Talk-Polywell.org

I'm a sceptic re:Newtonian mechanics. There seem to be deviations at high velocities that Newton doesn't account for.

What have we got from Rossi?

He says it gets hot. It does. He says it stays hot for a long time - unverified. He says he doesn't know how it works. Believable. And if he knows he isn't telling.

He won't let some one measure his set up with a radiation survey meter.

No experimental verification until the plant is operational. He is keeping a secret for SOME reason.

There will be delays. Some with the lame excuse already invented: I'm having trouble shipping. Maybe he should consult the Baltic Dry Index.

D Tibbets wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: In the demo, that would amount to releasing the pressure, no?

I'm uncertain. But if a charge of ~ 5 liters of hydrogen gas (at STP) was introduced into a ~ 1 litter can (minus the volume occupied by the nickel (or what ever) powder). Means that there would be ~ 5 atmospheres of pressure of hydrogen gas in the reaction chamber.
. . .
[EDIT] Enter here arguments about how metals can concentrate hydrogen by forming metal hydrides- just like in car hydrogen tank proposals. But, this process is temperature dependent. As the temperature raises, the gas is released from the metal lattice. At 4oo degrees I doubt that nickel is retaining much hydrogen, so the above pressure arguments still apply.

It is good that you recognize the adsorption issue. but remember, the HARD part of hydrogen storage is not to load materials with H but to get most of it out later at reasonable T&P.

So, if for example, the nano-powder could adsorb ~0.1 moles of the ~0.2 moles there, would removing the pressure at that temperature LEAVE the 0.1moles adsorbed or would most of it escape and fall below a threshold? I dunno, but it is an interesting question.

Giorgio wrote:

breakaway wrote:So far the skeptics arguments posted in this board is not conclusive. I do not believe it is fraud. If it is not real it is more likely that the measurements were not done properly and the results are not as they appear.

This, IMHO, is what this board has been stating since around 100 pages ago.

That is what SOME on this board have been saying. But there are a number who have stated "its a scam"! and others who seem to BELIEVE and insist it is the spoken word of the new god, Rossi.

Maybe we should set up a rule here that everyone who posts should start their post with a number that represents thier degree of belief, 0 = scam no doubt, 10 = revealed word of God. Then we could read the stuff we think inbteresting to ourselves and leave the rest of the tripe alone!

what is your number?

KitemanSA wrote:Maybe we should set up a rule here that everyone who posts should start their post with a number that represents thier degree of belief, 0 = scam no doubt, 10 = revealed word of God. Then we could read the stuff we think inbteresting to ourselves and leave the rest of the tripe alone!

what is your number?

3.1415926

Giorgio wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: what is your number?

3.1415926

See, I KNEW there was something odd about you! you are a round peg in this square hole!....

^^^^^^^^^

AcesHigh wrote:

chrismb wrote:A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something.

IN THE LACK OF EVIDENCE. A person who refuses to believe something, even with lots of evidence, is a moron. Example: moon landing deniers.

MSimon wrote:I'm a sceptic re:Newtonian mechanics. There seem to be deviations at high velocities that Newton doesn't account for.

I fear my subtlety of pedantics has not been fully absorbed.

I'll do a glossay of terms sometime; 'science', 'experiment', 'faith', belief', knda thing.

For now I will explain that what I'm meaning is that you can only have 'belief' whilst a thing is never, and never will be, 'knowable'. Like the existence of God, or global warming. These are things to believe in, so you can be skeptical about them.

Whereas moon landings and Newtonian mechanics can be tested for, and are therefore not subjects of belief systems or skepticism, within my use of the terms.

The usage of such terms here seems very casual and careless such that they can be used in a number of ambiguous ways, which is unsatisfactory.

To refuse to acknowledge a piece of available information is to deny it, but it is not being skeptical about it. In the same way it is wrong to say, for example, that a person denies God's existence, because that is predicated on some actual fact that God does or does not exist, yet this is unknowable.

In the Rossi case, he is claiming a deterministic reaction that is, he claims, at least known by him. So we are sure that this reaction will be found to either happen or not happen as he describes it. It is knowable. Therefore, a person could deny or accept that the reaction happens, but in the dearth of information it would not be possible to conclude either case. No intelligent person could adopt either stance. Whereas to believe the reaction happens implies that no-one can ever really know for sure if the reaction happens.

This is along the same lines as 'theories-must-be-falsifiable' sort of Popper-philosophy.

KitemanSA wrote:what is your number?

Violation! Asking for our numbers before formulating your own!

0.03

3 chances in a thousand that it is real.

If it is not real, then 95% of the time it will be a scam rather than a mistake.

These are the correct numbers so no one else needs to give theirs.

raphael wrote:However, to dismiss the demonstrations (NyTeknik, et al) as "not pure science" and therefore totally unworthy of consideration is an extreme view.

This is absurd. Rossi has presented nothing of scientific merit yet. No hypothesis stated, no null-hypothesis demonstrated, no numbers [excepting 3rd party hearsay], nothing repeatable, a slap-dash testing protocol that doesn't appear to have been written down, let alone reviewed by anyone. No stated conclusion. No viable theory.

What part of the demonstrations Rossi's done do you think are 'pure science' then?

[How have I gotten dragged back into this!! )

KitemanSA wrote:Maybe we should set up a rule here that everyone who posts should start their post with a number that represents thier degree of belief, 0 = scam no doubt, 10 = revealed word of God.

±j , ± 100%

10 = Metaphysical certitude


Metaphysical certitude is that with which self-evidently necessary truth is known, or necessary truth demonstrated from self-evident truth. The demonstrative sciences, such as geometry, possess metaphysical certitude. The contingent fact of one's own existence, or of one's present state of feeling, is known with metaphysical certitude.

For example, "all men are created equal" is Metaphysical Certitude.

seedload wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:what is your number?

Violation! Asking for our numbers before formulating your own!

0.03

3 chances in a thousand that it is real.

If it is not real, then 95% of the time it will be a scam rather than a mistake.

These are the correct numbers so no one else needs to give theirs.

You mean 0.003

I wonder about 95% scam. i think there are a lot of people out there who are good at lying to themselves about how good is their stuff, and naturally extend this to other people. Which looks like a scam, but is an honest scam.

chrismb wrote:

AcesHigh wrote:

chrismb wrote:A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something.

IN THE LACK OF EVIDENCE. A person who refuses to believe something, even with lots of evidence, is a moron. Example: moon landing deniers.

MSimon wrote:I'm a sceptic re:Newtonian mechanics. There seem to be deviations at high velocities that Newton doesn't account for.

I fear my subtlety of pedantics has not been fully absorbed.

I'll do a glossay of terms sometime; 'science', 'experiment', 'faith', belief', knda thing.

For now I will explain that what I'm meaning is that you can only have 'belief' whilst a thing is never, and never will be, 'knowable'. Like the existence of God, or global warming. These are things to believe in, so you can be skeptical about them.

Whereas moon landings and Newtonian mechanics can be tested for, and are therefore not subjects of belief systems or skepticism, within my use of the terms.

The usage of such terms here seems very casual and careless such that they can be used in a number of ambiguous ways, which is unsatisfactory.

To refuse to acknowledge a piece of available information is to deny it, but it is not being skeptical about it. In the same way it is wrong to say, for example, that a person denies God's existence, because that is predicated on some actual fact that God does or does not exist, yet this is unknowable.

In the Rossi case, he is claiming a deterministic reaction that is, he claims, at least known by him. So we are sure that this reaction will be found to either happen or not happen as he describes it. It is knowable. Therefore, a person could deny or accept that the reaction happens, but in the dearth of information it would not be possible to conclude either case. No intelligent person could adopt either stance. Whereas to believe the reaction happens implies that no-one can ever really know for sure if the reaction happens.

This is along the same lines as 'theories-must-be-falsifiable' sort of Popper-philosophy.

Not sure what all that meant (you are too smart for me) but it should be noted by the classical Oxford definition of the word skeptic, the skeptic is on the minority side, doubting of the prevailing opinion. It has a negative connotation. Classically, 'skeptic' is more like what we call a 'denier' today.

Since the prevailing opinion is that cold fusion is bogus, that makes defenders of Rossi skeptics and the rest of us, well, normal, at least by the classic definition.

I am not sure your tight coupling of 'skeptic' to 'belief' and therefore 'faith' is correct. But maybe my understanding is underdeveloped.

That said, for the purpose of this conversation, the James Randi definition seems more appropriate. Rossi is Uri Geller, in need of a good bit of debunking.

tomclarke wrote:

seedload wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:what is your number?

Violation! Asking for our numbers before formulating your own!

0.03

3 chances in a thousand that it is real.

If it is not real, then 95% of the time it will be a scam rather than a mistake.

These are the correct numbers so no one else needs to give theirs.

You mean 0.003

Darn it, you are confusing me. I am pretty sure I got it right.

Scale is 0 to 10. A 3 would be 3 chances in 10. A 0.3 would be 3 chances in a hundred. A 0.03 would be 3 chances in a thousand.

tomclarke wrote:I wonder about 95% scam. i think there are a lot of people out there who are good at lying to themselves about how good is their stuff, and naturally extend this to other people. Which looks like a scam, but is an honest scam.

Well, OK, my second conjecture is more opinion based rather than my first number which is clearly a fact.

I suppose the honest scam theory does fit the pattern of petrol dragon and his ET devices a little better than an all out scam. But I have a hunch. A 95% hunch;)

does Rossi claims qualify for the Randi prize?

they are usually about paranormal phenomena, but you can contest the prize for things considered pseudo-science also (like homeopathy).