Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More on LENR at NASA: Bushnell and Zawodny Speak
ECat World ^ | May 24, 2012 | Ruby Carat

Posted on 05/25/2012 2:42:24 PM PDT by Kevmo




More on LENR at NASA: Bushnell and Zawodny Speak

May 24, 2012
Two interesting publications have just come out from NASA, one an article, and the other a video showing that NASA recognizes the promise of LENR and is getting involved in understanding what is going on in this field, and how to develop LENR technologies for real world applications.

Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist and NASA’s Langney Research Center has written an article entitled “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook” in which he discusses the current state of research in the field of LENR. First, he contends that there is indeed something real going on in the multitudes of experiments that show excess energy being produced.

By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR “Real?” Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes – with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a “Narrow Band” set of physical phenomena.

He then goes on to ask what is happening in these reactions, and indicates that NASA is attracted to the Widom-Larsen theory as an explanation of what is going on. He summarizes the theory as follows:
The theory states that once some energy is added to load surfaces with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form– neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.

Bushnell is careful to say that there is still much research to be done in order to understand LENR phenomena, but says that NASA has begun studies to test the validity of the Widom Larsen theory.

Simultaneous to the release of Bushnell’s article is a video featuring NASA’s Dr. Joseph Zawodny, Senior Research Scientist at Langney Research Center entitled Abundant Clean/Green Energy. Zawodny’s focus in the video is also on the Widom-Larsen theory, and explains how they are trying to test its correctness.

The ultimate goal, according to Zawodny is to find a way to create an inexpensive, clean form of energy which could be used not only by NASA in its space operations, but also something that could provide cheap, abundant energy for the whole world.

With NASA once again coming out with an endorsement of LENR as a potential solution to energy needs, we see that there is some kind of momentum building in the field — perhaps before too long a critical mass will be reached, and there will be a much more widespread acceptance of LENR as an important technological innovation.


76 Responses to More on LENR at NASA: Bushnell and Zawodny Speak



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: cmns; coldfusion; lanr; lenr
The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/more-lenr-at-nasa-zawodny-and-bushnell/

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144

1 posted on 05/25/2012 2:42:37 PM PDT by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc; citizen; Liberty1970; Red Badger; Wonder Warthog; PA Engineer; glock rocks; free_life; ..

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/more-lenr-at-nasa-zawodny-and-bushnell/

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles


http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144


2 posted on 05/25/2012 2:44:02 PM PDT by Kevmo (SUCINOFRAGOPWIASS: Shut Up, CINOs; Free Republic Aint a GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Why don’t they just hire Rossi? Or better yet, you?


3 posted on 05/25/2012 2:50:25 PM PDT by fuente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Why don’t they just hire Rossi? Or better yet, you?


4 posted on 05/25/2012 2:50:25 PM PDT by fuente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Why don’t they just hire Rossi? Or better yet, you?


5 posted on 05/25/2012 2:50:47 PM PDT by fuente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Ummmm, NASA is also big on believing in man made global warming. Just sayin’.....


6 posted on 05/25/2012 3:09:09 PM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
NASA can relax, Rossi will be turning out thousands of devices from his automated, robotic factories in a few months and the world will be safe, clean and green.
7 posted on 05/25/2012 3:40:19 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

What in blazes is a “heavy electron”.
I still fail to see how this works. There has to be some kind of gamma flux due to the mass defect that results from the reaction. Part of the energy could go to gamma, or into the kinetic energy of the fusion end product. Still, you are talking about a reaction that is exothermic on the level of MeV’s!


8 posted on 05/25/2012 3:40:47 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (The Democratic Party is the operational wing of CPUSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

It’s just a question of Faith.


9 posted on 05/25/2012 3:41:18 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

The have to get the buzz going so that Obama can take credit for it during this election cycle.


10 posted on 05/25/2012 5:04:14 PM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fuente

They ain’t hiring. I’ve tried both.


11 posted on 05/25/2012 5:40:12 PM PDT by Kevmo (SUCINOFRAGOPWIASS: Shut Up, CINOs; Free Republic Aint a GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

Ummmm, NASA is also big on believing in man made global warming. Just sayin’.....
***You’re quite right. They go for the politically correct course of action most of the time. And with LENR, they’re doing exactly that, by going in hard for the Widom-Larson theory. The W-L theory is among the weakest LENR theories but it is attractive because they claim it is NOT cold fusion. However, once you scratch the surface you see 2 hydrogen atoms going through lots of rigamarole due to the weak nuclear force and, in the end, being fused together. I call it Roundabout Cold Fusion.


12 posted on 05/25/2012 5:45:21 PM PDT by Kevmo (SUCINOFRAGOPWIASS: Shut Up, CINOs; Free Republic Aint a GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek
"There has to be some kind of gamma flux due to the mass defect that results from the reaction.

Why? This is the constant refrain of the "hot fusion" types who adamantly attack LENR/CF. What makes you think Mother Nature will confine herself only to the mechanisms known to occur in plasma physics?? Chemists well know that low-probability reaction mechanisms occur much more strongly when they occur on surfaces as opposed to "free space". All catalysts are based on that science. That an analogous phenomenon should occur for nuclear reactions shouldn't surprise anyone.

"Part of the energy could go to gamma, or into the kinetic energy of the fusion end product. Still, you are talking about a reaction that is exothermic on the level of MeV’s!

OR, it could be transferred into the lattice, which is what the available evidence suggests. Gamma rays (and neutrons, and charged particle emission) all occur in LENR, but the data says that those are not the primary pathway of energy transfer by several orders of magnitude.

Very careful work has been done in the Pd/D2 system that shows that 1) Helium is by far the main product, and 2) that the amount of helium so formed and the amount of heat released is a very close approximation to the mass deficit between D2 and He4:

Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99

The above paper can be found in full at LENR/CANR.org:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf

13 posted on 05/26/2012 4:29:05 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The above paper can be found in full at LENR/CANR.org:

LENR/CANR.org is nothing more than a cold fusion blog.

14 posted on 05/26/2012 10:23:11 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

However, once you scratch the surface you see 2 hydrogen atoms going through lots of rigamarole...

Rigmarole according to the dictionary is confused and meaningless talk, an appropriate word for cold fusion.

15 posted on 05/26/2012 10:25:54 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"LENR/CANR.org is nothing more than a cold fusion blog."

Still lying, I see. I fail to see much, if any, "blogish-ness" at LENR/CANR. I see an introduction to the science, news about the subject, collections of items of interest on the subject, and the library section has one of the most extensive compilations of scientific publications on the subject of LENR to be found anywhere, with both abstracts or full papers depending on the publication policies of the originating sources.

The only similarities to a blog are that the site is dedicated to a particular subject, and it is "on the web".

To all you lurkers out, I invite you to visit the site yourselves and see which of us is prevaricating.

16 posted on 05/26/2012 3:54:18 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Anybody who looks at the source code can see it’s a Wordpress blog.


17 posted on 05/27/2012 12:28:30 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Anybody who looks at the source code can see it’s a Wordpress blog."

The fact that the site is hosted by Wordpress has exactly zero to do with the contents thereof. And the paper I cited upthread is, once again, originally from a peer-reviewed science journal. You seem to think that having a copy of that peer-reviewed publication hosted on a Wordpress site somehow invalidates its scientific content.

Lies and spin, it's what you do. Intellectual dishonesty at every turn.

I await your analysis of the actual linked paper, with a detailed list of the scientific mistakes that invalidate it's content as regards LENR. But I suspect that, once again, you will refuse to actually look at it.

18 posted on 05/27/2012 6:20:00 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Moonman62

I hate stuff.


19 posted on 05/27/2012 6:22:45 PM PDT by Lazamataz (The so-called 'mainstream' media has gone from "biased" straight to "utterly surreal".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The original peer reviewed journal is a cold fusion joke, not much better than a Wordpress blog. From Wiki:
The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry (ISSN 0022-0728) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal on electroanalytical chemistry, published by Elsevier.

The journal, which the New York Times describes as "a specialty publication not widely circulated,"[1] became more broadly known in 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published a description of their controversial cold fusion research in it, withdrawing their work from publication in Nature after questions were raised during peer review there.[1]


20 posted on 05/27/2012 6:54:21 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

A blog has dated posts and I don’t see it. That LENR site is an informational website. Wordpress is a first class organization by the way.


21 posted on 05/27/2012 7:04:19 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
That LENR site is an informational website.

It's a site that tries to make the information on it seem more important than it really is. See my previous post.

Wordpress is a first class organization by the way.

Yes, it is a terrific blog hosting company.

22 posted on 05/27/2012 7:47:10 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"The original peer reviewed journal is a cold fusion joke, not much better than a Wordpress blog. From Wiki:

LOL. Desperation strikes again. You get more ridiculous all the time.

"The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry (ISSN 0022-0728) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal on electroanalytical chemistry, published by Elsevier."

Elsevier is one of the premier science publishing houses in the world. Their journals are top notch.

"The journal, which the New York Times describes as "a specialty publication not widely circulated,"[1] became more broadly known in 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published a description of their controversial cold fusion research in it, withdrawing their work from publication in Nature after questions were raised during peer review there.[1]

LOL. ALL "specialty journals" are "not widely circulated". And I hardly take the NYT as an authoritative voice in science publication. Or much of anything other than liberal propaganda. And you quote it HERE??? Ludicrous.

As I said....lies and spin.....it's what you do. Try actually addressing the science instead of trying to sell the ridiculous point that have a site hosted on Wordpress somehow invalidates the contents of the site hosted.

23 posted on 05/28/2012 6:34:44 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
How many times has the article been cited, by whom and in what journals (all standard measures of an article's importance) since 1993?

Being archived on someone's personal website doesn't count for much.

24 posted on 05/28/2012 10:33:36 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"How many times has the article been cited, by whom and in what journals (all standard measures of an article's importance) since 1993?"

Irrelevant. Address the science in the reference.

I'm well aware of "Current Contents" and the concept of the "citation index". Frankly, I think that idea of trying to "measure the importance" of a science article is simply bullshit. Popularity does not equal importance.

"Being archived on someone's personal website doesn't count for much."

Again irrelevant. The article is from a legitimate peer reviewed journal. The fact that a copy or copies exist at places other than in the printed pages of the paper journal means precisely nothing, despite your desperate efforts to sell the idea that the existence of such somehow invalidates the published science. Clue....it doesn't.

Doesn't it ever bother you to be so dishonest?? I simply can't imagine anyone with a legitimate technical education acting as you do.

25 posted on 05/28/2012 1:37:45 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Address the science in the reference.

When are you going to address it, rather than providing links to bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals copy and pasted to someone's personal website?

26 posted on 05/28/2012 3:02:42 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"When are you going to address it, rather than providing links to bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals copy and pasted to someone's personal website?"

I did address it. Read the publication. Show me the errors of experimentation that invalidate the findings.

Don't come out with vague bullshit about "bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals" when you were willing to accept a NON-PEER REVIEWED internal research report of far lesser quality and thoroughness.

Intellectual dishonesty at every turn. You just can't stop, can you?

27 posted on 05/30/2012 6:08:03 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Where’s the scientific validation of this article? Where has it been cited since 1993? And you still haven’t addressed the science. Your link to a personal website is your meager contribution.


28 posted on 05/30/2012 7:18:12 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Don't come out with vague bullshit about "bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals" when you were willing to accept a NON-PEER REVIEWED internal research report of far lesser quality and thoroughness.

The NASA memo was one in a million. I explained why it was believable. You can't automatically assume that every piece of junk you link to falls into the same category.

29 posted on 05/31/2012 7:42:38 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Where’s the scientific validation of this article? Where has it been cited since 1993? And you still haven’t addressed the science. Your link to a personal website is your meager contribution."

The article originated in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemisty, a well respected peer reviewed scientific journal. The fact that the particular copy I chose to link to happens to reside at LENR/CNAR is of zero relevance to the validity of the data contained in the article.

"The NASA memo was one in a million. I explained why it was believable. You can't automatically assume that every piece of junk you link to falls into the same category."

So, explain why this specific linked article is wrong. Where are the errors in the experiments detailed? Address the science in THIS article. Try honest debate just ONCE.

But you won't.

30 posted on 06/04/2012 6:47:03 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The article originated in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemisty, a well respected peer reviewed scientific journal.

It isn't well respected. It's the same journal where Fleischmann and Pons went to ruin their careers.

And you still can't show where your paper has been cited since 1993.

31 posted on 06/04/2012 7:29:55 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"It isn't well respected. It's the same journal where Fleischmann and Pons went to ruin their careers."

Actually, Pons/Fleischmann's peer-reviewed article in JEAC has never been refuted. A lot of smoke has been thrown up by you and your fellow skeptopaths, but when one traces through the real science, P/F have refuted every criticism.

"And you still can't show where your paper has been cited since 1993."

WHY do you keep dragging this argument up?? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the science. WHY don't you address the supposed errors/mistakes in the paper itself?? My guess is because you simply can't, and are forced to fall back on specious arguments of this sort.

And that sort of tactic is the absolute rule when any of your fellow skeptopaths show up. Cite any actual experimental evidence, and they run like vampires when they smell garlic.

Your actions make Rossi look like a pillar of veracity.

32 posted on 06/07/2012 4:29:37 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Actually, Pons/Fleischmann's peer-reviewed article in JEAC has never been refuted.

Being ignored is just as bad. As I said their careers were ruined.

WHY do you keep dragging this argument up?? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the science.

Because publishing articles and then having them cited by subsequent articles that either affirm the claims or refute them is how most science is done, not in blogs as is done with cold fusion.

WHY don't you address the supposed errors/mistakes in the paper itself??

Because I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. I'm not the one pumping up a disreputable science filled with con artists like Rossi and scientists like George Miley making claims he can't back up.

Your actions make Rossi look like a pillar of veracity.

Wow! A backhanded admission, after months of daily hype by you and Kevmo that Rossi was making things up.

33 posted on 06/07/2012 7:51:54 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Being ignored is just as bad. As I said their careers were ruined."

Yup, and when the history of CF is definitively written, you skeptopaths are going to have a lot to answer for. Not just for Pons/Fleischmann, but Bockris and many others, and outright fraud (MIT "failed replication").

"Because publishing articles and then having them cited by subsequent articles that either affirm the claims or refute them is how most science is done, not in blogs as is done with cold fusion."

Still lying. The article I cited did not originate in a blog. Science is discussed everywhere nowadays, including in blogs (but LENR/CANR is NOT a "blog", any more than FR is). And the stifling of publication in certain journals is another thing you skeptopaths are going to have to answer for (many, many cases documented, extending even to Nobel Prize physicists (Julian Schwinger)).

"Because I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. I'm not the one pumping up a disreputable science filled with con artists like Rossi and scientists like George Miley making claims he can't back up.

The article is there. Address the science in the article. Stop dancing around the issue and bringing in more extraneous and irrelevant issues.

"Wow! A backhanded admission, after months of daily hype by you and Kevmo that Rossi was making things up.

Yes, Rossi uses misdirection quite heavily to lead potential competitors astray. There is stil NO evicence whatsoever that he has lied about the core of his discovery (generation of large amounts of heat energy).

You're really good a "shuckin' and jivin" around the core issue. You once told me to pick and article and "support it" (whatever that means). Well, there is the article, from a peer-reviewed journal, which definitively makes the science case for fusion in Pd/D2 systems. The work, IMO, was both thorough and carefully done. I see no errors of any significance.

Now PUT UP or SHUT UP.

34 posted on 06/08/2012 5:07:16 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Yup, and when the history of CF is definitively written, you skeptopaths are going to have a lot to answer for. Not just for Pons/Fleischmann, but Bockris and many others, and outright fraud (MIT "failed replication").

LOL! "The Truth is Out There."

Still lying. The article I cited did not originate in a blog.

I didn't say otherwise.

Science is discussed everywhere nowadays, including in blogs (but LENR/CANR is NOT a "blog", any more than FR is).

The business of science is still done in journals. The quality of blog discussions is all over the place. LENR/CANR is a personal website hosted on Wordpress.

The work, IMO, was both thorough and carefully done. I see no errors of any significance.

That's only works for people who are impressed by your gullibility. I'm not. Where has the article been cited over the past 19 years?

35 posted on 06/08/2012 7:40:03 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"That's only works for people who are impressed by your gullibility. I'm not. Where has the article been cited over the past 19 years?"

Still trying to sell the idea that citation (or lack of same) actually means something. It doesn't. Address the science in the paper. Show me the errors. Your shuckin' and jivin' is getting old.

I have yet to see a single skeptopath actually reference the journal articles that supposedly disprove LENR. Not even once.

36 posted on 06/11/2012 9:44:39 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Still trying to sell the idea that citation (or lack of same) actually means something. It doesn't.

Actually it does. Other scientists who have lab equipment and who are paid to do such things have either refuted the article or ignored it, going by your non-response. Either, way, that indicates it's junk.

I see no reason why someone on a conservative politics forum should have to do the work that scientists have had 19 years to do.

Address the science in the paper.

Will you ever address the scientific response to the paper? You're the one promoting a disreputable science. The burden of proof is on you.

37 posted on 06/11/2012 11:51:26 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Will you ever address the scientific response to the paper? You're the one promoting a disreputable science. The burden of proof is on you."

The "scientific response" has exactly zero to do with the quality of science IN the paper. Your constant assertions to the contrary are simply your continuing intellectual dishonesty. The paper is there. The methodology and results are there. Show me the errors in them. Or post a link to a paper that has refuted/falsified that specific paper. Constantly ducking the issue simply proves again that you are a fraud.

38 posted on 06/11/2012 4:01:12 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The "scientific response" has exactly zero to do with the quality of science IN the paper.

Sure it does. 19 years have passed. The article hasn't been influential nor has it led to a useful device.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science.

39 posted on 06/11/2012 5:27:58 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Sure it does. 19 years have passed. The article hasn't been influential nor has it led to a useful device."

