IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cold Fusion
Northpack
post Feb 4 2012, 10:32
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



Well, I thought about bringing this topic up here because I am curious how people at hydrogenaudio, whom I appreciate as technically competent, scientifically minded folks, would respond to the supposed recent developments in the field of Cold Fusion/Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. In case you don't know what I'm talking about - there's a series of articels at Wired covering the tantalizing events that took place during the last year. This is the most recent one:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-1...ld-fusion-rival

Before you assert that Cold Fusion is physically impossible - there is a research history spanning 22 years since the discovery of Fleischmann and Pons back in 1989, covering hundreds of peer reviewed papers, showing loads of methodically solid, experimental evidence for the phenomenon. Although it is not understood entirely by now and reproducability is still an issue, there are several promising theoretical approaches, the most discussed being the Widom-Larson theory, which suggest that quantum mechanical coherence in metal hydride lattices is the precondition for the phenomenon. The NASA recently announced that they are conducting research based on this approach: http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html

Also, this "60 Minutes" episode from 2009 gives some good information for starters: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n

For in-depth information I suggest that you first watch the comprehensive presentation of SRI's Michael McKubre at YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc ) and then browse through the scientific papers avaiable at http://www.lenr-canr.org

Of course one has to evaluate the claims made by Rossi and Defkalion separately from the general evidence for Cold Fusion. However, knowing about this evidence at first gives their claims a very different background of plausibility, setting them far apart from "one more of those free energy scams".

If this would turn out to be true, it would the most worldshaking technical innovation since the utilization of fossile fuels - albeit a much more beneficial one.

This post has been edited by Northpack: Feb 4 2012, 10:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Feb 14 2012, 19:22
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



Interesting news: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/14/...ful-e-cat-demo/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post May 21 2013, 12:31
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



Told you so wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post May 23 2013, 02:04
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
The analyses in our Report #3 show that the amount and rate of steam that was coming out of Rossiís device didnít match his claim of about 5,000 Watts - not by a long shot.

Instead, the steam coming out looked exactly like what you would expect to see coming out of a 1,000-Watt electric tea kettle. In fact, thatís about how much electricity was going into Rossiís device. There is no ambiguity about the failure; all of the required data was available.


I guess that is enough evidence?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post May 23 2013, 16:54
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (kraut @ May 23 2013, 01:04) *
I guess that is enough evidence?

That is no evidence at all but a quote from someone (Steven R. Krivit) who two years ago witnessed an inconclusive demonstration of an early type of reactor, was disappointed by what he saw (Rossi said he tried to spy him) and consequently became the most vocal - one could say obsessive - detractor of Rossi, up to the point of character assassination. Most long-time observers, even the sceptical, agree that Krivit is way over the top in his criticism and that he seems either to be on a personal crusade against Rossi or to follow some hidden agenda.

Whatsoever - that is yesteryears news and has nothing to do with the recently published third party verification.

Here is another article from today.

This post has been edited by Northpack: May 23 2013, 17:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post May 24 2013, 01:50
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE (Northpack @ May 23 2013, 08:54) *
QUOTE (kraut @ May 23 2013, 01:04) *
I guess that is enough evidence?

That is no evidence at all but a quote from someone (Steven R. Krivit) who two years ago witnessed an inconclusive demonstration of an early type of reactor, was disappointed by what he saw (Rossi said he tried to spy him) and consequently became the most vocal - one could say obsessive - detractor of Rossi, up to the point of character assassination. Most long-time observers, even the sceptical, agree that Krivit is way over the top in his criticism and that he seems either to be on a personal crusade against Rossi or to follow some hidden agenda.

Whatsoever - that is yesteryears news and has nothing to do with the recently published third party verification.

Here is another article from today.



Do you really think that article inspires more confidence? You are either kidding yourself or do not understand charlatanism of which that is a sure sign of:

QUOTE
Somewhat frustratingly, the seven scientists were not allowed to look inside the steel cylinder that houses the fuel, which is a combination of nickel powder, hydrogen gas, andómost mysteriouslyóa catalyst composed of unknown additives. This catalyst is an industrial trade secret, and the secrecy makes it impossible for independent scientists to understand exactly how the device works.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-e...higher.html#jCp


I need really not more to bolster my opinion that we are dealing with a charlatan and not much else. Real science does not work that way.
Unless we find out the mechanism, it is the guy behind the curtain pulling some strings, and working with smoke and mirrors.

It is a magic show, as some of the commentators say.

But - there is always a place for the true believer, who undetracted by the signs of questionable science follows the leader who promises the unobtainium. If it makes you feel good - who am I to disturb your dreams. Just do not call it science - the easiest to be fooled by magic tricks are scientists. That is why no magician worth his or her salt shows you how that box really operates.

This post has been edited by kraut: May 24 2013, 01:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post May 26 2013, 12:30
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



You presume Rossi to be a scammer - this is perfectly reasonable regarding his past ventures. However, you also presume three highly distinguished professors from the University of Bologna (Focardi, Stremmenos and Levi - all having testified unequivocally that Rossis devices work as he claims) to be either actively involved in that presumed scam or deluded by Rossi. Furthermore, you presume that five formerly uninvolved and completely independent scientists from Sweden, among them Hanno Essťn (who led the investigation of the second test run described in the paper), professor of theoretical physics, editor of the European Journal of Physics and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, are not only utter amateurs who are unable to do simple energy measurements but also recklessly put their careers and reputation at stake for publishing a paper about something as outrageous as the Rossi reactor without having absolutely made sure that the conclusions they have come to are warranted.

In my opinion, this is line of thought is obviously irrational - it makes many a conspiracy theory look pale in comparison.

You should also know that the physical effect supposedly driving Rossis reactor has nothing to do with the notorious "free energy" moonshine. It has been researched in its different facets for more than two decades and although not sufficiently understood by now, its very existence is empirically proven beyond any reasonable doubt and has inspired a set of falsifiable (and peer-reviewed, if that matters) theories within the current framework of condensed matter nuclear science.

However, you could have known all those facts if you had followed the information given in my initial post instead of immediately indulging in your skepticism. Of course you are not alone with that irrational attitude of skeptic furor and willful ignorance. There are many such "pathoskeptics" around (as they are called by the cold fusion crowd), who categorically reject the possibility of any phenomenon outside the limited scope of their text-book knowledge (or dogma) of physics. It is interesting to observe their comments becoming increasingly shrill and hysteric after the publication of the report. This is the expected reaction when people desperately struggle to maintain their own cognitive dissonance against an emerging reality.

Oh, by the way, Max Planck out of his own experience probably gave the ultimate account of what Thomas S. Kuhn later wrote of as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I suppose this is why they behave as if their lives were threatened...

Wired.co.uk - Cold Fusion gets red hot and aims for EU

This post has been edited by Northpack: May 26 2013, 13:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2014 - 15:50