Posted on 07/14/2012 5:44:08 PM PDT by Kevmo
Above is one of the citations in the article by Jing-tang He (whoever that is). http://www.LENR-CANR.org is a personal website. You don't see that cited in too many published papers.
Please stop stalking me.
Why do the mods allow this moonie to stalk me? Do the rules only apply to some freepers but not others?
“Today’s remaining problems concern reliability and control.”
Wrong, the only thing lacking is your ability to get people to put up money for your scam!
Wrong, the only thing lacking is your ability to get people to put up money for your scam!
***yeah, right. $250B down the public rathole for hot fusion, and LENR is a scam.
"Peer review be damned"....an interesting comment from someone who supposedly manages research. And who also refuses to examine the science that shows the cold fusion "is" repeatable, at least according the the level of "science repeatability".
Like many others you seem to be conflating "scientific repeatability" with "engineering repeatibility". They are two vastly different things.
"Science does not happen but once. — Newton."
Absolutely true. But science also does not happen every time....even with well understood technology.
What's your source for the $250 number? I notice Kevmo is throwing that number around, too.
Nice made up number from a Chinese Science Journal.
Unlike in the US Journals, they don’t make them show their math.
Yup. Which is why I don't put much faith in it. I depend more on what is actually contained in the paper.
"I was at NSF not long ago reviewing proposals, as I have a number of times. It always amazes me how some names carry the day, regardless of the science behind it. I have seen the same thing a number of times with journal peer review as well. I have also been the receiving end of those who do not understand what they are reviewing.
Same here.
"I have looked over a number of your references and talked with a number of experts within the Navy's community, including those at NRL. There is a good reason that this work is essentially banned or frowned on in the electrochemistry and physics groups I work with, and that includes more than a dozen universities and five US government research labs within DOD, NIST and DOE clients.
Blah, blah, blah. You just got through telling me that you didn't review "voodoo science", and now you're trying the old "argument from authority". Critique the data, not the politics.
"But you go ahead and cheer-lead to your heart's content.
LOL. I have NEVER "cheer-led" on ANY of these threads.
"Rossi was a scammer.
STILL not proven. This is simply speculation. Of course the reverse is also true.
"A number of us told you so. You acted like an ass to those who disagree with you."
LOL. When the first response on every thread is "Rossi is a crook" or some equally fatuous comment, how to you expect me to react. I respond to people exactly as they start the comversation.
"Now you are harping about another and making claims and organizational connections in an effort to show gravitas, that I personally know to be specious at best and damning of your claims at worst.
WTF are you talking about?? "I" have claimed precisely nothing. I have presented references to scientific works which contain data. NOBODY (including you) is willing to actually critique the DATA.
"But what do I know, I only have 4 different labs that are involved in energy research."
SURRRRE you have.
"Extraordinary claims MUST be backed by even more extraordinary evidence that stand against extreme scrutiny."
Sorry.....not true! This comment is constantly made and it is NOT part of any real science. This is an umbrella comment for people who are actually saying "no amount of data will ever change my mind".
The fuel of choice has been “heavy water”, which is non-radioactive and can be recovered from ocean saltwater. Four ounces of heavy water today costs about $50 and contains enough energy when converted to electricity to supply the average American with electricity for a lifetime. The commercial efforts are focused on plain fresh water, some with a hydrogen gas flow, now.
Really? So the average household spends about $3,000 annually on energy (car and home/condo). We have what, 100,000,000 to 125,000,000 households? Let's just talk about one so as not to be completely ridiculous. So a household “lifetime” is around for 50 years. That means $150,000 can be generated from $50 worth of material (today's dollars) ROI of 3000:1. Of course this is the “preferred” fuel, instead we use fresh water and H2? WHY??? NOTHING HAS A 3000:1 ROI!!!!! I am in the energy game and if we get 50:1 we are RICH RICH RICH!!!! But instead of using the very best components to prove the greatest discovery since electricity, they are using something else and the preferred stock is $50 a pop with a 3000:1 ROI? BEEEEEEE EEEEEESSSSSS!
a return ping for later viewing.
Standard skeptopath cant. EVERY cold fusion critic I've encountered on these threads absolutely refuses to make an argument based on the published data.
And THANK GOD we didn't go to "the same schools of science". Here's a clue. The "argument from data" trumps both the "argument from authority" and the "argument from theory". ALL the science requires is replicated data. No more, no less.
"The fuel of choice has been “heavy water”, which is non-radioactive and can be recovered from ocean saltwater. Four ounces of heavy water today costs about $50 and contains enough energy when converted to electricity to supply the average American with electricity for a lifetime. The commercial efforts are focused on plain fresh water, some with a hydrogen gas flow, now.
"Really? So the average household spends about $3,000 annually on energy (car and home/condo). We have what, 100,000,000 to 125,000,000 households? Let's just talk about one so as not to be completely ridiculous. So a household “lifetime” is around for 50 years. That means $150,000 can be generated from $50 worth of material (today's dollars) ROI of 3000:1. Of course this is the “preferred” fuel, instead we use fresh water and H2? WHY???
Again....WTF are you going on about. There are certainly still LENR researchers who are pursuing deuterium-based systems. A tiny minority is focusing on Ni-H. If it works, who cares WHAT they use.
"NOTHING HAS A 3000:1 ROI!!!!! I am in the energy game and if we get 50:1 we are RICH RICH RICH!!!! But instead of using the very best components to prove the greatest discovery since electricity, they are using something else and the preferred stock is $50 a pop with a 3000:1 ROI? BEEEEEEE EEEEEESSSSSS!
More manager-think BS. LOOK AT THE DATA. Even if LENR is a long shot, don't you think investing even 1% of what has been spent on "hot fusion" to actually check it out would be worth it.
The CURRENT success rate in LENR experiments is 75% (it started out around 15%). And the most recent information shows even higher replication successes.
Your information (and that of your consultants) is simply out of date. Hell, even Robert Park and Richard Garwin have modified their positions on LENR, at least somewhat.
Drag your "scientist hat" out from under the rest of the debris in your junk closet, put it on, and LOOK AT THE DATA.
I'm not talking about Rossi's data, nor the specific article heading this thread. I'm talking about the two scientific publications I posted to you which show the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Replication of both heat excess and helium production. Pure scientific evidenmce. But like all the other skeptopaths, you wiggle and weasel and ignore the science.
"The data seems interesting in this case, but I'm not sure that I buy it. The fact that others cannot reproduce it causes me great pause. If others cannot reproduce it, it ain't science!
Others HAVE reproduced it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge or even READ the evidence doesn't gainsay the science.
"Again, extraordinary claims MUST be backed by extraordinary evidence if you want it to be considered science, it needs to be repeatable.
You can repeat this BS all you like. That dpesn't make it part of the practice of science. Science knows nothing about "extraordinary claims"....just reproducible evidence. I suggest you actually look up the history of that phrase. It does NOT originate in science. And the experimental evidence for LENR "has" been repeated. Multiple times.
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.