< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
|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 If that is true of peer-reviewed literature, you can be pretty sure that work that is not peer-reviewed is total garbage.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.
|Oct-23-14|| ||DanLanglois: < Point 5 insinuates fraud. >|
I'm dropping back to give a definition of 'insinuates fraud':
'Insinuates fraud', here, is correct, in that it sort of means something like 'a collection of inconsistencies and peculiarities that whilst on the face of things appear pretty rum, do not establish a prima facie case of fraud.'
|Oct-23-14|| ||DanLanglois: <yskid: I'm wondering however, what is your stance on LENR in general?>|
Allow me to answer a question that may be related: what do I think of energy scams?
But first, are we really done with Rossi? Because, he has been involved in nothing but one scam after another. I had mentioned in the GMARK game forum, that Rossi claimed he could turn waste into oil, coal, and gas. I did receive a retort on that, from <Nickster>. But let's review..Rossi spent over 9 years in jail, on house arrest, and on probation. The Italian courts ruled the patent was worthless and nonsense. Rossi pled guilty for some lesser crimes such as keeping false records, not paying taxes, etc. Rossi filed bankruptcy. But there's more, -- based on false testimony and false documents Rossi was arrested in 2000 for fraudulent bankruptcy.
Rossi dropped out of sight in 2000 and did not re-appear until 2008.
This story is documented here – please see the section – Andrea Rossi – Petrol Dragon – Omar
During the same time Rossi was working on the thermoelectric scam, Rossi hooked up with the Bio Development Corporation, Bedford, New Hampshire..
While working there (so to speak) Rossi claims he “realized an important plant for the production of charcoal from wood waste in Chicago.”
The story is documented here:
Rossi claimed he had invented a commercial thermoelectric device that could convert heat to electricity at 20% efficiency when the best all the other commercial devices could do was 5-6%. Rossi and his partners were able to scam millions of dollars from the DOD and DOE, even though Rossi was arrested in Italy in 2000. The final DOE/CERL report on this scam was not published until 2004. This story is documented here –
The E-cat & Thermoelectric Scam of Andrea Rossi
Rossi claimed he could purify metals very inexpensively. This story is documented here –
The e-cat scam is Rossie's fifth impossible invention. To return to your question, -- well, if that's really the question that you want to be asking..?
|Oct-23-14|| ||DanLanglois: <yskid: I'm wondering however, what is your stance on LENR in general?>|
For me, there is a persuasive set of arguments as to why the whole idea of Rossi’s E-Cat makes no sense and why the tests were meaningless. LENR defies what I know about nuclear reactions. I suppose that I could explain this in detail, but should I have to, Rossi has not provided more than the skimpiest details? I'm not actually a physicist. I want to be clear about that, actually..-->
It doesn't matter to me in the least, whether there is evidence for something interesting being observed in the many of the LENR experiments that have been conducted. Properly speaking, my position is that it’s impossible for anyone to say that Rossi (or anyone else) has or does not have what is claimed … I can only say it’s unlikely and that’s what I think.
The point, for me, is not even whether the tests were correctly conducted scientifically and/or whether the measurements are real. My position is not that the conditions of the tests and instrumenting was so poor that I think the paper and its conclusions are simply wrong. My reasoning is more by process of elimination. Start with this possibility: Rossi is not a fraud and the E-Cat works as claimed. I think this is hard to believe given what science and scientists tell us. I'd add, that I'm a trained scientist of a sort, btw, and it's not merely what 'science and scientists' are telling 'us', but what I'm telling you. But my point is not that I think this is hard to believe given etc..
Rather, my point is that let’s say Rossi really has an energy generation system that performs as claimed whether it’s based on LENR or pixie dust or whatever..
Then, why would he behave as he has? And HERE, is where the answer is kind of obvious. Perhaps others see this picture, and they suppose that what Rossi has is a trade secret that needs to be protected. But I have firm opinions about how people are supposed to behave, in that situation. I think that all of his deflections, secrecy, and obfuscations will eventually be found out, not because I'm such a big expert on science (though I am something of an expert), but because I am an expert on high risk investments, and investors' lack of due diligence. I rode the dot com boom/bust. I can't easily summarize the experience. I'm in my forties, I've been around people all my life. It's intuition.
Is Rossi a fraud and the E-Cat a hoax or is Rossi the herald of a new world? I am skeptical veering towards pessimism, and my reasons completely satisfy me. I wouldn't be embarrassed, if I turn out to be wrong on this one. I don't want to believe it, even if it's true, because only a moron could believe it nevertheless.
|Oct-23-14|| ||Tiggler: <DanLanglois>:<I don't want to believe it, even if it's true, because only a moron could believe it nevertheless.>|
I don't want to believe it, either, but not because only a moron could believe it. I don't want to believe it because it offends my values in the scientific and engineering endeavor. Scoundrels can and often do succeed in many walks of life, but true success in science only comes from painstaking effort. Those who stick to their knitting eventually succeed sometimes, but dilettantes never do.
Genius may give rise to a break-though, of course, but even the most perverse genius works hard, is single-minded and persistent. Rossi's record displays none of these qualities.
|Oct-30-14|| ||Chess Dad: <Tiggler: Scoundrels can and often do succeed in many walks of life, but true success in science only comes from painstaking effort.>|
I stayed away for a while since the whole thing is so absurd, but I just thought I'd come back to check on how things were going.
I still don't believe. But my disbelief isn't based on any wishes of mine. I simply can't believe it, even if I wanted to.
I know too much about nuclear reactions. I'm nearly done with my Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering, and I've worked nearly my entire adult life in the nuclear field, more than 20 years. My background makes this scam impossible for me to believe.
The history on Rossi provided by Dan just makes me more certain, if that were even possible.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
Hardinge Simpole Publishing