Posted on 12/20/2010 1:24:08 AM PST by Kevmo
I got a deal for you ... Send me $10,000.00 to prove I am wrong!
If you send me $10,000.00 it will prove that you are right!
Put your money where your mouth is!
TT
Yes it is asking them to prove their theory, it is not unfait to ask for proof when someone makes a claim. As I said if you are so naive to belive this BS Hydrino crap without proof, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Personally, I will wait until there is a car on the road actually using water, or power plants producing electricity by using ocean water for fuel. Until then, this crap, and it is crap being used to obtain grant money and nothing else, is just that: Crap.
You first.
In the meantime I’ll be making money over at Intrade, while you’re twiddling your thumbs making ridiculous comments.
Yes it is asking them to prove their theory, it is not unfait to ask for proof when someone makes a claim.
***Then where is the hot-fusion powered car we can expect if we follow your line of reasoning?
As I said if you are so naive to belive this BS Hydrino crap without proof, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
***You aren’t very good at inductive reasoning. Rarely does inductive reasoning generate proof. Never attack a 3 headed dog with a 2-pronged pitchfork. I’m glad I’m welcome to my opinion, you are so kind to allow that for me. And my opinion is that you couldn’t debate a bobble head doll when it comes to inductive subjects.
Personally, I will wait until there is a car on the road actually using water, or power plants producing electricity by using ocean water for fuel.
***There you go again. In the meantime, $Billions is spent on hot fusion projects which have given us nothing, due to reasoning which proceeds along the same paths you trod. That money would be better spent on projects which have yielded a thousand times more Megajoules. But such a position is conservative, and I wouldn’t expect that from you on a conservative website.
Until then, this crap, and it is crap being used to obtain grant money and nothing else, is just that: Crap.
***Your reasoning is just that: Crap. The $Billion Tokomak reactors and other research is all the same crap. We might as well spread the crap where it will grow something useful.
You’re too frickin’ dense to keep talking to. As I said, if you are naive enough to believe these claims so be it, BUT this will never come to fruition. It is pure crap.
There’s that big mouth. The one that doesn’t put up nor shut up nor put its money down to back up what it says. Just as I predicted upthread.
I can understand your skepticism, if not the rhetorical exuberance of your reply. Rather than plunge into a lengthy rebuttal, allow me to simply commend to your attention the following essay, -
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf
- which efficiently presents my position from a scientific perspective.
Happy holidays to you and yours.
You are basing your skepticism upon the “word of many physicists who have looked at Mill’s work and declared there are gaping holes in his math and conclusions”. Fair enough. The skeptics might indeed be correct in their assessment that hydrino technology is a false path. But that is not my point. My previous post was not a statement of belief in hydrino technology, but a vote in favor of open and objective scientific inquiry of such topics to a definitive conclusion. History shows that almost all steps taken beyond the scientific status quo have been met by wide skepticism. Sometimes the skeptics are right; on other occasions, they have been proven dramatically wrong. Apart from serendipitous accidents, most important scientific advances have been achieved by inquisitive minds leaving the comfort of conventional and well understood science and making forays into uncharted regions. Risk certainly attends any such venture, but it is also undeniably true that science has never been advanced by confining minds to comfortable and accepted principles.
I hope this clarifies my position a bit better.
Happy holidays to you and yours.
>> Sounds like another energy hoax.... like cold fusion.
> ***If you feel strongly about it then put your money where your mouth is, and take my money. I set up contracts at Intrade to trade on whether Dr. Yoshiaki Arata’s experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed journal and I made money on them, not through some smoke & mirrors hoax but through simple peer reviewed scientific method. But I have found that snipers like you don’t usually put their money where their mouth is — all talk, from afar, no action.
I don’t waste time or money on junk science.
As for peer review, I rely on my experience and degrees in chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and physics to tell me what is junk science or not. This is junk science. If you made money on this, then you are good at seeing a business opportunity and your business opportunity is based on lots of people not understanding the reality but being dazzled by the light show.
imho if you could convert Na+ to Na in the presence of H20 efficiently, you’d get an exothermic reaction which would include the makings of an internal combustion engine.
How would you do that? If you bombard H20 in solution with Na+ in solution at a frequency of 13.6 or the NMR of Oxygen—the H20 will break up. But the reaction is not exothermic.
However, if you bombarded the H20 and the Na+ with radio waves at the NMR of sodium Na— you might well be able to force the Na+ to collect an extra electron, change its valence to Na and explode in the presence of H20. And after the explosion the Na would revert to Na-. So the whole procedure could be repeated.
you’d have the combustion part of an internal combustion engine with a really cheap fuel.
BlackLight has had its supporters at FreeRepublic for about 10 years. Maybe more.
I’ve seen them making the same fabulous claims over and over again.
