It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Historic event: One-year 1 megawatt E-Cat trial completed

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: pteridine
Now that it has been replicated,


It has? Care to show us exactly where it was replicated, and their independent scientific report on it being replicated?


animpossibleinvention.com...




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: pteridine
Now that it has been replicated,


It has? Care to show us exactly where it was replicated, and their independent scientific report on it being replicated?


animpossibleinvention.com...



So you think that is a "independent scientific report"?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: pteridine
Now that it has been replicated,


It has? Care to show us exactly where it was replicated, and their independent scientific report on it being replicated?


animpossibleinvention.com...



So you think that is a "independent scientific report"?


They provide enough information for replication.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

LOL! What a cop out.

Now how's about that bridge?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: pteridine

LOL! What a cop out.

Now how's about that bridge?


Fleischmann and Pons observed the phenomenon in 1989. Since then, many others have also observed it. All the skeptics who were griping about no way to replicate the experiment have now been provided with the necessary details so they can observe it, too.
I expect that all the LOLers will demand yet more and continue to whine when no one rushes to appease them.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: pteridine

LOL! What a cop out.

Now how's about that bridge?


Fleischmann and Pons observed the phenomenon in 1989.


They couldn't even replicate their own experiment!

Since then, many others have also observed it.[/yet no independent verification of their results has ever been produced...



All the skeptics who were griping about no way to replicate the experiment have now been provided with the necessary details so they can observe it, too.[/quote]

Hah! "You go find the evidence for my claims!"

Face it, you have nothing.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Hyped: Flesichmann and Pons did observe excess heat on many occasions. The replicability suffered because of varying amounts of Boron impurities in the Palladium and no one knew at that time that Boron was necessary for the effect to be observed.

1. First, all claims are suspect and none suffice. 2. Then, it isn't science because no one can replicate it. 3. Finally, when the system is described so others can replicate it, you expect others to do the work to prove it to your satisfaction. If someone does successfully repeat the experiment, will you say that all claims are suspect and none suffice?

Do you know what you want or are your estrogen levels too high?
edit on 2/24/2016 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence. They couldn't even replicate their own work. No one has replicated it since. You link to some joke of a website so I guess your ability to discern credible, independent scientific evidence from tall, unsubstantiated stories is the sticking point here.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: pteridine

Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence. They couldn't even replicate their own work. No one has replicated it since. You link to some joke of a website so I guess your ability to discern credible, independent scientific evidence from tall, unsubstantiated stories is the sticking point here.


What you probably meant to write was that Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence that you ever saw. I know that you are impatient and want what you want. I understand that you think you are special and that others should satisfy your curiosity or you will continue to bombard this thread with incredulity. You want many voices of mainstream science to reassure you in these times of uncertainty because you are unable to accept the possibility that this is a new physical phenomenon.
You have all the information you need to do your own credible [to you] experiments. Try not to hurt yourself in the lab.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridineYou want many voices of mainstream science to reassure you in these times of uncertainty because you are unable to accept the possibility that this is a new physical phenomenon.


Not exactly. We want credible third parties to provide evidence strong enough to counteract the stench of "scam" that has attached itself to Rossi, going back to the 70s. When you've spent more of your life in jail for fraud that you've spent successfully demonstrating the new miraculous wonder-technology that you're trying to sell for big bucks, it raises a lot of questions about your motives and integrity.

Trust me, I'd be over the moon if it's all true. That's the main reason I'm still hanging around this thread - to give him a chance to pull the rabbit out of the hat. I don't believe he's going to do it, but I'll give him that chance.
edit on Ev50ThursdayThursdayAmerica/ChicagoThu, 25 Feb 2016 06:50:26 -06005762016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
What you probably meant to write was that Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence that you ever saw.


No, he wrote the facts. Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence.

You just want to believe convicted scammers like Rossi!
edit on 25-2-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: pteridine

Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence. They couldn't even replicate their own work. No one has replicated it since. You link to some joke of a website so I guess your ability to discern credible, independent scientific evidence from tall, unsubstantiated stories is the sticking point here.


What you probably meant to write was that Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence that you ever saw. I know that you are impatient and want what you want. I understand that you think you are special and that others should satisfy your curiosity or you will continue to bombard this thread with incredulity. You want many voices of mainstream science to reassure you in these times of uncertainty because you are unable to accept the possibility that this is a new physical phenomenon.
You have all the information you need to do your own credible [to you] experiments. Try not to hurt yourself in the lab.


Just out of curiosity. .what reason could there possibly be for us skeptics to not want this to be true? It would be amazing!

Sadly they never produced anything other than lies and false hope.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Just waiting to read it blew up taking everyone with it, plans, test results, scientists, backers, everything reduced to atoms.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: pteridine
What you probably meant to write was that Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence that you ever saw.


No, he wrote the facts. Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence.

You just want to believe convicted scammers like Rossi!


What you probably meant to write was that Flesichmann and Pons produced no evidence that YOU ever saw. ONR and NRL saw it, which is why they kept a small program going until they were forced to stop in 2008.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Yes, let's just wait...

*cobweb covered skeleton picture*



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: pteridineYou want many voices of mainstream science to reassure you in these times of uncertainty because you are unable to accept the possibility that this is a new physical phenomenon.


Not exactly. We want credible third parties to provide evidence strong enough to counteract the stench of "scam" that has attached itself to Rossi, going back to the 70s. When you've spent more of your life in jail for fraud that you've spent successfully demonstrating the new miraculous wonder-technology that you're trying to sell for big bucks, it raises a lot of questions about your motives and integrity.

Trust me, I'd be over the moon if it's all true. That's the main reason I'm still hanging around this thread - to give him a chance to pull the rabbit out of the hat. I don't believe he's going to do it, but I'll give him that chance.


Personal attacks on Rossi are de rigueur from the skeptics, so you fit the mold. Remember that Rossi is only one of many investigating this. There are the public disclosures from lone wolf researchers and then there are large companies who say nothing about what they are working on. Rossi may or may not pull the rabbit out of the hat. This may or may not be commercialized. Evidence from many says that the reactions are nuclear in nature which is a good start if one is to claim nuclear transmutation.
As I see it, one problem is your definition of "credible third parties." Who is credible? It seems that when anyone says that they have observed the phenomenon, they are deemed "not credible" in a scientific catch 22. John Bockris, another world-class electrochemist claimed to have seen nuclear transmutation in electrochemical systems and was declared a heretic by "credible" people.
New technology is difficult enough to commercialize and something as world-changing as this is many times as difficult. Oxen will be gored, axes will be ground, toes will be stepped on, stocks will rise and fall, unintended consequences will remain hidden until they show their teeth. Those at the top are at risk of no longer being at the top; a frightening thing for the big dogs. At some point, multiple entities will arrive at similar technologies and that is when things will start in earnest. One thing that will happen is that many of the most vocal skeptics will hop on the bandwagon and try to get into the limelight. We saw this with Pons and Fleischmann until they were safely tucked away by the hot fusion folks.
I think that this may be a general phenomenon and that it will be shown to occur in metals that can absorb significant amounts of hydrogen at reaction temperatures.
Time will tell.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: pikestaff

Yes, let's just wait...

*cobweb covered skeleton picture*


Patience, Grasshopper......



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: pteridineYou want many voices of mainstream science to reassure you in these times of uncertainty because you are unable to accept the possibility that this is a new physical phenomenon.


Not exactly. We want credible third parties to provide evidence strong enough to counteract the stench of "scam" that has attached itself to Rossi, going back to the 70s. When you've spent more of your life in jail for fraud that you've spent successfully demonstrating the new miraculous wonder-technology that you're trying to sell for big bucks, it raises a lot of questions about your motives and integrity.

Trust me, I'd be over the moon if it's all true. That's the main reason I'm still hanging around this thread - to give him a chance to pull the rabbit out of the hat. I don't believe he's going to do it, but I'll give him that chance.


Personal attacks on Rossi are de rigueur from the skeptics, so you fit the mold. Remember that Rossi is only one of many investigating this. There are the public disclosures from lone wolf researchers and then there are large companies who say nothing about what they are working on. Rossi may or may not pull the rabbit out of the hat. This may or may not be commercialized. Evidence from many says that the reactions are nuclear in nature which is a good start if one is to claim nuclear transmutation.
As I see it, one problem is your definition of "credible third parties." Who is credible? It seems that when anyone says that they have observed the phenomenon, they are deemed "not credible" in a scientific catch 22. John Bockris, another world-class electrochemist claimed to have seen nuclear transmutation in electrochemical systems and was declared a heretic by "credible" people.
New technology is difficult enough to commercialize and something as world-changing as this is many times as difficult. Oxen will be gored, axes will be ground, toes will be stepped on, stocks will rise and fall, unintended consequences will remain hidden until they show their teeth. Those at the top are at risk of no longer being at the top; a frightening thing for the big dogs. At some point, multiple entities will arrive at similar technologies and that is when things will start in earnest. One thing that will happen is that many of the most vocal skeptics will hop on the bandwagon and try to get into the limelight. We saw this with Pons and Fleischmann until they were safely tucked away by the hot fusion folks.
I think that this may be a general phenomenon and that it will be shown to occur in metals that can absorb significant amounts of hydrogen at reaction temperatures.
Time will tell.



Rossi is clearly a liar and a charlatan and a thief. He has stolen tens of millions of dollars from gullible investors. That makes him scum in my book.

The fact that you are defending him doesn't make me hold you in very high esteem. I tend to dislike people who steal others money...why don't you?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: pteridineYou want many voices of mainstream science to reassure you in these times of uncertainty because you are unable to accept the possibility that this is a new physical phenomenon.


Not exactly. We want credible third parties to provide evidence strong enough to counteract the stench of "scam" that has attached itself to Rossi, going back to the 70s. When you've spent more of your life in jail for fraud that you've spent successfully demonstrating the new miraculous wonder-technology that you're trying to sell for big bucks, it raises a lot of questions about your motives and integrity.

Trust me, I'd be over the moon if it's all true. That's the main reason I'm still hanging around this thread - to give him a chance to pull the rabbit out of the hat. I don't believe he's going to do it, but I'll give him that chance.


Personal attacks on Rossi are de rigueur from the skeptics, so you fit the mold. Remember that Rossi is only one of many investigating this. There are the public disclosures from lone wolf researchers and then there are large companies who say nothing about what they are working on. Rossi may or may not pull the rabbit out of the hat. This may or may not be commercialized. Evidence from many says that the reactions are nuclear in nature which is a good start if one is to claim nuclear transmutation.
As I see it, one problem is your definition of "credible third parties." Who is credible? It seems that when anyone says that they have observed the phenomenon, they are deemed "not credible" in a scientific catch 22. John Bockris, another world-class electrochemist claimed to have seen nuclear transmutation in electrochemical systems and was declared a heretic by "credible" people.
New technology is difficult enough to commercialize and something as world-changing as this is many times as difficult. Oxen will be gored, axes will be ground, toes will be stepped on, stocks will rise and fall, unintended consequences will remain hidden until they show their teeth. Those at the top are at risk of no longer being at the top; a frightening thing for the big dogs. At some point, multiple entities will arrive at similar technologies and that is when things will start in earnest. One thing that will happen is that many of the most vocal skeptics will hop on the bandwagon and try to get into the limelight. We saw this with Pons and Fleischmann until they were safely tucked away by the hot fusion folks.
I think that this may be a general phenomenon and that it will be shown to occur in metals that can absorb significant amounts of hydrogen at reaction temperatures.
Time will tell.



Rossi is clearly a liar and a charlatan and a thief. He has stolen tens of millions of dollars from gullible investors. That makes him scum in my book.

The fact that you are defending him doesn't make me hold you in very high esteem. I tend to dislike people who steal others money...why don't you?


Who has he stolen "tens of millions of dollars" from? Where are they?

My esteem level in your eyes is unimportant. What is important is LENR. If someone other than Rossi made claims would that matter? Focardi and Piantelli saw excess heat in the 90's. Are they charlatans, too? Dennis Bushnell of NASA thinks LENR is real; is he delusional? How about Peter Hagelstein of MIT or Michael McKubre of SRI?
This is about more than just one backyard mechanic and many of the nay sayers don't realize that. They focus in on Rossi and assume that if he can be sufficiently defamed, he will go away along with the disruptive technology that gets their panties in a twist. Did you ever wonder why Pons and Fleischmann picked D2O-Palladium? As a bit of history, in 1927 John Tandberg and Torsten Wilner, in Sweden, noted anomalous heat in a Palladium-Heavy Water electrolysis system and experimented in an attempt to produce commercially useful heat. Most skeptics don't know any of this. Now you do and can start looking into it before you do any more trash talking about things that you have little actual knowledge of.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

wait ?

for what ?????????????

rossi has claimed to have sold " working units "

and further claimed to have " production " ready

but here we are - back to " testing "

PS - regarding that 350 day test - what is the utility of a " 350 day test " of a system that needs to be replaced every 180 days ?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join