Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Laromi wrote:It makes more sense to me to argue against the science than the personality. Prove the science is incontrovertibly wrong rather than filibustering Rossi/Defkalion et.al. for developing or attempting to develop a technology which makes LENR Cold Fusion or whatever reactions [chemical or otherwise] totally useful for us blue planet dwellers.
By Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Rossi has been caught in some whopper lies.
Yesterday, the New Energy Times published an extremely damning report regarding Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat:
Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the Energy Catalyzer, told an inspector from the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that he has no factory in the United States and that no nuclear reactions occur in his devices.
Rossi's statements contradict nearly everything he has said in the last year about his claims of a factory and his development of a low-energy nuclear reaction device.
Rossi told the bureau that his device produces thermal energy of six times the electrical energy input. However, for the last several years, Rossi claimed nuclear reactions occur in his device.
The bureau responded to a citizen's complaint, made by Gary Wright of Las Vegas, in February. New Energy Times obtained the report from this blog. Wright was concerned that Rossi's device had failed proper nuclear certifications or, if not, that Rossi was committing fraud.
I looked through the very lengthy report surrounding that complaint and follow-up. It contains a detailed review of Andrea Rossi's claims and dealings with the E-Cat, as well as some of his previous work with biofuel and waste to energy. It documents extensively the fact that 1) Andrea Rossi has been claiming nuclear events in his E-Cat process, and 2) Andrea Rossi has been claiming the establishment of U.S. manufacturing.
Yes I know what you are referring to. Rossi tried to get an international patent. However he refused to disclose how his device worked. He tried to keep a "secret catalyst" and block box area of the device he was patenting. That is not how patents work. This was not a case of "the American patent office scuttling Rossi's patent". This was a case of Rossi trying to patent a black box, expecting he did not have to play by the same rules as everyone else. It doesn't work like that.Laromi wrote:It was the American patent office that scuttled his [Rossi's] world patent rights [haven't reference at hand but should be general knowledge on forum] as far as I know however, he holds some domestic European [Greek] patents. That, I believe is part of his dilemma and probably Defkalion's as well therefore, it was not a case of, "But Rossi did not patent his secret process, so he is out of luck".
Nope. Rossi did not submit the steps to replicate the phenomenon he described. Scientists could not replicate his work as a result.Laromi wrote:However, and I say it again, this to-ing an fro-ing over Rossi's past is more likely designed to cast a cloud of suspicion over the potential of a PROVEN, and acknowledged replicable science phenomenon albeit, once hit before by aggressive and distractive argument [Pons-Flieshman et.al.].
This is a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative. You are making an invisible pink unicorn argument here.Laromi wrote:Prove the science is incontrovertibly wrong rather than filibustering Rossi/Defkalion et.al. for developing or attempting to develop a technology which makes LENR Cold Fusion or whatever reactions [chemical or otherwise] totally useful for us blue planet dwellers.
Invisible Pink UnicornsToday I will discuss the “invisible pink unicorn” analogy. Perhaps the best known example of this argument was put forward by Carl Sagan in A Demon Haunted World, who used the example of someone who claims to have a dragon in their garage but answers each challenge for evidence of the dragon with a special reason why such evidence will not be forthcoming. This illustrates two logical principles important to science and skepticism.
Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. In other words, they must be formulated in such a way that they make predictions about nature – about what we will find when we look at some aspect of nature in particular or what the outcome will be of a specific experiment. If a hypothesis does not make such predictions, then there is no way to test it. Testing ideas is the cornerstone of scientific methodology. Without it you are just practicing philosophy, not science. Ideas that cannot be tested are not necessarily false, they are just “invisible” to science, and are therefore worthless as hypotheses.
The “invisible pink unicorn” or Sagan’s dragon are used as examples of unfalsifiable claims, to illustrate this point of logic. Science cannot prove that unfalsifiable claims are not true – by definition. But this is not a reason to believe in them, any more than it is a reason to believe in any of an infinite number of potential claims that cannot be falsified.
Sagan also used his dragon analogy to illustrate the logical fallacy known as special pleading – inventing a unique and special reason to explain why each type of evidence that could potentially validate a claim is lacking. There is no reason to speculate ahead of time that the phenomenon in question should have such features, they are just invented ad hoc to explain away the lack of evidence. For example: question: “Can I see the dragon?” answer: “No, it’s invisible.” Question: “Can I feel it? Answer; “No, it is non-corporeal?” “Can I measure the heat of its fiery breath?” No, it breaths heatless fire.” Etc. Once you have used special pleading to render a claim unfalsifiable you have also catapulted it out of the arena of science.
In short, the invisible pink unicorn analogy is meant to keep paranormal proponents or other pseudoscientists from using special pleading to retreat from scientific scrutiny, often all the way to the ultimate hidey hole of unfalsifiability.
Same here. I too would like to see how this all plays out. However if I were to guess, I would say we are less likely to see an ending like the self-charging DeLorean. I think we are more likely to see something like the suncube. Blinky would know better than I, but as far as I know Greg Watson never went to jail over his suncube nor repaid his investors. I am guessing the E-Cats release will be delayed, problems will crop up, but there will always be an excuse. Eventually it will just quietly fade away as vaporware, like the Phantom console or SunCube.Schadenfreude wrote:If they truly are both scams, I'd surely like to see how it all plays out, what the motives were, what were the possible rewards...
If you would like us to discuss more of the other LENR researchers in this thread, you should post more about them Carl. You are our most prolific LENR poster You have been spending most of your time covering Rossi and Defkalion though. So we have less info on the imminent release of devices from Lattice Energy, Piantelli's group, Brillioun Energy, George Miley, etc.Schadenfreude wrote:Nevertheless, Rossi is just one player in a global arena which has dozens of research groups
TheAntiDoomer wrote:how is blinky aka capt thunderbolt not banned yet for posting more nonsense and absolutely no news links?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests