Trump and Energy Policy

  • @Alan Smith said "

    " Is the USA getting on board with this?"


    I doubt it.


    Energy rich states such as Wyoming and states that import power such as Hawaii are trying to ban it.

    I read the article that it uses natural gas to hydrogen electrolysis. Currently do to fracking (good or bad) we have maybe 100 years of gas alone years inside of the US alone without Canada.

    You see we are a advanced society and technology superior -> /s :)


    /s = sarcasm just in case

  • Quote

    I'm convinced that cold fusion works and can be scaled up - You are incorrect. You cannot point to any experimental evidence to back up your claim, therefore you are wrong. This is science.


    I don't understand your attitude - it's just you who collected the most extensive public cold fusion library - or not?

    You should know best, that the cold fusion works.

  • Zephir,

    I have a exam. I would like everyone here to consider it.


    What is a scientist?


    1) Someone with a deep understanding of subject matter combined with an advance degree from an accredited university?

    2) Someone who shows advanced understanding of the topic at hand and possibly published?

    3) Someone who follows scientific method?

    4) None or some of the above or a combination or other?


    -Thanks in advance to everyone!

  • I don't understand your attitude - it's just you who collected the most extensive public cold fusion library - or not?

    You should know best, that the cold fusion works.

    Yes, cold fusion works. No, it cannot be controlled or scaled up. If you were to try to build a 10 kW cold fusion reactor, it would probably produce 0 W, but might produces 500 kW briefly and explode. Such explosions have occurred, on a small scale, because the devices were small. You would have no way to predict how much power a kilowatt-scale device might produce, and no way to trigger the reaction reliably, moderate it, or quench it.


    At present, our knowledge of the reaction is so scanty that building a large reactor would be like throwing matches into a wood stove with no knowledge of what fuel is inside it. It is probably wet firewood which will never ignite no matter how many matches you throw in, but it might be rags soaked in gasoline, in which case you will be killed. That is not an analogy. A person who tries to make a kilowatt-scale cold fusion device may well be killed if the reaction is larger than he expects, and he would have no rational or experience based expectation of the performance in the first place. Scale up would be folly. Possibly suicidal folly.

  • 1) Someone with a deep understanding of subject matter combined with an advance degree from an accredited university?

    2) Someone who shows advanced understanding of the topic at hand and possibly published?

    3) Someone who follows scientific method?

    #1 and 2 are ruled out, because when a new scientific fact is discovered, no one knows anything about it. There can be no "deep understanding" of a newly discovered facts of nature. The whole point of science is to discover new things, and to arrive at understanding. You don't understand before you do science, any more than you eat the wild boar you have not killed yet.


    #2 is ruled out because before anyone shows "advanced understanding," someone has to first show elementary understanding. You can't go from no knowledge to advanced knowledge. Georg Ohm, for example, had only elementary understanding of Ohm's law when he discovered it, but he surely was a scientist. Many discoveries, such as the x-ray, the Edison effect (radio waves) and cold fusion, came as a complete surprise with absolutely no theoretical basis or previous expectation. Obviously, no one can have "advanced knowledge" of something that no one dreamed might exist.


    #3 is the only valid criterion. Some people were scientists before there were advanced degrees, universities, or accredited universities. In fact, people were scientists before people evolved into homo sapiens. If that were not the case, we would still be living in caves.

  • Patterson, Piantelli, Rossi, Me356 - all they're extremely secretive. But this is just one half of problem. The second problem is, nobody wants to replicate them

    No one can replicate them. They never revealed enough about their experiments to allow anyone to replicate. You need to know a tremendous amount about an experiment to have any hope of replicating it -- much more than most people realize.


    This is not just a problem in cold fusion. Only 6 out of the 53 most important recent findings in cancer research could be replicated. It is impossible to say whether this is because the original findings were wrong, but there is no doubt that the experiments were not described in enough detail to replicate them. See:


    https://www.theatlantic.com/sc…dies-are-reliable/513485/

  • Quote

    What is a scientist?
    3) Someone who follows scientific method?


