Paradigmnoia Great observations.
seven_of_twenty
Member
- Member since Apr 3rd 2018
- Last Activity:
Posts by seven_of_twenty
-
-
Quote
it is easy to show how LENR works.
Apparently it is easier to show how it works than that it works.
-
Quote
Time to get back on topic, this is not a thread about 'the bomb'.
I think the issue was that Wyttenbach was saying that H-H fusion (or in Ivy Mike, D-D and D-T fusion) doesn't occur. Or at least can't make a bomb. I think that is what he was saying. Anyway, it's what I responded to. And just to finish off the topic, robert bryant , there was in fact a flyable bomb design based on Ivy Mike.
QuoteDue to its physical size and fusion fuel type (cryogenic liquid deuterium), the Mike device was not suitable for use as a deliverable weapon; it was intended as an extremely conservative proof of concept experiment to validate the concepts used for multi-megaton detonations. A simplified and lightened bomb version (the EC-16) was prepared and scheduled to be tested in operation Castle Yankee, as a backup in case the non-cryogenic "Shrimp" fusion device (tested in Castle Bravo) failed to work; that test was cancelled when the Bravo device was tested successfully, making the cryogenic designs obsolete.
(Wikipedia on Operation Ivy Mike)
-
Quote
SOT in French is a good descritption... The above mentionned nuclear process is the so called Lithium fusion/fission bomb. Has nothing to do with hydrogen fusion. As a consequence of this long time hidden knowledge the US still controlls all nuclear data related to LIthium. They also force IAEA to publish wrong data about e.g. Lithium nuclear radius. Thanks to Sachrow we know most details about the Lithium (aka hydrogen) bomb.
And people accuse me of not reading. By the way I think where you wrote "Sachrow," it's Sakharov you're thinking of. Great man. Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov .
No hydrogen fusion in fusion bombs? That would be news to the people who worked on Project Ivy in the 1950's and more particularly, Ivy Mike which used pure liquid deuterium as fusion fuel and yielded >10 megatons. In retrospect, a good part of that yield was fission occurring in the 5 ton natural uranium "tamper" and additional fission in the plutonium "sparkplug" at the center. But about 1/3 of the yield was deuterium-deuterium fusion, chosen for its comparative ease of analysis. https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ivy.html
When I was younger the story of the Teller-Ulam weapons fascinated me. So much power in so little volume. And large amounts of cryogenic temperature liquid deuterium, no expense spared, in Ivy Mike. In fact. there is a fascinating, personal, stark, and beautifully written one page story about "Mike." It's written by the person responsible for maintaining and pumping the huge quantity of liquid deteurium required for "Mike" and what the very unique machine that did the job was like. The story is found here and I recommend it highly: http://www.as.utexas.edu/~wheel/writing/sleet_sue.text
If you don't want to be an object of ridicule, Wyttenbach , get your facts together before you insult someone. And I am sure I will be the one to be regularly be accused of never reading anything.
-
Is someone saying hot fusion doesn't work? Doesn't exist?
-
Quote
His "further investigation" was hefty: Woodford Patient Capital Trust marked up the estimated value of its stake by more than 350% to $113 million last year, valuing Industrial Heat at $918 million, the Financial Times said
Some say based on what people were willing to pay. I say based on pure fantasy.
-
Quote
How many people have actually asked SOT about LENR?
Send me a private forum message via "conversations" if you want to know more about this
BTW, all advice on forums is unsolicited. By anyone who matters, anyway.
-
whatever, Jed. You miss the point completely. My opinion is irrelevant. What I had been saying about Rossi since 2011 was point on in virtually every detail and that didn't stop people from giving him millions. My opinion is only relevant to the few people over the years who asked me about LENR and also about a few other tech claims... and just for the record, with respect to LENR proposals, I never told them not to invest, even in Rossi. What I contributed was what to insist upon for testing. So your rant, as it applies to me, is entirely useless.
-
I don't disagree that scientific research incorporates lots of corrupt and questionable practices. But the claims for cold fusion are that it can yield useful energy on cheap fuel and produces no radiation, Were it possible to demonstrate the claims credibly to reasonable well educated scientists and entrepreneurs, there would be no problem getting funding. Much of the distaste for cold fusion and LENR in the scientific community arises from grandiose claims which never came to anything approaching fruition. You can count most of the honest "usual suspects" as well as crooks like Rossi among those responsible. There is no way that a credible project would not find funding in the likes of Gates, Buffet, Musk, and Bezos not to mention many "lesser" multi-billionaire investors.
LENR proponents claim Gates has invested. What more do you want? If his original investment bears fruit according to his hopefully unbiased in house talent, the sky will be the limit, just from that one billionaire and his altruistic foundation. You can't have it both ways.
BTW, here's a thought. Have Godes from Brillouin and Tanzella from SRI go on Shark Tank. Their application should be accepted eagerly and there are always at least two technologically well versed investors on the Tank. And all they care about is making money. Start here: https://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/applications
-
I don't know if the failings you find in the standard model of physics, whatever exactly that is, are real but if so, they do not justify rote belief in outlying ideas. There is a lot we don't know, maybe starting with dark matter and energy for an example. Our ignorance of the cosmos doesn't justify belief in improbable alternative theories. For example UFO's do not equal "aliens."
And while there is much missing, we have learned a lot, especially with the advent of supercomputers, very powerful particle accelerators and of course, the wondrous Hubble telescope.
-
rubycarat wrote:
QuoteTRANSLATE: Research would have disqualified Rossi.
google had research, and they failed. Why?
Not sure what you mean by that. Woodford's error was trusting Darden. Darden is the one who failed to vet Rossi properly. Darden should have consulted first and foremost with Krivit. Then, he would have known of Rossi's extensive record of criminality and failures. Darden should have contacted a DOD representative involved in the thermoelectric project with Rossi -- the one that cost them upwards of $9M and resulted in junk.
But Darden's worst failure was to not adequately test the old ecats. As even JedRothwell and other variously rabid Rossi critics said from the start in 2011, this is not all that difficult to do but it requires independent experts in calorimetry. Any proper test of the original ecats involving sparging of the output steam or careful mass flow calorimetry would have revealed that they did not work. Rossi's specific methods of cheating, which IMO changed at times, would have been revealed. The other essentials for the tests would have been blanks and calibration which Rossi steadfastly refused to allow. Nobody involved in any way with Rossi should have been relied upon for testing his claims. This was especially true because of his
obvious and well documented record.
ETA: Rossi would have most likely refused truly independent and competent testing but of course, that also would have revealed that the ecat did not work.
So in summary, the original screwup was entirely Darden's and IH's advisers, whoever they were. Woodford's errors were blindly trusting an improbable claim, not hiring his own capable consultants and then shutting down polite debate about it on the company's own discussion web page back in 2013 or so IIRC. For this, he deserves every bit of failure which comes his way. He and Darden had every opportunity to get it right but they ignored every attempt by capable people to inform them of how. Many acolytes of Rossi's felt free to treat his critics with scorn, censorship, and even doxing, stalking and threats of violence. Do you think these people will now apologize? If you do, get a clue!
Meanwhile Rossi = happy = condos.
-
The classic specious claim for using hydrogen and oxygen to boost internal combustion engines is that you use engine power to drive a generator to generate electricity with which to electrolyze water. The resulting oxygen and hydrogen is then mixed and reintroduced into the engine through some sort of magical carburetor or injector and because of this, fuel economy is greatly improved. Many scams have been based on this idiocy. While injecting small amounts of hydrogen into an engine may boost mileage somewhat, generating it entirely from onboard power results invariably in net losses. This is glossed over by the same sort of imbeciles and scammers who push magnetic motors and other impossibilia on gullible investors.
The above would not apply to legitimate applications of hydrogen, oxygen and fuel cells, as, for example, where solar energy is the source of power used to achieve electrolysis.
And far as I know, the claim that Brown's gas (""Brown's gas" and HHO are fringe science terms for oxyhydrogen." -Wikipedia) has apparently magical properties is false. It's just oxygen and hydrogen mixed together and that is, at the ratio the scammers promote, an explosive mix.
QuoteDisplay MoreFringe science
Brown's gas has become associated with various exaggerated claims.[16][17] It's also called "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist[18] Ruggero Santilli, who claims that his HHO gas, produced by a special apparatus, is "a new form of water", with new properties, based on his fringe theory of "magnecules".[17] ("MagneGas" or "MagneHydrogen") .
Many other pseudoscientific claims have been made about Brown's gas's pretended ability to neutralize radioactive waste, help plants to germinate, etc.[17]
Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with vehicles that claim to use water as a fuel. The most common and decisive counter-argument against producing this gas on board to use as a fuel or fuel additive is that more energy is needed to split water molecules than is recouped by burning the resulting gas.[16][19] Additionally, the volume of gas that can be produced for on-demand consumption through electrolysis is very small in comparison to the volume consumed by an internal combustion engine.[20]
An article in Popular Mechanics reported that Brown's gas does not increase the fuel economy in automobiles.[21]
"Water-fueled" cars should not be confused with hydrogen-fueled cars, where the hydrogen is produced elsewhere and used as fuel or where it is used as fuel enhancement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
ETA: I am not sure what is currently meant by Ohmasa gas. In the past (2009) Sterling Alan's Peswiki page touted it as being water as fuel. That's nonsense. Water is not fuel.
-
I'm pretty sure PhysicsForDummies meant that as humor.
-
PhysicsForDummies Interesting question I've been curious about for a long time.
