Scientists take fresh look at 'faster-than-light' experiment

Oct 28, 2011
Scientists who threw down the gauntlet to physics by reporting particles that broke the Universe's speed limit said on Friday they were revisiting their contested experiment.

Scientists who threw down the gauntlet to physics by reporting particles that broke the Universe's speed limit said on Friday they were revisiting their contested experiment.

"The new test began two or three days ago," said Stavros Kasavenas, deputy head of France's National Institute for and , also called the IN2P3.

"The criticism is that the results we had were a statistical quirk. The test should help (us) address this," he told AFP.

On September 23, the team stunned by saying they had measured neutrinos that travelled around six kilometres (3.75 miles) per second faster than the velocity of light, determined by Einstein to be the highest speed possible.

The neutrinos had been measured along a 732-kilometre (454-mile) trajectory between the European Centre for Nuclear Research () in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy.

Through a complex transformation, a few of the protons arrive at their destination as neutrinos, travelling through Earth's crust.

The scientists at CERN and the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy scrutinised the results of the so-called Opera experiment for nearly six months before making the announcement.

They admitted they were flummoxed and put out the begging bowl for an explanation. The results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Since then, an open-access online physics review, , has had scores of papers submitted to it.

Some point to perceived technical glitches, noting that only a minute flaw in measurement would have had the neutrinos busting the speed of light.

Kasavenas said CERN was making available a special form of until November 6.

The idea is to assess a modified .

If this works, the technique will be used in a bigger, "highly important" experiment that will be carried out in April, he said.

"The idea with the new beam is to have protons that are generated in packets lasting one or two nanoseconds with a gap between each packet of 500 nanoseconds," he said.

"We will be able to measure the neutrinos one by one, but to do this we need a beam that is a hundred times less intense than the previous one."

Explore further: IHEP in China has ambitions for Higgs factory

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

3 Questions: Faster than light?

Sep 26, 2011

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from th ...

CERN neutrino project on target

Aug 16, 2005

Scientists at CERN announced the completion of the target assembly for the CERN neutrinos to Gran Sasso project, CNGS. On schedule for start-up in May 2006, CNGS will send a beam of neutrinos through the Earth to the Gran ...

FTL neutrinos (or not)

Oct 03, 2011

The recent news from the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) neutrino experiment, that neutrinos have been clocked travelling faster than light, made the headlines over the last week ...

Green light for the neutrino beam from Cern to Gran Sasso

Sep 12, 2006

The delivery of the neutrino beam (Cngs) from Cern and the beginning of a new generation of experiments were officially celebrated today at Infn (Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics) National Laboratories of Gran ...

Recommended for you

IHEP in China has ambitions for Higgs factory

2 hours ago

Who will lay claim to having the world's largest particle smasher?. Could China become the collider capital of the world? Questions tease answers, following a news story in Nature on Tuesday. Proposals for ...

The physics of lead guitar playing

3 hours ago

String bends, tapping, vibrato and whammy bars are all techniques that add to the distinctiveness of a lead guitarist's sound, whether it's Clapton, Hendrix, or BB King.

The birth of topological spintronics

4 hours ago

The discovery of a new material combination that could lead to a more efficient approach to computer memory and logic will be described in the journal Nature on July 24, 2014. The research, led by Penn S ...

The electric slide dance of DNA knots

8 hours ago

DNA has the nasty habit of getting tangled and forming knots. Scientists study these knots to understand their function and learn how to disentangle them (e.g. useful for gene sequencing techniques). Cristian ...

User comments : 146

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jsdarkdestruction
4.8 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
Should be interesting what they figure out....what they dont figure out could end up being the more interesting part though. science is awesome.
Nikola
5 / 5 (32) Oct 28, 2011
This is the part of science that is awesome. The original scientists thought there was something wrong and they wanted help. They were not afraid of being wrong; they put truth above ego. Too bad politics does not work like science!
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (46) Oct 28, 2011
Science doesn't work so anyway. The cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel is violating established theories too (at least seemingly) - but no one of mainstream physicists did care to replicate it during last twenty years. This is far from awesomeness in any form.

The main difference is, the finding of superluminal neutrinos is essentially useless, whereas the finding of cold fusion could save the world. But physicists don't want to save the world, they just want to save their jobs and salaries.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (31) Oct 28, 2011
BTW in some opinions the difference in speed of neutrinos was caused with rather common easy to predict relativistic effects of GPS inertial reference frame. The usage of shorter pulses of neutrinos will not remove this source of systematic error, if it exists.

http://ksjtracker...y-theory

Why the experiments are repeated before peer reviewed analysis?Why we cannot get the official stance to this explanation of superluminal neutrinos first? Is this correction supposed to become included in further set of experiments quietly, publicly or not at all?
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (30) Oct 28, 2011
Too bad politics does not work like science!
I know, howthe science is supposed to work. The experiments should be revised first with another independent laboratory for being called replicated. From my above post follows, the suspiciously fast revision of experiments with the same laboratory could be motivated just with political decission. For me it's rather the attempt to cover serious flaw in design of the original experiment.
science is awesome
The science is human activity like everything else. It suffers with own flaws and mistakes. The fact, it converges into correct solution gradually is not any miracle - all human activities converge into more advanced level by attempt and mistake strategy.
Nik_2213
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
"The experiments should be revised first with another independent laboratory"
There's only one (1) LHC, and sufficiently sensitive neutrino detectors are few enough.
FWIW, my best guess is they've miscalculated the timing due to something as simple as the {uncertain} mass of the Alps' roots forcing a kink in the flight path...
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2011
There's only one LHC, and sufficiently sensitive neutrino detectors are few enough
The OPERA experiment is essentially a replication of older and less thorough MINOS experiments from USA detector. Actually, the MINOS experiment is even more sensitive, than the OPERA detectors (which are primarily focused to muinos and tauinos detection) - the problem is, the superluminality of neutrinos is the more pronounced, the higher energy of neutrino is and the MINOS experiment is focused to detection of lower energy neutrinos only. Currently there are plans to recalculate the results of existing MINOS experiments just with respect to recent OPERA findings, but in my informations no new experiments are planned.

http://www.scienc...ini2.jpg
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 28, 2011
FWIW, my best guess is they've miscalculated the timing due to something as simple as the {uncertain} mass of the Alps' roots forcing a kink in the flight path
To these days, we have collected nearly twenty preprints at Arxiv dedicated to interpretation of OPERA results. One would expect, all these opinions will be taken into account first, the results of OPERA experiments will be revised with using it, peer-reviewed, corrected and published in standard way, just after then the new experiments can be planned. Why to repeat the same systematical errors again and again? This is not what the public money are dedicated for.
dschlink
5 / 5 (23) Oct 28, 2011
Callippo - on the one hand you are complaining about wasting public money on repeating the neutrino experiment, on the other you are whining that no one has tried to duplicate the nickel cold fusion experiments.

Correction: they are trying a different approach.

Correction: no one was has been able to duplicate the cold fusion experiment, not even the people that reported the results.
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Those of you more familiar with their research: are any other reputable institutions attempting to replicate the experiments, either those that were already heading down that path or otherwise? Do the facilities exist for such if a new group decides to start from scratch, without a major funding effort? I'm curious how experimentalists would rank this in terms of difficulty and cost. Thanks.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2011
It is very possible that neutrinos travel slightly faster than EMR in a gravity field. In interstellar space both should travel at about the same speed, but with the neutrinos still traveling ever so slightly faster.
leptonsoup337
5 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
.... This is far from awesomeness in any form.

The main difference is, the finding of superluminal neutrinos is essentially useless, whereas the finding of cold fusion could save the world. But physicists don't want to save the world, they just want to save their jobs and salaries.


You cannot judge science based upon utility alone. I have a list of things that would save the world (such as my 'awesomeifier' which I still have yet to get funding for) but they don´t get funding. Why? Because like cold fusion they probably won´t work and my desire to save the world clouds my perception of reality (too bad the "reality distortion field" is taken!). Peer review at work.

If these physicists were worried about their "jobs and salaries" then they simply would not have submitted this to a peer reviewed journal. This is awesome BECAUSE they had an apparent violation of the known laws of physics that they could not simply explain away and they opened themselves up for scrutiny ANYWAY.
jsdarkdestruction
4.8 / 5 (21) Oct 28, 2011
callippo, a week ago you aaid they were going to prove cold fusion once and for all within the week, why has rossi not done so as you promised? big on promise weak on delivery. His science is NOT awesome.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2011
Correction: no one was has been able to duplicate the cold fusion experiment, not even the people that reported the results.
Look, you should know in the same way like me that you have absolutely none evidence for your stance. You have any peer-reviewed analysis of the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel. One of us two must be a complete religious idiot. The only disapointing thing for me is, there are another five billions of such people, who essentially ignore all facts like you. How do we want to survive with such approach? We are apparently as stupid, as the people of medieval era. All people on the Earth should be asking the clear rigorous evidence, that the cold fusion is nonsense from scientists. Not the superluminal neutrino thing. But the people are interested about completely marginal things, being washed out with mainstream propaganda.
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (22) Oct 28, 2011
callippo, a week ago you aaid they were going to prove cold fusion once and for all within the week, why has rossi not done so as you promised? big on promise weak on delivery. His science is NOT awesome.


