The cold fusion horizon • Hacker News Board

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#101

Post by htns » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 2:04 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #87

marshray wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possible explanation is: He is really not very good at measuring energy input and heat output. He built something and confused himself into thinking it was producing more energy than it consumes. He took some money from investors to develop the technology. He spent much of the research money, eventually to realize that his device does not, in fact, produce energy. His investors now want their money back and h…

> He is really not very good at measuring energy input and heat output. Calorimetry is actually extremely hard to do right. VERY hard. I stopped following this field a few years ago, but back then EVERY single positive result was due to faulty calorimetry.

Lubos Motl called out the specifics of the Energy Catalyzer hoax some years ago. I think it had to do with neglecting hydrostatic pressure within the water pipes, which allowed steam to get in.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#102

Post by Nutmog » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 2:16 AM UTC

mizzao wrote: post #4

I understand the argument about the sociological reputation trap, but a little more reading about Rossi's research turns up some very fishy evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer In particular, the copper supposedly generated by the fusion of hydrogen and nickel has an isotopic composition very similar to that of natural copper, rather than what one would expect from byproducts of nuclear reactions.…

Perhaps being convicted of fraud means his reputation is already damaged so he has little to lose by being in the reputation trap. If he had a clean record, he might keep away from the trap. In the end though, it doesn't really matter if he's wrong but we would suffer a huge loss if he's right but can't get it finished.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#103

Post by intrasight » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

I am confused as to the author's justification for seeming to give credence to a thoroughly discredited person.

It would have been a better article if he had just stuck with "the science says it is possible just not probable" instead of discussing Rossi. And no mention of Pistol Shrimp - I am disappointed.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#104

Post by stan_rogers » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 2:49 AM UTC

chc4 wrote: post #68

joe_the_user wrote: post #42

One big argument against free energy at low temperatures is that if it was possible then the natural world would have already discovered it. The other argument is that if someone has a free energy device, they actually shouldn't need to convince anyone , they could just hook it to the grid, get paid for the power, use the money to build more devices, repeat until they had a serious power company. And then they start…

I'm not sure that argument against it holds up. For all we know some Deuterium and Palladium are hanging out in the cosmos undergoing fusion, and we would have no idea about it. There are real room temperature fusion methods[0] that can also happen in nature, but even if that method was break-even it doesn't mean Mother Nature would exploit it due to the difficulty of starting the reaction. Getting paid for power and…

Getting paid for power doesn't involve convincing anyone but the power meter in most jurisdictions; utilities are required by law to buy customer-created surplus.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#105

Post by jsprogrammer » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 2:52 AM UTC

api wrote: post #69

MCRed wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically the scientific method, but the scientific method is out the window in society these days-- it's un popular. A politicians pronouncing something true (that is conveniently in his self interest) is given more weight than a thousand peer review publication (or even simple phenomena that can be measured in any college lab in the country.) Science seems to be dead, and what passes for it now is extremely…

The scientific method is absolutely at odds with how human beings behave socially and politically. It's kind of strange that we ever came up with it. Our natural tendency is to use ideas to manipulate, to believe to belong rather than because anything is true, and to rely on a lot of sloppy heuristics in place of more cognitively expensive and time consuming modes of thought. Ultimately I think the only reason scienc…

The scientific method cannot say things are true; it can only rule out particular arguments.

In a sense, you can argue that the method can state truths about the incorrectness of theories, but it is highly arguable about whether such a truth actually makes a statement about reality (vs. one's con/perception of reality).

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#106

Post by XorNot » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:04 AM UTC

dkbrk wrote: post #19

I think there's definitely a cultural problem where the outcome of an experiment is associated with the reputation of the scientist who performed it. We see this in the bias to publish only positive results - as though if an experiment did not make findings of significance it is a failing of the scientist who performed it - and we see this in the reluctance of many scientists to investigate that which would be very s…

No, no there is not. Because 100% of the time so far in cold fusion, no one has built a device that actually works or subjected it to tests which would prove it does.

Rossi is a fraud. His public tests always mysteriously wind up involving him tinkering with the device, and involve people he has prior relationships with.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#107

Post by XorNot » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:07 AM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #83

tim333 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish" The important thing here is to separate the idea from the implementation. Is cold fusion theoretically impossible? I'm no expert, but there seems to be at least some scientists indicating it's not impossible. If that's the case, why does the failure of the first experiment matter? It's sad that the scientific community is partly based on reputati…

Cold fusion IS theoretically impossible, that's the point. Nuclear theory very much says that cold fusion doesn't work.

Which means the experiments have to work because no one has a workable theory which predicts cold fusion.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#108

Post by dinkumthinkum » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:21 AM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #54

mizzao wrote: post #4

I understand the argument about the sociological reputation trap, but a little more reading about Rossi's research turns up some very fishy evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer In particular, the copper supposedly generated by the fusion of hydrogen and nickel has an isotopic composition very similar to that of natural copper, rather than what one would expect from byproducts of nuclear reactions.…

> It also doesn't help that Rossi has been convicted of fraud for purportedly inventing dubious devices in the past. In particular, he "created" a system for turning toxic waste into oil, but this turned out to be just dumping the waste into the environment. I feel like if someone has done this once, anyone taking them seriously again, deserves to lose their shirt. What, he suddenly reformed and is now doing real sci…

I guess everyone can remember this if you ever make a mistake! I think people can have second chances, if he products verifiable results then it is what it is, sure he will have to deal with skepticism but totally rejection forever is a bit much and possibly a waste.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#109

Post by dinkumthinkum » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:32 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #59

jacquesm wrote: post #52

This article is funny. It tries to do an end-run around any criticism of the subject matter by constructing an elaborate piece of work to establish that if you don't agree with the basic premise of low energy nuclear reactions there must be something pathologically wrong with you. And you are not only suffering from a defect, no you are doubly wrong, because having LENR would be such a great thing for the world. For…

Yap. This is almost certainly a scam. As long as there are rich people, there will be scam artists selling them "cold fusion", "infinite energy machines", it is fascinating to watch these happen. This also creates an interesting market, just like scam artists look for marks that other scammers have deceived, there is probably someone taking notes which investors are buying into the story. Those people would be good t…

I think it's a bit hasty to classify anything related to "cold fusion" as necessarily a scan and to be avoided at all costs. The science of it is not as outlandish as "infinite energy," there may be something there. But yes it any research needs to be in a credible, serious, peer reviewed manner.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#110

Post by youngButEager » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:44 AM UTC

Rossi is a known liar. He has been jailed for it.

It has been far too long for independent confirmation of the claim. After all, it's in his best interest to be proven correct.

He is a fraud. The fact that he's taken outside investment means he's a convincing fraud. And that is how he puts food on his table.

Not from commercializing his 'findings.'

He'd be a wealthy man indeed, years ago, had this turned out to be true.

It's thus in his best interest to line up/support independent verification -- for years now -- and yet no independent verification exists.

Move on, it's bunk.