Cold Fusion Back In The Limelight - Guest Speaker Dr. Brian Josephson

  • Thread starter Thetom
  • Start date
  • #76
4,254
1
There has been discussion of this paper in the condensed matter nuclear reactions (CMNS) discussion group. The conclusion is that if the catalyst acts selectively on the isotopes of Ni the apparent discrepancy can be resolved, though uncertainties remain.

I notice that the web page in question does not consider the 1.4% Ni-61 nor the 3.6% Ni-62 of naturally occurring Ni as candidate reactants to Ni+H-->NN-XX + energy. Why these were discounted is not clarified.
 
  • #77
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,002
293
It is agreed that theoretically Rossi, Levi, and Forcadi could all be in some deception together, but what would be the point?
Oh, please ... can you really not see any possible ways they could make personal financial gains from this sort of deception?

Not that I am accusing either them or you of either dishonesty or naivety. I have no evidence either way. But I don't assume that because I don't have any hard evidence somebody is a sinner, then it follows they must be a saint.
 
  • #78
It is agreed that theoretically Rossi, Levi, and Forcadi could all be in some deception together, but what would be the point?

I have no idea. They may be sincere and mistaken, or sincere and right, or they may be individually deceptive for different reasons or collectively deceptive for the same reasons.

But I am reluctant to accept a revolutionary discovery based on my failure to understand their motivation. If they can meet ordinary standards of independent verification, they deserve an audience. Otherwise, I remain skeptical.

Check your figures!

Which figures are you questioning? A flow rate of 4.9 g/s water, and a temperature increase of 88 degreesC corresponds to 1.8 kW. Evidence for conversion of more than a percent or so to steam was not presented. The 1 kW average input power was quoted by Levi.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Most of the great, paradigm changing scientific discoveries had to battle with the establishment before they were accepted. This is following exactly the same pattern, I think history will prove this to be so.

Newton's laws were immediately accepted, as was Einstein's relativity, at least on the scale of a few years. Quantum mechanics ideas and theories were devoured as quickly as people could put them forward; de Broglie's matter waves won him a Nobel prize a mere 6 years after he proposed them. Apart from debates about philosophical implications, the methods and predictions of quantum mechanics met with very little serious opposition. High temperature superconductivity was immediately accepted, even in the absence of a theory to explain it.

You are probably thinking of Galileo and Darwin, but objections to their ideas were religious, not scientific.

Cold fusion itself provides a contradiction to your statement. When it was announced in 1989, and people had no reason to be skeptical, Pons & Fleischmann, like Einstein before them, became international celebrities. Physics and chemistry labs all over the world suspended their current research, and started doing electrolysis with Pd and D2O. Everyone wanted in on the revolution. Everyone was trying to get their slice of the glory that was sure to follow. The ACS meeting that followed shortly after was packed with scientists mocking the high-energy physicists who had apparently been pwned by two humble chemists. Everyone was giddy with anticipation of free and clean energy. Everyone, including me, was open to the idea and wanted it to be true. The subsequent skepticism can therefore not be attributed to resistance to new ideas.
 
  • #80
I did not need convincing, as I have been following the Rossi story for many months, however if you still do, then I suggest you read post 41 and attempt to counter the science.

Post 41 does not address the most important objection to Rossi's claims, that they have not been subject to independent verification. The post merely accepts the data obtained in a private experiment as claimed by Rossi and Levi. If we're prepared to accept whatever Rossi and Levi say, without verification, then what's the point of examining their data; we can just accept their claim that they have produced a radiationless, 15 kW H-Ni fusion reactor, and get in line to buy one.

It seems rather pointless to argue about the details of an experiment no one else is in a position to perform, or even observe.
 
  • #81
If you want a satisfying demonstration, then why not try it yourself? It seems like this may be the only way you could be satisfied that there are no 'tricks'

Would you like to approach Rossi about getting one of his proprietary reactors to me for testing? I have a hunch he's not prepared to supply one.
 
  • #82
1
0
Rossi's February experiment answers some of the above objections (particularly the question of wet and dry steam), but it is not even claimed to be a public demonstration. And there are many reasons to question the plausibility of those claims as well, which I will leave unvoiced for the moment.

You claim that the events in January were not public or a demonstration. Why does it matter if this one is claimed to be a public demonstration or not?

Which of your claims was not addressed in the second demonstration. The only claim that can be made against the validity of the second result is fraud. There is no possibility of experimental error that large.

Since the same experimenters performed both "demonstrations" if the explanation for the second result is fraud, the first one must be fraud as well.

The claim of fraud is weak.

Why would someone, having learned from experience, announce an even more incredible cold fusion result in a press conference in almost the same fashion as Pons and Fleischmann? Certainly not to gain credibility. That is absurd.

Do you think there is a single con man in the world that would try to pass off a cold fusion breakthrough fraud scheme in this fashion. Why choose cold fusion which is universally reviled by the very lay-people a con man would target?

Have you considered another alternative?

Perhaps the inventors of this device, who have toiled for 2 decades under in obscurity, ostracized by their peers, are deliberately introducing their work in this way so that all the self interested detritus of the scientific community can be drawn in to pile their derision on the phenomenon. Then when a more complete set of observations are presented, the ignorance, lazyness, and corruption that allowed cold fusion to be falsely relegated to the status of "junk science" will be revealed.

Are you prepared to stand up and proclaim your faults should this device be genuine? I, for one, intend to crow about my gullibility and foolishness should a fraud be revealed (though it will not shake my belief in cold fusion, for which much more credible evidence already exists).
 
  • #83
1
0


4) if a flaw were discovered in the way the excess heat is measured, that would be evidence against the claim. If you can't find a flaw then the claim stands.

Dr. Josephson, following the debates on some Italian forums on the this subject I picked up 3 major incongruities among what is stated in the Dr. Levi’s calorimetric report on the January 14th test and what can be seen in others documents available on the web, such as photos and movies.

Being the images more meaningful than words, I prepared the attached pictures that explains these 3 apparent incongruities:

1 - HP474AC probe mentioned in the calorimetric report does not correspond to the probe used during the test (please see attached probe.jpg). This would heavily affect the sentence regarding the dry condition of the steam;

2 - Dosimetric pump is very similar to LMI J5 pump whose maximum flow is only 40% of the water flow written in the calorimetric report (pump.jpg). This is the same comment raised by Joshua Cude;

3 - In calorimetric report, a duration of 40 min for boiling condition is assumed, but it lasted only the half (duration.jpg).

What do you think about these incongruities? Are they solid flaws that can justify some doubts about the conclusions claimed in the report?

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • probe.jpg
    probe.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 579
  • pump.jpg
    pump.jpg
    83.2 KB · Views: 540
  • duration.jpg
    duration.jpg
    68.9 KB · Views: 586
  • #84
Einstein was heavy persecuted by the Nazis his work called "Jewish trash" and public burnings of his books, doesn't sound like acceptance to me.

Would you like to approach Rossi about getting one of his proprietary reactors to me for testing? I have a hunch he's not prepared to supply one.

what are your qualifications to make an examination?
 
  • #85
16
0


Dr. Josephson, following the debates on some Italian forums on the this subject I picked up 3 major incongruities among what is stated in the Dr. Levi’s calorimetric report on the January 14th test and what can be seen in others documents available on the web, such as photos and movies.

Thanks
I wonder why (some) people are putting so much effort into criticising the preliminary investigation, which all agree was imperfect, and ignoring the second, which dealt with these criticisms?
 
  • #86
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,977
4,683
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Cold Fusion Back In The Limelight - Guest Speaker Dr. Brian Josephson

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
11K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top