Nope. Those sources are ruled out. Pd-D LENR produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as D+D fusion, so it is fusion.
If you don't believe that, you are wrong.
I do not know whether Ni-H LENR exists, but if it does, it is likely to be H-H fusion. I do not believe there are different, unrelated reactions going on with metal hydrides. That would violate what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.
PP fusion cannot produce any appreciable energy level at room temperature. You are wrong.
Rossi's experiments show that his device does not work. It produces no excess heat. You have not read Rossi's Penon report, so you cannot dispute what I say here. You have no idea what he did or what he claims.
We will see about all this soon enough.
This is what the motto of the Royal Society, "nullia in verba," implies. It is a good motto. To ignore this motto would be to take a faith-based approach rather than a scientific one.
So I should assume you are lying, right? Or is it just Rossi should be considered a liar?
Right. Like in the Gullstrom & Rossi report.
The theory put forth in the Gullstrom & Rossi report was not supported by any experiment that I saw. The report simply estimated the COP that the reactor puts out.
So I should assume you are lying, right? Or is it just Rossi should be considered a liar?
If there was a long history of me saying patently misleading things and sometimes getting caught lying, and I say something that sounds potentially misleading, assuredly, you should assume I am lying.
But that is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that if we are to take a scientific approach, we should assume that Rossi is at minimum mistaken. Until he provides scientific reason to believe otherwise which stands up to scrutiny. We can still keep an open mind and allow the possibility that this assumption will prove mistaken later on, and wait for the demo. But that will not change the basic stance.
Assume he maybe wrong, but don't assume he is and keep calling him a liar.
There are two separate claims here: 1. Being wrong and 2. Being a liar. Let us not confuse them. They have different kinds of proof.
1. I assume he is wrong now, because I know he was wrong about the 1-MW 1-year test. Anyone can see that in the Penon report. (Again, you refuse to look at the report so you cannot dispute what I say.) His technical judgement is deeply flawed.
2. I assume he is lying now, because I know he is a notorious liar. Anyone can see that in the lawsuit docket files. He lies again, and again, and again. He lies in bold ways, and in gratuitous small ways for no benefit. He brags about how he lied! Okay, that is not the same kind of technical proof that shows the 1-MW test is garbage. It is not based on the laws of thermodynamics. But it is a very good reason to assume he is lying now.
In some cases, a person who is a notorious pathological liar such as Robert Stroud does excellent scientific work and never lies about technical issues. However, in Rossi's case, the Penon report, his invisible mezzanine heat exchanger, and many of his other claims are extravagant lies about technical issues. So we know we cannot trust him about technical issues any more than we can trust his claims about his business.
Science is not about dismissing out of hand. Science is not about running an experiment, getting one or a few failures, and forthwith declaring that a phenomena is non-existent. This is what the scientific establishment largely did with cold fusion in the years following the P&F era. There are a small band of us that refuse to let that happen in the NiH era. We will inspect every possibility. We will support the MFMP in their attempts to replicate and verify. We will inform others about what is happening in the space. We will refute pathological skepticism. We will post on forums across the Internet. We will be early purchasers and adopters of any products that come to market. We will battle regulators on ideological fronts: because we have the moral higher ground. We will not give up.
Great stuff. I admire the structure of this rhetoric style greatly. Such works whip me into a frenzy. Let us grab our helmets and our guns and head toward the beaches.
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Winston Churchill
So I should assume you are lying, right? Or is it just Rossi should be considered a liar?
But the Rossi IS a liar. A self-admitted liar - just see the court papers. It may be he sometimes tells the truth, but how are we to know?
But people who had committed unthinkable crimes were also called heroes; Oedipus and Medea
Let's not get too hung up on Freud's still-up-at-dawn paranoid psychobabble:
The proper story is that whilst a grueling journey of self-sacrifice, in which he solves the riddle of the sphinx, and saves half of humanity from destruction, the unfortunate mother/father incidents were merely unintended accidents.
The only information we have is what Rossi said. Take it or leave it.
There's a heap of Nigerians who would love to have your email address.
[Regarding the Penon report] We will see about all this soon enough.
We have seen it already. Rossi published the report in the law suit docket and on his web page. You have not seen it because you refuse to look, but that doesn't count.
Of course we have not seen the upcoming demo yet, so I cannot be sure it will be wrong. I am saying he was wrong in the past, so it is likely he will be wrong in this demo as well. That is a reasonable prediction. You have no reason to predict he will be right, given his track record.
Display MoreWhen it comes to an approach to extraordinary claims, I have little in common with either of you.
Geez, Adrian, you keep believing the guy! You pay no attention to Krivit who is fluent in Italian and researched all of this in Italian newspaper and by interviews. Who do you think created the billion dollar disaster of Petroldragon? Oh I know, the Mafia. Yah shoore.
You would believe a bank robber caught in the act simply because he said he was innocent? It's a good analogy.
https://www.politico.eu/articl…e-of-law-hurts-all-of-eu/
Italy’s disrespect for rule of law hurts all of EU
But the Rossi IS a liar. A self-admitted liar - just see the court papers. It may be he sometimes tells the truth, but how are we to know?
Yes, well, as I said, in some instances, with some people, they lie about personal issues, or their business, but they tell the truth about science. But not Rossi.
As you say, the court docket papers prove that Rossi lies about technical issues as well. Even if he does tell the truth in the future we would have no way of knowing it. We would have no reason to think it is true. The only way to confirm his claims is with an independent test, as Mary Yugo correctly points out.
I assume he is wrong now, because I know he was wrong about the 1-MW 1-year test.
You think you know and have said so so many times I've long lost count, , but I also looked at the data and didn't consider it proven that it didn't work.
You think you know and have said so so many times I've long lost count, , but I also looked at the data and didn't consider it proven that it didn't work.
Oh? why not?
But the Rossi IS a liar. A self-admitted liar - just see the court papers. It may be he sometimes tells the truth, but how are we to know?
That is not he point, Eric says, according the Royal Society motto, everybody should be assumed to be lying. I disagree with that interpretation. Normal civilization would not work that way.
That is not he point, Eric says, according the Royal Society motto, everybody should be assumed to be lying.
This comes as news to me, and it will come as a surprise to the members of the Royal Society.
As I'll clarify once more: assuming Rossi is lying was not the point I was making (although it may also be wise). If we follow the motto of the Royal Society, "nullia in verba" (take nobody's word for it), then we must demand (scientific) evidence, rather than taking someone's (Rossi's) word for his claims. He may not be lying, but he could well be mistaken. And we should not just take his word for it that he's seeing a COP of 1777.
It's a pretty simple idea, really.
Krivit who is fluent in Italian
I call bullshit on this... Link to some proof (or even just where Krivit claims that), please.
I was taught to first trust everyone, UNTIL they are found untrustworthy (found to have lied or worse, brag about lying and deceiving) Then they must prove their statements.
Rossi has bragged about lying and deceiving others.
Oh? why not?
For one thing, although Pennon's paper was a bit sloppy in adding missing data, overall I doubt Pennon would be fooled. He is a bright person and would have nothing to gain by falsifying the report and a lot to lose.
There were many other cases where there were two aides to each claim. Possibly it would have been clarified in court but you know what happened. If IH had truly had certain, positive proof I don't think they would have folded. Yes I know others have a different opinion. Not proven one way or the other.
.
For one thing, although Pennon's paper was a bit sloppy in adding missing data, overall I doubt Pennon would be fooled. He is a bright person and would have nothing to gain by falsifying the report and a lot to lose.
There were many other cases where there were two aides to each claim. Possibly it would have been clarified in court but you know what happened. If IH had truly had certain, positive proof I don't think they would have folded. Yes I know others have a different opinion. Not proven one way or the other.
.
Rossi brought the initial suit against IH. IH had nothing much (compared to expected legal expenses) to gain even if they won. It is Rossi that folded and he lost 89M + If he had what he claimed he would had much to gain.
