OK alan no response means 'wait and see' I will shut up now...........morning anyway.........time for porridge '''''
Clearance Items
-
-
Or shall I wait to see the new patent application you are filing.
I'm not planning on doing that any time soon, if ever. Enjoy your breakfast!
-
Still needs electronics, as a chrome plate devise using dry dusts mixing
-
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.
-
Rule #1 when using the internet: The internet is full of bullshit, scams and criminals.
Also full of gullible fools, who believe in fairytales like cold fusion.
-
Also full of gullible fools, who believe in fairytales like cold fusion.
There are way more fools that just belive "cold fusion does not exist". Usually people that never visited a physics lab.
-
Also full of gullible fools, who believe in fairytales like cold fusion.
Have you found a problem in this paper?
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf
Or this one?
-
Display More
Have you found a problem in this paper?
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf
Or this one?
Why should anyone waste his time by looking for problems in these two papers? They are not included among the most significant CF's documents selected in 2004 to be submitted to DoE (1). Instead, the first of those documents was the so called "Simplicity Paper" by Fleischmann and Pons, which shows how the two pioneers of CF mistook foam for liquid when calculating the excess heat claimed in their paper.
What else do you need to consider Cold Fusion a fairy tale?
(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/g…ent/DOE2004/7Papers.shtml
-
Why should anyone waste his time by looking for problems in these two papers?
You have not found any errors in these papers, or any others. The errors you think you found in the boil off experiments are entirely in your imagination. No one else agrees with you.
-
Why should anyone waste his time by looking for problems in these two papers? They are not included among the most significant CF's documents selected in 2004 to be submitted to DoE (1).
The first one was submitted to the DoE panel, along with 130 others, listed here at the bottom of this page:
https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455
Will is not listed, but there was not much about tritium in this presentation.
This only lists 8 of the papers.
They are not included among the most significant CF's documents selected in 2004 to be submitted to DoE (1). Instead, the first of those documents was the so called "Simplicity Paper" by Fleischmann and Pons, which shows how the two pioneers of CF mistook foam for liquid when calculating the excess heat claimed in their paper.
What else do you need to consider Cold Fusion a fairy tale?
You need to consider all of the major papers in the field, including the two I listed above and ~100 others. If you cannot find an error in these papers, that means cold fusion is real. No one has found any substantive errors in any of them.
You have the delusion that you found an error in the paper by F&P. You have an even weirder delusion that by finding an error in one paper, that magically disqualifies many others papers, by other authors, about other experiments. Including unrelated experiments with tritium. You think there is some magic hierarchy of papers such that when one at the bottom is wrong, the others above it fall like a house of cards. That is absurd. That is like saying that a recall defect in a Ford magically makes all other cars by Toyota and GM defective.
-
The errors you think you found in the boil off experiments are entirely in your imagination. No one else agrees with you.
You are wrong. Others have recognized that the available videos of the boil-off experiment demonstrate that the excess heat claimed by F&P was only due to a wrong interpretation of what happened inside the cells, as explained in this post (emphasis added):
RE: FP's experiments discussion
[…]
However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels. The cells seem to transition through three clear phases. In the first phase, you can see that it is mostly liquid with gradually increasing bubbles as the liquid boils. In the second phase is is mostly foam and in the third phase, the foam level rapidly decreases to zero. You can tell the foam phase because sometimes the level decreases and then increases again, which could not happen with liquid. For instance, look at Cell 1 at 21:23 when it is full of foam, 21:40 when the top of the foam is a little lower, then 21:55 when it is full of foam again. Several times the video cuts away for hours between phases 1 and 2. For Cell 1, there is a cut between about 11:30 and 18:36.
The Enthalpy Balance in the paper is based on only the last 10 minutes and assumes the liquid is boiling then. Even though I have great respect for Fleischmann's work in general, I would have to agree with Ascoli that this paper is likely flawed.
For ease of finding them again, here are links to the video and the paper. (It is hard to get much out of stills. You need to run the video to see how the levels are changing.)
This only lists 8 of the papers.
In 2004, DoE required that, in addition to a short written report, only a limited list of 6 selected CF papers should have been submitted for the review process. The F&P paper on boil-off experiment was the first paper in this list, apart the written report, so it was considered, by the most representative CF members which selected this very restricted list, the most meaningful and best described CF report issued in the previous 15 years. It follows that all the other documents published until 2004 were deemed to be less important than the F&P's "Simplicity Paper".
QuoteIf you cannot find an error in these papers, that means cold fusion is real.
No, it just means that the information provided in these papers is not sufficient to recognize the artifacts on which the author's claims are based. Thanks to the available videos, the 1992 boil-off experiment is instead the only one which allows us to see exactly what was saw by the experimenters, so that we can judge the correctness of their interpretation..
QuoteYou have the delusion that you found an error in the paper by F&P. You have an even weirder delusion that by finding an error in one paper, that magically disqualifies many others papers, by other authors, about other experiments. Including unrelated experiments with tritium. You think there is some magic hierarchy of papers such that when one at the bottom is wrong, the others above it fall like a house of cards. That is absurd.
Your obstinacy to negate such blatant errors as those present in the F&P's paper is the best confirmation that whatever incongruity is present in any other CF document it will be overlooked by you and by all the others CF experts which don't recognize this same F&P's error.
QuoteThat is like saying that a recall defect in a Ford magically makes all other cars by Toyota and GM defective.
Please, don’t mix up working and not working things.
-
Filling it with remix, melt out the tin, fill it void with carbon dust for spark motion magnetics.
we will see.
-
At the rate your going interested observer there is no point in your existence..
-
At the rate your going interested observer there is no point in your existence..
Do elaborate...
-
Take away car insurance and have everyone responsible for themselves. see how fast the jackasses are removed from the road.
self driving.... farmland only
bla bla bla
we for the most part pick the cat we like" or the truck we like
self driving boats, ships, planes, what is life,. the pursuit of things we like~
-
Take away car insurance and have everyone responsible for themselves. see how fast the jackasses are removed from the road.
self driving.... farmland only
bla bla bla
we for the most part pick the cat we like" or the truck we like
self driving boats, ships, planes, what is life,. the pursuit of things we like~
Um, are those supposed to be my views? Your views? You lost me there.
The short version of my discussions today are that people choose cars for many reasons , there are markets for all kinds of cars, and there is ample evidence that people often don’t act in their own self interest much less that of society at large. None of these things are profound or controversial. They also don’t diminish my reasons for existence.
Have a pleasant evening...
-
“Soon after self-driving cars are introduced, it will become apparent to everyone that eliminating human drivers will reduce the number of deaths to a few hundred per year. Once that becomes obvious, people will not put up with the carnage just to allow auto driving enthusiasts to have fun driving. We are not going to sacrifice 38,000 lives a year so they can engage in their hobby. That would be like allowing drag races on urban surface roads. The driving enthusiasts are going to have to move to private property and racetracks.”
I would have been far more convinced by that argument before watching an extra hundred thousand or more Americans die because people consider it too big a sacrifice of their precious personal freedom to wear a face mask at the store.
you hit a nerve with this post.
\
-
Take your 1000 model aircraft to a model aircraft field and get a midair with another aircraft....
the scam of insurance, car or heath is just a part of the rule system to pay your for.. ?
I've never had a incident with heath or crash or a ticket.. do i get my money back?
We all play in the scam of "for your safety" Forgetting its a Very Dangerous world.
-
Do you consider everyone who inadvertently triggers you to have a pointless existence? Just curious.
-
Only when you tell me what to do with my life.
