Out of Pod Experience

If Rossi is using the same process as NASA, then that must mean Rossi (finally) revealed how his e-cat produces energy? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

It's the same basic premise which is born from Pons and Fleischman's breakthrough in 1989. The findings were immediately attacked, ridiculed and buried without proper consideration. Rossi just carried the torch of his own accord for 20 years.

I guarantee the only reason why NASA would confirm LENR is because of Rossi's efforts being in the limelight and the premise so simple they cannot contain the technology.

While you are 100% there is no reason to approach this with anything other than patient optimism. Since the majority of the funding that has supported this research is military, it is no surprise at all that the results of any experiments or the theoretical work have not been published.

We seem to forget that government's protect valuable scientific discoveries as much as possible for both security and profit reasons.

I do share your skepticism stoifaux, and I sure as hell wouldn't invest in it. However, I do sincerely hope it works at least at a fundamental level. Getting places like china away from coal burning and moving away from bio fuels would be worthy of worldwide celebration.

lol why are you mad? Did you invest? if not, why have a strong opinion?

Is it probably a scam? yes.
Is it probably bad science? yes.
Is it wise to invest in something like this? probably not, its quite a gamble from what I have seen.

I have never worked with the Italian military, so i have no idea on the leniency they would give for demonstrations (assuming his research is funded by them, again, assuming).

But seriously, why poo-poo ideas until they are disproven? especially when the ideas are optimistic and not costing you (relatively) anything.

lol, fair enough as far as the fact that hype can be annoying. I had not considered that as it doesn't bother me. As far as bad science goes, I have up on being annoyed by bad science forever ago. The general public is not who is going to be affected by this information. Science is in their minds medical/biological science which removed the trust of the general public long long ago.

I have no interest in defending these claims, moreover the interest of op in what MIGHT turn out to be something very exciting. And really not even defending so much, but felt inclined to reply given the level-headedness of your posts usually.



1) With the lack of information on the theoretical background of the device it is impossible to tell whether it violates know laws. While the information we do have suggests that it is not possible, without knowing fully what is going on it is irresponsible to say "well at a glance this obviously can never happen." The proof you need is being withheld, something which apperently isn't a deal killer for this guy's investors (must be a smooth talker).

2) While it is unsupported and unsubstatiated it is possible that his theories have been verified (not independently of course) and proven by experience. Any reasonable scientists normally turns to objective scrutiny to ensure that an error has not been made etc etc. This is the way science has worked for nearly 2 millenia. Rossi is apparently ignoring this tradition which of course is a giant red flag. However, until his theories are disproven (which of course is impossible without full disclosure).

There can of course be reasons for this which we don't see. International copyright infringement being the first to come to mind. Normally everyone plays by the rules, but with the topic of energy the game changes a bit (see the race for gigantic laser facilities across the world).

Again though, unless you know what he is doing and can disprove it, its not even worth of news or attention. The only time it would be is if you new someone who was going to invest in it. THEN it would be worthy of discussing what a bad idea that probably was.

3) Burden for what purpose? The burden is on him to give satisfactory evidence of progress to his investors. That is about it. To prove it to the public he would have to release all details which is probably undesirable to (2) or any number of reasons which are generally overlooked by academia.



While I do agree, I think that the bad science around stuff like "green tea causes weight loss" or "wine gives you an increased risk for breast cancer" are much more damaging to the credibility of scientific discovery than something that most people don't even comprehend enough to read past the headline.

*Edit: as far as wasting time and money, even money into bad science is good as long as the field in general is making progress. It supplies small business with tons of jobs that would otherwise not exist. That is putting food on the plates of families of people with high educations as opposed to the onslaught of consumer based and healthcare related jobs that exist now. Lets invest in moving forward as a species rather than simply getting on with our lives.

What about the Laser Tank? the US Military has one too ...

Oh yeah I remember that...

This.

It's really sad how pieces of paper are holding back humans.

The only important thing here is, in the eventuality this tech is real or able to be achieved, will it be eventually public domain or kept a secret to force us to keep consuming fossil fuels to milk us out of our money for all that is worth?

I , with my classical pessimistic outlook, believe that if such techs were real, the Big Oil Conglomerates would do anything to keep these things under the radar. Like the partial/specific cancer cure that has not been taken seriously or the infamous way to detoxify drug-addicts that is Illegal in practically everywhere yet has a high chance of success in a few therapies.

Meh.

Are you beginning to form a conspiracy theory before anything has happened?

I don't think oil companies could do this unless it were their scientists, then possibly for a little bit. As if the vanity of a future noble prize winning scientist could be inhibited by anything.