Posted on 02/20/2014 11:14:24 AM PST by Kevmo
“Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of electrochemical loading of isotopic fuel into a metal” - Mitchell Swartz
I’m pretty sure Sheldon threw this line at the blonde next door the other night.
It was a fine, current event comedic post...I enjoyed it.
labeled a “Fiasco” and even a “hoax”.... Appropriately so.
***Then it is appropriate to label Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF) efforts an even bigger fiasco and a bigger hoax. In fact, when you contrast the hundreds of $billions poured down the CHF fraud rathole for what we’ve gotten, Cold Fusion delivers 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck.
Asked & answered
-———————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg90393.html-———————
Why do you insist on posting this ridiculous stuff here day after day, and revealing your obsessive sickness to everyone?
***Because if it scalable, it solves the world’s greatest energy problems. Duhh. Why do you ridicule and jump on the same bandwagon that stands behind OPEC’s agenda?
No one but you and your alter ego care about it.
***Only maybe 3 times have I logged onto some thread that I didn’t care about to tell those people engaged in the conversation that I didn’t care about it. Why did you? Some sick, twisted, irrational need to jump on AdamHenryBandWagons?
There is more evidence that my ass generates excess heat.
***The P-F Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times. Big Companies like Scientific Instruments aren’t putting their reputations on the line to say there’s a genuine anomaly in the excess heat coming out of your ass, but they are when it comes to LENR.
asked & answered
-———————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85732.html———————
Still batting a thousand, I see. Not one post from you has furthered the science behind LENR. Not even ONE.
Once I understood it was a slam on the nut who posts these threads, I enjoyed it too.
No, you’re not stupid, she just doesn’t express herself well at all, doesn’t know zip about science, and has a strong desire to jump on AdamHenry*BandWagons.
Sounds somewhat similar to loading firewood into a stove,
***And if you were to look at the same set of effects in One Dimension rather than 3, some effects would be magnified while others were attenuated. Would there be more heat or less heat for 1 dimension than corresponding to 3 dimensions? How about for light? How about for smoke generation? That is the direction the discussion is going.
For instance, there is a 1 dimensional phenomena in physics known as the Luttinger Liquid, recently verified in observation, giving weight to the Vibrating 1 Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein-Condensate theory. The V1DLLBEC theory.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
nut who posts these threads
***Well, now. This is the FReeper always whining about name calling and claiming that it starts from the LENR crowd.
Being neither him or his alter ego I state as a physics major and amatuer scientist that I do care about these postings as they have demonstrated true scientific research using the scientific method.
Your comment: “No one but you and your alter ego care about it.” - is invalid.
In fact there’s even a ping list I’m lucky enough to be on.
Here’s another supposed technobabbler...
It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor
at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field
with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where
parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and
the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives
rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to
electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the
electric forces in the former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as
has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same
laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise
this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
“Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce
another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous
ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with
special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have
to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
The rest of paper is here:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and guess what... that technobabbler recently had his famous theory shown to be off by 20 orders of magnitude across 250 experiments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3125257/posts
These sorts of reports — out of MIT—if true —should be getting better circulation than posts in private blogs.
You want to see this stuff move up the information food chain.
Agreed, neither one works. However, it's more appropriate to label CHF a "failure" rather than a hoax or a fraud, since at least the basic science behind the CHF is valid.
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.