Posted on 07/11/2012 10:18:43 PM PDT by Kevmo
Cold Fusion Is Hot Again - Tuesday, July 17th 9p | 12a ET "A report on cold fusion - nuclear energy like that which powers the sun, but made at room temperatures on a tabletop, which in 1989, was presented as a revolutionary new source of energy that promised to be cheap, limitless and clean but was quickly dismissed as junk science. Today, scientists believe that cold fusion, now most often called low temperature fusion or a nuclear effect, could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production."
That it is "incredibly unconvincing" to you means zip. The facts are there. Look at them. Krivit's website is a good starting place. The skeptopaths LOVE to cite Krivit when he bashes Rossi (or some other LENR researcher that he "gets on the outs with"), but he is suddenly completely without credibility when he documents the stalling/interference. I "wonder" why that might be.
"No, they haven't. If they truly did, and on a scale and with sufficient repeatability (there's the real rub), then the debate would be over. All we keep hearing about are lab experiments that sometimes work, and sometimes don't.
Yes, they have. Note the words "scientific proof" in my comment. Such proof does NOT require that it work every time....it must meet sufficient statistical success as to constitute such proof. That has been done, repeatedly. Again, the facts are there...look at them. What you are talking about is "engineering proof". There is a major difference between them.
No, seriously, if the science and observations are all valid, then why have they not been able to demonstrate anything on a larger, easily-observed scale?
***No, seriously, ask the same question of hot fusion before you demand it of LENR.
They’e had 20 years to move from “scientific claim” to the next step of irrefutable proof, and they can’t do it.
***Hot fusion has had 50 years to reach the next step, and they can’t do it. We should parcel out that money for research based upon how many Joules are produced.
They can’t even explain the “why” of alleged excess energy production.
***There are dozens of theories right now, just like there are dozens of theories of gravity. They can’t explain gravity, and yet apples still fall from trees.
Is that pic a self-portrait?? If so, it is certainly accurate.
I gather that means you choose not to be aware of the facts on the ground, that the effect has been replicated thousands of times.
Yes, but unlike with cold fusion, we know the actual theory of hot fusion, how it works, why it works, etc.. We know the theory is valid, and the trick is coming up with mechanisms to make it controllable.
We don't have that with cold fusion. We don't know even the theoretical "how" and "why" of it. All we've got, at best, are lab experiments of questionable reproducability, without even an underlying theory of why it should work at all.
But what are you advocating, exactly? I've got no problem with private scientists, with private funding, continuing to work on it. Maybe they'll find something useful and workable at some point. Maybe they won't. My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
LOL! Good one!
All we keep hearing about are lab experiments that sometimes work
***Right there, is the scientific standard. It only needs to be replicated once for it to be valid. You have acknowledged the scientific validity of LENR. The fact that it is difficult to repeat is another matter entirely.
Really. Then read up on the latest example of interference. Hagelstein had landed a grant from a private company for further investigation into LENR to be done at MIT (with lots of overhead bucks going to MIT itself). An MIT "hot physics" prof worked (successfully) to get that funding killed. So said MIT physics prof WORKED AGAINST the interests of MIT to stifle a few thousands of bucks of PRIVATE research funding going to LENR.
This is compared to the $250 BILLION already spent on hot fusion (which is why the hot physics guys are so scared of CF......they blew it).
No editorial comment intended.
Just a fun juxtaposition.............
I would be happy to see a demo lasting 48 hours at 600C, done at an independent location, with Rossi providing a box, and the tester supplying the water feed and condenser.
You know every time I see that repeated I just want to ask “Has anyone made a piece of toast or something with it yet?”
***You are utterly, 100% right. The hot fusion boys have spent $250B of our money, and the best we have to show for it is 6MJoules of output for a few seconds. In the meantime, hundreds of LENR experiments have generated thousands of MJoules for less than a thousandth of the cost — almost all of which is private money to begin with.
So for hot fusion, we’ve got maybe a total of 10MJoules for $250B, which comes to $25k/Joule. For cold fusion, we’ve got maybe a total of 100k MJoules for $250M, which 25cents/Joule.
Like you say, where is my fusion powered toaster, from the hot fusion boys?
attempts at replication don’t work consistently.
***Replication only needs to happen once. The effect has been replicated thousands of times. Consistency is a completely different matter, requiring engineering diligence and resources. If 5% of the resources dedicated to hot fusion had been poured into LENR, you would have your LENR hot water heater by now.
