5 ms·

It doesn't matter if it's a fraud, a con, or even real; this article is terrible and should never have been published in any reputable news source. These claim

by powera 12y ago

It doesn't matter if it's a fraud, a con, or even real; this article is terrible and should never have been published in any reputable news source. These claims of being "verified" or "replicated" are completely false, not least of which because there aren't any claims as to what is going on the first place. The claim "I have a magic box" isn't science, it's ... well, magic.

pknight 12y ago
Any new discovery should not be mentioned in the press before it is fully understood then?
- EpicEng 12y ago
  Why are you assuming that this is in fact a new discovery? We don't know what the hell it is because the inventor won't tell us. Until someone can attempt to replicate the results it should be viewed as a scan.
  - pknight 12y ago
    I'm merely responding the parent comment who is basically saying don't report anything that hasn't been fully understood yet. It's bizarre. In this case, if the effect involved is real, it is real without being understood. Just like electricity was not understood. Just because all the answers aren't there doesn't make the effect any less valid or newsworthy. It's a narrow view to take. And as far as what the inventor won't tell us, sure. But the story is that someone else has recreated similar measurements using what is known about the setup. Potentially a big deal.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      except he didn't quite say that. What he said was: "this article is terrible and should never have been published in any reputable news source. These claims of being "verified" or "replicated" are completely false, not least of which because there aren't any claims as to what is going on the first place." Now, that last bit could be interpreted as you interpreted it, but I think he was commenting specifically on this claim. This claim which has been out there for years. This is not like electricity or some other phenomenon which is not yet understand, but whose effects can be replicated in laboratories around this globe. This is a snake oil peddler with a secret black box. No one can replicate it, no one can study it.
      - pknight 12y ago
        The specifics of Rossi's contraptions may be kept private and shady, but the process involved is not something that only Rossi has been working on. Lenr itself is contentious still but there are so many groups working on it now, including Nasa. If some Russian scientist can independently reproduce an effect and he publicizes all the methods used it may be the start of acknowledging the effect as something that is no longer magical because more groups can start to replicate. That is newsworthy to me. Is that fair? I think so. > This is a snake oil peddler with a secret black box Perhaps, but you say that with no actual proof other than speculation and an a priori belief that it cannot be true. Is that much better than reporting on a phenomenon that is not yet understood. Personally I think if there's a scam it may be that Rossi overstates how stable or viable his technology is. I think the phenomenon is probably real and not yet explained, just based on the number of groups that are working on this for considerable time now. Instead of blowing over, there are more and more groups starting work on it as the years have gone by.
duozerk 12y ago
(submitter here) It's true that you cannot replicate Rossi's allegations independently because he refuses to reveal the way his alleged reactor works. However, the "independent report" mentioned in the article basically tested this thing as a black box for more than a month; Rossi was present at the start and at the end, but not during the test, and all the equipment and so on was not his but procured independently. Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days - the only thing that could explain this, assuming it indeed is a con, is unreliable heat measurement. While it is true that there has been some doubts expressed on that subject, the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements; and they are far from being disreputable researchers or shady characters. One of the authors of the subsequent paper is also, by the way, the previous head of the Swedish skeptics society - someone that does have some experience in debunking bullshit claims. I'm not saying this thing is working as advertised, mind you; but this report is troubling and warrants further research. And the article isn't only about the e-cat: it's about another researcher, Parkhomov, having set up a similar experiment based on what he could glean from Rossi's alleged reactor, and witnessing similar excess energy production. This other experiment is, by contrast, completely open and can be verified/replicated/debunked, so I suppose it's just a matter of time before someone attempts such a replication and confirm or infirm this new experiment.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  > the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements If that is the case I'd hate to see their work in an area where they aren't experienced. Their experiment is amateurish in the extreme, and if an undergrad designed a "measurement" of the kind they performed and "calibrated" it at a fraction of the full power I would fail them. The quality of the work is cartoonishly bad, to the extent that it would have been less work to do a better job.
- Retric 12y ago
  That's not independent verification; it's not even vaguely close to independent verification. "Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days" Sure, he could have literally hacked the instruments. But, 1.5 MWh over 32 days is a fairly small amount of energy as in 2kW * 32 days a lot of chemical processes can get you there. Also, measuring heat output is really easy to mess up. Something as simple as putting an insulating blanket under the device could significantly alter the measurements. The point is he was there when they were setting up the experiment so he could have easily lead them astray. PS: As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct response is to declare this a clear scam.

by powera 12y ago

pknight 12y ago

Any new discovery should not be mentioned in the press before it is fully understood then?

EpicEng 12y ago
Why are you assuming that this is in fact a new discovery? We don't know what the hell it is because the inventor won't tell us. Until someone can attempt to replicate the results it should be viewed as a scan.
- pknight 12y ago
  I'm merely responding the parent comment who is basically saying don't report anything that hasn't been fully understood yet. It's bizarre. In this case, if the effect involved is real, it is real without being understood. Just like electricity was not understood. Just because all the answers aren't there doesn't make the effect any less valid or newsworthy. It's a narrow view to take. And as far as what the inventor won't tell us, sure. But the story is that someone else has recreated similar measurements using what is known about the setup. Potentially a big deal.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    except he didn't quite say that. What he said was: "this article is terrible and should never have been published in any reputable news source. These claims of being "verified" or "replicated" are completely false, not least of which because there aren't any claims as to what is going on the first place." Now, that last bit could be interpreted as you interpreted it, but I think he was commenting specifically on this claim. This claim which has been out there for years. This is not like electricity or some other phenomenon which is not yet understand, but whose effects can be replicated in laboratories around this globe. This is a snake oil peddler with a secret black box. No one can replicate it, no one can study it.
    - pknight 12y ago
      The specifics of Rossi's contraptions may be kept private and shady, but the process involved is not something that only Rossi has been working on. Lenr itself is contentious still but there are so many groups working on it now, including Nasa. If some Russian scientist can independently reproduce an effect and he publicizes all the methods used it may be the start of acknowledging the effect as something that is no longer magical because more groups can start to replicate. That is newsworthy to me. Is that fair? I think so. > This is a snake oil peddler with a secret black box Perhaps, but you say that with no actual proof other than speculation and an a priori belief that it cannot be true. Is that much better than reporting on a phenomenon that is not yet understood. Personally I think if there's a scam it may be that Rossi overstates how stable or viable his technology is. I think the phenomenon is probably real and not yet explained, just based on the number of groups that are working on this for considerable time now. Instead of blowing over, there are more and more groups starting work on it as the years have gone by.

duozerk 12y ago

(submitter here) It's true that you cannot replicate Rossi's allegations independently because he refuses to reveal the way his alleged reactor works. However, the "independent report" mentioned in the article basically tested this thing as a black box for more than a month; Rossi was present at the start and at the end, but not during the test, and all the equipment and so on was not his but procured independently. Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days - the only thing that could explain this, assuming it indeed is a con, is unreliable heat measurement. While it is true that there has been some doubts expressed on that subject, the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements; and they are far from being disreputable researchers or shady characters. One of the authors of the subsequent paper is also, by the way, the previous head of the Swedish skeptics society - someone that does have some experience in debunking bullshit claims. I'm not saying this thing is working as advertised, mind you; but this report is troubling and warrants further research. And the article isn't only about the e-cat: it's about another researcher, Parkhomov, having set up a similar experiment based on what he could glean from Rossi's alleged reactor, and witnessing similar excess energy production. This other experiment is, by contrast, completely open and can be verified/replicated/debunked, so I suppose it's just a matter of time before someone attempts such a replication and confirm or infirm this new experiment.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
> the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements If that is the case I'd hate to see their work in an area where they aren't experienced. Their experiment is amateurish in the extreme, and if an undergrad designed a "measurement" of the kind they performed and "calibrated" it at a fraction of the full power I would fail them. The quality of the work is cartoonishly bad, to the extent that it would have been less work to do a better job.
Retric 12y ago
That's not independent verification; it's not even vaguely close to independent verification. "Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days" Sure, he could have literally hacked the instruments. But, 1.5 MWh over 32 days is a fairly small amount of energy as in 2kW * 32 days a lot of chemical processes can get you there. Also, measuring heat output is really easy to mess up. Something as simple as putting an insulating blanket under the device could significantly alter the measurements. The point is he was there when they were setting up the experiment so he could have easily lead them astray. PS: As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct response is to declare this a clear scam.