Posted on 05/29/2013 5:04:01 PM PDT by Kevmo
The simplest explanation here is that Rossi rigged the circuit so that the meters show zero when it really has current running through it, and, inside the black box, the current was running through a resistor, generating heat.
***And that was checked by the scientists.
Seriously, do you think I was born yesterday? There are ways to protect trade secrets—oh, but there must be real trade secrets to protect.
***That’s your freeping answer? Obfuscation? Deflection. Yes, you were born yesterday.
They actually showed their machines to people. People took pictures of the machines in the air.
***No, they didn’t. Not between 1903 and 1908. People took pictures of the machines in the air, and were promptly identified as fakes. Just like the skeptopaths are doing with Rossi’s device today.
The Wright brothers also did not claim that flight violates physical law, or that they somehow found a loophole in physics.
***And neither do LENR researchers.
They obtained patents along the way,
***And if Rossi could get patents from the USPTO, he would. But cold fusion patents are refused. So Rossi needs to protect his IP. Thanks for making my point for me.
.
They obtained patents along the way, did a whole lot of experimentation,
***And so have LENR researchers, with their 14,700 replications. Look at all the journals, many of which are peer reviewed, at LENR-CANR.org.
and published their results in journals.
***http://lenr-canr.org/
While Rossi claims all the secrecy is needed to supposedly protect trade secrets, legitimate companies seem to protect trade secrets all the time using the legal mechanisms that exist for that exact purpose.
***Yup. Patents. But since you made that point for me already, and you’re going over this ground again, then it’s time to once again point out that the USPTO does not grant cold fusion patents.
Black box testing.... It’s about hiding the fact that there is no magical process going on inside the black box.
***Then you accept the measurements?
A sufficient amount of showmanship effectively directs people’s attention away from that little complication.
***You have an incredibly high opinion of Rossi’s ability as a magician, a showman who can pull his stunts without even being on the stage, and in one case not even be on the same continent. But I have a lower opinion of Rossi, that he’s a crappy showman.
Oh, all of those replications, all published in the form of abstracts presented at conferences meant to highlight pseudophysics.
***I’ll keep it in mind that you think publications like Naturewieesen and Physics Letters A are pseudophysics. How again is it that the mods say that such skepticism isn’t anti-science?
Oh, I am so convinced now! With little effort, I can find thousands of mentions of paranormal or psychic research on Google—
***And how many in peer reviewed literature, then?
there are several societies and journals dedicated to it, in fact. Does that mean paranormal activity is real, too? Should I start believing in telepathy and poltergeists now?
***Should I start believing you are pro-science now?
Kevmo: Is the 2nd device 10X hotter than the first device? It’s a very, very straightforward answer, yet there are so many freepers inhabiting these threads who don’t seem to understand it.
DemMom: Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here?
***Avoiding the question. Is such behavior more consistent with forwarding scientific knowledge, or with anti-science viewpoint? It is more towards anti-science.
Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here? So what, if Rossi monitors his black box with the most sensitive thermometers in the world. It’s still a black box.
***It wasn’t Rossi monitoring it. It was 7 independent scientists. Do you accept their measurements?
I never questioned the measurements, only their significance. A hundred scientists measuring the temperature to +/- 0.0001% precision with an agreement of x (95% CI: (x-0.003) to (x+0.0019)) still wouldn't make the temperature change demonstrative of anything. And that leads me to:
Kevmo: Is the 2nd device 10X hotter than the first device? It’s a very, very straightforward answer, yet there are so many freepers inhabiting these threads who don’t seem to understand it.
DemMom: Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here?
***Avoiding the question. Is such behavior more consistent with forwarding scientific knowledge, or with anti-science viewpoint? It is more towards anti-science.
I suddenly understand why you keep bringing up this meaningless "10X hotter" nonsense. It's the tactic Rossi uses to hook the rubes, isn't it? It sounds all impressive, until you try to analyze it semantically or scientifically, at which point you realize that it's just words that don't really match up to anything. Con artists always try to snow their targets with obfuscatory language, or by wildly inflating the significance of what is really a minor phenomenon.
