Rossi: The final chapter

    Quote from Bruce__H

    I agree. LENR has had difficulty gaining traction within the science world and so the publications tend to come out in marginal places. My point, however, is that the Rossi's researchgate paper shows a familiarity with theory and a level of English writing skill that is above his usual abilities. I don't think he wrote it and I wonder how he acquired it.

    I do not understand your point. Does not matter who wrote this non-peer reviewed pet theory.

    Probably a tinfoil-hat, english mother-tongue wannabe pseudoscientist.

    Quote from Curbina

    Reading this post was really sobering. Thanks Walter for letting us know where you stand in this regard.

    I stand for true science, i.e. science certified by authorized experts and high-rank scientific journals.

    "Science is not democratic" as proudly stated by the top-level scientist prof. R. Burioni.

    As an example we should not even discuss scientific proven facts as the anthropic origin of climate changes.

    Even Greta has well understood this point: Listen to the [true] scientists!


    https://www.theguardian.com/en…berg-tells-congress-video

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    electrons are point-like particles not toroid shaped currents and electron size can be measured down to 3x10^-18cm as written in this very well written CERN document

    Electrons are not point-like particles and mostly toroidal shaped magnetic flux.


    True is that current experiments cannot measure any radius for the electron.


    The reason is simple: The electron owns no dense mass, which starts at three rotation coupled magnetic flux. Within the current definition of physical constants we can show (SO(4)physics) that the electron flux has no fix radius for its internal charge generation that is needed to couple the flux. Thus its behavior is more proton than mass like.

    • Official Post

    And you keep on delivering! Fantastic!

    • Official Post

    I don’t know how you turned to that subject from where this was coming from, but with my “Fantastic!” I just was celebrating that you have made very clear where you stand with respect to your general approach to science and scientific consensus. It is now clear to me where your dislike for Il dottore comes from. My dislike of him does not come from the same place, but at least we agree we don’t like him.


    Now, this exchange started because the “highly downloaded paper” has been noted by Bruce__H to be written way above his usual English capacity. There are professional scientific writers so I am not surprised at all for that, they can take a rough draft and shape it to be readable, that’s all.


    I really have no opinion about the content of the paper, I have not bothered to read it basically because I got fed up with Il dottore and his shenanigans to never deliver a definite reproducible proof of his work, and his habit of saying things in a (nonetheless skillful but weasel) way that is not exactly lying but not exactly being honest, so one has to take anything he says with a bushel of salt. So I decided there’s a lot more going in the LENR field and if the Philosophical doctor ever comes with anything real, I will be really and honestly surprised.

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    What it would be really fantastic if even illiterate people understand the necessity of a carbon tax to reduce dangerous emissions,

    and the importance of fact-checking (anti-fake news, anti-hate) international commissions.

    Hi Walter Pegeto,


    You are one dangerous individual. The more people like you, the less we need any carbon restrictions, because the chances of a mass extinction of mankind are correlated with the global support for these kind of ideas.


    Cheers,


    JB

    Who appoints these "true" experts? Politicians or psuedoexperts with a political or social agenda, or worse looking for money? Sounds like a recipe for scientific stagnation (which lo and behold we have with the SM). If not democratic, shall we call science dictatorial?

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    I stand for true science, i.e. science certified by authorized experts and high-rank scientific journals.


    Nope. That's not "true science." That's approved science. Safe, probably right, conventional science. But true science can come from any person, with or without credentials, in no journal, such as Mpemba, a 13-year old African grade school kid. He was right, and the vaunted experts who said he was wrong were mistaken. See:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect


    If you judge cold fusion by your standards, you will conclude that it does not exist. Most authorized experts and high-rank journals reject it. If you judge it by the standards of experimental science, by the laws of physics, logic and by common sense, you will conclude that it does exist. The authorized experts who deny that are wrong. Worse, they are fools and stuffed shirts, and not experts at all, with regard to this subject. Read what they themselves wrote and you will see they are nitwits. History is full of similar examples.


    I think you should always judge a scientific question strictly by the objective standards of science. You should ignore the opinions of authorized experts and high-rank journals. A replicated experiment overrules them all.

    Walter Pegeto

    "I stand for true science, i.e. science certified by authorized experts and high-rank scientific journals."


    you imply that Aharonov and Bohm are not highranked sources to be referenced


    maybe you should confine your pearls of wisdom to the trough of climatology.. rather than physics\


    'take a look at citations. There are no high rank journal in the list.

    "Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D. Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory. Physical Review, 115:485-491, aug 1959. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.115.485 ResearchGate:https://www.researchgate.net/p…heory_Phy_Rev_115_485-491


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakir_Aharonov

    http://inspirehep.net/record/31080/citations?ln=en


    Quote from JedRothwell

    If you judge cold fusion by your standards, you will conclude that it does not exist. Most authorized experts and high-rank journals reject it. If you judge it by the standards of experimental science, by the laws of physics, logic and by common sense, you will conclude that it does exist. The authorized experts who deny that are wrong. Worse, they are fools and stuffed shirts, and not experts at all, with regard to this subject. Read what they themselves wrote and you will see they are nitwits. History is full of similar examples.

    I think you should always judge a scientific question strictly by the objective standards of science. You should ignore the opinions of authorized experts and high-rank journals. A replicated experiment overrules them all.

    Your arguments are dangerously similar to those of conspiracy theorists. They say: "do not trust experts", "mass media are utterly corrupted by few powerful lobbies like big-oil or big-pharma or by a mysterious undefined "deep state".


    Common sense alone tell me that if a huge project like ITER has been financed with more than 12 billion dollars by tax payers of many countries (China, European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, United States) , it's evident that cold fusion does not exist!


    https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines

    "Thousands of engineers and scientists have contributed to the design of ITER since the idea for an international joint experiment in fusion was first launched in 1985. The ITER Members—China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States—are now engaged in a 35-year collaboration to build and operate the ITER experimental device, and together bring fusion to the point where a demonstration fusion reactor can be designed."

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Walter Pegeto

    "I stand for true science, i.e. science certified by authorized experts and high-rank scientific journals."


    you imply that Aharonov and Bohm are not highranked sources to be referenced

    It is just a very old (60 years old!) paper. Moreover the so-called Aharonov Bohm effect is incompatible with quantum mechanics!


    Incompatibility of the Aharonov-Bohm effect with the quantum laws


    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02817287

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    Common sense alone tell me that if a huge project like ITER has been financed with more than 12 billion dollars by tax payers of many countries (China, European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, United States) , it's evident that cold fusion does not exist!


    Common sense,,..


    If there was even one cent of my tax going to ITER I would protest to the Australian government..


    However the EU is looking to allocate some funds to LENR-type research recently.


    Perhaps they do not have Pegeto sense...

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    Moreover the so-called Aharonov Bohm effect is incompatible with quantum mechanics!


    more pearls of commonsense wisdom from Walter..

    "It is just a very old (60 years old!) paper. "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



    So I guess the the effect does not happen? wikipediasense..


    :

    The most commonly described case, sometimes called the Aharonov–Bohm solenoid effect, takes place when the wave function of a charged particle passing around a long solenoid experiences a phase shift as a result of the enclosed magnetic field, despite the magnetic field being negligible in the region through which the particle passes and the particle's wavefunction being negligible inside the solenoid. This phase shift has been observed experimentally.[2] There are also magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effects on bound energies and scattering cross sections, but these cases have not been experimentally tested. An electric Aharonov–Bohm phenomenon was also predicted, in which a charged particle is affected by regions with different electrical potentials but zero electric field, but this has no experimental confirmation yet.[2] A separate "molecular" Aharonov–Bohm effect was proposed for nuclear motion in multiply connected regions, but this has been argued to be a different kind of geometric phase as it is "neither nonlocal nor topological", depending only on local quantities along the nuclear path.[3]

    Werner Ehrenberg (1901–1975) and Raymond E. Siday first predicted the effect in 1949.[4] Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm published their analysis in 1959.[1] After publication of the 1959 paper, Bohm was informed of Ehrenberg and Siday's work, which was acknowledged and credited in Bohm and Aharonov's subsequent 1961 paper.[5][6] The effect was confirmed experimentally, with a very large error, while Bohm was still alive. By the time the error was down to a respectable value, Bohm had died.[7]

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.