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’.
I am interested in technology, but this is a con discussion, not a technology discussion.
These stories are focused on creditability building, they are strictly Public Relations related.
Technology discussions are about new discoveries etc..
I'm on the fence on this, leaning slightly in favor of the genuineness of the phenomenon: I attribute the irregular results to any transmutation taking place being devilishly sensitive to the presence, absence, or prevalence of certain stuctural features of the Ni powder. Think of preparation of surfaces for electrochemistry or for catalysis; think of trying to predict (ab initio) the *exact* way a car's hood will crumple during a car wreck.
If the phenomenon is real, the paucity of signal might be a catch-22: operating in the dark, it's hard to know how to prepare the system to maximize transmutation: and without reliable transmutation, it's hard to get enough data to come up with a detailed model.
Time will tell, as they've promised a scale-up in the October time frame.
Cheers!
Huh? Please refer to the original post. It's entitled, "Nobel Physicist Invited to Test 1MW Plant (Rossi E-cat Launch)".
I suppose you can consider that a post about a con game, but I don't know how you get there. Perhaps because a post of Rossi addressing his critics is included?
These stories are focused on creditability building, they are strictly Public Relations related.
There's your viewpoint again. You're entitled to your opinion, but understand that I realize that's what it is. Mine is different. I see this as nothing more than a newsflash/update on Rossi's progress.
Again, I don't know why you're trying to convince me that Rossi's a bad guy. I'm only marginally interested in reading all the stuff you're posting about him. I'm not saying that it's untrue, but I've never seen a single historic figure who didn't have a following of rabid detractors. It seems to come with the territory, and is as predictable as the sun rising in the east. So, pardon me if I'm taking all of what you post with grain of salt.
Even if the “phenomenon is real”, it won’t have any impact to the outcome of this debacle with Rossi.
The thermocouple phenomenon is real, it had no impact on the Army loosing all the money they invested with Rossi.
I don’t like to see people acting as con enablers.
This post may as well be called “Rossi invites Albert Einstein to come through a worm hole and validate his device” — that proves it, it is real! He wouldn’t dare do that if it was a con!
How is sending out an invitation to someone to test a lab experiment technology news?
Sigh........
I don't even know how to answer that, except with the obvious -- it's news. It's relevant to the ongoing story about the development of this technology.
And with that, I'm done with this conversation, Dila. I'm not trying to change your mind about your views of Rossi, and frankly, I'm not even remotely interested in what you think about him. You've made your point, and I acknowledged it.
Finito.
ah, so you are Rossi.....lol
bflr
Kevmo:
it should be a simple matter to counter the scientific arguments in those papers
AJ:
I have done so already.
***NO, you have NOT. There are multiple theories. There’s the Bose-Einstein condensate theory, the deflation fusion theory, the ultralow momentum Widom Larson theory, the KP Sinha theory, the Mills Hydrino theory, plus probably others. All you have done is focus on ONE theory, and that is on THIS forum where the only challenge to your knowledge level comes from someone like me who does not have the background. You do a disservice to Free Republic, to the public, to the physics community, to the world at large when you cower in fear and scoldingly abuse a fellow freeper but don’t bother to get onto the scientific journals to knock out the scientific issues brought up by these theories. Why do you send invective my way? It’s because you are a wuss. You do not have the courage to put it out to the scientific community what you think. You obviously have the time, or you wouldn’t be logging on here. So that means you do not have the courage to put out your theories just like all these other guys did.
With that in mind, why should we listen to a coward like you?
Why does any of this matter?
Rossi will apply any scientific theory it takes to separate as much money from as many people’s wallets that he can.
That is the only theory you need to concern yourself with.
Sinha’s so-called theories violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle amongst a lot of other problems. Clean, neat, simple. Done
*** Science has been here before. There was a time when scientists loudly and angrily proclaimed that rocks do not fall from the sky. Eventually, some scientist accepted the observation and looked into this obviously impossibility.
Another time that a scientist did not accept an observation was when Doppler hired some musicians to play a C note on train approaching him. What he heard was not a C note, and he fired all the musicians. Only after he accepted the observations was he able to move forward with the beautiful science tha was developed.
Today, science is confronted with the observation, repeated 14,700 times or more, of excess heat in LENR experiments. The only scientists who will make progress will be the guys like Doppler who accepted the observations.
So, again I ask you: do you accept the observations?
There would be no point in discussing meteors with someone who does not accept that rocks fall from the sky, nor discussing redshift with someone who does not accept that musicians can play a good C note. You keep dancing around this simple point, mainly by ignoring it, but that does not make your position superior to anyone’s. It just makes you one of the loudly screaming scientists who uselessly proclaim that rocks do not fall from the sky.
That is all it takes, which you would understand if you had any physics understanding.
***”Rocks do not fall from the sky. “
And since, as you admit, you lack the education to understand that point,
***straw argument, as demonstrated by the “rocks do not fall from the sky” analogy. If you are a PhD nuke physicist then you should have managed to get through freshman level critical thinking, and that means you should not be using straw argumentation. That suggests that perhaps you are not the PhD physicist you claim to be, or that maybe you’re intellectually lazy, or you just suffer from whatever that syndrome is that caused scientists to say “rocks don’t fall from the sky” rather than investigate the observations.
you blather on, and on, and on, and on, and on, full of sound a fury, saying nothing on point.
***Oh, cool, a Shakespeare reference. Here is one that applies to you: “Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men.”
Henry VI Part 1, 4. 1
The only thing that would be on point would be a series of experiments demonstrating the the HUP can be violated by 100 orders of magnitude.
***Then do it, mr. PhD Nuke Physicist, and make a name for yourself instead of cowardly hiding behind an anonymous login and berating those with less education than yourself. Geez, you’re an elitist boob.
Equivalently you can provide experimental data showing the measured properties of one of these so-called fictitious “locons.”
***You have the background, knock it down. While you’re at it, address all those other theories, mr. PHD nuke physicist.
You do that by scattering electrons, or phonons or neutrons or radio waves off of the locon generating elementary excitations whose properties you then measure. Physicists have been doing that for a century. There are a 100,000 folks who could do those measurements, could that is, if locons existed, which they don’t, since you cannot measure anything about them or someone would have by now.
***Feel free to publish your findings on some scientific website and I’ll be happy to post it here on Free Republic.
But you, as you admit, are untrained and inexperienced and have no clue what anyone is talking about,
***You are the one with the greater responsibility to society here, with your high & mighty education applicable to this area. But what is it that prevents you from debunking all these theories? Is it that you’re lazy?
That you don’t care enough to go to the trouble but you feel perfectly free to browbeat those of us who have lesser education than you? Is it that you are an imposter? Basically, all I see in the absence of counterarguments to these physics theories at the level that they are published is a bunch of excuses. And cowardice.
yourself included, so you will blather on and on, and on, and on and on and on and say nothing on point.
***Feel free to address those 14000 observations and the 3 or 4 thousands (give or take a few) orders of magnitude that you keep skipping over.
Yeah well, the HUP is not modified by anything.
***You’re the one blathering on, saying the same thing in repitition rather than producing evidence at the level of where these theories are published.
It is an underlying principle that applies to all quantum mechanical systems, and an electron in a lattice is as good an example of a quantum mechanical system as we have.
***Something in QM is going to have to give way in order to accommodate those 14000 observations. But you’ve never addressed those observations, so that puts you in the “rocks don’t fall from the sky” side of scientific inquiry. You can say that stuff as loud as you want, accompanied by as much bitterness as vinegar, but in the end if you do not accept the observations, there is not enough sweetness in what you write to accept what you have to say.
When you try to confine an electron to a volume approximately the size of a nucleus, you get momenta that require energies of 100’s of MeV,
***Sounds like the Bose-Einstein condensate and ultra low momentum theory combined would address this area of inquiry, not that we can expect you to use your physics background to generate the scientific data to deal with it one way or another. I expect simple sniping from you, rather than science.
but there is nothing that can bind an electron with that kind of energy. For instance the bound state energy of an electron in a deuterium atom (hydrogen atom) is about 13.6eV. The bound state of an electron intermediating between two such atoms in a molecule is much lower than that (a couple of eV, which is the typical molecular binding energy).
***good stuff. Publish it. Knock down those theories. Make a name for yourself, instead of hiding behind an anonymous internet avatar.
But any simpleton who took a sophomore general physics course could run these numbers - and as you admit you cannot.
***Bull Shiite. I took calculus-based physics, got an A in nuclear physics and that is my exposure. The reason why you choose a sophomore level of physics is because you already know my background, making your argument a raising of the bar for intellectual capability to even discuss this subject. Yet another logical fallacy you are engaging in, suggesting that you have not made it through a freshman level critical thinking class.
So stop blathering aboout that which is way way way over your poor little head.
***Your elitism is showing. And don’t forget, your cowardice. You’re full of invective when you address someone anonymously whom you know has less background than you. But you don’t do what you owe to society, Free Republic, and others by bringing your arguments to the scientific arena where they belong for everyone else to see.
Another problem with Sihna’s work, which Kevmo keeps screaming about, is that he plagerized
***Then bring it up at the appropriate scientific level so we can see whether your criticisms hold water with people who have as much background as you. Or... are you too much of a coward to do that?
much of it from those early papers of Hagelstein’s,
***So... Hagelstein is no good because he doesn’t have status at MIT but he’s good enough to plagiarize from? Which is it?
and most of Sinha’s wrong ideas are actually Hagelstein’s wrong ideas.
***Then publish your criticism at the appropriate PHD Physics level.
But I did not mention that because Sinha published them, and so he is responsible for them, purloined errors and all.
***The more I read your posts, the more I’m reminded of those loud scientists who kept saying “rocks don’t fall from the sky”. The only problem is that they DO fall from the sky.
From beginning to end everything you write
***Your reading skills betray that perhaps you do not have the PhD you claim to have. I posted an ARTICLE; the Author of the Article WROTE that.
Strictly speaking, Andy, your post #140 seems to be committing another logical fallacy, peitio principii.
You are assuming that the effect is a fraud, thereby discrediting Kullander and Essen, then using the fact that they are discredited to say that their judgment cannot be relied upon.
Circular reasoning, see also, reasoning, circular.
I'd be much more comfortable with a verdict of not proven or not proven to our satisfaction yet.
In the meantime, can you come up with a list of experimental measures, milestones, or benchmarks, which could be performed in order to answer your suspicions?
I happen to agree with Feynmann -- "If it doesn't agree with experiment, you're wrong."
Subject always to the proviso that the experiment is well-set up, reproducible, and you have access to the raw data and it isn't fudged.
However, the strictures for making a profit and preserving intellectual property are something different than the rules for peer review.
Let's wait till October, and stock up on overripe tomatoes.
If it works, we'll make tomato-basil soup; if not, let's start hurling veggie projectiles.
Cheers!
The physics community is not surprised. It is just saddened that this fraud continues to be perpetrated despite folks simply knowing better.
***So, now do you speak for the physics community? The author of this piece has a PhD in Physics and is not anonymous. You are anonymous. His level of credibility is far higher than yours.
Moreover, there is no breakthrough. A breakthrough occurs when a probleme the solution of which had been eluding serious researchers for years
***folks have been studying LENR for 22 years and Rossi came up with something that makes it easier to generate the effect, so much so that he intends to commercialize it. That is a breakthrough in most people’s definition, including the author who has a PhD in physics which I gather would stack up nicely against your phantom anonymous PhD.
is solved in a way generally accepted by the experts in the field who have been trying to solve it.
***The experts in LENR have been trying to solve this stuff for 22 years. By your own definition, this is a breakthrough. Your argumentation ability reflects someone who has not made it through a freshman level critical thinking class, let alone a PhD level. Why should Freepers listen to you?
So far there has been nothing besides “claims.” No one has demonstrated a thing, as demonstration is normally taken in the physical sciences.
***Take that up with the scientist J. He, who PUBLISHED his findings rather than hiding behind an anonymous avatar online identity. The excess heat experiment has been repeated worldwide roughly 14,000 times successfully according to an estimate by J. He (Front. Phys. China, 2007).
No. They were ridiculed for attempting to put a fast one over on the physics community. Their claims were taken at face value and folks made concerted efforts to replicate and understand their results.
***And, to date it has been replicated more than 14,700 times.
Doubt turned to outrage when outrageous tactics were taken in an effort to silence those who asked questions and demanded real physical proof.
***There will be further outrage when LENR breaks through the kangaroo court that the physics community set up. I see it happening slowly already. For instance, wusses like you post online anonymously rather than publish your theories publicly for others who have the background can knock it down.
Rossi is claiming to be ready to demonstrate a 10kW generator.
***Right there, you admit my point that the technology is not at the point where you ridicule it with your straw argumentation. Why should we believe you have a PhD if you cannot refrain from using freshman level straw argumentation required to pass a critical thinking class?
You have cited 14,000 papers claiming to have produced 100’s of Megajoules of excess energy.
***So, now you admit you can read what I write to you but you do not address whether you accept this observation. What is the point of discussing meteors with a scientist who keeps claiming that rocks do not fall from the sky?
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.