Axil, you really are a sitting duck. 
Slice of MIT: Carl page "coming out" comment on LENR
-
-
MY, your McKubre quote above is perfectly correct, you can hear it after 7 minutes:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.At 6:20 he also says "there is clearly a nuclear process".
I would rather say, "there are clearly more blind mice".
-
Quote
As usual you cast innuendo of fraud , not daring to say it clearly .You say Brillouin and McKubre are in a scam process ? You can ! just prove it!Tell it clearly, and don't hide your conspiracy theory under FUD.You are making assumptions.
For example, no way do I accuse you of fraud or dishonesty - just having bad judgement when evaluating LENR claims. Nor do i accuse the many LENR researchers with apparent positives found later to be erroneous of dishonesty.
So why do you assume this false dichotomy?
-
Quote
"Papp was all that you say but his engine worked as verified by the US patent office. Autism is common among adults. Over the years, I have observed similarity in the behaviors demonstrated by both Papp and yourself. While such individuals struggle with their affections, we must only hope that such behavior does little damage to society.
Axil, before you claim people have *afflictions* perhaps you should learn to spell "afflictions." Or maybe learn the difference between afflictions and affections. Anyway, one thing about you. You're consistent. Consistently FOS. This quote above is another example.
-
Looking to the future in my crystal ball, I see a lot of white for MY.
-
Axil, before you claim people have *afflictions* perhaps you should learn to spell "afflictions." Or maybe learn the difference between afflictions and affections. Anyway, one thing about you. You're consistent. Consistently FOS. This quote above is another example.
Yes, my spelling and proof reading are poor, by my many faults are not anti social, teroristic, and dangerous to the interests and welfare of others.
-
Alain, why are the Low Energy NUCLEAR Reactions (re)searchers never trained NUCLEAR physicists?
As it is they all act more like witch doctors trying to cure cancer by magic spells and healing.
Nuclear physicist are incompetent in calorimetry, unlike electrochemist, chemist, and radiochemist, for which it is their expertise.
At best tritium evidence are best measured by radiochemists, and nuclear weapon specialists (Storms, BARC)the reason why LENR is denied is because people like you think that because the theory have to be nuclear, the experimental competence is to be nuclear.
sorry the expertise needed is the one of chemist.
And it is very strange, but only physicist moan, and chemist either support cold fusion experiments (sometime failing in nuclear measurement, equally physicist fail in calorimetry).Strangely one of the only physicist who replicated F&P was trained by skeptic Heinz Gerisher, and did it in 2 years instead of 1 year like most chemists.
You point is very good once you put it upside down.
For explanations, read Charles Beaudette in excess Heat :
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35Reading Wilson about Hansen and Lewis papers could also help to understand the problem.
Even Lugano is an evidence of that problem. -
Alain, you contend:
QuoteThe reason why LENR is denied is because people like you think that because the theory have to be nuclear, the experimental competence is to be nuclear.
Is it not reasonable to expect that the field of activities in LENR research should be a subset of what NR stands for? Nuclear reactions are an indispensable part of what the LENR people wish to achieve. Is there a single CF narrative that fails to mention that a nuclear reaction can yield millions of times the energy of a chemical reaction?Carrying out research with the ambition to provide ample, harmless energy to humankind is a complex undertaking that needs contributions from many disciplines. In LENR research certainly calorimetry is one of them. Measurement of heat is in fact more physics than chemistry, but probably more chemists than physicists do it on a regular basis. So let a chemist measure the heat which he is good at. But the chemist is not good at collecting data from nuclear reactions and analyse them, so let a nuclear physicist do that, he is good at it.
But will the LENR researchers invite a nuclear physicist to their experiment? Probably not, they have checked for nuclear reaction products for a long time without finding more than can be explained by noise or background signals. Their nuclear reactions are radiationless.
Inviting a nuclear physicist to an experiment is also taking a risk, suppose that he accepts. He brings a load of instruments and rigs up alpha, beta, gamma and neutron detectors all over the place. The experiment is done, our nuclear physicist crunches the data and writes his chapter in the LENR experiment report and it says:
"No energetic particles above background levels could be detected during the experiment. After the experiment the so called fuel was retrieved. It showed no signs of induced radioactivity. Isotopic analys was performed and no anomalous isotope ratios were found. The conclusion must be that the number of nuclear reactions that occurred in the so called fuel during the test is not statistically significant."
Talk about raining on the LENR parade, we couldn't have that, could we?
-
Quote
the reason why LENR is denied is because people like you think that because the theory have to be nuclear, the experimental competence is to be nuclear.sorry the expertise needed is the one of chemist.
You have this backwards.
There is no experimental evidence to link the small claimed excess heat anomalies in LENR to nuclear reactions. And as Hagelstein has pointed out, excess heat is the only consistent phenomena associated with LENR.
So to get the "N" you need a THEORY - that somehow these anomalies are not obtainable in any other way, and therefore must be nuclear. That is a weak argument. maybe - even assuming these anomalies real - there is some other mechanism...
So - LENR - if taken to mean a hypothesis of significant nuclear reaction rates at low energy without muons or radioactive fuel - is a theoretical construct with the experimental evidence all profoundly negative.
-
[quote]
So - LENR - if taken to mean a hypothesis of significant nuclear reaction rates at low energy without muons or radioactive fuel - is a theoretical construct with the experimental evidence all profoundly negative.
Holmlid experiments produce Kaon, pions, muons and electrons. Look into Holmlid's experiments.
-
Well Thomas, as with your many other opinions, also these where rather inaccurate.
"There is no experimental evidence to link the small claimed excess heat anomalies in LENR to nuclear reactions. " - wrong
"And as Hagelstein has pointed out, excess heat is the only consistent phenomena associated with LENR." - wrong
"So - LENR...........is a theoretical construct with the experimental evidence all profoundly negative." - wrong
Well, well.
For Hagelstein, he actually states,
" Experiments show 4He in amounts commensurate with energy"
And the reason for Hagelsteins claims is, Ref.
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…gelstein-Talk-09-2015.pdfAnd you don't get 4He without some kind of nuclear reaction.
And it's not a matter of small excess heat measurments, but rather energy densities and power densities.
We know maximum densities of chemical reactions and we know the measured and verified energy
densities of F&P cells and other LENR systems.Which is Far beyond chemical, which means it must be some kind of nuclear Events.
Or as Dr. Peter Hagelstein said of excess heat if F&P type experiments:"we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are not considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."
-
There is no experimental evidence to link the small claimed excess heat anomalies in LENR to nuclear reactions
I know you are not incompetent, so what are you.
the nuclear origin is proven by the amount of energy produced.
Do you realize you are not honest?
I don't even talk if Helium, of tritium, which are replicated and proven many times.
What ethic do you have ? motivated reasoning ? attorney at law ?
why discuss with someone competent when he is unable to use his competence to admit facts?
sorry i'm tired.
