Clearance Items

  • Ascoli65

    Quote

    As for the research on fusion, both hot and cold, a much worse damage than wasting money has been to mislead the public and the decision makers, providing them an easy excuse not to face the global resource problems in a truly effective and long lasting way. The illusions spread by the FUSION chimeras have largely contributed to creating the current critical situation. Part of this responsibility lies on ambitious or unscrupulous professors and other public researchers

    For cold fusion, I don't think so. Outside a small community of enthusiasts, most scientists don't spend either time or resources examining cold fusion or LENR. Hot fusion is another story. How much should be spent on that can certainly be argued. And when if ever it will be practical can also be argued. However, unlike LENR, that the concept works can not.

  • Ascoli65

    For cold fusion, I don't think so. Outside a small community of enthusiasts, most scientists don't spend either time or resources examining cold fusion or LENR. Hot fusion is another story. How much should be spent on that can certainly be argued. And when if ever it will be practical can also be argued. However, unlike LENR, that the concept works can not.


    There are serious attempts notably from https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ to do hot fusion in newer smaller quicker ways. They are a long shot, but have no new physics to work out and a decent chance with the technology. They hope grid power 2030 and break even their current in build prototype.

  • It's dumb and it accomplishes nothing. Why not spend all that energy on finding a decent and properly verified demo? Do something useful maybe? I want to see LENR become real, not people celebrate abstractions and insulting skeptics who so far have been right all along.

  • IO,


    It is a long way off. Plenty of time to think it out. If you have a logical, and constructive disagreement with the idea, by all means post it to Ruby's thread.

    Shane,


    I don’t even know what idea you are talking about. I gather there is some sort of event being discussed but I didn’t see the original description wherever that was. So no, I have no disagreement, logical or otherwise. My comment was directed at the notion that SOT’s negativity does not imply opposition to the hopes and aspirations associated with LENR but only to jumping to positive conclusions based on flimsy or even fraudulent claims. As I implied with my quack medicine comment, just because successful LENR technology development would be a great thing, that doesn’t mean one should automatically assume that every LENR claim is a great thing.

  • Gosh! What a dangerous life you lead, almost as scary as being a LENR researcher.


    Yes, indeed. In only a few weeks I already lost four of my lives: How do you convince a skeptic? :)


    You did plenty of explaining yourself. What you observed was a typographic error and some misplaced blue arrows, nothing more I am certain, and from that you have constructed a whole conspiracy.


    I just answered in the F&P thread: FP's experiments discussion

  • AA:


    Re: your comments about bureaucratic waste and inefficiency in universities -- absolutely on point. If you look at the budget of any US university or college and compare the amount spent on teaching/research vs. the amount spent on administrators, it is obscene how much we waste on bureaucratic nonsense.

    How about replacing them with Robots.





  • For cold fusion, I don't think so. Outside a small community of enthusiasts, most scientists don't spend either time or resources examining cold fusion or LENR. Hot fusion is another story. How much should be spent on that can certainly be argued. And when if ever it will be practical can also be argued. However, unlike LENR, that the concept works can not.


    Of course the community of professors and other public researchers who support the two approaches is proportional to the public funds at disposition of the respective researches. But with respect to the impact on the public imagination, which was the topic I was talking about, the money spent on cold fusion have been much more effective. For instance, I'm not aware of any movie whose story develops around the research on tokamaks and I think that F&P are much more popular of any other scientist who worked on the hot fusion field.


    Anyway, when I talk about the impact on public and decision makers, I'm referring to the whole FUSION propaganda. A situation, which I tried to exemplify in this old jpeg.


    4pYEbKB.jpg


    The first issue (1) was published well before the CF appearance, but FUSION was the precursor of 21st Century Science and Technology, a magazine which strongly supported F&P and CF since the beginning (1a).


    The magazine of the second issue is well known and the stunning message on its cover has reached millions of people in the world. Worth to notice that in the internal text (2), CF investors are mixed with the small HF initiatives which are the specific argument of the article.


    (1) http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/fusion/19801111-fusion.pdf

    (1a) http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/tcs/19890708-TCS.pdf

    (2) http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdf/new…gazine_11-2-15_Fusion.pdf

  • Now please, while we may on occasion *out* one avatar to another avatar for perspective, putting a real name to an avatar, is solely at the discretion of the member.


    What gives it away....?


    (MARY WATCH)


    boors_bingo.png


    "SOT"s count to date...


    Scam 57

    ROTFWL 14

    Steorn 8

    Defkalion 4

    Idiot 4

    Butt/Scat reference 3

    Papp engine 3

    Dick Smith 3

    Moron 1

    Letter to Elforsk CEO 1

    ANGRY CAPS ...beyond count


    Doing well so far, with three lines filled in, compared to two last time. Early indications show that the rate of ROTFWLing has exactly doubled - and (perhaps more predictably) anal/fecal references are up by 150%*.


    Fascinating.


    *When normalised to 1000 posts.