Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here? So what, if Rossi monitors his black box with the most sensitive thermometers in the world. It’s still a black box.
***It wasn’t Rossi monitoring it. It was 7 independent scientists. Do you accept their measurements?
Exothermic processes are so ubiquitous that merely demonstrating an increase in heat means nothing.
***Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here? It is CHEMICAL exothermic processes which are so ubiquitious, and the heat generated in this test was ten times that which can be achieved by ANY chemical.
Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here? So what, if Rossi monitors his black box with the most sensitive thermometers in the world. It’s still a black box.
***It wasn’t Rossi monitoring it. It was 7 independent scientists. Do you accept their measurements?
I never questioned the measurements, only their significance. A hundred scientists measuring the temperature to +/- 0.0001% precision with an agreement of x (95% CI: (x-0.003) to (x+0.0019)) still wouldn't make the temperature change demonstrative of anything. And that leads me to:
Kevmo: Is the 2nd device 10X hotter than the first device? It’s a very, very straightforward answer, yet there are so many freepers inhabiting these threads who don’t seem to understand it.
DemMom: Ah, are you being purposefully obtuse here?
***Avoiding the question. Is such behavior more consistent with forwarding scientific knowledge, or with anti-science viewpoint? It is more towards anti-science.
I suddenly understand why you keep bringing up this meaningless "10X hotter" nonsense. It's the tactic Rossi uses to hook the rubes, isn't it? It sounds all impressive, until you try to analyze it semantically or scientifically, at which point you realize that it's just words that don't really match up to anything. Con artists always try to snow their targets with obfuscatory language, or by wildly inflating the significance of what is really a minor phenomenon.
Now, let me take one possible interpretation of "10X hotter." Let's say the black box starts at room temperature, or at ~300 kelvin. "10X hotter" could be interpreted as 3000 kelvin. (That is **not** the only possible interpretation of "10X hotter"; I'm only selecting one out of many to illustrate the point, but the point is valid no matter how that is interpreted.) That temperature change is well within what can be achieved by chemical means. An oxyacetylene torch, for example, can attain a temperature of ~3800 kelvin (~6330°F). So, whatever "10X hotter" is supposed to mean, it doesn't represent anything that is impossible outside of ordinary chemical or physical processes. I don't recall anything about melting the test equipment or evacuating the test building because of fire. I will also point out that you are confusing temperature with heat--no doubt Rossi conflates the two as part of the scam (or doesn't know the difference, since he has no physics education)--but those are two different physical entities, which only loosely correlate with each other.
Oh, all of those replications, all published in the form of abstracts presented at conferences meant to highlight pseudophysics.
***I’ll keep it in mind that you think publications like Naturewieesen and Physics Letters A are pseudophysics. How again is it that the mods say that such skepticism isn’t anti-science?
I think you overlook the fact that I can, with extreme ease, navigate over to Google and look up just about anything. So I tried looking up "Naturewieesen" and found that is most likely a misspelling of a German word, "Naturwissen", which apparently means "Nature knowledge." Google has a translation function, BTW. While I did not find any journal by that name (feel free to provide a link), I did see on one website that cats were referred to as "mini tigers" twice, which makes me wonder if that is a common slang for cats in German. If so, then that is just too cute... but I digress. Then I looked up "Physics Letters A", which is published by Elsevier, is apparently peer-reviewed, and has a mediocre impact factor of 1.632. Okay, so the journal seems legitimate. I searched the journal. It contained almost nothing about cold fusion/LENR (in the Rossi sense). Well, I did find this: Ultra-dense deuterium and cold fusion claims, which actually proposes a mechanism which could mistakenly be interpreted as cold fusion. Other than that, there are no articles that describe a bona fide cold fusion/LENR mechanism.
They obtained patents along the way, did a whole lot of experimentation,
***And so have LENR researchers, with their 14,700 replications. Look at all the journals, many of which are peer reviewed, at LENR-CANR.org.
and published their results in journals.
***http://lenr-canr.org/
I've looked at that website before, and I really didn't expect to see anything different by looking again. Indeed, the website looks the same. First of all, I don't see *any* source for that "14,700 replications" claim. I certainly don't see 14,700 references listed; there are just 3775. And most of those references are either unpublished in any journal, or are conference abstracts (which may or may not be peer-reviewed, and always have a lower publication threshold than journals). Some are books or news stories, which have to meet *no* scientific evidentiary standards to be published. Among the handful of titles that actually appear to be published in a journal (no, I'm not going to assess the reliability of each journal), there do not seem to be any descriptions of replications of cold fusion/LENR--in fact, many of the titles in this category describe only loosely related subjects. I guess the rubes are supposed to be really impressed by this list of references. I'm not. Of course, being a scientist, I've actually studied physics and am highly conversant with the conventions of science publication. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, you can find any number of pseudoscientific publications on paranormal activity, but that doesn't make telepathy real.
While Rossi claims all the secrecy is needed to supposedly protect trade secrets, legitimate companies seem to protect trade secrets all the time using the legal mechanisms that exist for that exact purpose.
***Yup. Patents. But since you made that point for me already, and you’re going over this ground again, then it’s time to once again point out that the USPTO does not grant cold fusion patents.
If Rossi were legitimate, he'd have no trouble availing himself of the multiple mechanisms for protecting trade secrets that exist in countries all over the world. The thing about the US Patent and Trademark Office is that they employ scientists who assess whether a patent claim is based in solid science, or if it's smoke and mirrors. And the patent office has a long-standing policy of refusing to grant patents on perpetual-motion or any other devices that violate the laws of physics. Those laws of physics are tough--they're inviolate; no human agency has the power to change them.
And that's enough for now. I know full well that pseudoscience scammers are able to generate an endless supply of pseudoscientific claims... because they don't have to meet any evidentiary standards, they just have to know how to put big words together in a way that sounds superficially impressive (but is meaningless). However, debunking scientific nonsense is only amusing up to a point.