Talk-Polywell.org

whether Rossi's claims turn out to be real or not makes not a jot of difference to the 'legitimacy' (or otherwise) of my statement. nor 'should' it trigger any 'restructuring' of the underlying 'methods' of the real scientific community.

the only thing that need be restructured are the tenuous connections in Rossi's brain, that allow him to believe he can side-step proper experimental procedure and get away with 'confidence tricks'. it is precisely such wrong-thinking that earned him a jail sentence the last time he attempted such a ruse. IMPO.

I agree. Regardless the abuses in scientific community, Rossi's methods are wrong.

In what way "wrong"? Do you mean "unscientific"? Or do you mean morally "wrong".

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

Wrong from a logical, scientific and commercial point of view.
Regardless of him being right or not, he has done all in the worst way he could have done it, IMHO.

Giorgio,
Thank you for your response, but I asked Betruger what HE meant.

Betruger?

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

Well, that is interesting.

Has scientific community approach to CF been flawed? After all, quite a lot of CF work has been done, in spite of singular lack of either verifiable results or plausible theory. Stuff has got past peer review into decent journals when it is interesting enough, even if way out.

For example, the ultra-dense deuterium stuff. And the W-L stuff.

Rossi (if he has somethingf) has conducted all public communication about this in such a way as to hide it very effectively.

So what (assuming Rossi really has something) structural chnages to scientific community should be made?

You can always, in retrospect, say what is a good research direction. That is not the point.

Money is the prime source of any institutionalization. No need to change
the structure directly, just eliminate the government involvement to
manage monetary resource in any form and restructuration will follow.
The disciplines claiming no practical output within 50 years should be the
only exception (with very modest resources allocated).

Not impossible. Not likely.

"Depletion" equals separation in my mind. But it don't matter. Either is unlikely given that he also says that he doesn't need to do it. So, if he doesn't need it, then the enrichment must be pretty close to complete to be worth much.

I hate when people ask for links to things they can search for perfectly well themselves. I also don't believe that you don't remember the shipping container discussions. Anyway.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/al ... is-needed/

Right around here, http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... ouse#61998, is where you will find discussions on this. Read a couple pages of my comments in this regard.

Possible. These are all possible. I didn't say differently. I judge it unlikely that even Chris would react this way on his own blog selling his own device.

Not nonsense. If the demonstrations are more scientific they would be more effective. The demonstrations are designed to show that the thing works. More scientific does that - assuming it works.

The scientific basis that it should be so? Surface of the nucleus according to Rossi - whatever that means. Meanwhile Focardi is still talking about all of the Nickel reacting and a series of beta decays.

Maybe, but there aren't that many "Smith" businesses relative to all businesses in my town. So, still improbable.

Again, possible. Each is possible.

Which is why I said the "claim" of proof. Rossi knows that it would not be reliable, yet he claims it will be proof. He avoids mentioning who the customer is, while the customer admits it themselves. And the customer is the producer. Meanwhile, Rossi is claiming it a proof.

Not talking about absolute uniformity of opinion. No uniformity of opinion. Rossi is saying that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is insistant. Focardi is still talking all NI reacting and a series of beta decays.

Can't blow the thing up. Can't change the contents. A self destruct mechanism is ridiculous.

He has both claimed that he will not file for a patent on the secret sauce and keep it as an industrial secret and he has claimed that he has filed for a secret sauce patent but it just isn't public yet.

Yep, the 'not' is wrong. Anyway, yes my opinion, common sense, whatever you want to call it. I consider it unlikely that someone who has previously done exactly this would now be doing the same thing again but this time legit.


Yes you are. Your defense of Rossi is unrelenting. But, if you aren't holding out much hope, then please tell us your reasons for not holding out hope. Apparently, I am wrong on every count. So, you must have some different reasons than me.

First, just to be clear. Each of the above statements of improbability are based on my understanding of common sense (save for the coffee pot one which is a joke). Based on my common sense, each of the above is improbable.

Second, I think you know what I mean and are arguing language more than logic which makes your arguments disingenuous. "separation" vs. "enrichment" are both improbable to me. "improbable" vs "unlikely" are both the same thing to anybody having a discussion with any sincerity. The fact that you object to the use of language when you know perfectly well what I meant is a sign that you don't have any real objection.

Third, I repeat that you are arguing each point as possible, which I agree with. I am taking in the whole picture. While each is possibly true, each is unlikely/improbable. The whole approaches zero probability.

Finally, I find that attaching a modicum of common sense to what we actually have heard and then making an assessment based on more common sense that says that a litany of improbable circumstance is a good indication of something not being true is a heck of a lot more fruitful then, say for example, assuming something is true and then trying to figure it out with a clumsy attempt at replication through uneducated thought experiment. While you may think the latter is a noble cause seeking the truth and that the former is a sign of ignorance, I respectfully disagree.

My only recollection of the word "depletion" implied the process used up (depleted) certain isotopes. How this equals "seperation" in the way you seem to mean it is beyond me. Did I read it wrong?
The reason that I asked for a link was that I didn't recall ANY discussion of shipping being held up due to a container. Now I still haven't. There is nothing here about "shipping bing held up". Making such inference is just plain dishonest, and shame on you.
Enjoy your freedom to judge. I suspect others might agree with your judgement.
By this it seems you presume to define his business plan for him. Without knowing him or his business plan, any assessment of "improbable" is nonsense. Why do you suppose he necessarily wants to be scientifically demonstrative? Wouldn't that flood the field with competitors?
62Ni and 64Ni have a significant population of excess neutrons. The symmetry principle (protons bind to neutrons more tightly that neutrons or protons bind to themselves) provides the rationale that a nucleus with excess neutrons will bind a proton more readily than a balanced nucleus. To me, this is in fact quite likely, but I don't have the numbers to provide probability.
The probability of this could be determined if we had the incidence of the name in that region of Italy.
It is the fact that he made the claim that makes the "claim" of proof 100% probability. The reliability on the other hand...
Different folks, perhaps different reactions?
Concur, but that doesn't define a probability at all.
Yup, this is proof all right! No one EVER changes their mind!
Now here you may actually have the beginnings of a basis for a probability calculation. He has had what, two? businesses go south on him? If we knew how many were "crooked" (not straight) and not just incompetance, you could actually do a calc. But I notice you changed to "unlikely" so no calc is needed!
I think you will find, if you do an honest assessment, that I have steadfastly defended technical accuracy. Those that violate it in the condemnation of Rossi get called, while those that support Rossi incorrectly also get called... except for a few of the wackos who I ignore.
Fine, but the term "probable" and its derivitives imply NUMBERS to back it up. Numbers, ratios, equations... where are yours? What you have been chatting about is actually "likelihood" which is a feeling, an opinion, NOT numbers. Feel away, dude!
I have given my technical objection. You made what I perceived to be technical statements to condemn Rossi. If you are going to condemn the man with technical statements, please have a technical basis, not a feeling.
Actually, I have been seeking a technical reason to decide one way or the other. Folks like you keep tantilizing me, but then I read deeper and find no substance. It is frustrating!
I do attach a modicum of "common sense" and find that I hold out little hope. I find it unlikely to be true. But I have no technical basis for that OPINION. I sure would like one. ANYONE? REAL, HARD, TECHNICAL basis?

[edit]Spelling corrections[/edit]

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

Giorgio had me right. You don't think there's anything wrong with the way Rossi's gone about this?

DancingFool had these profound words to say about this:



Now, if you actually wend your way through Rossi's blog, it becomes clear that he made the claim above BEFORE he made the claim about only NI62 and NI64 reacting. It was his first attempt at explaining isotopic inconsistencies. The first being that nothing radioactive pops out.

Then came another problem for him. There was not enough NI62 and NI64 to produce enough copper. See below:



Now Rossi is hinting at NI62 and NI64 enrichment (1&2 above). He is doing this to answer a very probing question. In my opinion, he is doing this because he got cornered.

This questioning goes on and Rossi finally comes to this:



Cheap isotopic enrichment of NI for NI62 and NI64 while depleting NI58. Presumably the NI58 is depleted to avoid radioactive byproducts and the NI62 and NI64 are enriched to get more copper out.

And the process is revolutionary. Here is how a Rossi supporter interpreted the statement.



But then things get inconsistent. Remember that Rossi is depleting NI58, presumably to avoid radioactive shit popping out. But then he starts talking about ONLY NI62 and NI64 reacting. If this is so, then why deplete NI58?

Finally, I wanted to be sure that what Rossi was now claiming, according to my understanding was in fact what he was claiming. The following seems pretty clear, no?



OK, clear as a bell. Except, it is still not clear why he would deplete NI58. The radioactive ash argument goes away, because it doesn't react.

Plus if you are depleting enough NI58 and enriching enough NI62 and NI64 to get 30% of it to change to copper, then you are getting very near to separation which is why I sometimes use that term.

None of this is consistent to me. All of it seems like groping answers to probing questions and eventually ending up at only NI62 and NI64 react and that we enrich for them thereby explaining how we end up with so much copper.

Which makes me wonder why Focardi is not onboard with the current Rossi statements. In a recent interview Focardi says this:



Radioactive decay? I thought only NI62 and NI64 were reacting to product CU63 and CU65. What is decaying?

They should get their stories straight and in agreement.

regards

Ok, seems I may have misread it. None-the-less, "depletion" still only correlates to "engrichment", not to "seperation". Depleted Uranium still has about 1/2 the U235 it starts with so can hardly be called "seperated".

But let us use your terminology for this instance, I don't agree that such "enrichment/depletion" is necessarily very difficult. Indeed it almost sounds like he is giving a hint when he mentions "sputtering" in relationship to it. I proposed one plausible method in my "Konjecture". He may have hinted at another simple method. Personally, I don't see this particular thing as "unlikely".

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

DancingFool seems to live up to his moniker. His first statement is indeed foolish.

and by the way, the half-life is more like 76,000 ish years. But still a bad thing.

Have you considered the possibility that 58Ni is substantially less reactive than 62 or 64Ni and by limiting the percentage (not necessarily eliminating it, but lowering it ENOUGH) the reaction of 58Ni is suppressed?

So far, nothing holds as contrary evidence.

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

We were not agreed in most thing.
On the contrary, we were disagreed in most and very principal things.
For example,
He "failed to gain my comprehension" on his nonsenses. At the same time confirming that I don't know very basic things.
And subsequently in his farewell speeches (several) he partially has recognized his wrongfulness.
People, who do not understand about what was our “dispute”, can speak only about good/bad English of someone. But they can't judge things with which they have nothing to do.

The psychology of this wrangle is interesting. I guess most people here are agreed about what is likely, but seem to argue a lot about how to phrase it.

I side with seedload's more negative language.

Not because there is any proof that Rossi does not have what he claims.

Because there is no (repeat no) credible evidence he DOES have what he claims. And his beheviour adds some negative evidence.

In that case highly improbable is a charitable judgement for probability. (And you can of course translate words into probabilities howere imprecise this may be).

You don't need specific new scientific evidence to view a way-out hypothesis which has no validating evidence as being highly unlikely.

And that is scientific.

Highly unlikely does not mean impossible, nor does it mean you should not follow curiosity and explore all lose ends.

But it does mean I view anyone giving Rossi money as very very foolish.

Best wishes, Tom