    It's all about definition of scientific method. How would you define it?


    Quote

    No one can replicate them. They never revealed enough about their experiments to allow anyone to replicate


    You can be never sure about completeness of information given. You can just attempt for replication with information available.

    This is just the problem with contemporary scientists: the fuzzy information is no information for them, despite they're working with fuzzy information during whole their lives. Can you know, that your wife isn't cheating you? Of course not, you're working with acceptable probability here. But many proponents of so-called scientific method for example dismiss cold fusion simply because it has not working theory yet. What cannot be calculated simply doesn't exist for them. You don't use math, you don't use scientific method. Are such a people still a scientists?


    Quote

    Yes, cold fusion works. No, it cannot be controlled or scaled up


    I still don't think so. Let say, that codeposition of Pd-H works as Szpak anounced. What prohibits us to scale it up?

    Such a reaction is completely driven with amount of palladium and hydrogen generated by electric current.

  • Quote

    You are correct from my knowledge base. Thanks for your response.


    I don't know, what you call scientific method, I even don't know, what you call correct.

    So is the ignorance of facts, because they cannot be certain or because they even have no formal model developed the scientific method or not?

  • You can be never sure about completeness of information given. You can just attempt for replication with information available.

    This is just the problem with contemporary scientists: the fuzzy information is no information for them

    I know more about some of these experiments than has been published, and I know that critical information has been withheld. Deliberately withheld, in some cases. Patterson bragged about that. I also know that it takes a tremendous amount of knowledge to replicate and experiment. That is why all but one of the top electrochemists replicated Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 and 1990, and none of the high energy physicists did. The physicists made many errors, such as the ones I described here, starting on p. 10:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

    I still don't think so.

    You still don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    I still don't think so. Let say, that codeposition of Pd-H works as Szpak anounced. What prohibits us to scale it up?

    That question is ridiculous. Pam Boss herself could not scale that up, and she never claimed she could. Have you any idea how varied the reaction rate was? Did you even read her papers?


    Most people who tried to replicate it failed. Some of them were skilled people who got help directly from Pam. It might be real, but it is emphatically not easily reproducible and not controllable, and no one ever said it was.

    Such a reaction is completely driven with amount of palladium and hydrogen generated by electric current.


    No one has the slightest idea what drives that reaction or how to control it. Again, with emphasis, you do not know what the hell you are talking about. I suggest you read papers before commenting on them.

  • Zephir said:

    "

    I don't know, what you call scientific method, I even don't know, what you call correct.

    So is the ignorance of facts, because they cannot be certain or
    because they even have no formal model developed the scientific method
    or not?

    "

    Well there is a common definition of scientific method. So that would be what I call correct. Your comment above of "ignorance of the facts" etc. is to me a non sequitur therefor.

    So since it does not matter what I call it. As we say ;) "It is what it is".


    As I said before I follow your ideas. I spent some time trying to understand them given your link last night. To me there is first hand and second hand knowledge. You have said you are both a "scientist and a programmer" first hand. Second hand knowledge based on the link that you provided is not valid unless it is confirmed. I don't get off denigrating someone. I seek knowledge. One thing that I was convinced of after all the reading and looking at Reddit is that it is a hard forum to read LOL, but also is the need for references and the use of math as the common language of choice in providing arguments.

  • In that case, the subject of this discussion thread is energy policy, and you cannot discuss energy policy without taking into account global warming, any more than you can ignore OPEC and Russian oil. I will drop the discussion but I suggest you re-think what you said, because -- frankly -- it is weird.


    It is not weird to try to head off discussions that will predictably lead to endless debate over claims on topics only indirectly related to LENR. You have the energy to bat down every claim that climate skeptics will make, but your opponents have the energy to respond to every one of your retorts with yet more claims. There are other forums where this fruitless battle can be fought.

  • However, if anyone from any race or even SPECIES (including any Martians that may still be inhabiting artificial constructs in the outer regions of our solar system) believes in any book that teaches that people who believe differently should be murdered, along with their families, if they do not convert, they are evil. Period. And you know what? I don't want them around me. Because if their holy book teaches those things -- WHICH THE KORAN DOES -- then they themselves are a threat.


    This is not the place for denigrating a religion or religious community, or even entering into discussions of religion at all.

  • about who are scientists,

    my conformist answer is 3, following scientific method.

    Anyway I support the complains of Thomas Kuhn and even Feyerabend that scientific method is a myth, it is many variation of an art, with clear groupthink phases.


    The thing LENR taught is that people who call for evidence based policy, evidenc based science, are the first to be caught in groupthink against scientific evidences.

    I no more trust anybody upfront or definitively, especially my own judgement.


    Best definition of a scientists is a kid.

    http://news.mit.edu/2006/children


    Curious, following facts, irresponsible (Concerned scientists is an oxymore, but there is no perfect scientists and most scientists were engaged in politics, religions, pseudo-science, and mad awful mistakes like when my 7yo daughter talk of wars or politics - or me) , designing experiments, playing, surprised, learning, integrating, making mistakes and correcting.

    It seems the key is that they search for explanation, for rules, laws, regularities, and not only results.

    They don't work for applications.

    Engineers and scientists both develop theories and technology, but scientists develop technology to find theory, and engineers develop theory to develop technology... Many other differences (Engineers are also project managers), but relation to theory is really key difference.



    Best scientists were crazy, or at least awful bastards (how do you know that someone you judge crazy is not crazy ? so he is. QM taught me that. saying 200y after he was not crazy is just fraud)

    http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/

    anyway it is quite common, and not all crazy people are genius.

    Kind people often cannot do breakthrough because they follow the crowd and refuse to fight the consensus.

  • Quote

    No one can replicate them. They never revealed enough about their experiments to allow anyone to replicate
    You still don't know what the hell you are talking about.


    The problem why the replication of original cold fusion findings (Panneth & Peters 1926, Wend Irion 1923, Tandberg 1927 etc...) gets delayed is, the physicists who feel threatened with cold fusion research are repeating ad nauseum, that these findings cannot be replicated, although they even don't attempt for it. Now you're applying the same argumentation for research of Piantelli and Rossi, despite we know, they're using whiskers or discharge plasma for increasing of yield.


    Do you consider it a scientific method? It's based on pluralistic ignorance, i.e. the circular reasoning: no one attempts for replications, because no one else is attempting for it.


    Wernher von Braun: "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."

    Einstein: "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

  • :D:/8|


    Every day he is doing more and more. I've never in my life seen a president do so much good in so little time.


    Only about 5 mill are Native Americans (or a mix). Whereto should the other 320 mill be deported? :/


    Nope. The 320 million of us shouldn't go anywhere. What we need to do is give the native americans total sovereignty over their reservations and if there is nearby unused land, give that to them as well

  • Wind energy is the most ignorant solution to a national energy plan possible, and no utility would put up a single turbine without the heavy government subsidy, meaning the tax payer takes it in the ass.

    The capital costs are multiples of alternatives, the efficiencies are low due to transmission losses, maintenance is high and expensive, they decimate large quantities of migratory birds, and the availability

    sucks. And while wind may be free, there is a lot more to the price of a delivered kWh than the base energy component, the cost of the coal for 10 cent per kWh electricity is just under a penny. The availability issue causes all kinds inane discussions about batteries, capacitors and pumping water, all hugely inefficient and or polluting in their own right, so one is left with building gas plants of EQUIVALENT CAPACITY. In the final analysis, the true cost is at at least 3x-4x more conventional sources. Real genius at work making your industry uncompetitive and you people poor.