I see the cold fusion circus is still in town.
Posted on 03/30/2012 5:10:35 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
James Martinez of Cash Flow Radio has conducted an interview with Brillouin Energy‘s Chief Executive Officer Robert George and President and Chief Technical Officer Robert E. Godes.
The reason they said they are ready to conduct an interview at this point (and not earlier) is because they have been able to develop a control system that allows a reaction to start and stop, and run in a steady state mode. They said that next month they will be working with Mike McKubre of SRI International to run a reactor at a higher temperature.
Godes states that the Brillouin’s reaction starts with an endothermic reaction (reaction that absorbs heat) and ends with a more powerful exothermic reaction (reaction releases heat). Brillouin is working on two systems, the first one provides heat at 140 degrees C, (called the “wet boiler”) the second one reaches 400 – 450 degrees C. George says that they have applied for patents, but have been told by a patent examiner at the US Patent Office that the office is still not permitted to grant patents in the cold fusion field.
Robert George said that financing has been difficult to obtain, and they are working towards securing a two million dollar investment. Their business plan is not to manufacture products, but to license technology to third party producers. George says that Brillouin has been receiving visits from a number of entities, including the Naval Research Lab and “major corporations.”
Godes expresses doubts about whether both Andrea Rossi and Defkalion actually have technology that is ready for the marketplace, but says he would like to see them succeed in order to bring recognition and acceptance to the field of cold fusion.
You just don't get it, do you. Sure, Gamow's work has been predictive, and will continue to be. So has and is Newton's. But there are areas where Newton's do not work. The same will prove to be true of Gamow's.
I suspect that in this big, wide universe, there will bethings discovered that will contradict even Einstein.
"You claim to have done work at and for LLNL. I seriously doubt it. Nothing in anything you have said would lead me to believe that they would consult with you on anything-—unless of course you are one of the GSE types."
I can guarantee you that I "did" both consult for and work with LLNL. Look up a guy named Fred Milanovich. At the start of the project, he was "head honcho" of the project area, though he retired in the middle of the work. Great guy. A REAL scientist.
"Look fusion happens in nature... not at room temps but at high temps and high pressures. Most of all science is spent trying to understand these natural processes well enough to be make the predictions useable in everyday ways."
And the same is true for the solid state and highly ordered systems, which behave very differently.
"When you say quote experimental data I am not interested in calorimeter measurements since those may or may not be meaningful. What I would like the low energy fusion folks to do is show me where they have produced the gamma radiation that is a characteristic by product. There has been none.
IOW, you'll ignore data that doesn't fit your prejudices instead of looking at all the data. That, old boy, is pseudoscience. And yes, gamma rays "have" been detected...just not in the quantities predicted by "standard hot fusion model physics". As have the reaction products and by products. But you're "read all the work publised on cold fusion".
"You can suggest all you want to that the low energy folks have a new form of fusion... it has yet to be proven ( sorry you saying it has is not sufficient nor are articles showing up in reviews started by the very people claiming cold fusion.)"
But you've read every paper published on cold fusion....NOT
With every comment here, you are proving that you have NOT done that.
"Where are the raw data from any of these experiments so they may be evaluated (as all good science is)? Where is the information about experimental set up which is sufficient to allow another to replicate the experiment?
In peer reviewed publications, of course. Many of these can be accessed through LENR-CANR.org. And likewise in the data books of those doing the research. To quote just one incident that is typical of how folks like you work. When Bockris first replicated Pons and Fleischmann's work back in the late 1980's (producing tritium), he invited other scientists to come to his lab and examine the process and the data......nobody took him up on it. They "just knew" it had to be wrong.
"Experiments which are temperamental and do not reliable happen even for the advocates of low energy fusion are not convincing."
Again, you show that you know virtually nothing about the recent advances in the field. The fact that the "advocates" are also publishing their negative results, IMO, goes a long way to prove their scientific credibility. It's what a GOOD scientist does. MUCH science has started out with very "temperamental" experiments. CF is following exactly the same progression.
Oh goody references to the bio sciences and spectroscopy... I am underwhelmed
Even if it's scientifically valid, it's also scientifically insignificant (not being supported by a valid theory is a big part of that). How good can the data be if an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion without looking like your hyping flying saucers?
Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em.
My point is that the cold fusion postings are grossly disproportionate to their scientific or commercial importance. They also sink to the level of promoting scams and making conservatives look bad, which is why challenging them is more important than making you and Kevmo happy.
We also haven't read all the papers on the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers. If an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion based on the papers, why should we waste our time?
In peer reviewed publications, of course. Many of these can be accessed through LENR-CANR.org.
