Posted on 08/04/2013 4:38:22 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
Link to slides only:
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/day3/Distributed_Power_Source.pdf
Miley's work is quite similar to successful experiments that were reported by NASA's Glenn Research system (gas-loaded Palladium, deuterium charge, pressure pulses).
Andrea Rossi could be an Italian tenor, and Defkalion sounds just like an oft discredited website
“For the majority of us who are not rocket scientists, could you provide a brief synopsis. Andrea Rossi could be an Italian tenor, and Defkalion sounds just like an oft discredited website.”
Wish I could, but don’t have time to write one. Unfortunately, for some reason the PDF file of the abstract of the paper on the ICCF18 website didn’t allow me to copy/paste.
Here’s a link to the abstract:
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/day3/Distributed_Power_Source.pdf
Perhaps that will help.
I am assuming that most of the people interested in this much depth of information are somewhat familiar with the history.
Andrea Rossi and Defkalion are two businesses (or scams as some believe) that are reporting high outputs and the beginning development of LENR reactors for market use. Their background is considered by some as “not to be trusted”.
George Miley, on the other hand, is a well-known and well-regarded scientist who has been researching LENR for many years.
Ping to CF list.
WTF is CF and ICCF18?
Maybe I would, should, could care if you were a little less cryptic and less dismissive.
Sorry I (and others like k5050) can’t jump right in and agree that this is amazing but for all I know it could be a new version of an F-18.
Even a little bit of clarification would help: I don’t need the summary you don’t have time for, but at least the topic and explaining the acronyms shouldn’t be too time consuming.
Then I would decide whether it was worth my time to delve into it or ignore it (rather than go into this screed that is further wasting my time — but how else would you know how I feel about your self-important post.)
I looked at the link hoping to find a formula for the most efficient rate of descent for a King Air 200....
Sorry you think I'm being "dismissive". That is not my intention. CF stands for "Cold Fusion", and ICCF18 is the "International Conference on Cold Fusion", and the 18th Conference dedicated to this topic to be held.
"Sorry I (and others like k5050) can’t jump right in and agree that this is amazing but for all I know it could be a new version of an F-18."
Perhaps you should actually try clicking through to the linked material, or at least the abstract instead of bitching. The slides are at least somewhat self explanatory.
And of course, a quick Google search of ICCF18 might tell you something.
"Even a little bit of clarification would help: I don’t need the summary you don’t have time for, but at least the topic and explaining the acronyms shouldn’t be too time consuming."
Possibly true, but you have no idea what my schedule looks like. I'm doing well to have posted what I did.
"Then I would decide whether it was worth my time to delve into it or ignore it (rather than go into this screed that is further wasting my time — but how else would you know how I feel about your self-important post.)
Nothing "self-important" about it intended at all. Feel free to continue (or not). This is mostly intended for the people who have been following this topic on FR for the last 18 months or so.
Thank you for your explanatory response. Honestly, thank you.
It is exactly what I expected to originally see. Something as simple as (Cold Fusion) at the end of the title would have been a clue to whether I should link through.
As a busy person I am sure you understand not wanting to blindly follow links that often lead to other posts or blogs, further wasting time with no real meat. Not recognizing the name of the presenter right away nor understanding the topic didn’t help.
Many people fail to connect with others who are honestly interested in a subject because they don’t realize that their insider buzz words aren’t understood. Bringing that to your attention was my intent. CF just as easily could have been interpreted as carbon footprint, and CCF could have been cold cathode fluorescent for all I knew by reading the little bit originally posted.
Thanks again for your explanation and please be slightly more explanative of the topic when it is not generally understood so others can have the benefit of your insights and postings.
Heh....you got caught by the same mistake I recently got called for...if you'll look at the "Keywords" section of the original post, you'll see what you were originally looking for, I think.
I tend to skip over the "Keywords", too. But they are there for a reason. I always put them in when I am posting, but tend not to read them when I am "just reading". I'm trying to do better on that.
Right you are.
mea culpa
I never look at keywords, just always thought of them as a search tool.
I will pay better attention to that feature.
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.