Cold Fusion Race just heated up.
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
How about all the money and pre orders he's got.
In 2012 he had 50k pre orders shipping in about 18 months, what happened.
Lots of ways to skim money from such a scam.
Last edited:
investment money?
"oh it'll be another 3 million to do xyz", 1.5 of that million goes to his wages/skimmed off the rest goes to making pretty slideshows
Lockheed Martin claims to be close to making a small scale fusion reactor (not cold fusion)
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/compact-fusion.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/compact-fusion.html
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,216
- Location
- Billericay, UK
That story is just like Mr Euclideon who was selling technology that meant video games had unlimited detail. Rossi and Euclideon would make quite a pair.
With that thinking no one would ever commit fraud.
Some stuff is illegal but you can run.
Other stuff is just morally dodgy.
I very much doubt getting money from investors to develop is illegal
If science had taught you anything it should have taught you to be open minded.
Rather than just running to default "it's a con" mode.
Lets PROVE it is a con first!
On balance of probability.... it probably is a con though
If science had taught you anything it should have taught you to be open minded.
Rather than just running to default "it's a con" mode.
Lets PROVE it is a con first!
On balance of probability.... it probably is a con though
That is just plain stupid and totally the wrong way to look at it.
Science can change it mind.
So lets treat is as the scam it is. Stop people investing and pre ordering it.
Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
So until' he submits e-cats to a proper scientific test, it is a scam.
that's true, but its more just that he's not even really explained what he's done even if he didn't fully understand how it all worked himself he could still provide some insight into how he allegedly achieved it - it is just a 'black box' and a very very bold claim
If science had taught you anything it should have taught you to be open minded.
Rather than just running to default "it's a con" mode.
Lets PROVE it is a con first!
On balance of probability.... it probably is a con though
Being "open minded" doesn't mean accepting any idea without evidence, it means accepting ideas with well substantiated evidence.
Science teaches to be sceptical of ideas without evidence, and not to reject the idea only when the idea is disproved by counter evidence. See Russell's Teapot for example.
That BAE system looks very interesting, I see that fuel energy security has finally been linked with defensive security. But you can still imagine the nimby's throwing tantrums.
The sooner we get off the oil the less money that is available to interesting groups of lunatics.
The sooner we get off the oil the less money that is available to interesting groups of lunatics.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
If science had taught you anything it should have taught you to be open minded.
Rather than just running to default "it's a con" mode.
Lets PROVE it is a con first!
On balance of probability.... it probably is a con though
Science is very clear. It doesn't have a poker face. Show your hand, show your working and let peer review decide.
Last edited:
Rather unlikely. If this thing works, it doesn't fit existing understanding of nuclear physics. So it couldn't be simple. You'd be looking at inexplicable changes(*) at the subatomic level somehow occuring without anything being emitted apart from heat.
* Inexplicable in terms of both the cause and the result. Yes, nickel can be changed into copper by fusion. But the claimed isotopes are wrong.
Of course, the lack of any explanation would have scientists flocking to study it if there was plausible evidence that it worked.
If science had taught you anything it should have taught you to be open minded.
Rather than just running to default "it's a con" mode.
Lets PROVE it is a con first!
On balance of probability.... it probably is a con though
Since it is deliberately being made impossible to do any study of the claim, how would you go about PROVING it's a con?
The acid test of science is evidence.
The evidence of it being a con vastly outweighs the evidence of it being real, so it is currently reasonable to consider it a con. That could be changed if the evidence changes.
When someone claims that a sizable chunk of existing science is wrong and they have a box which proves it and which does something generally thought impossible and which is of enormous importance, the onus is on them. They've made a claim that's about as extraordinary as a claim can be, so they need to provide at least moderately strong evidence. When they say that nobody is allowed to test their claim, they've essentially taken it out of the realm of science completely.
It's similar to claiming that you have a magic bag of holding which could contain 500 cubic metres of stuff while still weighing 100g and fitting in a pocket in your coat but nobody is allowed to study the bag or test it. It would be extremely useful to humanity if it was true and extremely interesting to numerous scientists who would very much like to figure out how it happened. But you'd need some evidence to be taken seriously and you'd have to allow testing. The onus would be on you to make your claim at least plausible, not on other people to PROVE it's a con. Especially when you're deliberately making it impossible to do so.
oil is gonna run out soon TM
all opec countries lie about their reserves they never go down year after year, the more they claim to have the more they are allowed to pump each year
around 2007 Venezuela tripled their reserves from 100million barrels to 300 million barrels and they are not the only country to lie
He has done that - his claim is that he was doing some unrelated research (I forget what it was) and noticed an anomalous reading. Unexpected heat was being generated. So he starting experimenting to see what affected the amount of heat produced. Change one thing a bit, rerun the experiment. Repeat.
The lack of explanation really isn't the problem. If it works, it works. Whether or not something works doesn't depend on whether or not the person doing it (or anyone else) has a complete and accurate understanding of how it works, or even any understanding at all. For example: Stone age people had no understanding of the chemical reactions involved in smelting, but smelting still worked for them, they did it deliberately (after having discovered it accidentally) and they developed the use of smelting a great deal by experimentation despite having not a clue about how it happened.
The problem is the lack of testing, the lack of evidence. At the moment, it's closer to faith than it is to science. It isn't science at all, really, since it can't be tested.
oil is gonna run out soon TM
all opec countries lie about their reserves they never go down year after year, the more they claim to have the more they are allowed to pump each year
around 2007 Venezuela tripled their reserves from 100million barrels to 300 million barrels and they are not the only country to lie
Or maybe countries and businesses are continuing to look for new deposits of oil and new ways of extracting oil that was previously considered impossible or impractical to extract, which of course would increase reserves.
In a turd such as Venezuela...id rather ire on some caution to be honest.
Regardless the issue is that we, cannot actually use most of the oil anyway...so its a battle for self sufficiency and kicking OPEC in the ayatollah.