Proof of Work to be powered by Clean and Abundant Energy?

[AdvocateOne]

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/2irhzx/bitcoin_proof_of_work_to_be_powered_by_clean_and/

Thoughts?

[mwizard]

This (E-Cat) has been going around for years.  It is not a scam, rather just wishful thinking, and an inability by anyone else to reproduce Rossi's results. See for example

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml

I suspect people really would like "cold fusion" to work even if it does not..  

Update - This site gives lots of background material.  http://shutdownrossi.com . 

[AdvocateOne]

This (E-Cat) has been going around for years.  It is not a scam, rather just wishful thinking, and an inability by anyone else to reproduce Rossi's results. See for example

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml

I suspect people really would like "cold fusion" to work.  

I get what you are saying.  It seems, however, that new evidence has surfaced, the catalyst now appears to be revealed in this paper, and so new replications will be attempted.

Since this is a speculation thread, what would it do to mining if proven to be commercially viable energy?

[mwizard]

I suggest anyone who thinks there is anything behind E-cat first looks at this site.  If you believe in Rossi and E-Cat I have a bridge I can sell you.

http://shutdownrossi.com . 

[AdvocateOne]

I suggest anyone who thinks there is anything behind E-cat first looks at this site.  If you believe in Rossi and E-Cat I have a bridge I can sell you.

http://shutdownrossi.com . 

It isn't a matter of belief, at least to me.  It is more a matter of following the evidence, wherever that leads, and considering its implications, no matter how big they may or may not be.  I take a similar approach to things such as Bitcoin.

The shuddownrossi site's last post was on Feb. 4, 2013, where it stated: After three years of news about Andrea Rossi, things are gradually drawing to a close.

http://shutdownrossi.com/category/latest-news/

But the news is as intensive now than it has been at any prior point in time, due to the recent release of the latest third party independent scientific review and paper.

[mwizard]

But the news is as intensive now than it has been at any prior point in time, due to the recent release of the latest third party independent scientific review and paper.

Interesting.  Can you point me to what peer reviewed scientific journal has this paper.   

The only paper I saw appears to be a self published pdf.

[AdvocateOne]

But the news is as intensive now than it has been at any prior point in time, due to the recent release of the latest third party independent scientific review and paper.

Interesting.  Can you point me to what peer reviewed scientific journal has this paper.   

The only paper I saw appears to be a self published pdf.

It appears that the industry is not going to wait for peer reviewers.  Neither is China.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/12/on-the-industrial-heat-china-connection/

[funtotry]

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/2irhzx/bitcoin_proof_of_work_to_be_powered_by_clean_and/

Thoughts?

Not a good idea. Your best solution is to use the cheapest kind of energy that you can use. If you pay more for "clean" energy then you are essentially giving away money to crazy liberals with does not make economic sense

[AdvocateOne]

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/2irhzx/bitcoin_proof_of_work_to_be_powered_by_clean_and/

Thoughts?

Not a good idea. Your best solution is to use the cheapest kind of energy that you can use. If you pay more for "clean" energy then you are essentially giving away money to crazy liberals with does not make economic sense

If this tech works, and is adopted widely, it will be far cheaper than any available source of energy.  Just because it is clean, doesn't require it to be more expensive.  Your comment makes sense if applied to solar and wind.

[jimmothy]

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/2irhzx/bitcoin_proof_of_work_to_be_powered_by_clean_and/

Thoughts?

Not a good idea. Your best solution is to use the cheapest kind of energy that you can use. If you pay more for "clean" energy then you are essentially giving away money to crazy liberals with does not make economic sense

If this tech works, and is adopted widely, it will be far cheaper than any available source of energy.  Just because it is clean, doesn't require it to be more expensive.  Your comment makes sense if applied to solar and wind.

Key word is IF.

I did a little research after hearing about this and I've come to the same conclusion reached by 10/10 scientists which is that Andrea Rossi is nothing more than a con artist.

Just look at his wiki page, it screams snake oil salesman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29

He has not inventioned just one, but THREE separate green energy "breakthroughs" and you guessed it, none of them have been proven to work by any means of the scientific process.

From Wikipedia:

In 1974, Rossi registered a patent for an incineration system. In 1978, he wrote The Incineration of Waste and River Purification, published in Milan by Tecniche Nuove. He then founded Petroldragon, a company for developing oil from waste, which collapsed in the 1990s amidst allegations of dumping toxic waste,[11] and accusations of tax fraud

How can anyone possibly look past that enormous red flag? How dare anyone call this man a scientist?

If that didn't tip you off here's another giant red flag:

Electricity from waste heat

In the US Rossi started the consulting firm Leonardo Technologies, Inc. (LTI). He secured a defense contract to evaluate the potential of generating electricity from waste heat by using thermoelectric generators. Such devices are normally only used for refrigeration (Peltier effect), because the efficiency for generating electrical power is only a few percent. Rossi suggested that his devices could attain 20% efficiency. Larger modules would be manufactured in Italy.

Rossi sent 27 thermoelectric devices for evaluation to the Engineer Research and Development Center; 19 of these did not produce any electricity at all. The remaining units produced less than 1 watt each, instead of the expected 800–1000 watt.[16]

So out of 27 devices, ZERO worked even close to advertised specs. Sure you can claim gross incompetence but I think we all know it's just part of the scam.

It's clear as day that Rossi is just taking advantage of the clean energy craze and peoples lack of understanding the scientific process.

And please don't pretend a few "scientists" sitting in a room with the machine for a few hours is independent verification or that a post on a Chinese forum means anything of substance.

Soon this new cold fusion invention will fade into obscurity as more and more evidence comes out against it and Rossi will invent his next revolutionary green technology and surely raise millions of dollars before any sort of scientific evaluation.

My guess is he will go with an antimatter generator or maybe a water powered car.

[AdvocateOne]

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/2irhzx/bitcoin_proof_of_work_to_be_powered_by_clean_and/

Thoughts?

Not a good idea. Your best solution is to use the cheapest kind of energy that you can use. If you pay more for "clean" energy then you are essentially giving away money to crazy liberals with does not make economic sense

If this tech works, and is adopted widely, it will be far cheaper than any available source of energy.  Just because it is clean, doesn't require it to be more expensive.  Your comment makes sense if applied to solar and wind.

Key word is IF.

I did a little research after hearing about this and I've come to the same conclusion reached by 10/10 scientists which is that Andrea Rossi is nothing more than a con artist.

...

6/6 scientists who did a 6 month evaluation of the device and wrote the 53 page paper provide remarkable evidence.  In addition, it is public knowledge that NASA, DARPA, University of Missouri SKINR, SRI, United States Navy Research Lab, Purdue University, Italian ENEA, Mitsubishi Heavy, Toyota Corp., DIA, University Illinois, have programs pursing similar tech.  

More needs to be made public and more evidence is required.  But there are signals in many diverse places.  Bitcoin miners should at least be paying attention and following any advances in this arena.

[jimmothy]

6/6 scientists who did a 6 month evaluation of the device and wrote the 54 page paper provide remarkable evidence.  

Source?

In addition, it is public knowledge that NASA, DARPA, University of Missouri SKINR, SRI, United States Navy Research Lab, Purdue University, Italian ENEA, Mitsubishi Heavy, Toyota Corp., DIA, University Illinois, have programs pursing similar tech. 

Source?

Bitcoin miners should at least be paying attention and following any advances in this arena.

No we really shouldn't care at all. If this device works then energy companies everywhere will start using it. Bitcoin miners or anyone else using electricity do not have to worry about a thing.

[AdvocateOne]

If this device works then energy companies everywhere will start using it. Bitcoin miners or anyone else using electricity do not have to worry about a thing.

I agree with you that will happen in the long term.  But in the short term, those with the highest incentives will exploit first.  I would include Bitcoin miners in that group.

[AdvocateOne]

Source?

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Source?

http://lenr-canr.org/ is a good place to start.

[jimmothy]

Source?

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

So more accurately 6/6 amateur scientists who have been collaborating with Rossi have confirmed his claims.. again.

That makes the grand total 6/1,000,000 scientists who believe Rossi's invention is legit.

Please read these articles (from a source that seems passionate about LENR's potential) and tell me if you still believe this "inventor" is not really just a con artist:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/10/12/rossi-handles-samples-in-alleged-independent-test-of-his-device/

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Andrea-Rossi-Energy-Catalyzer-Investigation-Index.shtml#rossi

Source?

http://lenr-canr.org/ is a good place to start.

I already know that millions have been spent researching cold fusion and resulted in failure time and time again.

I want to see a source where NASA or any other respectable entity is pursuing tech based on Rossi's findings or even just suggest that Rossi might not be full of shit.

You have to ask yourself why this man, who claims to have invented the greatest invention since the invention of fire, is trying so hard to raise investment money yet also putting as much effort as possible into avoiding disclosing how his machine actually works. He even tried to file for a patent without disclosing his secret sauce that makes it work (I wonder why).

If his cold fusion device truly worked Rossi would have told everyone exactly how it works ASAP and thousands of scientists would confirm his findings leading to a contract with every energy company/government/electricity user in the world yet he chose to keep everything a secret, rely on his outstanding reputation as a white collar criminal, and avoid the scientific method which would give his claims validity and billions of dollars.

[AdvocateOne]

So more accurately 6/6 amateur scientists who have been collaborating with Rossi have confirmed his claims.. again.

That makes the grand total 6/1,000,000 scientists who believe Rossi's invention is legit.

Source?
I provided a source above, which contradicts your grand total.

Please read these articles (from a source that seems passionate about LENR's potential) and tell me if you still believe this "inventor" is not really just a con artist:

A Nobel laureate happens to have a pretty dim view of tactics employed by the author of your cited links:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html

Yes, your source is passionate about LENR's potential, as you correctly point out, but it seems the passion abruptly ends if the LENR in question is potentially commercially viable.

I already know that millions have been spent researching cold fusion and resulted in failure time and time again.

Have there been failures?  Yes, without a doubt.  Have there been successful replications?  Yes, without a doubt.  What makes the current LENR approach (nickel powder, lithium, iron, and hydrogen in a "dry" cell) so controversial today, is that these are claims of commercially viable LENR.  That threatens interests.  That makes people emotional and angry.  Sort of like Bitcoin.

I want to see a source where NASA or any other respectable entity is pursuing tech based on Rossi's findings or even just suggest that Rossi might not be full of shit.

NASA has programs pursuing similar tech (as I stated above, but here are a few links to demonstrate... and there are plenty of others as their interest in this topic has been sustained)
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/IPAG12_Presentation.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/22/nasa-a-nuclear-reactor-to-replace-your-water-heater/
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw

NASA is aware of Rossi and I suspect will start a program to attempt to replicate the latest results given that more information has been released now than ever before.  NASA loves to attempt replications of exotic technologies, as they should, given the extreme possibilities even if remote.

[jimmothy]

Please just explain why he is seeking investments before proving his claims through the scientific method?

There is really no excuse other than once again his invention is a sham.

[AdvocateOne]

Please just explain why he is seeking investments before proving his claims through the scientific method?

There is really no excuse other than once again his invention is a sham.

He isn't.  Cherokee Investment Partners LLC (a multi-billion dollar firm) formed a company called Industrial Heat, LLC.  Rossi now works for them.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.html

Industrial Heat has been more open with the inner workings of the technology than Rossi ever was.

[scarsbergholden]

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/2irhzx/bitcoin_proof_of_work_to_be_powered_by_clean_and/

Thoughts?

Not a good idea. Your best solution is to use the cheapest kind of energy that you can use. If you pay more for "clean" energy then you are essentially giving away money to crazy liberals with does not make economic sense

If this tech works, and is adopted widely, it will be far cheaper than any available source of energy.  Just because it is clean, doesn't require it to be more expensive.  Your comment makes sense if applied to solar and wind.

Key word is IF.

I did a little research after hearing about this and I've come to the same conclusion reached by 10/10 scientists which is that Andrea Rossi is nothing more than a con artist.

...

6/6 scientists who did a 6 month evaluation of the device and wrote the 53 page paper provide remarkable evidence.  In addition, it is public knowledge that NASA, DARPA, University of Missouri SKINR, SRI, United States Navy Research Lab, Purdue University, Italian ENEA, Mitsubishi Heavy, Toyota Corp., DIA, University Illinois, have programs pursing similar tech.  

More needs to be made public and more evidence is required.  But there are signals in many diverse places.  Bitcoin miners should at least be paying attention and following any advances in this arena.

Any time you quote a percentage of a number of professionals as "x out of n" professionals you will automatically lose creditability. When picking which professionals to include in your "study" you could easily (and many companies do this) pick the first 9 that agree with them and pick a random 10th person who doesn't (or in your case simply pick 6 who do agree with you)

[AdvocateOne]

Any time you quote a percentage of a number of professionals as "x out of n" professionals you will automatically lose creditability. When picking which professionals to include in your "study" you could easily (and many companies do this) pick the first 9 that agree with them and pick a random 10th person who doesn't (or in your case simply pick 6 who do agree with you)

If you look back in the thread, you will note that my 6/6 comment was a retort to the 10/10 comment.  Of course such a citation of math is absurd--thus, the similar retort.  I thought that went without saying, but apparently not.