Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
pteridine said:
Steve Krivit summaries are all biased as Steve is in the pay of Lattice Energy. The Widom-Larsen theory [guess who owns Lattice Energy] is promoted and all others are criticized.
Click to expand...

His comment might be biased, but the evidence he offers are generally mostly available and verifiable (and frankly I had come to my conclusion based on those evidence, long before I knew of his blog.... I recommend his blog because he has a nice report/list which has all of them).

Are you disputing any of those ? Please feel free to cite which one you dispute :D.
 
Dancing David said:
Except they don't and again you are just using your "I believe but I can't show you evidence" tactic, you did not show evidence in the past either.

Yup the same old same old:

Conference paper:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf

So someone at some conference reports something, but no evidence that it is LENR, NASA does not believe in it, that is a lie, they investigate the claims.

Which is different.

It would be great if true, but that little blip in the energy, hard to say what it is.
Click to expand...

And you're great at asking others to provide you information on aspects that you should be thoroughly familiar with instead of being the second rate skeptic you are.
 
attaboy said:
And you're great at asking others to provide you information on aspects that you should be thoroughly familiar with instead of being the second rate skeptic you are.
Click to expand...

I thought you'd gone. Second rate woos can't resist us.
 
pteridine said:
Something of interest for all; http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian-lenr-workshop-april-10-14/
If there is no LENR effect, we will be burning hydrocarbons for a long time as "hot" fusion only produces papers. The good news is that they contain about 10-12,000 btu/lb. Now if we only could get the academics to use low-clay paper and stop publishing on the web....
Click to expand...
Hot fusion works, and should be a useful energy source. Cold fusion has no evidence.

attaboy said:
And you're great at asking others to provide you information on aspects that you should be thoroughly familiar with instead of being the second rate skeptic you are.
Click to expand...
I take it you've no evidence for your faith in cold fusion then?
 
pteridine said:
Something of interest for all; http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian-lenr-workshop-april-10-14/
If there is no LENR effect, we will be burning hydrocarbons for a long time as "hot" fusion only produces papers. The good news is that they contain about 10-12,000 btu/lb. Now if we only could get the academics to use low-clay paper and stop publishing on the web....
Click to expand...

Hot fusions has already produced results. Look up in the sky. Also look up under "star". Also the old tokamak AFAIK was energy positive for a short time.
 
Aepervius said:
Hot fusions has already produced results. Look up in the sky. Also look up under "star". Also the old tokamak AFAIK was energy positive for a short time.
Click to expand...

Hot fusion on this planet has produced academic papers over the last six decades and redistributed wealth to the makers of liquid helium and superconducting magnets. There are a few small problems with a practical system but success will always be in the near future.
 
attaboy said:
And you're great at asking others to provide you information on aspects that you should be thoroughly familiar with instead of being the second rate skeptic you are.
Click to expand...
You are the one claiming it works.

The burden of proof is upon you to support your assertion.
 
catsmate1 said:
Hot fusion works, and should be a useful energy source. Cold fusion has no evidence.
Click to expand...

Hot fusion is quite useful and universally applicable as we can see, daily. Of course, it should be a useful energy source and that is why the world is making advances in solar cells.
 
Hot fusion on this planet has produced academic papers over the last six decades and redistributed wealth to the makers of liquid helium and superconducting magnets. There are a few small problems with a practical system but success will always be in the near future.
Click to expand...

Hot fusion may or may not produce results in the near future, however...

1. There is no theoretical reason it should not work. Cold fusion has yet to even come up with a valid theory.

2. As pointed out before, there are a host of alternative energy solutions with varying degrees of cost. We have solar power, wind power, wave power, geothermal, etc. All of these have valid physics behind them, cold fusion does not.

3. All of these alternatives have shown a real potential and have reproducible results. Cold fusion's results, for whatever reason, have been so obfuscated that reproducing them, understanding the mechanism or even seeing the technology clearly, has been impossible.

At this time, I don't see the point of ever wasting any resources, time or money or it until at least something is shown to work, either in practice or even in theory.
 
RobDegraves said:
Hot fusion may or may not produce results in the near future, however...

1. There is no theoretical reason it should not work. Cold fusion has yet to even come up with a valid theory.

2. As pointed out before, there are a host of alternative energy solutions with varying degrees of cost. We have solar power, wind power, wave power, geothermal, etc. All of these have valid physics behind them, cold fusion does not.

3. All of these alternatives have shown a real potential and have reproducible results. Cold fusion's results, for whatever reason, have been so obfuscated that reproducing them, understanding the mechanism or even seeing the technology clearly, has been impossible.

At this time, I don't see the point of ever wasting any resources, time or money or it until at least something is shown to work, either in practice or even in theory.
Click to expand...

There are many theories for LENR and the 'validity' of any is yet to be determined. As to showing something works in theory, what must the theory be based on? Widom-Larsen claim that their theory requires no new physics and can explain John Huizenga's 'three miracles.'
 
attaboy said:
And you're great at asking others to provide you information on aspects that you should be thoroughly familiar with instead of being the second rate skeptic you are.
Click to expand...

In other words you pretend and can't present. That shows what kind of poster you are, you don't have data and evidence. You have rhetoric!

'second rate sceptic', oh sir I wounded to the quick, rather than present data , you play grade school taunting.

Well played, if you want to show your lack of data.
 
pteridine said:
Widom-Larsen claim that their theory requires no new physics and can explain John Huizenga's 'three miracles.'
Click to expand...

Widom-Larsen theory is a joke. The paper contains absolutely wild mistakes---at the level of mislabeling endothermic reactions as exothermic, and chaining together nuclear reactions involving nuclides that don't actually exist.
 
Well, Ben, you can write off that theory if you don't like it. It seems that invoking things "that don't actually exist" is a common practice when it comes to theories. Physics has a penchant for such. Strings, imaginary time, etc., are all invoked along with other dimensions. A heirarchy of particles has been compiled and the search is on for a particle that confers mass on things.
Consider the knowledge base for particle physics. The experiments were done with particles having energies in the tens of kiloelecronvolts and greater. Can that be extended 4 orders of magnitude to particles with energies of, say, 2 or 3 electron volts?
 
Last edited:
pteridine said:
...and the search is on for a particle that confers mass on things...
Click to expand...
The Higgs mechanism is only responsible for 1% of the mass of matter. The people who hype the Higgs boson tend not to mention that. Which isn't surprising, since it contradicts E=mc² - trap a photon in a box and you add mass to that system. Let it out and a radiating body loses mass. See what I said about cold fusion being an engineering problem on the previous page. It beats me why people believe in some total guff whilst being so sceptical about cold fusion when there's no such thing as heat at the subatomic level.
 
There are many theories for LENR and the 'validity' of any is yet to be determined.
Click to expand...

As of right now, there are no valid theories for LENR.

Name one.

To begin with, there are been no, none, nyet, not a sausage, experiments that have shown LENR effects that have been reproducible. Ergo, none of them have actually worked. If it was an actual effect, one would expect it to be independently reproducible, don't you think?

More than that, LENR actually works opposite of what regular physics can account for. In order for the theory to be valid, it would need some sort of valid result that can be shown to be a consequence of cold fusion. Sadly, all we have so far...

1. No reproducible results at all.

2. Results cloaked in secrecy by people who refuse to allow independent testing.... ie, most likely a fraud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom