Rossi eCatalyzer - Peer Review Problem Solved

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Time and time again we are hearing the "must be peer reviewed" mantra of the establishment defenders.Who says it must be peer-reviewed? Who exactly? The same people who want to control our access to scientific knowledge and who have vested interests (whether financial or political) in upholding the scientific establishment - that's who. 

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,
    A.R."

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.


Share/Save/Bookmark

5 comments:

Anonymous,  May 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM  

I agree with both the letter and the response. However if ever the peer review system is to be changed (because of corruption), then Mr. Rossi's strategy is absolutely correct.
To change the system, one must buck the system. Shake it to its very core I say.

georgehants,  May 24, 2011 at 6:17 PM  

If only these blogs and articles where being published by the main line media.
It appears that 90% of the world is living in some sort of crazy, self destructive dream.

To digress slightly, nobody seems to look at the obvious situation where technology has been advancing almost expediently since the fifties, this of course means that far fewer people are needed to work to maintain all necessities and all reasonable luxuries for all.
Yet instead of people celebrating every time an advance puts people put of work so that they can have more leisure or help society in general, people live in fear of this happening.

Instead of retirement ages rising everybody should be able to retire at say 40 if they wish, or carry on as long as they like.

Instead pointless, circular nonproductive jobs are created in finance etc.
It is all an illusion, remove all finance and reward the people who most benefit to society.

Of course lots of obvious problems but people are so brainwashed they actually find themselves defending the current system.

Rossi's E-CAT can remove millions of jobs for the benefit of all, but it will be put to the people as a problem, instead of the wonderful opportunity to get people out of work and enjoy their lives.

Anonymous,  May 25, 2011 at 1:34 AM  

To Author: I'm just curious, who ARE you, and what exactly do you have to do with the E-Cat?

Your writing reminds me of an excerpt from Fox News rather than a scientific blogger. Are you trying to stir up controversy with sensational news, radical accusations, baseless comparisons, and futile insults of the scientific community?

What is your PURPOSE? Are you promoting Andrea Rossi? If the man means business, then we will see results whenever he finishes (or doesn't finish) his 1MW power plant. When Rossi decided to circumvent the regular scientific process of publication/replication/acceptance and began building his power plant, he became an entrepreneur, and I wish him luck in his venture. You, on the other hand, only cause me to question anything you're promoting, including the aforementioned E-Cat.

Looking back through your blog archives, you seem to jump from one bandwagon to another on the topic of "Free Energy", all ending in obscurity (Steorn, Cold Fusion, perpetual motion machines, water-powered trucks?). This puts LENR research in with a really questionable crowd.

I don't think you understand the concept of "critical thinking", and without it you will not understand the way science is done. And without that understanding, you might as well be writing in the "science" section of a tabloid magazine.

FE Truth May 25, 2011 at 9:33 AM  

Anonymous - you said: "To Author: I'm just curious, who ARE you?"

I could ask you the same since you are going by the name of anonymous.

Anonymous - you said: "Your writing reminds me of an excerpt from Fox News rather than a scientific blogger."

Your anonymous comments remind me of someone who believes in the system of peer review or who actually IS a scientist. And who said we were a science blog?

Anonymous - you said: "What is your PURPOSE? Are you promoting Andrea Rossi?"

Our purpose is the same as it's always been - to report the latest news on exotic energy developments and to inform the public. What is YOUR purpose other than a drive by attack?

Anonymous - you said: "When Rossi decided to circumvent the regular scientific process of publication/replication/acceptance"

Who says he is circumventing anything? I didn't realise that peer review was a legal requirement these days. Sounds like you are just annoyed by the fact he doesn't give a toss about peer review. Good on Rossi I say!

Anonymous - you said: "Looking back through your blog archives, you seem to jump from one bandwagon to another on the topic of "Free Energy", all ending in obscurity (Steorn, Cold Fusion, perpetual motion machines, water-powered trucks?). This puts LENR research in with a really questionable crowd."

We cover whatever is current in the world of exotic energy at that particular time - the same way magazines report and cover whatever is current. LENR or cold fusion has ALWAYS been "questionable" according to the mainstream, but that's because the mainstream is busy defending the status quo and the financial and corporate interests that it supports.

Anonymous - you said: "I don't think you understand the concept of "critical thinking", and without it you will not understand the way science is done."

First of all, a real red flag here is your mention of the phrase "critical thinking". This is one of the textbook phrases used by the James Randi crowd of pseudoskeptics, establishment defenders and debunkers.

Secondly you are missing the point here that Rossi's invention is a COMMERCIAL development. Peer review is not important. The market will be the judge, not some buffoon in a lab coat who wants to protect his tenure.

georgehants,  May 25, 2011 at 5:39 PM  

Anonymous.
Very kind of you to let everybody see the kind of thinking that main line academic "science" follows.

The truth is -

If Rossi had not handled things the way he has, the discovery would never have seen the light of day.
“science” has had years to develop and perfect cold fusion but their insane, blind, reductionist, self important, arrogant, dead brained, self serving, peer fearing, stupid, outlook, comparable in every way to the worst dogmatic, religious, manipulations in history, has meant that all open minded science has had to overcome the closed minded censoring and persecution of academic administrates and journals.

There is no excuse, “science” needs an Enema and very quickly.

Post a Comment

Contact

Contact me at mailto:contact@overunity.co

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP