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!