Posted on 12/12/2012 4:54:03 PM PST by TXnMA
Dec. 7, 2012 – By Steven B. Krivit –
Researchers from Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories performed an independent replication of a Mitsubishi low-energy nuclear reaction transmutation experiment, according to a physicist from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries speaking at the American Nuclear Society LENR session on Nov. 14 in San Diego, Calif.
The physicist, Yasuhiro Iwamura, told the ANS audience that the Toyota researchers confirmed that nuclear changes from one element to another took place without the use of high-energy nuclear physics. Most scientists who have not followed this field closely consider such profound claims inconceivable. Toyota used a LENR deuterium-permeation transmutation method that Iwamura invented.
Iwamura has been working with this LENR method for 14 years. He said that one of his LENR transmutations was closely but not identically replicated by Toyota. Osaka University and Iwate University previously reported similar replications.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.newenergytimes.net ...
There you go again with your name calling.
the hot fusion physics community and their allies (look in a mirror) in keeping research bottled up.
There you go again with your conspiracy theory.
Just for the record, I think fossil fuels are the way to go for the foreseeable future. I am not a proponent of fission or hot fusion in its current form. Neither is an economical option.
However, hot fusion has a theoretical and experimental basis that cold fusion doesn't have.
If you and Kevmo astroturfed FR with hot fusion blog posts the way you do for cold fusion and Rossi, I'd criticize that, too.
Fortunately, "loose cannon" Andrea Rossi has blown a large hole in the wall of the ghetto built around LENR by the above actors, and has gotten a lot of older (successful) work re-examined, and a lot of new work started.
Rossi is a con artist, nothing more. If anything he is damaging science, however the damage is limited because most people can see it's a scam. But it's good to know that your continued promotion of Rossi is no accident.
I, OTOH, now spend most of my time and disposable income on archaeological and historical research -- because that is what I really wanted to do for nearly 50 years -- while I was having other fun with technology -- and putting bread on the table...
My guess is that the two of us would have had a blast playing around together in my personal lab at my last big employer's. That's where I tried new and off-the-wall stuff, did my Q&D setups -- and made most of my basic discoveries. The $20 megabuck clean rooms, OTOH, were mostly dedicated to research on applications of already-discovered principles...
And, I expect that you -- like I -- find "the excitement of the search and the joy of discovery" to be truly fun. (Some of the best researchers I've known have said, "I can hardly believe they pay me this much to have this much fun!")
When my vision dims more we'll go to a 40" screen and some voice software for the text.
They have only 14 facial muscles ~ other ethnogypes around the world have far more ~ BTW, some japanese have fewer than 14.
1) Have I shown any sign of being “anti-science” on this thread?
***Are you changing your viewpoint? It was only a few short days ago that you called me a seagull and a brainwasher on another thread. And what exactly is it that would change your viewpoint, a replication of a 10 year old result? Why didn’t you examine the evidence 9 years ago? Why is it that you need a big-name enterprise to acknowledge a simple replication? That is not science, that is elitism. Maybe a step below being a skeptopath, but perhaps one attitude leads to the other. Are you still clinging to elitism as a scientific prerequisite?
The key term therein is the patent office term, “prior art”. The application of flame has a database of prior art going at least back to the first Neanderthal to eat a ‘possum killed and cooked by a forest fire.
***Ok, then let’s use this as the analogy. The first person to invent a stove did not have to explain the concept of a flame in order to get a patent on a stove. Similarly, neither did the first person to invent a cigarette lighter. Flame physics was certainly not well understood enough to provide a scientifi explanation of flame by that time, it was simply, as you say, an accepted application of something that no one really understood. Moving forward, the Wright brothers did not have to explain the equation of flight in order to get a patent on a flying machine. No one at the time understood aerodynamics. So why is it that this is required for LENR? This burden you place on LENR is a burden not previously placed on other engineering endeavors.
IOW, LENR has yet to establish a base of “prior art”.
***The Wright brothers were the first to fly, and they did not have to establish a base of “prior art”. Your requirement is just something you think is necessary, but history proves it to be completely wrong.
I reiterate: Can you (are you willing to) comprehend the difference?
Plasma is a HIGH ENERGY state.
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
35kHz, 2-5KV. Not that high of energy after all.
Some flames are very low energy.
I do not “understand” that “the plasma from the anomalous heat event generates nuclear events” — because it ain’t been shown (to me) to be so!
***Transmutation is a nuclear event. Neutrons generation is a nuclear event.
And don’t think you can snow this old pchem dog by tossing around terms like “plasma”.
***I don’t see you putting down an explanation of plasma nor flame that would be acceptable to a patent examiner. I think your experience in getting patents is limited to doing some work in the lab and not knowing truly what “prior art” is about nor really knowing what the requirements are beyond what your corporate lawyers told you.
My very first patent (P/N 3866398) relied on the high energy in a silicon plasma
***It does not mention plasma, nor does it define it. Thank you for making my point for me. You got your patent without even defining nor referring to plasma, just as the inventor of the flamethrower didn’t need to do, and there is no reason why LENR researchers need to have this burden placed upon them. It was, after all, not even placed on you.
http://www.ptodirect.com/Results/Patents?query=PN/3866398
And yet, your patent doesn’t mention plasma nor draw on the prior art in plasma.
http://www.ptodirect.com/Results/Patents?query=PN/3866398
Despite your absurd claim, the Wright Brothers were far from "the first to fly". The Wright Brothers certainly did rely on -- and extend -- the base of prior art. There was extensive prior art of glider (and even bird) flight already established
Wilbur and Orville also built on Bernoulli's prior art -- by building their own wind tunnel to measure the forces generated on various shapes by air flowing over them. I know this for a fact, because I have actually touched that wind tunnel.
The Wright brothers could have taught a graduate course in aeronautics. They were certainly capable of defending any technical aspect of their application patents on powered, controlled flight. And it was preceded by plenteous prior art.
~~~~~~~~~~
You are not going to escape that burden of claim by diverting the subject to nit-picking of my near-40-year old patent.
~~~~~~~~
Because I enjoy reminiscing about it, I will (in another comment) explain the patent attorneys' strategic reason for wording that patent as they did.
~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile,
Good luck on getting Kevmo to ever reply to a good question or challenge. I see he's using his worn out "Wright Brothers Rope-a-Dope."
I see where this is going. Plasma is HIGH energy versus Low Energy Nuke Reactions. Semantics. Wright bros weren’t the first to fly. Semantics. I can see why it took you so long to come around to realizing the science behind LENR. Because you’re a semanticist, not a scientist. And an elitist semanticist at that.
Your problem; not mine...
***Because you are an elitist. Your criticism only extends so far, maybe even only to that particular freeper, rather than to other freepers who have expressed the same sentiment and might even still have authority to moderate your comments. You are no egalitarian. And your attitude appears to extend to how you view science. No wonder it took you so long to view LENR from a scientific viewpoint, because the data had to make it through your elitist filter first.
I responded. But lurkers will note that he didn’t respond to #145 and other questions put to him. Not that I should even be responding to you, one of the most egregious of anti-science Luddites when it comes to LENR. Now that one of your own sees that there’s scientific weight (however it is that he arrived at that viewpoint), your anti-science pathology is unravelling.
Look! Another mention of Rossi! Maybe you can distract others from looking at the data one more time.
LOL....we are far more alike than you think. Growing up I read more about archaeology than probably anything else. Egypt, ancient Babylon, Troy, the Norse ship burial sites, Druid burial sites in Britain, with a smattering of dinosaur bones and flash-frozen Mastodons thrown in for variety. I've still got quite a few books on the subject(s), but it has been "back-burnered" for lack of time.
"My guess is that the two of us would have had a blast playing around together in my personal lab at my last big employer's. That's where I tried new and off-the-wall stuff, did my Q&D setups -- and made most of my basic discoveries.
I suspect you're right.
"And, I expect that you -- like I -- find "the excitement of the search and the joy of discovery" to be truly fun. (Some of the best researchers I've known have said, "I can hardly believe they pay me this much to have this much fun!")
Well, I've never said it was better than sex, but it certainly runs a close second..... :^)
I don't think there is any greater MENTAL thrill than pulling out of the depths of your imagination an apparatus that works flawlessly......especially if it is doing something that others have said "couldn't be done".
Truly sorry to hear that. With me it is the ears going. Only got one that "sort of" works, and I'm at the point with that one where meetings, TV dialog, etc. are hard to understand. I'm still pretty much OK with one-on-one conversation...though there are some folks whose voices are "difficult". It may be time to try the next generation of hearing aids.
More name calling.
More personal attacks.
And yet... he’s better than you.
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.