Rossi on Arthur C. Clarke and Magic

I thought this was an interesting  — albeit short — comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi.

Joseph Fine asked a question about  a concept he had of how the E-Cat reaction might be generated if a heavier nucleus might be stripping off neutrons from a lighter nucleus when colliding from a certain angle (i.e. a ‘glancing blow’), working in  some kind of atomic etching, or milling process.

Fine commented:

This is not only miraculous, to quote Sir Arthur C. Clarke:“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Andrea Rossi responded:

Dr Joseph Fine:
Whereas I cannot comment in positive or negative issues related to the operation of the E-Cat, I totally share the quote from Sir Arthur C. Clarke.
I too wish you, and again to all our Readers, a healthy 2015, after a peaceful and Merry Xmas.

  • I wish that Rossi would dump the constant mantra of ‘positive or negative’ in contexts where it is close to meaningless – it is beginning to grate rather seriously.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “dump the constant mantra of positive or negative”

      Better than clowns and snakes!

      Rossi’s tone is far more professional today — maybe a 6/10. I just wish he and IH would release some more data.

    • Mark

      I agree. It’s getting a bit absurd. I mean, results could come back positive or negative, due to a whole host of errors that could happen, but if Rossi doesn’t, fundamentally, believe that his machine works, at this point, then there is a problem.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Sometimes Rossi’s statements bring to mind the fact that any sufficiently advanced cryptology is indistinguishable from static

      • georgehants

        Pekka, one must always be aware that in that “static” could be the WOW effect.!_signal

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Widen Our World?

          • Contact with the inhabitants of a planet orbiting a star in Sagittarius would certainly qualify for that epithet!

      • Mmmm… Arthur must now be rolling in his grave! If AR is encoding additional information with this phrase, I’m afraid it is sailing well over my head. Noise seems rather more likely than encrypted signal in this case.

        • you are not a cryptologist. (that is not a crime… rather we are the criminal)

          good encrypting produce something where any redundancy, any structure, is invisible.
          Note that good compression is not far from noise, and that it is advisable to compress before encrypting to make the job of finding regularities harder.

          like scientists, the cipher breakers job is to find regularities, and try to guess the rules (the key) behind.

      • any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

        • bachcole

          AlainCo, most excellent!!! I didn’t know that you could write such short and beautifully insightful comments.

          Sufficiently advanced incompetence will be seen as malice by those who are malicious, and will be seen by those who are more pure of heart as just being human nature.

          • sorry, your first analysis is good. i cannot be short and clear.

            I googled 😉

  • georgehants

    For the average scientist educated by an establishment still in the 1700’s anything beyond a steam engine is Magic.

  • georgehants

    For the average scientist educated by an establishment still in the 1700’s anything beyond a steam engine is Magic.

  • Ted-X

    The Coulomb barrier might be lower (or the neutron exchange more likely) in so called modified states of atoms, where (some of) neutrons form a shell being away from the nucleus. Protons can form these shells as well. It is a relatively new discovery. The m-states are quite stable (for some elements these states can last for days or even years). Why these m-states are not a part of any LENR theory?