Mullumbimby, helping to save world (Rossi E-Cat)

reply to post by pteridine


If Rossi's past work reflects onto his new work, it seems the ecat would be entirely bunk then wouldn't it?

Seriously guys, just wait and see. I am as sceptical about Rossi as everyone, we have seen so many false promises from so many people in the past.
But that's why this announcement is SO important. Dick Smith is LEGIT. He is a genuine bloke, a self made millionaire, a tech geek and very business savvy.

*IF* he and his team end up giving Rossi the thumbs up, then we have our answer.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by pteridine

 

What's the [sic] doing after discovery? You're merely talking semantics. Does it expect to get more energy out than is put in? And did this guy ever disconnect the generator from the setup while it was operating?

The [sic] was there for the term 'new discovery' which seemed redundant to me. Perhaps it isn't, but I wanted to denote that it was your term.

Nothing gets more energy out than is put in. All energy 'generators' do is to convert energy from a form that is not useful to a form that is, LENR included. There are no free lunches.

Yes the generator was running. Power is needed to start the reaction and stabilize it, so disconnecting the power would be dangerous. The input energy to the ECat was measured. The output energy was measured. There was more output than input. This is true of all things we use as 'energy generators' or they wouldn't be generators.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by pteridine

 

If Rossi's past work reflects onto his new work, it seems the ecat would be entirely bunk then wouldn't it?

It may seem so to you if you assume that his past work was a failure and that all future work must be so also. This is not a valid argument, as all successes have failures associated with them.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by pteridine

 

If Rossi's past work reflects onto his new work, it seems the ecat would be entirely bunk then wouldn't it?

It may seem so to you if you assume that his past work was a failure and that all future work must be so also. This is not a valid argument, as all successes have failures associated with them.

You were insinuating that his previous work was of some value. I was merely pointing out that it amounted to nothing.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by pteridine

 

If Rossi's past work reflects onto his new work, it seems the ecat would be entirely bunk then wouldn't it?

It may seem so to you if you assume that his past work was a failure and that all future work must be so also. This is not a valid argument, as all successes have failures associated with them.

You were insinuating that his previous work was of some value. I was merely pointing out that it amounted to nothing.

If it led to a successful ECat, then it did not amount to 'nothing.' You believe that it has because you reject the ECat and think it is fraudulent. You don't know that and perhaps are unable to accept that you and many 'experts' could be wrong.

reply to post by Kryties


good old Byron Bay Spent lots of time bumming out on the beach there when I was younger and Mullumbimby, Billinudgel. Great place to be alternative...Byron is a bit too commercial now (tourismy) but Mullum is hippie land

so I am not surprised to read this.

best genetically chemically free weeds there too. hehehehe hahahahahaha

reply to post by Thurisaz


I have a dear friend who moved to Mullumbimby a few years ago, I should have given her a call and asked her to pop along and tape it for me - except that I found out about it too late.

Originally posted by Funk bunyip

but all we have is this odd italian guy who still to this day failed to demonstrate only ONE SINGLE device to the world.

I can think of another odd Italian guy who didn't demonstrate many of his inventions to the world...
His name was Leonardo Da Vinci
just sayin'

edit on 12-1-2012 by Funk bunyip because: (no reason given)

Apples, meet oranges.



But you are wrong anyways...

but some of his smaller inventions, such as an automated bobbin winder and a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire, entered the world of manufacturing unheralded.

*

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by pteridine

 

If Rossi's past work reflects onto his new work, it seems the ecat would be entirely bunk then wouldn't it?

It may seem so to you if you assume that his past work was a failure and that all future work must be so also. This is not a valid argument, as all successes have failures associated with them.

You were insinuating that his previous work was of some value. I was merely pointing out that it amounted to nothing.

If it led to a successful ECat, then it did not amount to 'nothing.' You believe that it has because you reject the ECat and think it is fraudulent. You don't know that and perhaps are unable to accept that you and many 'experts' could be wrong.

Key word is "could". As in, his claims haven't been proven yet. So what are we left with?

reply to post by boncho


Regardless of his credentials, and regardless of his prior inventions, I am still willing to, at least, give the man a fair hearing.

The road to a great invention is paved with many failures (yeah I just made that up ). Dick Smith is not an idiot, he is quite famous down under and in many other countries around the world, he is an honest man who happens to be brilliant - his review of Rossi's E-Cat will be the determining factor in my view.

reply to post by pteridine


You yourself say that there are no free lunches. And you admit that you cannot get more output than you input. You state that it is simply converting non useful energy into useful energy. If this is the case, then there are still losses in any system and you will lose enough energy in the conversion process that you'll still be putting in more than you are getting out.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by pteridine

 

You yourself say that there are no free lunches. And you admit that you cannot get more output than you input. You state that it is simply converting non useful energy into useful energy. If this is the case, then there are still losses in any system and you will lose enough energy in the conversion process that you'll still be putting in more than you are getting out.

You statements do not follow. The failure in your logic is "you will lose enough energy in the conversion process that you'll still be putting in more than you are getting out." Applying your blanket statement to any energy process means that none of them would produce energy because, as you correctly state, all systems have losses. You don't know what the losses are in the ECat. A coal burning 1950's era power plant is about 35% to 38% thermally efficient, so even if we are using old systems we get out more than we put in.

Originally posted by boncho
Key word is "could". As in, his claims haven't been proven yet. So what are we left with?

His claims have not been shown to be false either. The data so far indicate that there is a good chance that he has something and more of the scientific community is now paying attention to LENR. In fact, many researchers have been working on this since the 1990's in spite of the fact that narrow minded individuals have ridiculed their work. The hot fusion community couldn't accept the possibility that two electrochemists with a beaker and borrowed palladium electrodes could do what they couldn't do with hundreds of millions of dollars and superconducting magnets.
Much of this had to do with vested interests in research funding but much was also do to the inability of those at the top of the physics heap to be able to study a new phenomenon that might rewrite the physics books. In fact, it will likely only add additional material, as it does not appear to violate any physical laws. As this plays out, you will see many who ridiculed Pons and Fleischmann interpret what they "really meant" for the press and try to weasel out.

reply to post by pteridine


The point is we never get out more than we put in.

When we convert energy from fossil fuels to electricity for example, we are burning more energy than we get out as electricity but accept that as the cost of converting heat energy to usable electricity. In any system we must put in more energy than we can get out because of the losses inherent in our physical world. This is the reality that we face. When you are talking about percent efficiency you are admitting that we can't get anywhere close to 100% because of these losses, much less over 100%.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by pteridine

 

The point is we never get out more than we put in.

When we convert energy from fossil fuels to electricity for example, we are burning more energy than we get out as electricity but accept that as the cost of converting heat energy to usable electricity. In any system we must put in more energy than we can get out because of the losses inherent in our physical world. This is the reality that we face. When you are talking about percent efficiency you are admitting that we can't get anywhere close to 100% because of these losses, much less over 100%.

You are confusing the issue. Your previous post made the assumption that losses would account for more than the energy produced. They do not or there would be no energy produced.
Rethink LENR and consider nickel as a nuclear fuel that when converted to copper will result in energy output due to the differences in the energies of the nuclei. Simplistically, coal is converted from a hydrocarbon to CO2 and water and gives off energy. This is a chemical transformation. In LENR, there is a transformation of nuclei that provide the energy. Look at Widom-Larsen theory for one possible explanation of how this occurs.

reply to post by pteridine


My previous post made no such assumption that losses would account for more energy than that produced. I only said you must account for this and it explains why there is always more input than output.

As far as the abilities you are ascribing to the technology in question, I will wait to see. But having worked as a patent examiner, I know it would fall under the same category as a perpetual motion machine and be rejected as violating the known laws of physics.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by pteridine

 

My previous post made no such assumption that losses would account for more energy than that produced. I only said you must account for this and it explains why there is always more input than output.

As far as the abilities you are ascribing to the technology in question, I will wait to see. But having worked as a patent examiner, I know it would fall under the same category as a perpetual motion machine and be rejected as violating the known laws of physics.

You stated "If this is the case, then there are still losses in any system and you will lose enough energy in the conversion process that you'll still be putting in more than you are getting out." I explained that energy generation is really just a recovery and transformation process. We are talking past one another.

LENR is not a perpetual motion machine. It is not motors and magnets in a magical arrangement with levers and gears. It is not vacuum energy nor does it rely on the Casimir effect nor energy from an alternate universe as drawn through a worm hole.
It is a nuclear transformation that does not require stellar temperatures and pressures, plasmas, or lasers. It violates no laws of physics because what comes out with the energy is not what goes in. It may require a new chapter in nuclear science books, but they are limited, anyway, and could use a little spicing up.
I am aware that the hot fusion consortia and cronies arranged for no "cold fusion" devices to be patentable to protect their own interests. That decree does not change anything but patent law and I suspect that it will soon be sidestepped.

reply to post by pteridine


You know, for all our sakes I hope you are right. I understand the physics of nuclear fission, as well as the theory behind cold fusion. I am just jaded by many years of hoping for something better but not seeing anything come to fruition. Really, I am not your rival but more a devil's advocate. I would like nothing more than to eat my words.