Continuation Part II - Cold Fusion Claims

pteridine said:
My NDA precludes me from providing all the details you ask for. The steam is used as steam in an over-the-fence operation in the United States. The purchaser of the steam uses it in their plant vice using a steam generator as they have no process heat. The temperature is about 110*C. The unit, as configured, is roughly 4 m^3 in volume, including all of the generation and condensate return lines, valving, etc. but not including the computer control system.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that Rossi's contraption provides a supply of 110C steam to a purchaser who has no direct knowledge of how the steam is generated?
 
pteridine said:
It is producing steam continuously. I have seen it working.
Click to expand...

You have seen video of steam. I can also make one. Does that mean I have got cold fusion ?
Or does that mean I know how to heat water using electricity ? Impartial observer will decide.


Especially knowing that that story has been going on for the better part of a decade.
 
pteridine said:
My NDA precludes me from providing all the details you ask for. The steam is used as steam in an over-the-fence operation in the United States. The purchaser of the steam uses it in their plant vice using a steam generator as they have no process heat. The temperature is about 110*C. The unit, as configured, is roughly 4 m^3 in volume, including all of the generation and condensate return lines, valving, etc. but not including the computer control system.
More information has been publically exposed of late , e.g., LiAlH4 works as well or better than gaseous H2. Other transition elements that are capable of dissolving significant amounts of hydrogen also work. I do not know if liquid phase elements work. I suspect not because of lack of grain boundaries [electric field potential] and solubility of H2, but do not know for sure.
Click to expand...

Using tri phased current.

Not fusion.
 
pteridine said:
If I have two atoms of a radioactive element, which one will disintegrate first?
Click to expand...

It is a statistical process.

But I am smelling a Rossi of the gap here : "if we have not a 100% explanation for everything then Rossi has the good". If that's your contention, that is pretty stupid sorry.

Again there is no evidence whatsoever that Rossi is using *anything* but basic electricity to produce steam , or anything else.

I may be squirting toward a yellow card here, but sorry, somebody pretending to have a NDA, when that person has come for month on the forum presenting irrelevent stuff as evidence like patent application, when that person was said skeptic base their current estimate on what is known es evidence and the lots of experimental evidence already existing which contradict Rossi, I am very doubtful. Like, there is no higher floor on the "doubt tower" here.
 
Aepervius said:
It is a statistical process.

But I am smelling a Rossi of the gap here : "if we have not a 100% explanation for everything then Rossi has the good". If that's your contention, that is pretty stupid sorry.

Again there is no evidence whatsoever that Rossi is using *anything* but basic electricity to produce steam , or anything else.

I may be squirting toward a yellow card here, but sorry, somebody pretending to have a NDA, when that person has come for month on the forum presenting irrelevent stuff as evidence like patent application, when that person was said skeptic base their current estimate on what is known es evidence and the lots of experimental evidence already existing which contradict Rossi, I am very doubtful. Like, there is no higher floor on the "doubt tower" here.
Click to expand...

Like, don't believe me. You are superfluous to the discussion.
 
pteridine said:
Like, don't believe me. You are superfluous to the discussion.
Click to expand...

What discussion ? When there is a discussion to be had, we'll have one. Until then there is nothing but a known felon pretending to have a great invention and people believing him on half backed experiment showing nothing of the sort.

Look believe him if you want. It is your decision. But we are on a skeptic forum. We require evidence. What we have so far is nada. And even you, knowing how rossi is to tight controlling everything , you also saw nothing. At best you saw a contraption which produced steam and that is it. You have no way of knowing what produced it. And since Rossi pretend he need a heater for his stuff to "control" the reaction, there were almost certainly tri phased cable or similar input of energy for the contraption. You have no way to know really what was inside, for all we know, it was a basic heater.

But continue pretending that what I say, or Ben_M say, or Giordano, or Horatio or whomever is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
pteridine said:
They may know but they don't care. This is about economics.
Click to expand...
But this discussion isn't. You don't know what they think, if they think anything, about the source of the steam. They just buy it. Good. But in what way is that of any use to us as evidence? For all we know, Rossi is generating it in his grandmother's electric kettle, and scamming potential investors by referring them to his customer who tells them, yes, the steam is produced continuously as contracted.

Steam at 110 C isn't too technically demanding a commodity to produce, is it?
 
Craig B said:
But this discussion isn't. You don't know what they think, if they think anything, about the source of the steam. They just buy it. Good. But in what way is that of any use to us as evidence? For all we know, Rossi is generating it in his grandmother's electric kettle, and scamming potential investors by referring them to his customer who tells them, yes, the steam is produced continuously as contracted.

Steam at 110 C isn't too technically demanding a commodity to produce, is it?
Click to expand...

The fact that someone is buying steam is not evidence that nuclear reactions are producing the steam. The customer is not part of any endorsement.

It is easy to make steam but the conversion of liquid at 100*C to gas at 100*C is energy intensive. Steam was selected vice electric power because any failure to produce steam is a failure of the reactor and not a complex system. Further, steam is used in many manufacturing processes which makes steam production for such or merely hot fluid for heating the most likely entry points for the technology.
 
Aepervius said:
What discussion ? When there is a discussion to be had, we'll have one. Until then there is nothing but a known felon pretending to have a great invention and people believing him on half backed experiment showing nothing of the sort.

Look believe him if you want. It is your decision. But we are on a skeptic forum. We require evidence. What we have so far is nada. And even you, knowing how rossi is to tight controlling everything , you also saw nothing. At best you saw a contraption which produced steam and that is it. You have no way of knowing what produced it. And since Rossi pretend he need a heater for his stuff to "control" the reaction, there were almost certainly tri phased cable or similar input of energy for the contraption. You have no way to know really what was inside, for all we know, it was a basic heater.

But continue pretending that what I say, or Ben_M say, or Giordano, or Horatio or whomever is irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...


All you do is whine about Rossi being a felon. Green cards are not issued to felons. Rossi has a green card. What can you conclude from this?

Then, we had the "violating the laws of physics" nonsense. What laws? The laws about nuclear reactions requiring gamma radiation ---which are not really laws, but observations. When I point out quantum entanglement and dark matter, which really change the "laws" of physics, no one has an answer. You swallow dark matter whole without ever seeing a mote of 'dark matter.' Would matter repelling matter seem to change the "laws" of physics a little? Then I ask about nuclear instability and you respond that it is statistical. What you mean is that you have observed it to be statistical but cannot explain why a specific nucleus disintegrates and another does not.
 
pteridine said:
The fact that someone is buying steam is not evidence that nuclear reactions are producing the steam. The customer is not part of any endorsement.

It is easy to make steam but the conversion of liquid at 100*C to gas at 100*C is energy intensive. Steam was selected vice electric power because any failure to produce steam is a failure of the reactor and not a complex system. Further, steam is used in many manufacturing processes which makes steam production for such or merely hot fluid for heating the most likely entry points for the technology.
Click to expand...
What is the evidence that this particular purchaser of steam, is receiving steam generated by fusion and not by mains electricity or some other conventional power source? The fact that steam is used in many manufacturing processes is a common place, and it has been supplied for thousands of years by everything from wood fired cauldrons to nuclear fission reactors. So what? There is no evidence in your account of the matter that supports Rossi's claim to have a fusion machine.

As regards the Green Card, you are stating that Rossi has never served any sentence, or been convicted, for any serious offence. You are stating that, to the best of your knowledge. I don't want to see the Green Card argument again. It is not a valid one. Merely tell us that you have no knowledge of any criminal convictions on Rossi's record.
 
Craig B said:
What is the evidence that this particular purchaser of steam, is receiving steam generated by fusion and not by mains electricity or some other conventional power source? The fact that steam is used in many manufacturing processes is a common place, and it has been supplied for thousands of years by everything from wood fired cauldrons to nuclear fission reactors. So what? There is no evidence in your account of the matter that supports Rossi's claim to have a fusion machine.

As regards the Green Card, you are stating that Rossi has never served any sentence, or been convicted, for any serious offence. You are stating that, to the best of your knowledge. I don't want to see the Green Card argument again. It is not a valid one. Merely tell us that you have no knowledge of any criminal convictions on Rossi's record.
Click to expand...

I am not providing evidence to you. I am stating the facts as I know them about the current state of the 1 megawatt unit.
With respect to the green card, I am stating that his conviction was overturned and he is therefore not a felon, as has been erroneously stated by many on this site. The green card argument is valid whether you want to see it or not. It will show up whenever someone claims that he is a felon whether you want to see it or not.
 
pteridine said:
I am not providing evidence to you. I am stating the facts as I know them about the current state of the 1 megawatt unit.
With respect to the green card, I am stating that his conviction was overturned and he is therefore not a felon, as has been erroneously stated by many on this site. The green card argument is valid whether you want to see it or not. It will show up whenever someone claims that he is a felon whether you want to see it or not.
Click to expand...
It is not a valid argument. This is worth reading, however. http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-report-on-the-petrol-dragonomar-scam-part-1a/
 
pteridine said:
You should also wear your skeptic hat for pieces like your reference.
Click to expand...
I do, believe me. I wear it for the Green Card argument too, and for the fusion with no gamma rays, and for fusion reactions that even stars balk at, resulting in observed natural ratios of isotopes. And for stories about E-cats heating factories in Italy several years ago, but of which there is now not the slightest surviving evidence ... etc, etc.
 
pteridine said:
I am still puzzled about the "laws of physics" comments. You have not seen 'Dark matter' but there it is, repelling regular matter in an explanation of an observed phenomenon. What laws might that be violating? Quantum entanglement experiments say that something strange is happening. Where are the laws of physics when you need them to untangle things?
Rossi is not saying anything so radical, only that under the conditions of his experiment, heat is produced that is not chemical. Certainly, if the phenomenon is proved to be real, it will keep everyone busy trying to figure out what is going on. I expect that another mechanism for energy release will be found under the conditions of the experiment.

If I have two atoms of a radioactive element, which one will disintegrate first?
Click to expand...
Just to point these out if it comes up again:
Dark matter attracts regular matter. It is dark energy that seems to keep the universe from collapsing. And quantum entanglement may seem spooky, but was first predicted by the laws of physics before it was observed.
 
Giordano said:
Just to point these out if it comes up again:
Dark matter attracts regular matter. It is dark energy that seems to keep the universe from collapsing. And quantum entanglement may seem spooky, but was first predicted by the laws of physics before it was observed.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. How does dark energy fit into the 'laws of physics?' Is this a convenient fudge factor that explains observation or do the laws of physics predict it?

If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?

My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
 
pteridine said:
Fair enough. How does dark energy fit into the 'laws of physics?' Is this a convenient fudge factor that explains observation or do the laws of physics predict it?

If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?

My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but not very helpful. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Even in this environment, you can draw conclusions about the stuff you do observe. And let's be honest - there's plenty of that.
 
pteridine said:
My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
Click to expand...
The "claimed phenomenon" of fusion-derived energy emitted by the Rossi contraption has not been observed either, except in conditions controlled by Rossi himself. Now this has been going on for years and years, like every other "free energy" scam, and in spite of promise after promise, we have nothing to show for it. It is a delusion, and if Rossi's collecting money, it's a fraud.
 
pteridine said:
If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?
Click to expand...

May I dispose of this back-to-front red herring?
Given the parameters of a particular radioactive nucleus, one can compute the probability of its decaying by, for example, emitting an alpha particle. One merely [Ha!] applies the equation for quantum mechanical tunnelling to these parameters. (Long, long ago I knew how to do this.)
Other nuclei in similar states have the same probability of decay but there is no way, even in principle, of determining which of two nuclei will decay first, they are, after all, identical. Note, though, that the statistics of radioactive decay arise from the laws of quantum physics and the measured properties of the nucleus, not the other way round.
 
pteridine said:
If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?
Click to expand...

a) Pteridine, I strongly suspect that you've already been exposed to explanations of the enormously-long list of things nuclear physicists know about nuclei, and how reliable those explanations are, at everything from the lowest energies (like, quantum-mechanical diffraction of millikelvin neutrons, which bounce off of a "neutron mirror" made out of the long-range neutron repulsion of nickel atoms? Our theories work just fine.) to the highest energies (Predict how pions diffract while exiting the fireball of a lead-lead nuclear collision at 200 GeV per nucleon? Our theories work just fine.) and in between (predict how often a neutrino-12C collision ejects one vs. two protons, and how that differs from neutrino-16O? Our theories work just fine.). I suspect you don't need to hear it because you already heard it and didn't care.

b) Boy, if there were a new nuclear-physics phenomenon in the world, and we were trying to judge how badly it differed from current understanding---well, it'd be nice to try to learn about from someone doing controlled experiments and obtaining nuclear data. Instead of someone whose "experiments" consist of a mixture of (admittedly, IIRC) lies and (allegedly) truths involving incompetently-instrumented black boxes.

c) Let's clarify how far beyond reason Rossi's claims are. Every time the real physics world suggests something weird---dark energy! Higgs bosons! Dark matter! FTL neutrinos! The proton radius anomaly!---there is an vast army of amateur physicists who will spout ideas for new laws of physics, or reinterpretations of known laws, to explain what's really happening.

Here's the thing, Pteridine. Rossi's claims are so incoherent that not even the crackpots are interested in them. It's easy for you to say "wacky results can be true if some new physics is at work" if you're not actually looking at the wacky results and understanding how wacky they are. In the almost thirty years (!) since Pons and Fleischmann, I can think of only one crackpot even able to suggest how "nuclear reactions might not release gammas" could possibly work. (That one was very wrong. I forget the name? Posited collective heavy electrons somehow? Anyway, even that theory had the nuclei emitting gamma rays, and tried to explain that most (not all!) were absorbed in the material.)

So when I say "it's really really firmly known that nuclear transitions emit hard radiation", I'm not saying that from a position of stick-in-the-mud ivory-tower dogma. I'm saying that because it's true, everyone inside the ivory tower knows it's true, and everyone outside who bothers thinking about it also knows it's true.
 
pteridine said:
I am not providing evidence to you.
Click to expand...

True enough. You are making unsubstantiated and erroneous assertions.

With respect to the green card, I am stating that his conviction was overturned and he is therefore not a felon, as has been erroneously stated by many on this site.
Click to expand...

No, his convictions (note the plural, please) were never overturned. You are, of course, free to produce evidence that they were, such as copies (or even citations) of the decision or decisions. Oh, but you're not providing evidence, are you? How very convenient.

The green card argument is valid whether you want to see it or not. It will show up whenever someone claims that he is a felon whether you want to see it or not.
Click to expand...

The "green card argument" (that a convicted felon cannot be issued a green card) is not valid, and you have not done your homework. Conviction for tax evasion is not grounds for immigration inadmissibility. Moral turpitude, yes. Prostitution, yes. Drug dealing or distribution, yes. Murder, yes. Tax evasion, alas, no.

If you are going to be dogmatic, could you at least get your facts straight?
 
pteridine said:
All you do is whine about Rossi being a felon. Green cards are not issued to felons. Rossi has a green card. What can you conclude from this?
Click to expand...

That rossi simply lied to them, or the italian did not report him when the state department asked. Knowing the story of petro dragon I would bet it is the second since rossi entered a plea deal was acquitted of the pollution crime but jailed for the tax evasion ETAETA : and that is actually not a reason against a green card so the whole thema is a red herring.

Then, we had the "violating the laws of physics" nonsense. What laws?
Click to expand...

Do you ever both reading what ben_m and other tells you about the reactions ?

The laws about nuclear reactions requiring gamma radiation ---which are not really laws, but observations.
Click to expand...

And the gamble "law are not laws !". The same gamble creationist state about "evolution is only a theory". ETA: hint what do you think all is based on ? Observation.

When I point out quantum entanglement and dark matter, which really change the "laws" of physics, no one has an answer. You swallow dark matter whole without ever seeing a mote of 'dark matter.' Would matter repelling matter seem to change the "laws" of physics a little? Then I ask about nuclear instability and you respond that it is statistical. What you mean is that you have observed it to be statistical but cannot explain why a specific nucleus disintegrates and another does not.
Click to expand...

First Q entanglement do not change the law of physic in any way shape of form. I bet you think there is super luminous speed communication between particle in Q entanglement. Not so.

As for dark matter to my knowledge no law of physic were thrown out with that.

As for your comment about nucleus disintegration : this is irrelevant to the discussion that somehow we cannot predict individual unstable atom decay.
The reaction which rossi pretend to use are known and use relatively stable atoms. If you pretend he found a way to force such decay, again, it is a big claim and he would need to demonstrate it with evidence and none provided.


Too bad science and skeptic work with those pesky evidence things, he ?
 
Last edited:
Didymus said:
May I dispose of this back-to-front red herring?
Given the parameters of a particular radioactive nucleus, one can compute the probability of its decaying by, for example, emitting an alpha particle. One merely [Ha!] applies the equation for quantum mechanical tunnelling to these parameters. (Long, long ago I knew how to do this.)
Other nuclei in similar states have the same probability of decay but there is no way, even in principle, of determining which of two nuclei will decay first, they are, after all, identical. Note, though, that the statistics of radioactive decay arise from the laws of quantum physics and the measured properties of the nucleus, not the other way round.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Pterydine is expecting that we somehow have a characteristic of an atom and can point out "see this atom A will decay before atom B !" which is actually precluded.
 
WhatRoughBeast said:
The "green card argument" (that a convicted felon cannot be issued a green card) is not valid, and you have not done your homework. Conviction for tax evasion is not grounds for immigration inadmissibility. Moral turpitude, yes. Prostitution, yes. Drug dealing or distribution, yes. Murder, yes. Tax evasion, alas, no.
Click to expand...

That is good to know, does this apply also to environmental crime ? IIRC the arrest was for both, although he was later acquited of the pollution crime.
 
I notice you did not answer the question "after how many year of nothing happening except "rossi's statement" would you admit that there is nothing to rossi's story"
 
Aepervius said:
As for dark matter to my knowledge no law of physic were thrown out with that.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's the assumption that a particular law of physics (the law of gravity) should not be thrown out - as it successfully describes and predicts so much - that leads us to deduce that dark matter exists.
 
Aepervius said:
I notice you did not answer the question "after how many year of nothing happening except "rossi's statement" would you admit that there is nothing to rossi's story"
Click to expand...



We've been asking that for years, and have never gotten a good answer. Considering that companies like BlackLight Power have been pulling scams like this for almost 30 years, I suspect the answer, if we ever determine one, will be greater than that.
 
pteridine said:
When 10^23 atoms are involved, there may be other mechanisms in play.
Click to expand...
The nuclear reactions that cause gamma radiation do not magically go away because there are a lot of atoms, pteridine :jaw-dropp. This is one of the basic facts that high school children (but not Rossi!) know - you need enormous amounts of energy to make the rest of the atom interact significantly with the nucleus, e.g. millions of g for neutrons stars to "push" electrons into nuclei or very high pressures and temperatures for fusion.
But then you believe in the idiocy of cold fusion/LENR so this basic physics has escaped you.
 
pteridine said:
I am still puzzled about the "laws of physics" comments.
Click to expand...
Being ignorant about nuclear and other physics would explain that, pteridine.
For example
  • We have seen dark matter via its gravitational lensing. That does not violate any known laws of physics.
  • Quantum entanglement does not violate any known laws of physics.
You are lying abut Rossi. Rossi is saying that tested laws of nuclear physics are wrong, e.g. that specific nuclear reactions do not release gamma radiation when theory and experiments show that they do.
 
pteridine said:
My NDA precludes me from providing all the details you ask for. ...
Click to expand...
So for all we or you know, pteridine, Rossi is running another scam in which he uses electricity from the mains to create steam :p!

ETA: You may even be lying about that 1MW power plant existing, pteridine.
For example Industrial Heat, LLC acquired rights to the e-cat back in Jan. 24, 2014 but by February 3, 2015, JT Vaughn (of Industrial Heat, LLC) Tells Investigators Rossi is NOT Credible
We have obtained a report from the North Carolina Radioactive Materials Branch Health Physicist, Radiation Protection Section – Division of Health Service Regulation, in which investigators discuss a recent interview they conducted with John T. Vaughn, a principal of Industrial Heat, LLC. Vaughn is one of the men who purchased the IP rights of the E-Cat, from Andrea Rossi the inventor.
According to the investigators, Vaughn said that Rossi is not credible. The investigators found no evidence of any reactors or devices of any kind, and no lab or factory.
Click to expand...

Rossi has claimed that Industrial Heat, LLC has one of his 1MW plants: Rossi: 1 Megawatt eCat Plant in North Carolina
So Rossi lied about North Carolina labs and factories existing.
 
Last edited:
pteridine said:
All you do is whine about Rossi being a felon.
Click to expand...
We point out that Andrea Rossi is a ex-felon because that is a fact, pteridine.
Rossi was jailed and later convicted for tax fraud and environmental crime.[5]
Click to expand...
We call Rossi a liar because he has lied:
Rossi suggested that his devices could attain 20% efficiency. ...
Rossi sent 27 thermoelectric devices for evaluation to the Engineer Research and Development Center; 19 of these did not produce any electricity at all. The remaining units produced less than 1 watt each, instead of the expected 800–1000 watts.[17]
Click to expand...

pteridine said:
Then, we had the "violating the laws of physics" nonsense. What laws?
Click to expand...
The laws of nuclear physics you have been denying for all of this thread, pteridine :jaw-dropp!
These do change when convincing evidence is produced. The scams by Rossi are not evidence of anything except the gullibility of fools who have not bothered to learn about science or even ask scientists about how Rossi has to be a con artist with his e-cat.

Repeating your ignorance does not impress anyone - quantum entanglement is a result of the laws of physics, observations of the real world (dark matter) do not violate the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
So for all we or you know, pteridine, Rossi is running another scam in which he uses electricity from the mains to create steam :p!

ETA: You may even be lying about that 1MW power plant existing, pteridine.
For example Industrial Heat, LLC acquired rights to the e-cat back in Jan. 24, 2014 but by February 3, 2015, JT Vaughn (of Industrial Heat, LLC) Tells Investigators Rossi is NOT Credible


Rossi has claimed that Industrial Heat, LLC has one of his 1MW plants: Rossi: 1 Megawatt eCat Plant in North Carolina
So Rossi lied about North Carolina labs and factories existing.
Click to expand...

That's pretty damning if I understand correctly the linked article.
 
Reality Check said:
If Industrial Heat, LLC paid the going price for one of Rossi's 1MW plants then they were scammed of $1.5 million for a plant that never existed!
Click to expand...



Oh, but you see, they're just uncomfortable with admitting the thing they just spent a million five on actually works something something Judas Priest something.
 
pteridine said:
Fair enough. How does dark energy fit into the 'laws of physics?' Is this a convenient fudge factor that explains observation or do the laws of physics predict it?

If we observe only the statistics of radioactive decay, how do we know the physics that determines what nuclei disintegrate and which don't?

My point is that the 'laws' of physics are constantly being revised and the fact that the claimed phenomena has not been observed before does not mean it cannot occur.
Click to expand...

I hear the Committee on Gravity is adopting a weaker position.
 
pteridine said:
The reason that I asked about the experiments that show gamma as a product of a transformation is that many nuclear experiments involve colliding individual nuclei. Maybe the energy is released as gamma because there are no other options. When 10^23 atoms are involved, there may be other mechanisms in play.
Click to expand...

And so, you propose, the burden is on you. What mechanisms specifically would those be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom