Hacker News Reader

Comment by synctext | Hacker News Reader

If it sounds too good to be true...?

No graphs, no public measurements, no scientific publication: no merit.

Honest inventors want to be transparent and have their historical claim validated by top-ranking organisation. Clearly another case of wired.com diving into the fantastic and inspirational. Just search and see what their methodology is over the past months. Just invest a bit more money and we can do a bigger test... Nice income source, not an energy source.

Just look at how the media is being manipulated. Amusing if it wasn't a waste of time and resources.

View on HN

Clearly another case of wired.com diving into the fantastic and inspirational.

Actually, Ny Teknik, one of the publications cited in the article, is a serious engineering/technology news publication. They do voice strong concerns, so I wouldn't say the media is obviously manipulated.

That's the problem. It's a classic con technique. They get a few respectable organizations to cover you and write articles like "2011's Cold Fusion Fraud", and then they go around promoting their product as "Featured in Ny Teknik!"

You can't defeat a con with a rational discussion. The solution is to shun or propagandize back.

Ny Teknik is well known for printing garbage about anything outside their area of expertise.

And if DARPA have genuinely just funded research that will permit them to run cold-fusion powered units they'd be publishing this knowledge for all to use rather than using it as a decisive advantage why...?

I agree that this looks very suspicious and by Occam's razor it's probably a hoax. But by Clarke's third law, when successful fusion is finally announced honestly - whether it's this time or beyond any of our lifetimes - it's going to look quite a lot like a hoax, I suspect.

DARPA would not make the test pubic at all. Rossi is using DARPA-speculation via one word "colonel" to create buzz and legitimacy

>Honest inventors want to be transparent and have their historical claim validated by top-ranking organisation. //

I don't think it shows dishonesty for an inventor to be covert about the workings of their invention when they're trying to sell it for a lot of money (presumably before/without having gained patent protection or having retained an important part of the system as an industrial secret).

That said this smacks of bunkum.

You can find a graph here: http://renewable.50webs.com/fusion.html This is quite fascinating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com