Is Mats sincere about his belief in Rossi in which case he is terminally dumb or is he dishonest about it?My thought is that he is honest. I've read his book and I participated in his forum as long as it was uncensored and my rather sensitive scam antennae were never stimulated by anything Mats did or wrote. My strong suspicion is that he really believed Rossi and mostly still does though it would be incredible if he didn't occasionally have at least twinges of second thoughts. Apart from the fact that Mats seems to have an honest personality, there doesn't seem to be enough profit in Rossi's scams for outsiders for them to be dishonest on Rossi's behalf.Edited: No reason to add this other than to slip in an insult. Shane
-
Quote
Or Rossi is bogus and IH and Woodford are a bunch of dummies.
Rossi should have been seen as bogus since late 2011 after the fiasco of the "megawatt" demo. I can't say about other investments but inasmuch as Woodford bought pretty heavily and enthusiastically into IH when its mainstay was Rossi, yes, they are a bunch of dummies!
-
-
https://www.standard.co.uk/bus…ntor-andrea-a4165641.html
Exactly what I have been saying for at least 2 years.
-
Anything close to a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen is a bomb. Experiments with so-called Brown's gas (silliness) have cost several lives and many buildings. And most if not all of the claims made for various forms of these mixtures are dangerous myths.
BTW, I know of no method of generating on board hydrogen in a vehicle and then using it to complement the fuel, which results in a greater net efficiency for the propulsion of the vehicle. If you know otherwise, please post it.
QuoteOn August 9, 2011, an apparent hydrogen/oxygen explosion occurred at the alternative energy firm Rainbow of Hope in the Sylmar section of Los Angeles. Timothy A. Larson, 42, an L.A. firefighter who was on disability leave due to an existing injury, was one of the two inventors critically injured in the blast, as they were thrown into an alley by the force of the explosion. Larson apparently lost an arm an a leg in the blast. In the hospital, William A. Stehl, 68, was induced into a coma with extensive shrapnel wounds in his face.
This latest accident occurred 14 months after Larson's brother (28-year-old Tyson Larson) was killed in a June, 2010 explosion at Realm Industries, in Simi Valley, their father's predecessor alternative fuel business. In 2008, there was an explosion at Realm Industries when it was located in a different building. The 2008 blast was smaller, and there were no serious injuries.
-
-
It is a lasting mystery to me why some individuals who are smart enough to know better, think there is residual merit in crooks and sociopaths like Elizabeth Holmes and Andrea Rossi. We sure see these folks represented here!
QuoteDo you claim the chemists, lab techs, and the people who developed the device did not know what the devices did? Are you saying they devoted years of effort to machines that did not work at all, and could not be used to analyze blood? That would be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. On the other hand, if the device worked somewhat, and if the scientists and engineers working on it felt that it might be an important contribution to the technology, that would not be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. It would a mistake, or a failed product. It would be that no matter what the principles said or did.
Did you see the video documentary? Did you bother to read what I wrote? The so-called Edison device never performed a useful subset of tests and never gave accurate results. It was apparently not a novel invention but a lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technologies. Most test results reported by Theranos in a poor try at meeting their contract requirements with various retail pharmacies were obtained with conventional machines at the Theranos headquarters and these were hidden in restricted areas of the building. This was not a mistake. It was not a "failed" contribution to technology. It was a misrepresentation and a huge bag of lies fed to investors as well as to the illustrious board of directors and advisers which at times included Schulz and Kissenger. The scam was uncovered and revealed by none other than Schulz's grandson. Schulz himself took years to be persuaded that the claims were not real and were never real.
Only Holmes knows what her true motives were and whether she was really trying to make a device that worked. She probably was but it was still a scam because she lied to and hid essential information from directors and shareholders alike in order to secure investments. The degree of fraud and it's punishment will be revealed after the civil and criminal actions run their course.
The potential criminal penalties are 20 years in prison for Balwani and Holmes. The government rarely seeks such penalties for best honest efforts that failed (/sarcasm). Read up on this, find and view the TV documentary. You are quick to criticize when you think others have not done their homework yet you seem to know absolutely nothing useful about this case.
QuoteOn June 15, 2018, Holmes and Balwani were indicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. According to the indictment, investors and doctors and patients were defrauded. It is alleged the defendants were aware of the unreliability and inaccuracy of their products, but concealed that information. If convicted, they each face a maximum fine of $250,000 and 20 years in prison. The case has been assigned to Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[93][94]
-Wikipedia
ETA: nobody claims or charges the majority of employees at Theranos with a scam. Most worked honestly but were frustrated by the secrecy which hid the bulk of operations and true goals from them along with the performance data. Each person was only allowed to see a small part of the entire workings. And many, to their credit, squawked as much as their tight NDA's and other restrictions would allow.
See also (behind paywall for some but some free articles allowed each month):