Dear Reader,
click here and then go to the last few posts - to read why I keep referring to all that drivel from our trolls
Well. FINALLY they caught up on overunity research.com. I wondered how long it would take. The conversation is between Physics Prof and MilesEverSoHigh. Physics Prof is that apparently kindly Professor Emeritus who has offered some coins in exchange for perpetual motion. He shuffles between two or three forums and for reasons best known to himself - insists on using Poynty's "PIN POUT' references. This, coupled with his preferred use of acronyms - makes one giddy with confusion after reading his analyses. Perhaps it's only me. In any event, he has most certainly taken a stand against the 'standard' of our learned and revered who prefer clarity and precision of expression. He's opted to use that confused and confusing 'Poynty speak' which is intended to give the general impression of advanced intelligence without the attendant dangers of advancing any information at all. lol
What a lot of pretentious nonsense. Thankfully the most of us are aware of it. And the only possible benefit of all that confusion that he spins with such reckless abandon - is that he could then, perhaps, keep custody of that prize that he flaunts. Frankly I'm not sure that a perpetual motor would be adequately rewarded if his coins are all that's on offer. Golly. I would rather suggest that the inventor simply show that motor to a journalist. That should work. Rather well. I'll put my own money on a small wager that the reward for a perpetual motor would be well in excess of the value of those coins. And it would not need any complicated analysis to prove.
The follow up post is from MileHigh. To those with a longer memory than is usually evident on those forums - he's the gentleman who insisted that particles are moved by a gravitational force which prompted the following doggerel.
A man once said that he found
That particles don't move around.
Said 'You bet your ass
if a thing has got mass
then it's going to fall to the ground'.
Which is only intended to remind you all that his expertise is not in physics but in the well developed - and indeed, well articulated - 'art of denial' of all over unity claims. Unlike Physics Prof - his style of writing is commendably clear. But his posts are sadly repetitive. He does, however, have the occasional appropriate complaint against bad measurements. Unfortunately he tends to overlook the fact that most of those flaws are from the efforts of his own team. And the team? It's mostly just Grumpy the Poison Dwarf - who thinks that electrons respond to pressure - and some others whose names escape me at the moment. They are all well able to feed off their own vanity and the atmosphere of mutual congratulation. This is engendered as a reward for the absurd reaches of their improbable theories. And these, in turn, are flaunted all over the place. Their 'theories' if such they are, are a mishmash of the standard model and their own evident confusion imposed on that poor abused model. Just look at the PIN POUT terminology for a kick off. Golly.
So, dear reader - no doubt you are questioning why it is that I pay any attention at all to these 'trolls' whose overriding intention is clearly to diminish and deny any clear evidence of 'breach of unity'. I'll try and explain this. It is because we have here a text book example of how these trolls work and with it, the rather incontestable proof of their agenda - that conspiracy thing - that dogs these poor efforts of ours. And for once I can see the 'conspiracy' in action - the actual tried and tested methodology that is used. I've said it - often. Goebbels would have been proud to see how his young art has blossomed into full blown maturity.
For those with enough interest in this - here's the breakdown.
Posts: 431
PHYSICS PROF
"I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."
That 'same problem'? The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Nothing could be quite as diverse as the level of heat and energy produced by the E-Cat as Thane's work, Nor is their any similarity at all in their technologies. This is that 'sideways' swipe to introduce a subject that is otherwise entirely irrelevant to that thread topic. And, of course, it has the real merit of tarnishing the manifold doubts about Thane's technology with any hope of credibility for Rossi.
PHYSICS PROF
"I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run."
Here I would point out that Physics Prof would be justified in this if he were able to give us some accurate measurements ever, on anything at all. It seems that his best efforts simply get snarled in confusion every time he references that PIN AND POUT terminology. No matter how careful ones measurements - they're meaningless in that context.
PHYSICS PROF
"Which brings me to Rossi's e-cat claims -- and bold claims they are (see PESN for example). I've been following this and asking questions. I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction."
Stop right there. Here's the first bit of 'propaganda' - the first 'hint' at that agenda, the first 'allegation'. Rossi has NEVER claimed the presence of anything at all. He simply presented a sample for analysis. And he need not have bothered. Soon they'll have their own samples to test. So. Dear Physics Prof - please be informed. Rossi DID NOT make those 'bold claims' that you now allege are his. You are now promulgating, dare I say it - a lie? Or, if you prefer - a distortion of the truth. When and IF Rossi claims that there is copper in the 'mix' then - by all means - check it out. Until then, dear Reader, be advised. The evidence of copper and/or iron are NOT part of Rossi's claims. It is Kullander who is reporting on their results. NOT ROSSI
THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXCERPT
'Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural."
