MSimon wrote: Well any way, what we have so far is nothing and a fair number of people with great faith in it. Touching to be sure.
About half of the reviewers selected by the DoE in 2004 to review CF/LENR would disagree with you. (IMHO, many of the rest looked for ANYTHING to support their pre-conceived contrary notions, but that is JMHO)
But the confusion still persists. Oh well!
The Rossi reactor will kill off many things, including what many of its opponents are currently working on: the jobs that are supplying the money to pay the rent and the groceries. The Rossi reaction will bring on a period of extensive scientific redirection and associated retraining painful for those in competing energy production industries.
It’s understandable and entirely human, no one wants years of study and effort to become redundant with whole fields of study becoming suddenly obsolete. This is nothing new. Just imagine how all those whaling captains and harpooners felt when the modern oil industry took hold. Many software engineers had to buckle to the Microsoft way and did not like it very much. I completely understand and sympathize, the natural calculation of many so affected is to try to save the background and schooling by killing off the “nascent emerging most cost effective approach” in the bud before it can be born.
But the best thing to do is to adjust to changing times. Try not to be that old dog that just can’t handle those pesky new tricks. All those old dogs can do is bark all the time.
Axil wrote:The Rossi reactor will kill off many things
'WILL'? And yet, every time, you have said you are just a neutral observer? But each time you use such conclusive phrases.
I can tell you what it WILL do: It is going to damage any chance for small-scale serious fusion projects to get serious attention in the future.
I like to teach my kids about what I call Big Words. I teach them that conversations and writing using Big Words, are normally not true. They know that these are words like will, will not, never, always, etc.
They in turn teach me such wonderful things like the now gaining fame, "Holy Shoot the Chicken", and the newer and more flexible, "What the Joe!" Of course one of my classic favorites is, "Gigantohuganormous".
Of course in Merry Ol' England, the tedancy has been to shoot the crap out of the chicken...
MSimon wrote: There is one difficulty. The reports all conflict - helium? yes? no? gammas? yes? no? transmutation? yes? no? Every report is different.
This may just suggest that there are a number of DIFFERENT phenomena that are being studied. Some may be investigating a low probablility D-D fusion while others are studying p-Ni transmutation. There are a number of different groups, each potentially demonstrating some distinct LENR. What fun!
that seems to me quite possible. since no one knows quite what they are looking for, or looking at, they keep tripping up over the same set of unknowns (new science?), in the dark, and remain none the wiser.
MSimon wrote:
And this may suggest that the folks doing the talking have no idea.....
also true, ipso facto.
i'm finding it quite hard to locate any real body of evidence published in 'reputable' journals: lots of 'conference' material, but far less 'published' material.
i'm finding it quite hard to locate any real body of evidence published in 'reputable' journals: lots of 'conference' material, but far less 'published' material.
Cold fusion is one of the few topics on the forbidden subjects list; you know…like the Inquisition. Rossi could not even get on the arXiv.org e-Print archive.
You don’t have to say it…such a scientific demon deserves what he gets.
A little patent-related drama between Rossi and Piantelli. I guess at least these two think they have something worth fighting over. We will see if they do.
It is my opinion that at least Piantelli thinks they have something worth fighting over.
The story and the comments brought something to my notice: if Rossi has filed a patent on the catalyst, should it show up in a patent search? Piantelli's patent application filed April 26, 2011 has shown up—at least the patent application number and title. Apparently this is an Italian patent application. If a patent application for Rossi's catalyzer is unable to be found in the Italian patent database, one could draw the conclusion that either Rossi has not yet filed an Italian patent for the catalyzer, or that he has made it extremely difficult to find.
Does anyone know how soon patent applications show up in the WIPO and USPTO databases?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
good post Kahuna. didn't see that one coming. little bit lost in translation, but 'let the circus begin'... perhaps further facts will come out in the process.
i'm finding it quite hard to locate any real body of evidence published in 'reputable' journals: lots of 'conference' material, but far less 'published' material.
Cold fusion is one of the few topics on the forbidden subjects list; you know…like the Inquisition. Rossi could not even get on the arXiv.org e-Print archive.
You don’t have to say it…such a scientific demon deserves what he gets.
All it would take is a single, well documented, straight forward, clearly published "in your face" experiment, that could be duplicated by any reasonable experimenter. I don't mean, an experiment that works 3 out of 5 times, I mean a clear experiment that demonstrably shows net energy out that can't be accounted for by expected chemical and physical means. NO One can seem to do that with any kind of clear methodology. Devise such an experiment, and you have an elephant in the room.
It never happens. There is always a hedge, such as "I gotta worry about my business, so you can't look inside". From the frame of reference of an observer, how is that different from any run of the mill spoon bender, or hocus pocus show?
I suspect Rossi believes he has something, I also suspect he himself is his biggest dupe. He simply may have too much emotional energy vested to let it go, or prove even to himself his time has been a waste.
Helius wrote:I suspect Rossi believes he has something, I also suspect he himself is his biggest dupe. He simply may have too much emotional energy vested to let it go, or prove even to himself his time has been a waste.
If Rossi does not end up having the goods, I suspect you are right about it most likely being self-delusion. An out-and-out scam is looking less-and-less likely IMO.
Axil wrote:The Rossi reactor will kill off many things
'WILL'? And yet, every time, you have said you are just a neutral observer? But each time you use such conclusive phrases.
I can tell you what it WILL do: It is going to damage any chance for small-scale serious fusion projects to get serious attention in the future.
Earlier you wrote that you agreed with what I wrote on page 128.
What I wrote, much earlier, was take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement.
Presumably your comment was "not meant to be a factual statement." You write things like the above and how "LENR is COLD FUSION B*LL*CKS" so you are just as biased in a negative way.
Andrea Rossi wrote this about a patent on the catalyst on February 5th, 2011 at 10:29 AM when asked how it worked.
Dear Mr Mark:
It is not possible, because this patent is still non disclosed to the public
There is a substantial number of papers here. http://lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html for those that say there is no proof of LENR that is available. The problem is that it is very difficult to get papers published im mainstream journals because they have been warned off.
I can only repeat, for the third time: take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement. There is substantial evidence that he has discovered something, that we all agree is not proof beyond all doubt, and a number of scientists more eminent than you agree it is worth investigating. Have you already forgotten about NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell who said LENR is the most promising answer to our current energy problems?
parallel wrote:
I can only repeat, for the third time: take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement. There is substantial evidence that he has discovered something, that we all agree is not proof beyond all doubt, and a number of scientists more eminent than you agree it is worth investigating. Have you already forgotten about NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell who said LENR is the most promising answer to our current energy problems?
No. We're going to take the entire body of Physical Science at *ITS* word until *IT* is proven wrong.
