Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Okay, cold fusion! (Ducks)

    This site doesn't allow substantial articles, apparently. So I placed what I'd written for here on newVortex. Comments are welcome there and here.

    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/273
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    People usually just split the text over a number articles if they find the limit ... err ... limits them. Mind you, I stopped reading at "A sound bite kind of site" - I didn't want to subject myself to the emotional trauma should I encounter other rhetorical slights.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEndeavour
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Interesting, but will it ever be useful?
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    It's a sound-bite kinda site. Get over it! That's not BAD.

    The rest of the article had *nothing* to do with moletrap, except it was originally written for here. It could be placed here if you want it. Feel free.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: EndeavourInteresting, but will it ever be useful?
    Well, hot fusion research is consuming roughly $1 billion per year, and it's been funded for about fifty years with only one occasion, for an extremely short period of time, producing more energy than invested. (Hot fusion always does produce some energy, but sustaining it is the problem. "More energy than invested" means a COP of 2.0 or more (including the heating of all the apparatus by the input energy). They did it for, as I recall, milliseconds.

    Cold fusion has possibly seen about $100 million of total investment over more than 20 years. We still don't know the mechanism. Without knowing the mechanism, engineering the effect is hit-and-miss. Both DoE reviews recommended basic research, but it was never funded. That's what's needed.

    It *may* never be useful, but we are unlikely to know if that research is not done. Something like a million dollars could make a *huge* difference, and could conceivably mean that the hot fusion boondoggle was a total waste. Indeed, there is persuasive evidence that cold fusion was killed for exactly that reason, it was considered massively disruptive to a very-well-established research community that employes a boatload of physicists.

    (The claims that the energy industry killed cold fusion have practically no support. Some of the major cold fusion research, so far, was funded by EPRI, the electrical utility industry research organization.)

    (When you have the representative of a major physics organization actively lobbying against recommended research, as happened with Park, alarms should go off that this isn't about science, any more. All the research proposals, as recommended, submitted to the DoE, were torpedoed. It's really very ordinary politics.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdIt's a sound-bite kinda site. Get over it! That's not BAD.

    I didn't say it was BAD. I said it was a rhetorical slight. IMO that's bad sign in an article where the author wants the reader to believe he is presenting a neutral, unbiased view.

    The rest of the article had *nothing* to do with moletrap, except it was originally written for here. It could be placed here if you want it. Feel free.


    Do your own work! The second paragraph (I cautiously moved beyond the first para - having found my emotional-trauma reacta-shades) : "Everything here can be established with links to verification, if needed. But writing with links like that can take far, far longer.". Oh right so it's "this is what I say - now go do my own research for you".

    I read on and while I struggled to get past the vast swathe of rhetorical emptyness - I think the sound bite would be "Cold fusion proved by helium production". (hint : you could have fitted the salient points into an article here, cut the crap and in cutting the crap spend your time on substantive links to the write ups on the actual experiements); cut to the chase and all that old boy.

    I have to say my glasses cut in when I read the name "Rossi" nestled in a carefully crafted plea for credibility. Well, I think it was my glasses, it might have been the splashes of coffee bouncing back off my monitor. Anyway - that did for the rest of it. Bummer, 'eh?

    [Edit for clarity AND an erroneous apostrophe (fuck, they nearly had me)]
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: EndeavourInteresting, but will it ever be useful?
    Well, hot fusion research is consuming roughly $1 billion per year, and it's been funded for about fifty years with only one occasion, for an extremely short period of time, producing more energy than invested. (Hot fusion always does produce some energy, but sustaining it is the problem. "More energy than invested" means a COP of 2.0 or more (including the heating of all the apparatus by the input energy). They did it for, as I recall, milliseconds.

    Cold fusion has possibly seen about $100 million of total investment over more than 20 years. We still don't know the mechanism. Without knowing the mechanism, engineering the effect is hit-and-miss. Both DoE reviews recommended basic research, but it was never funded. That's what's needed.

    It *may* never be useful, but are unlikely to know if that research is not done. Something like a million dollars could make a *huge* difference, and could conceivably mean that the hot fusion boondoggle was a total waste. Indeed, there is persuasive evidence that cold fusion was killed for exactly that reason, it was considered massively disruptive to a very-well-established research community that employes a boatload of physicists.

    (The claims that the energy industry killed cold fusion have practically no support. Some of the major cold fusion research, so far, was funded by EPRI, the electrical utility industry research organization.)

    (When you have the representative of a major physics organization actively lobbying against recommended research, as happened with Park, alarms should go off that this isn't about science, any more. All the research proposals, as recommended, submitted to the DoE, were torpedoed. It's really very ordinary politics.)
    Bob Park is a demigod. Learn to worship his godliness.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: AbdWithout knowing the mechanism, engineering the effect is hit-and-miss. Both DoE reviews recommended basic research, but it was never funded. That's what's needed.
    Go talk to the folks at U of Miss. They just had a $5M injection. Maybe they can find something credible with that.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: AbdIt's a sound-bite kinda site. Get over it! That's not BAD.

    I didn't say it was BAD. I said it was a rhetorical slight. IMO that's bad sign in an article where the author wants the reader to believe he is presenting a neutral, unbiased view.

    Especially if it's an administrator at moletrap! But what was not "neutral and unbiased" about the comment?

    The rest of the article had *nothing* to do with moletrap, except it was originally written for here. It could be placed here if you want it. Feel free.

    Do your own work! The second paragraph (I cautiously moved beyond the first para - having found my emotional-trauma reacta-shades) :"Everything here can be established with links to verification, if needed. But writing with links like that can take far, far longer.". Oh right so it's "this is what I say - now go do my own research for you".

    I read on and while I struggled to get past the vast swathe of rhetorical emptyness - I think the sound bite would be "Cold fusion proved by helium production". (hint : you could have fitted the salient points into an article here, cut the crap and in cutting the crap spend your time on substantive links to the write ups on the actual experiements); cut to the chase and all that old boy.

    I have to say my glasses cut in when I read the name "Rossi" nestled in a carefully crafted plea for credibility. Well, I think it was my glasses, it might have been the splashes of coffee bouncing back off my monitor. Anyway - that did for the rest of it. Bummer, 'eh?

    [Edit for clarity AND an erroneous apostrophe (fuck, they nearly had me)]

    The research is covered in the linked review. Not interested? Fine. I think I did my work writing that brief introduction, and it was brief. Cold fusion was, as Huizenga called it, the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, and he didn't know the half of it.

    Yes. Helium is the news, but that's almost twenty years old. Okay, if we want the confirmations, ten years.

    You can lead a horse to water, but ...
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: AbdWithout knowing the mechanism, engineering the effect is hit-and-miss. Both DoE reviews recommended basic research, but it was never funded. That's what's needed.
    Go talk to the folks at U of Miss. They just had a $5M injection. Maybe they can find something credible with that.
    That's the University of Missouri. No, cold fusion is already established, among those who have actually studied it. Robert Duncan, of UM, was retained by CBS Sixty Minutes to check out cold fusion as a physicist. He was skeptical, but perhaps because he was being paid, he looked. He was amazed.

    That funding will not be spent on checking heat/helium, which is the conclusive evidence (on top of massive circumstantial evidence from anomalous heat). That's already been done, quite adequately. Rather, heat/helium is the single replicable experiment that skeptics were demanding, for years, and it was first done almost twenty years ago. So *if someone still doubts cold fusion*, then that's the path of falsify it. Do the experiment with increased accuracy, supposedly pathological science results disappear with increased accuracy.

    Because there would still be some scientific value to increased accuracy, and because there are holdouts in the physics community, because the issue should be settled once and for all, and because this kind of research was explicitly recommended by both DoE panels (in 1989 and 2004), that much should be publically funded. Private research dollars are difficult to come by for long-term research.

    So don't expect researchers in the field to do this *yet again* to satisfy a crowd of pseudoskeptics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgenesis
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdYou can lead a horse to water, but ...
    LOL....can we NOW have a sticker for him?
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Do your own work! The second paragraph (I cautiously moved beyond the first para - having found my emotional-trauma reacta-shades) :"Everything here can be established with links to verification, if needed. But writing with links like that can take far, far longer.". Oh right so it's "this is what I say - now go do my own research for you".
    Well, so much for reading comprehension.

    No, I can do the research, but it already took me too long to write that, but I don't know what audience I'm writing for. Everything I wrote is *well-known* in the field, but I can provide links if anyone doubts any of it. But I'm not getting that there is any "listening" here. So I'm certainly not going to go back and rewrite that, at this point. I'll be writing polemic for the field, elsewhere, where it will count. Not on some obscure forum. Questions there are welcome. Questions here are also welcome, but I'm more likely to answer there, and it's a public forum.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgenesis
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: AbdNot on some obscure forum. Questions there are welcome. Questions here are also welcome, but I'm more likely to answer there, and it's a public forum
    so...remind us again....why did you come here?:D
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: genesis
    Posted By: AbdNot on some obscure forum. Questions there are welcome. Questions here are also welcome, but I'm more likely to answer there, and it's a public forum
    so...remind us again....why did you come here?:D
    Some stupid invitation by Mary Yugo.

    Because it's here.

    Because I followed this forum, the public parts, years ago.

    Because I had some sympathy for the Village of the Banned.

    Because I avoid prejudgment.

    Because I was curious.

    Because I'm stupid and naive.

    Because I learn most quickly from doing stupid, naive things.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgenesis
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    @Abd

    oh yes, our Mary knows how to tease....did she promised to you jumping out of a cake too:D:D
    •  
      CommentAuthorEndeavour
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Trim will be jealous.
    What about Brillouin energy it claims a consistent COP of 2?
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/update-from-brillouin-energy/
    Maybe Steorn and Brillouin should go in the heater business together.
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: pcstru
    Do your own work! The second paragraph (I cautiously moved beyond the first para - having found my emotional-trauma reacta-shades) :"Everything here can be established with links to verification, if needed. But writing with links like that can take far, far longer.". Oh right so it's "this is what I say - now go do my own research for you".
    Well, so much for reading comprehension.

    No, I can do the research, but it already took me too long to write that, but I don't know what audience I'm writing for. Everything I wrote is *well-known* in the field, but I can provide links if anyone doubts any of it. But I'm not getting that there is any "listening" here. So I'm certainly not going to go back and rewrite that, at this point. I'll be writing polemic for the field, elsewhere, where it will count. Not on some obscure forum. Questions there are welcome. Questions here are also welcome, but I'm more likely to answer there, and it's a public forum.


    LIstening? Of course there is listening. All we have to do here is listen. You don't seem to understand that there are equally large amounts of information demonstrating the truth of all sorts of things : hauntings, UFO's, religious miracles. Some people enjoy diving into those piles and separating the wheat and the chaffe and drilling down to the evidence. Most people do not.

    I like to skim the surface and see what is claimed. Then I generally wait around for some simple demonstration of the claim, because usually, as in the case of cold fusion, the claim is easy to demonstrate.

    If the mechanism is unknown, then what makes you think the mechanism is a nuclear reaction?

    Bah. Still waiting for some sausage.
  1.  
    You said "Bah", that's a known marker for pseudoskepticismitis.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Abd
    No, I can do the research, but it already took me too long to write that,

    Well, we can agree on something. Far too long.

    but I don't know what audience I'm writing for.

    Ah, know thy mark. Good plan.

    but I can provide links if anyone doubts any of it.


    Really? Well, if it's not too much trouble for you to provide evidence for your claims, please do go right ahead. If it is too much trouble as your article claimed, then <yawn> no need to worry. I'm sure we can all take your word for it.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: EndeavourWhat about Brillouin energy it claims a consistent COP of 2?
    Something like a year ago, Brillouin published a diagram in which "hydorgen" and some other common word was misspelled. This was pointed out by me and others. They have not fixed it. Not confidence inspiring. They have never obtained independent replication and as far as I know, have never demonstrated their setup to independent experts.

    Apparently, they are being tested at SRI, including perhaps by McKubre. McKrubre recently gave substantial attention to one of Bob Rohner's silly popper demos without pointing out the obvious nonsense and omissions (they never did an energy balance). He's not credible either.