By peer you mean members of the cold fusion mutual admiration society. And sites like LENR-CANR were set up to publish all the cold fusion hype that respectable scientific journals won't publish. It's only one step up from Rossi's fake "peer reviewed" journal.
Thanks Moonman62. I forget that sometimes it hopeless to try and argue with the irrational.....
I almost got the feeling that it was like listening to Richard Hoagland explain his wonderful theories on 19.5 and NASA etc etc et
Yup. I'm a chemist. And last time I looked, chemistry, biochemistry and spectroscopy were all fields of science, just as much so as physics. The fact remains that I DID precisely what I said, worked in and consulted with LLNL.
Here's some other items:
As a postdoc, I did a short project with Willard Libby. I assume you know who he is.
As an undergrad, I worked in a C-14 dating lab (NOT related to the project with Libby...that was a totally separate work (peer-review published, btw)).
My minor in Grad school was in Nuclear Science. So with that background I have a very good background in nuclear measurements.
MEASUREMENT is my area of expertise, and I'm damned good at it, having garnered two R&D100 awards for my work (actually one R&D100 and one IR100).
But the thing that makes me a scientist and you a joke is that I look at ALL the data, and not just what happens to fit my prejudices.
LOL. You're ridiculous. Nothing I have posted is even remotely like "hyping flying saucers". And if CF pans out as the latest data indicates, it will be the biggest scientific discovery since fire. But I guess you haven't bothered to look at Celani's talk at CERN, have you.
"My point is that the cold fusion postings are grossly disproportionate to their scientific or commercial importance. They also sink to the level of promoting scams and making conservatives look bad, which is why challenging them is more important than making you and Kevmo happy.
EVERYTHING that I have posted refers back to the best available data, INCLUDING the items about Rossi. Your only purpose is to stifle ANY positive discussion on LANR. Note that this thread has nothing to do with Rossi, and certainly can't be taken as "promoting scams".
And I fail to see how pointing people to where they can look at the facts themselves can possibly "make conservatives look bad".
"We also haven't read all the papers on the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers. If an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion based on the papers, why should we waste our time?
I've referred you to LENR-CANR repeatedly. I have no idea which sources you might have access to, or which journal(s) you accept as having the best peer-review.
"By peer you mean members of the cold fusion mutual admiration society. And sites like LENR-CANR were set up to publish all the cold fusion hype that respectable scientific journals won't publish. It's only one step up from Rossi's fake "peer reviewed" journal.
Which statement tells me that you have never examined the contents of the LENR-CANR library section. There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals cited there. They are specifically identified as such. And LENR-CANR "also" contains negative papers.
I'll make a guess....the only journals you and "Nifster" will accept as "adequate" are those that refuse to accept CF papers. Talk about "Catch-22".
Looking at bad data or data based on flawed theories is in fact meaningless.
You do not have the slightest clue on what fusion is about——’cold’ ‘hot’ or any other kind.
I suggest you perhaps fit into to R.C. Hoagland model of science.
Call names all you want. The cold fusion people still have not produced what they said years ago would be available in six months. IF they ever do then we can have a discussion
You say this on a thread you posted, based on an article from a blog dedicated to the scammer and convict, Andrea Rossi.
And if CF pans out as the latest data indicates, it will be the biggest scientific discovery since fire.
So would flying saucers with all their wonderful alien technology.
But I guess you haven't bothered to look at Celani's talk at CERN, have you.
That's part of a lecture series designed to entertain the janitors and secretaries who work at CERN. Why should I read it? Once again you are placing the burden of proving or disproving cold fusion on the people you are trying to convince, rather than using your own award winning talent to make the case. It's rather devious of you.
That's like referring to the best avilable fish head in a bucket of chum.
Your only purpose is to stifle ANY positive discussion on LANR.
Not at all. It took very little to convince me that muon catalyzed cold fusion is real or that high school students created hot fusion in their garages. That's because the quality of data is so good and convincing. The stuff you post is hype and emphasizes quantity, rather than quality.
Note that this thread has nothing to do with Rossi, and certainly can't be taken as "promoting scams".
Note that the article you posted is copied from a blog called E-Cat World. E-Cat being Rossi's latest scam. The article also mentions Rossi.
Which statement tells me that you have never examined the contents of the LENR-CANR library section. There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals cited there. They are specifically identified as such. And LENR-CANR "also" contains negative papers.
I went over to LENR-CANR.org to find its peer review process. I couldn't find it. What I did find is that LENR-CANR.org is a Wordpress blog on cold fusion run by Jed Rothwell. So I was wrong, LENR-CANR.org is no better than Rossi's fake journal blog.
And since you are so big on credentials, what kind of credentials does Jed Rothwell have?
A "journal" that's something more than a blog would be a start, which would be a monumental leap in your case.
Ludicrous. I've got more than enough experience in practicing science to understand whether or not data is good or bad. Theory has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
"You do not have the slightest clue on what fusion is about——’cold’ ‘hot’ or any other kind."
Again ludicrous. Since I've followed fusion research of all flavors for 45 years, I think I have a reasonable idea of what it's about.
"I suggest you perhaps fit into to R.C. Hoagland model of science."
I have no clue who "R.C. Hoagland" might be. And the approach to science I am advoctating is completely orthodox....that is, experiment confirms the validity of theory (and not the reverse). Apparently, Julian Schwinger was right.....physics HAS forgotten that it is an experimental science.
"Call names all you want. The cold fusion people still have not produced what they said years ago would be available in six months. IF they ever do then we can have a discussion.
LOL, you and "Moonboy" have done nothing BUT call names. Not one shred of actual science in any of your responses. As to the "cold fusion people" not delivering.....neither have the "hot fusion people". And the time interval has been a lot longer.
LOL. You are SUCH a liar. LENR-CANR makes no claim to being a science journal of any sort. It is wholly a compilation of references to papers published on the topic of cold fusion. Peer review of those papers is done by the source journal. No different from "Current Contents" to cite just one example of many such collections that focus on specific areas of science and technology.
But frankly, I doubt that you even set click on LENR-CANR.
Warthog is too funny. He defines an acceptable journal as one that prints what he wants. I know plenty of ‘acceptable’ journals that won’t print all sorts of papers. Sometimes it is because the focus is different than what the journal focusses on. Sometimes it is because perpetual motion machines are thought to be in violation of fundamental laws of physics. That’s the way it goes.
At one point CF had the potential to be presented but since the results in the 1990s everyone has steered clear. Every now and then it is reviewed again only to come to the same conclusion (eg the Naval RResearch review in 2004-— or there abouts)-— CF represents a field that has touchy experiements with inconsistent history of repeatability.
The hot fusion people have not made the claims that the CFers have. They have steadily built their knowledge base.
Theory has everything to do with how one views data. If one ignores the double slit experiment (for example) then light and its travel becomes very troublesome and confusing. If one does not understand nonlocal interaction then spooky action at a distance leaves one with all sorts of unexplained data.
Go back to your spectroscopy. It is where you are best suited to make evaluations
I admit that I jumped to the conclusion that LENR-CANR.org was something more than a Wordpress blog run by one person with no scientific credentials.
Methinks you have the case exactly backwards. I look at ALL the data, from whatever source, and judge it both as to source and the quality of the data itself. You, OTOH, choose to do precisely what you accuse me of, giving sole credence to journals that refuse to publish good-quality papers just because the subject is "not in the mainstream".
Note that the journals you choose CENSORED a Nobel-laureate theoretical physicist (Julian Schwinger) because he wanted to publish theoretical works on CF. I would think that a scientist of Schwinger's capabilities would be worth hearing out, no matter what the area of science or technology.
"At one point CF had the potential to be presented but since the results in the 1990s everyone has steered clear. Every now and then it is reviewed again only to come to the same conclusion (eg the Naval Research review in 2004-— or there abouts)-— CF represents a field that has touchy experiments with inconsistent history of repeatability.
Up to 2004, you're right, because at that point virtually all CF attempts focused on electrochemical loading. The electrochemical loading method is fraught with major difficulties (as a chemist, I probably understand that better than you do.....I "hate" electrochemistry....virtually all its techniques are "touchy...with...inconsistent....repeatability). But that changed with the onset of gas loading approaches, first (but not really...see below) by Arata in Japan, and later by others, including several groups here in the US.
As I have studied this, one of the major missed opportunities was the very, very simple/cheap experiments done at NASA's Glenn Research Center....in 1989! Due to the cyclonic shit-storm generated by the hot physics community, that got shelved and went unreported. Thanks to Rossi (real or fake as he may be), that information has now gotten out..and been reproduced (at least by the folks at Glenn (they repeated the test recently and got the same results).
THAT particular experiment can be replicated with totally off-the-shelf and relatively inexpensive hardware.
Now maybe you know of actual experiments that disprove the NASA approach, but I have found none.
Wrong. Theory is all well and good, and if experiments agree with it, that "does" add to the knowledge base of science. But ignoring "anomalies" that contradict theory is flatly stupid, because it is from those anomalous results that NEW and unexpected science emerges. Most of them will indeed probably prove to be errors, but those that pan out with replicable data open up new theories (and occasionally kill old ones).
"Go back to your spectroscopy. It is where you are best suited to make evaluations..."
LOL....any place a measurement is made is grist for my mill (and not just spectroscopy....neither of my R&D100 awards were in spectroscopy...nor were they in the same area of applied science).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.