Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society!

reply to post by hawkiye


sorry but NO the catalyst is an external energy source, without it being added into the equation there is NO REACTION, its simple chemistry.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Am I the only one who noticed the mention of a "proprietary catalyst" being used in the reaction.

Since there is a catalyst being used to start and maintain the reaction, there is an EXTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE, THE CATALYST.

a catalyst is by definition only facilitating a reaction and is never consumed. even if it was lost, if you can really store a gigajoule of thermal energy in a volume that small, you'd be doing something right, obviously.

for the record, i'm not at all convinced, these people are walking a strange line, they got fictious colleagues on their own website, lots of tinfoil on their device whose purpose remains unknown but gives it a genuinely cheap and slightly bogus look and an alledged pending patent - which means they a) did not keep it fully secret and b) could disclose everything and still be protected.

furthermore, lead shielding would only abate but not eliminate gamma rays, but none were detected during demonstrations, which really means none were produced. which means they don't need lead of any thickness at all, so why is it even there?

I'm not being difficult here... I just want to understand something...

In order to secure a patent, don't you have to describe exactly what your attempting to patent?

I assume that this has been done; in which case the patent is pending and has legal protection, or am I mistaken?

Believe me, I want this to be true, but I have been disappointed so many times before I am not inclined to jump for joy until I can see actual open application of the device that doesn't include hiding elements of the process. I hope he has something here... really.

Lets stick to the facts.

1. Some high power scientist have confirmed through measurement, observation, and mathematical calculations that the device is outputting at least tent times it's input.

2. Essén, and Kullanders have confirmed through observation and mathematical calculation that it is a nuclear reaction taking place and ruled out other sources.

Those two alone are of major significance

3. Those observations measurements and calculations have been posted in papers for all.

4. Keeping something proprietary and even out of the patent documents is not uncommon and good business sense especially in this particular field that has the potential to put the energy power brokers out of business.

All the rest of the attacks on character and controversial stuff have little bearing on actual results of testing and are mostly just a distraction an attempt to discredit without substance.. Those calling for complete duplication right now do not live in reality. Rossi is smart to be in production before he allows any of it considering the track record of orthodox scientist for being in the pockets of the energy cartels. Pons and Flieschman are perfect examples. Even though they proved cold fusion they were the victims of a smear campaign and now most believe cold fusion is snake oil despite it being duplicated many times. Just ask Dr. Storms a prominate physicist from the Los Alamos test lab who has pursued it for decades despite ridicule and heat from his colleagues.

I too share some scepticism until it is out right proven however I understand the need to keep some of it proprietary. However this is looking more and more promising. he is not asking for any money and looks to have it in production in October so we don't have long to wait.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Am I the only one who noticed the mention of a "proprietary catalyst" being used in the reaction.

Since there is a catalyst being used to start and maintain the reaction, there is an EXTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE, THE CATALYST.
It is not cold fusion, but a catalytic chemical reaction, they might have discovered new branch in chemistry, but its not cold fusion.

Ah no, the catalyst is internal to the device and what causes the nuclear reaction with the nickel and hydrogen. Being proprietary is is smart business sense till it is in production and patents secured.

Ahhh, I see.

What isotopes formed exactly during this process?

reply to post by hawkiye

Again you just attack character with no substance. What part of Professor Chubbs tests and calculations based on those tests were not Scientific? Also what part of Essén, and Kullanders calculations and observations ruling out other sources were not scientific?

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.... scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.

As far as attacking peoples character goes, some people just want to believe. It's called pathological science. Look it up.

reply to post by hawkiye

Ah no, the catalyst is internal to the device and what causes the nuclear reaction with the nickel and hydrogen. Being proprietary is is smart business sense till it is in production and patents secured.

He wrote a phony patent claim in the first place that had no chance of it ever being accepted. For one, he would even disclose his catalyst to them.

Which is supposed to give him the protection he is looking for....

reply to post by hawkiye

1. Some high power scientist have confirmed through measurement, observation, and mathematical calculations that the device is outputting at least tent times it's input.

Which can easily be faked.

2. Essén, and Kullanders have confirmed through observation and mathematical calculation that it is a nuclear reaction taking place and ruled out other sources.

Nuclear physicists do more than math when studying nuclear reactions. They have way more equipment not to mention are much more weary of standing in front of a "nuclear reactor" with no protection...

3. Those observations measurements and calculations have been posted in papers for all.

Any of them peer reviewed in legitimate journals?

reply to post by boncho


To your other comments, I can't believe Rossi isn't under more ridicule, considering he has a fake degree.

I mean seriously....

Originally posted by boncho

Ahhh, I see.

What isotopes formed exactly during this process?

Are you saying it is impossible to conclude a nuclear reaction is going on without measuring Isotopes? If so then Essén and Kullander disagree with you.

In some way a new kind of physics is taking place. It’s enigmatic, but probably no new laws of nature are involved. We believe it is possible to explain the process with known laws of nature,” said Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and chairman member of the board (chairman until April 2) of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
www.nyteknik.se...

Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.
www.infinite-energy.com...

Perhaps you could direct your question to Essén and Kullander...

reply to post by hawkiye


Yes, but excess heat production date backs to the 1800's if I remember correctly.

Don't have time to dig the papers up for you know but I'll try and get back at it.



Of course, brand new physics... I thought they already eliminated all other possibilities and determined it was a nuclear reaction? But now all of a sudden it changes to a new form of physics...

The "skeptics" validate it?

They couldn't have because they didn't have access to the system

Exactly. Rossi is playing the "protect yourself" game, which is exactly where TPTB want us all.

If this is tech is real, I expect some suit to show up and offer Rossi (narcotics-sourced or oil-sourced) money to buy the patent and his silence. It's how they keep power. Assuming for a moment that this is real -- I wonder if Rossi realizes just how many men, women and children are being killed daily to support the (petroleum/narcotics corruption) status-quo?

hawkiye - 1. Some high power scientist have confirmed through measurement, observation, and mathematical calculations that the device is outputting at least ten times it's input.

Boncho
Which can easily be faked.

hawkiye
So you are telling us he was able to fake out Dr. Storms, Professor Chubbs among others? also Essén and Kullander whose confirmation that it is a nuclear reaction you dismiss? I's sorry but what where your credentials again?

Boncho
Nuclear physicists do more than math when studying nuclear reactions. They have way more equipment not to mention are much more weary of standing in front of a "nuclear reactor" with no protection...

hawkiye
I have said of course more testing is needed. Also these are what they call low level reactions and if read the paper they were testing for any radiation. How does that invalidate their tests and conclusions so far? Also how much testing will be needed if it is in production and working? Still dismissing out of hand the conclusions of the prominent scientists mentioned above among others who are infinitely more qualified then you is just fool hardy IMO.

Boncho
Any of them peer reviewed in legitimate journals?

hawkiye
As I have said before what gets accepted or trashed in orthodox journals is largely politically/greed motivated. If you want to believe they are mostly objective go ahead but that is naivety. Tesla who is basically the father of our modern electrical society was treated much like Rossi. How many of his claims were peer reviewed in orthodox journals yet he changed the world. Bottom line for me I am more interested in practical results (of which we have some very significant ones on this) then some stuffy orthodox scientific journals politically/greed motivated opinion. It has always been the mavericks who loathed orthodoxy and bucked the entrenched system that has moved society forward and always will be!

Boncho
Of course, brand new physics... I thought they already eliminated all other possibilities and determined it was a nuclear reaction? But now all of a sudden it changes to a new form of physics...

hawkiye
Now once again you are falsely characterizing what was said and then dismissing it with ridicule. He said new "form" but then goes on to say no laws of nature [physics] were being violated and was confident it could be explained with known laws. Also I suspect this is a translation from Swedish since it is Essén being quoted so perhaps something was lost in the translation. Your quick dismissal of this well known prominent Physicists remarks and conclusions along with his colleague Kullander and others is becoming laughable and speaks loudly to your waning credibility. I'll take their word over yours on this any day!

reply to post by punkinworks10


Do you know what a catalyst is? It lowers the activation energy of a reaction. It does not in any way, shape, or form provide energy in and of itself. All it does is make a reaction require less energy. It would not be an external power source.

Hopefully those CERN scientist can determine if this is cold fusion or not. If so the implications are huge. If not, then no harm done.

Some times these things produce different results at different scales.

It may work at 1/20 scale but when scaled up it will not!

reply to post by boncho


Disinfo agent much? Maybe it'll be proven to not be validated, but you won't be the one to do it. Now sit down

reply to post by discl0sur3


what a great time to discover such a thing. This may be our new power.

need to go invest in nickel, if this happens.

what will we do if we run out of nickel?

we'll have lots of copper.

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by boncho

 

Disinfo agent much? Maybe it'll be proven to not be validated, but you won't be the one to do it. Now sit down

Since your post implies you are confused I will give you the description of disinfo:

Disinformation (a translation of the Russian word dezinformatsiya) is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth.

Now if you check out the other thread, everything I said about Rossi is backed with sources. As far as this goes, I don't have time to go through this again, but I can assure you I stand by my claims in this thread.

The science conducted in this "validation" is abysmal. And there is no way they can come to any conclusion without knowing everything there is to know about this system and how it operates.

In fact, the people breeding disinfo are anyone who is claiming this as something more than just another press release from Rossi.

And unfortunately, if he system comes out as complete bunk, this will damage alternative energy research for many years to come, while the CT's claim another suppression.

I've down countless hours of research reading through correspondence between leading researchers in lenr, they are all worried about Rossi and if he is going to destroy their field of research. Some are hopeful, but a lot are questioning everything I have mentioned about the guy. I haven't posted those conversations because they are merely opinions, but you can read the other thread to see everything there is to know about Rossi. Start Here

reply to post by hawkiye

So you are telling us he was able to fake out Dr. Storms, Professor Chubbs among others? also Essén and Kullander whose confirmation that it is a nuclear reaction you dismiss? I's sorry but what where your credentials again?

Yes quite possible, actually. And I can back it with historical accounts.

In 1996, American physicist Alan Sokal submitted a paper loaded with nonsensical jargon to the journal Social Text, in which he argued that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. (Read Sokal's paper) When the journal published it, Sokal revealed that the paper was in fact a spoof. The incident triggered a storm of debate about the ethics of Sokal's prank.

1

Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970 in Verden) is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1]

Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, which was later rescinded. The Schön scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of papers, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud.

1


AB

As I have said before what gets accepted or trashed in orthodox journals is largely politically/greed motivated.

Yes, grand conspiracy. That is the reason Rossi's papers got trashed....

You are arguing to me that I shouldn't be dismissive of a person convicted of fraud who was selling toxic waste to fake companies, who has a fake degree, who also has a dead person working at his company???

Oh. but it's the worldwide conspiracy that is keeping him down....

Tesla who is basically the father of our modern electrical society was treated much like Rossi.

Tesla, father of AC, sold a lot of his stuff, had working inventions. Nope, nothing like Rossi.


Since my word is no good to you, I suggest going back to the other thread, re-reading the information I posted and then again reading this post and look at the examples of trickery/pathological science that have taken place in the past.

Thanks.

reply to post by discl0sur3


My EX-wife mastered cold fusion long before Rossi