This is why my recurrent position is that to make LENR accepted, one should ignore the physicist, probably any scientist, and focus on engineers, which mean make a useful prototype where the physicist "there is an artifact" motto will never be accepted by modest engineers who have foot on the earth.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the field of crystallography, then, you would have ignored Shechtman because he wasn't an engineer?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the field of crystallography, then, you would have ignored Shechtman because he wasn't an engineer?
But Shechtman is an engineer, he is mechanical engineer and his PhD is in engineering, and this is mentioned in at least one of the links posted in this thread so far.
Another famous engineer that obtained a Nobel in field that wasn’t his initial career was Hannes Alfven (electric engineer winning the Physics Nobel) and that is a whole different controversy.
But Shechtman is an engineer, he is mechanical engineer and his PhD is in engineering, and this is mentioned in at least one of the links posted in this thread so far.
You are absolutely right. Schectman's degrees are in engineering. My argument remains the same though ... would you ignore Einstein because he wasn't an engineer? Would you ignore others who made revolutionary discoveries because they weren't engineers? AlainCo's idea just seems wrongheaded.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the field of crystallography, then, you would have ignored Shechtman because he wasn't an engineer?
My demand of engineers is about modestly accepting data despite lack of theory ("so it happens, and I have no idea why... let us make it usable, reliable, stable. For the theory, that is the job for physicists, and I will ask Big Boss to propose a grant. "...)
A physicist, with his experimental training and his constructed ego, is good to find anomalies that nobody dared to find. But scientific peers with no less ego have problem to admit they were fooled by the crowd... Science is a fight of ego. In fact, I see that what convince is not evidences (easy to deny them), but the ambition of some looking at evidences who finally get the fame and the budget. With good hate campaign, ambition can be castrated.
The ego of engineer is when it works, not why (even if knowing why is very important for the things not to explode in front of the client. Anyway there is a grant budget for finding why).
NB: I exaggerate a little as borders between scientists and engineers is fuzzy... But sure the "evidences convince the scientists" is a pure myth... It's very complex human game... Maybe the difference is not between engineers and scientists, but academic and corporate...
Note that Pasteur was a chemist who lose a kid of disease, not a doctor. Skin in the game and not trained in the old paradigm.
As an engineer, admittedly of a rather humble branch (agricultural engineering) but with a plus side that you need to know from many sciences including biology to be able to work in solving problems, I think that the plus of approaching science from the purely applied perspective is that you have to be able to quantify impacts in practical terms and the potential I mpact of LENR is visible and extremely attractive to any engineer to not be tempted to look. Even when I have to perform a peer review in the field of desalination I always put the practical side above any other consideration, as if I fail to see the potential application of the science being presented, or the potential advantage of a new approach with regards to prior art, I loose interest quickly.
QuoteEven worse, it [vitamin C] can damage your esophagus due to reflux and induce cancer...
Maybe in huge doses. Maybe not. Have a reference in the scholarly literature? Here is one that says the opposite-- that Vitamin C is protective against esophageal cancer. This is a meta-analysis of 20 studies:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26355388
Also possibly slightly protective against lung cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25145261
Don't worry though. I never read anything... or so some people here tell me.
Maybe in huge doses. Maybe not. Have a reference in the scholarly literature? Here is one that says the opposite-- that Vitamin C is protective against esophageal cancer. This is a meta-analysis of 20 studies:
The problem is resorption: only<1% enters the body. There were some success with injections. I took it with fruit juice. Best is apple skin that contains a promoter enzyme for resorption. Thus if you do it intelligently then its no risk. But I know some person that had problems but that's not statistics...
What? 1%? By what unearthly route? Transdermal maybe?
Oral bioavailability is 100% for a modest dose (20 mg) and about 33- 50% for 1.2 grams (a large dose). See for yourself:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC39676/?page=3
You may want to check some sources before your next pronouncement on this subject.
There's an additional area I won't mention where the truth is going to come out as well - and I'll make it my goal in life to make sure that no one on this forum ever gets to discuss it!
I'm there with you Director, let's storm that area in September. I am easy driving distance to Area 51 and I am considering going, at least for the party, and I want to Naruto run.
Seriously, the UFO story has more chance of truth than Rossi having something. Unless he copies Mizuno. Maybe Mizuno started the Naruto thing.
