Forget I said that.
Posted on 05/30/2013 5:41:53 PM PDT by Kevmo
Ecat Test Generates a lot of Attention
Published May 30, 2013. | By jennifer.
Andrea Rossi’s posting of the results from the independent test of his ecat Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) device at a forum for scientific papers has attracted a lot of attention. The attention has ranged from the curious to the favorable to the hostile.
The Botanical Garden at Uppsala University
Over at Forbes.com Mark Gibbs who has been very critical of Rossi in the past did a pretty good job of showing that the authors of the paper are real scientists. He also identified three of the paper authors I hadn’t heard of before they are: Torbjorn Hartman. Hartman is apparently a Senior Research Engineer at the Svedberg Laboratory which is associated with Uppsala University
Bo Hoistad who is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala Unniversity. He maybe a professor of Nuclear Physics
Lars Tegner a Professor Emeritus (retired professor) from the Department of Engineering Sciences at Uppsala University. He is apparently a professor of electrical engineering.
Cudos to Mr. Gibbs for uncovering this and being willing to change his mind. Gibbs also noted that one of the professors Hanno Essen listed in the paper was the Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for nearly three years. That doesn’t sound like a dupe does it.
Unfortunately not everybody is as open minded, Steven B. Krivit and New Energy Times are still denouncing the test as a hoax. They now claim Rossi is somehow manipulating the academics to create an illusion. One has to wonder would the academics be that stupid and gullible and would they risk their reputations and careers for a hoax. Perhaps the promoters of real journalism about LENR would explain this. It’s been my experience to start questioning any news source that starts bragging about practicing real journalism or the truth. Generally it’s a cover for sloppy reporting and masking opinion as news.
The usual “debunking” from the defenders of mainstream science has also popped up. Discovery News’ Jesse Emspak has posted 5 Reasons why Cold Fusion is Bunk. Note Rossi refuses to use the words Cold Fusion. A typical smear piece that employees a lot of classic propaganda techniques such as guilt by association ie link Rossi with the discredited words cold fusion, mention Pons and Fleischman, list some high school physics and hope none of our readers know anything about this. That’ll score points with certain science professors it isn’t journalism.
It’d be nice if the so called mainstream journalists might contact Mr. Rossi and talk to him. Or better contact the professors mentioned in the report and ask them why they think it is real.
If you’re interested in getting a full list of the coverage of the test results Sterling D. Allen has posted one at Pure Energy Systems. Unlike the so called critics he has listed both the critics and the supporters. His open mindedness should be a lesson for certain others.
The publicity we’re getting is nice but it doesn’t go far enough. Obviously part of the reason for this is that Rossi has not said or done anything dramatic or revealed how the ecat works. Hopefully that’ll be coming.
Hopefully all of this attention will lead to more funding and popular support for LENR. Something those of us who are discouraged by criticism should remember is that negative publicity can attract just as much attention as positive news. Even attack pieces may convince a few people to take a look at what’s going on and to get involved.
Is he soliciting money from you?
***No.
What’s it to ya?
***Umm, it would be a terrible thing to see fraud happen.
You and Rossi are the ones making the claims.
I can't prove that David Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty disappear either.
Report it to the moderators. You've tried it before and we're turned down.
Almost as impressive as the initial reports that came out for perpetual motion machines of long ago.
Your stalking warms my heart
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
Were any of those independently verified? Were the results replicated 14,700 times like LENR?
Report it to the moderators. You’ve tried it before and we’re turned down.
***You’re so confident that what you say is true? Then I challenge you to a debate on Vortex-L where my comments won’t be removed, my threads won’t be pulled. And your huge contributions which bring so much light to the subject will stand on their own brilliance.
Oh, I know. You won’t do it because you know that your comments don’t bring anything of value for furtherance of science. You know this. Your anti-science baloney is safe here. I get it. But it isn’t because your positions are defensible; otherwise you’d jump at the chance to defend them and spread your sunshine where it would do the most good.
But T4BTT.
Forget I said that.
Yes, but what if it was working ?
They’d be silent. And lookie here, things are silent.
But arguing from silence is a classic fallacy, doncha know? So we just await further datapoints in that regard. But on an inductive level, Rossi’s energy density was verified when he wasn’t even at the scene. It is no longer a stretch to accept that he actually did send units like these to a paying customer. That’s an inductive datapoint sticking its head above the sea.
What if there is no customer to squawk?
Here’s a better idea. Keep the Rossi nonsense on Vortex where it belongs. You’ll be happier and FR will be a better place.
I knew you would decline the invitation to debate LENR and promote science. I had faith in you being on the side of anti-science.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
Let’s assume Rossi’s device is working.
Now... in your opinion is there any way that the testing could be faked? Or that what we see on the internet about it is being faked ?
Remember, thousands of ‘scientists’ around the world still believe in the ‘global warming/carbon credits’ scam.
This is a purely hypothetical question, and not meant to reflect on Rossi and his device.
Unless it's true.
"What?"
Well... then his 'goose' is cooked.
Obama was in bed during Benghazi. What's the difference?
(sorry ole chum. No offense meant. It was just so funny I couldn't keep it in)
I think the only remaining possibility of the testing was for some DC to be fed through the wires. But it turned out that Hanno Essen said they tested for it.
Another way is to have weapons grade plutonium inside the box, but then the radiation would be... shall we say... inconvenient because there wasn’t near enough volume for a Pb containment. I think it was Levi who had brought a Geiger counter to some earlier Rossi demo, and Rossi had no control over what measurement equipment these guys would bring. Also, it would be a hugely expensive fake, costing $millions, so the risk/benefit ratio is terrible for someone looking to scam others.
Then when you examine the evidence in light of 14,700 prior replications of the Anomalous Heat Effect, the data starts to fit a very definitive Cold Fusion pattern rather than a Scam pattern.
Even if Rossi is a scam artist, LENR is still worth looking into.
And keep in mind some simple inductive reasoning. At this point, the scam theory means that Rossi would be the greatest scam artist in history. If LENR is a conspiracy, it is the widest conspiracy conspiracy in history. But my hypothesis only requires that Rossi is a mediocre scientist, a crappy demonstrator, an Edisonian experimenter, has a shady reputation that requires the independent scientists to quadruple check their results, and was possibly even just lucky to have found this catalyst in the first place. Which hypothesis obeys Ockham’s razor? There is no deductive proof in inductive reasoning; there is the preponderance of the evidence.
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.