3 ms·
"That's not independent verification" Agreed. It is what it is: a black box testing of a proprietary technology that cannot be easily replicated by other resea
by duozerk 12y ago
"That's not independent verification"
Agreed. It is what it is: a black box testing of a proprietary technology that cannot be easily replicated by other researchers.
As for "hacking the instruments", read the paper; Rossi was never left alone with the instruments, and was only present twice: at the start, where he inserted his "secret sauce" into the device under monitoring, and at the end, where he retrieved it under similar conditions. He might be a con artist, but "hacking the instruments" under those conditions would require him to be something closer to a wizard.
"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"
No. That's more than 5800 MJ over the period, the equivalent of burning 140 kg of gasoline, produced by a ~20cm long cylinder. No known chemical process can get you there (by far). I should also add that the 1.5 MWh number is the lowest estimate of the authors, taking into account all margins of error. Agreed on the difficulty of measuring heat; experts far more knowledgeable than I have been reading the report and cannot explain such a high discrepancy.
"As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct responce is to declare this a clear scam."
So, following the publication of another paper with an open experimental protocol & set up having reported similar findings, it isn't worth spending the few thousands of dollars required to actually verify this ? given the potential benefits and relatively low resources required, I have to disagree. Saying "it's just a clear scam" without even checking this doesn't sound like science to me.
Black swans do happen from time to time; if this effect is indeed real (and I agree that's a huge if), it could lead to unimaginable benefits and - given the fact that current science cannot explain such an effect - could also lead to genuine new science and discoveries in physics. This alone should make it worthwhile to try and replicate this new experiment, no matter how unlikely it seems.
- Retric 12y agoIt's not the few thousands of dollars it is N scams * cost to verify. Worse it's your time writing that post and my time reading it. Science is not following some magic formula black box experiment that someone hands you. It's going hmm there are at least 50 ways to fake this, and I am going to try and test each and every one of them. Does the device work in a vacuum, what if we seal off the air supply, what about replacing the water with brine, what if we run the water though a mass spectrometer, how about ... Then when you’re done and your still scratching you head then you get to write a paper, until then you’re wasting everyone’s time. If you did not actually test each and every one of those options you say: "Most likely still a scam, but we ran test X. Still need to..."