Fox news article.....rossi cold fusion......

[sno]

check it out...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/

have fun......sno


--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

[vaughn]

"sno" <s...@opelc.com> wrote in message
news:4eb21063$0$12948$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...

>
> check it out...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/
>
> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
>

For me, the following quote from the article represents the bottom line: "...
any extraordinary discovery requires extraordinary proof. ... the E-Cat must be
verified by an independent study conducted by scientists who are allowed access
to the machine's inner-workings."

I would honestly like to believe in Rossi, but this whole thing reminds me
entirely too much of the MDI "aircar". This is a compressed air-powered car
that will forever be in production "next year". MDI regularly shows slick
prototypes to the press, but never allows any independent evaluation of his
range claims for them. He cant! His claims defy the laws of thermodynamics.
Yet this scam has gone on for over a decade now.

Vaughn

[vaughn]

"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:j8u343$sv8$1...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, forgot to include the link to the MDI site: http://www.mdi.lu/english/
(Just in case anyone cares to invest)

Vaughn

[GO-HERE .NL]

On Nov 3, 4:54 am, sno <s...@opelc.com> wrote:
> check it out...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-f...

>
> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
>
> have fun......sno
>
> --
> Correct Scientific Terminology:
> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
>   to be generally assumed to be true.
> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
>   in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

"“[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent
scientists are able to replicate these results,” Koomey told
FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the
laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity."

Relativity has results?

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/3/11 7:58 AM, vaughn wrote:

> For me, the following quote from the article represents the bottom line: "...
> any extraordinary discovery requires extraordinary proof. ... the E-Cat must be
> verified by an independent study conducted by scientists who are allowed access
> to the machine's inner-workings."

I must have a strange view of science - I'd be pretty happy with
ordinary proof and I'd be even happier to know that Rossi's claimed
results had been reproduced independently elsewhere on separate
equipment - and I wouldn't much care whether the folks who did that were
scientists, engineers, or taxi drivers. :-)

Google: ["Brian Ahern" fusion] for some interesting reading.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/

[macpacheco]

There's one thing Rossi could do that might prove him beyond doubt.
Leave a few modules from his 1MW generator running for weeks non stop
in self sustain mode, with its output actually doing useful work, like
heating a building in the University of Bologna. Temperatures are now
cold enough to require heating, what a great excuse to do it ! Heat
the building exclusively using his reactors.

PS: I believed in Rossi more before the 1MW demo than now, leaving
that generator on was really fishy. Either he doesn't want to convince
the mainstream, or he's really an excellent con artist. BTW I do
believe in cold fusion in general, I'm just having my doubts about Mr
Rossi.

[vaughn]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:j8ujm6$tpe$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 11/3/11 7:58 AM, vaughn wrote:
>
>> For me, the following quote from the article represents the bottom line: "...
>> any extraordinary discovery requires extraordinary proof. ... the E-Cat must
>> be
>> verified by an independent study conducted by scientists who are allowed
>> access
>> to the machine's inner-workings."
>
> I must have a strange view of science - I'd be pretty happy with ordinary
> proof and I'd be even happier to know that Rossi's claimed results had been
> reproduced independently elsewhere on separate equipment - and I wouldn't much
> care whether the folks who did that were scientists, engineers, or taxi
> drivers. :-)

OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower) standard of
proof; yet we don't need to be. Rossi's stated excuse seems to be a desire to
protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give others access to the
internals of his invention. But once you sell the first unit of ANY new
technology, that information is potentially "out there". The inventor must
choose between keeping his invention to himself forever, or marketing it and
depending on the patent system and our justice system to do its job. Now that
he has supposedly started marketing his device, his stated objections quickly
begin to fail to hold water..

Going back to my example of the AirCar, we see exactly the same behavior.
Pleading protection of his "secrets" the "inventor" has consistently refused to
allow third-parties access to his prototypes to verify (or refute) his claims
for them. Proving the claims for the AirCar would be as simple as handing a set
of keys to a few reputable members of the media and letting them go for a ride,
yet it has never happened. Guess why?

Vaughn .

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/3/11 3:09 PM, vaughn wrote:

> OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower) standard of
> proof; yet we don't need to be. Rossi's stated excuse seems to be a desire to
> protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give others access to the
> internals of his invention. But once you sell the first unit of ANY new
> technology, that information is potentially "out there". The inventor must
> choose between keeping his invention to himself forever, or marketing it and
> depending on the patent system and our justice system to do its job. Now that
> he has supposedly started marketing his device, his stated objections quickly
> begin to fail to hold water..

I think you're right with all of the above - and he has some (for him)
difficult choices to make. He recognizes that he's in a very vulnerable
position - and it appears that none of the people he feels able to trust
have marketing/sales skills.

If he does have a process breakthrough, then /his/ problem isn't proving
that it's real and it isn't selling devices that employ that
breakthrough - the problem is finding someone he can trust who will
underwrite his patent filings and honestly look after his interests.

There're three words used to describe individuals who depend on the
patent and justice systems to protect breakthrough inventions: "naive",
"broke", and "disillusioned". Exceptions have been unfortunately few.

> Going back to my example of the AirCar, we see exactly the same behavior.
> Pleading protection of his "secrets" the "inventor" has consistently refused to
> allow third-parties access to his prototypes to verify (or refute) his claims
> for them. Proving the claims for the AirCar would be as simple as handing a set
> of keys to a few reputable members of the media and letting them go for a ride,
> yet it has never happened. Guess why?

I can see that the AirCar might be a hot-button issue for you. :-)

[Martin Riddle]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:j8uvf7$ti$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

He doesn't have a patent on the process does he?
If not then thats why he wont go public to disclose the inner workings.
For fear of it being stolen.
And he can't get a patent because he really does not know what is
exactly happening.
Or it could really be a hoax.

Cheers

[eric gisse]

sno <s...@opelc.com> wrote in
news:4eb21063$0$12948$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

>
> check it out...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fus
> ion-plant/
>
> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
>
> have fun......sno
>
>

Yeah, because fox news has a history of fact checking...

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/3/11 9:00 PM, Martin Riddle wrote:

> He doesn't have a patent on the process does he?
> If not then thats why he wont go public to disclose the inner workings.
> For fear of it being stolen.
> And he can't get a patent because he really does not know what is
> exactly happening.

I think I recall reading that he's submitted applications in Italy and
the USA for a Ni + H + proprietary catalyst process

> Or it could really be a hoax.

It could be. AFAICT, there aren't many people who care enough to try
finding out whether 'tis or no. If none care, does it matter? :-)

[Rick]

"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message

news:j8ushi$he4$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
> news:j8ujm6$tpe$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 11/3/11 7:58 AM, vaughn wrote:
>>
>>> For me, the following quote from the article represents the bottom line:
>>> "...
>>> any extraordinary discovery requires extraordinary proof. ... the E-Cat
>>> must be
>>> verified by an independent study conducted by scientists who are allowed
>>> access
>>> to the machine's inner-workings."
>>
>> I must have a strange view of science - I'd be pretty happy with ordinary
>> proof and I'd be even happier to know that Rossi's claimed results had
>> been reproduced independently elsewhere on separate equipment - and I
>> wouldn't much care whether the folks who did that were scientists,
>> engineers, or taxi drivers. :-)
>
> OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower)
> standard of proof; yet we don't need to be. Rossi's stated excuse seems
> to be a desire to protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give
> others access to the internals of his invention.

Seems to me that In some ways this is not dissimilar to that of the inventor
of 'Starlite', a world shattering breakthrough, or merely another time
waster looking for their 15 minutes of fame?
<http://tinyurl.com/lkjcch>

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/4/11 6:22 PM, Rick wrote:

> Seems to me that In some ways this is not dissimilar to that of the
> inventor of 'Starlite', a world shattering breakthrough, or merely
> another time waster looking for their 15 minutes of fame?

One never knows, does one? :-)

[CWatters]

On 03/11/2011 21:01, Morris Dovey wrote:

> If he does have a process breakthrough, then /his/ problem isn't proving
> that it's real and it isn't selling devices that employ that
> breakthrough - the problem is finding someone he can trust who will
> underwrite his patent filings and honestly look after his interests.

He won't get a patent until someone figures out how it works and how to
prove that's how it works.

His current patent application doesn't provide enough information needed
to replicate what he's done and that's the whole point of the patent
system.

