Re: [Vo]:ENEA endorses the phenomenon

2011-12-13 Thread Mary Yugo 
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:

 my first post ...

 Mary Yugo wrote

  As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the
  better the evidence has to be.  Anyone can claim anything and there are
  plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the

  phenomenon.  The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the
  claim, especially when it comes to Rossi.

 In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14

 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research
 in ENEA departments, CNR 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consiglio_Nazionale_delle_Ricerche 
 Laboratories, INFN,

 Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy.

 In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In
 other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction
 and with check of results – have proved the existence of this

 phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This
 must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far
 represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already
 started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied

 phenomenon.*

 My question to Mary Yugo:

 Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ?
 What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ?

 If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to 
 dismiss its

 president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer.

 Thank you
 Moab


I have no idea what the ENEA is much less what they're talking about.
Sorry if that disappoints you.

FYI, I am interested in discussing Rossi's claim-- not LENR/cold fusion in
general.  That's because I don't know much about nuclear physics but I do
know about calorimetry.  Rossi's claims depend on calorimetry and the
calorimetry he's done is not reliable or credible in my opinion.  As I've
said probably too many times, much better methods could be used if Rossi
could be persuaded to make use of them.  I am suspicious about the veracity
of his claims because he makes no effort to prove them by the best and most
reliable methods possible.  Also because his tangential answers to simple
safe questions and some of his weirder claims (self funding which is
probably a lie, self destruct systems and isotope enrichment on the cheap)
suggest the same sort of pretenses and responses scammers often make.

Re: [VO]: ENEA endorses the phenomenon

2011-12-13 Thread peter . heckert 
 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   13.12.2011 21:51
Betreff: [VO]: ENEA endorses the phenomenon

 my first post ...
 
 Mary Yugo wrote
 
  As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the
  better the evidence has to be.  Anyone can claim anything and there are
  plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the
  phenomenon.  The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not
 the
  claim, especially when it comes to Rossi.
 
 In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy*
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14
 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research
 in ENEA departments, CNR Laboratories, INFN,
 Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy.
 
 In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In
 other words, two government programs ? carried out in close interaction
 and with check of results ? have proved the existence of this
 
 phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This
 must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far
 represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already
 started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied
 phenomenon.*
 

Yes, the proof is in the pudding.
The problem is: There is no pudding.

I looked up Piantelli in this document.
Piantelli reports neutrons 2000 times above natural background and gamma 
radiation that darkenes a photographic film.
Remember, Bequerel discovere radiactivity by accident, when he used urane as a 
paperweight for a photographic film.
He also had a scissor on the film and he found its shadow picture at the film.
This experiment was repeated many times and changed history of science.

So, if Piantelli where able to give definitive proof about this, he could 
change history of science again.
Why doesnt he do it? I dont know his reasons, but probably he wants to protect 
his secrets. This is always the problem with these LENR guys, they must protect 
their industrial secrets. So nobody knows, do they industrial RD or 
unversitary fundamental research. They are always between two chairs, you dont 
know what they want. Of course they cannot get public funding and scientific 
acknowledgement, if they keep their methods secret and dont show definitive 
results.
So they think they can do without public funding, then they should not 
complain, if they get none.


 My question to Mary Yugo:
 
 Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ?
Possibly because he is professor in economics, but not professor in physics?

 What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ?
 
 If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency
 or to dismiss its
 president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer.
 
 Thank you
 Moab