Now, let me take one possible interpretation of "10X hotter." Let's say the black box starts at room temperature, or at ~300 kelvin. "10X hotter" could be interpreted as 3000 kelvin. (That is **not** the only possible interpretation of "10X hotter"; I'm only selecting one out of many to illustrate the point, but the point is valid no matter how that is interpreted.) That temperature change is well within what can be achieved by chemical means. An oxyacetylene torch, for example, can attain a temperature of ~3800 kelvin (~6330°F). So, whatever "10X hotter" is supposed to mean, it doesn't represent anything that is impossible outside of ordinary chemical or physical processes. I don't recall anything about melting the test equipment or evacuating the test building because of fire. I will also point out that you are confusing temperature with heat--no doubt Rossi conflates the two as part of the scam (or doesn't know the difference, since he has no physics education)--but those are two different physical entities, which only loosely correlate with each other.
Oh, all of those replications, all published in the form of abstracts presented at conferences meant to highlight pseudophysics.
***I’ll keep it in mind that you think publications like Naturewieesen and Physics Letters A are pseudophysics. How again is it that the mods say that such skepticism isn’t anti-science?
I think you overlook the fact that I can, with extreme ease, navigate over to Google and look up just about anything. So I tried looking up "Naturewieesen" and found that is most likely a misspelling of a German word, "Naturwissen", which apparently means "Nature knowledge." Google has a translation function, BTW. While I did not find any journal by that name (feel free to provide a link), I did see on one website that cats were referred to as "mini tigers" twice, which makes me wonder if that is a common slang for cats in German. If so, then that is just too cute... but I digress. Then I looked up "Physics Letters A", which is published by Elsevier, is apparently peer-reviewed, and has a mediocre impact factor of 1.632. Okay, so the journal seems legitimate. I searched the journal. It contained almost nothing about cold fusion/LENR (in the Rossi sense). Well, I did find this: Ultra-dense deuterium and cold fusion claims, which actually proposes a mechanism which could mistakenly be interpreted as cold fusion. Other than that, there are no articles that describe a bona fide cold fusion/LENR mechanism.
They obtained patents along the way, did a whole lot of experimentation,
***And so have LENR researchers, with their 14,700 replications. Look at all the journals, many of which are peer reviewed, at LENR-CANR.org.
and published their results in journals.
***http://lenr-canr.org/
I've looked at that website before, and I really didn't expect to see anything different by looking again. Indeed, the website looks the same. First of all, I don't see *any* source for that "14,700 replications" claim. I certainly don't see 14,700 references listed; there are just 3775. And most of those references are either unpublished in any journal, or are conference abstracts (which may or may not be peer-reviewed, and always have a lower publication threshold than journals). Some are books or news stories, which have to meet *no* scientific evidentiary standards to be published. Among the handful of titles that actually appear to be published in a journal (no, I'm not going to assess the reliability of each journal), there do not seem to be any descriptions of replications of cold fusion/LENR--in fact, many of the titles in this category describe only loosely related subjects. I guess the rubes are supposed to be really impressed by this list of references. I'm not. Of course, being a scientist, I've actually studied physics and am highly conversant with the conventions of science publication. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, you can find any number of pseudoscientific publications on paranormal activity, but that doesn't make telepathy real.
While Rossi claims all the secrecy is needed to supposedly protect trade secrets, legitimate companies seem to protect trade secrets all the time using the legal mechanisms that exist for that exact purpose.
***Yup. Patents. But since you made that point for me already, and you’re going over this ground again, then it’s time to once again point out that the USPTO does not grant cold fusion patents.
If Rossi were legitimate, he'd have no trouble availing himself of the multiple mechanisms for protecting trade secrets that exist in countries all over the world. The thing about the US Patent and Trademark Office is that they employ scientists who assess whether a patent claim is based in solid science, or if it's smoke and mirrors. And the patent office has a long-standing policy of refusing to grant patents on perpetual-motion or any other devices that violate the laws of physics. Those laws of physics are tough--they're inviolate; no human agency has the power to change them.
And that's enough for now. I know full well that pseudoscience scammers are able to generate an endless supply of pseudoscientific claims... because they don't have to meet any evidentiary standards, they just have to know how to put big words together in a way that sounds superficially impressive (but is meaningless). However, debunking scientific nonsense is only amusing up to a point.
LOL. It's not about "inability" to find such references, it is simply that fact that I am not willing to waste the time to do so. I have other things to do, like learn about how the world works, and to contribute to that effort through my research.
I note that Kevmo's post 58 provides sources that he apparently found pretty quickly.
"If you can't find a single legitimate reference from a reputable source to support the claims of cold fusion (LENR, or whatever you want to call it), that's pretty telling.
Nice try at attempting to change the subject. The topic is "instances of LENR FOUND IN NATURE", which you brought up as a reason why LENR couldn't exist. NOT the broad category of LENR. Of course, your very logic is bogus, because many discoveries in science were not "previously found in nature"....superconductivity and semiconductivity to name only two.
There are MANY research reports on the experimental evidence for LENR in peer reviewed journals (Naturwissenschaften to name just one). You just assume they don't exist and/or refuse to look at them. And no, I'm not going to hunt up direct links and post them for your edification. Read Beaudette, then you can find them yourself. Or Storms. Or the papers linked through LENR-CANR.
"You can't hide your inability to provide any references to naturally occurring cold fusion with vague remarks about neutrons and earthquakes. Neutrons result from nuclear decay, which is not cold fusion.
See above point about wasting my time. Lady, I've worked with Pu-Be, Cockroft-Walton accelerator, and Californium-252 neutron sources. I think I have a slight idea about what neutrons are and where they come from. Note that two of those sources do NOT come from "radioactive decay". Neither does the fourth major category of usable neutrons, which are fission reactors. Also note that the neutrons from Cf-252 come from "spontaneous fission"....NOT normal radioactive decay.
If, after spending another couple of hundreds of billions of dollars, your heroes the "hot physics" boys ever deliver a working reactor, then we will have a fifth major neutron source. Of course, having all those neutrons around is actually a major NEGATIVE if you want to generate power long-term, as neutrons make bad thing happen to reactor structures.
"Apparently, a few groups are trying to determine if fluxes in the natural neutron flow are predictive of earthquakes. I wish them luck; so far, no one has succeeded at finding a method of predicting earthquakes. Also, it is unclear why you would mention isotopic abundances."
Because the theories of nucleoynthesis all assume that the formation of all elements (and hence all isotopes) result from "thermonuclear" (high energy) reactions, either from the big bang, or from supernovae. Having isotopic abundances in nature (which is the case) that differ from what those mechanisms could yield says that there must be another method of nucleosynthesis.
"*All* hard sciences are physically based. No exceptions. It doesn't matter whether the science is nuclear physics, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics, or whatever. Physical laws are universal and immutable."
What you SAID was "peer-reviewed references in established reputable physics journals", not "physically based". Geological research, ipso facto, will not be published in physics journals. Please at least TRY to debate honestly.
You do not need to spam.
***You do not need to use wall-of-text argumentation.
You can combine your responses into a single post.
***You can and you also can decide not to. I lose too many long posts when my computer goes kaflooey.
If you learn the html formatting, you can even make them easier to read.
***I have learned it. In the past I’ve even used it. And on other websites I use it regularly because there are these easy pull-down boxes for html. Perhaps you haven’t been around long enough to remember the “lost italians”. When there’s an HTML key on my keyboard like there is for Caps, then I’ll use it. Or even when you can cut & paste a post into MSWord and have the HTML survive for reposting, I’ll use it. Until then, no thanks.
I never questioned the measurements, only their significance. A hundred scientists measuring the temperature to +/- 0.0001% precision with an agreement of x (95% CI: (x-0.003) to (x+0.0019)) still wouldn’t make the temperature change demonstrative of anything.
***Oh, then you’re questioning the measurements by saying that they are measuring something meaningless, that they aren’t measuring 10X higher energy density because they simply could not be. That’s basically just putting your head in the sand and yelling” I can’t hear you”.
I suddenly understand why you keep bringing up this meaningless “10X hotter” nonsense. It’s the tactic Rossi uses to hook the rubes, isn’t it?
***No, no, no no, and NO. Rossi wasn’t even there for the tests.
It sounds all impressive, until you try to analyze it semantically or scientifically, at which point you realize that it’s just words that don’t really match up to anything.
***What an incredible bunch of horse manure. 10X temperature is 10X temperature, not a bundh of words that don’t match up. The only way you can say they don’t match up is by willfully overlooking the obvious and wishful thinking.
Con artists always try to snow their targets with obfuscatory language, or by wildly inflating the significance of what is really a minor phenomenon.
***Con artists do not submit their devices to independent testing, and magicians can’t do their tricks unless they are on the stage doing the manipulation. What you’re saying is that Rossi is the greatest con artist in history, the greatest magician in history. What I’m saying is that Rossi is a crappy demonstrator, and that 7 scientists can be trusted to read multimeters and thermometers. Which theory obeys Ockham’s razor? Mine.
Now, let me take one possible interpretation of “10X hotter.” Let’s say the black box starts at room temperature, or at ~300 kelvin. “10X hotter” could be interpreted as 3000 kelvin. (That is **not** the only possible interpretation of “10X hotter”; I’m only selecting one out of many to illustrate the point, but the point is valid no matter how that is interpreted.)
***You simply do not know what you’re talking about, and this is over a simple thing as to whether one temperature is 10X hotter than another. Look how ridiculous your theory is getting, it is requiring you to turn yourself into a pretzel to defend it.
That temperature change is well within what can be achieved by chemical means. An oxyacetylene torch, for example, can attain a temperature of ~3800 kelvin (~6330°F).
***Then demonstrate what chemical can be used in the volume provided in the test, can burn for 116 hours at the temperature recorded. Very, very simple.
So, whatever “10X hotter” is supposed to mean, it doesn’t represent anything that is impossible outside of ordinary chemical or physical processes.
***It’s simple. If something is burning at a temperature of 380 kelvin, then the oxyacetalyne torch is 10X hotter. Yet, the meaning seems to escape you.
example
Szpak, S.; Mosier-Boss, P. A.; Gordon, F. E. Further Evidence of Nuclear
Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles. Naturwissenschaften
2007, 94, 511-514.
I think you overlook the fact that I can, with extreme ease, navigate over to Google and look up just about anything.
***And with even more ease, you can go on and on about typos and issue insults. But apparently it is difficult for you to accept that one thing can be measured 10X hotter than another.
Then I looked up “Physics Letters A”, which is published by Elsevier, is apparently peer-reviewed, and has a mediocre impact factor of 1.632. Okay, so the journal seems legitimate. I searched the journal. It contained almost nothing about cold fusion/LENR (in the Rossi sense).
***WTF is “the Rossi sense”?
Tritium Observations from Arata-Zhang Replication ..... Effects in Charging of Pd Powders With High Density Hydrogen Isotopes,” Physics Letters A,
Well, I did find this: Ultra-dense deuterium and cold fusion claims, which actually proposes a mechanism which could mistakenly be interpreted as cold fusion. Other than that, there are no articles that describe a bona fide cold fusion/LENR mechanism.
***Bzzzt, wrong. See the above article and then do a search for Dr. Arata’s other works published in that journal.
If Rossi were legitimate, he’d have no trouble availing himself of the multiple mechanisms for protecting trade secrets that exist in countries all over the world.
***Nonsense. You claim to be a scientist, so let’s pretend you come up with the cold fusion answer that solves everyone’s problems and it generates 50,000 times the energy density of gasoline. If you presented your device for a patent, it would be rejected. You would have tremendous difficulty protecting your intellectual property. You would be rejected whether you are legitimate or not. In the hypothetical case considered above, I was assuming you are legitimately a scientist.
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.