If I wanted quizzes, I would go to Sporcle.com. Do you understand that I am not interested in your bloviating?
-
-
If I wanted quizzes, I would go to Sporcle.com. Do you understand that I am not interested in your bloviating?
I now understand that you are more interested in proclamation rather than dialog. Change happens by listening and then starting a dialogue with the people who are doing something you don't believe is right. Proclamation seems to be increasingly in vogue these days and a mark of a descent into intellectual decrepitude.
-
“Do you know what a neutron is?” is not dialogue. It is misplaced condescension. You don’t have any interest in dialogue. You want to give lectures. Fortunately, there seem to be some folks on LENR sites who want to hear them. So enjoy yourself.
-
Axil, I used the term cold fusion because a number of people here do. So feel free to substitute LENR or AHE or invisible pink flying unicorns in my comment. I really don’t care. I have no doubt that nobody else here has the exact same thing in mind that you do anyway, so call it whatever floats your boat.
Do you always discuss things that you don't understand? Such behavior is the essence of bloviation.
-
“Do you know what a neutron is?” is not dialogue. It is misplaced condescension. You don’t have any interest in dialogue. You want to give lectures. Fortunately, there seem to be some folks on LENR sites who want to hear them. So enjoy yourself.
I was just trying to gage your level of understanding so I could fashion a course of discussion that you might draw value from. I do not want to talk over your head.
-
Send me your PhD diploma and I’ll send you mine. Seriously.
-
Send me your PhD diploma and I’ll send you mine. Seriously.
Now I understand where your arrogant self assured dyed in the wool certitude comes from. With pride comes the fall. It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels. Now I know where your opposition to LENR comes from.
-
My opposition to LENR comes from your twisted mind since it otherwise has no existence.
-
Your proclamations belie a sycophant who wants to gain favor from those who you imagine holds LENR in contempt even if not in fact but in you own deranged imagination though you have no idea what LENR is. You have no time to understand LENR, you only lazily ecco without imagination the age worn criticisms that no long apply to the new LENR methods and materials.
-
Okay, let us consider any other scientific, technical or academic subject. Say, programming, or Japanese literature. Suppose this discussion group was about programming, and someone started making assertions about the structure of Pascal. Suppose, after a while, it became apparent that this person knew nothing about Pascal and had never programmed a line of code in it, or in any other language. Would you take that person's assertions seriously? Or would you dismiss them?
Sorry, but a mildly bad example (because most people reading that will fail to acknowledge the "or in any other language" caveat. (but I do know what you are trying to get at and the other example is rock solid).
I knew nothing about the Lua language a couple of weeks ago.
Then I had to debug one.
Piece of cake though, since I am fluent in C, C++, Java/JavaScript, Cobol, Fortran and others.
It is equivalent to knowing nothing about the e-CAT, but knowing lots about the building blocks behind what it is supposed to be.
As a B.Eng, I can look at the Penon Report and know it is junk since there cannot be 1 MW of steam capacity anywhere in a system with a pressure reading of 0 bar. (i.e. a system where the exit is Atm. an open to air container hence roughly 1 bar and we know this to be a fact).
And that is Abs pressure, not gauge, since if it was gauge, it would have been noted as bar(g) by EVERY competent Engineer.
If it was an honest mistake, it needs to be redone and corrected without excuses, and if not, assumed junk.
Pete
-
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-…lear-power-customers.html
Subsidizing coal and nuclear power could drive customers off the grid
The Trump DOE wants to keep coal and nuclear plants open by requiring ratepayers to subsidize them. The ratepayer will bear the cost of rebuilding power plants that are at the end of their useful life. In other works, the cost of power is going way up.
The rate payers will find it economic to go off grid. What a great time for a LENR reactor to hit the market.
"Will consumers willingly pay higher bills to support coal and nuclear power? My research group has analyzed another option: Going off-grid and generating electricity with home-based solar energy systems. Recently we compared the cost of grid power to off-grid renewable generation in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. We found that within a few years, a majority of single-family owner-occupied households could afford the necessary generating systems and economically defect from the grid."
-
"What a great time for a LENR reactor to hit the market."
That would be true, if there was a LENR reactor at all...No one knows (yet) how such a thing works, and there are no signs that robotic factories will flood the market with certified "reactors" for industrial or home heat or steam production...
-
Axil: “You have no time to understand LENR, you only lazily ecco without imagination the age worn criticisms that no long apply to the new LENR methods and materials.”
Is that a fact? Can you provide some examples of my doing that?
-
It is equivalent to knowing nothing about the e-CAT, but knowing lots about the building blocks behind what it is supposed to be.
There's the belief that LENR is backed by real science (Jed's position) and the belief that the E-Cat is a LENR device (not Jed's position). Jed will no doubt agree with the spirit of your points about the E-Cat, but they don't bear on the point he was making, which pertained to cases in which people express strong opinions about LENR (in contrast to the E-Cat) without having bothered to read the literature and without relevant expertise to draw upon. Happens more often that one might think.
Jed has spent many electrons making points similar to yours about the E-Cat.
-
It is equivalent to knowing nothing about the e-CAT, but knowing lots about the building blocks behind what it is supposed to be.
That is not the example I had in mind. I was going to explain this but Eric Walker already described what I meant:
There's the belief that LENR is backed by real science (Jed's position) and the belief that the E-Cat is a LENR device (not Jed's position). Jed will no doubt agree with the spirit of your points about the E-Cat, but they don't bear on the point he was making, which pertained to cases in which people express opinions about LENR (in contrast to the E-Cat) without having bothered to read the literature and without relevant expertise to draw upon. Happens more often that one might think.
Yes! It is easy to find errors in the Penon report, but I was talking about papers by people such as Fleischmann and Pons or McKubre. These papers are more technical and you need to study them more carefully before reaching a conclusion. There are many competent, professional scientists such as some of the 2004 DoE review board members who jumped to conclusions about F&P, McKubre and others without reading the literature. These people know "lots about the building blocks." If they would make the effort, I expect they could write a good evaluation of the result, but they did not make the effort. They dismissed the results for invalid or made-up reasons, and not one valid reason, in my opinion.
(Melich and I read the evaluations and compiled a list of the 14 reasons the negative reviewers rejected the findings. There were 18 review panel members: 10 negative, 6 positive, 2 undecided.)
This is similar to an experienced programmer hearing about a new programming technique, such as Google's neural network approach to machine translation, and saying: "I am sure that will never work!" without even looking at the results. I have known some arrogant programmers who said things like that.
-
Do you understand that low temperature transmutation of elements exits?
Do you understand there isn't any such proof?
-
Libellous? I thought truthfulness was a defence to such claims.
Actually, it is easy to find errors in F&P's and McK's work, if you know the building blocks and know what to look for. I've detailed several, which you of course refuse to acknowledge.
Marwan, et al, in their 'rebuttal' to my fourth paper talk about a "random Shanahan CCSH". I never have talked about a random effect.
They also talk about a lot of other stuff, which strangely enough... you refuse to acknowledge! -
They also talk about a lot of other stuff, which strangely enough... you refuse to acknowledge!
I suggest you re-read my whitepaper, which contains the response I would have made to the Marwan, et al, 'rebuttal paper'. In it I deal with the 6 points they made, 5 of which are based on the falsehood of the "random CCSH". I agree the "random CCSH" is nonsensical, but I again point out I didn't originate it, so, no skin off my nose... The 6th point involves how ATER can induce pitting in CR39 plates immersed in the electrolyte. They refuse to consider the impact of their 'mini-nuclear explosions' (which I call 'chemical explosions').
Once you have done that, I would love to know what you think I am ignoring.
-
OK, so we have no idea what the actual pressure was in the system (I use the word loosely) at that point in the pipework. All speculation based on the figure of zero bar is fruitless.
Also what species of scientist or engineer would not have queried that set of readings and at least swapped out the sensor for an alternative? It may seem trivial, but it gives an idea of the general sloppiness (or worse) of the test protocol and the people running it.
Looking forward to the 24th. I shall just have returned from Dublin and will be full of the Good-natured Glow of Gallons of Guiness
Reviewing the depositions, I came across another pressure measurement device: (images below)
-
Pretty sure I already read it, but do you have a link to this whitepaper please?
If you actually did, you did so without comprehension, otherwise, you never would have made that prior comment.
The whitepaper used to be here. I assume it still is.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ
P.S. There more in the whitepaper than just the response to Marwan, et al.
