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’.
claiming to have produced 100’s of Megajoules of excess energy. There is nothing subtle about that much energy. It burns things down, blows things up, fries the dumb electrochemist who forgot about radiation effects (or would have if it worked).
***We have been through this before on a previous thread, and yet you blather on and on and on and... well, you know the drill.
Again what you have done here is a straw argument, by assuming that the hundreds of MJoules are released instantaneously whereas the stated conditions are otherwise.
If you continue to use straw arguments, the kind that freshmen are not allowed to use in a freshman level critical thinking class, why should we believe you have an advanced science degree? At least these guys are doing their stuff in public, but you are flopping around making freshman level mistakes on an anonymous forum.
And you and your crowd keep up this lie about the bar for hot fusion being lower than for cold fusion. It is every bit as high, but first, hot fusion has demonstrated a process that produces fusion (D+T= neutron + alpha + lots and lots of energy). Cold fusion asserts that none of the known reaction pathways operate (in defiance of every phisicl principle known to man) but cannot demonstrate that the pathway they claim to be operational actually exists
***It has been demonstrated in 14000 replications of the original excess heat effect. You claim the bar is to have a cold fusion car, so the bar should be the same for hot fusion. Your argument does not address the actual statement, making it a non sequitur. Yet another example of freshman level thinking from someone claiming to have a PhD. Your credibility is low, and getting lower with each post.
Anyone can go to any hot fusion research facility and take a geiger counter or a neutron monitor, or whatever and measure lots of radiation.
***Your assumption here is that the radiation leakage for hot fusion has the same branchings that cold fusion has. It is a legitimate assumption, other than the observation of 14000 replications which suggest that experiments trump theory.
Hot fusion has not reached breakeven (except in nuclear weaponry - which does work you keep forgetting - by well understood principles and reaction pathways you keep forgettting).
***We covered this before in a prior thread. You forget that you backtracked when it was pointed out that the fusion weapon is not the same field as controlled fusion for energy production. That makes you disingenuous, or forgetful (which you accuse me of being) and basically the same hypocrite that I have been pointing out in these posts so that lurkers can take what you have to say with a grain of salt, mr. PhD Nuke Physicist.
Indeed, you can do this measurement very simply. Take a copper (it must be copper) penny and tape it to the outside of the hotfusion facility. After a claimed event that produces neutrons take your penny to a radiation counter and plot the count rate vs time. Knowing the activation cross-section of copper, the area of the penny, and the measured decay rate you can infer the total number of neutrons produced in the system. Indeed, these measurements are done every day and the results are published and are open to scientific peer review. Such reviews happen frequently.
***This is just further obfuscation of a point which is already demonstrated to be a logical fallacy. The fallacy is one of invalid assumption. In this case the invalid assumption is that the same nuclear branchings occur for LENR as they do for hot fusion. The 14000 replications of the excess heat effect go directly to invalidating that assumption. And, for the lurkers, this is yet again a simple use of fallacious reasoning that a freshman level college student is expected to pass well before becoming a supposed PhD in Physics, as this anonymous freeper AndyJackson claims to have.
But no one claims that there is any credibility to any claim that hot fusion is ready to power cars or put electicity on the grid.
***As we demonstrated on the last thread, where you backtracked. It appears to be the same show here. I can see why you choose not to publish your arguments in scientific journals, you are basically incompetent at critical thinking.
We went through this on the last thread. We both agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. But the Nobel prizes in physics & other hard sciences are not a joke. Unless you want to claim that they are a joke in the hard sciences.
Basically, if a guy gets a Nobel prize in the hard sciences, he’s a smart cookie in that particular field.
Kevmo, Rossi isn’t in the community, he is only trying to solve the over abundance of space in his wallet.
So by your definition, it isn’t a breakthrough.
And was found to be a total fraud. Yet, here you are quoting the fraud as fact.
***It seems that the cold fusion naysayers have problems with reading skills; it is a common theme. This is what the AUTHOR of the ARTICLE wrote.
I’m not quoting the “fraud as fact”. I’m posting an article. Try to get it right.
Here is what I WILL WRITE: the PonsFleishmann effect is NOT a fraud. It has been replicated 14000 times, as noted upthread. Do you accept that observation that it has been replicated?
Why does all these posts even matter?
I can argue for worm hole travel too, it may be theoretically possible, but I am not going to deliver a device tomorrow that will allow you to travel through one tomorrow.
Kevmo and his crowd continully resort to a long string of rhetorical fallacies, this one being a fallacy of composition of groups, sort of “they shall be known by the company they keep” and when they are keeping company with Nobel Prize winners there must be something there.
***Don’t you even know the basics of logical fallacies? It is the fallacy of arguing from authority. But it is considered legitimate if the authority is accepted by the peers in one’s field. That is why courtrooms accept expert testimony. The fallacy would be if you take some Nobel Prize winner in Biology and accept what he has to say as authoritative in Physics, or some other field outside his known area of expertise. But you have not demonstrated that this fallacy was used.
Yet again, it has been shown that you do not know freshman level critical thinking skills, which would suggest that you do not have the post-graduate credentials that you claim.
Well, they certainly are not keeping company with Rutherford, whose work has nothing in particular to do with this. In fact, the contrast his work offers ought to be a warning to everyone duped by this rot.
***There is no substance here in this paragraph. It’s just editorializing. There is no reason for a Freeper to accept your editorializing because you have demonstrated the inability to refrain from using simple logical fallacies in this thread and others.
You see, Rutherford’s results, that alpha particles were scattered off of matter as if off of discrete hard spheres rather than as if it were passing through jelly was a “surprise.”
***LENR was a “surprise”
But his experiments were meticulously performed,
***Many LENR experiments are meticulously performed. Some are not.
he did the theory to explain his results,
***But that is not a requirement. Publishing your observations and saying, “the theory is yet to be developed” is a valid scientific undertaking.
AND his results were immediately verifiable and verified by a large number of other experimental physicists.
***LENR excess heat has been replicated 14000 times.
Indeed, it would be a simple matter for most undergraduate physics students to repeat his experiment.
***LENR is far more complicated than that, which has led to difficulty in replications in the past.
The fundamental point is that Rutherford’s demonstration that the nuclear model of the atom was the only one consistent with particle scattering results has very little bearing on the false claims of these fraudsters.
***Non sequitur. One thing does not have anything to do with the other. Again, you are using a freshman level fallacy which indicates you do not have post graduate level credentials.
Rutherford’s work today is of far more pedagogical value for the demonstration of how to improve our understanding of physics than the specific result (which was important enough in its day).
***Well, whaddya know, something I can agree with.
Well Kevmo, There are PHD Nobel prize winners that have been bilked out of their life savings, a PHD Nobel winner doesn’t mean following them off a cliff is advisable.
And Kevmo, you are so hot to trot for Rossi, you realize this is an invitation posted on a blog and nothing more?
Right?
No date, we don’t even know if they set a day that they are both available on. We don’t know if the guy is going to agree to the terms, nothing...
Yet you breathless report that he posted an invitation on the blog...
hey, maybe next time he will invite Bill Gates, President Obama, or how bout Stephen Hawking? I bet there will be a hundred stories posted then.
These guys claim to rely on a pathway that releases no neutrons, which they have to, because no [statistically signficant number above background of] neutrons have been measured to date.
***Wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2214837/posts
Look at Madoff, people tried to give him money all the time, he would refuse 99% of them.
***Do you have a reference for this assertion?
Lurkers will note that I expect crickets in response. Or some vague article where it almost says what is being asserted.
WOW! You set forth this fraud and then berate me for calling you a fraud. That sounds like the kind of defense that would be mounted by well a scamster.
My point is, one of the narratives is he doesn’t need investment or approval from anyone, yet he comes out weekly with blog posts and outreach.
***He doesn’t seem to be asking for more money on his blog posts. That would point to the 2nd part of your assertion, that the narrative suggests he doesn’t need approval. I suspect that aspect of the narrative is simply wrong, and Rossi is flamboyant & loves the attention.
He destroys his own creditability because his actions don’t match his words.
***That would be true if he started asking for more money and his schedule started slipping, the way a con usually works. However, most indications are that he is spending the money he has attracted on various things such as factories and development, rather than absconding with it.
It is not far more complicated than that. It does not work, and the explanations for why it should work violates very simple laws of physics that any undergraduate can understand.
When someone is engaging in hard sell tactics...yes I think I can accuse them of that.
***Rossi isn’t engaged in hard sell tactics, he’s just flamboyant.
The pathologic defense of this scam could be the mental ramblings of a mark that can’t admit they have been suckered, true.
***That is, if the mark has LOST money. I have money in my pocket as a result of a LENR experiment getting replicated, and I’d love to redo that little exercise. I took money from naysayers like yourself.
But no one has admitted given him money, so they must be getting paid.
***Bull Shiite
Rossi does have enablers in the US. Some of them are likely people that are both marks and party to the con unknowingly.
***The bar for being a mark is very high in this con — more than $200k according to upthread remarks about a fellow freeper whose offer was turned down by Rossi. You comment on being a party to the con unknowingly is basically nonsense. All of us are aware that this could be a con, but the inductive indications favor a more prosaic explanation.
Like this guy that is on the business license in New Hampshire, I would bet money that he gave Rossi money so that he could get shares of that now defunct corporation.
***I would bet money at Intrade like I did before, on LENR technology. Go ahead, take my money.
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
This guy isn’t coming forward because he is embarrassed. All too common in the con game.
***Interesting assertion, but there is not much evidence to back it up one way or another. You’d be doing society and other Freepers a huge favor if you pursued whatever information you have. If this is a con, the sooner we find out the better.
I responded to Dilataunt’s assertion and so far it’s crickets in return.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2756365/replies?c=121
Rossi did the same thing with the Army, told them he had come up with a Thermo-coupler design that was orders of magnitude better. Only problem was, it didn’t exist.
***You’re half right. The effect did exist but it was orders of magnitude lower than first claimed. That is a distinct possibility here with Rossi working on LENR. If the folks who have been demonstrated this technology have not kept that in mind, they lose their investment. Having kept that possibility in mind, I continue to explore the data and Rossi’s actions to determine inductively whether he is acting like a con artist or just a flamboyant business dude. That is a decision each person comes up with on their own. You obviously think he’s a con artist. The proper venue for that discussion would be a thread like this recent one. It keeps the basic assumptions and facts in proper inductive context.
Andrea Rossi’s eCat – Evidence For & Against
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2754928/posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:11:45 PM · by Liberty1970 · 42 replies
ECATNEWS.COM ^ | July 27, 2011 | Ecatnews Admin
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.