I know fuck all about the science here but it sounds like either the biggest thing since the invention of AC or Svengali
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas)
QuoteThe research paper, which hasn't yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion
QuoteRossi has been claiming for the past two years that he had finally cracked cold fusion, but much to the chagrin of the scientific community he hasn't allowed anyone to independently analyze the device — until now.
QuoteWhile it sounds like the scientists had a fairly free rein while testing the E-Cat, we should stress that they still don't know exactly what's going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor.
QuoteAs far as we can tell, the main barrier to cold fusion — as with normal fusion — is producing more energy than you put in. In NASA's tests, it takes a lot more energy to fuse the nickel and hydrogen than is produced by the reaction. Rossi, it would seem, has discovered a secret sauce that significantly reduces the amount of energy required to start the reaction. As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows — in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as "unknown additives."
QuoteStay tuned; we'll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review.
Rossi and his partner are named, but the people examining it are "a group of scientists".
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
Figured as much, probably because I skimmed over all the bits you quoted and they must have registered on some level. Nice dream while it lasted, tho :lulz:
I did some googling on this. Apparently, the scientists were actual scientists but they only observed and measured an experimental system built by Rossi in his own lab. They don't know exactly what's going on inside. Another google link indicated that some scientists last year reviewed it and believed that it may be a working system with excellent energy generation, but isn't technically cold fusion. According to some of the stuff I read, Rossi even stated that he doesn't completely understand what's happening. The consensus seems to be that he may have an interesting system, but without knowing the details, and without peer review, the jury is hung.
How can you make something like this and not understand what's happening? He just decided to try putting some cauliflower in and "eureka" ??
He's not allowing anyone to examine it. That spells "PT Barnum".
That was my take. However I'm leaving one single tiny braincell ticking over with "what if"
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
QuoteNASA's Joseph Zawodny concludes that LENR is indeed a form of nuclear power, but not what is commonly thought of as "cold fusion." Zawodny believes that the transformation of one element into another is consistent with neutron absorption as other scientists claim. He goes on to point out that under one theory of what is happening, decay products of the reaction are turned into heat and gamma rays are screened out. In comparing the energy output of LENR to fission, conventional fusion, and chemical reactions, Zawodny notes that LENR is theoretically capable of producing 8 million times as much energy as a comparable chemical reaction. This of course explains why a very slow reaction can produce excess heat while consuming only minimal amounts of hydrogen and nickel.
and from what i read, rossi waiting to be granted a patent to release the details.
i'm also still hurt from the first cold fusion flop but that doesn't mean everything that goes with the name 'cold fusion' is bollocks. we just don't have enough information yet. i cross my fingers and hope it turns out well though :)
It's not the name that everyone's suspicious of, it's the fact that he won't let anyone else test it independently (by letting them build their own, not by looking at a sealed container he swears works).
From what I gather Cold fusion is not a myth, it's credible science theory that lots of reputable organisations (including Nasa) are looking into.
Correct me if I'm wrong but no one is disagreeing that it's feasible, it's just that only one guy is claiming to be able to overcome the technical hurdles.
Historically these things usually happen with a bunch of trial and error shit and back-to-the-drawing-board missions, until someone makes a "breakthrough"
So maybe the guy has made this breakthrough, I can't rule this out. What I can confirm with my own eyes, however, is that he's behaving exactly the same way I would if I was planning on making a fuckton of cash out of duping a whole bunch of investors by convincing them I'd made the breakthrough.
Time will tell...
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
Yup. Pull back the curtain already. Either it's a cloud of awesome new quantumz or it's Frank Morgan looking sheepish.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
Yep.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 23, 2013, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
PT Barnum made a fortune off of that kind of thinking. By which I mean, "Other people doing that kind of thinking."
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 23, 2013, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
If I understand percentages correctly, having a
90% certainty that it's bullshit moves the subject out of the "somewhat grey" area, and into the "mostly black" area. Functionally, you should be treating it as false. A 9% move shouldn't make any noticiable difference in the way you behave at such a high percentage.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 23, 2013, 08:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 23, 2013, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
If I understand percentages correctly, having a 90% certainty that it's bullshit moves the subject out of the "somewhat grey" area, and into the "mostly black" area. Functionally, you should be treating it as false. A 9% move shouldn't make any noticiable difference in the way you behave at such a high percentage.
Since I'm not in the market for cold fusion reactors, it won't make any diffeence in the way i behave ;-)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 25, 2013, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 23, 2013, 08:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 23, 2013, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
If I understand percentages correctly, having a 90% certainty that it's bullshit moves the subject out of the "somewhat grey" area, and into the "mostly black" area. Functionally, you should be treating it as false. A 9% move shouldn't make any noticiable difference in the way you behave at such a high percentage.
