Posted on 07/07/2012 7:25:43 AM PDT by Kevmo
I am sympathetic to your view. I will also say that I find it hard to believe that every group focusing on this form of energy production, is acting foolishly.
There must be some basis for their research.
I’m not sure what happened with Pons and Flieshman. I do think that a reaction of sorts occurred. I suppose I could be wrong, but I do not believe these two sought to pull a hoax.
Evidently, enough other groups felt as I did to cause them to do research in this area.
In parting I’ll say this. This is 2012. Pons and Flieshman made their report a long time ago. By this time I would think this area of investigation would have been fully debunked if there was nothing at all there.
I still remain patiently waiting to see what may develop.
Researchers run out of something to do from time to time (I know from experience), and look around for a new topic. Energy is a great area to get funding, and E-cat-type stuff is full of naifs so why not have a go?
I don't believe F&P tried to pull a hoax -- I think they just screwed up -- they were talking about things they know little about.
Yes, research dollars is a good retort.
Is it your thought then, that nothing out of the ordinary happened in Pons and Flieshman’s research, and that all government funded research should be shut down?
Isn’t a lot of this research being funded on university campuses and the like?
We just can't afford to create gobs of energy in isolated places, and lose half of it in transmission losses.
That it truly stupid, in 2012.
No, funding of good research should not be shut down, but those making funding decisions should take a careful look at the quality of the proposals they review. I don’t believe much funding went to F&P work, but very large sums have gone to ‘climatologists’ with doubtful ethics and a hatred of openness, a strong indicator of bad science.
Don't assault kevmo with facts. He will either hide and remain unresponsive or he will start squawking something about seagulls...
Kevmo and rational, technical discussions of facts are like oil and water; you'll never find them occupying the same space...
Cue the seagulls in 10... 9... 8...
It's already here, it works and it's called fracking. It will cause an energy boom in the future, especially in the US. However BHO will definitely prohibit it if he gets reelected.
A distributed network of medium-sized modular reactors based on the HTGR concept would be very sweet. Site them a few hundred miles apart to minimize transmission losses, but have enough interconnects to allow redundancy, which provides for a very robust reliability. A standardized design and modularity would allow you to produce them in a factory and then move them on-site and get them running very quickly. The NGNP design at Idaho is inherently safe, modular, and could be sited underground if desired. The only problem is with the helium circulator. I have yet to see one that big that worked reliably, but it has been several decades since anyone tried it so maybe things have gotten better on that score.
Yeah, right. Post references to their work. The "debunking" studies have themselves been debunked and have been shown to be flawed (when they weren't outright frauds, like the initial MIT work (which was shown to have actually generated excess heat, but which HAD THE DATA ALTERED to depict the reverse)).
Instead of talking to your "friends", I suggest you spend some time actually studying the experimental works. Ed Storms book is a very good place to start.
I agree with points made in your response.
In fact I’d go so far as to say that some people getting government funding for global warming sciences, should have been prosecuted when it was found out they participated in a hoax.
Instead they still get the bucks and are still pretty much respected. How does that work anyway?
As for your hatred comment, I don’t think it’s limited to openness. They hate quite a few things when you get down to it.
Well,,,,, it was interesting,,, up to this sentence;
***Why? The whole premise of this article is to look at it as a disruptive technology. IF it is real, then that statement is utterly obvious. Again, I say IF it is true.
And for those of you in Rio Linda, since you have SO much trouble accommodating a hypothetical, once again I say IF it is true. IF. got it? IF. So that’s 5 times we have to say it, in order for someone to apprehend that it’s a hypothetical. Some freepers are just plain dense.
The research only assumed the mantle of respectability when the USN started digging into it.
***The USNavy had been digging into it for 20 years or so.
Credit for their findings was awarded to a woman (name escapes me)
***Pamela Mosier-Boss, with her CR-39 triple tracks evidence of neutron activity.
with no attribution to Fleishmann and Pons.
***She attributes it plenty to F&P in my personal correspondence with her. I don’t know where you get the idea that she does not attribute the F&P effect to Flieshmann & Pons.
Screw humanity; they are undeserving of your independent efforts.
***No comprehende.
“There is a probability that LENR may never emerge as a reliable, new energy source.”
I dunno what Jethro Tull did with Y2K, nor do I care. He’s a singer who should probably shut up & sing. And why do you insinuate that I’m into some other energy schemes besides LENR? If you’re gonna insult another freeper, be able to back it up.
This is where it starts to become technobabble.
***I’m glad you see it that way, because here they are relying on the Widom-Larsen theory, which is bull shiite.
The other 2 guys have technobackgrounds. The psychology/education dude is COO, he’s in operations. Those guys are often not that smart. Why do you focus on such a straw argument anyways?
likelihood of 2 chemists with no nuclear physics training finding a whole new nuclear effect at very low energies that is real - and that probability is pretty damn low.
***Then it should be a piece of cake for you and other nuclear scientists to completely obliterate the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in LENR that have been published in the last 23 years, starting here:
http://lenr-canr.org/index/menu/menu.php
Of course, you guys NEVer do that, because you cannot. But it doesn’t stop you from throwing darts like a bunch of wussy chimps.
That it truly stupid, in 2012.
***I agree. With such large transmission losses, it makes sense to look even at solar power generated at the source of need.
Right now in my utility area (PG&E), tier 3 rates are at 30cents/kwh, then 34, then 52 (maybe this last one has gone down). Solar panels can generate at about 25-29cents/kwh, so they can compete against PG&E in the higher tier rate usage.
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.