Focardi and Rossi demonstrate Cold Fusion!!

page: 3
102
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
free energy? not anytime soon, they will milk the proverbial cow until there really is nothing left at all.

This is not a product for the powerful elite, this is a product for all of us, suffering amidst crisis of stupid gargantuan proportions, the oil disasters, many many wars have been fought for this, and when they finally believe we are ready they just say: "listen people this is the answer and this is what its going to cost you"

And as usual we obey, and continue in our daily war, fighting for resources we no longer have to die for...

Until the homebrewers can come up with a feasible alternative, and I know they already have but it demands too much sometimes of the end user who really does not have a clue regarding the tech...

Unfortunatedly, we criticize the system for conning us the way it does and when we demand alternatives we want them to be just the way they were, packed and with fool proof instructions...

One has to get its hands dirty in order to make any change at all, in this case it means going out buying the gear and making it work, it can be done people, it just needs some tinkering, but for some basic uses its already working!




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I ponder the anthropological implications of such a wide source of cheap energy.

I see water condensators across the Sahara, tilled rows of corn along some Icelandic field, a sky filled with near silent personal airships zipping this way and that, the immense growth of human populations...

I think of the Georgia Guide-stones.

I think of the massive changes to humanity from horse based agriculture to steam, then the clatter of the tracks of an oil powered Tiger tank.

I reflect upon the Wildlands Project, the Treaty on Biodiversity, and the whispered reports of the minutes of the latest Bilderburg conference.

I imagine that, even if it was cheap to produce, the likelihood of some "open source" or "do it yourself kit", those who believe they are better administrators and planners of the future of humanity would not likely allow this to fall into the hands of the simple, common people lest the Earth go from a population of nearly 10 billion to 60 billion within two hundred years...

Hmmm.....



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wakeUpOrDie
 



Originally posted by wakeUpOrDie

we've had free energy tech for over a hundred years now. do you want the scientific method to continue to do its job as they have the last 100 years?


Conjecture and a blatant ignorance of science. There is no such things as 'free' energy. Even cold fusion wouldn't be 'free', it would just be cheap.

We need other scientists to repeat the experiment that purports to be a cold fusion reaction. If those scientists do the exact same experiment with the exact same conditions and don't get the exact same results...well, then the claim is bogus.



and I agree with the poster who stated getting a patent was not a good idea. it isn't. we can tell from history it isn't. one of these inventors will just have to bite the bullet and put the plans on the internet for free. as much as that will suck for him/her, it will be the greatest gift ever for the world. that's gotta rack you up some karma points!


Getting a patent keeps the information in the public record. You don't seem to understand how patents work. That's how people figured out that Apple was making a touch screen device, they patented the technology for a new touch screen interface and people saw these patents.



anyway its probably all bs, but we have heard about the free energy devices china has recently given to each major country in the world back in October.


Yes, because China would just give away devices that violate all conceptions of physics...they wouldn't just use them to dominate the world.



if this happens to be true, maybe we are starting to see the slow leak of the inevitable.


No, it would be an entirely new technology.



i think we'll see more change in the world in the next 2 years than we have seen in the last 50. interesting times..


That's just basic futurism. We saw more change in technology in the last 10 years than we did in the preceding century.
edit on 17/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Why is it that people don't understand how the scientific method works?


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The proof will be in the development of the technology.


No, the proof will be in the replicating of experiments. That's how science works. You can develop technology and say it runs on whatever you want, but you can't say your claims are true unless people can recreate the technology in a lab and test it and get the exact same results.



No amount of churning and speculation will do anything to prove or disprove it.


How is recreating an experiment 'churning and speculation? It's testing the claims.



Data will be said to be false by those who have a vested interest in this failing.


Except that's not how science works. People don't seem to realize that making bogus claims, even in opposition to new theories, is a very bad practice in the scientific world. It's not about vested interests, science is a tyranny of evidence.



There are many scientists in the hot fusion community that really want this to go away and are actively at work to cast doubt on the results.


They'll actively work to cast doubt on it...sure. That's how science works. People will take this data, this experiment, and recreate it and put it through the grinder that is the peer-review process. If the claims are true then they'll stand as true when they've reached the other end.