I for one am totally skeptical about Rossi's claims. However, the "big" experiment was supposedly scheduled for today, so I suspect it will be awhile before we can openly laugh with impunity.

That said, I'd certainly like to see him succeed. It just has all the earmarks of a scam.
Callippo
1 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2011
It just has all the earmarks of a scam.
The Rossi person is not important here at all. You cannot indeed judge the phenomena just from behaviour of person, which is trying to implement it. Did you read some of articles about cold fusion at nickel at all? Did you ever miss some deeper information about it? I'm deeply incompatible with the way, you're thinking about it.

BTW I don't know about any experiment scheduled for today. Can you point us to the source of your info - or you're just inventing stuff?

His science is NOT awesome.
Andreaa Rossi does no science - he is private person, who was never payed for doing of science. The scientists have equipment and salary from public sources, so it's the scientists, who should do this public service and research.
Pyle
5 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2011
Can you point us to the source of your info - or you're just inventing stuff?

http://www.wired....d-fusion

From the article:
Rossi says that today the experimental results will be updated hour-by-hour, with a full report and video at midnight. Will it be a triumphant success, or an abject failure? Or will there be endless squabbling about measurements and standards, allegations of cheating or sabotage?

We'll know by the weekend.
rah
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2011
There are several mistakes in this article as there were in the first. They are not revisting their experiment, they are conducting another one. They did not stun any particle physicists with their first results, they only managed to embarrass and discredit themselves. As with the first article, there is a revealing lack of details in this story. This may all just add up to a pitiful attempt to pick up funding or to gain some desperately sought publicity, but it is as well crafted as their experiments.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2011
are any other reputable institutions attempting to replicate the experiments, either those that were already heading down that path or otherwise?

Fermilab is going to try (MINOS). As is a facility in Japan (T2K).
Fermilab needs a minor tweak. I don't know how much extra setup T2K will need (from the specs it already looks very similar to Opera - more so than the Fermilab setup). so in terms of cost this shouldn't be too big of a deal.
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2011
This post is probably going to remain unscrutinised, but I pose this question to you all; what if we already know that light speed ISN'T the ultimate speed limit. Quantum entanglement describes a state of instantaneous transmission of 'information' across the Universe independent of space-time. We even have higher-dimensional theories explaining how folds in our fabric of reality can lead to the access of more complex phase spaces, 'phase' in the sense of frequency bits emerging from neuronal structure. So why the reluctance to accept fundamental Truth. The universe, an intelligent and sentient entity, would never set unsurpassable limits on itself.
Callippo
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2011
They are not revisting their experiment, they are conducting another one
I'm supporter of the superluminal neutrino speed, but for example Lubos Motl in his first blog post about it immediately recognized, the observed gap fits exactly the relativistic effects of GPS reference frame, later the independent article based on the same insight was presented...

http://www.techno...v/27260/

So I'm really interested, if these corrections will be taken into account - or we can expect the very same articles about it again...

http://www.scienc...nt-83478
Ober
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2011
As for cold fusion, remember it isn't FREE energy, it's just energy production in a manner not fully understood. Just as nuclear technology would have seemed like "free energy" over a hundred years ago. Reproduceability is a problem, but research has shown that the structure of catalysts/anodes/cathodes is critical for the process to work. No two electrodes are identical, and the ones with the right "faults" in them seem to work. Also keep in mind that callapsing bubbles in solution have also shown to produce large amounts of energy. There is SOMETHING to "cold fusion" just it is proving very hard to reproduce given the "defects" needed in electrodes to be just right. Don't write this stuff off too easily. It may be BS, but it might also be correct. Let the cold fusion ppl continue their experiments. Just stick the SCAM artists on death row, to clear the scene for the real science to be done. I'm a hopeful skeptic on this one!!
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2011
For example, on this video you can see the sparks of energy at the surface of palladium cathode.
http://www.lenr-c...Navy.htm

Such effect is worth of independent study and its replications in standard scientific way. If the physcists are trying to replicate the experiments with superluminal neutrinos or Higgs boson obstinately - why not just this one? If nothing else, this effect is of practical importance and it could bring the money into physical research.
Ober
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2011
Thankyou Pyle for the link, RE Rossi.

I wonder who the big US company is??? I'd guess at Google!!!!
Google are already using gas fuel cells to power their huge data centres, and I'm sure they'd want a cheaper method if it was available. Looks like this test is the independant test we've been waiting for, let's hope no BS gets in the way of this test!!!!!!!
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2011
I wonder who the big US company is?

It should be Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, but they reportedly denied to comment it
http://freeenergy...ins.html

But we cannot judge the relevance of scientific findings from names of companies involved in it. This is simply ridiculous approach - the only way, how to make it clear are the peer-reviewed replications of experiments.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2011
Quantum entanglement describes a state of instantaneous transmission of 'information' across the Universe independent of space-time

No. No information is transmitted. Information is defined via a priori knowledge of states and then measuring a posteriori at some remote location. With quantum entanglement the a priori information is not available (i.e. if we were to try to impart information that way then the entanglement would be lost)
The limit on information transmission to light speed is not violated by entanglement.

We even have higher-dimensional theories explaining how folds in our fabric of reality can lead to the access of more complex phase spaces. So why the reluctance to accept fundamental Truth.

Theories - especially such highly speculative and untested ones - do not equate to truth. Truth is when you show that it works. Not one second earlier.

The universe, an intelligent and sentient entity

Proof? Or even some indication that this is so?
Callippo
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2011
Theories - especially such highly speculative and untested ones - do not equate to truth

But the experiments demonstrating the superluminal entanglement exist already. They were published in Nature journal. The question is, who is denying the truth, after then?

http://www.nature...121.html

BTW the idea of superluminal quantum entanglement plays well with dense aether model of space-time represented with water surface, in which the subtle portion oof information is always mediated with underwater waves, which are indeed a much faster, than the surface ones (the surface waves serving as an alow dimensional analogy of ligt waves here). Compare the experiments with superluminal tunelling of photons made by Gunter Nimtz.

http://en.wikiped...er_Nimtz
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Antialias, I think we come from two non-overlapping viewpoints on the same topic: entanglement has been shown indicate the presence of non-local systems, following no causal principles and usually involving some sort of self-organisation that we can only hope to understand. There is much, even in mainstream literature, of theoretical wormholes and higher dimensional branes, cosmic holography and unified fields in the form of vacuum energy. Even statistically, there is now strong evidence suggesting a positive bias toward the existence of some ESP / paranormal phenomena (see Dean Radin's books); we've even set about demonstrating that brain patterns can now be used to switch on and off hierarchical states of consciousness, some of which involve a very real world 'objective' experience of mystical and spiritual realities. Of non-dualities and ecstatic states of Oneness, and even (believe it or not) encounters with otherworldly beings (DMT: The Spirit Molecule is one helluva eyeopener)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2011
But the experiments demonstrating the superluminal entanglement exist already.

As noted: Entanglement does not constitute information transmission. There is no superluminal component here. If you take a ball and go at c in one direction and take an identical ball and go at c in another direction then there is no superluminal component involved (though this does not exactly capture the entanglement phenomenon).

The states of the entangled entities are linked (at creation of the entities), but forcing one to *switch* into a defined orientation thereafter does not affect the other. but only such a forced switching would constitute imparting information to the entity.
Callippo
1 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2011
Antialias ... the existence of some ESP / paranormal phenomena
Look, this guy is not apparently willing to believe even in rigourous peer-reviewed experiments published in Nature journal - so I doubt you'll convince him with some paranormal phenomena... I'm affraid, such way of arguments would have exactly the opposite effect.
Entanglement does not constitute information transmission. There is no superluminal component here
There is not causal component. Do you remeber my explanation of superluminal gravitational waves effect? These waves are represented with CMBR noise and they're supposed to appear from all directions at the same moment. Such way of communication is not connected with some causal information transfer.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2011
There is much, even in mainstream literature, of theoretical wormholes and higher dimensional branes, cosmic holography and unified fields in the form of vacuum energy.

Which is all highly interesting stuff (and certainly worth investigating) - but as of now all of that is just theory.
Until we can think of a test it's just speculation and not science (science requires testability and falsifiability)

some of which involve a very real world 'objective' experience of mystical and spiritual realities.

The 'mystical' and 'spiritual' parts are pure speculation on your part.

