Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Fox news article.....rossi cold fusion......

S

sno

Jan 1, 1970
0
check it out...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/

have fun......sno


--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
 
G

Gordon

Jan 1, 1970
0
check it out...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-f...

http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/

have fun......sno

--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
  to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
  in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory .
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

"“[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent
scientists are able to replicate these results,” Koomey told
FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the
laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity."

Relativity has results?

You mean like those faster than light nutrinos?
 
V

vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Morris Dovey said:
I must have a strange view of science - I'd be pretty happy with ordinary
proof and I'd be even happier to know that Rossi's claimed results had been
reproduced independently elsewhere on separate equipment - and I wouldn't much
care whether the folks who did that were scientists, engineers, or taxi
drivers. :)

OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower) standard of
proof; yet we don't need to be. Rossi's stated excuse seems to be a desire to
protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give others access to the
internals of his invention. But once you sell the first unit of ANY new
technology, that information is potentially "out there". The inventor must
choose between keeping his invention to himself forever, or marketing it and
depending on the patent system and our justice system to do its job. Now that
he has supposedly started marketing his device, his stated objections quickly
begin to fail to hold water..

Going back to my example of the AirCar, we see exactly the same behavior.
Pleading protection of his "secrets" the "inventor" has consistently refused to
allow third-parties access to his prototypes to verify (or refute) his claims
for them. Proving the claims for the AirCar would be as simple as handing a set
of keys to a few reputable members of the media and letting them go for a ride,
yet it has never happened. Guess why?

Vaughn .
 
M

Martin Riddle

Jan 1, 1970
0
Morris Dovey said:
I think you're right with all of the above - and he has some (for him)
difficult choices to make. He recognizes that he's in a very
vulnerable position - and it appears that none of the people he feels
able to trust have marketing/sales skills.

If he does have a process breakthrough, then /his/ problem isn't
proving that it's real and it isn't selling devices that employ that
breakthrough - the problem is finding someone he can trust who will
underwrite his patent filings and honestly look after his interests.

There're three words used to describe individuals who depend on the
patent and justice systems to protect breakthrough inventions:
"naive", "broke", and "disillusioned". Exceptions have been
unfortunately few.


I can see that the AirCar might be a hot-button issue for you. :)

--

He doesn't have a patent on the process does he?
If not then thats why he wont go public to disclose the inner workings.
For fear of it being stolen.
And he can't get a patent because he really does not know what is
exactly happening.
Or it could really be a hoax.

Cheers
 
R

Rick

Jan 1, 1970
0
vaughn said:
OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower)
standard of proof; yet we don't need to be. Rossi's stated excuse seems
to be a desire to protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give
others access to the internals of his invention.

Seems to me that In some ways this is not dissimilar to that of the inventor
of 'Starlite', a world shattering breakthrough, or merely another time
waster looking for their 15 minutes of fame?
<http://tinyurl.com/lkjcch>
 
E

eric gisse

Jan 1, 1970
0
Any mainstream news on Rossi's device is excellent news, because it
increases visibility, hence pressure for him to deliver.

And has the additional effect of "legitimate" news exposure which gives
more advertising surface area to scam people with.
I really don't care if he doesn't open up the inside of his device, as
long as he provides a test run in the order of a week, in self sustain
mode. If technical witnesses can monitor electric energy flowing in at
a very small level (just enough for the control electronics), and the
reaction goes on for a week (or better a month), then he should
silence most critics.

By year's end I'll decide whether I'll join the "its a hoax side" or
"its true side". If he can provide such a large scale demonstration
with dozens of e-cats, running a single one for at least one week
should be easy, unless he's an amazing con artist.

If the customer is the military of any major country, that would be
very significant... If they actually buy the 1MW unit, take delivery
of it, and start running long run tests.

Time will tell. I suspect in a few months this will either go boom or
bust.

I'm betting on the laws of thermodynamics.
 
V

vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Time will tell. I suspect in a few months this will either go boom or bust.

A few months? Don't count on it. These little companies that are ran by a
"genius inventor" can bump along for decades with the big breakthrough always
expected "next year". I have already given the example of the MDI AirCar, but
also look up the history of Paul Moller http://www.moller.com/ . Moller has
been burning up other folk's money for the last 40 years.

My point? 1) A true "genius inventor" can be forever indistinguishable from a
"genius scammer".and, 2) These companies can exist forever because there are
always more investors.

Vaughn
..
 
E

eric gisse

Jan 1, 1970
0
And so would the rest of us; but I'm unable to identify any specific
violation such a nuclear reaction would require.