This is Rossi's invention even though Focardi wants to claim it because of some papers on the hydrogen-nickel system.
Rossi is an industrialist and engineer and doesn't really care if it is "cold fusion" or not. He cares that he can make it work and sell the product.


I see...so he's an industrialist...who is releasing a press release rather than a scientific paper that would doubtlessly win him a Nobel prize if his claims were true. If this is real, then the guy is going about things the wrong way. If I were in his shoes I'd publish it as a scientific paper as soon as I patented the stuff and get a ton of free publicity for it. Hell, such an invention would probably garner someone two Nobel prizes in one year (physics and peace).



Why would he give the technology away to backyard mechanics?


Um...I'm not talking about backyard mechanics, I'm talking about scientific institutions like university science departments.



He invested years of time and milllions in money on it and will reap some of the profits. This wasn't a guy in a garage playing with electrolysis and an old carburetor for a month.


And, if it's real, he'll get a reward. Thankfully, the scientific method is meant to sort out those claims that are supported by the evidence. If his claim falls into that category, then the guy will get what he deserves.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
It is amazing how such leaps in science and technology are only getting two or three lines in our national newspapers while celebrity divorces get front page news. Its amazing how people have lost contact with reality and what is important and with every day bringing a new scientific breakthrough that can change our world and the way we view it and understand it all gets swept under the carpet. I do fear for what the future has instore if we can not break this dumb mind numbing cycle of selfishness and lower energy vibrations. The world needs a wake up call and it might be too little to late.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Keith01dawson
 


I Think you're absolutely right. and, on another note, i will say this: if this become validated more in the coming weeks/months, and eventually starts selling, i will be happy, not only for myself, but for people around the world. But if it does not, and something happens, like an inventor dies, they stop selling, they cease research, anything that does not go as planned and is fishy, i will immediately take it as a sign that it is being suppressed, and i personally will start researching and inventing the *bleep* out of it, knowing it must be true, because it must get out somehow.

As a young student in Electrical Engineering, heading into the power generation industry, I know if this pans out, it's going to have a huge impact on what i'm studying as well. No more learning about obsolete coal plants and onto fusion reactors.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Because it's a private demonstration and there's nothing available for peer review, I'd have to say this is a hoax until it can be verified independently. They specifically said that they would not allow any outside groups to come measure or monitor it.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Sadly, this will be yet another in a long line of incredible energy-producing breakthroughs that make people say "This will change the world", and then a month later it is never heard about again and fades from memory of the public.

Think I'm joking? Just wait. I cannot even remember how many times this has happened. Just like with that device that was demonstrated to be able to put organic refuse in, and turns it into light crude, and dozens of other devices that threatened the energy monopoly of the oil companies.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Al E. Inn
 


I stand corrected. Thank you for showing this to me. I do wonder about this journal though. I can't seem to find anything about it prior to February 2010....and both Focardi and Rossi are on the board of advisers for the journal. Not saying that this discredits the paper (I wouldn't even know where to begin with reviewing it myself), just that it's a bit odd. Well, I guess we'll just let the peer review process sort things out.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blazer
 


It could be that all of those 'energy-producing breakthroughs' were found to be either premature declarations, outright lies, mistakes in experimentation, etc.

You can't simply go the conspiracy route whenever a widely declared breakthrough disappeared. It might just be that the scientific community doesn't have a habit of openly flogging people for making such big declarations and then being wrong.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I just found out something strange. Awesome, but coincedental: there are 2 films, both based on Cold Fusion, coming out this year, 2011. Both are in post-production process and will be released in months. Strange? I'm not sure but wither way i will see them, as i love science documentaries and cold fusion. Here are links:

The Believers, a Cold Fusion documentary

and

Cold Fusion - Film by UfoFilms

The First is a full-on documentary, showing Pons and Fleischmann (sp?) on their discoveries, and other people working on similar discoveries. you can see more at the first link.

The second film is fiction. It is titled 'Cold Fusion' and is about a crashed ufo, and the cold fusion technology taken form it, and how it factors into the cold war situation between USA and The Soviets. I think.

