And where are the working reactors? I am asking the hard questions here.
The Real Roger Barker
Member
- Member since Jul 21st 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by The Real Roger Barker
-
-
-
It is not an excuse. It is a fact. You give me details of a working reactor and I'll concede. Until then it's all smoke and mirrors.
-
Display More
No, she isn't. She says she does not understand McKubre's papers. Anyone who does not understand those papers does not understand calorimetry, because McKubre's calorimetry is relatively simple and easy to understand, by design, as McKubre himself explains in his papers.
Yes, there were hundreds of working reactors. They were run thousands of times, as the paper from He shows. They were all small laboratory bench-top devices. Larger reactors cannot be constructed. No one knows how to effectively control the reaction so it cannot be scaled up. Some progress in control and reproducibility has been made, as you see in the papers by McKubre and the ENEA.
There are not now, today, hundreds of reactors because -- as I said before -- the researchers are dead from old age. Dead people do not conduct experiments.
(Note that when I say "as you see" I mean you have to actually read the papers. You have not read the papers, and I doubt you will. If you had read anything, you wouldn't need me to spoon-feed you the above information. Anyone familiar with the research knows what I just wrote.)
My point still stands Jed. Despite your claim of thousands of successful tests we are yet to see one working reactor.
Can you please provide me a link to McKubre's paper. I will read it and then we'll discuss.
-
And looks like you're stalking me ...
If you don't like what I post then I suggest you do as Eric says and block me.
-
Well tough if you don't like what I am writing. I'm not going to pander to your demands. Who do you think I am?
-
Alan I am legitimately puzzled and curious. I honestly cannot figure MY's motivation here. If it were not for the fact that I've seen posts here which seem to credit him/her with at least some scientific credentials I would have written him/her off months ago as a paid astroturfer. If not, then Rossi must have done something exceptionally personal and especially agregious to him/her at sometime in the past, for him/her to hate him so much. The only other person here who even comes close is Jed Rothwell and I at least know who he is.
Oh boy, you don't even know the half of it rookie. At least Mary is reigned in here, somewhat. You should have seen hir at ECN.
I kid you not, if you had 1c for every post Mary Yugo has made on the internet you'd be a multi-millionaire. Guaranteed.
Moved from the E-Cat QX thread. Eric
-
No, IHFB. I just don't want to lose money because someone can weasel. The wording should make it clear that if Rossi is selling a useful ecat product that people really want, and which gets energy in a clearly anomalous way, I lose the bet. What more would you want?
Astronomical odds eh Mary? so you'd be willing to give me a 1000000:1 odds? I'll bet you a $1.
-
Admins/Moderators
I am calling out these anti-me posts. What's going on here people? What happened to freedom of speech?!
You guys call me a stalker but what about Mary Yugo? All you ever see her do is denigrate me.
-
Look guys, I like to ask the HARD questions. That is what I was known for in ECN. If you don't like me challenging the residents here then that's too bad.
The fact is Rossi has taken us for a ride over the last 7 years. We went from eCat, to fat cat to quark x to God only knows what's coming next. And all the time we've had ZERO clear demonstrations from Rossi.
I will continue to ask the HARD questions.
-
No, it's not a copout for two people who can't stand one another to press the "block" button, so that other people do not have to be witness to their squabble. That's just a courtesy. This place is not a place for food fights, or for creepily stalking people, such as you're doing, however much one objects to the manner of another's participation here.
Eric, I resent this. Why are you saying I am stalking people? I am not doing any such thing.
People need to have a sense of humor. We all take jabs at each other. That's just part and parcel of posting on a forum like this. It's fun!
-
Indeed, this is what I'm talking about. I could not have articulated it better except perhaps Defkalion was missed out. That is the safe word.
-
I can't, unfortunately, nor do I want to. I find that both of you have interesting things to say. The food fighting sets a bad example for others, though, which makes me wish you guys would block one another.
Hi Eric, blocking would be a bit of a cop out on this forum. As we know Mary loves to post and her life revolves around posting on forums. There is no disputing this. I say let her be. We should be at liberty to reply to those who we wish to talk to. That's freedom of speech, right?
-
Zeus and Mary. I can mediate here.
What's on your mind guys, let's discuss. It can be like ECN all over again! -
Display More
You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.
ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.
The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That's HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.
No, she is not an expert. She does not even understand McKubre's paper, which is one the easier ones. She has not identified anything as far as I know, and she has not published any papers pointing out errors. No one has, except Morrison (linked to above), and Shanahan.
No, she has not. Her only comments have been: "I have not read it." "I read it but I don't understand it." And, "The results are too small for me to think about" where "small" is defined as whatever power level the researchers achieved.
Firstly Jed, I can assure you I am no troll. No more than Mary is. Yes, I get under Mary's skin because I have given her the HARD questions, just like you have, and Mary has no response. However credit where credit is due and Mary is an EXPERT on calorimetry. This I have established based on the countless posts she has made and the many sessions we've had together.
Now back on topic. My point still stands about the so called "thousands of successful tests" of the P&F effect. If we've had so many successful tests then surely one would have created a working reactor a long time ago.
-
Notwithstanding your sentiments, you are engaging a pure troll. I challenge anyone to point me to a coherent and intelligent discussion to which this pseudonymous individual has contributed anything of value of any sort.
Mary, why are you getting so angry? Relax. Jed and I are having a discussion on the P&F method. -
... that sorry piece of derelict humanity.
Mary, let's leave this type of talk for one of our sessions please.
-
I was referring to Peter Gluck as distinguished. He is also the one with pending eye surgery, blindness and God knows what else. He's in the hospital. He can't defend his blog against trolls. You can't read the post? It's sixth grade English.
Yes it is sad to hear about Peter's condition but really nice of you Mary to wish him well. We all wish him well.
-
They did validate Fleischmann Pons on a regular basis. Roughly 17,000 times according to a grad student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, at 180 labs according to Ed Storms. (Not me. I didn't count 'em.)
They are not replicating on a regular basis now because they are dead. Of old age.Nope. No skeptic has ever found any problem with the calorimetry in any mainstream study. They have looked, but they found nothing. I am sure you would not find anything if you were to read the literature, which I am equally sure you will not do.
17,000 times?! That would mean we should all be powering our homes with palladium based fusion reactors in our basements. We know this is not happening so someone got something wrong here.
I'm not a calorimeter expert. Mary Yugo is though [identifying suppositions omitted ...]. Mary has identified numerous shortcomings of the calorimetry methods used by P&F and Rossi as well. IIRC Mary has raised concerns about the probe locations and insertion methodology.
Hoping Mary will comment on this thread to elaborate on her concerns.
Please respect the anonymity of people who wish to remain anonymous. Eric
-
No. Maryyugo wrote: "I was 100% accurate. Yay for skeptopathy." Something apparently was lost in translation from English to dummy.
So are you admitting you're a skeptopath Mary? What is your take on Rossi now?
