Posted on 03/19/2011 7:03:02 AM PDT by Normandy
Aspirin achieved widespread use and acceptance before it was ascertained how it worked. Had Fleishman and Pons steered away from the use of “cold fusion” I think their contribution may not have been hampered by the forces of vested interests in high temperature fusion. Their process could have studied in a less charged atmosphere.
He is working with the University of Bologna, the oldest in the world. He has done a number of demonstrations and tests with scientists present, and he has let them look at his technology as far as he can at the moment. He is using the money from his former company to capitalize his venture. I’m not sure what he’s doing wrong.
Here are several more links on the process:
The Rossi 10 kW Reactor:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE96Rossi.pdf
And here are 36 more questions – with Rossi’s answers:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3126617.ece
This is how Rossi is financing his E-cat:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3123849.ece
Cold Fusion: 18 hour test excludes combustion:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
What he is "doing wrong" is that somehow he is managing to suggest that he is ready to commercialize a process which has not even reached the level of a laboratory curiosity. I will be nothing less than amazed if there is anything there at all.
Can you describe even one case of a similar scientific development being commercialized in this fashion?
Best way to verify it: let it run.
Let it run for a month at a supervised independent location, generating 20Kw of energy the whole month. This would eliminate any probability of an internal conventional fuel source.
According to Rossi he will have a 1 megawatt plant up and running later this year in Greece. I’ll withhold judgement until then but like some in the cold fusion community I’m cautiously optimistic. If we start seeing him back away from that commitment citing technical difficulties my scepticism will grow.
Fire?
The first users of fire had no theory of how combustion worked, and no papers in peer-reviewed journals about it. They just observed an effect, and saw that it did useful things.
To get a patent, it should not be necessary to be able to explain a theory behind the operation of a device. All that should be needed is to have a device which does something useful (like generate energy) along with reproducible instructions for how to construct the device so that others could reliably replicate it. If this guy can accomplish that, then he should get his patent. Later on, some theoretician can figure out WHY the effect occurs, and get his Nobel Prize.
I guess I’m more hopeful, than anything. I do know that initial attempts at it were met with a hail storm of invective and closed-mindedness from the scientific and academic communities. I have seen how the scientific community often use intimidation to deter research in controversial or areas which challenge prevailing thought or sacred cows. I dont want the scientific communities to abandon the scientific method...I wish they would sometimes in some instances return to it.
The important question I asked was, "Just what is the purpose of what you see happening?"
Some years ago I missed a great "demonstration" by a company which called itself "Bypass Engineering" which claimed to have a means of connecting the exhaust from a car back into its intake, thus creating a perpetual motion machine. Of course, they didn't call it that.
Some of my engineering colleagues did attend and told me it was a great show. Of course, no such system was ever developed or produced. It would not surprise me if the hype didn't encourage some people to be very interested in investing in order to get in on the ground floor of a revolutionary development.
So, I ask you; what is the purpose of what is presently happening? Why tell the public anything right now? Why use the time of other presumably competent scientists? What difference will there be because they are publicizing now versus later? Will any of the witnessing scientists guarantee any future buyer or investor that no money will be lost on this?
Here are some more questions answered by Rossi — one of them deals with why he went public at this point.
Here are some more questions answered by Rossi — one of them deals with why he went public at this point.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3126617.ece
Can you translate this for me?
Announcing the creation of a 1MW nuclear reactor just several months before its scheduled completion because a friend is mad "at exiting now" doesn't make any sense whatever to me.
From another article at that link: "His own version of Petroldragon’s rise and fall, which eventually led to prison sentences for Rossi, ..."
I foresee history repeating itself.
I don’t know exactly what he means — he has imperfect English for sure. Perhaps he meant that his friend was upset and threatened to exit if they didn’t go public now. Just a guess though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.