Replies

A fool and his money are soon parted

By slick sounding ‘scientists’

I’ve met these brillouin guys. In an engineer with 20 yrs in the energy business here in the sf bay and these guys are just line the ‘nano tech’ solar guys who got 100 million in 2003 and were going to revolutionize the p. industry. Result. Nothing. Not one panel of Anything for 100m$

Oh and then there was solyndra you’ve heard of them right? They too were going to revolutionize PV

Look if you don’t have a background in nuclear chemistry and physics just relie on us engineers

We ask simply about this science- ok so how is this going to be useful AND competetive with existing technology in the real world?

I’ve seen their proposed designs it’s all crapola. You can do all kinds of things in a carefully controlled lab that will not work at scale. You can also embellish lab results and skew parameters easily as well and then BS about them in white papers

Who the heck wants a 50000$ nuclear reactor for a water heater. Which costs 200$ and uses 30$ of gas a month

If that’s annoying to you then solar thermal is well established and works fine for about 6-8 k$ and then you have no gas bill again

So as you can plainly see this is nonsense unless they are trying to make real power (ie < 10MW continuous).

And even if it would work which it can’t good luck powering a nuclear anything here in ca , isotopes of hydrogen or not

So there’s your cold water in the face, charlatans and their gullible believers in the pie in the sky and free energy and let’s ignore the second law of thermodynamics

For those in rio Linda that is energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only changed from one form to another

Mark my words Freepers

A fool and his money are soon parted By slick sounding ‘scientists’
***A poor writer and a worn-out cliche are soon united. Or is it that you’re concerned about all those hundreds of $billions of public money already spent on the hot fusion scam? Those were certainly some slick sounding scientists. My guess is that you simply need to take a good writing class.

Look spend all the money you want to make nuclear reactions occur at room temp and then be able to be carefully controlled and produce real power on the order of either existing fission or even solar photovoltaics
***That’s exactly what they’re doing, so what is your problem with it? Again, perhaps you need to take a writing class.

I’ve met these brillouin guys. In an engineer with 20 yrs in the energy business here in the sf bay
***I’m an engineer in Silicon Valley as well and I’d love to be introduced to these guys. Care to make the introduction?

and these guys are just line the ‘nano tech’ solar guys who got 100 million in 2003 and were going to revolutionize the p. industry.
***You mean these guys?
http://www.nanosolar.com/company/company-overview/
They’re still in business.

Result. Nothing. Not one panel of Anything for 100m$
***That happens all the time in Silicon Valley. I don’t see you calling all those failed startups fraudulent.

Oh and then there was solyndra you’ve heard of them right? They too were going to revolutionize PV
***There are dozens of examples of failures. It proves nothing. You’ve heard of the Wright brothers, haven’t you? They, too, were accused of being frauds for 5 years before they were allowed to demo to an actual contract.

Look if you don’t have a background in nuclear chemistry and physics just relie on us engineers
***95% of the electrical engineers I work with in the valley do not have a background in nuclear chemistry nor nuclear physics. Where do you get the idea we can rely on engineers to make these kinds of decisions? What gives any of us freepers the confidence that we can rely on YOU for any technical advice, when what you’ve posted has already been refuted and you deliver crickets on the rest?

We ask simply about this science- ok so how is this going to be useful AND competetive with existing technology in the real world? ***You honestly can't see that a new, emission-free power source that has 10,000X the energy density of gasoline is going to be useful in the real world? Where do you come up with this garbage? I’ve seen their proposed designs it’s all crapola. You can do all kinds of things in a carefully controlled lab that will not work at scale. ***Right here you self-refute. You acknowledge that the effect works in the lab but hint that it won't work to scale. Same thing happened to the transistor. It took time, but it became utterly reliable. If the effect didn't work at all in the lab, you might have some ground to stand on but you have already relinquished that ground. You can also embellish lab results and skew parameters easily as well and then BS about them in white papers ***That's a mighty wide conspiracy theory you've got going there. 14,720 replications, all "embellished" and "skewed parameters"? Bowlsheet. The only scientists caught fraudulently embellishing their LENR results were at MIT when they tried to shut down LENR and it turned out their own results showed excess heat. But we wouldn't expect someone like you to know that kind of thing, seein' as how you have not taken the time to come up to speed on this nascent technology. Who the heck wants a 50000$ nuclear reactor for a water heater. Which costs 200$ and uses 30$ of gas a month ***No one other than people in space or antarctica who can't get gas delivered. Who would want a $300 water heater that uses $30 worth of hydrogen over its entire lifetime? Millions, that's who. If that’s annoying to you then solar thermal is well established and works fine for about 6-8 k$ and then you have no gas bill again ***First, let me just say that your writing is so painful to follow that I can't just let it pass without comment. Please, please... take a writing class. You have established a $6-8k baseline for useful technology, assuming you don't move the goalposts like everyone else who has argued from your position. LENR is going to be made from Palladium or Nickel and some hydrogen + some lead shielding. It will be easy for it to beat the baseline you've established. For one thing, it will work when the sun does not shine. So as you can plainly see this is nonsense unless they are trying to make real power (ie < 10MW continuous). ***Please show us where you've come up to speed on this issue by letting us know which LENR guys are aiming outside of the parameter you just posted... assuming you meant <10MW continuous, or did you mean >10MW continuous? Either way, show us what the hell you're talking about rather than just bloviating and displaying your foolishness like a peacock. And even if it would work which it can’t good luck powering a nuclear anything here in ca , isotopes of hydrogen or not ***As a Californian, I often find myself apologizing for other californians who think that if it can't be done here it ain't worth doing. So there’s your cold water in the face, charlatans and their gullible believers in the pie in the sky and free energy and let’s ignore the second law of thermodynamics ***Who says the 2nd law is being ignored? Have you read up on the Widom-Larson theory? How about KP Sinha's theory? Or is it that you don't trust PhD Nuclear Physicists? For those in rio Linda that is energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only changed from one form to another ***Wow, that just blows my hair back the way you explained it... /s Mark my words Freepers ***I am marking your words, noting how poor those words have been written down, and how poorly you defend your thoughts.

We ask simply about this science — ok so how is this going to be useful AND competetive with existing technology in the real world?
***You honestly can’t see that a new, emission-free power source that has 10,000X the energy density of gasoline is going to be useful in the real world? Where do you come up with this garbage?

I’ve seen their proposed designs it’s all crapola. You can do all kinds of things in a carefully controlled lab that will not work at scale.
***Right here you self-refute. You acknowledge that the effect works in the lab but hint that it won’t work to scale. Same thing happened to the transistor. It took time, but it became utterly reliable. If the effect didn’t work at all in the lab, you might have some ground to stand on but you have already relinquished that ground.

You can also embellish lab results and skew parameters easily as well and then BS about them in white papers
***That’s a mighty wide conspiracy theory you’ve got going there. 14,720 replications, all “embellished” and “skewed parameters”? Bowlsheet. The only scientists caught fraudulently embellishing their LENR results were at MIT when they tried to shut down LENR and it turned out their own results showed excess heat. But we wouldn’t expect someone like you to know that kind of thing, seein’ as how you have not taken the time to come up to speed on this nascent technology.

Who the heck wants a $50000 nuclear reactor for a water heater. Which costs 200$ and uses 30$ of gas a month
***No one other than people in space or antarctica who can’t get gas delivered. Who would want a $300 water heater that uses $30 worth of hydrogen over its entire lifetime? Millions, that’s who.

If that’s annoying to you then solar thermal is well established and works fine for about 6-8 k$ and then you have no gas bill again
***First, let me just say that your writing is so painful to follow that I can’t just let it pass without comment. Please, please... take a writing class. You have established a $6-8k baseline for useful technology, assuming you don’t move the goalposts like everyone else who has argued from your position. LENR is going to be made from Palladium or Nickel and some hydrogen + some lead shielding. It will be easy for it to beat the baseline you’ve established. For one thing, it will work when the sun does not shine.

So there’s your cold water in the face, charlatans and their gullible believers in the pie in the sky and free energy and let’s ignore the second law of thermodynamics
***Who says the 2nd law is being ignored? Have you read up on the Widom-Larson theory? How about KP Sinha’s theory? Or is it that you don’t trust PhD Nuclear Physicists?

For those in rio Linda that is energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only changed from one form to another
***Wow, that just blows my hair back the way you explained it... /s

Mark my words Freepers
***I am marking your words, noting how poor those words have been written down, and how poorly you defend your thoughts.