Getting high and talking to walls is not proof that walls are aliens.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2011
In similar way, the superluminal neutrinos aren't supposed to violate the determinism of special relativity in strict sense. These neutrinos will simply make a brief jumps during their travel and they will remain undetectable during it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2011
Look, this guy is not apparently willing to believe even in rigourous peer-reviewed experiments published in Nature journal

Maybe I've just understood what these papers say?
Look up 'quantum teleportation' and you will find that information transmission (or what non-scientists think when they hear the word 'teleportation') at superluminal speeds is not part of the bargain.
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2011
Antialias, it's as much speculation as the proposition that you're sat at your computer typing your flimsy ripostes. Until you've experienced expanded consciousness, your brain will continue to be tied up in the knots of its own denial. I'm afraid, antialias, that your closed mindset is symptomatic of the very funk our species has landed itself in, stubbornly refusing to evolve to a deeper understanding of the universe, and you as an expression of its dynamism. Just drop the facade of stoic empiricism (which is tantamount to nihilism), and embrace the reality of seeing the inherent connectedness of EVERYTHING. You and I are part of the same continuum, that ocean within which we're all ripples. In fact, we aren't really separate at all -- merely differentiated. The universe is a countless multitude of information pathways and systems, all of which give rise to this wondrous fabric of experience. Cast your doubts aside, and take heed: Nature is you.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2011
Personally, I do consider the esotericism as the same foolish way of reality description like the pathological skepticism. Both they're a rubbish separated from reality, just in dual way.

http://en.wikiped...tericism
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Callippo, from your article: While I am convinced of the critical importance of historiography in the study of esotericism (and for this reason all of my academic books are firmly grounded in historical method) I do not believe that historiography is adequate in itself to convey the complex, multivalent nature of esoteric thought, traditions, or most of all, experience. "

Well, nothing is adequate to convey experience. Not even language. We might as well have a caveman code of expressing our base instincts through grunts and groans. Esotericism is just the intellectual toff's way of (again) describing and classifying memes as the opposite of mainstream. That's what we do, as a general rule -- compartmentalise, pigeonhole, put into boxes. But the ideas expressed through language and through esoteric thought are far greater than the ability of human contact to convey -- they simply have to be experienced.
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2011

Deesky
5 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
Until you've experienced expanded consciousness, your brain will continue to be tied up in the knots of its own denial.

Meaningless piffle.

I'm afraid, antialias, that your closed mindset is symptomatic of the very funk our species has landed itself in, stubbornly refusing to evolve to a deeper understanding of the universe

Irony. It's precisely the mindset of people like A_P that has contributed to our understanding of the universe through the application of the scientific method, not touchy-feely 'spirituality' and other such navel gazing.

Just drop the facade of stoic empiricism (which is tantamount to nihilism), and embrace the reality of seeing the inherent connectedness of EVERYTHING.

So, drop science and take acid? Yeah, sounds like a plan.

Cast your doubts aside, and take heed: Nature is you.

More new-age piffle.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2011
Superluminal neutrinos, if they exist, ought to be verifiable by detecting neutrino bursts from distant supernovae. We already detect neutrino bursts from these sources (though the events aren't common).

Neutrinos arrive a few hours before visible light from supernovae. Under current theory, the reason for this is neutrinos interact weakly with matter when escaping the star; photons interact much more and must struggle past a lot of matter (and be absorbed and re-emitted by that matter) in their escape path.

If energetic neutrinos can move at superluminal speeds, we ought to see variance in the interval between neutrino arrival and visible light arrival from exploding supernovae based on their distance (e.g. the farther away, the larger the interval between neutrinos and photons arriving). Even a 60-nanosecond difference in velocity should translate into noticeable differences in the delay over hundreds of millions or billions of light years.

Has anyone looked for this variation?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Hey calypso
Looks like your cold fusion buddy may have done something right?
http://pesn.com/2...cessful/

-Time to show some enthusiasm for this non-scientist?
Nerdyguy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2011
Hey calypso
Looks like your cold fusion buddy may have done something right?
http://pesn.com/2...cessful/

-Time to show some enthusiasm for this non-scientist?


These results were posted in quite a few places surprisingly. Even a few mainstream news sources, like Wired, were on hand. Sadly, physorg reported a big fat zero. Rossi says his "mystery client" was satisfied with the results. However, the device did not work as intended and only provided about half the output expected. Bears watching.

Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2011
"Has anyone looked for this variation?" - Urgelt

The effect has been observed. It has been speculated about endlessly. Consensus opinion = Einstein says particles can't go faster than light. Therefore, the observed neutrinos are not, in fact, superluminal. Rather, we are witnessing particles ejected prior to ejection of photons.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2011
Otto - Thanks for the link.

I'm a bit suspicious of keeping a 1 MW generator running during a half-MW demo, though...
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2011
Hey calypso
Looks like your cold fusion buddy may have done something right?
http://pesn.com/2...cessful/

I haven't changed my mind that it's a scam... Still the secrecy, including the customer. Then you get crankish quotes like:

"Today we have made a theoretically endless COP making 470 kilowatt hour per hour of completely free energy, free of fuel."

kWh/h? free energy? no fuel? It smells.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
I haven't changed my mind that it's a scam
So what? 60 % of American still don't believe in evolution. Some people will never accept any evidence, it's just dual version of fanatic belief: the belief in nonexistence.

For me it's rather smelling, nobody of mainstream physics cares about it. The contemporary science is actually quite incompetent to solve any real problem of civilization: every stupid amateur will do a better job. I'm not talking about individuals, but about organization of the whole system. How many important findings are still ignored?
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
Rossi says his "mystery client" was satisfied with the results.
This client is known, but he doesn't want to be connected with this project officially. The reason is essentially legal: Rossi is actually developing nuclear reactor and every such device is illegal to sell in the USA without agreement of US government. So that the E-cat unit will be shipped first in Europe.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
the device did not work as intended and only provided about half the output expected
E-cat unit was never intended to run in self-sustaining mode at full power. The reason is instability of catalyst thermal reaction. If the catalyst is maintained hot with external source of energy, than the E-Cat unit can run at full power without problem. But skeptics wouldn't believe in the result, until the device would remain connected to some wires. Which is actually pretty ridiculous: most of physicists believe in particles like the W/Z bosons or top-quarks, which are itself based on very subtle evidence - just because the physicists itself predicted their existence. But when some stuff produces energy with cold fusion, then even 1 MW power test isn't considered reliable enough. It just illustrates the bias in practical application of so-called the "scientific method".
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2011
@Callipo:

This is from the article by PESN, Rossi's official "reporter of record" (paras are out of order):

"Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer opted to go for the self-sustain mode.

It ran for 5.5 hours producing 470 kW, while in self-looped mode. That means no substantial external energy was required to make it run, because it kept itself running, even while producing an excess of nearly half a megawatt."

http://pesn.com/2...cessful/

I still think it sounds too good to be true, but I would be happy to eat my words as I think it would be a phenomenal achievement.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2011
So what? 60% of American still don't believe in evolution

Non sequitur.

Some people will never accept any evidence, it's just dual version of fanatic belief: the belief in nonexistence

There has been no evidence provided, so there is nothing to accept. When shadowy clients 'review' a closed box of magic impervious to peer scrutiny and give it a thumbs up, it doesn't exactly meet the criteria for 'evidence'. It also doesn't help that Rossi appears to be a convicted tax fraudster.

What's fanatical is your belief in pseudo-science. Last time there was an article on ecat, you really worked yourself up into a lather (as a different sockpuppet).

For me it's rather smelling, nobody of mainstream physics cares about it

And that should be your first clue that it's dodgy science.

The contemporary science is actually quite incompetent to solve any real problem of civilization: every stupid amateur will do a better job.

Spoken like a true crank that you are.
Deesky
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
I'm not talking about individuals, but about organization of the whole system. How many important findings are still ignored?

None probably. If they were truly important, they would not be ignored.

This client is known, but he doesn't want to be connected with this project officially.

Known to whom? And right, why would anyone wish to be associated with a real breakthrough technology that could transform the world?

The reason is essentially legal: Rossi is actually developing nuclear reactor and every such device is illegal to sell in the USA without agreement of US government.

Hogwash. I'm pretty sure developing 'nuclear' technology is restricted in all western democracies.

I wonder why, in the age when patents are given out like candy (see Apple), that Rossi would be denied an international patent for a world changing technology?
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
The cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel is not pseudoscience. It has been quite rigorously announced in official press of Italian Academy of Sciences before twenty years. The mainstream physics ignored it and it wasted its opportunity to share success in the cold fusion development in such way.

http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf

No wonder, every of mainstream physicists is rather upset with this situation in the same way, like you - because the success of A.Rossi is essentially a big shame of mainstream physics. Too many people were rendered ignorant, if not wrong today. The silly labeling of yours "magic impervious, tax fraudster, dodgy science, crank, etc." cannot cover this bare fact.

I will not waste more of my time with you, because I essentially despise the silly short-seeing people like you.
Deesky
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 29, 2011
The cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel is not pseudoscience. It has been quite rigorously announced in official press

'Rigorous' announcements are hardly peer-reviewed science.

The mainstream physics ignored it and it wasted its opportunity to share success in the cold fusion development in such way

Seriously? You think any scientist worth his salt would just ignore something of world changing significance for...for...what???

No wonder, every of mainstream physicists is rather upset with this situation in the same way, like you

Like me, they're 'upset' because nonsense like this keeps getting perpetuated, in the press mainly, and gullible fools lap it up. What's upsetting is the perpetuation of pseudoscience in society - of which you are a good example.

Too many people were rendered ignorant

Heh, heh, I'm looking at you.

I will not waste more of my time with you

I hope so, then you can do us all a favor.
skand1nsky
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
All you consciousness-deniers, here's something for your inadequate neurons to chew on:

http://www.newsci...ine-news
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
All you consciousness-deniers, here's something for your inadequate neurons to chew on:

http://www.newsci...ine-news


The article describes the clinical conditions observed in the brains of drug users. What precisely would be your point re: consciousness?
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
Nerdyguy, the point I try to raise is that the mind is already capable of accessing superluminal states. Try yoga, meditation, psychedelic exploration, tantra, tai chi, of even prolonged breathwork -- all these mechanisms are merely conduits to exploring higher dimensional realities which are ALREADY PRESENT within our universe. The skeptics on this site will try to apply their reductionist perspectives to dismiss this sort of claim as 'piffle' or 'codswallop', terms which are by the way wholly unscientific. This cynicism is part of that global media propaganda machine which will have us all remain passive, disempowered and wholly unaware of these truths. Science has barely begun to scratch the surface of what reality truly is, and sages, mystics and spiritual seekers over millenia have propagated the very same ideals that I now try to bring to this forum. The world we inhabit is so extravagantly implausible, and yet we fail to see our universe as the ultimate mythological construct.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2011
Deesky - while you are >99% correct, there certainly are cases of mainstream science ignoring what turns out to be significant science on the basis that it conflicts with the prevailing paradigm.
While this is rare in physics it is actually quite common in medicine, and not infrequent in biology.

Callippo: For an example of how mainstream physics 'ignores' findings that counter the prevailing theory, just look at how the findings of apparently faster-than-light neutrinos was 'ignored'.

I would love for cold fusion to be true, but it will take solid evidence to convince me. You have said that the Rossi person is not important and that phenomena cannot be judged from behaviour of a person implement it. However EVIDENCE for a phenomenon can be judged. If a known fraud artist presents something and calls it evidence, and doesn't let people look closely at that 'evidence', it is smart to be suspicious.
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
This ties in to the article I mentioned on drug use: scientific tests now indicate that the states accessed by psychoactive drug users (including feelings of timelessness, contact with beings & intelligences beyond our own, spirits and visions, feelings of oneness and ecstatic bliss, and seeing reality from the perspective of the 'Whole') are now wholly OBJECTIVE experiences. The same brain areas are awakened as those when we see what we would classify as 'real' objects. We cannot cast aspersions on this any longer -- as a species, we have now come full circle, and the very tools of understanding we use nowadays like Quantum Mechanics completely validate the oldest religious and spiritual traditions. Try and read stuff by Schrodinger, Bohm and Capra -- they all speak of Truth as looking through the eyes of the Cosmos. In such a perspective, there is no such thing as 'separate' objects, or even time. Boundaries between inner and outer worlds dissolve, and the veil is finally lifted.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
there certainly are cases of mainstream science ignoring what turns out to be significant science on the basis that it conflicts with the prevailing paradigm. While this is rare in physics it is actually quite common in medicine, and not infrequent in biology.
The physics is any better from this perspective. The findings like the cold fusion, various antigravity devices (EMDrive), antigravity effects of Podkletnov and Taimar, the room superconductivity of J.F.Prins, various ZPE generators, radiolysis of water by Kanzius, etc. are all ignored with mainstream physic. The common aspect of all these findings is the complete lack of attempts for their replication in peer-reviewed literature.
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
just look at how the findings of apparently faster-than-light neutrinos was 'ignored'.
This effect is very subtle and it could be actually expected with many theories, including the string theory. The mainstream physics has no problem with weak, solely theoretical effects, which are believed to be a sign of "new physics" and as such searched obstinately instead. We shouldn't forget, whole the mainstream physics is based on perturbative theories. The mainstream physics has a problem with strong effects, which aren't predicted with any theory and with the effects, which could be of practical importance.

After all, despite the media interest for superluminal neutrinos, the reaction of mainstream physics is rather dismissive and we still have no attempt for their independent confirmation planned or at least announced. Whole stuff could end with the same silence, like the recent Tajmar's experiments, which were medialized strongly too after all.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Superluminal neutrinos, if they exist, ought to be verifiable by detecting neutrino bursts from distant supernovae. We already detect neutrino bursts from these sources (though the events aren't common).

Neutrinos arrive a few hours before visible light from supernovae. Under current theory, the reason for this is neutrinos interact weakly with matter when escaping the star; photons interact much more and must struggle past a lot of matter (and be absorbed and re-emitted by that matter) in their escape path.

If energetic neutrinos can move at superluminal speeds, we ought to see variance in the interval between neutrino arrival and visible light arrival from exploding supernovae based on their distance (e.g. the farther away, the larger the interval between neutrinos and photons arriving). Even a 60-nanosecond difference in velocity should translate into noticeable differences in the delay over hundreds of millions or billions of light years.

Has anyone looked for this variation?
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
Getting high and seeing funny lights is still just getting high and seeing funny lights. This is neither "objective" nor does it have anything at all to do with "superluminal neutrinos".

Take this nonsense to a "paranormal experiences" forum.

Wait, is this like an April-fools kind of joke? Because it's Halloween? You funny guys, you got me!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2011
All you consciousness-deniers, here's something for your inadequate neurons to chew on:

http://www.newsci...ine-news


The article describes the clinical conditions observed in the brains of drug users. What precisely would be your point re: consciousness?
Oop sorry about the 1/5. Misfire.
...including feelings of timelessness, contact with beings & intelligences beyond our own, spirits and visions, feelings of oneness and ecstatic bliss, and seeing reality from the perspective of the 'Whole') are now wholly OBJECTIVE experiences.
Which is, and will forever be, a wholly subjective opinion. Castenada tried this already.

Youre just another superstitionist looking for ways to escape his inescapable corporeality. Try jesus - at least they have refreshments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2011
The world is deafeningly quiet on the rossi e-cat results (except for the italian media.) Inquiring minds want to know-
Callippo
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Has anyone looked for this variation?
Of course, it's actually the observation, which motivated all the later research. Check the Google search for more info.

http://www.scienc...ini2.jpg
Urgelt
not rated yet Oct 29, 2011
Has anyone looked for this variation?
Of course, it's actually the observation, which motivated all the later research. Check the Google search for more info.

http://www.scienc...ini2.jpg


That chart shows energy ranges for detectors, Callippo. It says nothing about variations in delay between arrival of neutrinos and photons from distant supernovae.

My Google searches came up empty. I admit I may not have stumbled on the right combination of search words.
Shitead
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Before launching into arguments over cold fusion, etc., focus on the article. What if they are right and neutrinos do travel 6 km/sec faster than photons? Think of the implications. This could be more important than the discoveries of Penzias and Wilson.
Just at a glance I can see a built-in red shift that has nothing to do with universal expansion or the Big Bang. How cool would that be?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
"The world is deafeningly quiet on the rossi e-cat results" - Otto

Obviously the demo was a failure.

Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
My Google searches came up empty.
The left point on "my" graph is just related to supernova observation. Did you try the "supernova neutrino superluminal" keywords for example? Even the Wikipedia mentions it..
What if they are right neutrinos do travel 6 km/sec faster than photons?
It's quite possible, I do believe in this difference. One of implication will be, the neutrinos could tunnel through event horizon of black holes and to contribute to their evaporation.
Obviously the demo was a failure.
Obviously not, just because of it most of skeptics remains pretty quiet like the rats hidden in their holes..
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
If scientists would be really interested about this technology, they would attempted to test it already and published in peer-reviewed journals. Because the original experiments weren't published with A. Rossi in January 2011, but before twenty years already in quite standard scientific way in official journal of Italian Academy of Science.

http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf

The person of A. Rossi is significant for acceptation of cold fusion in the same way, like the manufacturer of GPS satellites for acceptation of general relativity.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
Rossi is very clearly a fraud, and Callippo is a fool's fool for believing him.

http://blog.newen...-claims/
Urgelt
4 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
I managed to find a few articles. The consensus among physicists seems to be that distance to emitting supernovae appears to be independent of the lag time between arriving neutrinos and photons. The evidentiary base isn't large, but what has been observed fits with energetic neutrinos moving exactly at the speed of light.

Which suggests a massless neutrino. But the Standard Model wants to assign a non-zero mass to neutrinos.

I think superluminosity will turn out to be a flaw in the design of an experiment. The more interesting question, to me, is the question of neutrino mass.
Nerdyguy
4.5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
"Has anyone looked for this variation?" - Urgelt

I left you a response to this last night and it got deleted, perhaps because I had a link? In short, if I understand your question correctly, yes, neutrinos have been observed arriving prior to other particles.

The reason has been endlessly speculated on and the consensus opinion amounts to: the speed of light is not violated, as neutrinos' characteristics allow them to travel through other matter more easily. Well, that's super condensed.

There are other opinions. But, the consensus opinion is the entire basis of the quandary at OPERA. If it was correct to start with, why the problems now? If it was wrong to start with, then...maybe there's something we don't understand. And the quest continues.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
Rossi is very clearly a fraud, and Callippo is a fool's fool for believing him.

http://blog.newen...-claims/

Some prefer facts. Callippo prefers religionist fantasy.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
@Urgelt:

"Superluminal neutrinos, if they exist, ought to be verifiable by detecting neutrino bursts from distant supernovae. We already detect neutrino bursts from these sources (though the events aren't common)."

