Posted on 07/30/2011 1:44:23 PM PDT by Liberty1970
Brian Josephson, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, asked a question on Andrea Rossi’s blog about the quality of the 1MW demonstration in October. He has been a defender of true research in the LENR field, frequently challenging debunkers to back up their objections with logic instead of repeating the same one-sided attacks so often a signature of pseudosceptics. In answer, Rossi invited him to the test. I am assuming that the question did come from Josephson but there is no doubt that the invite is real:
Brian Josephson July 30th, 2011 at 4:17 AM
October demo Andrea,
You’ve said the 1MW E-cat due in October will be the real test, but in what way will it be more convincing than the ones done so far? Will it be done in such a way that people are sure about the amount of water/steam coming out of the reactor, and how dry the steam is (which affects the heat content)?
Andrea Rossi July 30th, 2011 at 6:11 AM
Dear Prof. Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize), First of all, thank you for your very important attention. Please read very carefully what I am writing to you: 1-The 1 MW plant that we will start up in October will be tested, on behalf of our Customer, by very, very high level world class scientists. You are in the list, so please, if you want and you can, take free the last week of October. 2- The test will be witnessed by several very, very high level world class scientific journalists 3- The E-Cats we are working with now in our factories, which will be the modules of the 1 MW plant, are producing perfectly dry steam, mostly without energy input, as you will see yourself if you will honour us with your presence. Very Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi
Done properly (and it will have to be), this public launch should provide enough proof for potential customers. At that point, and not before (no matter who calls for it) we will have some certainty about what happens next. If the launch is also attended by senior science correspondents, this is also the time we should see the story break – one way or another, depending on results. As so many people have said before, proving such a beast will not be hard and the time for preparation should help arm those like Brian Josephson (assuming he accepts) to be ready to give us a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Because in order to publish you have to have something new to say, and all of this has all been debunked so well that there is nothing new to say. Moreover there is nowhere to publish because no reputable physics journal will publish on such a disreputable and utterly unscientific topic - and this is not a field of science but of social and psychological deviance. A good friend of mine wrote a whole book trying to understand the American penchant for being duped by montebanks.
And then, further, the Journal of the APS or some such will not publish a letter on the subject because they would have to give an opportunity for rebuttal and the rebuttals from the Mileys or Hagelsteins or Sinhas are such jibberish they cannot pass peer review to be published.
Now there is academic independence for you.
***Yup. About the same cozy relationship that the hot fusion boys enjoy.
I want to know, has this Rossi guy forked over the initial payment?
***Then find out for yourself. I’m not gonna go fetch & do your oppo research for you.
One of the things that is a dead giveaway about this cold-fusion fraud is that it is all self-referential. There is an inside circle and and outside the circle and nothing else. It is a sociology I have seen nowhere else in the sciences.
***One of the things that is a dead giveaway about hot-fusion fraud is that it is all self-referential. There is an inside circle and and outside the circle and nothing else. It is a sociology I have seen nowhere else in the sciences — other than in the crevo stuff, and the global warming stuff, and when tectonic plate theory was dealt with, and.... oh never mind.
Well it hasn't, which is why you and they work so hard to explain why you don't actually see any nuclear products (gamma rays, neutrons, dead electrochemists).
and by the way 14,000 times is not 14,000 order of magnitude which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.....continued 14,000 times, which even you learned in your freshman fizziks course.
It is cheap creditability.
Many universities overseas still accept payments for research by private individuals regarding their products with the right to run a press release with the university’s name.
That is all he did, he even wrote the press release.
He is a one man news circus.
Even your own cohort on this thread disagrees with you about Nobel Prizes in hard sciences. Best of luck with your pretzel position.
You don’t care which effect was observed - well, I do as does any good physicist, because you only know what you saw by what you think you measured.
I see you are moving away from stalking the other freeper to stalking me. While it can be fun to pull your chain to make you think I’m Rossi, it really adds up to a waste of time to deal with you.
The key is whether or not I learn something from you. I haven’t learned anything. At least your cohort has some brains, if not the ability to refrain from logical fallacies.
Excuse me, but demonstrating facts supporting your extraordinary and incredible claims is your responsibility, not my responsibility. I get to ask questions about this and if you cannot or will not answer them, then you have no reason to berate folks who remain skeptical.
I don't need opposition research. There is plenty out ther. These guys violate the laws of physics and the try to explain why the laws of physics are on a holliday. Well, in this universe they aren't, whatever happens in that deviant world inhabited by cold fusionistas live.
That is obvious.
I have responded,
Go look at FR Terms of use, tell me what I am violating?
If you don’t want posts/replies back, then don’t post on FR, you are on the wrong site.
Let me remind you all per terms
“Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages.”
These articles you are posting are Press Release Related, meaning that they are generated by the subject of the news story or paid for by the subject of the news story. That makes them commercial messages.
See, that is the reason I think you are Rossi
You keep wanting to engage with a scientific conversation when you obviously are out of your league then feel personally offended when ever I bring up your past.
Many scientists have said that Rossi doesn’t talk the lingo, he seems to be stumbling even in interactions with reporters.
You guys seem like mirror images of each other if not the same person.
Ok, I take it from your response, that people that received Nobel Prizes aren’t human and are immune from any human fallacy.
In fact, but the mere fact of inviting a Nobel Prize winner to examine an experiment, you can be ensured it isn’t a fraud. There isn’t any need for the invitation to even be accepted, the mere fact that the invitation was sent on a blog is good enough.
and by the way 14,000 times is not 14,000 order of magnitude
***The probability that I came up with was (1/3)^14000
The author of the article actually used 14,700 times, so I’ll use (1/3)^14700, which corresponds to (1/3)^14700 = 10^x
taking the log of both sides
x = log(1/3)^14700 = 14700*(log(1/3) `~ 7013
It has been many years since I did such calcs and I used an online log calculator.
It would appear to be ~7013 orders of magnitude. I could easily have made a math error.
Let’s see. Mathematicians agree that 10^50 is the cutoff point for the impossible. On an earlier thread I suggested the IOM or the Impossibility Order Magnum so that the number of times this has been observed is 140 IOMs whereas your focus on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle being modified by 2 IOMs is what is being contrasted here.
I tell you what. I’ll grant you 10IMPOSSIBLES for every 1 you focus on. That leaves you with zero IOMs and me with 120 IOMs, all the while noting that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has ALREADY been violated by the observation given upthread in the paradox thingie.
Lurkers will decide for themselves.
Non sequitur. Your post does not make sense.
Excuse me, but demonstrating facts supporting your extraordinary and incredible claims is your responsibility, not my responsibility.
***My goodness, you are an arrogant little pissant aren’t you?
I get to ask questions
***And so do I. You evade that 14000 figure like it’s a gigantic elephant in the living room, but it speaks volumes towards your position.
about this and if you cannot or will not answer them,
***You answer your own junk. It’s a classic red herring. Yet another classic fallacy, a freshman level mistake from someone who claims postgraduate training.
then you have no reason to berate folks who remain skeptical.
***You’re the berater here. Lurkers will see that for themselves.
I don’t need opposition research. There is plenty out ther.
***Then you don’t need that question answered.
These guys violate the laws of physics
***Yes, that precious law of the HUP which is violated ALREADY by a known observation.
and the try to explain why the laws of physics are on a holliday.
***Feel free to explain the EPR [Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen] paradox.
Well, in this universe they aren’t, whatever happens in that deviant world inhabited by cold fusionistas live.
***Yeah, that Einstein guy was a real lunatic. /s
Wow, dude, taking a comment out of its context. Yet another freshman level logical fallacy committed by someone who claims postgraduate credentials. You’re really piling them up, one by one.
Lurkers can decide for themselves. The EPR paradox thing looks like fun.
Press Release Related,
***then show us and the admin mod the press release where this is stated.
Or are we in the middle of rewriting the FR terms of use?
I am not the admin, go look it up, it is on the home page for Freerepublic and when you signed up for your account you agreed to these terms.
another straw argument... you’re arguing against something I did not write. Answer the question, since it goes to your assertion in the first place.
Oh, I know the drill. Crickets or some vague reference that won’t even obliquely support your original position.
I don’t see “press release related” there. You invented it.
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.