How do you convince a skeptic?

  • I thought you were just playing games, but no. You are actually so literal-minded that you don’t comprehend sarcasm. Of course I don’t ascribe the view to you that you think CF will definitely be tamed.

    Bullshit. You ascribed that view to me several times in this conversation. You repeatedly claimed that I said cold fusion can be controlled, when I said the opposite. You are not being sarcastic. You have deliberately claimed that I said the opposite of what I actually said, many times, about many different things.


    Why you do this I do not know, but it is not sarcasm. You are not fooling anyone claiming that it is.

  • Bullshit. You ascribed that view to me several times in this conversation. You repeatedly claimed that I said cold fusion can be controlled, when I said the opposite. You are not being sarcastic. You have deliberately claimed that I said the opposite of what I actually said, many times, about many different things.


    Why you do this I do not know, but it is not sarcasm. You are not fooling anyone claiming that it is.

    Sorry, but you are totally mistaken and if you were to dislodge your head from where it appears to have been inserted, you would realize it.

  • offthecuff expert-sounding response to answer my question at that time.

    CORRECTION..

    THHuxley's statement about the special active environment causing CCS


    was in response to Alan Fletcher, not me.

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    Post 78...June 2017. I think I was on #ISIS patrol at the time.

    Alan Fletcher and a few others didn't pick up on it....neither did Kirkshanahan.... it appears.

  • Because without D2 and Pd, you never get excess heat


    Not quite. lenr-forum.com/attachment/7940/

    according to Stan Szpak H20 +Magnetism works in 3 days.

    But perhaps poorer mobility of H is a factor?


    THERMAL RUNAWAY


    Stan Szpak: "The question was, what will it do if we prepare the co-deposition in normal, light water,
    and put then in a magnetic field, and electrolyze?
    The first day, nothing happened. The second day nothing happened. The third day, we see a rising
    temperature of the solution, we have a thermocouple in the solution underneath, and then, bends,
    and within a minute, boils off and explodes!"


    https://www.google.com.au/url?…Vaw3bDRDZ_Bc4pO_vhIp_nCuR

  • Venturing into plasma physics with his SK was simply motivated by having nowhere else to go to attract further funding.....cold fusion never worked with his tiny e-cats so he ventured onto the path of hot fusionists (who use plasmas so the SK is new tech which has got to work, right, otherwise ITER would not exist?) Thus more business for his heat operation even though we all know that none of it really works (like ITER) but the fiction prevails, the hope of green energy prevails and everybody is happy on planet Rossi! (and planet ITER). At least good ol' Rossi hasn't put such large holes into national budgets like ITER, cash which could have been spent on solar/geothermal R&D. Interesting that both projects are driven by the same false hope of limitless free energy.


    While no-one thinks ITER itself will be a path to commercial fusion, and it is certainly expensive, all that plasma and materials research from ITER is being used elsewhere, for example:

    https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/


    It is worth putting a few $100M into such companies. The risks are high, but the rewards are also high and the potential of much smaller-scale hot fusion using new better HTS magnets remains good.


    This site is full of people who hope for way-out fusion methods to work: I'd expect that they like me are interested in the new breed of "do hot fusion much better" people. There are also of course the weirder ones, like General Electric which has several times completely changed its initila steam-punk proposals.

  • The problem is there are no non way-out methods. Only expensive ones and cheap ones.


    As a carbon-neutral base-load capable energy source a relatively high cost is still economic, and so given all these methods are way out all that have any chance of success should be pursued.


    We might differ as to which of these methods has the most likely chances of success.

  • All its down to is discovering a system which actually WORKS and what do we want? A reactor we can load with a select mixture of transition metal powders, preferably the cheaper end of the periodic table say V,Ti, Mn, Co, Fe, Ni and Cu. H, D and Li can serve as the fusion fuel. Seal it all inside a stainless steel reactor vessel and voila, monitor gas pressure and temperature over a period of several months. The only new trick I'm trying here is to boost metal powder/fusion fuel masses up to Kg quantities, and using other likely catalysts like Fe2O3/K2CO3, If this reactor runs consistently at say 200 oC for several months with no other external interference other than modulating D/H pressure to modulate the reaction rate then we'll be in business with a commercial reactor system and we can throw out all the other cold or hot fusion ideas as a waste of space (and time!)

