< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
|Oct-16-14|| ||Nickster: Prof Stephan Pomp is one Rossi's most vocal critic. Today he comes out swinging and he does make some good points:|
I wonder if/how Rossi will respond.
It should be noted that Stephan Pomp was invited to be one of the Professors doing the test on the E-Cat. He refused.
|Oct-16-14|| ||Boomie: <However, I think that even Rossi agrees that the isotope results indicate that something fishy is going on.>|
Notice that in the "experiment", Rossi was the only one who handled the powder. I suspect that he switched to the powder with altered isotopes. But as luck would have it, that powder wasn't quite correct, which explains the discrepancies.
Until this experiment is performed by independent labs, there is no reason to waste speculation on it.
|Oct-16-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-16-14
member Boomie: ...
Until this experiment is performed by independent labs, there is no reason to waste speculation on it.>Quite clear, and re-testing should address all the issues raised in McKubre's review. As for me it was interesting to learn from the discussion that SPP ("surface plasmon polariton") can apparently produce nuclear reactions. They say that Violante discovered it over 10 years ago and that the paper is on LENR-CANR ( I guess http://lenr-canr.org/ ).
|Oct-17-14|| ||Nickster: <Boomie: Until this experiment is performed by independent labs, there is no reason to waste speculation on it.>|
Since Rossi holds the ingredients of the catalyst so secret all anyone can do is speculate. Both believers and the skeptics are doing nothing but speculating for the last few years.
This last report was to end all that. Finally some data to work with. But it seems that it has raised more questions than it has answered.
I wish that it had been a different group of Prof this time around. I wish that the long time skeptic Prof Stephan Pomp was among them. If I remember correctly he refused because he did not want to sign a non-disclosure agreement. So we wait. Once again.
While there has been doubt cast on the ash sample the skeptics have yet to explain 'conclusively' on the incredible heat gain.
|Oct-17-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-17-14
member Nickster: <Boomie: Until this experiment is performed by independent labs, there is no reason to waste speculation on it.>.....
While there has been doubt cast on the ash sample the skeptics have yet to explain 'conclusively' on the incredible heat gain.>Since experts have calculated that "heat gain" cannot be explained with chemical reaction of any kind, either calorimetry has to be found inadequate or both, "heat gain" AND "isotopic shifts" (LENR) have to be independently reproduced in order to justify Rossi's claims. Funny, that E-Cat leaks coincide with Lockheed announcements on compact fusion reactors. Money apparently started "to flow" and IMO Rockefeller's abandoning of oil business is somewhat "too coincidental".
|Oct-17-14|| ||yskid: I did not know, but it seems that LENR is accepted scientific fact.|
|Oct-17-14|| ||Nickster: <Alain Coetmeur> recently commented on a site called Nasa Watch:|
He mentioned the article you just linked to by Edmund Storms among others. The response he got is typical:
AlainCo, you misunderstand how science works. There may well be 153+ reports of excess heat in the peer-reviewed literature, but that does not mean the reports are correct: any effect that is not easily replicated and that may simply be a result of experimental error will accumulate a number of "positive" reports, in large part because those who get negative results don't bother to publish. This is not a numbers game and not every paper published is correct. And the onus is on those claiming an effect to prove it unequivocally by publishing replicable recipes and/or credible theoretical models, not on the sceptics who doubt to disprove the claims.>
You see <153+ reports of excess heat in the peer-reviewed literature> is just not enough. Lol.
|Oct-18-14|| ||Tiggler: <yskid: I did not know, but it seems that LENR is accepted scientific fact.>|
I think you would have to find it in other places than the web server you cite to support the idea it is "accepted".
|Oct-18-14|| ||Tiggler: <You see <153+ reports of excess heat in the peer-reviewed literature> is just not enough. Lol.>|
Most peer-reviewed literature contains errors, sometime egregious ones. Whenever I am asked to review a paper, I find errors in it, and many of them are repeated from previously published work. If that is true of peer-reviewed literature, you can be pretty sure that work that is not peer-reviewed is total garbage.
|Oct-18-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-18-14
member Tiggler: <You see <153+ reports of excess heat in the peer-reviewed literature> is just not enough. Lol.>
Most peer-reviewed literature contains ><Oct-17-14
member Nickster: <Alain Coetmeur> recently commented on a site called Nasa Watch:
He mentioned the article you just....
You see <153+ reports of excess heat in the peer-reviewed literature> is just not enough. Lol.>Thanks folks for the enlightenment. This is almost depressing. I'm glad I did not go to science.
|Oct-18-14|| ||Tiggler: <yskid> It should not be depressing. Science still has standards and ethics that Wall Street, Capitol Hill, journalism, and health professions have no clue about|
|Oct-18-14|| ||Tiggler: Of course I am not including social science, psychology or atmospheric science. Those are all full of bogus claims and unproven doctrine.|
|Oct-18-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-18-14
member Tiggler: <yskid> It should not be depressing. Science still has standards and ethics that Wall Street, Capitol Hill, journalism, and health professions have no clue about>From Canadian perspective, I find it interesting that you include health professions in that group. Talking about physicians only, they have IMO satisfactory ethics here, just like engineers and are well "supervised" by their "College". Wall Street, IMHO, seems something like a "flea market" for corporations and those have to behave by some legal code but they do not have "code of ethics" equivalent to certain professions including, as you point out science (I still prefer engineering, it is sufficiently rewarding, at least was mine, scientific appetite).
|Oct-18-14|| ||yskid: On the other hand. Although web sites are biased one way or another perhaps there are parts that deserve attention. E.g. I got to the Edmund Storm's "Guide" after reading at Vortex the post http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-... which mentions "sonic bubbles collapse" experiments at Oak Ridge. The same effect is also mentioned in Edmund Storms's Guide. I knew, from some Physical Chemistry books from 1950s/60s about "sonoluminescence" discovered some times before WW II, and it's one of those things with what contemporary science "then & now" is "helpless". Such things immediately catch my attention because I'm interested only in finding what's update in such a field and of course Oak Ridge gives some reassurance. However, follow up is apparently NOT supported well, so the advancement dies out. WHY is not supported? If Maria Sklodowska Currie did not follow up on her findings where would we be today??|
|Oct-19-14|| ||DanLanglois: <Nickster: <yskid> I am glad you're still following this story. The more you read the more you'll realize that all this is quite complex. One cannot simply dismiss this report.> |
I realize perfectly well that one can simply dismiss this report.
I also notice this:
<Nickster: <Tiggler> That test may convince you but the skeptics will always find a flaw or claim fraud.>
Interesting blind spot there..totally ignoring the first of two possibilities:
<Tiggler: What would get me convinced about this device? Two possibilities: 1. Demonstration of some new physics that would allow the performance to be explained and predicted. I would be more excited by that than by the promise of a new abundant energy source.
2. Perform a convincing calorimetric test including:..>
Some kind of theory would make this so much easier to not mock mercilessly. I mean, so-called 'skeptics' were around, objecting to Einstein's stuff, but the situation is not analogous for this reason.
I think it's all a perfectly edifying exercise, in philosophy of science and if that fails, then it's a perfectly edifying exercise in psychology of conspiratorialism. I have announced in the past, that I'm willing to humor chicks to get laid. There are some very attractive flaky chicks in L.A., I have experience w/the dilemma.
I'm not perhaps above running a con. Perhaps it is that unattractive side of my personality, and not merely my quite palpably superior intelligence, that allows me to see this for what it is. There are, perhaps, kinds of intelligence (and I have what we may call 'evil-mastermind' intelligence -- too bad I haven't found a constructive use for it because I almost start to feel guilty about not finding an evil use for it).
|Oct-19-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-19-14 DanLanglois: <Nickster: <yskid> I am glad you're still following this story. The more you read the more you'll realize that all this is quite complex. One cannot simply dismiss this report.>|
I realize perfectly well that one can simply dismiss this report.....>Levi's report is seriously flawed and the flaws have been systematically listed and posted (McKubre). However, to dismiss the report or press for re-test and confirmation, as well as "following the story", is a matter of personal interest and reason. I'm wondering however, what is your stance on LENR in general?
|Oct-19-14|| ||Nickster: A scathing article was written by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel recently:|
Frank Acland of E-Cat world sums it up:
<He sums up his suspicions about the test with five major objections
1. The E-Cat was plugged into an external power source throughout the test. That would be necessary to verify that the E-Cat was producing its own energy.
2. The test used an ‘open’ rather than a ‘closed’ calorimetry measurement system, leaving heat measurements questionable.
3. No gamma radiation was measured coming from the E-Cat, which would be expected if a nuclear reaction was taking place.
4. If nuclear fusion of nickel is occurring, there is no copper reported in the ash, which should be expected according to known reactions.
5. The test was not independent. Rossi participated, and the team was known to him, and friendly.>
The usual stuff. Point 5 insinuates fraud. So far, for me, Michael McKubre's review is the most comprehensive:
I am surprised that the authors of this report have not defended themselves yet. Furthermore the owners of this technology, Industrial Heat, continue to be silent.
|Oct-20-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-19-14
member Nickster: A scathing article was written by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel recently:.....>Thx. I think Siegel's review is complementary to McKubre's (although not so cordial) and Rossi should be responsive. I went to this site http://scienceblogs.com/startswitha... where the replies to Siegel are posted. It is interesting to read them. AlainCo has some links in his elaborations which are IMO worth to follow. He complains that "scientific community ignores proofs of LENRs" and actually Stephen Pomp, although critical of E-Cat does not really disapprove this complaint.
|Oct-20-14|| ||Nickster: <yskid> Yes I read the commentary. You'll notice after a while that it's usually the same gang commenting on both sides of the debate.|
<I think Siegel's review is complementary to McKubre's (although not so cordial) and Rossi should be responsive.>
I would prefer Industrial Heat or the authors to comment. Rossi used to be very outspoken (too much) before he was bought out. It has been speculated that he is being censored/monitored on his JONP blog. I guess by the new owners. He sometimes posts and then quickly the post is removed. This happens from time to time. Fortunately there is a website that archives ALL his posts before they're removed:
|Oct-20-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-20-14
member Nickster: <yskid> Yes I read the commentary. You'll notice after a while that it's usually the same gang commenting on both sides of the debate.......>Interesting (IMHO)monograph, rather comprehensive, about quantum mechanical theories evolving around LENR and Cold Fusion field (privately funded)
It seems that Nuclear Physics Journal is the way to follow on "what's going on". I doubt Industrial Heat will be "outspoken" about the issue.
|Oct-20-14|| ||Nickster: One last post before I go. Just so you know who this 'Raman' Rossi is referring to on JONP:|
Your comment is a typical example of the effects of the stupidities made by fake experts like “Raman”, that act as Professors, but lack the foundamentals of Physics, Electronics and Electrotechnics. The effects are that persons like you, clearly missing a professional understanding of the matter, instead of reading seriously a Report written by 6 Professors with a life dedicated to Science and Physics in particular, read the stupidities of imbeciles with an agenda and make us loose time to answer to absurd objections. I am not angry at you, you are just a candid non-expert-person, I am angry because every stupidity gets attention and we, honestly, do not have the time to answer. As you have perhaps read, I already suggested as a reference the wonderful book “Electronics for Dummies” to the “Prof” you got inspiration from, but he does not listen to me and continues to repeat the same stupidities.
The coils of the reactor are made with a proptietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it. Your phrase “”with or without reactions involved” is pretty arrogant, and such arrogamce, perhaps, forbids you to try to understand what I wrote. If you read carefully what I wrote and what is written in the Report, you will see that “with or without reactions” is a stupidity. The nature and composition of the coils are of paramount importance in our IP and for obvious reasons I will not give any more information, albeit you demand to me not to “state that (I) cannot comment further on this, ESPECIALLY BEING AWARE THAT THROUGH THE REPORT SOME FUNDAMENTAL ( SIC!) MISTAKES ARE CARRIED OUT, SUCH AS..” and at this point you add another titanic stupidity that the Readers can find in your comment: whom do you think you are talking with ?
And here is the answer to your titanically stupid statement ( I know, you are not the author of the titanic stupidity, you are just parrotting the suggestions of “Prof” Raman): just, please read … I will write in very simple language, to allow you (and “Prof” Raman, who insists not to buy ‘Electronics for Dummies’ as I suggested him) to understand, with a small effort and some focus (to Raman I suggest not to chew a gum at the same time).
THE ALIMENTATION CABLING OF THE REACTOR IS COMPOSED BY MEANS OF 2 PARTS FOR EVERY ROW:
1- ONE PART FROM THE CONTROL SYSTEM TO THE JOINT (C); THIS PART IS NAMED C1
2- AFTER THE JOINT C THE SAME CURRENT IS SUBDIVIDED INTO 2 ROWS HAVING THE SAME SECTION AND LENGTH: WE CALL THEM C2
BASED ON THE KIRCHHOFF LAW ( ALSO CALLED KICHHOFF JUNCTION RULE) , WE CAN MAKE THE DEDUCTION THAT THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE ROW C1 IS EQUAL TO THE DOUBLE OF THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS ALONG EACH OF THE ROWS NAMED C2.
Looks like Rossi follows the discussion on an Italian Forum:
A google English translation can be found here:
|Oct-20-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-20-14
member Nickster: One last post before I go. Just so you know who this 'Raman' Rossi is referring to on JONP:....>I'm wondering where Rossi finds the time for all that chit-chat. From my point of view, re E-Cat we'll find out when Industrial Heat decides to give some news or/and test flaws are addressed. Regarding LENR however, links extracted so far seem reasonable to periodically check on progress with a caveat pointed out by Tiggler. Story worth to follow on, as long as it's free.
|Oct-20-14|| ||Tiggler: <yskid> Just to be clear: journal-of-nuclear-physics.com is Rossi's online journal, not to be confused with respectable journals such as Nuclear Physics (A and B)|
|Oct-20-14|| ||Boomie: <Tiggler: Phony Journal>|
You beat me to the punch line.
I mentioned this about 2 weeks ago.
Everything else aside, I think Rossi should be whipped for posting a phony journal.
|Oct-21-14|| ||yskid: <Oct-20-14
member Tiggler: <yskid> Just to be clear: journal-of-nuclear-physics.com is Rossi's online journal, not to be confused with respectable journals such as Nuclear Physics (A and B)>Well, well!! Thank you very much.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·