Another account:
Thanks! Here's a more detailed paper by the author of The Conversation piece. It cites this piece, and many contemporary sources.
Another account:
Thanks! Here's a more detailed paper by the author of The Conversation piece. It cites this piece, and many contemporary sources.
This might interest some of you – apologies if it has been posted before, it was new to me.
"If the first solar entrepreneur hadn’t been kidnapped, would fossil fuels have dominated the 20th century the way they did?"
Interesting piece on the enthusiasm for small modular fission reactors.
There’s a reference to a ‘negative probability’ at one point, and a probability ‘greater than 100%’ at another – can someone clarify what this means?
listening to 6-valve superhet radios. (remember those?).
Yes
This biography by Ray Monk is excellent.
ChatGPT?
The author is not listed for this article. There is no "byline." That is odd, and a little disturbing.
ChatGPT?
Any relation to the LEC?
The guardian since ever was a free mason trumpet and thus supports big oil where it can. Bio fuel is about running the current motor etc. factories as long as possible. Its about mentally deranged people driving BMW,Porsche, Alpha Romeo just for the nice motor noise. There is no real need for bio fuel. We can make exceptions for old cars and agriculture but certainly not for ships, trains, planes - the large polluters.
Especially for planes it will be difficult to directly burn hydrogen. But aviation is only 3% of world wide carbon use. Cars are in the 20% region but electricity is 64% world wide!
So you didn’t read even the first sentence of the article?
“Combustion is the problem – when you’re continuing to burn something, that’s not solving the problem,” says Prof Mark Jacobson.
Very competent industry professionals without ulterior agendas have looked at this issue in detail. Most laymen don’t realize how difficult a problem intermittency is and the cost required both in economic and carbon terms just don’t work out. As a LENR developer of course we all want the same thing. Wind and solar simply are not a viable energy source for a vibrant civilization. Hence the push to find better alternatives.
Here’s the contrary view. Jacobsen argues that there’s plenty of potential for solar and wind, and that the storage needed for intermittency is eminently achievable: https://www.theguardian.com/en…water-can-power-the-world
Said by our forum clown a circuit board "scientologist". CERN e.g. does science... using a garbage model to find garbage... and still gets a Nobel... Why should people with a clear mind join this incestuous dark planet sect?
Said by our bad-tempered Baron Munchausen. Do we have any reason at all to think that he has anything of value, practical or theoretical?
I call the LEC 'the canary in the coal mine'. Which if you thing about it, it might well be.
Canaries in coal mines are so old hat. We now have clams in the water supply.
like putting a propeller on a washing machine and going some distance through the air.
Reminds me of what I think every time I see an SUV – wheels on a washing machine!
They’re not missing anything. This looks like one of those junk commercial conferences. Spam folders of academics are full of them.
Upcoming talk by Clean Planet.
@Jed
If you want to solve the carbon problem, solve the China problem.
Why not the US problem?
The question is:
"Why are old and accepted by LENR community experiments as showing clear nuclear activity not replicated with novel instrumentation, different calorimetry, parametric characterisation? That would help by convincing skeptics and also presenting clearer evidence about how the effect works"
The program discussed here seems to be aimed at replicating some of the SPAWAR results, including the evidence of nuclear activity:
Yes, there is more than enough desert. The problem is, desert land is far from most population centers, and you cannot transmit electricity long distances. There is no large power line infrastructure large enough, and even if there were, the power lines lose too much. Arid and desert land could power some large cities such as Los Angeles, but not Chicago, New York or Atlanta.
If a better method of transmitting power could be developed, that might change things. For example, high temperature superconducting power cables, or converting the electricity to hydrogen and shipping the gas in pipelines. Hydrogen could be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. That would be good because it would allow 24-hour generation, both at night and in inclement weather.
These folk seem to think 5000km underwater is feasible.
By the way, there really is a rhubarb triangle. I did not make that up. It is between Wakefield, Morley and Rothwell. There is a sculpture of rhubarb in Wakefield. See:
isn’t Rothwell where the UFO crathed?