[CWatters]

On 04/11/2011 05:16, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 11/3/11 9:00 PM, Martin Riddle wrote:
>
>> He doesn't have a patent on the process does he?
>> If not then thats why he wont go public to disclose the inner workings.
>> For fear of it being stolen.
>> And he can't get a patent because he really does not know what is
>> exactly happening.
>
> I think I recall reading that he's submitted applications in Italy and
> the USA for a Ni + H + proprietary catalyst process

I believe he got the Italian patent but the USA patent application
doesn't contain full disclosure so it doesn't meet the rules for a
patent. You can read the patent examiners comments online.

I doubt you can get a patent for a secret catalyst, that would make the
patent too broad and stop any new catalyst being used to make energy.

[CWatters]

On 03/11/2011 15:55, GO-HERE .NL wrote:
> On Nov 3, 4:54 am, sno<s...@opelc.com> wrote:
>> check it out...
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-f...
>>
>> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
>>
>> have fun......sno
>>
>> --
>> Correct Scientific Terminology:
>> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
>> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
>> to be generally assumed to be true.
>> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
>> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
>> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
>

> "�[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent
> scientists are able to replicate these results,� Koomey told

> FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the
> laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity."
>
> Relativity has results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

[Androcles]

"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:9I-dnfZr1fg-qyjT...@brightview.co.uk...

| On 03/11/2011 15:55, GO-HERE .NL wrote:
| > On Nov 3, 4:54 am, sno<s...@opelc.com> wrote:
| >> check it out...
| >>
| >>
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-f...
| >>
| >> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
| >>
| >> have fun......sno
| >>
| >> --
| >> Correct Scientific Terminology:
| >> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
| >> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
| >> to be generally assumed to be true.
| >> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
| >> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a
theory.
| >> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
| >

| > "“[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent
| > scientists are able to replicate these results,” Koomey told

| > FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the
| > laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity."
| >
| > Relativity has results?
|
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

--
Test of GR.

Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>

Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.

If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>

If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c>

Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.


Test failed.

[CWatters]

What do you count as "ordinary proof"?

Thousands of people claim to have replicated the "water for fuel"
nonsense, homeopathy also is big business with millions claiming it works.

[J. Clarke]

In article <%Qatq.15973$604....@newsfe05.ams2>,
Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.October.2011 says...

>
> "CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:9I-dnfZr1fg-qyjT...@brightview.co.uk...
> | On 03/11/2011 15:55, GO-HERE .NL wrote:
> | > On Nov 3, 4:54 am, sno<s...@opelc.com> wrote:
> | >> check it out...
> | >>
> | >>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-f...
> | >>
> | >> http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/
> | >>
> | >> have fun......sno
> | >>
> | >> --
> | >> Correct Scientific Terminology:
> | >> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
> | >> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
> | >> to be generally assumed to be true.
> | >> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
> | >> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a
> theory.
> | >> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
> | >

> | > "?[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent
> | > scientists are able to replicate these results,? Koomey told

> | > FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the
> | > laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity."
> | >
> | > Relativity has results?
> |
> |
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.

Frosts your little paranoid-schizophrenic butt that GPS works doesn't
it?

<plonk>

[GO-HERE .NL]

On Nov 5, 2:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.October.
2011> wrote:
>
> Test failed.

keep the secret!

[Androcles]

"GO-HERE .NL" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ca2eedc-710a-47a7...@x2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

=======================================
Too late.

Wormleyonics is the science of reading pop-sci magazines and
believing any hyperbole that helps sell that magazine. Usually the
articles contain such phrases as "a team of scientists led by
researchers from (Expensive University) have discovered ...
(phenomenon Wormley wants to gripe about)" which translates
to "some students are playing another prank". Wormley can name
the planets of the solar system in the correct order, making him a
professor of astronomy.
Popular translations:
a team of scientists = a class of students
research = crib your neighbour's magazine

[Yousuf Khan]

On 02/11/2011 11:54 PM, sno wrote:
>
> check it out...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

They talk about a secret buyer who is willing to fund the project,
provided they meet the secret requirements. A secret buyer and secret
requirements, hmmm. So why is this all so public then?

Yousuf Khan

[Bob F]

Cute. Their video clearly shows it can't keep up with slow urban traffic.

[News]

"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:j8u343$sv8$1...@dont-email.me...
>

I never perceived that as a scam. It worked. They were not saying it had the
speed of a jaguar, it was for around town trundling. One version of the
engine was an integral hybrid that could use gasoline and air all in one
engine.

At the time they were promoting it, the Toyota Prius emerged, which set the
trend of the current hybrids - a large auto maker, MDI are not.

Since then the aim of the big auto giants has been electric batteries,
electric motor traction with on-board range extenders (an IC genset). A
highly simple arrangement - much simpler than we have now. The Chevy Volt
was to be this, but cut back at the 11th hour to have a series of complex
clutches giving direct drive in certain conditions. Chevy were using an
suitable engine for the genset.

Enter the Russians with very different newly developed range extender
engine. It has 100% electric motor traction using a revolutionary new rotary
toroidal "vane" engine". It is 25% the size and weight of normal engines of
the same HP.

The battery pack is reported to be small for the car so nearly always runs
with the genset running.
http://pesn.com/2011/04/23/9501814_Russian_firm_claims_MYT_engine_design_its_own/
Combining the Russian engine and compressed air to claw back kinetic brake
energy (no expensive batteries, just an air tank) and this may be even
better and far more cleaner running in cities. Like the MDI car, the
compressed air tank could be charged up on the driveway, so no problem of
cold starts in the mornings. Air could start the engine as it runs along,
bringing the engine in and out as needed.

Air is free and all around us, all it needs is a tank. Batteries will cost
and they giant corps know this.

[News]

"News" <Kill...@invalid.kill> wrote in message
news:jh81e4$1nu$1...@dont-email.me...

I wrote:
"Chevy were using an suitable engine for the genset."

Correction:

"Chevy were using an unsuitable engine for the genset."

Chevy are using an existing 1400cc adapted stock engine. Genny engines are
different in that the crank is lighter.

[News]

It can in India....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle#Petro-air_hybrid

http://www.tatamotors.com/media/press-releases.php?id=750

MDI's air engine technology tested on Tata Motors vehicles

In January 2007, Tata Motors and Motor Development International
(Luxembourg) signed a licence agreement that enables Tata Motors to produce
and sell compressed air cars using MDI technology in India. The agreement
covered two phases of activity encompassing the technology transfer and
proof of the technical concept in the first phase, and in the second phase
completing detailed development of the compressed air engine into specific
vehicle and stationary applications.

The first phase of this programme - proof of the technical concept in Tata
Motors vehicles - has now been successfully completed with the compressed
air engine concept having been demonstrated in two Tata Motors vehicles.

In the second phase of the development, the two companies are working
together to complete detailed development of the technology and required
technical processes to industrialise a market ready product application over
the coming years.

[harry k]

On May 14, 8:16 pm, "News" <Kills...@invalid.kill> wrote:
> Bob F wrote:
> > vaughn wrote:

> >> "vaughn" <vaughnsi...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message

> >>news:j8u343$sv8$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> Sorry, forgot to include the link to the MDI site:

> >>http://www.mdi.lu/english/(Just in case anyone cares to invest)

>
> > Cute. Their video clearly shows it can't keep up with slow urban
> > traffic.
>
> It can in India....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle#Petro-air_hybrid
>
> http://www.tatamotors.com/media/press-releases.php?id=750
>
> MDI's air engine technology tested on Tata Motors vehicles
>
> In January 2007, Tata Motors and Motor Development International
> (Luxembourg) signed a licence agreement that enables Tata Motors to produce
> and sell compressed air cars using MDI technology in India. The agreement
> covered two phases of activity encompassing the technology transfer and
> proof of the technical concept in the first phase, and in the second phase
> completing detailed development of the compressed air engine into specific
> vehicle and stationary applications.
>
> The first phase of this programme - proof of the technical concept in Tata
> Motors vehicles - has now been successfully completed with the compressed
> air engine concept having been demonstrated in two Tata Motors vehicles.
>
> In the second phase of the development, the two companies are working
> together to complete detailed development of the technology and required
> technical processes to industrialise a market ready product application over
> the coming years.

So what has happened? That was 5 years ago. Don't you ever get tired
of having your 'predictions' crammed up your rear?

Harry K

[News]

Senile one. Read the links. You can move your lips if it makes it better.
It was a press release from THIS MONTH.

[Mho]

Where is this "release" button that we are supposed to press?


"News" wrote in message news:josia0$rko$1...@dont-email.me...