Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The cold fusion horizon

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 198 posts

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#71

Post by j1o1h1n »

raverbashing wrote: post #62
ChuckMcM wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is, what I think is Rossi's biggest problem. Very showy, very secretive. The explanation I've heard is that he has something which works (for some definition of works) but doesn't know how it works or why. And because of that he is walking around afraid that if too many details get out about how it works then someone smarter then him will jump in and patent/publish the why and then be forever known as the pe…

True, to claim you are able to produce 1 megawatt of power you actually have to put it somewhere.

You could generate bitcoins.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#74

Post by poelzi »

Database with cold fusion papers (very comprehensive):

http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php

The BSM-SG model describes LENR fusion very well, most of the reported experiments implement one ore more of the theoretical mechanisms for successful fusion.

http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Physics-Nuclear-Fusion-BSM-...

But does not make so much sense without understanding the main book.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#75

Post by imaginenore »

If Rossi's device really worked, he would be a moron to sell it or even show it to anybody.

You can start an energy company, start small at the beginning, provide something like water heating for a small neighborhood. Then use your profits to grow exponentially until you take everyone else out of business. If you have such a device, you're only really limited by the chemical supplies (nickel powder?).

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#76

Post by [deleted] »

stcredzero wrote: post #49
api wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big science is made out of meat like everything else and suffers from all the same biases and cognitive blinds and fallacies. Scientists are genetically 99.9% identical to new age woo woo peddlers and quacks. Science is more rational because it cultivates more rational methods, but not because it runs on better hardware.

Big science is made out of meat like everything else I take it you're referring to: http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

[deleted]

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#77

Post by rdlecler1 »

The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting (or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a dubious history (I'm only going by the comments, not my own investigation) and (2) Rossi is secretive (3) Rossi is not a notable scientist from a top-tier University (4) Rossi comes across as overconfident.

This is what the article is pointing out. The author is saying that in this case the cost of a false positive is so incredibly low and the benefit of a positive result is so high that we should be more willing to lower our guard a little more. These kind of quick reflex objections based on red flags will be useful 99.99% of the time, but major scientific advances only occur 0.01% of the time and so maybe humanity would benefit more if we loosened up a bit on our skepticism, especially surrounding the person or the field and focus more on the science.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#78

Post by tim333 »

ScottBurson wrote: post #23

Great article. I'm not going to defend Rossi, but what happened in 1989 was a travesty. Yes, Pons and Fleischmann were premature in their annnouncement. But they didn't deserve to be made pariahs, and there were others whose careers were destroyed for so much as publicly entertaining the possibility that cold fusion might be made to work. Edward Teller, on the other hand, was old enough not to care: Around 1992, McKu…

I recall 1989 incident as Pons and Fleischmann appearing in the news saying they'd discovered cold fusion and then becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish. I don't get how that shows that Big Science is corrupt or not. It seems a bit unrelated.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#79

Post by roywiggins »

msandford wrote: post #10
mannykannot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I have also read other sources, especially with regard to Rossi. e.g: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf http://www.sott.net/article/241427-E-Cat-Cold-Fusion-Machine...

Then I hope you see the irony in your comment, and why the first reply was a little incredulous. I'm not defending Rossi, BTW. The odds are very, very, very good that it's another scam. But it's not impossible that he's on to something and that's exactly what the article's author points to, along with lamenting how tragic it would be if cold fusion turned out to be real and we wasted 20 years not pursuing it because…

But that's a Pascal's Mugging, isn't it? How unlikely does a claim of LENR have to be, exactly, before we can dismiss it out of hand?

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#80

Post by jacquesm »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #77

The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting (or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a dubious history (I'm only going by the comments, not my own investigation) and (2) Rossi is secretive (3) Rossi is not a notable scientist from a top-tier University (4) Rossi comes across as overconfident. This is what the article is pointing out. The author is sa…

The quick reflex is an optimization, if it is true the proof will surface on its own strength, until then you can safely ignore it. After all, unless he's actually discovered something you're wasting your time.

The burden of proof is rightly on the one making outrageous claims, there is no burden of sufferance because the positive benefits are so high. They'll be there regardless of whether one believes, after all, it works or it does not.

See also: ubeam, theranos, moller and so on.

Post reply on HN