I wouldn't say the device is necessarily a fraud, the jury is out on that one. I would say Rossi as an individual is a fraud/scammer based on his past deeds. Does that mean he can't make said device? Of course not, just means we're even less likely to believe his claims. If he wants to prove skeptics wrong, he need only open his black box.Crawdaddy wrote:Giorgio
It is also true that a scientist must evaluate and discuss the results of an experiment in a fashion that conforms to scientific principles.1) "Scientific Experiments" have a strict set of conditions that must be met to qualify as such, and for this same reason they have scientific value. Experiments are something else.
I do not think that in this forum (given the quality of discussions and the arguments discussed) we should clarify each time that when we write the word "experiment" it has to be considered as "scientific experiment".
Any experiment, even a poor experiment or demonstration, can be evaluated by objective science based reasoning.
In my estimation, there is no reasonable way, based on the evidence presented so far, that the device can be definitively declared a fraud by a well-trained, honest, objective, observer.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
I agree and I also believe that the best way to do so is by pointing out the set up fallacies and/or bad reasoning, so that the one doing such demonstrations can fix them in the next experiments.Crawdaddy wrote:Any experiment, even a poor experiment or demonstration, can be evaluated by objective science based reasoning.
This obviously becomes possible only if they really are interested in pursuing the scientific validity of their claims.
I do not think that anyone here claimed that till now.Crawdaddy wrote:In my estimation, there is no reasonable way, based on the evidence presented so far, that the device can be definitively declared a fraud by a well-trained, honest, objective, observer.
Giorgio
This is pure speculation without any basis in fact and is exactly the point I was making in my previous post.
In one post you agree that it is possible to evaluate data from a science based perspective in the next you make wild claims based on nothing.
For example, the US company Ampenergo has claimed they tested e-cats in 2008, on the basis of this test they gave some amount of money to Rossi. Surely you aren't saying that it is a virtual certainty that the owners of Ampenergo invested in the e-cat without collecting more data than has been released to the public?
I don't think your claim is a reasonable assumption that conforms to the standards of logic and objectivity expected of a scientist.
On what basis do you make this claim.I just asked if we should really consider that such a possibility might exists. From any point of view (logical, business, scientific, and so on) I see no possibility that such experiments was made and not made public.
This is pure speculation without any basis in fact and is exactly the point I was making in my previous post.
In one post you agree that it is possible to evaluate data from a science based perspective in the next you make wild claims based on nothing.
For example, the US company Ampenergo has claimed they tested e-cats in 2008, on the basis of this test they gave some amount of money to Rossi. Surely you aren't saying that it is a virtual certainty that the owners of Ampenergo invested in the e-cat without collecting more data than has been released to the public?
I don't think your claim is a reasonable assumption that conforms to the standards of logic and objectivity expected of a scientist.
Until observed, they simply do not exist. As I said before, the cat in the box is alive until observed to be otherwise.Crawdaddy wrote:Giorgio
On what basis do you make this claim.I just asked if we should really consider that such a possibility might exists. From any point of view (logical, business, scientific, and so on) I see no possibility that such experiments was made and not made public.
ScottL
You have made an observation of the statement. It is the statement that you must report and discuss in a rational way. Ignoring the statement is irrational and shows a lack of objectivity.Until observed, they simply do not exist. As I said before, the cat in the box is alive until observed to be otherwise.
Of course, the efforts to "bunk" the system have been devoid of rigor too. Basically, no science exists here, bunked or debunked!Crawdaddy wrote: Personally I find 93143's comments to be spot on. He is not saying that the e-cat is genuine, he is saying that the attempts to debunk the device so far have lacked rigor. He is absolutely right.
As far as I have been able to detect, it violates nothing. True, there are no good descriptions of how this works within current theory, but there doesn't seem to be any violation.Crawdaddy wrote: I agree. But if a person holds this position, they are arguing that it is reasonable that someone would take a device in which some nuclear interaction between Ni-H is occurring that violates all known theory (an astounding achievement) then decide to claim that it puts out 120kW with 80W of input.
KitemanSa
As far as theory goes....
As much as it pains me to say it, I did a bit of literature searching on rydberg matter after reading something axil posted and it certainly got me thinking. I initiated the research because his post seemed so incredibly outlandish but I decided not to rebut his ideas when I found that rydberg matter is gaining acceptance and might well exist. Interestingly, some of the best evidence for the existence of rydberg matter comes from measurements made using SQUIDs (Super Conducting Quantum Interference Device). The heart of the SQUID instrument is the superconducting josephson junction, invented by Brian Josephson when he was a graduate student in his early twenties. Prof. Josephson won the Nobel prize for this discovery, but has since fallen out of favor with the scientific community for his views on various unpopular topics, including cold fusion. It would be hilarious if cold fusion were real and the mechanism involved rydberg matter for the simple reason that lunch at the Cambridge faculty club would take on an exciting new dynamic. Can you imagine?!
Forgive my long post. I have gotten into the Belgian ale again!
It is impossible to rigorously "bunk" the system based on the information available. Of course I subscribe to the idea that nothing can ever be well and truly bunked.Of course, the efforts to "bunk" the system have been devoid of rigor too. Basically, no science exists here, bunked or debunked!
Pardon my hyperbole. No predictive theory of cold fusion exists is what I really meant to say. If the effect is real, it remains to be seen if will spawn a new "level" of physics (as the photoelectric effect did) or simply require a new application of existing theory (like low temperature superconductivity). Personally, I don't find the idea of cold fusion any more unpalatable than the observed cosmological constant, which disagrees with theory by more than 100 orders of magnitude.As far as I have been able to detect, it violates nothing. True, there are no good descriptions of how this works within current theory, but there doesn't seem to be any violation.
As far as theory goes....
As much as it pains me to say it, I did a bit of literature searching on rydberg matter after reading something axil posted and it certainly got me thinking. I initiated the research because his post seemed so incredibly outlandish but I decided not to rebut his ideas when I found that rydberg matter is gaining acceptance and might well exist. Interestingly, some of the best evidence for the existence of rydberg matter comes from measurements made using SQUIDs (Super Conducting Quantum Interference Device). The heart of the SQUID instrument is the superconducting josephson junction, invented by Brian Josephson when he was a graduate student in his early twenties. Prof. Josephson won the Nobel prize for this discovery, but has since fallen out of favor with the scientific community for his views on various unpopular topics, including cold fusion. It would be hilarious if cold fusion were real and the mechanism involved rydberg matter for the simple reason that lunch at the Cambridge faculty club would take on an exciting new dynamic. Can you imagine?!
Forgive my long post. I have gotten into the Belgian ale again!
Double don't be ridiculous back!93143 wrote:Don't be ridiculous.chrismb wrote:This is an outright fantasy. No 'experiments' have occurred. If you think otherwise, then you demonstrate you know nothing about modern science. An experiment contains [amongst other lesser criteria] an objective, a hypothesis and a null hypothesis, and objective methodology sufficient to demonstrate both in enough detail that anyone can reproduce it.Axil wrote:From all experimental indications ....
These 'demonstrations' contain not even one of these several required features of 'an experiment'.
Objective: Demonstrate the functionality of the Rossi reactor.
Hypothesis: If you run water through a properly-operated Rossi reactor, it will heat up more than can be explained by the input power, and this process can be continued long enough to eliminate conventional chemical explanations.
Null hypothesis: No it won't, or it will but it can't.
Objective methodology: Given a Rossi reactor with operating instructions, it's not really that tough, now is it? You can argue that this criterion has not actually been met, and I haven't been following this topic closely enough to contradict you, but certainly the other three factors are present, meaning your statement above is false regardless.
Totally inspecific - what is the determining level for 'demonstrated', for how long, under what conditions, &c., &c.. Functionality; what functions? 'Steam' production, excess of heat energy - if the latter then greater than heat-pump systems and if so then which heat-pump systems to what efficiency?Objective: Demonstrate the functionality of the Rossi reactor.
This isn't an 'objective' it is a 'subjective' because one person could point to what we've seen and say 'objective met' and another could say 'objective not met'. It is inspecific and a function of the observer, not of the observed. NOT AN OBJECTIVE = NOT SCIENCE.
'Properly operated'; presumably you are meaning that so long as Rossi is at the controls then the 'experiment' can be done, but it cannot be reproduced by anyone else because they don't know how to do it properly. Sniff-sniff..... NOT REPRODUCIBLE = NOT SCIENCE.Hypothesis: If you run water through a properly-operated Rossi reactor, it will heat up more than can be explained by the input power, and this process can be continued long enough to eliminate conventional chemical explanations.
&c.&c... I can't be bothered to honour this comment with a full response. The point is, just because you can declare an objective, hypothesis and methodology (for which you need ALL for a scientific method!! I note the clever sleight-of-phrase where you attack my statement rather than accept there is no methodology hence it is NOT SCIENCE) doesn't mean it is science. For example;
Objective; Determine if George W Bush was sent by God
Hypothesis; There is a God that gives unearthly powers to world leaders to war with those who are God's enemies
Null Hypothesis; If there was not a God who was influencing the world, then we would not see people elected into power who can't even tell one end of a pair of binoculars from the other.
Methodology; Pray that God would send us deliverance, then observe the actions of the next POTUS are consistent with the hypothesis.
Scientific Conclusion - ?
Science needs each of the elements I have given above, but that doesn't mean you can abuse them and just make some up. This is the very intellectual dishonesty that Krivit well-describes in his 'Report II'.
Either that or Rossi is the biggest amateurish entrepreneur that the world has seen in the last century.Crawdaddy wrote:Giorgio
On what basis do you make this claim.I just asked if we should really consider that such a possibility might exists. From any point of view (logical, business, scientific, and so on) I see no possibility that such experiments was made and not made public.
He gets daily claims from scientists asking him to correct the sources of potential measurements errors. There are hundreds of influential people out there that are telling him: "Correct your experimental setup and we are ready to support you and your claims".
Do I really have to believe that he has already done these corrections and not releasing the data to the public?
If I do, than I must ask myself why not?
The answer I can think of comes down to only two possibilities:
1) He did not make them and does not have any data.
2) He made them but the results are not repeatable or different from the claimed ones.
This is logic based on actual data. You can object that the assumptions at its base are not valid, that there are other unconsidered possibilities or logical fallacies, but you cannot call this speculation.Crawdaddy wrote:This is pure speculation without any basis in fact and is exactly the point I was making in my previous post.
In one post you agree that it is possible to evaluate data from a science based perspective in the next you make wild claims based on nothing.
Speculation is something completely different.
Who is Ampenergo? A company created by two business partners of Rossi.Crawdaddy wrote:For example, the US company Ampenergo has claimed they tested e-cats in 2008, on the basis of this test they gave some amount of money to Rossi. Surely you aren't saying that it is a virtual certainty that the owners of Ampenergo invested in the e-cat without collecting more data than has been released to the public?
What credibility adds to Rossi claims? None.
I could go on the web NOW and incorporate a US LLC like Ampenergo for less than 500$ and start issuing press releases in their name in few hours time.
Heck, I could even incorporate five LLC for 2000$ if I take the discount package!
I'll ask again:
Instead of loosing all this time with press releases to support their claims, shouldn't be easier to just release to the the public the experimental data of the properly executed experiments if they indeed have done them?
Think again as you are the one that is losing objectivity. I gave plenty of logic reasoning for my assumptions, reply to those.Crawdaddy wrote:I don't think your claim is a reasonable assumption that conforms to the standards of logic and objectivity expected of a scientist.
Edited:Fixed spelling
Giogio
Rossi and his partners claim to have garnered commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars. The greek company claims to have years worth of orders already on their books. One of the principles of the greek company is a friend of the Greek president and former ambassador. One of the principles in the american company is the former secretary of renewable energy under the Clinton administration and two others are former DOE executives.
That somehow makes him a poor entrepreneur? He has failed to convince influential people (except the ones who already back him)? I fail to see your logic. Who are the hundreds of influential people clamoring for more data?
The available evidence suggest that rossi already has the backing he needs to bring his device to market, if his device is in fact real. He has apparently been garnering the support and resources he needs since 2008, out of the public eye entirely. If it is bad business practice to not make results public, is it even worse practice to keep the existence of the device secret for 3 years?
I accused you of making wild claims based on nothing because I infer from your analysis that you have very little business experience.
as to your question:
Your argument assumes that rossi is lying about the extent of his investor backing and progress he has already made. If you really can't think of any legitimate reasons that rossi wouldn't make his data public you need to think harder. The lack of full disclosure is in no way convincing evidence that his device is a fraud.
From the other perspective:
What would they lose if they released sufficient information to convince even you that the device was real? They would immediately generate competitors of unimaginable resources. I work in a small research institute but even we have more than enough equipment to reverse engineer an e-cat or engage in a crash project to replicate the nano-powder. If the e-cat technology is real it is unlikely that it is optimized to any great degree and competitors could easily eclipse rossi's results.
Another reason might be the obligations rossi has to his partners. If I was an investor in rossi;s technology, you can be sure that I would stipulate in any agreement that rossi must agree not to disclose information about the device which might lead to me losing money.
Furthermore if rossi has already sold exclusive licenses to his technology then it is the companies that licensed the technology that should be divulging the data not Rossi. Apparently the greek authorities are going to do "operational testing" of the devices in the next couple of weeks. I don't think it is logical to assume that a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in committed investment would send their products for government certification after repeatedly claiming up to 30 times excess energy if they weren't absolutely certain they would pass the tests. I can't imagine that every single e-cat built to date has been personally built and tested by rossi.
There are many valid arguments that suggest the e-cat is not genuine but there are plenty that suggest the e-cat may be real.
I don't pretend to know why they have not released more complete test data and my lack of knowledge of the details of the business and personal reasons behind that decision be they nefarious or not precludes me from making statements like:
What about a 3rd possibility?Either that or Rossi is the biggest amateurish entrepreneur that the world has seen in the last century.
He gets daily claims from scientists asking him to correct the sources of potential measurements errors. There are hundreds of influential people out there that are telling him: "Correct your experimental setup and we are ready to support you and your claims".
Do I really have to believe that he has already done these corrections and not releasing the data to the public?
If I do, than I must ask myself why not?
The answer I can think of comes down to only two possibilities:
1) He did not make them and does not have any data.
2) He made them but the results are not repeatable or different from the claimed ones.
Rossi and his partners claim to have garnered commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars. The greek company claims to have years worth of orders already on their books. One of the principles of the greek company is a friend of the Greek president and former ambassador. One of the principles in the american company is the former secretary of renewable energy under the Clinton administration and two others are former DOE executives.
That somehow makes him a poor entrepreneur? He has failed to convince influential people (except the ones who already back him)? I fail to see your logic. Who are the hundreds of influential people clamoring for more data?
The available evidence suggest that rossi already has the backing he needs to bring his device to market, if his device is in fact real. He has apparently been garnering the support and resources he needs since 2008, out of the public eye entirely. If it is bad business practice to not make results public, is it even worse practice to keep the existence of the device secret for 3 years?
I accused you of making wild claims based on nothing because I infer from your analysis that you have very little business experience.
as to your question:
What time have they lost? How has not releasing data hurt them, if they deliver a working device?Instead of loosing all this time with press releases to support their claims, shouldn't be easier to just release to the the public the experimental data of the properly executed experiments if they indeed have done them?
Your argument assumes that rossi is lying about the extent of his investor backing and progress he has already made. If you really can't think of any legitimate reasons that rossi wouldn't make his data public you need to think harder. The lack of full disclosure is in no way convincing evidence that his device is a fraud.
From the other perspective:
What would they lose if they released sufficient information to convince even you that the device was real? They would immediately generate competitors of unimaginable resources. I work in a small research institute but even we have more than enough equipment to reverse engineer an e-cat or engage in a crash project to replicate the nano-powder. If the e-cat technology is real it is unlikely that it is optimized to any great degree and competitors could easily eclipse rossi's results.
Another reason might be the obligations rossi has to his partners. If I was an investor in rossi;s technology, you can be sure that I would stipulate in any agreement that rossi must agree not to disclose information about the device which might lead to me losing money.
Furthermore if rossi has already sold exclusive licenses to his technology then it is the companies that licensed the technology that should be divulging the data not Rossi. Apparently the greek authorities are going to do "operational testing" of the devices in the next couple of weeks. I don't think it is logical to assume that a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in committed investment would send their products for government certification after repeatedly claiming up to 30 times excess energy if they weren't absolutely certain they would pass the tests. I can't imagine that every single e-cat built to date has been personally built and tested by rossi.
There are many valid arguments that suggest the e-cat is not genuine but there are plenty that suggest the e-cat may be real.
I don't pretend to know why they have not released more complete test data and my lack of knowledge of the details of the business and personal reasons behind that decision be they nefarious or not precludes me from making statements like:
You lack the knowledge to make this statement with authority.From any point of view (logical, business, scientific, and so on) I see no possibility that such experiments was made and not made public.
If the device is real, this will happen anyway - and competitors will patent the 'secret catalyser' before Rossi.Crawdaddy wrote: What would they lose if they released sufficient information to convince even you that the device was real? They would immediately generate competitors of unimaginable resources. I work in a small research institute but even we have more than enough equipment to reverse engineer an e-cat or engage in a crash project to replicate the nano-powder. If the e-cat technology is real it is unlikely that it is optimized to any great degree and competitors could easily eclipse rossi's results.
Really, if it works, I do not understand the bussines model. The only possible protection is proper patent for 'secret' part of e-cat. Keeping it secret is the worst thing to do.
So the only logical conclusion is either Rossi and all of his partners are totally bussiness ignorant OR they are all involved in the scam.
I wish the first option to be true. But it sounds quite unlikely...
No, this 3rd possibility 'fails' on logical consistency: Why did he call a press conference?Crawdaddy wrote:What about a 3rd possibility?
Rossi and his partners claim to have garnered commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars. The greek company claims to have years worth of orders already on their books. One of the principles of the greek company is a friend of the Greek president and former ambassador. One of the principles in the american company is the former secretary of renewable energy under the Clinton administration and two others are former DOE executives.
That somehow makes him a poor entrepreneur? He has failed to convince influential people (except the ones who already back him)? I fail to see your logic. Who are the hundreds of influential people clamoring for more data?