Would you please identify and explain the violation?

Nickle and Hydogen fusing might be an exothermic reaction but there's a
significant energy cost to overcome Coulomb repulsion and get the nuceli
close enough to fuse.
 
E

eric gisse

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, Fox News article is clearly driven by skeptical mentality, but it
was better to have an article on Fox News about the 1MW test instead
of no article at all.

No, it isn't. The article legitimizes his scam.

On an unrelated note, that's how fox news turns right wing nonsensical
talking points into news.
There's need both to push mainstream nuclear physics to re-evaluate
cold fusion as well as need for Rossi to be more transparent.

1) No there isn't.
2) Even if there were, he's going about it exactly as if he were a
scammer.
Unless he's content with making a couple million US$ a year worth of
business,

Hint: lots of scammers will try for more but will gladly 'settle' for
millions of dollars.
he needs to convince the mainstream midia, and the way to do
it is to leave no calorimetry/steam quality/chemical battery doubts,
his next demos should leave ZERO doubts on that arena. Given his
solution can run self sustain, what about feeding his stream to a
100kW electrical generator and leave the control electronics running
on its own electricity. Even better if he could start up a couple
units using outside power than use the electricity produced by the
first few ones to startup the other ones, much like a 4 engine
aircraft can start the first engine using the APU, then start the
other 3 using pneumatic power from the first one.

Either he's in dire financial need to close the first sale, or he
doesn't want the rest of the world to be convinced.

I'm not convinced there was an actual "customer" running the test,
given he didn't disclose who the customer was.

You worked out the scam. I'm so proud of you! *tear*
 
J

J. Clarke

Jan 1, 1970
0
| On 03/11/2011 15:55, GO-HERE .NL wrote:
| >> check it out...
| >>
| >>
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-f...
| >>
| >> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
| >>
| >> have fun......sno
| >>
| >> --
| >> Correct Scientific Terminology:
| >> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
| >> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
| >> to be generally assumed to be true.
| >> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
| >> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a
theory.
| >> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
| >
| > "?[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent
| > scientists are able to replicate these results,? Koomey told
| > FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the
| > laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity."
| >
| > Relativity has results?
|
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.

Frosts your little paranoid-schizophrenic butt that GPS works doesn't
it?

<plonk>
 
J

Jim Wilkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
You do know why that works and how it is completely irrelevant, right?

You do realize I'm a sceptic playing devils (demon's) advocate, right?

jsw
 
E

eric gisse

Jan 1, 1970
0
You do realize I'm a sceptic playing devils (demon's) advocate, right?

jsw

No, becuase people keep mentioning it while not knowing what they are
talking about. Muon catalyzed fusion, regardless, is not a chemical process
and needs an accelerator behind it to make the muons.
 
J

Jim Wilkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
eric gisse said:
No, becuase people keep mentioning it while not knowing what they are
talking about. Muon catalyzed fusion, regardless, is not a chemical
process
and needs an accelerator behind it to make the muons.

It IS a backdoor around the Coulomb barrier, just not a practical one.

jsw
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Jan 1, 1970
0
By year's end I'll decide whether I'll join the "its a hoax side" or
"its true side". If he can provide such a large scale demonstration
with dozens of e-cats, running a single one for at least one week
should be easy, unless he's an amazing con artist.

Why will it take you that long to decide? Just ask yourself what happens
in real life in nature when you try to fuse nickel into copper? The
answer is that it uses up more energy than it releases. This is a well
known reaction from supernova explosions. A star goes supernova once it
starts to fuse elements into copper. In fact, it goes supernova well
before that, when it starts to fuse elements into iron.
If the customer is the military of any major country, that would be
very significant... If they actually buy the 1MW unit, take delivery
of it, and start running long run tests.

A secret customer is a non-existent customer.
Time will tell. I suspect in a few months this will either go boom or
bust.

The answers are staring you in the face right now.

Yousuf Khan
 
E

eric gisse

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why will it take you that long to decide? Just ask yourself what happens
in real life in nature when you try to fuse nickel into copper? The
answer is that it uses up more energy than it releases. This is a well
known reaction from supernova explosions. A star goes supernova once it
starts to fuse elements into copper. In fact, it goes supernova well
before that, when it starts to fuse elements into iron.

Exactly right.

The inflection point for fusion being exo vs endothermic is Iron.
Everything after that takes in energy to fuse.
A secret customer is a non-existent customer.

ding ding ding ding...
 
Top