  • All its down to is discovering a system which actually WORKS and what do we want? A reactor we can load with a select mixture of transition metal powders, preferably the cheaper end of the periodic table say V,Ti, Mn, Co, Fe, Ni and Cu. H, D and Li can serve as the fusion fuel. Seal it all inside a stainless steel reactor vessel and voila, monitor gas pressure and temperature over a period of several months. The only new trick I'm trying here is to boost metal powder/fusion fuel masses up to Kg quantities, and using other likely catalysts like Fe2O3/K2CO3, If this reactor runs consistently at say 200 oC for several months with no other external interference other than modulating D/H pressure to modulate the reaction rate then we'll be in business with a commercial reactor system and we can throw out all the other cold or hot fusion ideas as a waste of space (and time!)

    Let's say you set up ten of those, with varying weights of "critical mass from 400 grams to 1.4Kgrams in 100 gram increments. All of which have the same level of sealed protection enclosure.


    Then I would predict at least 5 would melt down, and they would get so hot they'd melt past the enclosure down into the ground. And their distance of how far down into the earth they'd go will correspond to how much weight the original reactors each had.


  • RB - I'm sorry not to be on LF 24/7 - but I have other things to do!


    Not enough info to assign real probabilities, but as indication I'll put them in order:


    Tokomak Energy/ MIT equiv > FF > Hora et al laser-driven HB GE > LENR


    (no doubt there are other contenders).


    THH

  • RB - I'm sorry not to be on LF 24/7


    Its a good thing that you aren't on 24/7

    please find other things to do 24/7

    judging by your extreme imprecision and glibness.


    Tokomak Energy/ MIT equiv > FF > Hora et al laser-driven HB GE > LENR

    How much has Hora spent on his laser driven stuff

    currently on the backburner in UNSW?

    The patents are owned by HB11 Energy, Australia

    Perhaps you might pursue Hora with some of your cash or 24/7 time

    or HB11 energy... Hora is 87 years old.

    don't waste your time on LENR

    Prototype in ten years .

    https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/n…contender%E2%80%99-energy


  • Imprecision and glibness is common on internet forums. I don't believe your strong reactions to my posts are because of imprecision: but rather because I articulate clearly arguments different from the ones you wish to articulate. "Glibness" implies a lack of detail and while I am capable of that, as we all are, I don't think looking at my overall contribution here you can see i avoid details. Rather the reverse - I'm often interested in details. I tend to post them, and notably correct them when they are wrong.


    It is a concern that Hora is basically out of it now: the proof of the pudding or otherwise will be whether he has managed to convince other competent people in the area.


    Anyway, I take your rhetorical questions to mean that you rate all these alternate fusion attempts as less likely to win the race to become commercial first than LENR? What would your ordering be?


    THH

  • It is a concern that Hora is basically out of it now:


    The last serious paper (> 1 year ago) I read about Hora was full of best cases scenarios like the direct collections of electrical energy out of an Alpha particle stream. Nobody did show this for a blast stream so far...It works for a homogenous stream.

    The trigger energy for 11B +H fusion is about 300'000 eV's compared to about 100eV needed for 7Li...


    Thus the main problem to solve is the same as ITER has. How long can he contain/stabilize the ignited fuel? I would say there is no chance as the outcome is highly kinetic alphas. Thus it's just shockwave fusion for one shot. Then he has to wait a long time for a next shot...


    It's all about doing fancy research. 10 years is very optimistic and if he uses private capital then he will feel the deadline... But at least they don't leave us an ITER like present with 100'000 tons of activated waste....

  • are because of imprecision: but rather because I articulate clearly arguments

    Your arguments such as 1.5 +/- 0.3 is 6 figure precision?

    I'm definitely a skeptic about that Durr et al 2015 paper you cited

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf

    You have yet to convince me about Stephan Durr's n-p mass postdiction.

    Could it possibly be that your argument was over the top confidence about QED/QCD?

    What would your ordering be?

    Why would I be a glib as you to give a simplistic one line ordering?

    The question is a whole lot more complicated than that

    as you now realise by suggesting Hora et al

    as a better option than LENR..in one line.


    If you believe that LENR is last priority why do you spend

    so much time on LENR forum..??

    other people need your imprecise and biased support.. Hora etc?

    Viva le Hora ... he's been at it for a long time.

    ^ H. Hora, Nature 333 (1988) 337