4 ms·

I am sure Rossi is a fraud, because this is not how science is done. Science isn't done behind closed doors, outside of the literature, and in hidden chambers.

I am sure Rossi is a fraud, because this is not how science is done. Science isn't done behind closed doors, outside of the literature, and in hidden chambers. Nobody has bought this kind of nonsense since the mechanical Turk. It doesn't matter what goes in, or what goes out- if there was any truth or decency to Rossi, then he would have properly published all of his findings in the most honest way possible. But even beyond that, he is such an enormous asshole that I want him to be wrong. If he actually is right about all of his cold fusion claims, than he has kept what is both the solution to the world's energy problems and an enormous break through in applied nuclear physics from the world simply because he wants to capitalize on it in the most lucrative way possible. Either the man is both a scientific fraud and unethical, or merely unethical.

marshray 13y ago
Read http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
- uvdiv 13y ago
  There's no point in reading the paper, it has near-zero information value. All it contains is as an assertion by the authors that the electric resistance heater (nice photo attached) emits more heat than it draws from the electric outlet it was plugged into. That one assertion, embellished with tables of numbers showing the claimed temperatures of resistance heaters and computed thermal radiation and so forth.
  - marshray 13y ago
    Emitting significantly more energy than it consumes in steady-state operation as measured on multiple occasions by independent reputable scientists is a pretty big deal. But extraordinary claims and all that. It could be still be some sleight-of-hand fraud, though concealing a power source of such energy density or fooling those instruments would be quite a trick.
  - HCIdivision17 13y ago
    Isn't the purpose of the paper to document just that? Not explain the device itself, but rather that the claim that the thing outputs power? If you're going to complain about it, fuss over the setup or errors, not the tedious details that document the experiment (and provide a way for others to cross-check their practice and results later). Certainly there's the possibility for burying the truth in mounds of irrelevant data, but if your experiment hinges on showing that a resistor's load is larger than expected, I would expect to see some heavy details on how that was monitored.

marshray 13y ago

Read http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

uvdiv 13y ago
There's no point in reading the paper, it has near-zero information value. All it contains is as an assertion by the authors that the electric resistance heater (nice photo attached) emits more heat than it draws from the electric outlet it was plugged into. That one assertion, embellished with tables of numbers showing the claimed temperatures of resistance heaters and computed thermal radiation and so forth.
- marshray 13y ago
  Emitting significantly more energy than it consumes in steady-state operation as measured on multiple occasions by independent reputable scientists is a pretty big deal. But extraordinary claims and all that. It could be still be some sleight-of-hand fraud, though concealing a power source of such energy density or fooling those instruments would be quite a trick.
- HCIdivision17 13y ago
  Isn't the purpose of the paper to document just that? Not explain the device itself, but rather that the claim that the thing outputs power? If you're going to complain about it, fuss over the setup or errors, not the tedious details that document the experiment (and provide a way for others to cross-check their practice and results later). Certainly there's the possibility for burying the truth in mounds of irrelevant data, but if your experiment hinges on showing that a resistor's load is larger than expected, I would expect to see some heavy details on how that was monitored.