Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
nathan said:
acementhead, could you use the quote facility please? (the " button allows multiquoting. Press it for each message you want to multiquote and then press the QUOTE button). The timestamps you're using are for your local time, which isn't globally unique.
Click to expand...

OK thank you Nathan I did not know that. However although the time may vary between people, the time shown, to me, does not comport with the local time from where I am posting(NZ). My earlier posts from today, my time, show a local time from 5 time zones West of me. To wit...OK I give up. Just checked again and posts that I did mid morning my time originally showed about 5 hours later. They now show a couple of hours earlier.
 
leonAzul said:
Huh?

I have been away from this thread, so forgive me if I am just catching up, but wasn't the original claim that the process involved Nano-Nickel™ and hydrogen that somehow yield significant quantities of copper in the "spent fuel", and wasn't there a European (Italian?) patent filed on that basis?

Is this a contradiction, or just the "secret sauce" he left out of the other patent? And what happens to the economy of the fuel claims if it does involve palladium after all?
Click to expand...


The patent we were discussing wasn't Rossi's patent. It was one that pteridine had brought up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9061834#post9061834

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9062389#post9062389
 
I must say I'm a little confused by the current controversy. It seems as if acementhead and David are arguing about whether the scammer Rossi scammed inside the box or outside of it. It seems more like the material for betting the next round of beer than anything very serious.
 
FYI

Surely by now we all should realize that Ni - H lenr is real (regardless of what is going on with Rossi) tho the former term Cold Fusion probably is not applicable any more. To me then, one of the biggest questions is "Why has it not been widely commercialized by now?" So FYI I sent off the following to Sterling of PESN:


Hi Sterling,

I've more or less sent you a similar email before. I can't help but notice a decline in the prominence of lenr in your PESN news.

I know you've basically told me that commercialization of lenr will take time. But here we are with the solution to so many of our major problems - truly earth shaking, and yet so much foot dragging is going on its mind boggling. Its hard not to believe that a lot of this is due to the Power Moguls getting into the act behind the scenes. This could take several forms. Maybe they have been able to stall the advance of lenr so as to better prepare for the day when their puke (oil, gas, coal) is no longer needed. Or maybe they have locked on to the business aspect of this so as to come up with a plot to maximize profitablility while only a few crumbs filter down to the average person. If it ever goes domestic don't be surprised if the cost of this new energy, to the average consumer, doesn't change much.

From what I've seen of the Ni - H reactor apparatus, the only real mystery seems to be the nature of the catalyst. And how hard can that be to figure out if Rossi could do it?

I would like to see more in your newsletter discussing points such as I mention above. Instead, it almost looks like you've swept lenr under the rug, at least for now. I hope its not under the bus. I think it would be great if you could investigate and report on lenr beyond just the scope of the technology and include the business aspects I mention. You would be doing the average reader a great service if only to alert us to when we can expect to start getting screwed over by the Power Moguls.
 
attaboy said:
Surely by now we all should realize that Ni - H lenr is real
Click to expand...
Why? Neither you nor any of the other cold fusion crackpots have provided any evidence that it is real.

attaboy said:
To me then, one of the biggest questions is "Why has it not been widely commercialized by now?"
Click to expand...
Because it's not real.

attaboy said:
<snippage of conspiratorial ramblings>
Click to expand...
picture.php
 
attaboy said:
Surely by now we all should realize that Ni - H lenr is real (regardless of what is going on with Rossi) tho the former term Cold Fusion probably is not applicable any more.
Click to expand...

What data, exactly, convinced you of this?

Which nickel isotope was shown to fuse with H, and what daughter isotopes were measured?

To me then, one of the biggest questions is "Why has it not been widely commercialized by now?"
Click to expand...

Because fake technologies that don't work *never* get commercialized. There's no commercial Keely motor, no commercial Steorn motor, no commercial Pons-Fleischmann fusion, no commercial Bearden motor, no commercial N-ray-generator, no commercial gasoline pill, no commercial hydrino fuel ...
 
And as usual you aren't citing something specific, so which claim do you think is evidence of LENR, as I recall you have a hunch from reading but have no specific sources of data and evidence.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Defkalion_Hyperion
Nothing here, more hype no data.
http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/
Nothing here
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News...enr-non-technical-overview.htm?EdNo=001&From=
Nothing there

So exactly where is the data attaboy, when asked you link to a power point, hardly convincing, Where is the actual data?

Convincing demo at MIT?

http://coldfusionnow.org/tag/mit/

Why isn't this being published, why isn't it at the MIT page.

Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT? Where is the exact data and evidence ?

Hmmm, you never have produced it attaboy.
 
Last edited:
attaboy said:
Here ya go Davey.

http://www.lenrproof.com/

Of course I realize the people on here are way smarter than anyone in that link:D.
Click to expand...
That site simply contains all manner of statements asserting that LENR exists. It contains no evidence beyond assertion that I can see. Example.
LENR has been shown to be far stronger than any known chemical reaction and up to 20,000,000 times the power density of today’s combustion energy processes. The LENR process can continually create large amounts of excess heat in a small sized reactor for several months using small amounts of low cost fuel and producing no harmful CO2 or nuclear byproducts beyond that of a microwave oven.
Click to expand...
I want to know more about this. Where is the reactor? What amounts of excess heat are "large"? And so on. Who has shown that LENR has 20m times the power density of combustion? How was this shown? Can you refer me to papers in any peer reviewed journal, where this remarkable finding has been published?
 
Dancing David said:
Sure is nothing here attaboy:
http://search.mit.edu/search?client...m=15&submit=Search&as_q=Dr.+Peter+Hagelstein+


I don't care how smart they are I want data, they could be a dog for all I care, I want the data.
Click to expand...

You and Craig do make some good points. I must admit there does seem to be a lot of fluff in that power point presentation. But I really don't think you're going to get this data you want. For one thing, there's far too much secrecy going on to expect much useful data to be available. For me, the fact that MIT and NASA are involved is quite convincing, not to mention maybe another half dozen entities with some claim to being credible.
 
attaboy said:
... For me, the fact that MIT and NASA are involved is quite convincing, not to mention maybe another half dozen entities with some claim to being credible.
Click to expand...
More name dropping! What are NASA and MIT saying about their magic energy involvement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom