- Click Here: Important eCat News Straight To Your Mail Box
The Sneering Collective – Part One
March 7, 2012When Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement, they were instant heroes riding in from nowhere to save the world. Soon, whispers of doubt turned to accusations of fraud and a barrage of insults that must have been hard to take from their freshly painted pedestal. That has always puzzled me. Assuming that most scientists do not believe that the scientists expected to survive such a fraud (and therefore take those accusations with the derision they deserve) why were the two men attacked so relentlessly?
That attitude survives today. Does the profession really attract a disproportionate share of nasty people or are the sneerers simply the loudest or more powerful?
An important pillar of the scientific method lies in disputing the work of others. In a way, a scientist is conditioned to attack. Normally the focus is on the work and not the person and all good practitioners are as tough on their own conclusions as they are on others. Perhaps the habit of questioning everything conditions one to superiority when ego meets stupidity. This tendency can be multiplied when packs of scientists gang up on some subject the collective deems nonsense. Once in that place, a particular idea or subject has a long climb to credibility over the bodies of its sneering detractors. Group-think short circuits real thinking and scientists are saved the time, money and bother of wasted effort on obvious dead-ends. Stereotyping is a useful tool but a dangerous one when it goes wrong.
Rationalising the behaviour of those who pilloried two hard-working intelligent men can only take you so far. In attacking the men along with the science, their ideas were being buried along with them. The sneering, jeering taunts and the derisory headlines were a warning to others. This could happen to you. Cold fusion is toxic. Stay away. In destroying their credibility, their baby – cold fusion – would stay dead for some time.
If every scientist who proposed something new was treated like Pons and Fleischmann, we would have no new ideas. There is no doubt that these two heritics were selected by fate or by men for special treatment and that treatment infected how (and if) their peers viewed the science they tried to birth.
However it happened, here we are. And where that is – the attitude and power of the collective – is something I want to examine in Part Two.
<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>
Posted by
Camilo
March 7, 2012 at 11:59 am
I think this problem has been with us for a long time…
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ”
― Max Planck
X-Prize
March 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml
daniel maris
March 7, 2012 at 9:57 pm
The usual mix of half truths from Krivit.
Have all inventors been entirely reputable people? I think not.
The real test of Rossi will be if he fails to produce the goods, as – allegedly – he did with the thermocouple devices (but, as far as we know, the DOD didn’t sue him or ask the authorities to prosecute him for fraud).
X-prize
March 8, 2012 at 12:10 am
Rossi has already failed to “produce the goods” many times.
Or maybe you have not been watching like I have.
********************************
Bob D
March 8, 2012 at 12:12 am
I have waited 38 years to say this.
At a well regarded engineering school, 100% of the professors would say one of the following:
“I gave you a B. Or, I gave you a C. Or, I gave you an A.” Never ever, not once, would any of them say, “You EARNED ____”
This is an excellent indication of the spirituality, ego, and overall wisdom of a typical full professor at typical institution of higher learning.
To defer judgement on matters of importance to the Experts is all too common these days. You may do so at your own peril.
Pons And Fleischmann were viciously attacked by their “peers”.
Finally got a chance to say it.
The Plumber
March 8, 2012 at 2:28 am
Agreed, It was like a mob of angry villagers with their pitch forks and torches. It has been proven hundreds of times that they were right after all.
Bob D
March 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Plumber,
Modern day villagers use invective, emotive statements, and sarcasm instead of pitchforks and torches. When will everyone realize that science is founded upon empirical results and theory is how the “scientists” justify their paychecks. Kinda like how cops abuse their authority when speed traps are employed to generate revenue.
Don J
March 8, 2012 at 2:17 am
I read that too. There is something really wrong with Krivit, or he is being paid to spread misinformation. I dont like the way Rossi does things either but the amount of energy Krivit puts into slandering Rossi is beyond reasonable. He has been proven to lie about data and misrepresent facts since before Rossi came along. In shakespear the guilty “doth protest too much me thinks”.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 4:19 am
That’s because the entire lot of military contractors would have to be sued repeatedly on a weekly basis.
Stuff sometimes just doesn’t work how you think it’s suppose to. Doesn’t make you a fraud, just makes you unsuccessful.
Military knows that, but I don’t think they will buy any more TEGs from him. lol
Bob Clancy
March 9, 2012 at 5:06 am
I think this is a good look at happens when someone pretents to be the person they have not. Not because they are pretenting like arossi spy but become the science looks like it is not important. And it is Kriveted to make it be more intelligents than not.
This story is the facts about the inventor of ecat fake names!
Pachu
March 7, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Scientist are people too.
Science is made with people interacting.
People interactions are really complex and unpredictable.
Stanny Demesmaker
March 7, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I did some websearching and I found this interesting quote of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus:
The Navy has always led when we’ve changed energy. In the 1850’s, we went from sail to coal. In the early part of the 20th century, we went from coal to oil. We pioneered the use of nuclear for transportation in the 1950’s. Every single time we did these things there were people who said ‘it’s a fad.’ There were people who said ‘you’re trading one very known source of propulsion or energy for something that’s unsure – too expensive or just won’t work.’ And every single time they were wrong. Every single time. And I am absolutely confident those folks are going to be wrong this time too.
link:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/308432/navy-secretary-ray-mabus-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29&mobile=nc
CuriousChris
March 7, 2012 at 12:42 pm
The most vicious attacks occur when a new proposal or theory threatens to destroy the works or in the case of P&F the beliefs of a person.
P&F threatened to destroy the impossibility of fusion at low energies (temperatures) this is the long held belief of the clear majority of physicists.
To them you may as well say gravity doesn’t exist. Its simply that ridiculous.
Try telling a devout religious person their beliefs are all a lie. they will either shake their head in sadness for your poor soul or threaten to kill you as extremists do.
Its the “human condition”
Alain
March 7, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Right it is the basic of the model of Roland Benabou about
collective Delusion
I’ve written a post on that problem of collective delusion
http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40
the best to read to understand is patter of denial introduction pamplet
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf
then one of his papers like
http://seekingalpha.com/article/124027-denial-collective-housing-delusions
or others there
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers.html
in my post i add also may reference to scientific frauds in history, and the way to implement them with group tools like peer review manipulation.
CuriousChris
March 7, 2012 at 9:58 pm
I had already read the patterns of denial paper, its an interesting read. My own observations have already brought me to the same conclusions.
I am with hope (from your forum) though. it most definitely goes both ways. In fact although I want to believe in LENR. Self delusion is my biggest fear. Both for myself and for the researchers.
MkKubre has admitted to doctoring his result set. Of course he defended it as ‘correcting’ but in scientific circles that is the biggest no no. Read the story of Dr William McBride (thalidomide fame). It floored me when I read about McKubre.
I sincerely don’t trust Swartz. His support of Rossi is bewildering. his website provides an insight into his psyche.
Swartz’s strong connection to Hagelstein is concerning.I cannot comment on other researchers as I do not know enough.
I come from a large family of religious ‘zealots’ I understand the mentality that surrounds “belief without proof”. Interestingly in my own family they all believe but they all have different beliefs.
Me I am the black sheep.
So while I cautiously believe in LENR. It is still a long way from fact in my mind.
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 4:49 am
Alain,
Isn’t the anti-dote to delusion an independent critical-thinking and “scientific method”. However both these things are in decline. First science:
“.. 17% of 16- to 18-year-olds took one or more science A-levels in 2009, .. universities produce fewer than 10,000 science graduates each year.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/15/a-level-overhaul-science-decline
So maybe 1500 physics graduates for the whole of the UK!
Critical and independent thinking is very interesting as a topic. I believe a lot of damage is done in promoting magical thinking to children (organized religion). That’s not the same as stopping imagination and fantasy.
One ends up with adults with compartmentalized brains.
daniel maris
March 8, 2012 at 12:11 am
I do agree with John Milstone that there is a big difference between milli watts and hundreds of watts.
I distrust results at the micro-level. There must be other factors that could throw up rogue results. Once you are in the hundreds of watts, assuming you don’t have fraud, I think you can be fairly sure of the results.
Ivy Matt
March 8, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Well, there’s not much excuse to hold that belief. Cold fusion was around for a long time before Pons & Fleischmann stepped onto the stage. In fact, their competitor Steve Jones had done some work on it previously. It was theorized by such a luminary as Andrei Sakharov, and first observed by a team led by Luis Alvarez, later a Nobel laureate in Physics. However, these days we call it “muon-catalyzed fusion” to avoid confusion.
(Of course, the fly in the ointment there is that you still need pretty high energies to create the pions that decay into muons, whereas the promise of CF/LENR/LANR/CANR/CMNS has always been that you didn’t need such an initial investment of energy to obtain a useful result.)
Jami
March 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm
I think the knifes came out on P&F beacuse their claim was so extraordinary. When you turn the universe upside down you better have really good evidence or make your claim as humble as possible (again: see CERN’s opera in contrast). P&F did neither – hence their steep rise and hard fall in a short time (rather soft landing though, considering the subsequent Toyota funding).
“…but rather because its opponents eventually die…”
That doesn’t seem to work with LENR – except in reverse. Most LENR researchers are either dead or retired or close to retirement. The field produces a very small amount of papers with no signs of improvement over the years. Even most of the stuff quoted here and on other LENR related sites is decades old. Without Rossi’s and DGT’s claims, there would be nothing new to speak of (and if/when those turn out to be scams, it’ll look even worse).
psi
March 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm
What a bunch of complete nonsense. The history of science is a history of “extraordinary” claims that were rebuffed with no more credibility than you put forth in this post, Jami. Were you awake in 2011 when Gerald Celente predicted an imminent revolution in energy production?
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm
I’m awake now, and I don’t see any signs of this coming true.
What I see is two obvious frauds, and researchers who are still unable to put LENR to any practical use at all after almost a quarter-century of research.
kwhilborn
March 7, 2012 at 3:06 pm
3 obvious frauds. Don’t forget; Doctor George Miley associate proffessor of the Univesity of Illinois has just jumped on the bandwagon.
I myself believe for the record. Beyond doubt, however we now have 3 entities claiming to control the Nickel/Hydrogen version of LENR.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
This link about his march 23 lecture may either convince you that you are wrong or let you add one more entity to your fraud list.
Go George Miley! Woot!
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm
I have no reason to doubt Miley at this point. However, the numbers in his abstract (which you linked to) don’t seem to add up. One of his numbers must be off by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude.
Note that he doesn’t say that he generated 350 Watts. He says he generated power at a level of 350 Watts per Kilogram of Palladium. He is giving a “power density”, not a power level.
Assuming all his numbers are accurate, then he must have been generating no more than a couple of Watts, or even tenths of a Watt, using between 1 and 10 Grams of Palladium.
If he’s really generating 350 Watts, then this is a big deal. However, for that to be true, he must have a math error in his abstract.
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Where did you get the idea that Miley was using NI/H? The abstract you linked to clearly states that he was using Palladium.
Note that even if he is generating 350W/Kg, that would be way to expensive for almost any possible use. Powering interplanetary space probes might be the only practical use for such a device.
B Fast
March 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm
John Milstone, here is the most comprehensive list of those who have stated that they have personally achieved Nickel + Hydrogen cold fusion: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/
Whether Miley is getting 0.035 watts or 350 watts makes little different. If he’s getting a COP > 1.000 he is demonstrating a phenomenon that is supposed to be impossible.
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 5:02 pm
B Fast: Whether Miley is getting 0.35 Watts or 350 Watts is all-important.
For 25 years, we’ve been hearing about researchers who get Milliwatt levels of power. There’s been little if any reason to believe that it’s possible to scale that up to useful levels.
If Miley really is getting 350 Watts, that’s a huge increase over the state of the art. However, it looks more like he was misleading about it, by stating a power density rather than the actual power generated.
And, even at 350 Watts/Kilogram of Palladium, his device would be far too expensive for any practical use, other than possibly interplanetary space probes.
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm
B Fast: Why is everyone talking about Miley using Ni/H??? His current abstract clearly states that he was using Palladium/Deuterium (although he claims that Hydrogen will work as well).
Kwhilborn
March 7, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Doctor Miley has claimed success with Ni-H , and also has advocated Andrea Rossi. We will know more once his lecture is done on March 23.
He is currently trying to market this cell to NASA.
Yet he still has claimed to have replicated a Ni-H reaction, so he is among at least 16 entities claiming this.
Pekka Janhunen
March 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm
John Milstone: a small cost calculation. Assuming (rather arbitrarily but hopefully conservatively) that for each Pd atom lost by transmutation there is 50 MeV energy production (i.e. two DD->He4 reactions) and taking current Pd price 22000 $/kg, the Pd cost contribution to the produced energy is 0.18 cent/kWh thermal. Not terribly expensive, although I agree that Pd availability would probably prohibit large-scale base energy applications (unless one starts to mine it from asteroids).
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Pekka Janhunen: Miley is claiming in his latest abstract a “power density” of 350 Watts/Kilogram. If we add in your numbers, what we get is a little-bitty heat source that will run forever for an enormous initial investment. That might be very useful for space probes, but it doesn’t sound like a practical energy source no matter how “cost effective” it may be “per atom”.
Kwhilborn: I wonder what made Miley apparently switch from Nickel back to Palladium?
un passante
March 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Milstone, there is a line between being highly skeptical and hoping for something/someone not to be/not to succeed.
you have clearly crossed that line. I consider it to be depravation!
GreenWin
March 7, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Indeed George has been researching this field for more than 15 years. He collaborated with Dr. James Patterson back in 1996 on his patented “Patterson Power Cell.” That implementation used palladium/nickel/palladium coated microsphere beads immersed in electrolyte.
In November of 1996 the Patterson cell was on display at the American Nuclear Society’s Nuclear Technology Expo in Washington D.C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jze7KtdHfh8
What ever happened to it??
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 9:22 pm
As posted by other below, it turns out that Miley was using only 20 grams of Palladium, and was only claiming to generate <10 Watts. So my analysis was correct.
It was misleading for Miley to use "350 Watts/Kilogram" when what he was actually doing was "7 Watts per 20 Grams". It was especially misleading when he failed to mention the actual power generated and the amount of "fuel" being used, and relied on the reader to go through several calculations to try to "reverse engineer" what Miley was actually claiming.
What is "depravation" is to blindly accept, as many have, that Miley was generating 350 Watts of power, based on his sly and misleading abstract.
Given the poor reputation of this field, playing fast and loose with the facts is hardly a good way to convince people to take it seriously.
CuriousChris
March 7, 2012 at 10:23 pm
When I read Miley’s claims. I wondered what all the fuss was about.
I am with John on this one.
One of the hardest things for a researcher to do is to ‘scale up’ So extrapolating from 20 grams of palladium to 350W/Kg is a suspect statement
Read here how humbling scaling up can be.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/27570/
Many companies (every year) fail to take real results in the lab and turn it into commercial reality.
LCD
March 8, 2012 at 3:06 am
I’m sorry I have to disagree with both of you. Power density is not misleading. What I would say is a bit misleading is that it was so small of an energy release.
Power density was maybe large but energy density was very small 74kJ/kg is nothing interesting.
I’d take 7 watts in 20 grams (4 sheets of paper) all day long as both a heater and battery charger combo if I could, so long as it was long lasting.
Additionally I see no obvious reason why it could not be scaled if it was close to 100% reproducible and furthermore I see real hope in getting the energy density up if I have high reproducibility.
CuriousChris
March 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm
@LCD
Reasons why something won’t scale are never obvious. but for the power densities as you so correctly refer to being so small one thing I can immediately think of is you need a massive amount of palladium to create useful energy. But that energy needs to get out somehow. how to extract the heat from the reactor without effecting the operation may in fact be insurmountable. but it might be easy. The point is it is unknown.
The biofuel company I linked to spent a lot of money because they could “see no obvious scaling problem”
In the end it beat them.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 4:25 am
@Curious
maybe so but that’s no reason to stop. Sure there are examples of scaling failures but there are plenty of scaling successes so it’s a non-point. You simply try.
For P&F they had reproducibility issues #1 and they worked in a liquid that vaporized when it got hot #2.
Those *obvious* reasons were *obvious* back then.
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 5:13 am
No I never intimated it was a reason to stop. I just pointed out its not “in the bag”. My wife asked me last night What’s the chance of this coming to fruition. I explained we will know either way within the next 5 years. and that’s what I believe.
Like everyone outside of Hot Fusion, Nuclear Power and Big Oil. I want this to succeed, fervently! Otherwise I wouldn’t even bother reading these forums.
GreenWin
March 7, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Excellent sneer!
Jami
March 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“Were you awake in 2011 when Gerald Celente predicted an imminent revolution in energy production?”
Before reading your post, I didn’t even know Celente exists (not too surprising since his “predictions” seem to be centered on the US and don’t get much publicity elsewhere – we’ve got our own stochastic-of-doom magicians over here). Whatever – not being awake when he predicts something is probably a safe bet to make. Trying to catch up to get a feeling for what the heck you’re on about, I fell asleep after less than two minutes of his Alex Jones interview.
buffalo
March 7, 2012 at 1:43 pm
P&F fell? They fell a coupla millions bux richer yeah.bad publicity is good publicity.they basicly traded their reputations for a coupla milions in movie rights,interviews,t-shirts,eternal infamy.wud i do the same? Hell yeah.
Roger Bird
March 7, 2012 at 2:17 pm
You are completely clueless. There were no movie rights, interviews, t-shirts, etc. You are lying. You are fantasizing. They lost their jobs. They did not get a couple of million dollars richer. You are a big fat liar. They were lucky to get jobs elsewhere, outside of the USA.
psi
March 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Roger, thank you for saying that for me. Clueless is too kind a word.
GreenWin
March 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Ah, the Sneering Collective at work! Fabricating divisive lies. Goebbles 101.
PL
March 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm
No method is perfect. Although scientific skepticism solved the issue with scams and such, it is extremely inefficient. Scientific skepticism is slowly being replaced with objective truth seeking. Where so-called scientific skepticism fails is where it attempts to prove something wrong. The problem with such a methodology is that it’s far to easy to obtain the results one is seeking. Take diode experiments for example. The academic scientist ordained in so-called scientific skepticism who’s gungho at debunking will quickly explain away a diode producing DC voltage. There are numerous explanations. The scientist thinks it’s caused by wifi routers, or radio stations, electrochemical reactions from residue on the wires, or from a temperature gradient, and quickly ends the analysis, pleased in his debunking.
Where objective truth seeking is overtaking so-called scientific skepticism is that one seeks data without making a judgment until after all of the data is analyzed. I’m thankful the U.S. court system does not follow the flawed so-called scientific skepticism because a lot more innocent people would be imprisoned. The truth is, so-called scientific skepticism methodology didn’t last long at all in old court system. What ended up working was a jury who does not judge until *after* all the data is in and meticulously analyzed. Indeed the person making the claim is the prosecutor, and the scientist that I submit my claim to would be the jury. After all, the scientist must make some kind of judgment. Indeed, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, but what kind of court would we have if the jury immediately judges the prosecutor? For example, I have submitted my diode and piezo experiments to numerous academic scientists. Usually there’s no response. Nearly 100% of the few that do respond immediately say it’s impossible. There in lies the flaw of so-called scientific skepticism in that the prosecutor often never gets a chance to present the full data. They won’t spend more than a few seconds analyzing a claim until it does something that’s so obvious. A truth seeker would not immediately say, “I don’t think it works.” Rather, a truth seeker would at least say, “It’s possible, but I don’t have time to analyze it, yet.” We should be thankful that the modern court system acquires all the data, then meticulously analyzes the data, and then and only then makes a judgment. Often scientists don’t have the time to analyze such claims. In such a case, the scientist should say so, rather than immediately saying the claim is wrong.
So-called scientific skepticism is demonstrated when scientists instantly judge claims without having replicated and meticulously analyzed the claims. To say one does not have time to analyze the claim is perfectly fine and honorable, but to immediately judge the claim is a flawed methodology often practiced by pseudoskeptics. The pseudoskeptic somehow believes he need not fully analyze the claim, as in his mind he “Just *knows* it’s wrong,” which classifies such a methodology as a faith religion. Modern so-called scientific skepticism is flawed and outdated. It will not survive another decade, to be replaced with objective truth seeking.
PL
March 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm
BTW, last night a highly shielded passive component was producing 9.54 volts DC. DC current is still low, ~ 10pA, but such levels of DC current is extremely easy for even old technology to measure. For example with 100% predictability I can easily measure less than 0.1 femto amps. That’s 1E-16 amps, or 0.00001pA.
Still, academic community ignores such research even though numerous academic scientists have replicated and verified such experiments. One was a notable academic scientists who has a PhD in Physics with an additional degree in Electrical Engineering who specializes in diodes who’s published numerous papers said he can’t understand how or why an *undisturbed* shielded diode would produce DC voltage and current.
Science community needs more open-minded people.
Pekka Janhunen
March 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Sorry I didn’t get it. Are you saying that you built some device which produces some voltage and current although it shouldn’t because it shielded?
CuriousChris
March 7, 2012 at 10:38 pm
And what are you doing your measurements with? “Old Technology”
All measurement equipment introduces its own voltages and currents. Unless you have a state of the art lab with top quality instrumentation with researchers trained in what they are doing. At those current levels you WILL get erroneous measurement results. For example introducing the tip of a multimeter to a cct can introduce RF due to the meters leads or even a temperature gradient which would generate current flow due to the dissimilar metals (probe to lead)
So call me part of the sneering collective but your claims are without foundation.
But you will find many devotees here so keep up the good work.
PL
March 8, 2012 at 2:17 pm
I know what I’m doing. Notable EE’s who also have PhD’s in Physics have replicated my experiments saying they can’t understand why the passive shielded undisturbed components produce DC voltage & current.
I’m using an electrometer chip that’s been tested at producing ~ 2fA input bias current. That’s 2E-15 amps, so it has no measurable effect on the diodes.
Furthermore, a lot of tests using 100% passive methods where there’s no active meters connected to the shielded diodes.
Roughly a half of one decade of experiments and notable academic scientists clearly indicate that academic science has no clue of explaining this.
PL
March 8, 2012 at 2:25 pm
“At those current levels you WILL get erroneous measurement results.”
Incorrect. You assume that someone is holding some relatively high BW diode and sticking a big clumsy multimeter on it. Anyone who thinks measuring 10pA or even 10fA is difficult as you describe has no clue what they’re talking about.
“For example introducing the tip of a multimeter to a cct can introduce RF due to the meters leads or even a temperature gradient which would generate current flow due to the dissimilar metals (probe to lead)”
The tip of a multimeter, LOL. That’s funny. I think we’re a bit more sophisticated than that.
Your response is so classical and fitting for this thread. After you spend a minute reading my post you throw a bunch of stuff out there in an attempt to discredit years of research that’s been verified by notable academic scientists who specialize in the field, as if we *must* have made a mistake because how dare anyone say conventional physics is flawed.
Pekka Janhunen
March 8, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Atmospheric pressure variations can’t explain your effect, I’m sure that has been checked?
CuriousChris
March 8, 2012 at 10:54 pm
You said any “old technology” so I assumed you are not any more sophisticated than that.
A quote from your unnamed “notable academic”
“I took out one of the NIR-LEDs, and it immediately charged the cap from 0 to 170 mV in the dark. This was very encouraging.”
That very statement shows your notable academic is a dummkoff
NIR = Near infra Red. It is most susceptible to near infra red light. What has the dark got to do with it? His own body is generating enough infra red to produce an output.
You make a claim about this celebrated academic. but provide no names or links to his papers. Please provide such.
Your easy replicate project requires several weeks to generate what? 7v (maximum claimed for piezo) * 10pa * 0.1s = 7 pico joules
(led flash duration of 100 milliseconds assumed)
7*10^-12 joules.
Ever heard of electrical noise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_%28electronics%29
Its a fact that all electronic devices create a low level random electrical noise.
Take particular notice of thermal noise and I quote “Thermal noise is unavoidable at non-zero temperature”.
Many engineers go to great lengths to isolate electrical noise from their designs.
Congratulations you have just proven what’s been known for many decades.
It is obvious to me you do not have an electronics background apart from hobbyist level.
PL
March 9, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Pekka Janhunen:
Yes, years ago I’ve tested the atmospheric pressure variation idea, but in terms of piezos that would produce *AC*, not DC, according conventional physics. This effect is easily seen in piezos where there’s a slightly more DC current during the day, and a slightly less at night, but it’s so low that it’s difficult to detect because the change is so low.
.
.
CuriousChris:
You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. You acknowledge he measured at least 170mV, yet you claim his body heat produced that in the *NIR* LED, LOL. By all means try it. In a dark room, see the voltage difference between pointing at your body. NIR are in the range of 750nm to 1400nm. FIR LEDs are used for detecting body heat, not NIR LEDs. Furthermore, that notable scientists did numerous measurements inside a thick metal chassis, also seeing DC voltage and current.
Now you say that ambient thermal noise is the cause in making a wide range of diodes in addition to piezos produce as much as 7V DC. Once again this clearly shows you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. I’m the one who spotted a major error in all Spice algorithms regarding diode noise at zero bias. Ask Mike, the genius who created LTspice. I wrote nearly the entire Wiki Pedia article on kTC noise. Do you even know what kTC noise is? I’ve written countless numerical mathematical analysis programs using the best conventional equations, including Quantum Mechanics equations, that all show diodes cannot rectify such thermal noise to produce such results. What we’re seeing is not due to diode rectification. Piezos have produced up to 9.54V DC. Hello? Do you know what a piezo is? Furthermore, most of these LED’s have low BW. Additionally, piezos are not rectifiers. Oh, did that even occur to you? If that’s not enough, the disturbance effect debunks your idea in that a disturbed diode or piezo can produce NO measurable DC voltage or current. Shall I continue because there are other effects. You’re wasting my time. Most academic scientist are a waste of time because they represent the average. I’m looking for those who have a good sharp mind, the rarity, the notable.
CuriousChris
March 10, 2012 at 7:35 am
The 7 volts was your claim. I just thought I had better add it in otherwise you might claim my power calc was too low.
What I was pointing out is that electrical noise could be one source of anomolies. I in know way wanted to claim it was ‘the source’. Sorry if I seemed to imply that.
All semiconductors react to light an FIR might be used for body heat because its more efficient at those frequencies. but it will still absorb other frequencies and hence realise a voltage.
Your ‘notable academic’ still remains unnamed, somewhat like Rossi’s ecat buyer and Defkalions Testers.
Until you provide some form of verifiable third party review of your work other than claiming mystery buyers err sorry mystery academics you are just making baseless claims.
PL
March 10, 2012 at 2:41 pm
CuriousChris,
I can give out the full name, location, and the company where the notable academic scientist works. That is, the scientist who has a PhD in Physics with a degree in Electrical Engineering who specializes in diodes, LEDs, and lasers and who has numerous scientific papers published. I won’t do that until he gives permission. Would you, and thereby betraying this man? He’s afraid for his career and his families livelihood. He believes his claims, but there’s a dark side to academic that you don’t seem to know about or you haven’t witnessed it for yourself.
It would be different if we knew where the source was coming from and could write a science paper.
Anyhow, if you don’t believe me enough to buy the parts required to replicate this, then that’s fine. The parts are found at a lot of popular dealers such as mouser or newark. If you ever decide to do it, then you’ll see for yourself it’s true. Just make sure you give the diode or piezo a few weeks inside the shield to become undisturbed. You need to follow the instructions. You can’t grab some cheap voltage meter and expect to see hundreds of millivolts because they just shunt the component. You need an electrometer. There are electrometer op-amps for ~ $10.
PL
March 10, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Breaking science news –>
230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of thermodynamics:
http://dvice.com/archives/2012/03/230-efficient-l.php
And my response –>
http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/2012/03/10/news-efficient-leds-seem-to-violate-first-law-of-thermodynamics/
CuriousChris
March 11, 2012 at 7:09 am
I wondered whether what you were seeing was similar to the 230% efficient LED’s
But your ‘no input’ claim is clearly incorrect. You may have no ‘direct’ electrical input but you cannot rule out input as I have already pointed out. You CANNOT isolate your device, It is impossible. The best you can do is attempt to rule out all possible sources, not simply deny they exist.
As far as the ‘notable academic’ goes If he is not prepared to go public you should not be touting claims about him. That is clearly dishonest and EXACTLY what Rossi and Defkalion (and 1000 other scams do)
Clearly you have a higher pedigree than I first anticipated. BUT you are publishing in a way I expect from one of the other free energy bullshit artists.
So add some fact to your site. remove claims of verification by anonymous academics an you are likely to get a better hearing.
Until then the duck rules.
psi
March 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Good analysis. This happens in the humanities also — at least to the extent that they deal with matters of fact and not theory (all too often, they are about theory with little fact). Most English professors, for example, are in denial over the abundant evidence demonstrating that their biographical framework for comprehending the most important writer in the English language — “William Shakespeare” — originates in a piece of political chicanery.
I would add that in my experience the “I don’t have time to check this out” is more often than not a psychological defense mechanism and not a statement of any objective reality. It doesn’t take that long, in most cases of successfully challenged old paradigms, for someone with the requisite training to get up to speed. Wanting to learn something new, however, is a prerequisite that is usually more lacking than the actual resources for investigation.
B Fast
March 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Love it.
Mahron - A4 B2
March 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Human behavior is what it is. People like to form groups and other shit. Some stuff is hard wired. I only see two solutions : deal with it with its flaws or try to override it with ideology or in extreme cases brainwashing.
Communism tried the second path, as the society they wanted was in total contradiction with what humans are. We all know the end of that story. Be careful of what you wish for as I might become reality, and then before you know it you’re shitting your pants in the twilight zone.
un passante
March 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm
we’re in the realm of politics, so really OT.
I agree on the reasons for the failure of communism. I would extend that to the opposite mistake, ie not taking into account that humans are social animals. thus the malfunctioning of a society which is no more a society but a loose aggregate of solipsistic individuals less and less able to create and perpetuate a harmonized well-functioning society.
any attempt by different ideological extremisms to suppress or compress either individuality or sociality at the expense of the other quality of the human being are bound to fail and create problems.
spacegoat
March 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I have only just come across Autodynamics, that appears to be a far superior model to general/special relativity that can never be dropped because of Einstein worship.
At this early stage in my study of it, it could be another great case of the Sneering Collective. Paul, suggest you take a look.
http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=83&MMN_position=91:91
psi
March 7, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Spacegoat, for those of us that are physics challenged, can you explain why you believe this paradigm is superior? Thanks!
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 3:16 am
I realize there are plenty of “alternative” Special/General relativity ideas, but Autodynamics (AD) has the advantages listed below. Please take note of point 3., the experimental corroboration.
1.- AD describes the universe being governed by a Universal Law of Mass Decay-Energy Absorption where mass and energy spontaneously change from one to another.
2.- AD is a Quantum Relativistic Theory that follows Galilean and Newtonian common sense. Consequently AD removes all the fantasies of Lorentz and Einstein.
[No Big Bang - No Einstein Cross - No Black Hole - No Length Contraction - No Time Dilation - No Space Curvature - No Frame Dragging - No Neutrino - No Twin Paradox - No Failure of Simultaneity - No Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - No Failure of "Cause and Event" under Faster than Light - No Increasing Entropy]
3.- AD is a theory that explains more experimental results and astronomical observations than SR and GR put together.
[All Decay as Muon and Pion Decay - Uranium Decay - Beryllium Decay - K-Electron Capture by 4Be7 to produce 3Li7 - Linear Momentum Transfer in Nucleus-Nucleus Collision - Better Compton Effect - Dirac's equation without Wave Mechanics - Proton-Antiproton Collision - Energy Loss by Electrons in Absorbers - Perihelion Advance - Binary Star Precession - Bending of Light - Faster than light - Allais Anomaly - Extra Gravitational Tug on Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft]
4.- AD is a theory that explains what Pauli found 9 years earlier: that Einstein’s Kinetic Energy equation is wrongly applied to Decay. Pauli postulated or “invented” the Neutrino to save SR. AD yields a new Set of Equations, which explains Decay without the Pauli’s (Fermi) Ghost Neutrino.
[Experiment 0.36 MeV - SR = 1.16 MeV - AD = 0.36 MeV.]
5.- AD is a theory that supports a very simple Eternal Universe, finite but unlimited, in perpetual evolution. The future Universe will be different from today’s. AD has Universal Gravitation founded in a simple mechanism: the Le Sage’s mundane particle, the Graviton championed by Luis de Broglie. AD’s Pico-Graviton plus the Kepler and Newton laws, adding AD the Pico-Graviton absorption by matter (which we call Gravitation), is a particular case of the AD’s Universal Law of Mass Decay-Energy Absorption.
6.- AD is a theory that shows that the Einstein’s mistakes come from the Lorentz Transformation. AD shows with Algebra that the Einstein equations are mistaken and cannot explain many phenomena in nature and, as Newton, SR and GR have a total lack of mechanism or machinery to explain these phenomena.
http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52&MMN_position=59:59
Psi, a layman’s read is provided here:
http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=78&MMN_position=86:85
Pachu
March 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm
There are a lot of alternate models, the “superior” is subjetive you need to put numbers and measures to it, you need to show in what prediction is better and show experiments that backup your “superior” statement.
And after all, they are models no one claims be a complete truth of phisical reality.
I like strand model: http://motionmountain.net/contents.html but i really cant say is a “better” model than relativity and certainly the worship of Einsten doesnt make relativity a “better” model.
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 3:27 am
Pachu,
take a look at the site where you will find a ;lot of information on theory and experiment, that will probably answer your questions.
The Wikipedia article states it is “disproved” however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
“Autodynamics is wholly rejected by the mainstream scientific community.”
” no papers on autodynamics have appeared in the scientific literature,”
So if there are no papers and if the community wish to remain undisturbed, then “it is false.”
Quax
March 7, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Interesting. Small world. I see my collegue David de Hilster has his fingers in that one.
Around the time of the faster than light neutrino extravagance we had a rather spirited debate on our companies internal social network. It culminated in the following rant on my main blog that explained what makes a good physics theory and why SR and GR qualify.
http://wavewatching.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/when-popular-science-is-neither-science-nor-popular/
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 4:11 am
Good stuff!
“Then there is the obsession with not using math at all cost because it might hurt the sales of the pop science product.”
Discomfort required to achieve anything of value in educational is eschewed. So teachers become “friends” instead of leaders and disciplinarians, and science gets dropped. Society is becoming dumber and dumber because science knowledge is less and less dispersed.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
Exactly what appears to have been done with Autodynamics. No Big Bang – No Einstein Cross – No Black Hole – No Length Contraction – No Time Dilation – No Space Curvature – No Frame Dragging – No Neutrino – No Twin Paradox – No Failure of Simultaneity – No Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – No Failure of “Cause and Event” under Faster than Light – No Increasing Entropy
“David Deutsch
In a good theory every piece and part is needed – it cannot be easily varied to accommodate different outcomes.”
According to the AD site, the neutrino is an entity added arbitrarily to “make things work” for GR.
“It is well tested
Follows from first principles
Can’t be easily varied to accommodate different results.”
AD argues mathematically and physically that the Lorentz/Einstein transformations are flawed first principles. There is also an article on the AD site about a recent re-analysis of the Mercury orbit data that “proved” general relativity … that the original analysis does not stand up and was quasi-falsified.
Agree whole heartedly with your comments on string theory.
Quax
March 8, 2012 at 2:52 pm
That’s news to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Pauli.27s_proposal
If relativity has any indirect bearing on this it would be SR as it factors into how the energy balance is calculated.
The biggy with the Beta decay was the conservation of angular momentum.
Even if one was to look at this purely classical you’d still need some mystery particle i.e. the neutrino to satisfy these cornerstone conservation laws.
CuriousChris
March 12, 2012 at 7:32 am
Umm one of the central tenets of AD is no such thing as the neutrino.
We had better ask for the Nobel prize given for its detection to be returned.
Seriously though, that site seems more interested in selling stuff than proving anything.
C M Edwards 9%
March 7, 2012 at 2:56 pm
I’m of the opinion that a major factor in Pons & Fleischman’s problem was that they overreached themselves in an effort to beat Steven Jones to publication.
They went public at a press conference instead of submitting to peer review as previously planned because they wanted to beat Jones to the credit. Consequently, there was no detailed account of their experiment published in the first months after their claims – the critical time when many of the researchers planning to replicate their work would have started. Additionally, later failures at replicating their own experimental results suggest that they had rushed into the limelight before perfecting their own experimental protocols. So, Pons and Fleischman were unable to provide reliable guidance to other teams of scientists on what they had done.
Therefore, the first wave of poorly guided attempts to replicate the P&F experiment amounted to little more than “Let’s throw some deuterium and palladium in a jar, and see if they mate!” Needless to say, the success rate was not high.
Jones plodded on to publication in Nature and other peer reviewed journals, and it was his experiment – not the P&F experiment – for which the first successful replication was published by an independent researcher.
C M Edwards 9%
March 7, 2012 at 3:07 pm
BTW, with its use of high pressure hydrogen absorbtion, Jones’s experiment resembles Piantelli’s later work more than the the P&F experiment. It’s worth looking at on that basis alone.
B Fast
March 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm
“Jones plodded on to publication in Nature and other peer reviewed journals, and it was his experiment – not the P&F experiment – for which the first successful replication was published by an independent researcher.”
Yea, and what did it get him? There have been hundreds of peer reviewed positive LENR results. However, LENR is still classed as “pathological science”. The scientific community has no more respect for peer reviewed research than for anything else.
Scientists are unbelievably boneheaded when their theory is challenged by phenomenon. It’ll take an entrepreneur like Rossi or Defkalion to make a product before the scientific community will be convinced. And a week after a product is released, the scientific community will announce that they knew all along.
C M Edwards 9%
March 7, 2012 at 7:26 pm
“Yea, and what did it get him?”
It did not get him what rushing headlong got Pons & Fleischman.
daniel maris
March 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm
I think you’re right. P&F can be criticised for that.
Quax
March 7, 2012 at 3:01 pm
If you haven’t seen it yet, the results of the ecat sentiment poll that I conducted last week are finally online:
http://hotandcoldfusion.wordpress.com
Feel free to make suggestions for follow up polls that you’d like to see.
Tom Baccei
March 7, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Since WWII it has been the world of “big” science. Added to the personal status has come the career destroying effect of being wrong. Since non scientists have largely decided where we look, they alzo cpntrol what we find. Step outside of their bounding box at your own risk. Thus the contonued spending on hot fision, cleam coal, and other possible energy sources which would be subject to central co trol. The conspiracy comes from a loose coalition of those with a rigid world view, careers to protect, persnal status motivations, control motivations and military -financial hegemony. That pack blood lust for turning away from research opportunities outside of the box thus defined is well illustrated by the pathoskeps regular to this site. They work tirelessly to defend and preserve their world view, sometime with valid reservations, but all too often with glossed over facts, relentless propaganda and sheer nearly overwhelming energy. Those who desire serious change and the solution to our pressing problems simply must get on with it in spite of their pseudo intellectual attacks!
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 3:06 am
Good post Tom. In a nutshell ” non scientists have largely decided where we look, they also control what we find.”
Open Science/Knowledge is the key.
http://science.okfn.org/about-us/open-science-overview/
http://okfn.org/wg/
Blanco69
March 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Post from Rossi’s Blog:
Dear Ing. Rossi,
Considering that a home-based E-Cat may not be ideally suited to all domestic situations. Is it possible (maybe within 10-20 years) that we could see large, muli-staged, self-sustaining E-Cat power plants that could replace nuclear power plants?
If built next to the existing nuclear reactor buildings, they could even maybe utilise the existing turbines/electicity distribution installations.
Andrea Rossi
March 6th, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Dear Kev:
Yes, it is possible. Consider that we can put in parallel so many E-Cats we want, so once resolved the problem of reaching anough temperature to feed a turbine to obtain an efficiency of 30%, we can do anything, feeding with part of the electricity produced the E-Cats and selling the remaining electric and thermal power. If I am not wrong, that could be named “infinite energy”, couldn’t that ? We are working as beasts on this. Siemens gave us the key.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I think Kev appears to be a bit behind the curve on this in thinking this could best be placed in old Nuc stations. If this works, EVERY thermal power station would be a candidate for retro fitting. Still not sure why Rossi believe Siemens opened this possibility. Surely this would be the objective all along. I’d always kinda hoped that using the 1MW shipping container to heat remote naval bases as a poorly thought out cover story.
Mr. H
March 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Deleted by Admin
Sorry, Mr H. I am not bright enough to follow your post which in my ignorance appears to be a thinly disguised plug for your business using ‘knowledge’ you cannot have or an insight which elevates you to another plane.
Should it be the latter, I welcome tangible evidence that you are able to deliver results.
Until I see otherwise, I will consider posts such as this deleted screed as adverts I neither understand nor wish to expose eCatNews readers to.
Paul
Jami
March 7, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“There are 15 other elements in powder form that can be used…”
I wonder which of them you’ve been sniffing.
GreenWin
March 7, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Iron, platinum, palladium, zirconium, vanadium, nickel, titanium, Sc, Cr, Mn, Co, Cu, Zn…
A few suggested in Mills’ original patent “Low-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures”
This US issued patent covers production of energy from resonance in fractional atomic H dissociated from molecular H2.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6024935/description.html
It has marked similarities to the Greek and Italian reactor devices.
Anders F
March 7, 2012 at 5:35 pm
While I agree with parts of your theory there are aspects that I believe you have misunderstood. There are several chemical reactions going on, but the exothermic reactions that generate all the excess energy are nuclear not chemical. Thermal control is essential, the optimal core temperature varies with many factors and if even one is slightly wrong the reaction will die. The pulses are not necessary, but improves cop and control. Greater surface area only helps to a point, too high surface area will prevent the reaction from being sustained over long periods.
There are a lot of factors that needs to be taken into consideration, but the system is very simple once all things are properly balanced. It’s probably too simple for the scientists to understand, they are looking for a complex reaction when the system consists of several simple reactions. LENR is more about engineering than nuclear physics.
Quax
March 7, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Given his last name I believe he is playing some typing intensive joke on this forum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_J._Farnsworth
C M Edwards 9%
March 7, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Okay, then. Go right ahead, Dave.
Thicket
March 7, 2012 at 7:47 pm
There you are again Mr. Farnworth.
You sure have an impressive array of products on your website. How many self-running motor-generators have you sold? More than Steorn? They sold none of their perpetual motion Orbos.
You acknowledge Rossi, but also show a cold fusion product. Do you have your own version of the eCat for sale? I think a good name would be sCat.
Your fusion product sounds interesting. Have you solved the technical problems that has plagued science for decades?
How is your continuing work on transmutation of metals going? I didn’t realize that there were still practicing alchemists.
I see you’ve got superconductive wires as a product. Very impressive.
You also list thermo-electric systems operating at zero differential. I think you’re breaking a thermodynamic law or two, but that’s not a problem for a genius like yourself.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you deluded instead of a fraud.
Mr. H
March 8, 2012 at 5:01 am
Paul you are a moron and a disgrace and that’s all you will ever be no matter how hard you try to be something else you will not succeed. What a fool.
Added By Admin,
There were many ways to answer my comment. You had an opportunity to shine a light on your knowledge and prove me wrong. I will leave this post here and let others judge what it says about you and Global Energy Systems.
Paul
Blanco69
March 7, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Wow Dave! You’ve made some far reaching claims here. You almost lost me with the Starship Enterprise and Red October stuff. However, I’m willing to accept that you know what you’re talking about. One question however. If you have such a comprehensive understanding of the process, can you tell me when your 250 COP ecat comes out?
earthhydro
March 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Sure all deserve a shot. But a million dollar project touting over unity energy…cant replicate results and cant measure output energy? cmom for real. science? let me show them how to measure the energy in and out. First the head has to come out of that deep orifice next to the shinola. then you have to stop acting like a geek sucking down research money on a schools dime. i say p and d need a liars scar and chastisement. or a written apology and some science about how they made such a boot lickers pathetic lie.
Bruno
March 7, 2012 at 5:46 pm
And Rossi can shut up every single “sneering” skeptic simply by allowing a well designed test run by an independent and respected 3rd party and corroborated by a few respected witnesses. In other words, he could do what was SUPPOSED to have happened on 28 October 2011, but did NOT happen. As long as Rossi keeps playing a shell game, all of the skepticism and criticism is well deserved.
Even if you cannot get the physics community to agree on WHAT is happening, everyone would be forced to admit that SOMETHING extraordinary is happening.
Frank
March 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm
… and yet Rossi could even easily make 1 Mio $ (from Mr. Smith) with a simple demonstration! (only if his e-cat would work)
I agree, all the scepticism and criticism is just reasonable and well deserved. And when someone tries to mislead, fool or even scam people, then he should be prepared for the sneer in return!
Dale G. Basgall
March 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Interesting topic this morning and to comment on one of admins statements; “If every scientist who proposed something new was treated like Pons and Fleischmann, we would have no new ideas.”
All scientists I have worked with are just regular people with regular yobs. I use the term yobs because that’s how it was explained to me from the person writing the allownace checks out.
A regular job you go to work and get some type pay and possibly “extra” benefit back for working and accomplishing a task, which the business owner can collect a tangible exchange back from your work and efforts.
Most of the scientist have families and enjoy regular family things. Their work however is rarely done because of their personal interest or wish to work in a specific direction on the science project. They have a project manager to answer to and usually do not get personally involved with the projects. Those are normal people with normal working skills.
Experimentors like us however and most commenting physicists, scientists, lawyers, mechanics, and inventors on this site working on the LENR project for science are “NOT” your normal science working crowd. They are the super nutballs of their trade and willing to stretch out the imagination if needed to make a point. Again I repeat these are not the normal mainstream workers it seems are being referred to in this post topic.
For any person to dable in energy products and think they are progressing for the good of anyone else is a definite lure with treble hooks all over. It’s about power and energy and if you have neither yourself you will be squashed like P & F were. They tried to help someone along with themselves and what did they find? Bigger giants with bigger pockets with bigger power and much purchased energy to make you realize that.
So only a nieve scientist would even consider getting involved in an energy project as LENR, they will end up getting crushed anyway just like Pons and Fleishman did.
So when you are doing something that makes electrical energy and claiming COP + of any magnitude be ware of those giants.
Consider this, you invent something on your own that revolutionizes the world in new energy. Does anyone here believe that a demand of money from that person inventing the new life saver would make that person monitarily wealthy?
When the demand or request from the inventor in money is worth more than the money it would cost just one of those giants to squash that person claiming title to the life saver energy invention, then guess what, the inventor and scientist are done with the project and the business people take over. After all it was for helping others all along the way.
So the reason things like this continue is diversification, the scientist, mechanic, or inventors all need to work for a living, otherwise they would be monitarily rich and enjoying their money doing other things, and most of them could care less just as long as they can eat and have shelter. Their concern in life was getting to the truth diligently.
Then we have the deep pockets that can afford to feed and house the workers that can actually figure out scientifically what needs to happen to reproduce effects not related to mechanics of a device, after all the scientists are not experienced mechanics.
So now we need a mechanic that can put the new device into a mechanical machine perfoming work to further “making” something reproduceable. Again that person is not wealthy and simply working for a living.
Then we need a machinist, an inventor to write the paperwork, and the list continues with workers with just one person controlling the purse strings and evaluating the next work tasks for the doers as mentioned.
So it boils down to the fact that many different skilled individuals are needed to make LENR happen, and that simply getting the “right” people together is as nearly complicated as the actual LENR research because none of the workers are naturally in the same area or on the same page within the project being financed by the person with the money in the first place.
Go figure that one out, we the experienced in our trades are all bowing to the purse holder that is there because of what? How do you think people get monitarily rich? Because their time is worth more than the people surrounding them, that’s why.
These people got wealthy in business which is fact related, and a personal goal.Science is poor people who’s desire was truth in smaller things like discovery which can stimulate and create motivation, while the business man looked in the present reality of it’s a dog eat dog world out there and my bowl of food is going to overflow so I can reproduce and support many more in my family.
Al Potenza
March 7, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Back to George Miley’s newest paper. He claims production of 1479J. When I convert this to kW hrs, Google returns this:
1479 joules = 0.000410833333 kilowatt hours
Or if you prefer, 0.4 watt hours.
How we get from this to several hundred watt batteries isn’t clear from this article:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
Not only that but the paper also says this:
“… well above the maximum exothermal energy (690J) possible from all conceivable chemical reactions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to negligible power input with gas loading!”
I don’t know what to make of that. What “unlikely reactions” are not being included?
Has anyone read any Miley papers that demonstrate a large power output or the release of much more energy than described above? Any that rigorously rule out chemical reactions (unlikely or otherwise)? Links would be appreciated.
Jami
March 7, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Look closely. He produced the 1479 Joules not in an hour but in about 200-300 seconds (depending on where you start on his graph) and with about 20g of material (as stated in the supplemetal presentation). That does in fact translate to roughly 350 W/kg.
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 7:23 pm
OK, so my theory that he was actually using only a few grams of Palladium is correct.
So, he was being misleading when he quoted 350 Watts. He was really generating something like 3 – 7 Watts, and he “extrapolated” to come up with a much more impressive-sounding number.
He doesn’t present any data to suggest that this process can be scaled up. 350 Watts/Kilogram is hardly cost-effective, and so far we have no reason to believe that it is even possible.
Why does he only show 200 seconds worth of data? His description suggests that it can run “forever”. Why stop at 200 seconds?
He tells us that two of the three thermocouples are “poorly placed” and we should only pay attention to the one thermocouple showing a different reading. Shades of Rossi’s E-Cat!
Pekka Janhunen
March 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm
I can’t think of a reason why a device like that wouldn’t be arbitrarily scalable. I mean, if it’s just a piece of metal in certain environment. Maybe he doesn’t scale it because it it’s really trivial to anyone who gets to look at it. (Once someone does.)
Jami
March 7, 2012 at 7:51 pm
To be fair, Miley’s claims are rather humble. He himself doesn’t claim having invented a new energy source for mankind’s next century but merely a possible energy source for a space probe. He also talks explicitly about “proof of principle” and mentions the 1479 Joules in the same sentence as the 350 W/kg – so he doesn’t try being deceptive about that. Why he stopped after 350 seconds or didn’t explain if/how he accounted for the energy resulting from external pressure changes and why he didn’t just fix the thermocouples when he discovered their bad placement or, or, or… I don’t know. But there appears to be a huge differnce between what Miley actually claims and what people make of it in support of Rossi – most of which Miley would probably disagree with anyway.
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Saying “350 Watts/Kilogram” when what he actually generated was approximately 5 Watts is misleading. If you don’t agree, I could come up with a list of comments on LENR web sites where people did believe that he was claiming he generated 350 Watts.
He might as well have said that he was generating 350 Gigawatts per Teragram.
I agree that this does nothing to “validate” Rossi.
Ruff Limblog
March 7, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Dear John Milstone,
I share the opinion of those who feel you are attempting to twist Miley’s announcement into something it is not.
Modern electronics can be engineered to use VERY LITTLE power and a battery that can produce 350 watts for 1 kilogram of weight could be very useful for a space probe, given the current cost of lifting things into earth orbit and the even higher costs of boosting a device to orbit around another another planet in our solar system.
Thanks,
Ruff Limblog
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Ruff Limblog: I agree with you that if Miley can produce a device that converts a kilo of Palladium into 350 Watts of power “forever”, it would make an ideal energy source for space probes. Right now, they rely on Plutonium, which (I assume) is far more expensive than Palladium.
My complaint isn’t that Miley included a “power density” number, but that he failed to provide the real numbers from his work. That left many of the LENR enthusiasts to jump to the conclusion that Miley was actually generating 350 Watts. There is no evidence of that.
kwhilborn
March 8, 2012 at 12:47 am
So now 3 frauds on your list Milstone?
John Milstone
March 8, 2012 at 1:47 am
Um, no.
Miley’s latest abstract has some questionable aspects to it, and appears to be sloppy, but that’s a long way from fraud (lying about fraudulent “inventions” to collect money from gullible investors).
A legitimate researcher or scientist will provide all the relevant data, and will allow independent replication of his work. If Miley does this, then I will give him all the respect due a scientist.
If Miley starts stonewalling, and making ridiculous claims without backing them up (you know, just like Rossi and DGE), then I will add him to the list of frauds.
daniel maris
March 7, 2012 at 10:18 pm
And yet he specifically claims: “…our present test units are at lab bench power levels (multi 100s watts)” It’s a puzzle. I don’t think we can square that one until the presentation.
John Milstone
March 7, 2012 at 11:01 pm
While I would love for his claim of “lab bench power levels (multi 100s watts)” to be true, I strongly suspect that will turn out to be a typo, with the actual figure being 100s of Milliwatts.
If he really had bench units producing 100s of Watts, that would be a bigger story than what he’s presenting.
daniel maris
March 7, 2012 at 11:57 pm
I accept that’s quite likely but I think there are some ambiguities in what is said.
We will have to be patient to find out for sure I think.
LCD
March 8, 2012 at 3:08 am
How are you drawing these conclusions John?
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 9:27 am
(Sorry, my first attempt at a reply was truncated, and the edit function won’t let me fix it.)
Miley’s abstract is about generating < 10 Watts (although he tries to hide that number).
Then, he mentions in passing that his bench-top lab device(s) generate more than 10 times what he's claiming for the subject of his paper.
You do the math.
GreenWin
March 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Excellent post today. An important topic which will be addressed as the LANR story unfolds. The pillory of F&P was so broad and so malicious that its perpetrators cannot hide. They perhaps were well-meaning scientists whose myopic world view became threatened – not by gentry but the fairly unwashed — in Utah of all places.
Parks, Huizenga and the MIT clan will have to answer for their actions. Their trial will serve to clean house and re-establish an apolitical approach to scientific method.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Richard Feynman
psi
March 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Your analysis is quite good – I especially like the way being from *Utah* became part of the mix. I’m no Mormon, but it really is a shame to see that kind of elitist prejudice in action. Hopefully LENR will be a humbling reminder to all the academic elites of how frail reputation can be, and how being dogmatic about the impregnability of the dominant paradigm can be a really bad idea. The reputation you may save by being open to new discovery may be your own. Unfortunately, that seems to be one of those lessons that every generation of intellectual elites has to learn over again. The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk – but she does and will fly.
Ivy Matt
March 8, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Hey, the U of U was no slouch in its day: one of the four original nodes of the ARPANET, and a pioneer in computer graphics research. I warrant coastal elitism may have played a role, but lets not also forget the important point that Pons & Fleischmann were electrochemists, not nuclear physicists. I believe that played a much larger role in their eventual ostracism from academia. Specialism rules the day these days.
Ruff Limblog
March 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Dr H,
I googled ‘Global Energy Systems’ and ‘David Farnsworth’ and I am interested in finding out more. Can you send an email to “RuffLimbog(at)Gmail.Com”, please?
I have some ideas that may or may not have been tried with Ni-H technology and would like to collaborate with the right person.
I am thinking that if somebody has ‘prior art’ that could be combined with my (hopefully new) ideas that maybe we could “turn the key in the lock”.
Thanks,
Ruff
Quax
March 7, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Just another quick plug that the survey results are out at
http://hotandcoldfusion.wordpress.com
Now, new and improved with a comment thread if you want to discuss the surveys results.
Sorry, about not realizing earlier that comments were disabled previously.
General ecat discussions should obviously rather stay here.
GreenWin
March 8, 2012 at 1:21 am
For those unfamiliar with Mills’ original patent “Low-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures”
This US issued patent covers production of energy from resonance in fractional atomic H dissociated from molecular H2.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6024935/description.html
It has marked similarities to the Greek and Italian reactor devices.
Quax
March 8, 2012 at 5:04 am
Astounding what you can get patented in the US.
Where does that leave Rossi’s claim not to be able to get any patent protection?
Ivy Matt
March 8, 2012 at 6:57 pm
As far as I am aware, Rossi has never made that claim. Rather, that claim has been made on his behalf by some of his fans. It is also not uncommon among cold fusion researchers themselves, particularly Mitchell Swartz. The only thing Rossi himself has said on the subject is that it takes a relatively long time for patents to be granted in the US, which is quite true, whether or not the patent involves claims of cold fusion.
GreenWin
March 8, 2012 at 11:11 pm
So, the grumpy ol’ USPATOFF eventually gave Dr. Mills the patent he wanted. Which clearly acknowledges Hydrino theory and operation – since the patent requires a “demonstrable” invention.
I can hear the shrieking at Cal Tech. The MIT clan put fingers in ears.
Quax
March 8, 2012 at 11:18 pm
I wouldn’t count on it being “demonstrable”. At least in the software world the IP system is completely broken. Wouldn’t be surprised if that was also the case in other areas.
Dsm
March 8, 2012 at 2:36 am
Admin
Good choice of topic and very relevant
Thanks
Dsm
Mr. G
March 8, 2012 at 4:29 am
I disagree with the OP. Pons and Fleishchmann were not punished because of their “new” ivory tower shatter ideas.
Pons and Fleischmann broke the rules of scientific and academic integrity and were publically humilliated because of that. Instead of using the traditional peer review route they called the 7-oclock news claiming energy salvation for the human race. What a farce. With episodes like that and Climate Gate it’s no wonder Americans don’t trust scientists.
They got what they deserved in my opinion.
Notice how those folks at OPERO handled their equally incredulous discovery of faster than light neutrinos. They were humble and reached out to the rest of the scientific community looking for collaberation.
G
Quax
March 8, 2012 at 4:54 am
Mr. G, while your point about Pons and Fleishchmann circumventing the peer review process is a valid one your info, on ClimateGate is somewhat outdated.
It is reasonable to assume that the same fossil fuel industry that is often suspected here to suppress LENR had a vested interest in perpetuating the faux ClimateGate scandal.
Unlike Pons and Fleischchmann the climate researchers have been fully cleared:
http://www.cce-review.org
Mr. G
March 8, 2012 at 5:17 am
Quax, your absolutely right about the ClimateGate scandal. It’s a terrible and misleading example for what I was trying to prove. Thanks for pointing that out.
G
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 5:26 am
I just looked at the cce report.
These guys conclude the data was not tampered with on the basis of public domain documents and interviews!
To properly investigate would require some IT Audit and none was performed. Computer systems can be easily manipulated. I have witnessed audit features bypassed directly under the noses of external auditors.
The report is a wordy piece with no meat.
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 5:06 am
Just because P&F did not follow the holy orders of Big Science does not invalidate their claims.
According to E. Mallove the claims were fraudulently debunked, described at great length in his writings.
P&F results were of immediate end general public interest and publishing the general findings was valid.
Americans don’t trust science because Americans are dumbed down by their own government. (see your two term Education Department Secretaries meticulously documented book)
http://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Dumbing-America-Revised-Abridged/dp/0966707117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331182917&sr=8-1
If Americans understood science, they would know that scientists are fallible and that all science is subject to revision. Which other stories in the media are subject to peer review before publishing? None.
Mr. G
March 8, 2012 at 5:33 am
@spacegoat
“P&F results were of immediate end general public interest and publishing the general findings was valid.”
Okay sure, than who caused the media circus? Were the expectations overblown by the media, P&F or the public?
“all science is subject to revision”
Yes, that’s true. That’s the beauty of science. All theories are up for debate all the time.
G
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 10:39 am
Mr. G
The media is the circus and of course they over blow everything.
Expectations? … anyone announcing “test-tube” based energy is bound to create massive expectations. Isn’t that why we all visit this site? Except for us, expectations are base on Italian “sauce”?
But almost all of us posting here know our expectations are only based on “Rossi Says” blogging. We know that ultimately our hopes may be dashed.
So I would blame the media and to a lesser extent a gullible public that swallow media statements uncritically.
Quax
March 8, 2012 at 6:24 am
If only they were.
Quax
March 8, 2012 at 6:16 am
@spacegoat
The level of coordination required if they altered computer records would necessitate a lot of communication and be quite a logistical challenge.
And why where these email servers hacked in the first place? I think you are much more likely to find a conspiracy asking who benefited from this.
Jami
March 8, 2012 at 8:32 am
I disagree. Not with the “cui bono” part, but with the conclusion that climategate was “fully cleared”, as you put it. Whether or not they manipulated data is not really the question. The true scandal, IMHO, lies in the insight into how a clique of scientists established a closed circle of buddies controlling most of the journals and how they coordinated statements and reviews not primarily based on scientific merit but on a “we against them” scheme where political ends justify means. Their credibility took a large hit – and they’ve got only themselves to blame for it.
(To clarify – I’m not a climate denier. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations in the atmosphere will consequently lead to higher temperatures. But having looked at some of them, I think that results based on established climate models are about as much of a scientific proof as a roll of the dice – probably less).
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 11:04 am
Coordination for altering computer records a challenge? Of course that depends, and we won’t have level of technical detail revealed.
Why they were hacked? Isn’t every network interface being probed and hacked if vulnerable?.
Quax
March 10, 2012 at 2:25 am
You know the old journo saying: “It’s not the conspiracy, but the conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy that usually does them in.”
Dsm
March 8, 2012 at 7:23 am
Dick Smith has moved his 1mill LENR offer to a new website called http://www.dicksmithaustralia.com
Dsm
Methusela
March 8, 2012 at 10:06 am
At the risk of being accused of sniping, why is it registered via DomainsByProxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy
Shouldn’t it be directly linked to the real Dick Smith?
Also, at the time of writing, it has this info on it:
1. CarterCopters Interest Group Web Site
2. Rotorcraft – General info about Rotorcraft
3. CPAP Info Website
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 10:58 am
Methusala
Truth is it got hacked twice in 2 days. AThat is why.
1 st someone appears to have hacked the hosting sites domain servers and redirected dicksmith.internetage.com to a cleaning service in ???
That matter has been reported to the hosting service as it is a serious matter when a DNS gets hacked.
Then when we put in place an alt domain & temp reset internetage.com with the DSOffer, that got hacked and the index.html altered.
So the hosting service is tracking sown who altered their DNS server and the matter has been forwarded in ICANN plus there are traces being put in place to determine how the web alterations were done.
Do you know anything about the sabotage ?
What it tells us is that someone sure is taking risks to block Dicks offer.
DSM
Methusela
March 9, 2012 at 11:59 am
Do I know anything about it?
ADMIN: dsm is (in)directly accusing me of being complicit in a criminal act.
I find this VERY, VERY, offensive.
But then he and his associate Dick are very fond of throwing accusations around without evidence.
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I asked you a simple question & rather than answer you twisted the story
Can you just answer the question – thanks
DSM
barty
March 8, 2012 at 12:04 pm
This guy has so much money, and creates a website which looks like one from 1995…
Not realy reliable.
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 11:08 am
They didn’t have stylesheets in 1995 ( but you must have known that
)
The intent was to keep it simple and have it work on all devices incl iPads and it does.
We discussed a full blown Jumala style site but Dick as always said just keep it simple & functional.
Now if you want to volunteer a full blown over the top site please submit a design but it needs to be gratis because that is what the current site is.
DSM
Ivy Matt
March 8, 2012 at 7:13 pm
You might want to create the actual website before you announce the domain name. Also, given the level of, er, skepticism around here, you might want Dick Smith to make a mention of his official $1 million LENR offer website somewhere on the Australian Skeptics website, just so people don’t start wondering whether or not they’re dealing with the real Dick Smith.
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 11:02 am
The site was working immediately befor the link was published. I have explained that some 1st hacked the domain server then the site.
The hosting org are cooperating in tracking down how their dns svr was altered. ICANN have also been notified.
Cheers DSM
Ivy Matt
March 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Sorry, I didn’t know that.
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Ivy
It wasn’t something we wanted to talk about because it occured whilst Dick was travelling and then the day it happened so was I.
Gotta tell you it is quite an experince to be battling hacking of this intensity, whilst sitting in transit in airports & with nothing more than an iPad. Then being in places with lousey WiFi access trying to get investigations & traces launched.
In terms of forensicts and nailing the trouble makers ( who have their agenda whatever it is) it seems to me a bit like trying to perform an operation over the phone when your lab full of specialised gear isn’ t within reach.
I haven’ t yet worked out how to do a traceroute from an iPad – good as they are, they have their limitations.
We may have a few more twists n turns before we stop the attacks so don’t be surprised what shows up on the domains we publicise before I am back innmy lab with all the CISSP tools usually available.
DSM
Quax
March 10, 2012 at 12:52 am
As far as I am concerned this is a news item in its own right.
Peter Roe
March 8, 2012 at 8:45 am
Posted on ecat.com (short summary emailed to subscribers). Nothing much new except for the proposed 5-8MW(electrical) unit, but it summarises the various bits and pieces dribbled out via JONP:
“Andrea Rossi ECAT – March update
Here is a summary of the latest ECAT developments made by Andrea Rossi:
Andrea Rossi has developed a new design of the ECAT Home unit which is 33cm x 33cm x 6cm and can be put vertically or horizontally. Total weight is 10 kg
The technology is completely changed, new patents have been applied for, an intense testing program is going on with very good result.
Leonardo Corp will defend its Intellectual Property against copycats in all necessary courts.
The new ECAT Home unit has two simple connections for input and output of water.
No pictures will be released until the product is for sale.
By law a customer has 60 days of time to give back the device if unsatisfied, and Leonardo Corp give all the guarantees required by the law.
Production capacity of new factory is one million units per year.
The hydrogen canister has been removed and the hydrogen is now stored inside a solid material due to safety reasons.
There is a new control system for both the ECAT Home unit and the ECAT 1MW Plant which are made from an undisclosed supplier, not National Instruments.
The only certified places to pre-order an ECAT are either Info@leonardocorp1996.com and/or via the order form at ECAT.com
Certification from UL – Underwriters Laboratories is in process.
The highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the domestic ECAT is just below the melting point of Nickel.
No radiation has ever been detected outside the ECAT.
The ECAT has already got important authorizations.
The COP (Coefficient of Performance) is 6.
Licenses to sell and market ECATs has been granted to licensees, not yet published.
When Leonardo Corporation will execute the commercial strategy, the entire network of the licensees will be published.
Andrea Rossi anticipates that an air conditioned generator and a electricity generator will eventually be suitable accessories for the ECAT.
