QuoteThese advantages are not self-evident.
Oh, OK. The advantages of a limitless, cheap, safe, non-radioactive energy source are not self-evident? OK, Jed. If you say so.
Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.
-
-
not self-evident?
SOT's understanding is not self-evident but its dopamine kicks are
-
Oh, OK. The advantages of a limitless, cheap, safe, non-radioactive energy source are not self-evident?
There is much more to it than that. Some advantages are self-evident, but many others are not. If you want to know what I mean, read my book. Report back if you knew everything I listed there even before you read it. If you did, you are not only much smarter than me, you are smarter than Fleischmann, Bockris, Mallove, Adm. Griffin, Arthur C. Clarke and several other people combined. They advised me, and they came up with most of the ideas in the book.
See:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
The advantages and disadvantages of nascent technology are seldom perfectly clear to anyone. To see what I mean, read descriptions of what people thought computers were good for, and what they thought the limitations of computers would be when computers were first invented in the late 1940s, and again around 1980 when microcomputers came on the scene. If the advantages had been self-evident, the minicomputer companies such as DEC and Data General would not have gone out of business. They would have reacted correctly, and taken advantage of the new technology. Data General might easily have been as large as Microsoft, because IBM considered using their operating system instead of Microsoft's. They might have sold it independently. It was far better than PC-DOS.
-
Here is a more recent paper I wrote about the benefits of cold fusion:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf
This took me several weeks of research, writing and rewriting. No doubt, Seven_of_twenty knows all this stuff already, and he could have written the whole paper "before breakfast," as they say in Japanese. He finds this self-evident, whereas I have to work to understand these issues. Next time I need a paper I will ask him to write it. It will save me a lot of time and effort.
-
Quote
SOT's understanding is not self-evident but its dopamine kicks are
Some folks here exhibit a great difficulty in attending to facts and issues, preferring instead tangential insults. That alone tells me a great deal. They are upset because what skeptics, including me, write, undermines their not very solidly held beliefs. In other words, some people around here don't have much confidence in the crap they peddle.
That's not the case with JedRothwell . While we disagree, at least he includes facts and reasoning in his arguments. I regret I am not that interested in the benefits of cold fusion until there is cold fusion. If and when that happens, I will be delighted to read Jed's book in all the detail it deserves. I am sure it's well written like most of what Jed writes. I just don't need it right now.
-
I regret I am not that interested in the benefits of cold fusion until there is cold fusion.
Yes, it is best to go into future unprepared, with no knowledge of history and no understanding of new technology. It is more fun that way! Why learn about self-driving cars now, when only a few are in service on the roads? Why should anyone in business bother to learn about artificial intelligence or robotics? They won't have an impact. There was no advantage to learning about the internet in 1990, after all.
If and when that happens, I will be delighted to read Jed's book in all the detail it deserves. I am sure it's well written like most of what Jed writes. I just don't need it right now.
You don't need it at all. You say the advantages of cold fusion are self-evident. Why would anyone need a whole book to learn about something that is self-evident? The whole thing should fit on a post card. It is like the self-evident advantages of Brexit, and the ease with which it has been implemented. As a conservative put it: "Trade relations with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of tea," -- Gerard Batten, February 2017
Mr. Batten was able to make firm predictions about the future, trade relations and economics without actually knowing anything about these subjects. By the same token, you can pontificate about cold fusion endlessly, even though you know nothing about the experiments, the economics, or the likely impact it might have. You "don't need" any of that. Because it is self-evident! Knowledge is overrated.
-
Here is another scheme for Jed to peruse... not really high tech, more anti tax, anti vaccine, and UFO. But it apparently cost the US taxpayers a cool billion dollars. At least these scumbags are in prison, may they rot there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…zens-financial-crime.html
In this world, momentarily profitable scams are extremely, exceedingly common.
============================================================================
Hey Jed, when the original GM electrical car came out, the EV1, I was sort of casually curious. Some of it's advantages were obvious and maybe additional ones were more subtle. But I had no need to purchase a detailed book about those. The EV1 was quite impractical for most people. But now, I still didn't read about advantages but I own a hybrid car and my next one will probably be full on electric like the Tesla. Not knowing all the advantages didn't prove a hindrance. Similarly, if LENR ever becomes practical, then and only then, will I spend the time to read all the details. And not knowing every subtle advantage won't prevent me from buying an LENR room heater if there is ever one to be bought,. Scholarly is good Jed, but there is such a thing as a bit too scholarly.
-
I regret I am not that interested in the benefits of cold fusion until there is cold fusion.
Good, then we can look forward to you just staying the hell out of the way.
-
But I had no need to purchase a detailed book about those. The EV1 was quite impractical for most people.
I strongly disagree. The EV1 performance, mileage range and so on was similar to the Nissan Leaf. (Both 70 to 100 miles.) The Leaf is selling like hotcakes. There are thousands in Atlanta, and they are very practical. That's what the drivers tell me. The EV1 was expensive but if GM had continued to make it, it would have become a lot cheaper.
-
Similarly, if LENR ever becomes practical, then and only then, will I spend the time to read all the details.
That's fine, but in that case you should refrain from discussing the issue. Don't tell us the advantages are "self-evident." How would you know? Don't tell us it can or cannot succeed. If you don't know the details, you don't know anything, because technology is a big pile of details.
In the 1970s I read a weighty report on the future of computers, written by people at a major consulting company. Someone in upper management commissioned this report for tons of money, I think. It looked that way. Anyway, the report was nonsense because the people writing it did not know how computers work. For example, they did not know the difference between ROM, EPROM and hard disk storage. They did not know where programs live. I was a junior programmer at a big company, and I could have written a far better report. You have to know how the machine works to predict anything about it. (Back then we really did know the machines, because they were small. We knew the whole darn instruction set!)
I hope you get what I mean, and I hope you will refrain from discussing machines, performance and other things you just told us you have no interest in learning about. As Kev put it: "Good, then we can look forward to you just staying the hell out of the way."
-
SOT holds these truths to be self-evident: that all SOTS and
MYs are created equal; that they are endowed by themselves with certain unalienable rights;that among these are the right to libel, liberty to misconstrue, and the pursuit of dopamine
-
The Leaf is selling like hotcakes
My Dad and sister both drive Leafs in Auckland
Filling up with electricity has been free for two years
courtesy of the NZ govt.
Was EV1 as impractical as SOT asserts self-evidently?
?? If the Ev1 was like the Leaf
it would be very practical in NZ..
Would I buy one in Sydney.? No.. The 30C summers
aren't kind to battery performance and there is nowhere to fill up.
-
Some folks here exhibit a great difficulty in attending to facts and issues, preferring instead tangential insults. That alone tells me a great deal. They are upset because what skeptics, including me, write, undermines their not very solidly held beliefs.
This coming from a person who didn’t bother to read the SRI reports, as evidenced by the fact he mistook a press release for the second one several pages back, but still prefers to insult Godes/Brillouin with unevidenced claims of dishonesty.
And remind me of what “facts” you’ve uncovered? That Brillouin spelt the word ‘Hydrogen’ wrong six years ago? That a 90 second YouTube video can propel you into a foul-mouthed apoplexy? That when skim-reading a short email chain you prefer to confirm your own biases, rather than taking 10 seconds to double-check your own idiocy?
Your bufoonery hardly undermines my “beliefs”. To think that someone could prefer their own uneducated opinions over gathering, and putting effort into understanding, the evidence - and then being highly vocal about it - is breathtaking.
This kind of belligerent dumbness amuses at first, until a feeling of pity overtakes me: that there may be more people like you, the end-product of millions of years of evolution*, noisily revelling in their lack of knowledge and reactionary 'thinking'.
Your entire, carefully-honed argument is: “I’m skeptical because I’m a skeptic”... And nothing more.
You are undeserving of reasoned response, and should be thankful that anyone pays enough attention to you to offer an appropriately mocking or insulting reply.
ETA:
* Speaking of which, Darwin's Bulldog; THHuxley, and Darwin's Denier; Kirk Shanahan, the two authorities you appeal to the most, in lieu of actually reading anything, seem suspiciously quiet in this thread.
I wonder why that is?
-
Display More
This coming from a person who didn’t bother to read the SRI reports, as evidenced by the fact he mistook a press release for the second one several pages back, but still prefers to insult Godes/Brillouin with unevidenced claims of dishonesty.
And remind me of what “facts” you’ve uncovered? That Brillouin spelt the word ‘Hydrogen’ wrong six years ago? That a 90 second YouTube video can propel you into a foul-mouthed apoplexy? That when skim-reading a short email chain you prefer to confirm your own biases, rather than taking 10 seconds to double-check your own idiocy?
Your bufoonery hardly undermines my “beliefs”. To think that someone could prefer their own uneducated opinions over gathering, and putting effort into understanding, the evidence - and then being highly vocal about it - is breathtaking.
This kind of belligerent dumbness amuses at first, until a feeling of pity overtakes me: that there may be more people like you, the end-product of millions of years of evolution*, noisily revelling in their lack of knowledge and reactionary 'thinking'.
Your entire, carefully-honed argument is: “I’m skeptical because I’m a skeptic”... And nothing more.
