This result favors Mileys theory of nuclear reformation based on the magic nuclear numbers based that result from the underlying quark nature of matter. Papers by Miley are available if you are interested.
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, do you honestly believe an MIT and Oxford alumnus such as Dr. Peter Jansson, would jeopardize his professional career and public standing, for a scam? Seems obvious to me he'd stand to lose much more than he'd stand to gain, by propagating a farce.
Just saying, you look at guys like Jansson, and if you think they'd sacrifice their entire careers for a few quick bucks. . .makes no sense to me. Rather, it makes sense just what he says about himself, that he's totally invested in finding new energy solutions and has been so applying himself for decades.
Hockey stick ring a bell? An admitted fraud - "we took the tree data and spliced the temperature record on it to hide the decline". Academic fraud is not unknown.
I agree. But you're not here talking about people like Jansson. The people involved in the hockey stick fraud earnestly believed they were right in their opinions. They were not scam artists working to defraud investors. Maybe Al Gore is such a person, but the guys at NASA were not.
Totally different situation. Yes indeed, academia is capable of degenerating to a lowest common denominator, and so embarrassing itself as you note with AGW. That's not what we're talking about when we try to measure warrant for belief concerning guys like Jansson.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I agree. But you're not here talking about people like Jansson. The people involved in the hockey stick fraud earnestly believed they were right in their opinions. They were not scam artists working to defraud investors. Maybe Al Gore is such a person, but the guys at NASA were not.
Well I guess defrauding taxpayers is different. BTW Mann has never retracted the hockey stick.
But that is way OT.
======
If it is not fraud then perhaps error.
BTW I'd have more faith in transmutation if some one said: "the amount of transmuted material is consistent with the energy produced." Of course the amount is so small in any case that introducing enough to "prove" transmutation would not be difficult.
And then there is the little problem: the material no longer works after a while. Evidence more consistent with a chemical reaction than a nuclear transformation.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And then there is the little problem: the material no longer works after a while. Evidence more consistent with a chemical reaction than a nuclear transformation.
It seems to be a surface effect so one might expect the suitable nano pores to get blocked or change. Rossi says the device runs at full power for 6 months: why is that not long enough for you?
There really doesn't seem to be any possible conventional chemical reaction that would produce the reported excess heat, so what makes you think that? I suppose one could speculate that an unknown chemical reaction is as likely as an unknown nuclear one, but while nuclear ones can produce that much power chemical ones can't.
The experiments of Yoshiaki Arata and Yue Chang Zhang, Piantelli,and Rossi all confirm the nuclear nature of negative hydrogen ion (H-)reactions in transitions metals.
There is a common thread here.
For example in the experiment of Arata, platinum provides thespill over generation of H- into both zirconium oxide and nickel oxide.
First the long incubation period first provides atomic holes in the transition metal lattice through the action of hydrogen erosion. Next, H- is loaded into these holes in the transition metal under the spill over effect provided by Pd.
Finally, a shock starts the nuclear reorganization. A chain reaction catalyzed and spread by the reactions own heat completes the process.
MSimon wrote:BLP? That gets you negative replication points around here.
Certainly so. Comically certainly so. If an experimentalist handpicks his experimental replicator, then you can't say independent replication has been performed. Sheesh. I wonder if Rossi isn't more of a protoege of Randall Miills than of Focardi, the earlier Italian dudes he claims to follow, or anyone else.
If a magician saws a woman in half, and after the experiment the women curtsies the audience, and the experiment is replicated by another magician under the guidance of the original magician, was anything shown? It seems some would think so.
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, do you honestly believe an MIT and Oxford alumnus such as Dr. Peter Jansson, would jeopardize his professional career and public standing, for a scam? Seems obvious to me he'd stand to lose much more than he'd stand to gain, by propagating a farce.
Dunno, I will leave to others who know better the academic world to make such considerations.
For me I can't consider a research on a subject to be objective when the primary researcher has a personal and/or private interest in the subject itself.
For me I can't consider a research on a subject to be objective when the primary researcher has a personal and/or private interest in the subject itself.
Consider Piantelli; he never sought to commercialize the Ni-H reaction even now and even though he discovered it; a true saint of science.
Why are you not considering Piantelli’s accomplishment as a scientific achievement? Rossi just made the process commercially viable as an engineering activity.
Piantelli just wanted to cure cancer and he got side railed on this Ni-H thing.
In morals and methods, if you want to look to science and the proper practice thereof, look to Piantelli. After all, it’s all the same Hi-H principle.
Rossi is just a lowly engineer like Edison just trying to make a buck.
Axil wrote:Transmutation is PROOF that a nuclear process is occuring.
Sure. Unfortunately no adequate proof of transmutation (particle evolution - protons, neutrons, electrons, others, or energy evolution in radio waves - gammas, X-rays) has been provided.
When all this shakes out I'm betting we will find it is a combination of chemical reactions and physical transformations.
I understand that your lack of interest may restrict your knowledge of this subject. Be advised, the Swedes were given a before and after ash two month old sample and reported on the transmutation they found including isotopic structure. Transmutation of copper was found.
(1) the ash was provided by Rossi - so his word again
(2) Assuming rossi not fraudulent. The ash powder reacts for 3 months in a copper/iron vessel. Is it surprising that copper/iron residue is discovered?
The Swedes also commented that the fact all isotopic ratios were natural was very strange.
And they are on record as saying they accept Rossi's statements at face value.
For me I can't consider a research on a subject to be objective when the primary researcher has a personal and/or private interest in the subject itself.
Consider Piantelli; he never sought to commercialize the Ni-H reaction even now and even though he discovered it; a true saint of science.
Why are you not considering Piantelli’s accomplishment as a scientific achievement? Rossi just made the process commercially viable as an engineering activity.
Piantelli just wanted to cure cancer and he got side railed on this Ni-H thing.
In morals and methods, if you want to look to science and the proper practice thereof, look to Piantelli. After all, it’s all the same Hi-H principle.
Rossi is just a lowly engineer like Edison just trying to make a buck.
Actually I never discussed about Piantelli scientific achievments nor I never denied anything he did. I know too little about Piantelli and his work to take a stance, so I really don't understand where you got that impression.