Posted on 02/20/2014 11:14:24 AM PST by Kevmo
That stupid paper he cites was done by one obscure person in China. Ask the ding-a-ling any specifics about the paper, such as whether all 14,000 experiments were listed, and he won’t give a satisfactory or coherent answer.
Get the paper yourself, ding-a-ling.
one obscure person in China.
***Yah right /s. And that person reported into the “obscure” Chinese Academy of Science. And also, the paper was intended to be a survey of the state of the art. But numbnuts wouldn’t know any of that stuff, because he’s made up his mind as an anti-science Luddite.
Ask the ding-a-ling
***Name calling. And this particular seagull seems to have been the one who screeched the most when I engaged in it.
At this stage in time, "disbelieving" in the reality of LENR simply points up your total ignorance. LENR doesn't need 14000 replications to be shown correct.....just two. Read George Beaudette's book "Excess Heat". He provides an excellent summary, including citations of many more credible replications than two. Available on-line if you're too cheap to buy a copy, or borrow one from your library.
And THAT is the opinion of a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry (who happens to have a thorough background in nuclear measurement methods as well as normal "things analytical" such as calorimetry, mass spectroscopy, etc.).
Told ya. Look at posts 62 through 64. That Chinese “paper” is nothing more than a survey of a laundry list of unsupported claims, not unlike the thousands of copy and paste jobs that Crazy K dumps on FR. Maybe the Chinese Academy of Science can compile his spam into a new paper.
Here’s a far from complete..GROWING LIST OF CREDIBLE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE AFFIRMING WITH FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT LENR IS REAL AND PRODUCES A NET ENERGY GAIN
Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Theoretical physics, Cambridge Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize Physics, Berkeley, Purdue, deceased Dennis Bushnell, NASA chief scientist, Langley Research Center, LRC Dr. Joseph Zawodny, NASA senior research scientist Langley Research Center Dr. Michael A Nelson, NASA LENR Space Applications Lead David Wells, NASA LRC, Aeronautical engineer Gustave C. Fralick, Arthur J. Decker, and James W. Blue, NASA Lewis Research George Miley, University of Illinois, Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering Dr. Mike McKubre, SRI (Stanford Research Institute), Director Energy Research Center, University of Missouri Dr. Francis Tanzella, SRI, PhD chemistry, senior electrochemist Dr. Brian Ahern , Ames National Laboratory Prof. Peter Hagelstein, Electrical Engineering, MIT Dr. James Truchard, National Instruments founder, President and CEO Edmund Storms, Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. Mace, Los Alamos National Laboratory John Bockrus, electrochemist Texas A&M University Dr. Francesco Piantelli, University of Siena, Considered the father of modern LENR, filed original patents in 1995 for Ni/H based LENR Dr. Sergio Focardi, emeritus professor University of Bologna Dr. Giuseppe Levi , University of Bologna Dr. David Bianchini, University of Bologna Dr. Christos Stremmenos, University of Bologna, Dept of. Physical and Inorganic Chemistry, retired Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy’s equivalent of Los Alamos) Dr. Frank Gordon, US Navy’s Space and Naval warfare systems (SPAWAR), retired Eugene Mallove, Professor of science MIT, deceased Dr. Mastromatteo, STMicroelectronics
You can listen to them or you can listen to Moonboy62. Here’s an incredible hint for those sitting on the fence: do a google search for this guy and then you’ll know what I mean. I’d stack my growing list of credible researchers up against moonboy any day of the week, twice on Sundays.
Wow. You might or might not have a degree in something, but you obviously don't understand scientific method. To be true, it has to be replicated EVERY time it's tried. Otherwise it's just smoke and mirrors supported by credulous fools.
LOL. Thus you prove your pseudoscience perspective. NO experiment works 100% of the time. NONE. There is ALWAYS some percentage that fails. But what you "should" see is that as experience is gained and methods improve, the fraction that fail decrease with time, and the error bars get tighter. Which is precisely the case with LENR.
Your statement is right up there with the continuing contention that LERN "must be fraudulent" because it "disagrees with current theory".
How was the mother ship the last time you were there?
Wow. You might or might not have a degree in something, but you obviously don't understand scientific method. To be true, it has to be replicated EVERY time it's tried. Otherwise it's just smoke and mirrors supported by credulous fools.
When Pons and Fleishman announced their results, a lot of people tried to replicate them and one of the reason they failed is instead of using the exact setup and palladium loading of the electrode, they tried what they thought was right. However, some did get the anonymous heat. It turns out that since they don't really know what's going on or the exact physics besides it, creating a cell is more art than science.
Do you want to talk serious science, or crack jokes??
Do every one of your biological experiments work every time you run them?? (Note....I've run enough PCR and other biochemical analyses to know the answer).
Even in the earliest days of LENR, SOME experiments and experimenters got positive results that could not be accounted for by instrument or procedural errors. And in actual fact, the rejection of LENR is largely based on TWO "failed" experiments....one from Cal Tech and one from MIT.
Both of those experiments have been re-examined in light of newer knowledge and it is now known that the Cal Tech experiment never reached the degree of deuterium loading necessary to "trigger" the excess heat effect. And it is also known that the supposedly failed MIT test actually DID show excess heat, but that some as yet unidentified party CHANGED THE DATA in the published results to show "failure". Examination of the original "notebook results" found this FRAUD perpetrated by some or other MIT physicist (or physics student).
But to close with a bit of levity.....I recently ran an "experiment"....putting a new tungsten bulb in my wife's bathroom. Despite many, many, MANY years of research and development in tungsten lamps....the bulb burned out as soon as I flicked the switch. Fortunately, despite that failure, installing a new bulb worked properly.
So......NO experiment works 100% of the time. To claim otherwise is pseudoscience......not science.
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.