No, it does NOT. Neither of those notions has anything whatsover to do with the facts in the article. Those facts either correctly express how nature works, or they don't. The "influentuality" of the paper is sociology...not science.

And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".

"The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science."

And with this statement, you have talked yourself in a complete circle and back to your starting point. Let me refresh your memory:

You made the above statement previously quite a while ago. I then provided references to the scientific papers to be found at LENR/CANR. You refused to look at the data because "it would be too much work".

I then provided reference to Storms book, which provides a much condensed and more easily read and understood summary of the state of LENR science. You refused to look at the data.

You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done. And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein. And then repeat once again that the burden of proof is "on me".

That, dear boy, is intellectual dishonesty of argument. You are a disgrace to whatever institution granted your degree or degrees.

40 posted on 06/16/2012 8:11:07 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Neither of those notions has anything whatsover to do with the facts in the article. Those facts either correctly express how nature works, or they don't.

What are the facts in the article? Your proportion of words not from the article to words from the article is something like 5000 to 0. How can you know the facts without credibly reproducing the experiment?

And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".

The NIF is a useful device. Fusion bombs are useful devices. High school students have reproduced hot fusion without question. In contrast, cold fusion is represented by an Italian con artist and elderly scientists making claims they can't back up.

I then provided reference to Storms book, which provides a much condensed and more easily read and understood summary of the state of LENR science. You refused to look at the data.

The elderly Storm's book is $100. It seems to me he's found another way to get money from gullible cold fusion suckers. He's probably doing better than Rossi and won't have to go to jail either.

You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done.

Really, how many quotes have you made from the article? All you did was provide a link and call me names.

And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein.

Once again, how can the facts be known without credibly reproducing the experiment? We do know for a fact that in 19 years it hasn't led to a useful device. It should have, considering all the claims of the con artists and fan boys saying it's going to solve all our energy problems.

41 posted on 06/16/2012 10:40:57 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"What are the facts in the article? Your proportion of words not from the article to words from the article is something like 5000 to 0.

The facts in the article speak for themselves. I don't need to provide quotes. Your laziness is not my problem.

Any person calling themselves a scientist, when presented with a reference, must read the entire article. That's called "intellectually honest scientific debate". But you're apparently incapable of such debate.

"How can you know the facts without credibly reproducing the experiment?

By reading the article, checking its included references, and comparing what it says about methodology with my fifty years of practicing science. The article itself is already a replication of previous work showing the same phenomena. The linked article is simply a more extensive/careful replication of past experiments done by others.

"The NIF is a useful device. Fusion bombs are useful devices. High school students have reproduced hot fusion without question.

None of which are practical devices for producing usable power, which was your original point. But, as usual, you change the subject.

"In contrast, cold fusion is represented by an Italian con artist and elderly scientists making claims they can't back up."

LOL. More intellectual dishonesty. LENR is "represented" by dozens to hundreds of scientists. Yeah, a lot of the guys are old....since when does that invalidate experimental work.

"The elderly Storm's book is $100. It seems to me he's found another way to get money from gullible cold fusion suckers. He's probably doing better than Rossi and won't have to go to jail either."

Shorter summaries of what Storms writes in his book containing many of the same facts are available on-line, for FREE, and have been linked to in these threads.

"Really, how many quotes have you made from the article? All you did was provide a link and call me names.

Providing the link is all that any REPUTABLE, HONEST scientist would need. And yes, I "call you names" because your behavior justifies it.

And in fact you don't even deserve THAT much attention. I've proved my point.....your intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to engage in an honest debate of the science.

So henceforth, you will get exactly the attention you deserve.....which is none.

42 posted on 06/17/2012 5:57:08 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The facts in the article speak for themselves. I don't need to provide quotes. Your laziness is not my problem.

Your laziness is the problem (not to mention your gullibility).

By reading the article, checking its included references, and comparing what it says about methodology with my fifty years of practicing science.

That's what it all boils down to -- Warthog says so. Anybody can make claims on the Internet. Prove you have 50 years of experience as a scientist. Prove you're not in the bottom 1% as your posts on FR indicate.

My way of credibly reproducing the experiment is the only way to know the facts.

None of which are practical devices for producing usable power, which was your original point.

Prove it.

So henceforth, you will get exactly the attention you deserve.....which is none.

Promises, promises.

43 posted on 06/17/2012 6:20:50 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".

Coefficient of performance (COP) is a measure for heat pumps. Someone with your claimed credentials should know better.

44 posted on 06/17/2012 6:34:32 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson