Posted on 05/29/2013 5:04:01 PM PDT by Kevmo
Science and the Media
Forbes.com renews attention to widely disparaged “low-energy nuclear reactions”
The century-old business magazine applauds an arXiv paper claiming an "independent" LENR test.
May 28, 2013 Published: May 28, 2013
By Steven T. Corneliussen
"Forbes magazine," declared New York Times media reporter David Carr in 2009, "has long been a synonym for riches, success and a belief that business, left to its own devices, will create a better world." Amid widespread disbelief, Forbes.com is expressing enthusiastic faith in the world-transforming potential of one such device: the "energy catalyzer," or E-Cat, purported to exploit "low-energy nuclear reactions," or LENRs, as a gigantic energy-production breakthrough.
In March, Forbes.com publicized two NASA scientists' LENR enthusiasm. Now it has published the article "Finally! Independent testing of Rossi's E-Cat cold fusion device: Maybe the world will change after all." (At least one LENR proponent actually asserts big differences between LENRs and cold fusion.)
A team of Italian and Swedish authors describes this testing in the arXiv paper "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder." They write, "Andrea Rossi claims to have invented an apparatus that can produce much more energy per unit weight of fuel than can be obtained from known chemical processes." They report that their "independent test" took place in December and March experiments. They claim that "energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source."
With a few caveats, the Forbes.com piece extols their work: It's at long last "a report by credible, independent third parties" that "would appear to deliver"; while some of the authors have publicly supported Rossi and the E-Cat, "they are all serious academics with reputations to lose"; the paper is "detailed and thorough."
The Forbes.com piece ends this way:
While a few commentators have raised criticisms concerning how the measurements were made and sources of error, others have argued that the energy produced is so significant even knocking off an order of magnitude on either axis still portrays a process with insanely valuable output.
This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history, it looks like the world may well be about to change. How quick will depend solely on Rossi.
Though Forbes.com appears alone in its enthusiasm, on the Web it's not hard to find reports and discussion about the arXiv paper. But it's even easier to find skepticism and ardent disbelief.
MetroNews Canada consulted officials at General Fusion in British Columbia, a public–private venture in nuclear fusion, and found them "unfazed." An article at the Register, an online technology publication that claims to have more than 7 million unique users worldwide, presents frank skepticism, especially about trade secrets invoked in the paper. Charging that Forbes.com "got all gushy," this publication predicts that "the test is probably going to be vulnerable to scientific tooth and claw from the start, since it amounts to researchers being asked to visit the premises of EFA–that is, the company that holds the production rights for the E-Cat–and test a black box whose operations are invisible."
A news report at Popular Science notes that the arXiv paper hasn't been peer reviewed and observes that it "leaves out crucial details, for example referring to 'unknown additives' instead of specifying what chemicals actually go into the reaction." The article points out that Rossi "has a history of blocking even simple tests" and that he "has previously passed off spurious inventions, including a machine that was supposed to turn waste into oil."
Steven Krivit, a longtime LENR observer and advocate, has also taken dead aim at the arXiv paper. At his New Energy Times website, his article "Rossi manipulates academics to create illusion of independent test" charges that the authors "did not perform an independent test," but instead, "were participants in another Rossi demonstration and performed measurements on one of Rossi's devices in his facility." Krivit "stopped counting the Rossi demonstrations after the 13th one." He says that the authors "lack full knowledge of the type and preparation of the materials used in the reactor and the modulation of input power, which, according to the paper, were industrial trade secrets" and that they "didn't perform any calorimetry."
As of early on 24 May, Google yields no links to major media joining Forbes.com in reporting, enthusiastically or not, on the arXiv paper.
---
Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory. .
.
Businesses, organizations and/or individuals are free to buy or refrain from buying an E-Cat. Serious skeptics should refrain from using any energy produced by an E-Cat.
Written by Joseph Fine, 29 May 2013 08:10.
Anyone can read the paper and see that indeed the authors tested Rossi's device as a black box and are reporting that it works as advertised, i.e. it produces large amounts of anomalous energy. The mechanism by which the energy is produced is not discussed in the paper (it is not in the paper's scope). Presently I am not aware of any technical criticism that would invalidate the conclusion of the paper and the authors have clarified some incompletely described technical points in net discussion. The results of the paper are probably quite shocking to many because anomalous heating by nuclear reactions is currently not taken seriously by many or most physicists. This fact notwithstanding, constructive criticism of the paper should be concentrated on trying to find actual flaws in their measurement protocol.
Written by Pekka Janhunen, 29 May 2013 06:27.
Dear Steven T. Corneliussen I am surprised that you quote Mr. Krivit as he has no Physics or Chemistry qualifications or credentials. His website seems to be designed to elicit money and your credit card details. You also do not appear to have read the arXiv paper, rather you seem to be sourcing your report on what various blogs and other reporters say. I would suggest reading the report would be the bare minimum you need to do before consulting blogs on the subject, and the use of a low quality source such as Mr. Krivit and his give me your cash and credit card site, is probably not conducive to your reputation as a journalist.
Written by Ian Walker, 29 May 2013 06:16.
The reaction from General Fusion is not surprising. From a business perspective, they would be fools to praise a potential competitor. As for Krivit, he is an advocate for the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs. He's known to attack LENR researchers which propose other theories (http://www.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html) and Rossi has stated that he believes the Widom-Larsen theory to be wrong.
Written by A.B., 29 May 2013 06:16
Since (gov’t funded) Hot Fusion didn’t work out so well over the last ~30 years, cold fusion is debunked?
Well, not in this Physics Today article.
But a converse attempt is made here:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm
The added wrinkle is that since Cold Fusion is not Hot Fusion, some how it is debunked.
Just this morning, I noticed that that giant hot fusion reactor in the sky is still going strong. Last night, I recall seeing thousands of hot fusion reactors speckling the sky. I expect I'll be seeing hot fusion reactors in the sky for the foreseeable future.
If "cold fusion" didn't violate so many laws of physics, and were a real phenomenon, we'd have seen it already in nature.
You would but pixie dust, which is not a naturally occurring element in nature, is absolutely necessary for cold fusion.
We use to get cold fusion reactions all the time back in the late 80s at Purdue university. Some cheap beer, bag of white castles and a lot can fuse on a cold Indiana night...
I knew I should have donated to the “Save the Pixies” fund when that cute little girl came knocking on my door asking for money. It’s too late, now.
So this is your contribution to a scientific thread — derision? How does that further scientific knowledge? It doesn’t. How is it that the PTBs say that such behavior doesn’t qualify as anti-science?
Here’s the basics: A Freeper logs onto a thread, talks about some scientific aspect of it, and tries to further the knowledge available. A different freeper logs onto the same thread and spreads insults, derision, and stuff that comes out the back end of a bull. Which of these 2 freepers is legitimately pro-science? Which one is Anti-science?
Are you jokers here to deride other Freepers’ comments or to further scientific knowledge?
How misleading. Gibbs is a blogger on Forbes.com. He isn't an employee of Forbes.
There's nothing scientific about hyping a scam.
I guess I could be “more scientific” and enlist Mann, Jones, Hansen and Gore to come to your rescue. They are especially expert at creating conclusions without facts or data to back them up .... sort of like the snake oil salesmen of days long ago.
Such skeptopathic scientists like Jones were discredited long ago. For instance, Jones was invited to partake of his famous “cup of tea” at mutiple LENR demonstrations but he declines because he would be easily and quickly proven wrong.
oh, you again
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
your stalking brings warmth to my heart
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
The author of your article, Steven T. Corneliussen, is a media analyst, not a scientist.
your stalking brings warmth to my heart
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
Actually, the pixie dust (Helium isotope) is a by product of the reactions. Or so says SRI International based upon the several tests they have running currently.
Admin Moderator to Kevmo:
But go ahead and play the victim as you pour gasoline on the flames of your own threads.
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.