Yes, but unlike with cold fusion, we know the actual theory of hot fusion, how it works, why it works, etc.. We know the theory is valid, and the trick is coming up with mechanisms to make it controllable.
***Then with all that $250B there should have been progress.
We don’t have that with cold fusion. We don’t know even the theoretical “how” and “why” of it.
***Knowing the theory behind something isn’t a requirement for scientific description of a phenomenon. In most cases, the phenomena are described first, theory comes later. This is one of those cases.
All we’ve got, at best, are lab experiments of questionable reproducability, without even an underlying theory of why it should work at all.
***There is no underlying theory of superconducting, either. Yet tons of money are being poured into researching it. There is no underlying theory of gravity, yet apples still fall from the sky.
But what are you advocating, exactly?
***I am advocating proportionality. OUR money should be spent on energy research with an eye towards how many Joules of energy have been generated so far. With Cold Fusion, that is thousands of MJoules. With Hot Fusion, that is maybe 10-20 MJoules.
I’ve got no problem with private scientists, with private funding, continuing to work on it.
***Then where is your outrage for the $250B of PUBLIC MONEY that’s been spent on Hot Fusion, where the best experiment has produced 6MJoules?
Maybe they’ll find something useful and workable at some point. Maybe they won’t.
***EXACTLY what I’ve been saying about hot fusion. But our allocation of resources should be based upon how much energy has already been produced so far.
My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
***Then why aren’t you protesting in front of CERN or some other supercollider project, demanding accountability for the $250B in public money spent? My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
The Wright brothers had a few dozen people stop by from 1903 to 1906, demanding demos. They had one question — if we demo it to you, will you buy 50 of these airplanes? Just 10 planes, maybe? The answer was no, and there was no demo.
Were the Wright brothers frauds?
The rules change when it’s engineering demo time rather than scientific validation time. If someone demos their LENR device to you satisfactorily, will you buy 50 of them?
No, because reported replications could be due to measuring errors or noise. But leaving that aside for the moment....
You have acknowledged the scientific validity of LENR. The fact that it is difficult to repeat is another matter entirely.
If the only relevant issue was "does some kind of exothermic reaction exist or not", then you'd be right. But it's not the only relevant issue. We're talking about cold fusion as a power source. Anything less is just fun gossip for science geeks.
And in 20+ years of work on this we've still never gotten passed the occasional claimed replications in a lab setting. They can't even do a public demonstration that works. It is useless, and counting on it for any of our future energy needs is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket.
It's really more than that, though. You've actually got theories on why it can't work, and/or can't be what it is claimed to be. Which means that the end result may be a complete dead end not even possible in theory.
There is no underlying theory of superconducting, either. Yet tons of money are being poured into researching it.
If it is government funding, I oppose it. Otherwise, I don't care. And in any case, superconducting is far more reproducible than is CF.
There is no underlying theory of gravity, yet apples still fall from the sky.
I don't recall a lot of federal dollars being spent on that, nor do I see anyone promising it as some magical solution to energy needs.
I am advocating proportionality. OUR money should be spent on energy research with an eye towards how many Joules of energy have been generated so far.
I don't think OUR tax dollars should be spent on either. Whatever private parties choose to do is their business. And btw, I'm not here predicting that hot fusion is going to solve our energy problems either. Well, I suppose there is the element of solar power that comes from fusion reactions, though.
Then where is your outrage for the $250B of PUBLIC MONEY that’s been spent on Hot Fusion, where the best experiment has produced 6MJoules?
There have been traditional fusion reaction produce a heck of a lot more energy than that. But in any case, I didn't have outrage on HF because this wasn't an HF thread. Now that you've brought it up, I'll repeat that I oppose public funding for either. Let the market decide.
No, because reported replications could be due to measuring errors or noise.
***Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The mathematical definition of IMPOSSIBLE is if something has a chance of 10^-50. The chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication would be perhaps 1 in 3 experiments, to be utterly magnanimous to your postulation. So for the errors/noise to account for the 14,700 replications, the chances would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000, a whopping, gigantic, HUMUNGOUS four thousand Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than impossible. I tell you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with the numbers, that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible.
Well, I’m with that guy waiting for his toaster. I know a thermonuclear reaction will make me a piece of toast. Or make me toast, for that matter. When the CF folks have figured that one out, the rest of us will start paying attention.
If the only relevant issue was “does some kind of exothermic reaction exist or not”, then you’d be right.
***Here, you acknowledge that the phenomenon exists. The data on this phenomenon is very consistent — the heat generated is several orders of magnitude more than could be possible with any known chemical reaction.
LOL!
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.