[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/17/is-rossi-betting-against-his-1mw-e-cat-plant/']Quite a lot of attention has been given to this exchange on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: Mr “AR”: At the end of your tests it will turn out that your plants do not work and are not reliableI bet 1000 Euros to win 3000Eyros if you fail. I bet you will fail. …and I […][/feedquote]
Is Rossi Betting Against His 1MW E-Cat Plant?
-
I wish somebody would take a simple bet for me like this: $100,000.00 at 2:1 odds that in two years, an ordinary person can not purchase an ecat in ANY form. Same bet for five or ten years if you prefer.
-
I try to disagree with someone without challenging their intelligence. I find discourse is easier if the [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] is not personal but based on factual and verifiable information. The use of bets on the Internet is just silly at least on this type of forum.
While I am skeptical of Mr. Rossi's claims I do not denounce people who are following scientific method SM e.g. (MFMP) and educated folks that attend conferences searching for reasons based on experimental evidence such as ICCF.
My point is, as long as you are perceived as mentally closed off completely to the work in LENR using SM that currently is being done you are marginalized.
This site currently has a resident pest that contributes nothing to the discussion (Ty). If you want to be heard, try framing the [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] like Thomas C. does with questions and facts. I know I read them and can follow his logic.That said, and leaving Rossi out of this, do believe in LENR in any form? If yes what form? If not, why not ?
-
Quote
That said, and leaving Rossi out of this, do believe in LENR in any form? If yes what form? If not, why not ?
Perhaps the word "believe" is open to misinterpretation here. But reckoning this is probabilistic belief - then personally: no. I've not yet seen any extraordinary evidence for LENR, which is what would be needed. Further, Popeye AKA Joshua I think puts the general argument eloquently for LENR not being probable. It is essentially an argument through contradiction. If LENR were real, then things would (pretty quickly) be different from what they are.
While I agree with Joshua's argument, I enjoy looking at the details of claims, and the low probability I give to LENR comes from these just not measuring up. When I first started examining what seemed most likely I was perhaps less jaded. You can understand that after having looked at quite a number of these things, and finding all flawed in ways that objectively seem quote unnecessary (it should not be difficult to get bomb-proof evidence of nuclear reactions) I'm inclined from that experience as well to a negative view.
-
There is a new field being created here, and I am not referring to LENR. It is Scientific/Business Scepticism. I hate that word because whenever it is used the atheists take over the [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon]. This field has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It involves R&D new inventions and claims vs counter claims.
There are many factors in place here. Not the least of which is government approval. Recently Rossi has mentioned something about electromagnetic waves. Any device that produces any kind of ray or wave requires FDA approval.
Think of it this way. Before you build a house you go to regional planning and building and safety and get a permit. The FDA government approval process works in the backwards opposite direction. A device better be completely done and ready with instructions and all or it will be rejected. Only then can it go through the permit process. Think of it like this. The house has to be complete. Doors locks drywall outlets etc. It has to have a kitchen. The bathroom fixtures must work. Hot water heater. HVAC. Ready to move in. Only then you can apply for a building permit and ask the county if you can please build the house in the location you want. Kind of dumb isn't it? Well that's the way it works. Now think of the implications if the county says no or if the county requires corrections. Put yourself in the shoes of an inventor. If you come out and tell the world what you have you still need to go through the process. The process is lengthy. If your device gets approval yahoo yippie! If it does not you are in a pickle because you already told everybody what's inside. Your competitors have access to the info and are busy copying your machine. You are busy making the corrections that the government asked for. You just gave everyone around you a head start and at the same time delayed yourself.
In this context it is best not to reveal anything about the device unless and until you get the piece of paper from the government with their blessing. If the holdup for Rossi's machine is the government approval and waves or rays produced by the device then this would explain why he would bet against it. The device might work but it will be worthless because you can't sell it on the open market.
Personally I think this technology is too important to jerk around with. If it is real the progress that could have been made if 1000 labs and scientists around the world were working on it has been wasted because only 1 shop and 1 scientist (self schooled) is sitting on it trying to perfect it now.
By the way before some smart genius says something to the effect of "just line it with lead or a shield of some sort" that remedy is covered in the FDA instruction manuals. They explicitly state that lead or shielding cannot be used to mitigate any effects of the machine. So save the lead lining advice.
-
I try and not pay attention to what Rossi says. His comments over the years have been all over the place, and what he says, implies one day, he contradicts the next. His sidekick Fulvio Fabiani claims he has a unique genius, and maybe with that curse his thoughts come out jumbled...leading others not so "gifted" to think he is lying.
Or maybe he is purposely lying for competitive advantage as many hope to be the case?Whatever, I keep an eye on those around him for signs of what is really going on. Yes, that is pretty limiting, as most of the principles have been pretty tight lipped. Although recently there has been some light shed with Darden's positive comments in his interview, his funding an LENR research facility in NC with more funding to come, Fabiani's interview, inside reports (rumors I know) of the 1MWs apparently working well at the plant. Most importantly, no one has run out the door screaming scam. No lawsuits, employees confessing, etc.
One can piece together enough of the metadata, interspersed with a little common sense, and conclude that Rossi and a team are in fact babysitting the 1MW in a factory as claimed. There is a legitimate third party "referee" that will judge "negative or positive". A little more speculative...but I would also assume Darden is at least to some degree (if not then why would he decide recently to invest more?) kept apprised of the progress, or lack thereof.
If one accepts these premises, as do I, one could take this a little further by concluding there would have been ample info available early on, maybe within the first few days of the 400 day test, to determine the basic claim of overunity. If not overunity, it would be hard to fathom, at least for me, why they would then continue on with a now worthless, expensive venture, when in effect they would be developing just another industrial heater? Surely Darden would have pulled the plug by now as would be his fiduciary responsibility to his investors.
Put it all together, and things look good still. And no, I am not willing to bet on that!
-
Thomas forgive me I do not know Popeye/Joshua. I am aware of someone named Goatguy that puts up some very good arguments on LENR on a different site.
I recognize that LENR is at this point an almost entirely experimental, and without a working reproducible model.
Currently at best we have a questionable theory(s). It is either considered bleeding edge or possibly nonsensical. My point to the other user (MY) was that to insult people that believe differently on the Internet is a waste of time. But it is valid and required to question the data.
My example to question data would be the new Higgs data on a possible new particle from CERN. Susskind BTW has a good lecture on this where they predict the new particle that has greater mass. This also is theory with questionable data. But it meets the requirement of scientific method.
Anyway all of us can do better than insults to each other. You are a good example of not taking it personal.[[ I've not yet seen any extraordinary evidence for LENR, which is what would be needed.]]
I feel the same way. Violations of COE require extraordinary evidence. I did not mention Scientific Method just for kicks. But to get the skeptics real thoughts on the matter.
I think that I have a somewhat open mind. There are some very disperse groups with very bright minds doing appropriate work.Using the correct tools in an organized fashion.
