One Mega Watt E-Cat Cold Fusion Device Test Successful!

reply to post by yampa


If he was doing it then he would be showing his product works. The second he did that he would be rich overnight. So he ISNT doing it based on the way he acts. As I said the shadyness has been detailed over and over, deadlines missed every time. I feel bad for anyone who still supports him. I am not going to rehash 100's of pages of posts detailing the evidence Rossi is a fraud.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Well, if as you say the experiment is easy, and it has never been proved, the logical conclusion is that LENR doesn't work.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
The second he did that he would be rich overnight. So he ISNT doing it based on the way he acts.

Since you continually resort to reasoning like this, I am happy you have decided not to rehash your arguments.

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa

 

It's been detailed over and over, Rossi continually lies, refuses to allow independent testing, the list goes on and on and does not need to be rehashed. He's a fraud. If it walks like a duck and quacks .. you know the rest.

That doesn't answer my question: Why can't Rossi be using what is shown in Celani's paper to fuel his e-cats? If he is actually doing this, where do you think the scam angle will come from?

I dunno, maybe it's powered on unicorn farts? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Oh hang on, we've been waiting over a year for these supposed public, independent tests!.

...and if you think that unverifiable, amateur looking "report" is evidence if dependent validation (posted on his website, how very independent!), you really must be a very gullible chap.

reply to post by john_bmth


Ok, so you don't believe in Rossi, fair enough. Serious claims require serious proof, and that has not been offered in an impartial way to the public by Rossi or Defkalion.

But my question from the other thread was about nickel-hydrogen nanocatalyst heat engines. There is no ambiguity over Rossi's claim that he is using this type of system. What do you think about those? Is there a scientific reason Rossi could not be attempting to commercialise that effect?

This experiment was demonstrated at a National Instruments tech conference a few weeks ago:


Full pdf:
www.22passi.it...

I personally find a series of experiments over many years by reputable researchers which apparently show anomalous 'above chemical' heat reactions in violation of current thermodynamics theory to be worth paying attention to.

reply to post by yampa


What, prey tell, does this have to do with Rossi in any conceivable way?

There is no ambiguity over Rossi's claim that he is using this type of system.

Oh really? Then where is Rossi's independent testing? How does this "paper" in any way demonstrate LENR has taken place? From the abstract:

Starting in February 201 1, we studied (secretly) new Nickel-based alloys that could able to absorb some proper amounts of gaseous Hydrogen (H2) and/or Deuterium (D2), at mild pressures (100°C.

COULD. Emphasis mine. This is far, far FAR from anything remotely conclusive. Now let's read the conclusion:

If there will be no errors in the measurements performed and procedure adopted, it seems that the commercial Constantan alloy, with the surface deeply modified about geometry (i.e. skeleton type) and dimensionality of 20-100nm, multy-layers, is a good candidate for anomalous heat prodution because: a) intrinsic low cost of raw materials; b)simple procedures (i.e. low-cost) of nano-structures growing, as recently developed by our group at INFN-LNF-Italy (in close collaboration with private Company); c) use of Hydrogen.

The numbers of open questions are still very large, among others the “strange” behaviour using Deuterium gas.

...

If point 5) will be reconfirmed with the wire made by new procedures, it could be possible to reach “regions” of operations were even the self-sustaining regime could be observed.

So it's all entirely speculative at this stage , much like LENR in general. Furthermore, a fringe conference of speculative results is not compelling evidence of anything. Hardly the conclusive results that directly vindicate Rossi, is it now?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa

 

What, prey tell, does this have to do with Rossi in any conceivable way?

There is no ambiguity over Rossi's claim that he is using this type of system.

Oh really? Then where is Rossi's independent testing? How does this "paper" in any way demonstrate LENR has taken place? From the abstract:

Starting in February 201 1, we studied (secretly) new Nickel-based alloys that could able to absorb some proper amounts of gaseous Hydrogen (H2) and/or Deuterium (D2), at mild pressures (100°C.

COULD. Emphasis mine. This is far, far FAR from anything remotely conclusive. Now let's read the conclusion:

If there will be no errors in the measurements performed and procedure adopted, it seems that the commercial Constantan alloy, with the surface deeply modified about geometry (i.e. skeleton type) and dimensionality of 20-100nm, multy-layers, is a good candidate for anomalous heat prodution because: a) intrinsic low cost of raw materials; b)simple procedures (i.e. low-cost) of nano-structures growing, as recently developed by our group at INFN-LNF-Italy (in close collaboration with private Company); c) use of Hydrogen.

The numbers of open questions are still very large, among others the “strange” behaviour using Deuterium gas.

...

If point 5) will be reconfirmed with the wire made by new procedures, it could be possible to reach “regions” of operations were even the self-sustaining regime could be observed.

So it's all entirely speculative at this stage , much like LENR in general. Furthermore, a fringe conference of speculative results is not compelling evidence of anything. Hardly the conclusive results that directly vindicate Rossi, is it now?

I said there was no ambiguity over Rossi's *claim* he was using this type of system. Your initial post implies his supposed mechanism is unknown or perhaps that his proposed method was fantastical. Well, it isn't - whether he is lying or not, his claim is that he is using the same type of system shown in this document. That's why this document is relevant to Rossi (also the fact a team of 10 people from the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics will use his name and Defkalion's alongside this experiment). It doesn't offer verification of Rossi's heat engines, it just provides data about the supposed source of Rossi's heat.

The paper might demonstrate that LENR has taken place because the levels of energy produced aren't possible from any known chemical reaction using the elements in the experiment. I don't think I said anything was conclusive, nowhere near enough research is being done, so how could there be conclusions?

You are accurately showing how open minded science is to new data with your conduct. Well done.

reply to post by yampa


How long did the experiment run for? If you have any understanding at all you understand why a short term "anomolous" reading of excess heat is meaningless as that is easilly achievable. The only one here with poor reasoning is you. As I said, if Rossi had a working product he'd be a billionaire right now. That right there is the biggest peice of evidence he is a fraud.

reply to post by yampa


What "new data"? A speculative paper that makes no such claims of achieving LENR? Conferences by and large are not peer reviewed and this one especially makes no mention of peer reviewing (especially when the call for papers is made one month before the conference, far too short for a round of refereeing), so how is this non peer reviewed, speculative paper that concludes that their work may help achieve LENR vindicating anyone? Furthermore, if Rossi hasn't had his work independently validated, how on earth can you say that this is the approach he is using, especially when the "paper" in question makes no such claims of LENR? Rossi could say his e-cat was powered by fairies for all it matters. Without evidence, his claims amount to nothing.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa

 

What "new data"? A speculative paper that makes no such claims of achieving LENR? Conferences by and large are not peer reviewed, so how is this non peer reviewed, speculative paper that concludes that their work may help achieve LENR vindicating anyone? Furthermore, if Rossi hasn't had his work independently validated, how on earth can you say that this is the approach he is using, especially when the "paper" in question makes no such claims of LENR? Rossi could say his e-cat was powered by fairies for all it matters. Without evidence, his claims amount to nothing.

So you don't actually have any scientific arguments then? I haven't seen you attempt to use science at all. Your approach seems to mainly to be lauding the structures of formal academia rather than using science to help you understand the likelihood of the validity of underlying mechanisms.

As you said in the other thread, you will have to do a lot of reading before you can talk about this stuff. If you take the time to read the work of the researchers highlighted in the document (as well as others like Brian Ahern) then maybe we could have a real conversation about this. Your current conduct doesn't show any curiosity in what these people are talking about at all.

Originally posted by yampa

So you don't actually have any scientific arguments then?
I haven't seen you attempt to use science at all.

Are you a physicist? No. Am I a physicist? No. i do have a PhD though, and I have published in journals and conferences. I am more than aware of "how things are done". You don't need to be a physicist to understand the overall process and context of such work and to demonstrate how your use of such work is completely contradictory to the work in question. But by all means, let's hear it in your own words exactly how and why this research supports your claims. And I want a proper explanation, not just parroting "it's what Rossi uses!" over and over. Go on, enlighten an ignorant heathen such as myself.

What are your credentials, exactly? I've pointed out the glaring holes in attempting to use this "paper" as validation of anything, even using the paper itself to demonstrate that their claims do not in any shape or form match up with the claims you are making. I have explicitly highlighted the portions of the paper that directly contradict your account. You are attempting to use science you do not understand and a scientific process you do not understand to support your position. I have pointed out exactly why your use of such work is a fallacy, yet you gloss over my criticisms and keep attempting to tread water with your weak position.

Your approach seems to mainly to be lauding the structures of formal academia rather than using science to help you understand the likelihood of the validity of underlying mechanisms.

My approach is using my experience of academia and my experience of writing and publishing papers to demonstrate why your use of such a paper to support your position is wrong. So, other than attempting to push a paper you don't understand and saying "look! here's proof!", what exactly has your input been?

As you said in the other thread, you will have to do a lot of reading before you can talk about this stuff. If you take the time to read the work of the researchers highlighted in the document (as well as others like Brian Ahern) then maybe we could have a real conversation about this. Your current conduct doesn't show any curiosity in what these people are talking about at all.

You currently do not show any awareness or understanding of the scientific process of writing and publishing research. Again, i ask what are your credentials to be speaking with such authority on matters you demonstrate such an ignorance of? I have used the very paper you presented to prove your argument to be wrong. I have quoted the pertinent sections of the paper that state unequivocally that your claims of the paper's findings are utterly wrong. I have used your own supposed "evidence" to refute your position.You yet again show a complete ignorance of science and scientific method and a complete unwillingness to even learn. Where exactly are you hoping to go with this... "conversation"?

Originally posted by john_bmth

That is an awful lot of hot air and bluster you have there. Still not even an attempt at using physics or chemistry to address why you have issues with the postulates in that document though.

You don't believe that Rossi is using the anomalous heating mechanism shown in that document. Fine. I mean, the people who wrote the document disagree with you, but whatever. There is still no doubt that Rossi is claiming to be using this mechanism, thus this is relevant to e-cat (even if the e-cat is actually full of sawdust and Professor Francesco Celani has been mislead).

I honestly didn't think you'd highlighted anything from that document which showed any great weakness in the postulates. The fact you highlighted stuff like:

"Starting in February 201 1, we studied (secretly) new Nickel-based alloys that could able to absorb some proper amounts of gaseous Hydrogen (H2) and/or Deuterium "

shows to me that you don't actually understand the proposed mechanism yet. Why did you highlight 'could' there? Seems rather pedantic given that gas loading of metals is already well proven in multiple fields which have nothing to do with LENR.

In the second section you highlighted, you choose to pick out rational and professional softners like 'seems', 'could' and 'open questions' instead of paying any attention to the data and construction of the experiment itself. Why would you do this? Do you believe these kinds of words don't show up in many scientific documents? Or is everything written in the name of science a binary yes/no conclusive/false now?

What is really telling here is your failure to highlight the 33 mentions of the word 'anomalous' in relation to energy generation.

reply to post by yampa

You're the one pushing this "paper" as "evidence" so you are the one who should be deomstrating exactly how this paper validates your claims. So, let's hear it in your own words:

1) State what your credentials are and how they give you the authority to asses this paper and evaluate it's contribution to the field of LENR so we know you're not just parroting things you've heard or making things up.

2) Citing this paper, state explicitly what the contribution and conclusions of this paper are within the context of the field and the wider scientific field. Further explain these contributions and results in layman terms for us ignorant heathens.

3) Explain how and why these contributions are applicable to Rossi's work, citing objective sources that state explicitly that this is the technique that Rossi is using.

4) Cite objective sources that explicitly demonstrate that Rossi's results are congruent with the results and contributions of this paper.

Now an exercise in assessing the reliability of this source:

1) Demonstrate whether this conference is peer-reviewed or not.

2) Cite further examples research from peer-reviewed journals that validate the contribution and results of this paper.

3) Cite papers from peer-reviewed sources that directly validate the objective sources supporting Rossi's results from item number 3 above.

This is all standard stuff when attempting to substantiate your position with science. You claim that you are informed enough to assess whether these claims are legitimate or not and you are quick to push "science" to support your stance so being able to substantiate your position with the answers to the above questions is the bare minimum to give your position legitimacy. YOU are the one making the claims and YOU are the one pushing "papers" and accusing others of not being able to critique said science so the onus is on YOU to substantiate your position and argument in detail. You want to use science? Fine, then use it properly.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa

 

You're the one pushing this "paper" as "evidence" so you are the one who should be deomstrating exactly how this paper validates your claims. So, let's hear it in your own words:

It doesn't validate anything, and I'm not seeking your validation. It's up to you if you want to entertain it or not.

My reason for finding this document interesting is because it has 33 usages of the word 'anomalous' alongside energy generation + references to other relevant researchers and engineers. You don't find this experiment, or those referenced interesting. Fine.

reply to post by yampa

So we're back to square one: absolutely no evidence for Rossi's claims what so ever. I was looking forward to you demonstrating your scientific literacy and knowledge of the field by explaining it to us heathens. After all, you were quick to point the finger at others for apparently not having any understanding. Must you pick up your ball and go home so early? I really want to hear how the results of this "paper" are pertinent in your own, informed words

There is no ambiguity over Rossi's claim that he is using this type of system.

And I was really looking forward to you substantiating this claim

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa

 

How long did the experiment run for? If you have any understanding at all you understand why a short term "anomolous" reading of excess heat is meaningless as that is easilly achievable. The only one here with poor reasoning is you. As I said, if Rossi had a working product he'd be a billionaire right now. That right there is the biggest peice of evidence he is a fraud.

Why don't you read the experiment yourself if you are interested in how long it ran for? It's not my experiment. It is a little amusing that you so quickly jump to the assumption that a physicist who has been publishing calorimetry experiments and designing electronic nuclear detectors for 35 years doesn't know what is and isn't anomalous though.

Your reasoning seems mainly based on trying to slander a man who you have no actual evidence of actively been engaged in defrauding people. Obviously the chances of Rossi's reactor being genuine are slim, because that would be a revolution, so scepticism is necessary, but you have gone far beyond that. It's funny that the mods haven't picked up on this, because they could find themselves in serious legal trouble for having a public message board full of slanderous remarks if Rossi achieves what he is proposing.

Originally posted by john_bmth

There is no ambiguity over Rossi's claim that he is using this type of system.

And I was really looking forward to you substantiating this claim

edit on 27-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

You seem to be having a comprehension problem because I've already clarified this? Rossi's *claim* is that he is using a mechanism similar to the one in Celani's document. Your initial statement implied his mechanism was unknown or simply made up. The idea he is trying to sell is not made up by him. He took the idea from someone else. What is not clear here?

reply to post by yampa


That's all right yampa, you've certainly made your position clear. Granted, not the position you intended...

You going to attempt to answer my questions? it's disappointing that you just shrugged them off without so much as an attempt. But hey, moving the goal posts is the tried and tested method of the "true believer".

Rossi's *claim* is that he is using a mechanism similar to the one in Celani's document.

Uh huh...

There is no ambiguity over Rossi's claim that he is using this type of system.

Oh. So much for a claim. Cite the independent sources that demonstrate there is "no ambiguity". Actually, I don't want to distract you from my previous questions. I'll just sit here and wait...

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa

 

That's all right yampa, you've certainly made your position clear. Granted, not the position you intended...

You going to attempt to answer my questions?

edit on 27-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Your questions are a bit dull, so, no. If you'd like to engage in something pertaining to the actual physical properties of nickel-hydrogen nanocatalyst heat engines, please do ask something relevant to physics or chemistry. I have no interest at all in pitching other's ideas to you if you can't talk about physical properties.

Originally posted by yampa

Your questions are a bit dull, so, no.

That's your grand comeback? "Oh, I don't want to answer your questions, I find substantiating and rationalising my opinions to be a dull affair" That would explain a lot, at least.

If you'd like to engage in something pertaining to the actual physical properties of nickel-hydrogen nanocatalyst heat engines, please do ask something relevant to physics or chemistry. I have no interest at all in pitching other's ideas to you if you can't talk about physical properties.

Put those goal posts back, yampa

Originally posted by john_bmth

Put those goal posts back, yampa

edit on 27-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Talking about nickel-hydrogen nanocatalyst heat engines was my only goal. That requires you acknowledging the postulates and discussion of physical phenomena. You seem unwilling to do this. So what's the point?

You also seem to be entirely misunderstanding my stance on Rossi. I'm not sure how a page full of references to his work in very cautious terms has been translated in your head to advocacy? I'm interested in the mechanisms of physics, not promoting Rossi.