Possibly the most important science breakthrough happened today (not really)

[disappoint]

this thread exists, and that is enough to depress the hell out of me

this is not how real science is done, this is how bullshit is sold to people like the OP

Why are you depressed? Try to see the humor in it. It's all pretty hilarious from my perspective.

Also you should be happy! You're not being duped.

What's funny is if you were dumb enough to be duped you wouldn't have a clue enough to be depressed about it.

 

[Jeff7]

Maybe this thread will become self-sustaining, and serve as a regular annual entry for the self-ownage nomination.

Why are you depressed? Try to see the humor in it. It's all pretty hilarious from my perspective.

Also you should be happy! You're not being duped.

What's funny is if you were dumb enough to be duped you wouldn't have a clue enough to be depressed about it.

It's depressing because of the knowledge that there are people in positions of power who believe this sort of thing.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Maybe this thread will become self-sustaining, and serve as a regular annual entry for the self-ownage nomination.

:thumbsup::biggrin:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Faith is a curious thing.

 

[sdifox]

lulz, China, the fraud and graft capital of the World.

 

[adlep]

Official PR:
Industrial Heat LLC Has Acquired Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat Technology

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/p...-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology/

So they have paid real money for the Ecat and they're working in China to deploy it.
Lets continue to laugh

 

[Ichinisan]

Oi.

Who is "Industrial Heat?" Where is their website?

 

[zinfamous]

I guess Industrial Heat isn't publicly traded. That's fortunate for all of those non-existing stock holders.

 

[adlep]

I guess Industrial Heat isn't publicly traded. That's fortunate for all of those non-existing stock holders.

Cherokee Investment Partners -> This is a parent company with a common CEO (Thomas Darden) who is dealing with Chinese govt at the moment (while we continue to laugh).

Btw, this is a great interview about the state of CF research and the stigma associated with it:
http://youtu.be/97ps7fTWOA8

 

[zinfamous]

Cherokee Investment Partners -> This is a parent company with a common CEO (Thomas Darden) who is dealing with Chinese govt at the moment (while we continue to laugh).

Btw, this is a great interview about the state of CF research and the stigma associated with it:
http://youtu.be/97ps7fTWOA8

OH yeah. well, we can keep an eye on what their stockholders say. But I'm guessing these guys hold piles of companies so movement in pricing wouldn't really say much based on one company's foolish decision.

 

[DrPizza]

1 month down and 11 to go until this wins ownage of the year. By the way, once again, where's the website of the company who allegedly bought this technology?

To date, there has been ZERO independent verification of Rossi's "invention."

 

[adlep]

OH yeah. well, we can keep an eye on what their stockholders say. But I'm guessing these guys hold piles of companies so movement in pricing wouldn't really say much based on one company's foolish decision.

There are no stockholders, this is a hard core VC firm.

 

[adlep]

1 month down and 11 to go until this wins ownage of the year. By the way, once again, where's the website of the company who allegedly bought this technology?

To date, there has been ZERO independent verification of Rossi's "invention."

http://www.cherokeefund.com/

I'll have 2 avatars for you to choose from:
1. The holly inquisition or
2. The Baghdad Bob's.

Which one would you prefer?
I have a bad feeling that in case it will go my way, you will be so butt hurt you won't be able to celebrate. But I would write a concession speech just in case
Edit: Not to mention editing the title of my thread. I don't like it and I DO have a problem with it.

 

[crashtestdummy]

There are no stockholders, this is a hard core VC firm.

How does it differ from a soft core firm? Deeper market penetration? :sneaky:

Seriously, though, I love that this topic continues to persist. It's quickly moving up my list of pseudoscience fads. (Anti-vaccine nuts still sit at the top, followed by GMO terror and high fructose corn syrup. It's passed cell phone radiation, though, and is giving herbal medicine a run for its money.)

 

[Ruptga]

I can't believe this thread is still around. This was obvious bullshit in 2011, and still is today. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ and fifteen minutes to spend on research can see right through it.

 

[adlep]

Lets up the ante:

I am willing to bet with each of you $100.00 paid via pp that this technology is real and it will get validated and accepted this year. I am guessing that we will start to hear mainstream media stories about this very soon. Who is in?
Lets exchange heat afterwards...

 

[Ruptga]

Lets up the ante:

I am willing to bet with each of you $100.00 paid via pp that this technology is real and it will get validated and accepted this year. I am guessing that we will start to hear mainstream media stories about this very soon. Who is in?
Lets exchange heat afterwards:

Can't back out now. (not that I want in, not worth the trouble of making an account)

 

[adlep]

Can't back out now. (not that I want in, not worth the trouble of making an account)

I am in all the way in case you have NOT figured it out...
Just post your nick and phrase "in"

 

[Meghan54]

Official PR:
Industrial Heat LLC Has Acquired Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat Technology

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/p...-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology/

So they have paid real money for the Ecat and they're working in China to deploy it.
Lets continue to laugh

Well, the "independent" testing that website claims was done in Italy and witnessed/verified by an "independent committee of European scientists (who) conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy."

What's odd about that "committee" is when you follow their names onto Cornell University's site that shows all that particular person's previous writings on physics, 5 out of the 7 names listed have only one "paper" to their credit, the creation of that "independent committee".

Does no one find it odd that a committee created to "conduct two multi-day tests" on this device have no apparent physics background, at least in research?

These are the individuals that made up the committee: Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén. Essén has a buttload of writings, but the vast majority are letters that appear to be nothing more than linking others' research together, no original research. (I only read 5 letters/writings of his, but have yet to see anything from him that's original.....most looks like something an undergrad physics student writes trying to sound "important", none were of a peer-reviewed research type.

Bo Höistad has a whole two papers, one about the above mentioned "testing" of the E-Cat, and one called Technical Design Report of the Inner Tracker for the KLOE-2 experiment, and is one of a couple dozen names attached to that paper. Again, no research, just a tech design paper.

All the others have one "paper" assigned/attributed to them, the "testing" on the E-Cat. Wouldn't you think you'd want the top names in physics to be involved in proving the E-Cat works instead of what appears to be physics grad students at best?

 

[adlep]

Well, the "independent" testing that website claims was done in Italy and witnessed/verified by an "independent committee of European scientists (who) conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy."

What's odd about that "committee" is when you follow their names onto Cornell University's site that shows all that particular person's previous writings on physics, 5 out of the 7 names listed have only one "paper" to their credit, the creation of that "independent committee".

Does no one find it odd that a committee created to "conduct two multi-day tests" on this device have no apparent physics background, at least in research?

These are the individuals that made up the committee: Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén. Essén has a buttload of writings, but the vast majority are letters that appear to be nothing more than linking others' research together, no original research. (I only read 5 letters/writings of his, but have yet to see anything from him that's original.....most looks like something an undergrad physics student writes trying to sound "important", none were of a peer-reviewed research type.

Bo Höistad has a whole two papers, one about the above mentioned "testing" of the E-Cat, and one called Technical Design Report of the Inner Tracker for the KLOE-2 experiment, and is one of a couple dozen names attached to that paper. Again, no research, just a tech design paper.

All the others have one "paper" assigned to them, the "testing" on the E-Cat. Wouldn't you think you'd want the top names in physics to be involved in proving the E-Cat works instead of what appears to be physics grad students at best?

So these academics are "not good enough" for you. And what are your credentials btw? Can you quote some of your papers?
Willing to bet?

 

[Meghan54]

I have never posed as a physicist nor claimed to have the knowledge to test a device that's being shown to a "select few", unlike those listed above.

Again I ask.....if you claim to have a world altering invention and assemble a "committee" of physicists to "test" said invention, wouldn't you at least make an attempt at including some published research physicists instead of a bunch of unknowns? Hell, I'm as published as all but one of them, albeit in a different field.

And, of course, no where are their qualifications to judge/test a new device listed anywhere.

But take, for instance, Roland Pettersson. E-Cat lists him as a Dr. in one place, yet he's listed as a Professor in another, a lecturer in other places, and formally of Uppsala University. Under the University's page on him, under personal merits---there's nothing. And he's not listed as a doctor, only a professor, a title given out to most anyone who lectures/teaches. Certainly not one of the top analytical chemists in the field.

And the same with all the others. Professors, unpublished, no research backgrounds. Just basically teachers. Now, I'm not putting down professors/teachers, but honestly, if you want an honest evaluation of a new invention, you hire the top names in the respective fields, not a bunch of unknowns.

And the "findings" of said testing was a whole paragraph in which they essentially said "Something may be going on but we don't know for sure, so there."

Sheesh. Such science.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Lets up the ante:

I am willing to bet with each of you $100.00 paid via pp that this technology is real and it will get validated and accepted this year. I am guessing that we will start to hear mainstream media stories about this very soon. Who is in?
Lets exchange heat afterwards...

oh, adlep...

You deserve a new face palm!

I'd certainly be "in" if I thought we would ever agree on what "validated and accepted" mean. That seems unlikely given that these press releases on e-catworld.com strike you as something meaningful enough to add to this thread.

As I said in a different thread, what's really needed is dissemination of enough information on Rossi's LENR process to allow the independent replication of the experimental results showing net energy production. LENR needs to be "validated and accepted" by the wider scientific community, not just by the Rossi believers. Post updates on progress toward this goal.

Or let me know when those home-sized E-Cats show up at Home Depot as promised.

 

[Born2bwire]

So these academics are "not good enough" for you. And what are your credentials btw? Can you quote some of your papers?
Willing to bet?

I'm an author in 7 conference papers, 5 journal papers, two theses, and one technical report. That's just for my PhD.

For example, I looked up Lars Tegner on Web of Science. I get 8 hits from various Tegners, the most recent was a paper in psychology in 2010 so that's not him and the next one is from 1986. From what I can find, the eCAT Tegner is an author in only two papers in 1982 and 1983. One of these two papers is with Petterson. That is also the only paper that I can connect with R Petterson. So Tegner and Petterson have two papers between the two of them from the early 80's.

By the way, I personally get 7 hits in Web of Science as a line of reference.

EDIT: For comparison, my advisor started graduate school in 1980, probably around the same time as Tegner and Petterson judging by the papers. He has 4 books, 28 book chapters, 390 journal papers, and over 500 conference papers. If you are an active contributor in academia, you publish like mad.

 

[adlep]

oh, adlep...

You deserve a new face palm!

I'd certainly be "in" if I thought we would ever agree on what "validated and accepted" mean. That seems unlikely given that these press releases on e-catworld.com strike you as something meaningful enough to add to this thread.

As I said in a different thread, what's really needed is dissemination of enough information on Rossi's LENR process to allow the independent replication of the experimental results showing net energy production. LENR needs to be "validated and accepted" by the wider scientific community, not just by the Rossi believers. Post updates on progress toward this goal.

Or let me know when those home-sized E-Cats show up at Home Depot as promised.

Great feedback, thanks. This is very controversial topic for all of you I realize that. The claim of a new form of nuclear reactions is very difficult to accept for the modern science. I expect A.R. to start being more open about the R&D in his technology soon. Keep the hope up and an open mind.
Also, it looks like Chinese Hoe Depots are slowly lining up for the reactors. On the other hand, perhaps it is a better idea to keep this tech off the hands of untrained individuals until the long term validation is completed?

 

[halik]

I'm an author in 7 conference papers, 5 journal papers, two theses, and one technical report. That's just for my PhD.

For example, I looked up Lars Tegner on Web of Science. I get 8 hits from various Tegners, the most recent was a paper in psychology in 2010 so that's not him and the next one is from 1986. From what I can find, the eCAT Tegner is an author in only two papers in 1982 and 1983. One of these two papers is with Petterson. That is also the only paper that I can connect with R Petterson. So Tegner and Petterson have two papers between the two of them from the early 80's.

By the way, I personally get 7 hits in Web of Science as a line of reference.

EDIT: For comparison, my advisor started graduate school in 1980, probably around the same time as Tegner and Petterson judging by the papers. He has 4 books, 28 book chapters, 390 journal papers, and over 500 conference papers. If you are an active contributor in academia, you publish like mad.

Honestly don't let reality encroach on this nonsense. Much like TSLA, Ron Paul and other randomly-popular topics, there's a circle of followers that simply don't need facts to subscribe.

Clearly a guy with very shady background that just came up with the most world changing invention ever, is only willing to let 3rd string barely-physics academics non-independently evaluate it, yet ready and willing to sell it to anyone for $$$MILLION$$$ is bound to be real.