You are undeserving of reasoned response, and should be thankful that anyone pays enough attention to you to offer an appropriately mocking or insulting reply.
ETA:
* Speaking of which, Darwin's Bulldog; THHuxley, and Darwin's Denier; Kirk Shanahan, the two authorities you appeal to the most, in lieu of actually reading anything, seem suspiciously quiet in this thread.
I wonder why that is?
Zeuss:
Perhaps because my comments here do not mediate dopamine pathways
I find Brillouin / SRI interesting. I'll comment a lot when there is new info. (I did comment at the time).
Brillouin may need $15M or whatever to make this commercial.
I'd suggest that instead they spend $200K on independent research to check, test, and improve the SRI instrumentation and calorimetry assumptions.
The claimed results are consistent and large enough to make absolutely irrefutable "found LENR or something else valuable" science if they can be tightened a bit. Nothing in the setup here I can see that prevents that tightening. (I may be misremembering the total energy out and possibility of chemical mechanisms, but I hope/think they are well beyond that).
The two issues to tighten from the reports I've seen are:
Uncertainty in power in due to HF stimulus
Uncertainty in TC measurements due to rectified EMI from HF stimulus somewhere in the TC amplification chain.
Both should be pretty easy to measure and prove not an issue (if the claims are real). Both are characteristic problems of the Q pulse.
SRI are expert in calorimetry, and show it from what they discuss, so although there might be some issues there I do not see that as problematic directly.
I'm less sure they are expert in the unusual challenges from Q pulse RFI because there was not enough discussion of this in the reports I've read, and it is a pretty different area from classic calorimetry.
-
Quote
I'd suggest that instead they spend $200K on independent research to check, test, and improve the SRI instrumentation and calorimetry assumptions
Don't worry, they won't. It's the last thing Godes would like else he would have arranged for it long before now-- remember that the claimed results 4 years ago are essentially the same as now. And I suspect they will be same 4 years from now, still unverified. BLP is the model for Brillouin.
-
Quote
Don't tell us the advantages are "self-evident."
Jed, you are the poster child for nit picking. -Some- advantages are self evident. Happy now?
-
Quote
If the Ev1 was like the Leaf
it would be very practical in NZ..
Most EV1's had lead acid batteries, not at all like the Leaf. And the Leaf is a short range car of modest performance which is best for short commutes in the city where you can recharge at destination. It is most practical as a second car. The older ones are also sinfully ugly but that's another issue. This is obviously OTC for this string so if admins wish to move it ...
-
This latest battle is a real winner. SOT says that if there is an unlimited, cheap and safe energy source, it would change the world. Jed says he has no business saying that. First you have to read his book and the rest of cold fusion literature. Sorry, but to paraphrase some iconic Jewish liturgy, an unlimited, cheap and safe energy source is the story. The rest is just commentary.
-
SOT,
You are being unfair to BEC. If you would read their reports carefully, and pay attention to what others here have said, you would not being saying the things you are...or would you?
Imagine the frustration someone like Godes must go through, while reading the list of "must do's" those like you insist he and his team accomplish, when it has been done already, *and* their work made public, *and* talked about on the net. That is probably why he let loose in the comments section the other day. But let me guess...you did not read that either?
-
Zeuss:
I'd suggest that instead they spend $200K on independent research to check, test, and improve the SRI instrumentation and calorimetry assumptions.
Huxleys, it seems (to me) that this has already happened. The third SRI report talks about a 'fourth party' contactor who has crunched the differential versions of the calorimetry equations, in order to assess short-term/instantaneous power outputs. Granted that's not quite the same as being paid to verify the original equations, but, I would also think that's an inherent part of that process.
Display MoreThe two issues to tighten from the reports I've seen are:
Uncertainty in power in due to HF stimulus
Uncertainty in TC measurements due to rectified EMI from HF stimulus somewhere in the TC amplification chain.
Both should be pretty easy to measure and prove not an issue (if the claims are real). Both are characteristic problems of the Q pulse.
SRI are expert in calorimetry, and show it from what they discuss, so although there might be some issues there I do not see that as problematic directly.
I'm less sure they are expert in the unusual challenges from Q pulse RFI because there was not enough discussion of this in the reports I've read, and it is a pretty different area from classic calorimetry.
Fair comment, although some things to note:
You would think discrepancies in the input measurement caused by HF weirdnesses would be highlighted during control tests on empty reactors.
It's also very possible to measure the power input upstream of the Qpulse control box. LCC says Brillouin claims this has been done, and whilst it reduces the COP, it also avoids the possibility for arguments. Although it's all unpublished so far...
