Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Andrea Rossi: Peer Review Will Be A Working 1 Megawatt Plant

Peer review (in an ideal world is a fine system) of cross checking and validation.  However, the reality is that peer review is one of THE most corrupt systems we have ever known and has arguably stifled and supressed development since it's very inception. It is influenced almost entirely by money and corporations, nods, winks and memberships of old boys clubs. If the peer review system existed in it's current form at the time of Einstein he'd never have been published. All peer review has ever done is form an impenetrable elitist group of establishment defenders who are entirely shutdown to new ideas and who feel threatened by change, both in what it means for their egos and for what it means to their careers.

We're also hearing some idiotic comments from people on physics forums and the like.  Most of them say something like "Well, as soon as it's on the front cover of Nature, or TIME magazine then I'll believe it.".  How badly influenced and brainwashed must some people be to disregard all other opinions and base their sense of truth on the influence of establishment rags? Shame on them.

Here is a brilliant exchange between Rossi and a comment poster on his site.
David Jonathan 

"Dear Andrea Rossi,

A vicious cycle has been created. That must be broken if science and civilization is to advance fast enough.

The vicious cycle.

1. All peer reviewed journals will not publish a paper on LENR, because LENR volatiles the our current laws of physics.

2. Our current law of physics will not change if universities can’t/won’t replicate LENR.

3. All universities will not replicate any LENR experiments, because they were not published in a peer reviewed journal.

4. In the end no LENR experiments can be taken seriously because,

A. LENR was not published in peer review journals.
B. LENR was not replicated by any university.
C. LENR results were not confirmed.
D. Therefore our physics stays the relatively same.
E. Civilization does not advance fast enough.Then the cycle continues again.I hope that you will make a way for not only fixing this cycle but preventing similar cycles from happening again. So that the field of science can advance into higher levels.

I hope that you take this seriously. 

Thank you.Warm Regards,

David Linebarger"

  • Andrea Rossi
    "Dear Mr David Linebarger:
    On October our 1 MW plant in operation will resolve the problem.
    Warm regards,

You really have to admire Rossi's attitude towards the peer review system.  Although the energy catalyzer involves some very new and interesting science, it's primary function as a device is not scientifically important.

What IS important is that the device is put to work for the good of mankind as soon as possible.  This is primarily a COMMERCIAL development which has the ability to radically shake-up the social, political and economic landscape, not to mention going a long way to solve some of the greatest environmental problems that we currently face.

Peer review by the old-boys network has no place in a modern technological society. It really is simple. If it works - then we build it and use it - end of story.

1 comment:

  1. mi piacerebbe farvi conoscere la teoria che ho immaginato alla base del fenomeno . secondo me il fenomeno va visto assumendo come chiave concettuale la frattalità dell'universo . il fenomeno Nickel idrogeno è una combustione simile a quelle che chiamiamo reazioni chimiche , a differenza che in questo caso abbiamo interazioni di elettroni e protoni in maniera "più intima" . nelle reazioni chimiche i protoni ed elettroni si muovono in configurazioni meno energetiche e distanti dai nuclei catalizzanti , mentre utilizzando gradienti energetici molto elevati , usando protoni liberi e flussi di elettroni , si innescano fenomeni di "combustione nucleare" , con picchi energetici , fluttuazioni , e tutti quei fenomeni osservabile in reazioni chimiche comuni .