Posted on 11/02/2011 11:41:45 AM PDT by isaiah55version11_0
A physicist in Italy claims to have demonstrated a new type of power plant that provides safe, cheap and virtually unlimited nuclear power to the world, without fossil fuels or radiation concerns.
The only hitch: Scientists say the method -- cold fusion -- is patently impossible. They say it defies the laws of physics.
Andrea Rossi doesn't seem to care. He told FoxNews.com that his new device takes in nickel and hydrogen and fuses them in a low-grade nuclear reaction that essentially spits out sheer power, validating the strange science.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Like Wonder Warthog says, read the actual data.
Dude, I am confused. First you say your expertise is analytical chemistry, now you are saying your expertise is electrical engineering?
There's another defense for Rossi at his trial. He'll say those who did due diligence shouldn't have given me money. All the hype was done by bloggers and reporters.
Is the 14,700 figure found there?
yes
Well please, don’t hesitate to point out where since you’ve quoted that figure several times and the links were to an abstract and pay per view.
So do please since it seems to be so important.
Finished your homework, yet?
It’s inside the document.
You’re the 2nd one who has asked about that and the I have not heard from the first one for many weeks. If I were wrong then he would have been loudly proclaiming it, just like we would expect you to be. But when it turns out I’m right, naturally I expect you will go silent.
Here’s where I first ran across the figure.
Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin
1. Jed Rothwell
11:52 AM 6/20/10
Shermer says that Goodstein concluded that cold fusion was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.”
Cold fusion has been replicated in over 180 major laboratories, by roughly 1,500 professional scientists. These replications have been published in roughly 800 papers in mainstream, peer reviewed journals such as J. Electroanal. Chem. and Japanese J. of Applied Physcis. J. He of the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that the effect has been observed in roughly 14,000 experimental runs (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102).
Many of the results were at low signal to noise ratio, but others were high, such as heat from 10 to 100 W, and tritium at 50 times background (Los Alamos, Texas A&M) up to several million times (BARC).
Most of the researchers who have reported positive results are senior, distinguished experts, such as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, government of India, and the experts at Los Alamos in charge of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton. Only senior researchers can get funding because of academic politics.
When a result has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios and reported in the literature, that result is real, by definition. There is no other standard of reality in science. If it were possible for hundreds of scientists in hundreds of laboratories to be wrong, the experimental method would not work, and no result would be meaningful, and science itself would not work. If Shermer and Goodstein would substitute some other standard of truth, and ignore replication and peer-review, they are engaged in some form of faith-based religion or a popularity contest, not science.
Interesting. You quote a blog entry from Jed Rothwell (now haven’t I heard that name before?) to support your post. Interesting that the article you linked wasa ‘When Scientists Sin’ talking about scientific scams. One quote from the article:
“Other cases are not so clear. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pon’s “discovery” of cold fusion, Goodstein concludes, was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.” This self-deception is distinctly different from deliberate deception.”
Done with you. You went off the deep end.
Mountains, molehills, all that.
T4BTT
It appears those experiments are of the Pons-Fleischmann variety not the mumbo-jumbo secret sauce circus type of Rossi’s.
Maybe Rossi has something but his demos have made all the claims so untrustworthy that they have no greater value than a used car salesman's promises.
Read the thread titled “Dutch Lord of the Data Forged Dozens of Studies”. Very smart and able people took his word and overlooked very obvious errors because they were either lazy or too unwilling to be objective.
This is dumb-ass journalism. No one thinks that cold fusion violates the laws of physics. Quite the contrary: high school kids have built working cold fusion reactors on their tabletops. The problem, to date, has always been that these reactors required more energy to sustain the fusion reaction than they captured from the reaction itself.
Again....you think only electrical engineers can design instrumentation?? All my customers must be imagining the devices they have bought and used over the years.
But I see you still want to play the "thousand one-liner replies" game. Not gonna do that. Don't have either the time or the interest. Bye. Permanently.
Amazing. Link please. Thank you.
Rossi has customers too. He said it.
Link Please.
I pointed out where that figure (one persons estimate) came from some time ago.
***Sure you did. Why don’t you prove it to the lurkers and give us a link?
It appears those experiments are of the Pons-Fleischmann variety not the mumbo-jumbo secret sauce circus type of Rossi’s.
***They are all LENR experiments based on the P-F effect. All of them. Rossi’s invention only makes the Ni-H system more replicable.
Maybe Rossi has something
***Yes, he does. And it’s based on the 20 years of previous LENR experiments.
but his demos have made all the claims so untrustworthy that they have no greater value than a used car salesman’s promises.
***I agree his demos lack scientific proof, but they do not lack credibility. He’s a business man, so he does not care if his demos do not satisfy scientists, he only cares if they convince buyers.
Read the thread titled “Dutch Lord of the Data Forged Dozens of Studies”. Very smart and able people took his word and overlooked very obvious errors because they were either lazy or too unwilling to be objective.
***I’m not all that interested in looking at scams. Maybe JAG is interested. He seems to have the patience to think inductively about these things without calling you guys a bunch of seagulls.
but his demos have made all the claims so untrustworthy that they have no greater value than a used car salesman’s promises.
***I agree his demos lack scientific proof, but they do not lack credibility. He’s a business man, so he does not care if his demos do not satisfy scientists, he only cares if they convince buyers.
Something further: It is in a business man’s best interest to keep confidential information close to his vest. This is at odds with the scientific approach.
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.