Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion



  • ... FINALLY YOU NAILED IT!!!


    ... ESPECIALLY THE NONSENSE, THAT AXIL SPREADS OUT.


    .... that Rossi is a fraud, is absolute obvious....


    Warm regards <X<X<X




  • Memes are ideas, aspirations, proofs, evidence, data, stories, images, and rituals that spread from mind to mind, imagination to imagination, generation to generation, shaping and shifting human cultures.


    Our lives are embedded with a cultural context that are constantly assaulted by new pieces of the culture that carry meaning for us such as customs, facts, lies, ideas, symbols, slogans, or rituals. All of these act as contagious containers for cultural information that spread virally from person to person, moment to moment, generation to generation. In 1976 evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the word “meme” from the Greek root meaning “to imitate. These self-replicating units of culture that take on a life of their own are “memes” (rhymes with “dreams”). The concept of “atoms of culture” that spread and act like genes has been around since at least the 1950s, Memes are everywhere – from personal mannerisms and collective ritual, to the advertising slogans and political buzzwords that dominate the media and the internet. Over time memes tend to morph, expand or disappear, or even change in meaning.


    Rossi, his work, his plans, his lifestyle, comprises a meme that is part of other more complex memes. That meme is destructive of other varied memes in the culture. Our way of thinking and our beliefs are the sum total of the memes that we hold and those we reject. There is nothing that is more important to the preservation of self and our place in culture than the collection of memes that comprise our believe system.


    We are now engaged in a battle of memes that will shape world culture in the future. The culture of the past and those who seek to preserve that culture will do battle against the new memes that threaten their theory of self.


    Cultural evolution is determined in the battle of the fittest in the current meme wars.


    A Scam is a meme tactic that is destructive of the central tenant to the beliefs and aspirations of the meme warrior's opponent.


    Why should I accept your concept of culture when I seek to replace it with a meme that will be foundational to a more beneficent and altruistic future culture?

    .

  • WTF? Rossi, etc. etc. is a meme now? How exactly does that work?


    Google says: MEME--


    Quote

    an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

    • a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc., that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.
  • Oh, I understand why I hate and despise frauds and con men. Trust me on that. I've been taken a few times. On several of those occasions, there was appreciable damage. Cons are wasteful, injurious to the reputation of a field, and impact negatively on future funding. I guess you and Max and a few others don't get that, do you? Or is it just that you don't believe, despite the reams and reams of hard copy evidence, that Rossi is a con man?

  • Oh, I understand why I hate and despise frauds and con men. Trust me on that. I've been taken a few times. On several of those occasions, there was appreciable damage. Cons are wasteful, injurious to the reputation of a field, and impact negatively on future funding. I guess you and Max and a few others don't get that, do you? Or is it just that you don't believe, despite the reams and reams of hard copy evidence, that Rossi is a con man?

    A SCAM is cause by ignorance, carelessness, stupidity, greed, lack of proper due diligence, or exploits using faults in the system and other weakness in the mark and the systems they depend on.



    What does "you can't cheat an honest man" mean?

    It means that a truly honest man would never put himself in a position where a cheat could get an advantage and manage to cheat him. You couldn't cheat an honest man at cards... because he wouldn't be gambling in the first place. You couldn't cheat him on the amount of something he would purchase, for he would double check his purchase... and if there was a discrepancy, he would address it until it was made right.

    Now... of course there are always specific exceptions. This is a saying, not an absolute law of the universe. There is an implication in this saying that cheaters also rely on the dishonesty in most men, and they exploit it... thus an honest man couldn't be cheated. There would be no dishonesty to exploit.


    https://www.quora.com/What-doe…-cheat-an-honest-man-mean


    This is a meme that I beleive...It is very hard to create an honest man.


    A con man will take advantage of people of good an generous nature. They will solicit aid for people affected by tragedy but use those solicited funds for their own purposes.


    Mary, I doubt that you are subject to this sort of SCAM or concerned about preventing this sort of crime. Your priority is preventing those crimes upon those who are motivated by greed.

  • Quote

    "What does "you can't cheat an honest man" mean?"


    Nothing. It's simply stupid. Anyone can fall prey to a con man sociopath. I've read that dishonest people are easier to fool so that one con man is more likely than an ordinary person to fall for a con. But anyone can be bamboozled under the "right" circumstances..

  • 5 years ago this month (Oct. 2012) this was written:


    https://www.popsci.com/science…0/andrea-rossis-black-box


    Probably the best article ever written about the Rossi story. He leans heavily towards skeptical, but leaves just enough room for the reader to believe he may have something... without insulting or alienating Rossi. I remember Rossi being asked his opinion of the story, and he said it was fair.


    Lots of familiar names in there. I almost thought of putting this under the NASA thread, as they (NASA) are in there too. Larry Forsley of JKW International/GEC, is the only LENR researcher to express outright disbelief in Rossi. You may recall his name, as he is one of the authors on the recent NASA Arxiv report, and also listed on last months NASA USPTO patent application. It gives me more confidence in his present day LENR research, to know that back then he was vocally skeptical of Rossi.


    With the IH vs Leonardo court documents public, it is a fun read to compare then and now. Enjoy.

  • I consider all claims of positive LENR to be incorrect or inconclusive at best. This is because all these claims have failed at the highest level of scrutiny. MIT, Caltech, IH, Coolescense(sp?), and Hydrofusion's representative are just a few who have acknowledged their failure to replicate or verify many of these claims. Once a reputable organization, which has in the past failed 100% of the LENF/CF claims they have looked into, puts their name on the line to pass a result, it might be worth review.


    Entities which have consistently failed LENR are the only ones qualified to say it works. They don't have a positive bias which might make them look past the measurement errors, artifacts, shoddy record keeping, incorrect experiment setup, etc... which have caused false-positive results.


    Also, as I've mentioned earlier, there has not been one instance verified by a reputable source of LENR detected in nature. This violates the law of conservation of energy as the conditions for real fusion are millions of times more difficult than CF. Yet, simply looking into the sky shows billions of examples of hot fusion. I've found many papers refuting CF. There is no point posting them as people will simply say they don't believe it, as was the case when Coolescense(sp?) published their work refuting many CF claims.


    I expect some breakthroughs in hot fusion in the next few years which will make that a reality sooner than people think.

  • lenrisnotreal


    "This violates the law of conservation of energy as the conditions for real fusion are millions of times more difficult than CF"


    Woolly thinking here. Can you remember back to high school chemistry when they talked about EQUILIBRIUM versus KINETICS.


    1. "Law of conservation" is mostly E=MC2 . This is about EQUILIBRIUM

    LENR does not violate E=MC2 any more than HENR does.


    2."conditions for real fusion"  This is about KINETICS...the barrier height versus the energy/number of incoming particles

    The challenge for both synthetic LENR and HENR on Terra is to increase the rate to economic levels

    Currently HENR is on track to do this post-2052 at ITER


    You can raise the energy/ number of incoming by "Temperature, EM fields ,photons/concentration,pressure"

    or you can decrease the barrier height (Ea) by enzymes, catalysts, em fields, ??


    Current LENR plasma expts are using em fields.. The older electrolytic methods had rates that were negligible.

    This is of course a simplification of a complex matter.


  • Oh, I understand why I hate and despise frauds and con men. Trust me on that. I've been taken a few times. On several of those occasions, there was appreciable damage. Cons are wasteful, injurious to the reputation of a field, and impact negatively on future funding.


    There's an old saying in California — I know it's in Texas, probably in California — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again...


    No doubt that your repeated blunders are caused by both your apparent inability to detect when your own biases are confirmed, and your well-noted lack of interest in reading the relevant details of topics that supposedly "interest" you.


    As for it being 'a waste of money', what else were you going to spend it on? ...Probably coffee, if this post is true.


    Perhaps it would help you to get over the loss, if you viewed it more as a tax on gullibility / stupidity, than having a negative impact on the cafeicultors of this world.

  • I expect some breakthroughs in hot fusion in the next few years which will make that a reality sooner than people think.


    Well:

    Tokomaks - who can tell? Most people reckon they will not work, but certainly worth trying, and the best bet. Has better magnet technology on its side.

    Focus fusion - long shot but very well documented and it will make progress or not. They are now on $100,000 electrodes to reduce contamination...

    Inertial Confinement Fusion (lasers) - has got advancing laser tech on its side, but still a long shot


    What else? I agree, these three look a better bet than LENR.

  • This is because all these claims have failed at the highest level of scrutiny. MIT, Caltech, IH, Coolescense(sp?),

    On the contrary, MIT and Caltech got positive results, even though they were opposed to the research. There is nothing more convincing than a positive result from the people at MIT who were dead set against the claim, and who held a party celebrating the death of cold fusion before they got a positive result.


    But in any case, roughly 180 labs reported positive results. Why would you say these four outweigh those 180? What makes you think the I.H. has more credibility than Los Alamos or China Lake?

  • Quote

    Why would you say these four outweigh those 180? What makes you think the I.H. has more credibility than Los Alamos or China Lake?


    I, for one, would not say that but I would hasten to point out that neither has followed up on those experiments which you consider successful demonstrations of LENR. That is, at best, very strange. I guess they have no interest in unlimited power sources for humanity. They are more concerned and completely absorbed with maintaining existing grants and with things like fission, steam-electric plants, model T Fords and the like.


    Zeus misquotes and/or pretends to misunderstand, as usual. (S)he and Jed make a pair to draw to!

  • I, for one, would not say that but I would hasten to point out that neither has followed up on those experiments which you consider successful demonstrations of LENR.

    I consider all of those experiments successful demonstrations of LENR. You do not. Don't confuse your opinions with mine.


    Of course they are not demonstrations of a commercially useful effect, but neither was the first fission reaction or the first transistor in 1948. It took 55 years to produce the first useful fission reaction, and 30 years to make the first transistor after the discovery of semiconductors in the 1920s. It might have taken longer if there had been opposition to the research, the way there is opposition to cold fusion. No one fired people for doing semiconductor research in the 1930s and 40s.

    That is, at best, very strange.

    No, it is not a bit strange. As you yourself have told us many times, you have not read the literature so you do not understand what the problems are. You have not read the history of science and technology, so you do not realize that other technologies such as fission, transistors and many others had similar problems.


    For that matter, plasma fusion has made little progress despite billions of dollars in funding. No one would claim that a tokamak is a practical demonstration of anything. Do you claim that plasma fusion does not exist?


    Some cold fusion experiments have produced far more energy than any tokamak ever did, albeit far less power. It seems unlikely that plasma fusion reactors can be made for long term use, because the radiation destroys the machinery. So, in some ways, cold fusion is closer to being practical than plasma fusion, despite having orders of magnitude less funding and intense opposition.

  • Tokomaks - who can tell? Most people reckon they will not work, but certainly worth trying, and the best bet.

    Experts at Los Alamos disagree. They do not think they are the best bet. See:


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf


    I do not think they are worth trying. Not unless someone can suggest a plausible way to make them work without the radiation destroying the machinery in a short time.

  • I, for one, would not say that but I would hasten to point out that neither has followed up on those experiments which you consider successful demonstrations of LENR. That is, at best, very strange.


    Wait a minute Mary, I'm not sure you're really qualified to be making these sort of judgements...


    I know nothing about Pd-D or electrolytic systems, I don't pretend to know about them, I don't comment about them, and I have said that many times.


    Zeus46 As I said before, I have no interest in claims for small, low level, low power LENR effects. I know nothing about those, I care little about them, and I don't evaluate them. So what?


    A complete misquoting, for sure...

  • Following same logic ITER people follow we should start building a 4m diameter pipe , fill it with NiH mixture. The small one didn't work but the big one certainly will.

    That's funny. But let's give the ITER people some credit. There is no question that today's tokamaks produce nuclear fusion. Theory predicts that a larger reactor will have some advantages and will be closer to a practical device. So, they have reasons to scale up. There is no similar rationale to scale up cold fusion. You can confirm a small reaction with as much confidence as you can confirm a large one.


    That is why Rossi's gigantic reactor was a farce. There was no need for it. A 10 W reaction would have been just as convincing as a real 1 MW reaction would have been. As it happened, his 1 MW claim was preposterous, and obviously fake.


    Some people claim that only a large reaction would have commercial value. They do not understand the energy market. Most energy demand ranges from 1 to 10 kW for heat or electric power. In a cold fusion world, I predict there would be little use for 1 MW reactors. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

  • THH: Tokomaks - who can tell? Most people reckon they will not work, but certainly worth trying, and the best bet.

    Jed: Experts at Los Alamos disagree. They do not think they are the best bet. See:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf


    My point was that for near-term fast workable fusion they are the best bet. ITER etc is more certain to work (we are reasonably sure it will work) but it requires very large size and will therefore take a very long time to get working in any useful way, if ever.


    Whereas the various designs (Tokomak is leading contender I think) for much smaller-scale fusion devices offer the possibility of near-term success. They are all, as I pointed out, a long shot. And, as I also pointed out, many people still (now, not 1993) think that Tokomaks will not be workable.


    Your link above is still the mainstream position but it is 25 years old (1993). Recent positive information is:

    (1) Containment in H-modes is better than previously expected- leading to the current resurgence of interest in spherical tokomaks

    (2) Much better HTS magnets (which the UK guys are hoping to use).


    Jed, as somone who promotes unusual non-mainstream possible new ways to get clean energy, I'd expect you to be more open to the possibilities.


    THH

  • Some cold fusion experiments have produced far more energy than any tokamak ever did, albeit far less power. It seems unlikely that plasma fusion reactors can be made for long term use, because the radiation destroys the machinery. So, in some ways, cold fusion is closer to being practical than plasma fusion, despite having orders of magnitude less funding and intense opposition.


    The difference is this. The experiments validating Tokomak fusion are done by multiple groups and all broadly consistent. Where there are variations (one group says something is better or worse) they get checked and validated or not by experimental replication and theoretical checks. There remains a lot of uncertainty, but it is slowly being explored and understood. In that process there are surprises, both positive and negative. Take the now confirmed good confinement characteristics of H-modes as a small positive surprise. The (now well understood) problems maintaining plasma stability in torus Tokomaks as a big negative surprise.


    The LENR experiments have not yet produced a coherent body of understanding that advances. The excess energy Jed mentions above has not been validated and remains anomalous. It may be so validated, at which point LENR will emerge from the shadows and attract major interest. Or, it may never be, in which case Shanahan's CCS/ATER and other disparate unconsidered experimental issues are the most likley cause of the claimed results.

  • As evidence of no coherence, which I might perhaps write more about some time, consider the issue of whether the LENR effect means that reaction rates increase with temperature, or decrease with temperature.


    The clear consensus from much of the experimental work quoted here is that reaction rates increase a lot with increasing temperature.


    However one recently posted here theoretical paper proposes a (correct, sort of) electron shielding in liquid-phase (gamma = 1 - 170) plasma mechanism which would mean that reaction rates decrease (a lot) with increasing temperature.


    These two sets of data are incoherent. if one is true, the other is false, and vice versa. Unless are there two quite distinct new to science mechanisms at work here.


    I think that many people on this site take the abundance of different incoherent mechanisms as positive - well, one of them must be right. For me, the fact that they are nearly all incoherent is a big negative. The electron shielding mechanism (almost OK) cannot derive any support from the positive or neutral temperature-dependent LENR results. Or, from the many anecdotal accounts of thermal runaway (though I'm not sure many people see those as good evidence).


    You don't have to have an overall negative view of LENR prospects to pay attention to this. It is just one of many filters that helps to direct attention to things that could just possibly work.

  • As evidence of no coherence, which I might perhaps write more about some time, consider the issue of whether the LENR effect means that reaction rates increase with temperature, or decrease with temperature.


    I take that as evidence that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There is good evidence (for varying values of 'good') that LENR reactions can occur in plasma, in gases, in liquids and in solids, at all kinds of temperatures and pressures. There is also evidence that it can sometimes produce radiation, sometimes not, can cause detectable transmutation with evolved heat, or transmutation with little evolved heat. I am (you won't be surprised) one of those who considers this to be a positive rather than a negative aspect of LENR. There is certainly room for more than one kind of mechanism, maybe all roads lead to the nucleus, but some are smoother and shorter than others.


    I am encouraged on this by the fact that we know of 7 different classes of stars, each one of which has 9 different sub-types. That's a lot of different shit going one, right there.