Since I'm not in the market for cold fusion reactors, it won't make any diffeence in the way i behave ;-)
Because of course, you don't use electricity at all.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 23, 2013, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
That's not actually how statistics, or reality, work.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 23, 2013, 08:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 23, 2013, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 23, 2013, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 22, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
This is 169% guaranteed crap.
:roll: :roll: the bob in me is clenching her teeth :argh!:
we cannot know what is the deal with the e-cat. i find it interesting that, among other scientists, nasa is taking it seriously http://ecat.org/tag/nasa/
Until he moves away from DO NOT LOOK IN MAGIC BOX, I can't take him seriously. This is a con.
For me its a good use of maybe logic, 90% maybe its a scam, 10% maybe its something useful. I'd he gets a patent and is still shady, I'll adjust it by 9% ;)
If I understand percentages correctly, having a 90% certainty that it's bullshit moves the subject out of the "somewhat grey" area, and into the "mostly black" area. Functionally, you should be treating it as false. A 9% move shouldn't make any noticiable difference in the way you behave at such a high percentage.
LMNO understands statistics. :)
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 23, 2013, 02:04:51 PM
It's not the name that everyone's suspicious of, it's the fact that he won't let anyone else test it independently (by letting them build their own, not by looking at a sealed container he swears works).
Bingo.
His claim, at this point, is essentially "I have magic in a box! No, you can't see".
He could wait ten years for the patent application to be processed. If his technology is good, he's protected because he already filed. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for him to conceal his technology at this point.
Therefore, all signs point to "not legit".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 25, 2013, 03:30:03 AM
He could wait ten years for the patent application to be processed. If his technology is good, he's protected because he already filed. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for him to conceal his technology at this point.
Therefore, all signs point to "not legit".
True, most signs point to "not legit"! I'm still hanging my hopes on that his magic box appears to some to be working for some reason, if they're saying the truth too, that is. I guess we'll find out :)
The paper from the independent testing can be found at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913)
From what I have read, it appears that this is likely not 'cold fusion', but rather an LENR(Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) mechanism. The paper basically says that they were able to test the device themselves, and had a control version of the device as well. They found that the tested device generates far more heat than would be expected through any currently known reactions... so they believe that "something" is going on, but since they can't dig into the guts of it, they have to withhold judgement for now. They have, however, planned a 6 month long test for this summer which should provide much more information.
I'm still pretty skeptical, but more tests could provide more useful data one way or the other.
This is a good review that provides lots of reasons to be skeptical.
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/
(http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/)
The review basically points out weaknesses in the testing that was done. The test scheduled for this summer is supposed to take those weaknesses into consideration.
And while I do use electricity, Nigel, I'm not an investor, therefore how much or little credibility I give to this stuff, it doesn't change my behavior at all.
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 25, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 25, 2013, 03:30:03 AM
He could wait ten years for the patent application to be processed. If his technology is good, he's protected because he already filed. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for him to conceal his technology at this point.
Therefore, all signs point to "not legit".
True, most signs point to "not legit"! I'm still hanging my hopes on that his magic box appears to some to be working for some reason, if they're saying the truth too, that is. I guess we'll find out :)
Known shyster makes outlandish claim about elusive technology, and your response is to "hang your hopes" on it somehow being legit?
:facepalm:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 25, 2013, 04:31:28 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 25, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 25, 2013, 03:30:03 AM
He could wait ten years for the patent application to be processed. If his technology is good, he's protected because he already filed. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for him to conceal his technology at this point.
Therefore, all signs point to "not legit".
True, most signs point to "not legit"! I'm still hanging my hopes on that his magic box appears to some to be working for some reason, if they're saying the truth too, that is. I guess we'll find out :)
Known shyster makes outlandish claim about elusive technology, and your response is to "hang your hopes" on it somehow being legit?
:facepalm:
Now, now, Nigel. This is how investors are born.
:lulz: :lulz: how else to explain this to you guys? :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuEK8LgP3r0
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 26, 2013, 07:46:47 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 25, 2013, 04:31:28 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on May 25, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 25, 2013, 03:30:03 AM
He could wait ten years for the patent application to be processed. If his technology is good, he's protected because he already filed. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for him to conceal his technology at this point.
Therefore, all signs point to "not legit".
True, most signs point to "not legit"! I'm still hanging my hopes on that his magic box appears to some to be working for some reason, if they're saying the truth too, that is. I guess we'll find out :)
Known shyster makes outlandish claim about elusive technology, and your response is to "hang your hopes" on it somehow being legit?
:facepalm:
Now, now, Nigel. This is how investors are born.
I feel like, somewhere in there, is a Kickstarter idea.