Each year the proof is just around the corner. But they are hampered by so many doubters.
If their stuff were on the mark — the list of supporters would grow.
Year after year the number of BlackLight supporters does not grow.
Heck even the number of cold fusion supporters seems to grow every year. So that tells you something.
I don’t waste time or money on junk science.
***And yet, you spend enough time to seagull on this thread.
As for peer review, I rely on my experience and degrees in chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and physics to tell me what is junk science or not.
***What a whimsical approach. The rest of the world relies upon peer review because they don’t have all those degrees, and even when they do have the degrees, they rely on peer review. You’re some kinda elitist, aincha? And how exactly are we supposed to know that you do have these degrees, since this is a primarily anonymous forum? We’re supposed to stack your anonymous, whimsical approach & degrees up against guys with PhD’s and peer reviewed literature available to everyone to examine and refute? I call bull shiite. Free Republic deserves more than that. And even if you DO have those degrees, you do all of us freepers a tremendous disservice by not using your knowledge and expertise to conclusively deal this information the decisive blow. Yeah, your lazy kind of science doesn’t work so well. But I’m glad you got enough paper to get a comfy job. People in positions like yours who have the ability but withhold it are basically
selfish and give science a bad name. No wonder there is so much seeking for some other answers other than what you arrogant, lazy bones elitists are generating.
This is junk science.
***Then it should be SO easy for someone with SO many degrees as you have, to refute it. If it ain’t so easy to refute, then maybe it’s just “pathological” science. What are you doing to refute it, with science rather than sniping anonymously? And if they keep producing evidence in the same manner that the tectonic plate theory was vindicated, maybe jerkwad lazy-bone scientists will end up saying it was science after all.
If you made money on this, then you are good at seeing a business opportunity and your business opportunity is based on lots of people not understanding the reality but being dazzled by the light show.
***So then, this is proof that you ARE lazy. Because if you had read my article then you would know that this is simply not the case, that is unless you are going to call Physics Letters an unworthy peer reviewed journal or Dr. Yoshiaki Arata an ignoramus. I’ve heard of him — he has a whole building in Japan named after him, but I probably have not heard of you. Why do you lazily seagull on an important thread if your value-add is so low? Why should we listen to you?
It is OK for private money to finance this. We still have the right to do what we believe in, right or wrong. But, not a single tax payers cent should be wasted on a theory he says should replace quantum mechanics. QM is a theory that is confirmed daily.
If their stuff were on the mark — the list of supporters would grow. Year after year the number of BlackLight supporters does not grow. Heck even the number of cold fusion supporters seems to grow every year. So that tells you something.
***Yes that does tell me something. Your approach to this inductive field is, unfortunately, valid. However, I consider it less valuable than simply examining the claims themselves. The reason why the cold fusion arena is in the backwater of science is due to the same approach that people took, where they examined what others were saying rather than examine the actual facts. So, while your approach is valid, I give it less weight than looking at actual facts.
One of the datapoints I use as a natural inductive cutoff point is peer review. That’s why I consider what these Blacklight slicksters to be doing is worth examining. Another datapoint is the patent process. There are a few cold fusioneers who have actual patents, which were obtained by hiding their references to Pons & Fleishman — essentially by employing tricks. I think this patent datapoint has been obscured in this particular inductive pursuit because of how modern science has corrupted the process. It has become highly politically charged for some areas of study, and cold fusion is a prime example. Blacklight’s experience with the patent process reinforces my view.
Blacklight has given us another inductive datapoint that is worth examining. They sell software that uses their modeling to explain chemical behavior. I am acquainted with a PhD who specializes in amino acids and he says that their software generates better results than standard modeling software. Eventually, this second little backwater is likely to yield results that can no longer be claimed to be pseudoscience.
It is OK for private money to finance this. We still have the right to do what we believe in, right or wrong. But, not a single tax payers cent should be wasted on a theory he says should replace quantum mechanics. QM is a theory that is confirmed daily.
***And so is Newtonian physics. And yet, relativity theory supplanted Newtonian physics in certain places with a correction factor of relativity theory and no one has any trouble with that. It’s because new observations no longer fit with the best attested model. The same is true today, and yet we’ve been spending tax payer $Billions on hot fusion and gotten nothing for it. These cold fusion guys have generated a thousand times more Megajoules than the hot fusion boys and guys like you want to keep throwing good money after bad.
But dirt is common as well and it too is made from atoms and stuff, and yet no one ever has any interesting energy-from-dirt schemes. Maybe it’s because we all have water delivered to our houses and it comes pouring out of our faucets. So, maybe if dirt came out of faucets it too would get more consideration as a source of unlimited energy.
***Actually, there are comparable amounts of Deuterium in dirt as in seawater. It’s just a lot easier to extract it from seawater than dirt.
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.