It is an entry for a writing contest. Please post your comments at their website. Please evaluate this short article; it was written with general public in mind. Feel free to forward the above link to anyone who might be interested.
I kept looking for a thesis statement in your essay and could not find one. What, exactly, was your point? Where is the skepticism of this perpetual energy machine?
The essay is a good introduction, but the conclusion is weak. You need to at least double its length: add some context of other people who have made similar claims, try to explain the science behind the inventor’s claim, get into the reasons this concept will probably work or not work, and draw a firm conclusion.
I kept looking for a thesis statement in your essay and could not find one. What, exactly, was your point?
My point was to use this E-cat episode as an occasion to explain the scientific method
Where is the skepticism of this perpetual energy machine?
Rossi does not claim that he has a perpetual energy machine. He claims that the E-cat gets energy from a nuclear reaction—nickel being converted into copper.
The essay is a good introduction, but the conclusion is weak. You need to at least double its length: add some context of other people who have made similar claims, try to explain the science behind the inventor’s claim, get into the reasons this concept will probably work or not work, and draw a firm conclusion.
I am not trying to make a conclusion about Rossi’s claim. And I see no science behind his claim. Thank you for your comment.
Rossi does not claim that he has a perpetual energy machine. He claims that the E-cat gets energy from a nuclear reaction—nickel being converted into copper.
That would involve some kind of nuclear fusion. You are physicist. Do you accept such a claim? I think I agree with Darron. The refusal to tell on what process it is based should be enough to discard it. Why don’t you plainly say this?
Rossi does not claim that he has a perpetual energy machine. He claims that the E-cat gets energy from a nuclear reaction—nickel being converted into copper.
That would involve some kind of nuclear fusion. You are physicist. Do you accept such a claim? I think I agree with Darron. The refusal to tell on what process it is based should be enough to discard it. Why don’t you plainly say this?
At present I do not accept his claim. It conflicts with everything I know about nuclear processes (as described in my Progress in Physics paper). But the scientific method does not allow me to reject a claim “on theoretical ground.” He is selling reactors and I want to see how they perform in practice. There is no need to rush with a judgement. I suspect that Rossi is not honest. And would certainly not invest in his business.
My present goal , as I wrote to Darren, is to elaborate on scientific methodology of validation, not to discredit a man who is still performing experiments. I would be happy to learn that his commercial reactors work as he describes them. That would a great technological achievement. It would also call for revaluation of our theoretical knowledge.
But the scientific method does not allow me to reject a claim “on theoretical ground.”
No, you reject the claim based on him not being able to provide reproducable results. If he doesn’t tell you how it’s done, it’s not reproducable by you, therefore claim rejected by you.
But the scientific method does not allow me to reject a claim “on theoretical ground.”
No, you reject the claim based on him not being able to provide reproducable results. If he doesn’t tell you how it’s done, it’s not reproducable by you, therefore claim rejected by you.
I disagree. I think Ludwik is correct in withholding rejection before empirical testing is done. Supposedly Rossi is keeping his catalyst for the reaction a secret, as he can’t get a patent for the device. If this is true, then it may not be that the reaction is not reproduceable. It’s easy to make an assertion when in all probablity you are correct. But in science, you should only assert the results you actually get. If you haven’t gotten the results, you can’t say one way or the other. Rossi has not been “scientific” in his asserting his claims, but Ludwik has been in talking about Rossi’s claims.
But the scientific method does not allow me to reject a claim “on theoretical ground.”
No, you reject the claim based on him not being able to provide reproducable results. If he doesn’t tell you how it’s done, it’s not reproducable by you, therefore claim rejected by you.
I disagree. I think Ludwik is correct in withholding rejection before empirical testing is done. Supposedly Rossi is keeping his catalyst for the reaction a secret, as he can’t get a patent for the device. If this is true, then it may not be that the reaction is not reproduceable. It’s easy to make an assertion when in all probablity you are correct. But in science, you should only assert the results you actually get. If you haven’t gotten the results, you can’t say one way or the other. Rossi has not been “scientific” in his asserting his claims, but Ludwik has been in talking about Rossi’s claims.
The purpose of my article is to demonstrate that Rossi’s claims conflict with accepted theories (which are based on numerous reproducible experiments). If Rossi’s claims are independently confirmed by others then our theories must be modified, to also fit new experimental facts. I am not rejecting his claims. That is my philosophical position. He might be right or he might be wrong, at least in principle. But do not ask me invest money into his business.
Kanarev’s claim (ability to use water as fuel) was around for several years. Russia would benefit greatly from such technology. But do not ask me to invest into it.
