Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: AbdAfter then, negative papers entirely disappeared,One possible explanation of this apparent fact is that most or all competent investigators gave up on the phenomenon, leaving only those who measure poorly or self-deceive.
Posted By: AbdInterest in cold fusion has not died.It largely has among main line scientific journals as well as most of the press. Goofy weirdoes like Joe Shea and Mats Lewan are still interested. But more reasonable reporters like Gibbs, who is very interested but finds that interest futile, are trying hard to find things to report... and not succeeding.
Posted By: hairykrishnaPosted By: Abd
No. What I said was that an excited state of He4 with 23.8MeV doesn't exist. This is ~10MeV greater than the binding energy of He.
Posted By: maryyugoSure. That explanation worked for two decades. It's dead, there has been entirely too much publication on the real cold fusion in mainstream journals, and I've cited sources here showing how skeptical physicists have moved their positions. It's not just Duncan, there is, for example, Shamoo. The claim of "poor measurement" and "self deception" is pure pseudoskepticism, unsupported by the experimental evidence. In normal science, if the heat measurements and helium measurements were artifact, this would have been shown *long ago*. It wasn't *ever* shown. No, something else happened with cold fusion and it's called a "cascade." The *belief* arose that cold fusion was bogus, and that belief was widely shared, with everything thinking that anyone who knows the evidence was of that persuasion. But, quite because of the cascade, this supposed "consensus" was no longer familiar with the evidence, but was assuming, collectively, that early characteristics and assumptions still held (whether or not they were *ever* true is debatable.)Posted By: AbdAfter then, negative papers entirely disappeared,One possible explanation of this apparent fact is that most or all competent investigators gave up on the phenomenon, leaving only those who measure poorly or self-deceive.
Posted By: AbdInterest in cold fusion has not died.It largely has among main line scientific journals as well as most of the press.
Goofy weirdoes like Joe Shea and Mats Lewan are still interested. But more reasonable reporters like Gibbs, who is very interested but finds that interest futile, are trying hard to find things to report... and not succeeding.I don't know who Joe Shea is. Mats Lewan is simply a reporter, and reported what there was to report. He's got his own publication now, and appears to have not followed up. He was not really involved with cold fusion, unless you believe that Rossi has something to do with cold fusion. There is no evidence for that, but do you have any? Did Rossi claim that his results were due to cold fusion?
it still seems to sputter along when it feels like it? I know no other scientific discovery that has proceeded in that manner. Maybe I missed one.
Posted By: spinner"One, with an input power of a milliwatt, resulted in 7 W of power for 600 seconds."
I'd like to have one of these, please!?
Thank you!
Posted By: Angus@Abd
My post was a jolly, moletrappian response to MY's commentit still seems to sputter along when it feels like it? I know no other scientific discovery that has proceeded in that manner. Maybe I missed one.
Lighten up.
Posted By: Abdso that I'm not stuck depending on the word of "Hairy" on moletrap
Posted By: maryyugoMary confuses "libel," the word and its meaning, with libel as an actionable tort in the U.S., which is *complicated.* I made no claim that Mary was guilty of that tort, that it could be acted on, and that interpretation would be preposterous, but, consistently, Mary makes preposterous interpretations of what is said to her, in order to deny the obvious.Posted By: AbdSo, basically, you are libelling Storms with weak evidence. I've come to expect this from you.I won't go into the details because you would launch another diatribe, but what I said about Storms isn't libel (in the US anyway). Not even close.
Definition of LIBELLook at definition 2a, particularly. Mary libelled Storms, this is written speech, published, though within a small circle. She can deny that up and down, but it won't change the fact. She was, in fact, expressing contempt. She also did this more publicly, as I recall, on newVortex.
1
a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2
a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
As to Dr. Bob not being Rohner, you may be right. I assumed Sterling would know something that simple but maybe he doesn't even know that! I shouldn't expect even something that easy from someone who believes Obama went to Mars and a 10,000 mph secret vacuum tube train makes regular runs for VIP's between the coasts.
Posted By: maryyugoMy impression is that many discoveries languished for a very long time before any practical applications appeared. However, $100 million is, indeed, a lot of money, and one might think that should have produced more results than it did. However, that's *what happened.* The reality of cold fusion was *demonstrated* conclusively more than twenty years ago, and, as I wrote, confirmed widely over the next decade. The large sums of money were probably spent foolishly, trying to create a commercial level effect before the mechanism was understood. I know that those who were involved with MITI, the largest project, in Japan, have said that it was a disaster, with money being spent pursuing alleys that were known to be blind. It was, essentially, a boondoggle. I'm not aware of any significant results from MITI, but there might be some. The Toyota project in France did produce more evidence, but was cancelled when they realized that this was going nowhere as far as *commercial power production*, fast. It is quite possible that we won't know the mechanism for a long time. And until we know the mechanism, any efforts to make the effect reliable will likely be hit-or-miss. It's real. Muon-catalyzed fusion is real, but that doesn't make it practical, and there are reasons for thinking it will never be practical. Unless you can figure out a way to allow muons to catalyze more reactions than has yet been attained, something north of 100 per muon. Muons are too energy-costly to make, and, unfortunately, helium sucks them right up.Posted By: spinnerI'd like to have one of these, please!?
Thank you!
Me too. The phenomenon is supposedly 20+ years old and $100 Million or more has been spent trying to make it work and it still seems to sputter along when it feels like it? I know no other scientific discovery that has proceeded in that manner. Maybe I missed one.
Posted By: AbdThe reality of cold fusion was *demonstrated* conclusively more than twenty years ago, and, as I wrote, confirmed widely over the next decade.
Posted By: AngusIt seems to take forever and a day to get my brilliant repartee through the moderation on NewVort. Not really worth the trouble. Kills the spontaneity.No, Angus, you are not on moderation, I took you off and notified you of that, as soon as you'd submitted a first post. I got an email from you from an address not the one you joined with. Could this be about that?
Posted By: pcstruOMG! I thought the forum software just forgot where I left off. I think this guy is really setting a new standard for jackass trollery. I think that surpasses the shit Gaby used to pull!Posted By: AbdPosted By: hairykrishnaThat's a naive expectation, but a very reasonable one.Posted By: AbdPosted By: hairykrishnaSimple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He.
http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3402&page=12
(^^ 1 day ago)Posted By: AbdPosted By: hairykrishnaSimple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He.That's a naive expectation, but a very reasonable one. Those who are working on d+d theories are physicists, generally. They know about conservation of momentum, and so do I. If you want a description of how they are attempting to deal with the problem, I could give that, and it would simply irritate more people, and for little benefit.
(^^ 1 hour ago)
And yet they are not the same post.
Posted By: AbdPosted By: AngusIt seems to take forever and a day to get my brilliant repartee through the moderation on NewVort. Not really worth the trouble. Kills the spontaneity.No, Angus, you are not on moderation, I took you off and notified you of that, as soon as you'd submitted a first post. I got an email from you from an address not the one you joined with. Could this be about that?
Posted By: korkskrewI nominate Abd for permanent owner of FWOTW until such time as he shuts the hell up or we get someone else to pick on. It will make it much easier to skip his posts.Please be hospitable. It is not all that easy to find someone like Abd. He is willing to argue that dowsing rods and homeopathy have value. That's rare in uncensored fora. forumorums? foramina?
Posted By: AngusI would disagree about "promote the possibility..." Most of us will at least entertain that. He is promoting the actual, genuine, definite conclusive _reality_ of what he says, or what he says somebody says.