Here is the same argument that bedeviled the early Fleischmann Pons claim of cold fusion. The point is this. There is no evidence of any radioactive waste. That's the beauty of this technology. Who cares if it's a chemical or nuclear reaction. Fleischmann and Pons rather depended on it being attributed to a nuclear interaction as there was and is, otherwise, no explanation within the standard model for all that excess energy. And no-one was going to accredit an ANOMALY. But with a working model - a full blow technology - WHO CARES? You don't need an explanation. You just need to use all that abundant energy. Certainly the E-CAT proves the result. Rather in the same way as the Wright brothers put their planes in the sky well in advance of the theory that limped behind. Our academics were utterly disgraced by all their flaunted assumption proceeding all that evidence. Again. WHO CARES? Any user of electricity will be largely indifferent to the explanations.
PHYSICS PROF
"Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition"."
Are you, dear Physics Prof - trying to imply that the 'waste' sample was fudged? Tampered with? Surely not! That would be a blow below the belt! And surely you are above insinuating anything at all? Isn't that somewhat unprofessional? Regardless of which, we poor members of the public are sublimely indifferent to whether copper was added - deliberately or otherwise - by anyone at all. Rossi himself is surely indifferent. Unlike you he's got a working technology that can deliver a HUGE amount of energy at ridiculously low cost. And as you emphasise and as he claims - there is ABSOLUTELY NO RADIOACTIVE POISONOUS PRODUCTS from all that energy. That's a really good thing. Yet it seems that without having all that poisonous waste you're prepared to deny the experimental evidence of a really efficient energy source? That's hardly scientific. I would have thought that the thing to do is to research the explanation - not the results. They're unequivocal.
PHYSICS PROF
"it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .
Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:
Quote
Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/"
Up to this point we're engaged in a science lecture. Then comes the double whammy.
PHYSICS PROF
"Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi.... "
No Professor of Physics. NOT AS CLAIMED BY ROSSI AND FOCARDI. As claimed by someone else - ENTIRELY. And as for this presumptuous piece of nonsense that follows.
PHYSICS PROF
"I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. "
My question is quite simply - why should he engage in any discourse with a retired professor who busies himself in denying over unity claims, while he pretends to support the possibility? I'm reasonably satisfied that Rossi has more sense than to be sidetracked by someone with such obvious intentions to discredit a much required technology. He would rather look to those who are anxious to advance its applications. I know I would.
PHYSICS PROF
"But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 ... blah blah". Then... "Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from?" THEN " BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi....."
There it is again. IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY ROSSI. And then for this fabrication - where his early modest doubts are orchestrated into a sense of outrage ....
PHYSICS PROF
"-- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO." !!!!!
Well? What exactly? I don't actually think that Rossi owes you a brass dime - let alone an explanation. It is his research that you're attacking. He is NOT attacking you. Such absurd posturing Physics Prof. Whatever next? Golly.
And so the drivel continues.
PHYSICS PROF
"Do you grasp the problem? One more time: proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds)."
Who cares? Really. Who gives a damn? For some reason you seem to think that your opinion matters?
PHYSICS PROF
"Which makes the balance of this just more unsubstantiated absurd nonsense. C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry."
We're all rather sorry - actually. But not about the E-cat. Just that you've stooped this low. The nice thing though is that your cards are now on the table and open to view. Dear Physics Professor - it is rather unseemly and decidedly unprofessional and certainly deceptive - to make so many allegations against anyone at all - on such obviously contradictory evidence. Then to try and substantiate it by referencing the equally unsubstantiated allegations and suspicions of Steven Krivit - who has half the academic stature of those associated with Rossi - is a little more than any of us can stomach. We are embarrassed for you Professor. One would have thought that - if you must cast your aspersions that you do it with a little more finesse than you seem to have managed. As it is - its an embarrassment of reckless abuse on the good name and hard work of a fellow scientist.
If I didn't know better I'd suspect that you are jealous of such startling brilliance. And for you to require a power measurement - without the total energy balance - is just a joke. I would refer you to that extraordinary nonsense when you attempted to analyse some of your work on that forum. I've copied the most of it as a record of how NOT TO DO A POWER ANALYSIS.
And as for this.
"A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions."
What deceptions? You are committing the folly of allegation. Give us facts. Then we can all pay attention. The only comfort is this. If he did not get this attack then it would be more than likely that he has nothing of interest to offer. Thank you, therefore, for alerting us to this technology and for giving us a clear indication of its value.
PHYSICS PROF
"The red flags with Rossi have been up for months."
NO PROFESSOR. THE RED FLAGS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING HAVE BEEN FLYING AGAINST YOUR NAME - NOT ROSSI's.
