Posted on 05/29/2013 5:04:01 PM PDT by Kevmo
Science and the Media
Forbes.com renews attention to widely disparaged “low-energy nuclear reactions”
The century-old business magazine applauds an arXiv paper claiming an "independent" LENR test.
May 28, 2013 Published: May 28, 2013
By Steven T. Corneliussen
"Forbes magazine," declared New York Times media reporter David Carr in 2009, "has long been a synonym for riches, success and a belief that business, left to its own devices, will create a better world." Amid widespread disbelief, Forbes.com is expressing enthusiastic faith in the world-transforming potential of one such device: the "energy catalyzer," or E-Cat, purported to exploit "low-energy nuclear reactions," or LENRs, as a gigantic energy-production breakthrough.
In March, Forbes.com publicized two NASA scientists' LENR enthusiasm. Now it has published the article "Finally! Independent testing of Rossi's E-Cat cold fusion device: Maybe the world will change after all." (At least one LENR proponent actually asserts big differences between LENRs and cold fusion.)
A team of Italian and Swedish authors describes this testing in the arXiv paper "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder." They write, "Andrea Rossi claims to have invented an apparatus that can produce much more energy per unit weight of fuel than can be obtained from known chemical processes." They report that their "independent test" took place in December and March experiments. They claim that "energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source."
With a few caveats, the Forbes.com piece extols their work: It's at long last "a report by credible, independent third parties" that "would appear to deliver"; while some of the authors have publicly supported Rossi and the E-Cat, "they are all serious academics with reputations to lose"; the paper is "detailed and thorough."
The Forbes.com piece ends this way:
While a few commentators have raised criticisms concerning how the measurements were made and sources of error, others have argued that the energy produced is so significant even knocking off an order of magnitude on either axis still portrays a process with insanely valuable output.
This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history, it looks like the world may well be about to change. How quick will depend solely on Rossi.
Though Forbes.com appears alone in its enthusiasm, on the Web it's not hard to find reports and discussion about the arXiv paper. But it's even easier to find skepticism and ardent disbelief.
MetroNews Canada consulted officials at General Fusion in British Columbia, a public–private venture in nuclear fusion, and found them "unfazed." An article at the Register, an online technology publication that claims to have more than 7 million unique users worldwide, presents frank skepticism, especially about trade secrets invoked in the paper. Charging that Forbes.com "got all gushy," this publication predicts that "the test is probably going to be vulnerable to scientific tooth and claw from the start, since it amounts to researchers being asked to visit the premises of EFA–that is, the company that holds the production rights for the E-Cat–and test a black box whose operations are invisible."
A news report at Popular Science notes that the arXiv paper hasn't been peer reviewed and observes that it "leaves out crucial details, for example referring to 'unknown additives' instead of specifying what chemicals actually go into the reaction." The article points out that Rossi "has a history of blocking even simple tests" and that he "has previously passed off spurious inventions, including a machine that was supposed to turn waste into oil."
Steven Krivit, a longtime LENR observer and advocate, has also taken dead aim at the arXiv paper. At his New Energy Times website, his article "Rossi manipulates academics to create illusion of independent test" charges that the authors "did not perform an independent test," but instead, "were participants in another Rossi demonstration and performed measurements on one of Rossi's devices in his facility." Krivit "stopped counting the Rossi demonstrations after the 13th one." He says that the authors "lack full knowledge of the type and preparation of the materials used in the reactor and the modulation of input power, which, according to the paper, were industrial trade secrets" and that they "didn't perform any calorimetry."
As of early on 24 May, Google yields no links to major media joining Forbes.com in reporting, enthusiastically or not, on the arXiv paper.
---
Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory. .
.
Businesses, organizations and/or individuals are free to buy or refrain from buying an E-Cat. Serious skeptics should refrain from using any energy produced by an E-Cat.
Written by Joseph Fine, 29 May 2013 08:10.
Anyone can read the paper and see that indeed the authors tested Rossi's device as a black box and are reporting that it works as advertised, i.e. it produces large amounts of anomalous energy. The mechanism by which the energy is produced is not discussed in the paper (it is not in the paper's scope). Presently I am not aware of any technical criticism that would invalidate the conclusion of the paper and the authors have clarified some incompletely described technical points in net discussion. The results of the paper are probably quite shocking to many because anomalous heating by nuclear reactions is currently not taken seriously by many or most physicists. This fact notwithstanding, constructive criticism of the paper should be concentrated on trying to find actual flaws in their measurement protocol.
Written by Pekka Janhunen, 29 May 2013 06:27.
Dear Steven T. Corneliussen I am surprised that you quote Mr. Krivit as he has no Physics or Chemistry qualifications or credentials. His website seems to be designed to elicit money and your credit card details. You also do not appear to have read the arXiv paper, rather you seem to be sourcing your report on what various blogs and other reporters say. I would suggest reading the report would be the bare minimum you need to do before consulting blogs on the subject, and the use of a low quality source such as Mr. Krivit and his give me your cash and credit card site, is probably not conducive to your reputation as a journalist.
Written by Ian Walker, 29 May 2013 06:16.
The reaction from General Fusion is not surprising. From a business perspective, they would be fools to praise a potential competitor. As for Krivit, he is an advocate for the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs. He's known to attack LENR researchers which propose other theories (http://www.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html) and Rossi has stated that he believes the Widom-Larsen theory to be wrong.
Written by A.B., 29 May 2013 06:16
I enjoy reading the articles and commentary, but I'm likely to crack wise when I post, so usually I don't. Doesn't mean I find the work amusing or worthy of derision, I just don't have much of value to add. And I chuckled a bit at the comments by those other guys. Sorry 'bout that.
AM isn’t nearly as forgiving when one pours gasoline on others’ threads, though....
I had one of those given to me. I never installed it, couldn’t see the point. Now, QR codes are becoming ubiquitous. Saw one on a bus the other day that I presume takes your smartphone to a bus schedule or something. Maybe it was an item that was before its time?
Thanks 4 Creating The Thread T4CTT.
Interesting acronym.
I have a deep (non-financial) interest in “cold fusion”. I appreciate your keeping the topic alive on FR, despite the negative feedback.
My interest is about to become deeply financial on top of what I’ve been saying. Once again, I intend to put my money where my mouth is.
What could A.I.Root have done to demonstrate his belief beyond being the first person to publish scientific information about the Wright brothers’ flight in the face of tremendous opposition? He could have put his meager money where his mouth was.
But at that time, since the Wright brothers were accepting $50,000 increments, what could such a meagre investor do? Well, looking back with 20/20 vision, there are some things he could have done. And with similar vision, I intend to invest accordingly.
Thank you for your participation.
If there were anything scientific to discuss, I'd be all over it. "Cold fusion" or "LENR" (whatever you want to call it) is a total scam. Everything about Andrea Rossi screams, "Con man!" And I have suspicions about why you keep posting about an obvious scam. I'm not a gambler, so I don't know how one profits from betting. But I suspect that your constantly posting about this scam is an effort to keep the betting on E-Cat alive over there at E-Trade.
Betting on E-Cat isn't the same as investing in a concept that you believe has real potential. Have you given money to Andrea Rossi or one of his fake corporations yet? Have you placed down payment on an E-Cat yet?
So then by your own acknowledgment, this is your contribution to a scientific thread — derision. How does that further scientific knowledge? It doesn’t. How is it that the PTBs say that such behavior doesn’t qualify as anti-science?
Here’s the basics: A Freeper logs onto a thread, talks about some scientific aspect of it, and tries to further the knowledge available. A different freeper logs onto the same thread and spreads insults, derision, and stuff that comes out the back end of a bull. Which of these 2 freepers is legitimately pro-science? Which one is Anti-science?
The answer is: Your freeping behavior is anti-science.
If there were anything scientific to discuss, I’d be all over it. “Cold fusion” or “LENR” (whatever you want to call it) is a total scam.
***There is something scientific to discuss: Independently measured power densities. But you aren’t discussing that, you are here to deride and spread anti-scientific sentiment. Whatever I wanna call it — ok then, LENR. The Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times, and that was before Rossi ever came onto the scene. For those 14000 replications to be a scam would require the widest conspiracy theory in history. It is utterly rational to think that this is not the case. Yet that doesn’t stop anti-science activists from screaming at the top of their lungs over anything LENR related: “Con! Scam!”
Everything about Andrea Rossi screams, “Con man!”
***So when these 7 scientists were tasked with reading multimeters and thermometers attached to his box, don’t you think they triple-checked their readings before publishing them? Or are they part of your ever-widening conspiracy that includes 14,700 times the effect was replicated even prior to Rossi showing up? If you were really here to further science, you would honestly and genuinely address these things.
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that we "have" seen it in nature. The same people are denying THAT just as strongly as they are LENR, and with as little justification.....it doesn't match their theories.
Julian Schwinger stated what should be obvious.....the physics of the solid state is different from that of a high-energy plasma.
To put it another way, "quantum fusion" differs from "thermonuclear fusion" in just the same way that picking a lock differs from using a battering ram.
Actually, your analogy is precisely backwards...Mann, Jones, Gore (and many other AGW pushers) are doing precisely what the LENR denialists are.......pushing results based on theory rather than on experiment.
And theirs is not even a decent theory. Freeman Dyson put it this way....the AGW types are basing all their theories on simplistic physics (light absorption, reflection, etc) while totally ignoring any effect of the biosphere. Many, many biological processes effect, for instance, cloud formation.
Suggest you read up on the EXPERIMENTAL results of LENR.
And I have suspicions about why you keep posting about an obvious scam.
***Exactly how does a post like that contribute to the furtherance of science? It doesn’t. But it sure contributes to the furtherance of anti-science. It is also a classic fallacy known as poisoning the well. I posted LENR articles on FR long before Rossi showed up. So your ever-widening conspiracy theory now includes LENR advocates prior to this questionable character Rossi showing up, as if afficianados were in cahoots long before he started his Ringling Brothers act.
I’m not a gambler, so I don’t know how one profits from betting. But I suspect that your constantly posting about this scam is an effort to keep the betting on E-Cat alive over there at E-Trade.
***You probably mean Intrade, which is shut down. There was no LENR contract to bet on anyways. Since your suspicion is alleviated, will you be withdrawing it in the name of furtherance of science? Highly, highly doubtful. Because you are NOT here to further science. You are here to deride other freepers and conduct in a way that is anti-science.
Betting on E-Cat isn’t the same as investing in a concept that you believe has real potential.
***Exactly how would a sincere LENR afficianado do such a thing? It’s not like you can buy stock in ECat on Wall Street.
Have you given money to Andrea Rossi
***He isn’t taking money from afficianados. If he has taken money, it is big money. None of those big money investors are squawking “Scam”, are they? So why are you? In the absence of evidence of a scam, arguing for it is a classic fallacy of arguing from silence.
or one of his fake corporations yet?
***Why would someone invest in a fake corporation? How does your comment further science? It doesn’t. It furthers anti-science.
Have you placed down payment on an E-Cat yet?
***Rossi is not accepting down payments yet.
As opinionated and ignorant as ever. Read Beaudette's book and grow wise.
"If "cold fusion" didn't violate so many laws of physics, and were a real phenomenon, we'd have seen it already in nature."Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that we "have" seen it in nature.
Prove it. Other than muon catalyzed cold fusion there is nothing accepted by science.
Why don't you summarize it here, or are you unable to defend it?
Have you placed down payment on an E-Cat yet?***Rossi is not accepting down payments yet.
Rossi's scam is to sell distribution rights. He'll never sell a working Ecat to a legitimate customer.
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.