Siemens has shown an electricity solution for Andrea Rossi with 33% efficiency for 25MWe at 250C, 40bar and a smaller version with 30% efficiency for 5-8MWe also at 250C, 40bar in the secondary circuit.”
Peter Roe
March 8, 2012 at 9:09 am
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://ecat.com/news/andrea-rossi-ecat-march-update
From the style, Rossi is clearly the author (‘copycats’ but sadly no ‘snakes’) so this release must be categorised as ‘Rossi says’ until there is some real evidence.
spacegoat
March 8, 2012 at 11:17 am
Rossi Says:
“The technology is completely changed”
But no update on the date of beginning “robotic factory production”
Strange project manager that says the project is completely changed without comment on time-lines.
Maybe the Leonardo Trust are wealthy enough to just trust … in Rossi Says.
un passante
March 8, 2012 at 1:21 pm
maybe the leonardo trust know more than we do…
harry perini
March 8, 2012 at 11:31 am
Andrea Rossi ECAT – March update
Here is a summary of the latest ECAT developments made by Andrea Rossi:
Andrea Rossi has developed a new design of the ECAT Home unit which is 33cm x 33cm x 6cm and can be put vertically or horizontally. Total weight is 10 kg
The technology is completely changed, new patents have been applied for, an intense testing program is going on with very good result
Leonardo Corp will defend its Intellectual Property against copycats in all necessary courts
The new ECAT Home unit has two simple connections for input and output of water
No pictures will be released until the product is for sale
By law a customer has 60 days of time to give back the device if unsatisfied, and Leonardo Corp give all the guarantees required by the law
Production capacity of new factory is one million units per year
The hydrogen canister has been removed and the hydrogen is now stored inside a solid material due to safety reasons
There is a new control system for both the ECAT Home unit and the ECAT 1MW Plant which are made from an undisclosed supplier, not National Instruments
The only certified places to pre-order an ECAT are either Info@leonardocorp1996.com and/or via the order form at ECAT.com
Certification from UL – Underwriters Laboratories is in process
The highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the domestic ECAT is just below the melting point of Nickel
No radiation has ever been detected outside the ECAT
The ECAT has already got important authorizations
The COP (Coefficient of Performance) is 6
Licenses to sell and market ECATs has been granted to licensees, not yet published
When Leonardo Corporation will execute the commercial strategy, the entire network of the licensees will be published
Andrea Rossi anticipates that an air conditioned generator and a electricity generator will eventually be suitable accessories for the ECAT
Siemens has shown an electricity solution for Andrea Rossi with 33% efficiency for 25MWe at 250C, 40bar and a smaller version with 30% efficiency for 5-8MWe also at 250C, 40bar in the secondary circuit
Jami
March 8, 2012 at 3:34 pm
What I find most shocking about the Rossi affair is not so much that people exist who actually believe him. Far more troubling are those who believe so much that they’re already quibbling about whether it will be 30 or 33cm wide or what thread pitch the flanges will have. Its like somebody announces he’ll sell extra-lightspeed spaceships next summer for 100 bucks each and all people are asking is “can I order it with leather seats and what are the color choices?”.
harry perini
March 8, 2012 at 11:33 am
http://ecat.com/news/andrea-rossi-ecat-march-update
Blanco69
March 8, 2012 at 11:52 am
I’ve seen that post somewhere before Harry. Can’t think where…..
Schist
March 8, 2012 at 1:26 pm
When P&F announced they had made the amazing discovery, there were doubters but little or no sneering; instead there was the cover of Time magazine and the news program interviews.
The sneering began after a few weeks, when nobody could replicate their device.
Did P&F re-do their device and advise the people trying to replicate that they had to change x by 10 percent – or something like that?
No, they were silent. The sneering continued.
Then the the Japs gave them a million-dollar lab to play with. They had all the resources to do it right this time. Nothing came of it. By this time, the sneerers were too tired even to sneer.
So they had nothing. Why did they make the announcement in the first place? Just some huge, stupid mistake, I guess.
The sneering was certainly deserved.
Ben
March 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm
This link below gives a follow up the work on P&F in the lab built by Toyota. In it, Dr. Martin Fleishmann and the ABC News science editor discuss the close-minded mentality of science in the United States. Really quite a good piece from Good Morning America. In an interview with the director of the Toyota lab, he states that company’s belief in the value of cold fusion research. The video indicates that indeed progress was made from the original experiment, although P&F were never able to bring the output to commercial levels. I would imagine that is the reason Toyota ultimately stopped funding the research. Japanese researchers have done some of the best work in the field. The “state of the art” in the field was established by Japanese researcher Y. Arata, who publicly demonstrated a cell in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaijlN1AKo
Ben
March 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm
My bad. The Japanese cold fusion advocate in the video is a researcher, not the director of the lab.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 4:13 am
Schist your point of view is that of a first layer investigation. You need to continue to dig deeper to get to the next layers and the real truth.
A reasonable person will find that there was plenty “not” to sneer about.
several people here link good articles all the time about this that are fully referenced. You should take the time to read them. Also read lenr-canr.org.
Read and make up your own mind. Happy researching.
barty
March 8, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Cold Fusion Demonstration During MIT Short Course:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue102/mitdemo.html
Jami
March 8, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Krivit has got a new report out on Rossi.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml
Quote: “Many people who have followed the story of Andrea Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer are aware that Rossi’s claims are poorly supported by scientific facts, yet these people can’t imagine how Rossi intends to profit from this deception.”
Ransompw
March 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm
…and then he wrote, “How could he intend to profit. This analysis will answer these questions”
I then spent 15 minutes reading his article which doesn’t answer that question at all. What a waste of time.
Jami
March 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Yep. Just finished and couldn’t find the big bang either.
GreenWin
March 8, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“The suppression of cold fusion is just one example of how our modern the scientific community operates more like a group of high priests than seekers of genuine scientific understanding. As a result, the science we live with today only represents a small fraction of the true scientific knowledge available to mankind.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/006171_cold_fusion_modern_medicine.html#ixzz1oXtZGXpl
H E R E S Y!
Bob D
March 8, 2012 at 5:37 pm
OK,
Are there 2 Andrea Rossi’s?
First, we have:
“Andrea Rossi
February 29th, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Dear Martin:
We started the tests of the domestic reactor. The technology is completely changed, new patents have been applied for, an intense testing program is going on. ”
Then he says:
“Andrea Rossi
March 5th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Dear Joe:
1- a 1 MW plant is just an assembly of 100 10 kW modules
2- the max power we have per module is 10 kW”
Either there are 2 Rossi’s or Rossi is coming apart at the seams.
LCD
March 8, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Don’t follow Bob. Probably different packaging technologies for different market sectors.
Additionally one could argue the 1MW plants are to ship NOW with older tech but the domestics are newer tech to ship LATER.
Rossi might be full of it but this isn’t a smoking gun of anything is all I’m saying.
No disrespect intended.
Pekka Janhunen
March 8, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Sorry, what is unclear? In the first reply he speaks about the home unit which is redesigned relative to 2011 versions. The March 5 reply is self-evident, nearly redundant.
GreenWin
March 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Now we’ve got this fellow Dr. Pettersson of Upsalla University saying Rossi’s device is a “revolution.”
http://consciouslifenews.com/cat-cold-fusion-revolution/1125754/
Really? A water heater??
Lu
March 8, 2012 at 7:50 pm
This video is from last October. Nothing new.
Edit is back! Thanks Admin.
GreenWin
March 8, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Thanks Lu. What does this guy know anyway?
LCD
March 8, 2012 at 6:38 pm
I think somebody wrote this article for POPEYE. lol
http://www.naturalnews.com/006171_cold_fusion_modern_medicine.html#ixzz1oXtZGXpl
daniel maris
March 8, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Rossi is pumping out the answers at JNP.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580#comments
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 4:33 am
I tried to match the responses of yes/no with the questions and finally got tired.
Is that what the Q/A section does, put them in order?
Dick Smith
March 8, 2012 at 11:48 pm
The only people who need to know if i am the real Dick Smith and whether my offer is genuine are those who have a !KW machine.
There are clearly none of those people around!
If there was one i reckon they would phone me and check the details. i would be happy to arrange for the money to be placed in escrow as long as they covered the small cost of doing this.
The reason for the $60 website is that i don’t wish to waste too much money on deluded people.
Ransompw
March 9, 2012 at 12:18 am
Oh boy, Dick is back. Dick if someone has a kilowatt machine they don’t need your million and beside you haven’t offered it to anyone who has a kilowatt machine.
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 3:08 am
Yeah he has. Rossi said no and Defkalion started playing games.
But you know this already. So its you that is now playing games.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 4:04 am
Didn’t rossi say something like, just buy one and test it yourself. When he’s ready to sell it of course.
Ransompw
March 9, 2012 at 4:30 am
Well the prize on his website isn’t offering the million to any LENR Inventor. His offer to Rossi was rejected and he backed away from Defkalion when they acceoted his proposal.
Ivy Matt
March 9, 2012 at 10:24 am
Wait, now I’m confused. Do Rossi and Defkalion have kilowatt devices, or do they not?
Quax
March 9, 2012 at 3:54 am
Geez, Dick I spend more money just surveying these people.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 12:31 am
Krivit has posted a timeline of Rossi and the E-Cat. It includes something I haven’t seen before, a followup email from Julia Beggs (National Instruments) that clarifies the relationship between NI and Rossi/Leonardo Corporation (LINK).
This email clearly states that NI never have a contract with Rossi, that they haven’t had any relationship with Rossi “for some time” and that they did not design a control system for him.
Unless you believe that Krivit is forging emails from Julia Beggs, this is clear evidence that Rossi has been lying repeatedly and in detail about his relationship with NI.
Tony
March 9, 2012 at 2:21 am
The whole thing has degenerated to the point where it isn’t evn fun anymore. If these fraudsters (AR and DGT) don’t do the simple tests to prove they have something above known power density, then all of the talk about NI and Siemens is useless.
Go to the Siemens website. The biggest supplier of energy related devices has nothing, nothing, about AR on that site. Don’t tell me about NDA’s. If Siemens thought this was a game changer, it would be everywhere on their site and they would never, never, let AR post on his blog that “Siemens gave us the answer”. Please. If there was an NDA it would bind AR and not Siemens. I’m predicting that within the next few days, you’ll see Siemens doing the same dance as NI. Except that Siemens is way, way bigger than NI. We may see AR issuing another retractive statement that calls out a translational error” in regards to Siemens.
We hope and we hope and everyime a soul hopes, there is someone just waiting to turn that that hope into a dollar. And the ones who hope are more than willing to give the dollar away – and the dollar doesn’t really have to be even a real dollar. All it has to be is the idea that the thing we hope for is real.
Look at the Krivit article from today and remove the glasses of hope and read it for what it is. A portrait of a man who who has serially used ecological and energy issues to line his own pockets while producing nothing – nothing – of value to any man, woman, or child on this planet. As a matter of fact Petroldragon was nothing more than an a simple front for high paying clients to dump their toxic waste under the guise of an alternative energy scheme. And this is the man we trust to save us from depleting energy reserves? The man who will give profits to cure childhood cancer? We haven’t heard that in a whle, have we?
I’m not a “pathoskeptic” and that term is insulting in the extreme to those of us who want to see an an energy future relieved of the dependence on fossil fuels and do not want to played by the likes of AR and DGT. Troubling times are coming for our children and grandchildren and if either of these two fraudsters have something to mitigate or eliminate that and they are not above board about it (which from what we know right now seems highly likely) then they should be strung up right now.
Good Luck fellow travelers. Perhaps we’ll meet again on some other forum and the energy will be flowing freely because of AR and DGT. I hope – but wouldn’t bet on it.
Tony2
spacegoat
March 9, 2012 at 2:37 am
Good post Tony. I think optimism (not belief) is way down right now. After the Oct 26 “test” I was 80% optimistic (50% = neutral) in a free, unlimited clean energy ecat. Now I’m down to 55%.
The decrease is entirely down to RossiSays blogging. Defkalion appear to have listened to RossiSays and have STFU until “products” roll. Why does AR not listen to himself? Who is the target audience for RossiSays? Investors? Potential purchasers must be suspicious, bored and confused by the blogging.
Alain
March 9, 2012 at 2:57 am
You catch some point, but I think that about Siemens silence you underestimate the cowardliness of executives in big corporation.
Until they are 100.000% sure they won’t communicate even a word. In my opinion, this is the reason of Defkalion closing their forum.
it is probably a demand of the big organization, afraid of a leak of their participation to tests.
I feel that they wait for each of them (the 7 big testers) to have the same positive report, to publish a common report where each one cover the butt of each other.
It can look crazy, but in the army service we (the carpet cleaner) were saying always : being right alone might be punished, being wrong together won’t catch any problems. It prevent initiative and allow group stupidity and dishonesty.
in IT business, in the 90s it was said that, if it is an IBM solution, you will never be blamed even if it fails and it was expected.
about group delusion, there is also the theory of Roland Benabou that can explain that people cannot admit they have lost trillions in future-less energy, in a predictable way (most really independent experts know it was hopeless even without LENR. Only political agenda and business interest allow those inefficient energy to catch interest)
see http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40#p48
for that theory and other remarks about delusion and fraud around consensus and science…
Pekka Janhunen
March 9, 2012 at 6:35 am
Yes it’s likely that those testers who want to go public will do it together. We are told that the last test is at end of March so one would expect something around mid April then. How many it is, remains to be seen. Almost certainly less than seven, hopefully more than zero.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
At this point, you still believe that these “well-known” testers exist?!?
Amazing!
Alain
March 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm
@John Milstone
Can you imagine that DGT propose independent test in 2 month, with harder to fraud test protocols compared with flow calorimetry, with huge claims (COP>>20), giving many information… without having something real.
first you have to admit that LENR is real, see spawar. then the claims of focardi/celani/piantelli does not seems so strange…
then if you understand that Ni+H hot gaz reactor, even is not very efficient and powerful, can easily (according to standard engineering methodology ) be optimized so that the reaction density get higher, the heat recycled, the stability enforced,… the you can easily think that an enterprise can do that in 6-12 month with standards engineers.
If it is a fraud, the quality of the engineering answers they give on their forum is not rational. The quick delay proposed for testing neither.
sure they break their own protocol, but they admit it, and even admit more breaking than needed (they admit a 2x12h tests, instead of 2x48h). they brutal reaction seems to be a brutal change of strategy, or reaction to an external event.
if there were no testers, there will be a smooth evolution of the storytelling.
If they have no good reactor, they will have anticipated the failure.
something hard happened, and that hard event is in my opinion the fact the the testers realize it was so great they will have to block any communication before fully prepared.
It is true anyway that Defkalion semi-open communication was a little uncommon for a classic corp. now it is standard. silence.
did you even work in a big corp? for a big gov agency ?
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 8:35 am
You underestimate Rossi’s willingness to lie about his “business associations” with legitimate companies and organizations.
The reason Siemens is “silent” is because they have no real relationship with Rossi. Just like the Universities of Bologna and Uppsala, and Nasa and Quantum and SPAWAR and National Instruments (and I’m sure I’ve lost track of others).
Alain
March 9, 2012 at 1:47 pm
no I don’t underestimate Rossi crazy ego and race to escape from his mistakes…
but Siemens behavior is expected to be silent, even if they are in strong negociation…
anyway NI behavior, with the first announce, not refuted, with the LENR interna group, with their subsequent acknowledge of non agreement, but proposal of competence to all LENR researchers, make a good point on the reality of the relation.
no way to know what happens with Siemens, silence mean nothing, not that there is nothing.
with no data, assuming failure is a mistake, like assuming success.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 2:12 pm
We have plenty of data to draw reasonable conclusions:
Rossi lied about his relationship with UniBo.
Rossi lied about his relationship with Uppsala.
Rossi lied about his relationship with NASA.
Rossi lied about his relationship with NI.
Rossi allowed his shill (Sterling Allan) to lie about numerous other business relationships: Rossi’s “secret” customer is the Navy, or Nasa, or National Instruments, among other things.
I can’t think of a single statement by Rossi (or his shills) that has actually been confirmed. Either they are “secret” (very convenient for a con man), or they’ve been proven false.
If you can provide a specific, non-trivial statement by Rossi about his “business” that has actually been confirmed by independent sources, please share it, because I can’t think of a single one.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 2:53 am
Julia Betts could have written the same email about me on several occasions and if I had said what rossi said it wouldn’t have been a lie. Maybe misleading in the sense the relationship was over long before everybody thought it was a partnership. But that’s just not a smoking gun. Its not even a used cigarette butt.
In the end not using NI makes more sense because if you’ve worked for the government you would know that they do not like things fielded from NI software. It’s too proprietary.
NI stuff is better for prototype design, manufacture testing, manufacturing control, and very custom stuff (one of). Its not really that great for using as a software basis in a large quantity manufacturing product. For that you want C, C++, etc.
Again its a non-starter. Means nothing except that it was blown out of proportion by the blogosphere and Rossi let it happen.
I’m starting to see the same thing happening with Siemens. He’s talking to them, that’s it. I talk to them too, doesn’t mean we’re getting married. Move on.
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 3:14 am
I assume you never tried to use NI to legitimise yourself.
Rossi did. its the classic legitimacy by association. also known as name dropping.
It works too, just look at how many people fell for it.
That’s the difference between you and Rossi, it means you have a much higher integrity.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 3:43 am
CuriousChris I respect your opinion that he used it to “legitimize” himself but I don’t share it.
Rossi could be the worlds best con man for all I know but what I do know today is that nobody has “fallen” for anything.
I haven’t “heard” anything either from the “military” or “civil military” sector to backup that claim either in public or private information channels.
If you know who “fell” for it other than meaning they thought there was a relationship there because they wanted to believe it please tell me.
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 4:49 am
I am a little confused. You say you don’t know who fell for it, but when Rossi announced NI was working with him it was touted all over the interwebs? Lots of blogs used it as proof Rossi was telling the truth. So they all fell for it.
I personally don’t know anybody who gave Rossi money because of NI. But then why would I, I am not privy to Rossi’s financials. Are you?
Alain
March 9, 2012 at 12:59 pm
about NI, it is clear that the non agreement with NI looks like a negative point.
but in the few weeks of their pretended joint work, it is sure there was an internag private group names LENR whose description says it was to talk of LENR, high-temperature superconduction and sothe lattice assisted quantum effects in solid.
it is now secret, after 2-3 weeks of beeing visibly public.
also the staff of NI did not remove the annouce of “talk”, and confirm they did not agree on a partnership, but that theit technology could help LENR technology (they don’t talk of UFO and homeopathy, but of LHC, ITER and LENR)
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Alain, that isn’t surprising, and it does not give Rossi any credibility.
It makes perfect sense that if NI were approached about a revolutionary new LENR-based device that they would attempt to collect and organize whatever information they could on the subject.
After all, Rossi had just reached “celebrity” status, with news coverage all over the mainstream media. If there was even a small chance of Rossi being legitimate, NI would have proceeded as though he were legitimate.
Unfortunately for NI, all Rossi was after was some sort of positive public statement, which he got. At that point, NI was of no further use to him, and he cut off negotiations.
The key point is that NI never actually got their hands on an E-Cat. The Universities of Bologna and Uppsala never actually got their hands on an E-Cat. NASA and Quantum never actually got their hands on an E-Cat. And, one of these days, we will learn that neither Underwriter’s Laboratory nor Siemens ever actually got their hands on an E-Cat.
Do you see the pattern there?
LCD
March 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm
John Milstone said
“Unfortunately for NI, all Rossi was after was some sort of positive public statement, which he got.”
John that’s called a WAG, short for Wild Ass Guess.The only pattern I see here is that you are making assumptions out to be as facts. Have you got any proof of anything you just blurted out as if factual.
You don’t. Nobody here does.
As a neutral person I can see you accussing the believers of doing this very thing as you do the exact same thing yourself.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 7:37 am
Rossi said:
This wasn’t the blogosphere “blowing things out of proportion”. This was Rossi lying, repeatedly and over an extended period of time. There was no contract. NI never got beyond generic sales-related contacts with Rossi. NI never designed a controller for the E-Cat.
Rossi has been lying about it all along.
This thread is about “pathological doubt”. Unfortunately, Rossi has brought out the “pathological belief” in people.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Instead of carrying on and on Milstone, why don’t you e-mail Julia Betts yourself and ask her if these statements are exaggerations or outright lies.
julia dot betts@ni dot com
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I don’t have to. They are perfectly reasonable, and I have no trouble believing that they are legitimate.
If you are determined to defend Rossi to the bitter end, why don’t you write to Ms. Betts and see if she acknowledges writing those emails, or if Krivit is making them up.
It’s not my job to prove that Rossi is telling the truth and that everyone else is lying.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Yeah, I didn’t think you would Milestone. You’re here to create doubt, not find answers. Just as I suspected.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 5:01 pm
There isn’t any doubt. Julia Betts sent out at least three separate emails, one of them to a E-Cat “believer” and they all said the same things: NI never had a contract with Rossi, their “relationship” with Rossi consisted of them explaining what solutions they offered for systems like the one Rossi claimed to have, and they haven’t done any work specifically on or with the E-Cat.
You’re the one trying to hang on to a story that is obviously false, and you’ve been misrepresenting every fact in order to do so.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 5:49 pm
You have been on here for months claiming Rossi is lying. Now you are accusing me of espousing falsehoods. Here is your chance to go to the source and clear things up.
Again, I asked Juila Betts specifically if Rossi had been exaggerating or outright lying. She said HE HAD NOT BEEN. Then herself and NI wanted that changed to “well, not that we are aware of.”
Here is your chance to make them aware of some specific examples where he misrepresented their relationship. You obviously spent time digging these examples up. Now all you have to do is send them off to Julia Betts and get a yes or a no. A simple “yes” by Ms. Betts that these statements are misleading or nonfactual would make you King of the Pathoskeps and would be a severe blow to Rossi’s credibility.
Have at it.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Ben, you’re making yourself look foolish.
Here’s what Julia Betts said:
Here is the statement Rossi made that Ms. Betts references:
Notice that in this comment, Rossi drops any comments about a signed contract, about “working closely” with NI, about NI solving technical problems with the E-Cat, or about NI designing a controller for the E-C at.
In other words, Rossi had to completely change his story in order to come up with something that NI would agree with.
Only a pathological “True Believer” could read anything more into it.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Hmm. Actually, I wrote the statements you allude to. Julia Betts edited them (actually shortened them) and gave the green light. Since I wrote them, I should know what the intended meaning was and it is not the meaning you are attempting to represent.
You have had half a day to write a simple e-mail to Ms. Betts to have your accusations corroborated (or shot down in flames), yet you continue with the mental gymnastics and foolish assertions. I would expect nothing less from a troll.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Ben, you’re making yourself look even more foolish.
I believe that Julia Betts agrees with the one particular statement from Rossi. That’s the one (and only) statement from Rossi that fails to mention any of the boasting he included in the previous three month’s worth of comments on his blog.
Rossi obviously used NI to “borrow” some credibility where none existed. Ms. Betts has provided three emails that all say the same thing: Rossi never had a contract (which he specifically lied about), NI never worked on the E-Cat (which Rossi specifically lied about) and NI never developed a controller for the E-Cat (which Rossi specifically lied about).
There is no need to ask Ms. Betts for a fourth email to state the same thing yet again.
If you feel that Ms. Betts’ emails collectively give wrong impression of the relationship between NI and Rossi, you should try to get a definitive answer from her.
I don’t need to. Her previous emails are perfectly clear.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 8:04 pm
You’re scared to send a simple e-mail that could corroborate accusations you make repeatedly. I think John Nilstones is a better name for you.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 8:27 pm
You seem confused. I have no trouble accepting exactly what Ms. Betts has said in her three public emails.
You’re the one who seems to be trying to claim that she meant something other than what she actually said. You’re the one who seems to think that “our interactions did not go beyond initial discussions and we did not design a control system for them” somehow means that their interactions did go beyond initial discussions and they did design a control system for them.
You seem very confused about the whole thing.
And, by the way, stupid insults and name calling do not help your argument, or make you, somehow, appear to be lucid or credible.
Methusela
March 9, 2012 at 9:16 pm
LMAO
LCD
March 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Umm John I can assure you that the only one looking foolish here is you.
Your point hinges on whether or not NI has to have an official contract to do “things”
The answer is they don’t. NI is known to help customers out who simply buy their software.
As I’ve explained in earlier emails, the Ecat’s control algorithms are most likely super simple. NI does not need to expend great resources to teach “Rossi’s people” a few tricks.
So in summary, Ben 1, John 0 game over.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 3:56 am
I will tell you right now there is something wrong with that alleged e-mail. It wasn’t even addressed to Krivit. It is a link to a jpg with the name of somebody unexplained (who is “Robert Clancy?”). That is not usually how Krivit handles e-mails that supposedly bolster his allegations. Something’s up.
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 4:05 am
i just ignore krivit when it comes to op-ed pieces and “his” ideas of LENR theory.
Other than that he has good info on his site.
Ben
March 9, 2012 at 5:29 am
Yeah, I read a lot of his stuff and learned a good deal. Unfortunately, he is jeopardizing his credibility with his continued jihad against Rossi and others. The list of people he hasn’t attacked is getting short compared to those he has. He has even taken to questioning Dennis Bushnell of NASA because he won’t say Rossi is fraud. His use of innuendo and half-truth makes him look kind of sleazy. His site is more like a tabloid now. It really is a shame. He can still fill a mean Freedom of Information Act request though. I will give him that.
LCD
March 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Yes he has thrown so many credible people under the bus that he needs a bigger bus.
daniel maris
March 9, 2012 at 3:08 am
Thank you Julia – you could have said that in the first place!
But of course there are all sorts of ambiguities still there…
You may not legally become the person “designing a control system” for someone but you can still provide them with a detailed design solution after have seen their machine in operation. I’ve seen such things happen in big business in my own working life. There’s no contract, but there’s a pretty detailed design solution on the table – it’s the bait for you to sign the contract.
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 3:18 am
So you have proof Rossi showed them detailed diagrams and proved the system worked as described? As opposed to NI trying to sell Rossi something and Rossi leading them on and everyone else at the same time?
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 3:51 am
Curious what daniel says happens so much in industry it’s just not hard to believe.
Additionally the control “loop” needed for AR’s stuff is child’s play. I could do it in my sleep and so could an NI beginner level programmer.
Adaptive optics control loops, beam steering loops, autonomous navigation loops, autonomous flight stability loops, targeting loops, these are all a bit more complex.
Turning a heater or RFG on or off at sub 1Hz is a joke. NI could have provided a full solution over coffee.
John Milstone
March 9, 2012 at 7:43 am
She did say that in the first place. It was only the pathological believers who accepted Rossi’s lame attempt to “redefine” the relationship once he was caught lying about it.
The level of rationalization by the True Believers is astonishing.
spacegoat
March 9, 2012 at 3:22 am
Just read the Krivit article. As a result, optimism is down to 10% in AR.
Point of interest:
“A deadline is approaching for Rossi and his Italian patent. In the U.S., there is no requirement for an inventor to reduce his or her invention to practice – that is, to make and sell it. But in Italy, there is. …Rossi’s deadline is in a month, on April 9.”
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 3:44 am
thought he sold one to somebody?
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 4:51 am
As one person in my office said re: Italian patents. How can a country that gets so many things wrong. Get patents so right!
I only wish all the world followed the Italian patent example. It is sheer brilliance.
spacegoat
March 9, 2012 at 7:55 am
The same should apply to internet domain names.
LCD
March 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm
yeah but that’s to make up for the lack of hard proof needed to file the patent in the first place CChris
Quax
March 9, 2012 at 3:46 am
In the lull after the excitement of the Defkalion extravagance I think it is a good time to ask this forum’s user community how they feel about the Greek company.
If you could indulge me again, please take this new survey:
http://hotandcoldfusion.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/new-defkalion-survey
LCD
March 9, 2012 at 3:58 am
They acted interestingly enough just like AR said they would. But I guess some people whom I respect still think they are legitimate.
Well you can’t cheat father time. At some point we’ll know.
For all the believers (I think I’m neutral) you have to sort of laugh at the state of current affairs.
Rossi has no plans to do jack squat that you can point to and say “see” for many months if ever.
AND
Defkalion basically acted like the frauds everybody thought they were. They did exactly what Dick Smith predicted they would do. I don’t like DS but can’t really blame him on that prediction.
Meanwhile real *but slow* public LENR research continues to go on by the good people like Miley. Miley represents a more tangible promise of cheap energy in the future, but certainly not the near-term endall apocalyptic “thing” people expected.
Tomorrow is another day, we’ll see what happens.
Oh and Krivit’s still a prick.
Quax
March 9, 2012 at 4:15 am
LCD, I certainly would expect far less trust in Defkalion than Rossi at this point – but the interesting question to me is how large is the difference?
So please – believer or skeptic – take the survey (based on the previous survey it really takes only 2 min to fill this out).
Pekka Janhunen
March 9, 2012 at 6:30 am
quax: In the DGT survey the last question about whether DGT developed their stuff independently from Rossi was difficult to answer yes or no. It’s possible that only few people know the answer, perhaps fewer than the number of DGT employees.
Quax
March 10, 2012 at 2:46 am
Pekka, I made the question none mandatory now.
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 10:41 am
Quax
Far too simplistic
You really need at least 4-5 more Qs
1) Do you believe Defkalion started off as a legitimate value- add seller of ecats
2) Do you believe Rossi let Defkalion down by not delivering ecats
3) Do you believe Defkalion derailed the relationship with Rossi by wanting to take it all (Stremmenos accusation)
4) Do you believe Defkalion decided Rossi had no commercial ready device & so they decided to claim they did have and would get it working on the run
5 ) Do you believe Defkalions behaviour (good or bad) was entirely due To Rossi letting them down
Ask those questions and I promise you will get some very interesting answers
DSM
Dsm
Quax
March 10, 2012 at 2:50 am
DSM, I think this kind of feedback is best left on my survey site.
I just found this by chance. I am still following the forum here but the amount of traffic easily overwhelms survey specific comments. It also doesn’t help that my day job doesn’t leave me a lot of time during the week.
Anyhow, thanks for the feedback!
Jay2011
March 9, 2012 at 4:35 am
Back to admin’s original post – I think it raises several serious questions regarding science. Because science and scientists are often are the subject of abuse on this forum, I wanted to add my two cents to admin’s post. Also, I think some folks are not familiar with some of the P&F history. Sorry for the length of this. I’m posting this in three parts.
Part 1:
Like any other human endeavor, science can be nasty, clique-ish, ego driven, greed driven, politicized, and corrupted. However, it is highly diverse in its practitioners, spans across universities, corporations, private endeavors and countries. And unlike many other human endeavors, it is generally self correcting because it’s evidence-based. It’s guiding principle is that solid experimental evidence that can be independently replicated trumps everything else. If someone comes up with a new and easily reproducible recipe for some new science and posts it on the internet, there is virtually no level of global conspiracy that can effectively suppress this new science and put it back in the box.
Jay2011
March 9, 2012 at 4:37 am
Part 2:
I believe that P&F is a good canonical example of where the scientific method failed, at least in part. Not because of any conspiracy of oil companies or hot fusionists, but because of a host of factors that all came unluckily together. And P&F must be held partially accountable. For example, suppose they published a paper saying “hey, we’ve found something really strange that we can’t account for, here’s exactly what we did, here’s our data; we’re now asking the scientific community for some help.” I think the unfolding of events would have turned out quite differently. Even if the first replications had again been negative, there could have been a negotiation and dialogue. This is essentially the path taken by the CERN group regarding the faster-than-light neutrinos. The constant and absolute speed of light is a more cherished principle than strong and weak force behavior governing nuclear physics. And yet the community responded appropriately. Not with “Einstein says you’re full of crap” and not with “OK, I’ll believe until proven otherwise”, but with “OK, let’s see your data and think about this some more”. This is both reasonable and understandable. It’s part of human nature to want to be on the ground floor of some revolutionary new discovery. The idea of the entire physics community as a monolithic and moribund entity out to conspire to stamp out new discoveries is total BS.
But P&F did not take this route. As it was, they or their university felt pressured by Jones. They might get scooped! They held a news conference stating that they had solved fusion in a bottle. And even then, had they posted a clear recipe that could be replicated, they would have been heros despite bypassing accepted science protocol. I remember when the announcement hit the R&D lab where I worked at the time. So much excitement! Everyone wanted to try it for themselves. Just like in the case of high temperature superconductivity. Except in the latter case, people could follow the recipe and replicate the result. HTC was very quickly accepted by the scientific community even though there was no theory that could explain why it worked (and there still isn’t).
Ivy Matt
March 9, 2012 at 10:41 am
What was particularly wrong about what P&F and the U of U did was that P&F had agreed with Jones that they would submit their papers to the journals at the same time. Not surprisingly, Jones wasn’t too happy when he found out they had jumped the gun by holding a press conference. “Haste makes waste”, as the saying goes.
Jay2011
March 9, 2012 at 4:40 am
Part 3:
But unlike HTC, CF/LENR could not be replicated, at least not at the time. There were uncontrolled variables not even understood by P&F. The early MIT and Caltech replications were negative. And only then the knives came out. Obviously this could never have worked! Nuclear physics said so. P&F were incompetent and delusional. And besides, they were only electrochemists. How dare they invade the turf of physicists!
And it got worse from there. The “field” became toxic. Even Nobel prize winning theorist Schwinger, who cautioned that the physics for cold fusion involving a collective ensemble of nuclei could be different than the physics of two particles in a vacuum, was bullied and heckled. The entire scientific method was turned upside down. All CF experiments had to be wrong because theory said so. What happened to experimental evidence trumping everything else?
P&F did have another chance to prove their case. So did others. Perhaps if the data had been more compelling they could have even overcome the now toxic atmosphere. But results were still small, inconsistent, and difficult to reproduce. And a lot of experiments were poorly performed and documented and only published in the non self-critical CF conferences. It became easy for the “mainstream” to dismiss the entire endeavor as quackery. And since most universities steered clear once CF/LENR became toxic, the “fringe” characteristic of the endeavor became almost self fulfilling and self sustaining.
That’s my take on what happened. No conspiracy and plenty of blame to go around. And to anybody who wants to be the new Einstein, my advice is taken from the words of Bob Dylan: “Know your song well before you start singing.”
CuriousChris
March 9, 2012 at 5:07 am
Excellent Posts. I believe you nailed it.
GreenWin
March 9, 2012 at 5:40 am
The easier, softer way out of humiliating, corrupt conduct is to find reasons to excuse it, hide it away, sweep it under the rug. In which case the disease continues to fester – and the patient putrefies.
“The truth about the calorimetry experiment performed at MIT in 1989 under DoE contract funding (DoE Contract DE-ACO2-78ET51013) is stark and unambiguous. Its purported “negative” result was used to influence the U.S. Department of Energy’s rushed 1989 report against cold fusion. In alphabetical sequence, it is the very first report cited in the U.S. DoE’s ERAB (Energy Research Advisory Board) Cold Fusion Panel report of 1989.
Some would characterize the data manipulation in the sixteen author MIT paper of 1989 as mere “data fudging.” We do not mince words: the use of improperly handled scientific data to draw in the public mind and in the mind of the scientific community a completely false conclusion about an emerging discovery of overarching importance to humankind is high-level scientific misconduct, plain and simple.”
Dr. Eugene Mallove,MIT Class of 1969, Aero/Astro Engineering, SB 1969, SM 1970, Chief Science Writer, MIT News Office 1987-1991
daniel maris
March 9, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Yep, I’ve never heard an effective sceptic comment on that. Does Popeye care to comment?
Jay2011
March 9, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I don’t excuse bullying conduct on the part of the physics elite. I only tried to explain some of the many variables at play in the entire P&F affair.
As far as the MIT replication, I think the Caltech replication by Lewis, Koonin et al was more damaging to P&F. Some LENR advocates allege that the original data from the MIT experiment supported a conclusion of excess heat. Other advocates suggest that neither MIT nor Caltech had sufficient loading of D2 in the palladium to have ever worked. But they can’t have it both ways. I suspect the latter is true and that the MIT experiment did not show excess heat.
I believe there are some eyewitness accounts that data in the MIT experiment were changed between different versions of the paper. Whether they were “fudged” or “corrected” I’m not certain we’ll ever know. I agree that it appears, in the best of light, not very professional.
If one wishes to use this as evidence that a great global conspiracy crushed CF/LENR, however, I don’t think it holds up. The MIT replication result was just one of many, many straws.
GreenWin
March 10, 2012 at 12:36 am
How is “high-level scientific misconduct, plain and simple.” misunderstood? The facts are data graphs indicating excess heat – were deleted.
Sweeping misconduct – esp high level misconduct under the rug will not heal the illness. Acknowledging error, wrong doing and correcting it will.
“It was not only data manipulation or “processing,” as Parker later would contend on the 1994 BBC and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cold fusion documentary, “Too Close to the Sun,” but there was a whole range of dirty tricks, deceptions, and self-deceptions that MIT professors and senior officials employed against cold fusion.”
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Dsm
March 9, 2012 at 10:17 am
Jay
Well put.
P&f did continue their work for a while & even put forward along with Prof Preparata a pretty good theory as to what was happening. That paper in 1994/5 was peer reviewed but slipped out of view when the original publishing journal got swallowed up in the EU creation.
Later p&f parted company & sadly stopped talking to each other.
P&F appear to have had (IMHO) 2 real problems
1). The university pushed them to publish seperately from Jones & ahead of him
2) Pons. (I suspect he was the biggest part of the weak link in P&F subsequent stonewalling that got them in to hot water.)
Dsm
Alain
March 9, 2012 at 1:39 pm
fantastic story telling.
I dare to gather your parts, and even some contributive replies, on this site forum
http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=39&p=129#p129
if you disagree with this copy, tell me, I will remove all.
If you want correction, I can edit it.
It you want to make your own post, don’t hesitate, and I will remove that one.
anyway, it will be a pity not to share that story.
respectfully.
Jay2011
March 9, 2012 at 3:54 pm
I am sure there are better and more complete accounts than mine out there in the ether. But you are welcome to use what I wrote.
Jay
GreenWin
March 9, 2012 at 5:19 am
Just doing a little historic research and here we have the patented Patterson Power Cell. Way back in 1996 this device was on public display by Dr. Patterson and associate Dr. George Miley.
In November of 1996 the Patterson cell was on display at the American Nuclear Society’s Nuclear Technology Expo in Washington D.C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jze7KtdHfh8
What ever happened to it?? Bummer is this device appears able to reduce half life of nuke waste. Now who wouldn’t want to do that?? ABC News probably fell for the hoax…
Ivy Matt
March 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm
http://www.nsd-fusion.com/14mev.php
Knock yourself out.
GreenWin
March 10, 2012 at 12:18 am
Cost benefit of off shelf LENR radiation absorption vs. 13Mev generator….
Ivy Matt
March 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Impossible to know at this point. However, the NSD products have the benefit of not requiring further research funds in order to develop a commercial product.
Nevertheless, it seems apparent that, in the US at least, we’ve already decided that on-site storage of nuclear waste is the most cost-effective short-term solution, and nobody seems to be worried about a long-term solution yet. I don’t know that even a working Patterson cell would change that.
Quax
March 9, 2012 at 5:58 am
I think another good question to ask this community eventually will be how much responsibility P&F bear versus the scientific establishment.
But’ll wait for Paul to come out with his second part before putting up such a poll.
buffalo
March 9, 2012 at 8:43 am
dark current for sure.same prob with solar cells in the dark.rectification of radio waves or microwaves
buffalo
March 9, 2012 at 8:52 am
@ PL,regarding ur diode experiment(top of thread)