Anyways, make of it what you will. I just found it interesting that these films come out now, as opposed to earlier./?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by pteridine
 


I see...so he's an industrialist...who is releasing a press release rather than a scientific paper that would doubtlessly win him a Nobel prize if his claims were true. If this is real, then the guy is going about things the wrong way. If I were in his shoes I'd publish it as a scientific paper as soon as I patented the stuff and get a ton of free publicity for it. Hell, such an invention would probably garner someone two Nobel prizes in one year (physics and peace).
Thankfully, the scientific method is meant to sort out those claims that are supported by the evidence. If his claim falls into that category, then the guy will get what he deserves.


You aren't in his shoes and the wrong way for you is apparently the right way for him. Rossi only cares about his customers validating his claims and if you have enough money for a license, he'll validate it for you. Of course, once you pay for the license, it would be foolish of you to reveal the technology and suffer the financial damages of violating the contract. If you'd like a paper, he has published one online. It wasn't published elsewhere because Rossi would not reveal the details of the technology and Focardi doesn't know the details. This isn't about academia where we practice the scientific method and hope for the Nobel prize to enshrine our names and validate our importance. It is about the practical application of an energy source.

When you turn on a light powered by his technology, what experiment will you feel the need to duplicate?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Great News Thank You S+F
About time too.....I hope this goes global and we see an end to Coal and Oil burning power stations. Its time we cleaned up our act. I don't even care if someone milks its for all its worth as long as it becomes a reality.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
You aren't in his shoes and the wrong way for you is apparently the right way for him.


Actually, it isn't my way, it's the scientific method. But it does seem that he's published a paper...in a journal he's on the board of advisers for.



Rossi only cares about his customers validating his claims and if you have enough money for a license, he'll validate it for you.


Except...that's not how science works.



Of course, once you pay for the license, it would be foolish of you to reveal the technology and suffer the financial damages of violating the contract.


Except that he's supposedly patented this invention. Patents are a matter of public record. The reason for this being that you need to know what is patented just to prevent patent infringement.



If you'd like a paper, he has published one online.


In a paper seemingly designed for this purpose.



It wasn't published elsewhere because Rossi would not reveal the details of the technology and Focardi doesn't know the details.


Again, which is fishy. If you've got the key to energy independence, allowing people to back up your claims would be good for business.



This isn't about academia where we practice the scientific method and hope for the Nobel prize to enshrine our names and validate our importance.


Logical fallacy: ad hominem attack (against scientists). The Nobel prize isn't about enshrining people's names or validating importance, it's about the world recognizing achievements. And a Nobel prize would be good for business.

And the scientific method? Don't trash it, you're the beneficiary of it.



It is about the practical application of an energy source.


The scientific method is about practical applications.



When you turn on a light powered by his technology, what experiment will you feel the need to duplicate?


I'll be duplicating an experiment involving running an electrical current of unknown origin either through certain types of gases or tungsten filament. I'll also feel the need to duplicate the claims of his machine. Of course, since I seemingly cannot test his machine without agreeing to pay for it...actually does that even make sense? Why the hell would I buy a product which isn't scientifically verified as working? It would be like accepting a jet pack without having demonstrations of it working that are verified. Sure, it would be cool to have a jet pack, but I'm not going to buy one unless I have a lot of hard evidence that shows it works.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by pteridine
 




When you turn on a light powered by his technology, what experiment will you feel the need to duplicate?


I'll be duplicating an experiment involving running an electrical current of unknown origin either through certain types of gases or tungsten filament. I'll also feel the need to duplicate the claims of his machine. Of course, since I seemingly cannot test his machine without agreeing to pay for it...actually does that even make sense? Why the hell would I buy a product which isn't scientifically verified as working? It would be like accepting a jet pack without having demonstrations of it working that are verified. Sure, it would be cool to have a jet pack, but I'm not going to buy one unless I have a lot of hard evidence that shows it works.


Yes, thanks for the scientific method plug. Rossi plans to sell the idea to his customers who will then market or use the technology in captive plants. Allowing people to back up your claims does not mean revealing the technology. Patents are written to cover an invention but claims are broad enough so that replication of the exact conditions will take some time and effort. There are things called "trade secrets."

