Electricity Supply

there is an Italian fraudster who claims it does.
That's cold fusion, which is indeed a fraud.
A fraud? Seems to be good science behind it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6d2q-YxVvk

The fuel industry declared war on Pons & Fleischmann because their discovery threatened a multi billion dollar industry. However, various laboratories around the world were able to reproduce and confirm the experimental results, including the detection of Tritium. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMx1mpcokBk
and associated videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
 
Sponsored Links
A fraud? Seems to be good science behind it.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Hahah.

Did some reputable scientist tell you that?

Very interesting video showing that cold fusion is true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK0-ImFaSG4

No doubt hundreds of university and commercial labs have been able to test and replicate the demo to verify that it is true. Am I right?
 
I'm not convinced about 'cold fusion', neither am I qualified to evaluate it.

The suggestion that it works, but is being discredited or even censored by fossil fuel companies, is not convincing either. That would suggest that they hold sway in every organisation, university and country in the world, which I cannot believe.

I believe that, if it is a viable process, it would have been investigated fully by independent research organisations and taken up by independent investors by now. For that reason, I have a feeling that it is either a failed experiment or possibly even a con.
 
I have little doubt cold fusion is a load of tosh, however simply dismissing the idea out of hand would not be very scientific, I haven't seen any scientifically conducted rebuttals of latest claims

To be honest I haven't actually looked for any.

If I worked at ITER or any of the similar organisations I dont think I'd be overly worried by cold fusion.

I'd like it to be feasible and a new, near inexhaustible, source of energy, but you'll have to forgive my skepticism.
 
Sponsored Links
I claim that the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn.

I have not provided any evidence that can be tested and I have not defined what research (if any) supports my claim, so nobody has been able to repeat it and confirm (or rebut) my results.

Since I have not explained what makes me believe in the pink unicorn, there have been no scientifically conducted rebuttals.

Do you imagine that means my claim should be treated with respect?
 
Read up on the history regarding the Manhattan project, the scale of it was amazing.

The idea that some guy could invent something even more revolutionary in his shed, yea right.
 
I claim that the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn.

I have not provided any evidence that can be tested and I have not defined what research (if any) supports my claim, so nobody has been able to repeat it and confirm (or rebut) my results.

Since I have not explained what makes me believe in the pink unicorn, there have been no scientifically conducted rebuttals.

Do you imagine that means my claim should be treated with respect?

I was unaware that the parties had not offered up evidence / data that could be independently scrutinised. Is that the case?
 
yes

that's why nobody has been able to repeat his experiment to confirm that it works.

they have allowed some people to have a look, provided they don't get too close and don't make any measurements, and are not experts.
 
yes

that's why nobody has been able to repeat his experiment to confirm that it works.

they have allowed some people to have a look, provided they don't get too close and don't make any measurements, and are not experts.

In that case I concurr.
 
How many of you don't believe that a machine exists where you can put 1 kiloWatt of electricity in and get 3 kiloWatts of heat out? Well it does! I have three to heat my house! It's called an "airconditioning unit". I set it to 24 degrees C and it takes 1kW of power to produce 3kW of heat!

How did this happen? Well, the manufacturers turned them out as "coolers" with this little reverse-operation feature that most people didn't even notice till there were millions already installed. By that time it was too late to suppress it.

How does it work? It takes the additional energy from the air outside. So it's three times as efficient as a simple electric fan heater. It's a bit more expensive to buy (£500 from B&Q) but I'll save money in the long term.

The principal objection to Cold Fusion is that it "is not allowed by today's physics and quantum mechanics". You may recall that a similar argument was used to "prove" that the Wright brothers' aircraft couldn't fly. Science couldn't explain it, at the time, so it had to be impossible. Other people couldn't get an aircraft to fly so it must be impossible. See the (lack of) logic?

A similar argument is still being used to "prove" that energy generators such as the Bedini design can't work because "you can't get out more energy than you put in". That's the "logic". It fails to obey the known "laws" of physics so it can't work.

Ha ha, but you can buy a kit (or make the parts) to put together a machine that's so simple even a schoolgirl can assemble it - to prove for yourself that it does actually work. And hundreds of people are doing that right now. So forget the "logic" that "it can't work". The fact is that it does work so why aren't scientists falling over each other to determine where the additional energy is coming from? I can tell you why; it's because virtually all energy research is funded by oil money and nobody in charge of such money is going fund such research. That leaves just the self-funded guy in his shed to do it, so progress is slow.

Big money is very persuasive. Instead of funding energy research "Here's ten million dollars. Do whatever's necessary to "prove" to the masses that X can't possibly work. You're a renowned scientist so the great unwashed will believe you and help you spread the word. Pretty soon, even the inventors will begin to doubt that it's possible!"

And the policy works! All you negative thinkers posting here are living proof that this policy is working. But its days are numbered. One day soon you'll see this "aeroplane fly". You can fool all of the people some of the time...

Unfortunately, Fleischmann gave the impression that it was easy to reproduce his experimental results and that accelerated his downfall. In fact, just like the early days of getting an aircraft to fly, getting cold fusion to work is NOT easy. It took Fleischmann many months to get the conditions just right. The argument that "I can't do it so it's not possible" is just false logic. (I can't ice skate but that doesn't make it impossible.) Since the initial public release of the concept, some laboratories HAVE managed to reproduce the results but you'll have to dig deep to find them. It's the same old problem; when you have virtually infinite money, it's easy to pay lots of people to make sure that information is suppressed. (Wikipedia is a good example of suppression. I wonder how much those guys get paid. Don't believe everything you read there!)
 
You may recall that a similar argument was used to "prove" that the Wright brothers' aircraft couldn't fly. Science couldn't explain it, at the time, so it had to be impossible.
No, I'm not old enough to recall it. Are you?

Do you have links to any reputable scientific journals which declared powered flight to be impossible after Kittyhawk? Are you aware of any reputable scientific journals which declare things to be impossible? That's not the way it works. Or did you perhaps copy the argument from some internet gossip-monger or conspiracist?

However the Wrights were among a number of inventors and experimenters who were active at the time. The newly invented ic engine was key to their success. Furthermore, their invention could be observed flying to and fro, with nothing holding it up, and other inventors were quickly able to replicate the theory with machines of their own. Quite unlike the Italian fraud.

As things stand, the argument is not that Cold Fusion is impossible. It is that the Italian Fraudsters are making claims unsupported by evidence. Like my pink unicorn who created the world.
 
Cold fusion has been covered on this board before, so this bares repeating....

Pure woo.
No write up in any journal, no working model on sale after years of promises, and no peer review.

Let's look at some evidence....
Recently Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith offerred Andrea Rossi $1,000,000 if he could prove that Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) cold fusion (or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) system actually works as claimed. Rossi immediately turned down the challenge.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/02/24/dick-smith-rossi-e-cat-too-fantastic-to-be-true/

Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded in May 2011, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year."


Typically during demonstrations the device was covered up.[33] The device was not independently verified. Invited guests attended several demonstrations in Bologna in 2011.[34][35][36] Of a January demonstration, Discovery Channel analyst Benjamin Radford wrote that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should," and that "In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn't stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."[37] According to PhysOrg (11 August 2011), the demonstrations held from January to April 2011 had several flaws that compromised their credibility and Rossi had refused to perform tests that could verify his claims.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

Or here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Rossi-ECAT-press-release-Technical1.pdf
Bryce noted that in Rossi’s experiments, if the earth wire was accidentally connected to the active pin of the power plug instead of the earth pin, and also to some of the power circuits inside the blue control box, then it could introduce extra power bypassing the metering instruments. One of the Swedish nuclear physicists who witnessed a test on 29 March agrees that it could be so. (Other misconnections would achieve the same result.) (For two connection diagrams see here and here.)
Bryce firstly examined all six published tests of Rossi’s E-CAT from December 2010 to July 2011, which includes models known as the 10 KW, the 3 KW, and the 3 KW truncated. Such a misconnection could funnel in up to 3000 watts, rather than the 300 – 800 watts shown on the meters. Since the output power estimated in these 6 experiments ranges from 2300 to 2900 watts (after careful corrections and some estimation), all the excess power previously attributed to cold fusion is accounted for.
In all the tests after July of E-CATs known as the 27KW and the Megawatt models, there was no valid output power measurement due to poorly placed thermometers, and hence no proven extra power. Thus, Bryce believes all results of E-CAT tests are accounted for without involving LENR.
Bryce said photos show a current meter on the brown wire, while the unmeasured green wire lies beside it in plain view. (See photo)

Cold-Fusion-Clamp-ammeter-411px-RF14062011Strom.jpg


Even one of the scientists who reportedly supports Rossi is skeptical:
There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.

So what does extraordinary evidence look like? As a trained scientist, I have been taught the historical standards for acceptance of experimental results or theories. Experiments and theories go hand-in-hand in what is known as the scientific method. Both must be independently tested, replicated, or verified. As a minimum, experimental results must be replicated by an objective and independent party. The nature of the test or replication needs to adhere to the spirit of the original experiment but, should be under the full design, implementation, and control of the independent tester. So, if a device is claimed to be capable of producing excess heat by nature of its operation (i.e., the consumption of fuel via a nuclear process), it must be operated properly. The way power input and power output are measured should be left up to the independent tester. This is standard scientific practice. What would take this to the next level (extraordinary evidence) would be to have the test be an open public test. The nature of the test and specific approach to executing the test should be made public. The conduct of the test should be open to additional 3rd party experts. And finally, the data should be publicly released. Further peer review of all aspects of the independent test is a must. Community consensus is the ultimate goal. Every attempted demonstration of a LENR device that I am aware of has failed to meet one or more of these criteria.
http://joe.zawodny.com/
He's generous in his open mindedness, as Rossi has had plenty of time to do these things


Its a scam to get investors to give him money on the promise of something that never turns up. Its not an original scam, as others have tried with fuel additives, and perpetual motion machines.


Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/genera...d-energy-problems.298794/page-4#ixzz3LPXfjA2I

Further discussion here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Cold-Fusion-Ekstrom-on-ECAT-English.pdf
And here:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_di...icsson_and_pomp_rebut_independent_test-116259
 
How many of you don't believe that a machine exists where you can put 1 kiloWatt of electricity in and get 3 kiloWatts of heat out? Well it does! I have three to heat my house! It's called an "airconditioning unit". I set it to 24 degrees C and it takes 1kW of power to produce 3kW of heat!

How did this happen? Well, the manufacturers turned them out as "coolers" with this little reverse-operation feature that most people didn't even notice till there were millions already installed. By that time it was too late to suppress it.

How does it work? It takes the additional energy from the air outside. So it's three times as efficient as a simple electric fan heater. It's a bit more expensive to buy (£500 from B&Q) but I'll save money in the long term.

The principal objection to Cold Fusion is that it "is not allowed by today's physics and quantum mechanics". You may recall that a similar argument was used to "prove" that the Wright brothers' aircraft couldn't fly. Science couldn't explain it, at the time, so it had to be impossible. Other people couldn't get an aircraft to fly so it must be impossible. See the (lack of) logic?

A similar argument is still being used to "prove" that energy generators such as the Bedini design can't work because "you can't get out more energy than you put in". That's the "logic". It fails to obey the known "laws" of physics so it can't work.

Ha ha, but you can buy a kit (or make the parts) to put together a machine that's so simple even a schoolgirl can assemble it - to prove for yourself that it does actually work. And hundreds of people are doing that right now. So forget the "logic" that "it can't work". The fact is that it does work so why aren't scientists falling over each other to determine where the additional energy is coming from? I can tell you why; it's because virtually all energy research is funded by oil money and nobody in charge of such money is going fund such research. That leaves just the self-funded guy in his shed to do it, so progress is slow.

Big money is very persuasive. Instead of funding energy research "Here's ten million dollars. Do whatever's necessary to "prove" to the masses that X can't possibly work. You're a renowned scientist so the great unwashed will believe you and help you spread the word. Pretty soon, even the inventors will begin to doubt that it's possible!"

And the policy works! All you negative thinkers posting here are living proof that this policy is working. But its days are numbered. One day soon you'll see this "aeroplane fly". You can fool all of the people some of the time...

Unfortunately, Fleischmann gave the impression that it was easy to reproduce his experimental results and that accelerated his downfall. In fact, just like the early days of getting an aircraft to fly, getting cold fusion to work is NOT easy. It took Fleischmann many months to get the conditions just right. The argument that "I can't do it so it's not possible" is just false logic. (I can't ice skate but that doesn't make it impossible.) Since the initial public release of the concept, some laboratories HAVE managed to reproduce the results but you'll have to dig deep to find them. It's the same old problem; when you have virtually infinite money, it's easy to pay lots of people to make sure that information is suppressed. (Wikipedia is a good example of suppression. I wonder how much those guys get paid. Don't believe everything you read there!)

I think you might have a bee in your bonnet there... I dont think anyone so far has utterly dismissed it as fanciful rubbish... rather than it be put to proper scrutiny ... I find it difficult to buy into the energy firms are suppressing it argument it doesn't stack up, crude oil and natural gas are very valuable commodities and arguably shouldnt be used as fuel anyway.

Anyway, I personally have absolutely no problem with science havi g its butt kicked hard, and absolutely hope its a reality. Though I thi k it's unlikely (mind you I thought Newcastle beating Chelsea on Saturday was unlikely)
 
How many of you don't believe that a machine exists where you can put 1 kiloWatt of electricity in and get 3 kiloWatts of heat out? Well it does! I have three to heat my house! It's called an "airconditioning unit". I set it to 24 degrees C and it takes 1kW of power to produce 3kW of heat!

How did this happen? Well, the manufacturers turned them out as "coolers" with this little reverse-operation feature that most people didn't even notice till there were millions already installed. By that time it was too late to suppress it.

How does it work? It takes the additional energy from the air outside. So it's three times as efficient as a simple electric fan heater. It's a bit more expensive to buy (£500 from B&Q) but I'll save money in the long term.

The principal objection to Cold Fusion is that it "is not allowed by today's physics and quantum mechanics". You may recall that a similar argument was used to "prove" that the Wright brothers' aircraft couldn't fly. Science couldn't explain it, at the time, so it had to be impossible. Other people couldn't get an aircraft to fly so it must be impossible. See the (lack of) logic?

A similar argument is still being used to "prove" that energy generators such as the Bedini design can't work because "you can't get out more energy than you put in". That's the "logic". It fails to obey the known "laws" of physics so it can't work.

Ha ha, but you can buy a kit (or make the parts) to put together a machine that's so simple even a schoolgirl can assemble it - to prove for yourself that it does actually work. And hundreds of people are doing that right now. So forget the "logic" that "it can't work". The fact is that it does work so why aren't scientists falling over each other to determine where the additional energy is coming from? I can tell you why; it's because virtually all energy research is funded by oil money and nobody in charge of such money is going fund such research. That leaves just the self-funded guy in his shed to do it, so progress is slow.

Big money is very persuasive. Instead of funding energy research "Here's ten million dollars. Do whatever's necessary to "prove" to the masses that X can't possibly work. You're a renowned scientist so the great unwashed will believe you and help you spread the word. Pretty soon, even the inventors will begin to doubt that it's possible!"

And the policy works! All you negative thinkers posting here are living proof that this policy is working. But its days are numbered. One day soon you'll see this "aeroplane fly". You can fool all of the people some of the time...

Unfortunately, Fleischmann gave the impression that it was easy to reproduce his experimental results and that accelerated his downfall. In fact, just like the early days of getting an aircraft to fly, getting cold fusion to work is NOT easy. It took Fleischmann many months to get the conditions just right. The argument that "I can't do it so it's not possible" is just false logic. (I can't ice skate but that doesn't make it impossible.) Since the initial public release of the concept, some laboratories HAVE managed to reproduce the results but you'll have to dig deep to find them. It's the same old problem; when you have virtually infinite money, it's easy to pay lots of people to make sure that information is suppressed. (Wikipedia is a good example of suppression. I wonder how much those guys get paid. Don't believe everything you read there!)
If you're so convinced, why don't you persuade them to enter the $1,000,000 challenge:
http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

Oh wait, Rossi has already refused similar tests:
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/rossi-rejects-1-million-offer-as-stunt

BTW, maybe you should look into how wiki works.

The fact is he could make a fortune if it worked (not just from such challenges but from the tech itself), but it doesn't. He's been shown to be a fraud so many times, no amount of logical fallacies will make it work.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top