus and/or Rossi's grades that he learnt very little physics and chemistry.

If my assumption is "strong" that is because common sense tells you it is correct. Have you ever heard of anyone doing an experiment like this without turning the instrumentation on first?

A degree in philosophy has about zero relevance.
More of your pseudo science. Do your homework about the degree Rossi obtained at the university of Milan before making your asinine statement that it has zero relevance.

What have you got against the man that you keep attacking him and making up these stories? This isn't keeping an open mind, it is simply being nasty like some of the trolls here.

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 5:38pm #3778
DGDanforth
EESUrient
Palosparkfallavatar
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Sat, 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 2484

ee-tom wrote:

Futureman Almighty wrote:

Look Lens, MIT/NASA among other are all falling for a "perpetual motion" scam. [/Snark}


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/...

The rewards are so great that it is not surprising (and it is proper) for a few people to look at LENR. It has been like that for 20 years, but fashion come and go and this one is currently suffering Rossi circus inflation.

All that means is there is no innate bias in the scientific establishment against LENR. At least in the case of NASA it is clearly one or two scientists who personally have high hopes (and who see massive rewards, must be a strong inducement). It does not make the chances of it working high.

Here is my pseudo science comment: Humans are great at doing improbable things. That is, they seem to be entropy reducers (in the small, not in the large). As such things that 'nature' doesn't usually do (but can happen) can be amplified by humans to much higher probabilities.

Whether LANR is one of them is TBD.


EEStor Hopeful.

"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler" A. Einstein
"Alas, simplicity is rarely simple" curiositEE

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 6:05pm #3779
EEventually
EExhilarating
Ninjaneer
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 13 Dec 2013
Posts: 3696

If the insulation on the input & output thermocouples (or the thermal connection between couple and pipe) was indeed different this would have shown up as a difference in temperature between the two.

Sure, if you assume constant error, independent of temperature. Take note here folks, this is why calorimetry is easy in theory and hard in practice.


“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”- Michael Crichton

Offline
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 7:01pm #3780
hoarybat
EEndearing
Registered: Dec, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 862

Domestic E-Cats sorry if this is a repost

Design and testing of the domestic E-Cat is now complete, and the focus is now on the robotized production line in the US factory. REALLY? So far, Rossi said they have not come up against any obstacles, and work is on schedule. Rossi hopes to start selling products this winter (when it is cold in the Northern Hemisphere), but allows that it is possible that delays could push that back to 16-18 months from now.

E-gad how does this stuff sound plausible to anyone> I thought you walk slowly/quietly and carry a big stick?

He said the product design and testing is over and their focus is now on building the automated (robotized) production line. Gee this sounds like EEstor...

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 7:14pm by hoarybat


Lensman Scale: 2 taking too long based on earlier promise/claims.

Offline