I see you are fast on the draw playing the "logical fallacy" game of the ATS boards. The Nobel prize is about a committee in Sweden validating the good fortune of doing good science in an area deemed to be important at the moment. Scientists all love it and Nobel winners are in demand for advice in areas that may be distant from their areas of expertise, but the prize gives their opinions credence.
The scientific method will be practiced by the customers when they see the results are replicated. As to your experiment, wouldn't the lights coming on be the equivalent of the jet pack working?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Wow..this looks great. Just to give some insight, INFN stays for Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare which in English is National Insitute of Nuclear Physics

INFN

Sergio Focardi is Professor of Physics at the University of Bologna and member of the Italian Physical Society

Societá Italiana di Fisica

I am Italian, I could follow all the videos. Even the INFN Chairman attended the experiment, believe me this cannot be hoax.

What is really unbelievable, the Italian press does not say a word on it. I really cannot believe this. It seems a totally new era is opening to us.

Peace,

Hundroid



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


No, the lights coming on would simply be evidence that electricity is being generated, not that cold fusion is occurring.

And I'm not quick to jump on the logical fallacy game, it's just something that needs to be pointed out. I agree that a Nobel prize winner shouldn't be considered an authority just because they're a Nobel prize winner (see Linus Pauling).



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by pteridine
 


No, the lights coming on would simply be evidence that electricity is being generated, not that cold fusion is occurring.


If all of the power were generated by Rossi's technology and the heat could not be accounted for by chemical reaction, then would you consider that LENR was the source? Would you care?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
well madnessman, i hate to burst your ego, but you are looking at this from a layman's point of view while I'm seeing it from 'inside the industry' so to speak. I will educate you, but you'll need to drop that ego.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Conjecture and a blatant ignorance of science. There is no such things as 'free' energy. Even cold fusion wouldn't be 'free', it would just be cheap.


Let's not make this an argument about semantics. we all know something is not created from nothing. but cold fusion AND free energy devices both get their energy from a readily available unlimited source. now its nice to see a cold fusion tech breaking into the mainstream... but as they said, FREE ENERGY is where its at, which doesn't require the manipulation of matter at all. when we say 'free' we are extracting energy from the fabric of space itself. space is seething with energy. the trick is figuring out how to extract it when there is no energy gradient. meaning energy per volume of space is equal in all directions making it hard to extract. but once it was figured out how our reality itself is continuously created from higher order dimensions and how to access them. they found the gradient they were looking for that allowed for the extraction of the energy. across a 'dimensional gradient'.

lets put it this way, these concepts are already integrated into current military technology, which I have seen and used first hand. so someone like you who doesn't have a clue about this stuff to call it ignorant conjecture gave me a great belly laugh. it is you sir who is showing your ignorance.



We need other scientists to repeat the experiment that purports to be a cold fusion reaction. If those scientists do the exact same experiment with the exact same conditions and don't get the exact same results...well, then the claim is bogus.


blah blah blah. yes this idea is all well and good if the scientist understood enough about the principals involved to recreate the experiment. the problem is, these scientist are funded by TPTB and it has been demonstrated time and time again over the last 100 years that, when the TPTB want to hide something they will.

so your idea is a great one, in the naive world that you live in. unfortunately we live in the real world, where what you suggest has been tried many times over, with TPTB guarantying failure.... and oil continues to rule the world.



Yes, because China would just give away devices that violate all conceptions of physics...they wouldn't just use them to dominate the world.


sir, when you have no idea about what is going on behind the scenes, you are not qualified to offer an accurate opinion on China's actions. China is not 'giving away' anything. this tech has been around in the black world as I had mentioned for 100 years. many countries already have this, its not a secret. All China is doing is giving a big middle finger to those who benefit from this technology being suppressed.


I guess I'm really being a bit unfair to you madnessboy. You aren't privy to what I know and have worked with in my profession. but don't be so sure of yourself when replying to folks. a lot of them have made much more accurate statements than you are making and refuting.

but thanks for the laugh

edit on 17-1-2011 by wakeUpOrDie because: (no reason given)





 
102
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join