To date, the only unequivocal supernova neutrino observations were those from SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Of course, several neutrino detectors have been and are currently enlisted in the search for (nearby) supernovae: http://en.wikiped...g_System
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
"The world is deafeningly quiet on the rossi e-cat results" - Otto

Obviously the demo was a failure.

If you would care to peruse my previous posts you'll find references to 2 (biased?) news sources which claim otherwise. And if you understand itralian you can find many more with GOOGLE. The results though suspicious, lead one to believe they are either on to something or are very clever mafioso fraudsters indeed. I wonder if the amazing randi was there?

Amazing claims require amazing evidence. But who needs science when you begin manufacturing units which consistantly perform? So we shall see.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
"If you would care to peruse my previous posts you'll find references to 2 (biased?) news sources which claim otherwise. - Otto

Biased? - No. Incompetent. Yes.

No verification of the tests were performed. No films of the tests were released although it was initially claimed that they would do so. No measurements were provided. No substantiated measurements were provided. The observers were unnamed, the purchaser was unidentified, the contract unverified.

In short the demonstration was just a bucket load of unsubstantiated clap trap, and most of the promises of openness were reneged upon.

What independent evidence does anyone have of any heat production? None.

What independent examiner can vouch for the production of excess energy? None.

Etc. etc. etc.

Clearly E-cat is a SCAM.

ZachB
not rated yet Oct 29, 2011
Umm... It looks like these folks are creating a way to transmit data, with protons/neutrinos, through the crust of the Earth.

First one to make comunications satelites obsolete wins!
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
What independent evidence does anyone have of any heat production?
Cold fusion produces copper and the soft gamma radiation.

http://www.journa...m/?p=211
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
You forgot
'no proper calibration of instruments
no blank run without hydrogen to test the instruments and heat losses
no run long enough to exclude all possible sources of stored and externally supplied energy'
And
'After all, you can hide almost anything in a shipping container-sized device.'

I don't know. The bloom box works. This could be the greatest thing since eternal life.
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Deesky - while you are >99% correct, there certainly are cases of mainstream science ignoring what turns out to be significant science on the basis that it conflicts with the prevailing paradigm.

RealScience, I do agree and that is why I mildly qualified my reply: "None *probably*".

But, as you point out, it's far less likely to happen in the 'hard' sciences like physics, then the 'softer' ones, like biology and medicine.

But, having said that, here we're talking about an extraordinary claim, not just something which might, perhaps have some potential. If someone in medicine claimed that they had developed a cure for all cancers, I doubt that the claims would be ignored (unless no supporting evidence was provided or the mechanism of action).

And that's what we're dealing with here, an extraordinary claim with an extraordinary lack of evidence and transparency.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
Well, this latest show of E-Cat by Andrea Rossi was supposed to be open, and provide undeniable evidence that he actually has something that works.

What was shown was nothing of the sort. In fact it is clear that he went out of his way to keep people from verifying that the thing works. And that says only one thing. That he is engaged in a SWINDLE.

Proponents of Andrea Rossi now only have two lines of argument. 1 is that it to admit that it is a FRAUD and the second is to admit that Andrea Rossi and his team are spectacularly incompetent scientists and engineers who have 17 times in a row managed to produce a demonstration that is so botched that no conclusions to the effectiveness of the device was demonstrated.

The E-cat produced energy. It just boiled water.

No facilities were provided to measure how much energy was released. Although they did monitor water influx. How much of that water was lost as water vapor and how much was lost as wet steam - no measurements.-SCAM
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Proponents of Andrea Rossi now only have two lines of argument. 1 is that it to admit that it is a FRAUD and the second is to admit that Andrea Rossi and his team are spectacularly incompetent scientists and engineers who have 17 times in a row managed to produce a demonstration that is so botched that no conclusions to the effectiveness of the device was demonstrated.

You have overlooked the third and most likely position that these types of people will adopt:
3) Overlook all shortcomings and hail the 'test' a complete success. Accuse skeptics of 'mainstreamism' and 'consensus scientism', LOL.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Deesky - I agree.
Extraordinary claims require at least good, solid evidence, and what Rossi has offered is pretty thin.
20 or 30 research team tried to reproduce the Fleischman and Pons results, so Callippo is full of it saying that the results were ignored. And if Rossi weren't a known fraudster behaving like a fraudster, a few dozen would jump in to test Rossi's claims.

My opinion as to why the hard scineces are less likely to ignore contra-mainstream results is that the soft sciences are still full of phenomena waiting to be discovered and within range of most scientists, so people can pursue 'easy' discoveries that don't contradict mainstream thought, while in physics surprises are rare enough that dozens of scientists jump at any hint of anything surprising.
Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the standard model just woek so well, while the soft sciences deal with much 'messier' things like life.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
20 or 30 research team tried to reproduce the Fleischman and Pons results, so Callippo is full of it saying that the results were ignored
But who attempted to reproduce the Foccardin-Piantelli results, which are of nearly the same age, like the experiments of Fleischman and Pons? Who attempted to replicate the Randell L. Mills results? The problem simply is, the mainstream physicists never believed, these effects can be real, so they adjusted their criterions of acceptance in the exactly opposite way to the acceptance of gravitational waves, Higgs boson or supersymmetry. So whereas for proof of Higgs boson the energetic effects at the range of picoJoules are sufficient, these same physicists are still doubting the megawatt cold fusion unit... There is apparent application of double standard in distinguishing, whether some phenomena is real or not.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
From solely theoretical perspecive, even the nanojoule effect of cold fusion would be worth of further study, whenever it cannot be explained with existing theory in the same way, like the slightly superluminal speed of the neutrino. Is the one promile violation of fusion theory less significant, than the one promile violation of constant speed of light? Why it should be? Because the later difference could bring more jobs to theorists? It's very shortsighted way of thinking. If the theorists would be more consequential, then the mainstream physics would get huge support from cold fusion research instead. The theorists would get their money for neutrino research anyway, just a few years later. But they just didn't want to wait, so now we are all suffering from financial crisis.

This example just illustrates, there is no basic and applied research, when some money are in the game - the basic research, which can generate more money, should be always considered first.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Extraordinary claims require at least good, solid evidence, and what Rossi has offered..
You apparently never realize, Mr. Rossi is not doing a scientific research. He is doing applied research for his own money and money of private investors, so he isn't obliged to reveal absolutely anything about his experiments at the moment, when he or his clients are convenient with it. He is solely private person and if physicists don't believe in something, it's their own problem with it.

I can ask instead, what the physicists are doing for the money from public taxes, if they're not able to replicate the well documented experiments even twenty years after their publishing?

Instead of it they just repeat like small kids: "But Rossi don't want to show us anything!".. If they ignored the Foccardi & Piantelli results, why they're expecting another ones? Just for their "reviewing"? Who asks them for some review? They're supposed to do their own experiments, because they got equipment for it.
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
But who attempted to reproduce the Foccardin-Piantelli results

Is that a rhetorical question? Would you even know if it had been tried to be reproduced? Here's a hint - NASA looked into it, and Dr Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASAs Langley concluded:

"NASA is not working on a replication of Andrea Rossis Energy Catalyzer device. We do not have enough details, by *far*, to even start to think of a replication of Rossi".

So, what's there to actually look at? A black box process?

The problem simply is, the mainstream physicists never believed, these effects can be real

And yet they looked into it and could not reproduce the results, many times.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
so they adjusted their criterions of acceptance in the exactly opposite way to the acceptance of gravitational waves, Higgs boson or supersymmetry.

Hardly. There are sound theoretical reasons to pursue these phenomena, unlike cold fusion.

...these same physicists are still doubting the megawatt cold fusion unit

Yup, crank claims tend to get weeded out, even when given the benefit of the doubt by actually investigating the claims.

There is apparent application of double standard in distinguishing, whether some phenomena is real or not.

It's called science. All claims aren't equally valid. I'll tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy stock in Rossi's cold fusion company?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
what's there to actually look at? A black box process?
Of course, the research is if you don't know, what are you doing. If you know about it, then it's not research anymore...:-) Physicist are apparently waiting, if Rossi will finish his research - why? And why are they're all repeating the "Rossi" name like mantra? What the NASA has to do with some Rossi at all? Why it ignores the original founders of this process, I mean Mr. Foccardi, Piantelli and Mills? Just these people published the anomalous heat effects of hydrogen at nickel - not the Rossi, who never wrote any paragraph about it? Are the chief NASA scientists complete idiots - or what?

At the 1939, when first work about nuclear fission has been published, the government started the nuclear weapon research immediately. Nobody cared, if these results are real or waited twenty years to some Rossi, if he reveals some more details about it. Apparently, the times changed substantially from the WWW II in scientific research.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy stock in Rossi's cold fusion company
How do you know, I haven't done already? What my investments have to do with subject of discussion? It's my business, not that of yours.
It's called science. All claims aren't equally valid
Some of them are believed more, some less. This is what the religion is called. The physicists will never get any evidence of cold fusion from private subjects. They're payed with publics for doing their own research. If they don't want to do it, they can find some better job.
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
From solely theoretical perspecive, even the nanojoule effect of cold fusion would be worth of further study

Why? Liberating energy through chemical reactions happens all the time. That isn't at issue. The specific claim, and I quote (again):

"Today we have made a theoretically endless COP making 470 kilowatt hour per hour of completely FREE ENERGY, FREE of FUEL."

whenever it cannot be explained with existing theory in the same way, like the slightly superluminal speed of the neutrino.

That's when red flags go up. The neutrino result is almost certainly measurement (relativistic clock sync) error. Rest assured that the scientific community will get to the bottom of that one shortly.

Is the one promile violation of fusion theory less significant, than the one promile violation of constant speed of light?

I have no idea what a 'promile' is!
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
Because the later difference could bring more jobs to theorists?

LOL, the old crank argument that scientists are in it for the money. But, quite frankly, I would support anything which attracts more people to do scientific research.

If the theorists would be more consequential, then the mainstream physics would get huge support from cold fusion research instead

Huh?

The theorists would get their money for neutrino research anyway, just a few years later. But they just didn't want to wait, so now we are all suffering from financial crisis.

WTF? You're a total and utter loon if you think the GFC was caused by SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!

This example just illustrates, there is no basic and applied research, when some money are in the game

No, this example illustrates that you are completely divorced from reality.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
I have no idea what a 'promile' is!
It;s a "per mille" in English, my mistake.
FREE ENERGY, FREE of FUEL
It's a journalism of some blogger, not the claim of Rossi. The physicists should care about their own sources of informations, which were published for them before twenty years already, not about stories presented at some blogs. The physicists apparently forget, how to do their own job.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
You're a total and utter loon if you think the GFC was caused by SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!
Not at all. The replacement of fossil fuels is the main target of cold fusion. The GFC was introduced just with sudden jump of oil price in 2009.

http://www.wtrg.c...1869.gif

These jumps will be the more frequent, the less oil reserves will actually remain, because the oil price is kept artificially low. Actually, just the ignorance of cold fusion with physicists is, what is primarily responsible for GFC by now. Twenty years is q long time - today one half of energy industry could be replaced with cold fusion sources already if just the governments would invest into it in the same way, like into nuclear weapon research after WWW II.

It's all just about priorities, my dear...
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
BTW we shouldn't compare the complexity of nuclear weapon research with cold fusion research made with Andrea Rossi, who is apparently amateur at the first sight. Every could do it with using of Piantelli/Foccardi research - it's just scaling out of their demo without any value added. Today everyone of us could have its own cold fusion generator purchased, if the things would get so "responsibly", like at the case of nuclear weapon research.
Deesky
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
Of course, the research is if you don't know, what are you doing. If you know about it, then it's not research anymore

Dude, if you want others to corroborate your results, you need to have something for them to investigate, not a closed magic box! You simply have no idea how science works.

Physicist are apparently waiting, if Rossi will finish his research

No, they are waiting (but not holding their breath) for him to explain how his magic box works or at least the 'recipe' so that they can conduct their own tests.

And why are they're all repeating the "Rossi" name like mantra?

It's mostly the free-energy cranks, like you, which are having a field day.

Are the chief NASA scientists complete idiots - or what?

Far from it, which is why Bushnell told the truth.
deepsand
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
Well, my dear ...

Good night, Irene.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
You simply have no idea how science works.
I'm afraid, I just understand it perfectly. And it's not nice experience, you can believe me. But the image of contemporary science just reflects the decadence of the whole society. Today most of commenters at public forums is judging the cold fusion by the same criterions, like the "chief NASA scientist" - absolutely no difference. No wonder the scientists today have no motivation in original research.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
At the 1939, when first work about nuclear fission has been published, the government started the nuclear weapon research immediately. Nobody cared, if these results are real

Don't be a moron. Nuclear theory and QM were well advanced since the turn of the last century which lead directly and predictably to fission bombs. A perfect example of theory and evidence based research. You know, the opposite of cold fusion.

Apparently, the times changed substantially from the WWW II in scientific research.

Not in the least, the scientific method remains the same.

Yes
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
excerpt:
If this works, the technique will be used in a bigger, "highly important" experiment that will be carried out in April, he said.
April 1st, I presume.
And the experiment is about how incredible ignorant some scientist are.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
Nuclear theory and QM were well advanced since the turn of the last century which lead directly and predictably to fission bombs.
The nuclear fission has been revealed accidentally in the same way, like the cold fusion. The theory of nuclear weapons therefore couldn't exist before - it was all developed just during six years of WWW II!

And we understand the mechanism of cold fusion well - at least I do. It's actually quite predictable effect of the whole group of atom nuclei.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
I have no idea what a 'promile' is!
It;s a "per mille" in English, my mistake.
FREE ENERGY, FREE of FUEL
It's a journalism of some blogger, not the claim of Rossi. The physicists should care about their own sources of informations, which were published for them before twenty years already, not about stories presented at some blogs.

Really, you want to go with that?

I extracted that sub-quote from a larger direct quote by Rossi. The text preceding the quote is this:

In this excerpt, Rossi responds to the question, "So, is this a breakthrough?"


You still want to claim that it was the blogger's words rather than a direct quote from Rossi?
Yes
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
If it was possible to detect a self generated beam of neutrinos on a precise fixed location to 6 meters precision at a distance of 700 km. Please help me not to laugh my head of.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
So, is this a breakthrough?

Of course it is. The annual production of nickel is five hundreds-times higher, than it corresponds the yearly oil consumption by now. Not to say about hydrogen production = the price of raw sources is zero. No need of deuterium, tritium separation. (Nearly) no radiation. Very simple, safe and easy to produce reactor. It generates the precious copper as a byproduct. It's literally a miracle. The people, who are refusing it or even slowing its implementation and acceptation (no matter, from which personal reason) are literally enemies of human civilization - nothing else. And I will handle them so.
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Not at all. The replacement of fossil fuels is the main target of cold fusion. The GFC was introduced just with sudden jump of oil price in 2009.

Bullshit. The GFC was caused by unregulated market speculators and banks selling dodgy financial instruments, like credit default swaps, until the bubble burst and when all manner of knock-on effects befell the world. You seem to know even less about economics than you do about science.

But the image of contemporary science just reflects the decadence of the whole society

That must be some kind of Orwellian speak.

Today most of commenters at public forums is judging the cold fusion by the same criterions, like the "chief NASA scientist" - absolutely no difference

I'm heartened to hear that as it means at least some of the public haven't had their brains turned to mush with pseudoscience.

No wonder the scientists today have no motivation in original research

Read through some papers in Physical Review Letters.
eigenbasis
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
"Through a complex transformation, a few of the protons arrive at their destination as neutrinos, travelling through Earth's crust."

You mean:
Proton + Nucleus -> Pi± -> mu± + (muon neutrino or antimuon neutrino) or
Proton + Nucleus -> Pi± -> e± + (electron neutrino or antielectron neutrino)

This isn't complicated, we shouldn't keep people in the dark. I think overall the logic behind this statement is very incorrect, the protons don't reach the end target as neutrinos
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
"But who attempted to reproduce the Foccardin-Piantelli results, which are of nearly the same age, like the experiments of Fleischman and Pons? Who attempted to replicate the Randell L. Mills results?" - Calli

I once saw a rabbit appear out of an empty hat. Teleportation must be real. What scientist has tried to replicate those results?

scientists have better things to do with their time than trying to correct bad experimentalists.

It is up to the bad experimentalists to prove themselves capable, and their experiments valid.

So far they have generally failed to do so.

And I say this being sympathetic to their cause. Some of the claims are worthy of investigation and followup.

E-Cat however is now clearly nothing more than an elaborate SCAM.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
The nuclear fission has been revealed accidentally in the same way, like the cold fusion.

Bullshit. Tell me how the fission process was accidentally discovered and by whom?

The theory of nuclear weapons therefore couldn't exist before - it was all developed just during six years of WWW II!

It couldn't exist before there was an accurate understanding of atomic structure. It took some five decades of building that foundation before fission was first demonstrated in 1938. Without the decades of painstaking groundwork that preceded it, there would have been no fission bombs. If you think it was all conjured up in six years from some accident, then you really are a moron.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"The annual production of nickel is five hundreds-times higher, than it corresponds the yearly oil consumption by now." - Callippo

Well then you are such an religious believer in the E-Cat SCAM that you should give all your money to the scam artist as an investment.

I take it you have already done so?

Yes
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
The IceCube Neutrino Observatory uses 1 km3 of the Antarctic ice sheet near the south pole with photomultiplier tubes distributed throughout the volume to detect a microscopic amount of neutrinos, while 60 billion neutrinos per second per square centimeter is the neutrino flux. And in Italy they detect neutrinos if they were electrons? Did they have a miraculous breakthrough in neutrino detectors somewhere?
Come on this is a first of April joke.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2011
"And we understand the mechanism of cold fusion well - at least I do." - Callippo

Well, you should get a Nobel, because no one else claims to know how it works - or doesn't work as the case may be.

You are clueless and have fallen for a SCAM artist because he has told you WHAT YOU WISH TO HEAR. That is the sign of a good mark.

What is even worse, is that you are clueless as to how clueless you are.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
Tell me how the fission process was accidentally discovered and by whom?
The nuclear fission was revealed accidentally in 1938 by Otto Hahn and explained in 1939 with Lisa Meitner. After six years the first nuclear bomb exploded. Now we're paying a thousand times more of nuclear physicists - and the original twenty years old experiment of Piantelli is still not even replicated.

What went wrong? Apparently the effectiveness of research is indirectly proportional to the number of scientists involved in it.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
"Today most of commenters at public forums is judging the cold fusion by the same criterions" - Callippo

It isn't difficult to demonstrate 300 times, 16 times, 6 times over unity. Odd how the over unity value changes over time isn't it?

In any case such large over unity values are trivial to demonstrate. Put the freaking thing in a isolated, insulated box and measure the damn temperature rise over days if you need to.

But no, they keep a generator running outside attached to cables that run inside, to convince a secret observer for a secret buyer that the secret process works.

I have a secret for you Callippo. E-Cat is an obvious SCAM.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
"He is doing applied research for his own money and money of private investors, so he isn't obliged to reveal absolutely anything about his experiments at the moment," - Callippo

Yes. You are completely ignorant about the process.

The difference between you and me, is that You take it as a matter of FAITH that E-Cat functions as claimed.

I require EVIDENCE, and all EVIDENCE points to E-Cat being just another SCAM.

Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
Put the freaking thing in a isolated, insulated box and measure the damn temperature rise over days if you need to.
Why scientists payed from public taxes cannot do it? They've nickel, hydrogen, description of experiments...
Why private person like A.Rossi should do it for physicists? Why to pay these physicists after then? We could fire all of them and hire some people, willing to work on public problems, not just the problems of their own.
gareth_Ph
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
Re the cold fusion debate (or debacle...?)
I've been very skeptical since the Fleischmann-Pons fiasco - It all seemed so promising then it all fell flat. But, must keep an open mind, and all that...
Now Rossi is claiming 479kWh/h for 330min with NO fuel. That's extremely impressive. I can't help thinking if those claims were halfway true it would cause a worldwide sensation, with Rossi an overnight hero...

Nobody seems to have a definitive answer (does the damn thing work or doesn't it!!) so believe it if/when the E-Cats are being built, sold and observed working
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
"Why scientists payed from public taxes cannot do it?" - Callippo

Because the entire process is a SCAM obviously.

"Why private person like A.Rossi should do it for physicists?" - Callippo

If after 17 attempts he can't produce an demonstration that functions unambiguously then he is clearly incompetent, and as an incompetent it is highly improbably that he has stumbled across anything other than a method of Scamming fools.
Ober
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
There was an article here on Physorg not long ago about Quasicrystals!!!! Go read it again. I seem to remember that particular scientists being ignored and ridiculed for his beliefs in them, yet recently he was vindicated as being correct!!!
I'm absolutely stunned as to how blinded by dogma a lot of you posters are. Some I had respect for, but now they just seem to post in order to argue with others, and stick to simply what is known. If you're going to stick to what is known, then become a historian!!! To move forward we have to explore all avenues!!!! Even the U.S. researched advanced propulsion systems, no matter how weird and bizarre they were, just incase there was some truth to them. The funding was pulled, and they concluded nothing worth following up. (but maybe black ops who knows?????)
I just wish some of you regular posters would keep your minds open to new ideas, no matter how bizarre they are.
New Ideas are what is important then proof of concept, lastly the explanation.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
This report concerns the experimental results obtained by two groups of researchers and collaborators, belonging to inter-university center I.M.O. from Bologna (Focardi, Campari) and Siena (Piantelli, Gabbani, Montalbano, Veronesi); all of them have always participated to the researches in the field of LENR.

http://www.sede.e...taly.pdf

According to Piantellis hypothesis, a H ion can replace an electron of a transition metal atom, just as a muon replaces an electron in muon-catalyzed fusion. Due to its relatively large mass, the H ion continually falls to lower electron levels, causing the emission of X-rays and Auger electrons. As it has a net negative charge, there is no Coulomb repulsion to hinder its progress toward the transition metal nucleus. At the lowest level the H ion is close enough to be captured by the nucleus. After capturing the H ion, the nucleus releases energy and expels the anion in the form of a proton.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
With using of water surface analogy of dense aether model, you can think about neutrino like about underwater soliton or vortex rings (whereas the photons are the normal surface ones). The rolling soliton exhibits a parity, but when it switches it, it changes temporarily into pure sound underwater sound wave, which is propagating with faster speed than the surface ripples.

From perspective of surface ripples such a soliton will make a sudden jump, so it cannot be observed during this. Therefore superluminal neutrinos cannot violate causality of special relativity at the moment when they're switching from charged Dirac's (anti)fermion into Goldstone boson (Majorana particle) - we couldn't observe them during this with using of light.

From dense aether model follows, the neutrinos of energy smaller than the energy of CMBR photons should propagate with subluminal speed, but when they get a higher energy, then the influence of neutrino Majorana oscillations will become more pronounced.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
BTW For photons the same dependency will be just reversed: the photons are moving with subluminal speed until their energy remains higher than the energy of CMBR photons, but for photons of longer wavelengths their spreading becomes superluminal in analogous way, like for neutrinos heavier than CMBR photons.

BTW orac sockpuppet apparently decided to abuse the voting system again http://www.aether...orac.gif This freshly created account doesn't send any posts, he just downvotes the others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
Good day eh? For all you Canucks who can't wait for fusion in a shipping container and, like, need your heat NOW for frying your back bacon and stuff, like here is the way to do it eh?
http://www.youtub...a_player

-hey dont thank me because we're like brothers you know? Hey I heard your next king can be a woman now. Beauty eh?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
Lisa Zyga. Thks. Are there any last words? What are the last words spoken?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"Some I had respect for, but now they just seem to post in order to argue with others, and stick to simply what is known" - Ober

Don't confuse the identification of what is clearly a SCAM with avoiding basic research.

IMO there are some interesting things being found in the cold fusion community. It probably ain't fusion but it might be useful for something eventually. And if it is fusion then yummy.

However E-Cat is now clearly nothing but a SCAM.

The last "demonstration" was a chance to be open and provide an unequivocal proof of the validity of the process.

None of the promised openness was there, and even the purchaser - if there actually was one - which I doubt - was secret.

Stench.

skand1nsky
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Which is, and will forever be, a wholly subjective opinion. Castenada tried this already.

Youre just another superstitionist looking for ways to escape his inescapable corporeality. Try jesus - at least they have refreshments.


Castenada was many generations ago my friend -- do you for a moment believe that humanity's understanding of itself is limited to efforts made during earlier epochs? You must be blind to not see that the line between objective and subjective is continuously and increasingly beginning to blur, and that hope, belief, fear and doubt will always play a part in the creation of our lives. Remember, each of us comes from a unique reality tunnel that will never be wholly understood by anyone else.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
According to Piantellis hypothesis, a H ion can replace an electron of a transition metal atom, just as a muon replaces an electron in muon-catalyzed fusion." - Callippo

The terms "ion", "H ", or "H-" do not appear anywhere in your provided link.

Why is that?

You do realize don't you that H- is exceptionally unstable, and the electron removed into the outer orbitals of virtually any other atom, and H will be very strongly repelled by any nucleus?

Sorry Callippo. You can't do low temperature fusion with Hydrogen Ions.

deepsand
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
The line between objective and subjective has always been blurred; it is Science that has helped to clarify the distinction.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
I seem to remember that particular scientists being ignored and ridiculed for his beliefs in them, yet recently he was vindicated as being correct

It is not enough to assert that some hypothesis is true without evidence & details of why it is true, especially if the claim goes against accepted principles. That's why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The situation is loosely analogous to modern day string theory. Many in the physics community pooh-pooh it as the theory of nothing, as it cannot be falsified or tested and has more possible solutions than all the atoms in the universe. But who knows, perhaps some day it will pan out, or not. Without accompanying evidence or testability it is open to scorn. That's just how it works.

Shechtman's crystal claims could not be verified at the time. It took another 4 yrs before larger crystals were grown and seen using x-rays. But, importantly, his research wasn't 'ignored', else it would never have been verified.
Ober
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
Likewise fleishman and pons (sp?) research wasn't ignored either, but worked on around the world, continuing to this day. Sure it's skeptical work and there is little funding for something which doesn't "fit" with current theory. I understand how science works, and realise Rossi's work does smell SCAMY, but until there is proof one way or the other, I remain open minded. Ohhh and absolutely I would not fund his work, without being able to see and test it's operation myself. Nevertheless, ppl on in this thread have blindly dismissed his work, without knowing the science behind it, nor having had any hands on experience, but simply sticking to scientific dogma. Thats the essence of my gripe, simply canning someones work from the comfort of their armchair and keyboard witout any qualification. A more balanced approach to his work is needed rather than blind dismissal.

It's a good job some of the posters here didn't work on breaking the sound barrier, 'cos thats impossible...right???
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"It's a good job some of the posters here didn't work on breaking the sound barrier, 'cos thats impossible...right???" - Ober

Nope. And no scientific principle claimed it was.

WHatcha smoken Boy?
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
Nevertheless, ppl on in this thread have blindly dismissed his work

Blindly? No. You can re-read the thread where you'll find a litany of failures exposed and grandiose claims that he's made.

On this 12th 'test' of his magic box, he's failed to light any bulb or turn on any motor or heat a room. Output measurements were made by unknown parties on behalf of an undisclosed customer with no independent oversight. He offers no working theory and gets basic energy related terms wrong. He has a criminal record:

12 Apr 1992, sentenced to 4 mo. in jail (suspended) and fined.
24 Mar 1993, sentenced to 8 mo. confinement (conditionally suspended) and fined.
29 Mar 1995 jailed as part of an international conspiracy in illegal gold trafficking.
28 Mar 1996, 1 year sentence, later reduced to a fine.
23 May 1997, sentence of 2 years 8 mo. for tax fraud.

Does that sound like an honest broker to you? If you're willing to overlook all his failures, then I submit, it is you who is blind.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
"Does that sound like an honest broker to you?" - Desky

Why ya, Klem It sure done does done it? Hayuck Hayuck Hayuck.

He is even incompetent as a huxter.
gareth_Ph
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
I'm sure everyone will be quite happy to eat their words if Rossi or anyone else successfully develops Cold Fusion, but -

It didn't work for Fleischmann-Pons
It didn't work for anyone else in 1986
It hasn't worked for anyone else in the last 21 years
It doesn't appear to be working for Rossi in 2011

Blind dismissal due to 'scientific dogma'? No, just entirely apt skepticism.

If Rossi builds a plane that flies faster than light I'd be just a tad skeptical, perhaps even 'blindly dismissive...'

Also, scientific laws do tend to be kind of dogmatic in that they are (more or less) constant. We have to assume some constants in order to work things out. Hence the laws of physics are, in a sense, dogma.
rawa1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
It didn't work for Fleischmann-Pons
It didn't work for anyone else in 1986
It hasn't worked for anyone else in the last 21 years
It doesn't appear to be working for Rossi in 2011

It's very easy to judge it. The independent peer-reviewed analysis of these effects is still missing for all these findings, at the case of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel it's simply missing completely - even after twenty years, although it's quite easy to replicate it. This is indeed not a normal situation.

I simply refuse to consider any opinion about it, until the negative/positive report about it will not appear in some high impact journal, like the Nature or Science. If I can have such an analysis for another missing stuffs like the Higgs boson or gravitational waves, why the hell not for cold fusion?

This is what the unbiased approach to scientific findings means.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
BTW a wast evidence for various anomalous effects regarding cold fusion (or whatever else effects happen there) exists. These findings aren't simply attempted to replicate - that's all. For example Naval lab reports this video of palladium electrode, which is full of sparks.

http://www.lenr-c...akIR.wmv

What a world we are living in, if nobody attempted to replicate this effect and to explain it?

Another study reports the formation of alpha-particles tracks behind the palladium electrode.

http://www.dailyt...sid=7168

What a world we are living in, if nobody attempted to replicate this effect and to explain it?

The cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel has been published before twenty years in dozens of publications - no replication, again.

http://egooutpete..._15.html

With such approach we could never find anything - I hope, it's evident for everybody, who deals with methodology of scientific research.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
It's quite normal to feel skeptical to the way, in which Mr. Rossi is presenting his technology at public - I'm skeptical too. But Rossi doesn't the scientific research at all. Rossi is private person, who is doing private research for his own money - he is not obliged to provide absolutely any details about his projects, until he and his clients feel comfortable with it.

Whereas the mainstream physicists - who are payed from public taxes and who have all equipment for independent validation of cold fusion - are just waiting twenty years, if someone else will finish scientific revolution instead of them. It's literally mental incompetence, not just physical one.

It's like the waiting for manufacturer of GPS satellites, until he proves the general relativity for you. If he wouldn't sell anything, will it mean, that the relativity is wrong - or what? Do you understand already, what I mean with "crisis of contemporary physics"?

It's a problem of the whole system, not just individuals
rawa1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
The reason of this situation is, the scientists are the only social group of people, which is payed from mandatory fees - but it lacks the public control over its activity. We don't use any tools for conviction of physicists in research of phenomena, which are of public importance. Until the majority of physicists remains skeptical, we simply cannot expect any output, even if the finding was published in standard scientific way inside of this community. It's not just about cold fusion and/or similar stuff.

For example, before few years Martin Tajmar published controversional study about gravitomagnetic effects around rotating superconductor rings. So far no peer-reviewed attempt for replication of this effect exists. It's simply psychologically unacceptable for individuals to organize the replication of foreign findings, until they cannot get anything from it. If this effect will be proven correct, all glory will come to Tajmar, if not, it'll be just a waste of money for team involved
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2011
But it's not the main problem. The main problem is the ignorant stance of publics. I do believe, my posts are completely real, as they're dealing with facts only. Some effects were published - it's a fact. These effects weren't attempted to replicated in peer-revived press - it's just another fact. It's all just about facts.

But when people don't upvote my posts, then it's evident, what the people here think about it. A simple sockpuppet orac is enough to downvote them. The people have no confirmation of cold fusion twenty years, because they're quite convenient with it. They've absolutely no problem with it.

So that the problem of ignorance of physicists is not a problem of physicists. It's a problem of the whole society, which simply doesn't want the replication of these experiments anyway. No one of you actually wants the cold fusion, because you all already voted with your passivity in this thread for the passivity of physicists. It has no meaning to cover this bare fact.
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
BTW It's not the problem of my posts only and the physorg forum only. All posts which are supporting the cold fusion finding are downvoted at most laymans forums dedicated to science (I just checked the reddit, digg and slashdot) and vice-versa: the people who are sympathising with it are downvoted. All the supporters of contemporary science simply don't want to read about it. So that the ignorance of cold fusion is not a conspiration in any way - it's actually the fulfilling of the social need. The physicists are just doing, what the rest of society is expecting from them: they do nothing.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
No one of you actually wants the cold fusion.


Bull.
Many of us have said we hope cold fusion can be made to work, both because it might solve some of humanity's problems and because it would reveal new and hence interesting physics.
But we are not blinded by our hope. We don't assume that every cold fusion experiment is true just because we want cold fusion to be true.
Dozen attempts were made, costing hundreds of millions in total, to reproduce Fleischman and Pons (and enough strange results were found that something interesting is going on, whether chemistry or LENR).
But Rossi doesn't give enough details for people to try, his demonstrations look rigged, he doesn't let scientists make the measurements they would need to confirm the results, and he has committed fraud before. If Rossi wants to keep his work private, stop making announcements to the press! If Rossi wants his work to be public, let scientists check the results. But Rossi is trying to have it both ways
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
Which is, and will forever be, a wholly subjective opinion. Castenada tried this already.

Youre just another superstitionist looking for ways to escape his inescapable corporeality. Try jesus - at least they have refreshments.

Castenada was many generations ago my friend -- do you for a moment believe that humanity's understanding of itself is limited to efforts made during earlier epochs? You must be blind to not see that the line between objective and subjective is continuously and increasingly beginning to blur, and that hope, belief, fear and doubt will always play a part in the creation of our lives. Remember, each of us comes from a unique reality tunnel that will never be wholly understood by anyone else.
So much for inner peace. Too much brown rice is my guess. That stuff will plug you up REAL good. Hey St Johns over on Catheter st is having a roast beef dinner this Tuesday - check it out.
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
Dozen attempts were made, costing hundreds of millions in total
No. The only experiments of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel were made with their founders itself during last twenty years.

http://egooutpete..._15.html

What you're saying is a lie trying to cover this easy to find fact. Everyone who upvoted you for this lie (yyz) is trying to cover it too. You all are enemies of cold fusion, because you're lying openly about it at public. All enemies of cold fusion are enemies of human civilization. It's as easy as it is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
Kandinsky the timid wizard has this to say in private
Not really -- I didn't want all the other tangential topics like cold fusion and relativistic effects to obscure my message to you. It needed to be seen by you in isolation, as a communication that wasn't hampered by the noise out there.
-Guess you're not in control on the asstral plane neither-

Perhaps you would like to try putting a hex on otto? On All Hallows Eve? Mach's schon
gareth_Ph
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
heh heh heh

"I am the Evil Oil God Gargamenadron and I forbid dabbling in the heretical arts of Cold Fusion. I forbid it! All those who deign to practise LENR and other such arcane blasphemies shall be staked out, and thereby burnt with Fossil Fuel, until Death!"

So spaketh Gargamenadron
Deesky
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
Also, scientific laws do tend to be kind of dogmatic in that they are (more or less) constant. We have to assume some constants in order to work things out. Hence the laws of physics are, in a sense, dogma.

I understand what you're getting at, but I would have to disagree with your use of the word 'dogmatic'. Dogma implies a rigid position often immutable, even in the face of countervailing evidence (eg, Creationist dogma).

Scientific laws, however, are always open to revision in the face of new evidence to the contrary. The fact that they have had a semblance of permanency is a tribute to their effectiveness, and not a result of rigid ideology.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
Of course this is because Rossi is a fraud, and E-Cat is his latest fraud vehicle.

"All posts which are supporting the cold fusion finding are downvoted at most laymans forums dedicated to science (I just checked the reddit, digg and slashdot) and vice-versa: the people who are sympathising with it are downvoted" - Rawa1