Posted on 12/20/2010 1:24:08 AM PST by Kevmo
I agree, there’s less risk involved when no one else is working along the same lines. Compare this to controlled fusion, which has been under continual R&D since 1950, at least — and yielded precisely nothing. Unless one counts the findings which show that it’s probably not doable.
The problem with guys like these is that they are not interested in looking for real investors, they are looking for real believers.
***Well, their claim is that they’re starting to build plants. It could just be the next step in an audacious plan to swindle people, or they could be telling the truth. At this point it is very difficult to tell the truth. I have been reading up on the rest of the field in cold fusion, and no one is at the point where they could build a plant, but the rate of replication is getting to the point that it will soon be above 70-75%. That should start attracting research money.
Yup. That would be cool. From where I’m sitting, I think we should be steering $Billions from hot fusion (which has given us almost nothing) over to cold fusion, which is coming into its own.
Well said. The research is fascinating. I don’t know how laymen can contribute and, better yet, profit. One way would be to buy Palladium futures, I suppose.
It refutes all your assertions
***No, it doesn’t.
(I have no doubt you’ll pooh pooh Wikipedia
***Wrong again. But it is just one datapoint among many.
but the article contains links to research refuting Mill’s “science”).
***It also contains links to things like NASA replicating the results.
May–November 2002: A NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Phase I study is conducted at Rowan University, led by mechanical engineering professor Anthony Marchese, to investigate the so-called BlackLight Process for use in spacecraft propulsion. The team reports that with assistance from BlackLight Power, they successfully replicated previous results, including the observation of line broadening indicative of hydrogen atoms moving much faster than would ordinarily be expected under the experimental conditions.[22]
Also
August 12, 2009: A BLP press release asserts that scientists at Rowan University have for the first time independently formulated and tested fuels that on demand generated energy greater than that of combustion at power levels of kilowatts using BLP’s proprietary solid-fuel chemistry capable of continuous regeneration. Operating power systems using BLP’s chemistry, Rowan University professors have reported a net energy gain of up to 6.5 times the maximum energy potential of the materials in the system from known chemical reactions.
You ad hominem attacks on posters who disagree with you really do nothing to support your case
***Hey, sparky, you’re the one starting in with ad hominem. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Your meandering posts aren’t contributing much to enlightenment on the topic. Like I said, more heat than light.
plus your claim to have made money in cold fusion immediately puts your support for balcklight in the suspect category.
***Not at all. It puts my claim right square in the middle of the datapoints involved in this inductive pursuit. It means someone is putting his money where his mouth is, unlike you. I have already made money doing exactly this, and if you’re so convinced of your own position I can advance even more contracts. But when all is said and done, your mouth will shown to be much bigger than anything else mentionable.
It would seem you’re here to shill for a company, not enlighten.
***I don’t care much about BlackLight power. I consider them 1 among dozens of scientific datapoints in the cold fusion arena. As the Wikipedia article said, 2007: In a review of cold fusion research, Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher, concludes that the hydrino model provides a possible explanation for cold fusion.[20]
Tell it to NASA!
***From that wikipedia page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
May–November 2002: A NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Phase I study is conducted at Rowan University, led by mechanical engineering professor Anthony Marchese, to investigate the so-called BlackLight Process for use in spacecraft propulsion. The team reports that with assistance from BlackLight Power, they successfully replicated previous results, including the observation of line broadening indicative of hydrogen atoms moving much faster than would ordinarily be expected under the experimental conditions.[22]
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.
These guys are complete and utter crackpots.
It isn’t even good nonsense.
***Then show where the science is wrong. It shouldn’t be hard to do if you’re so vehement about where they’re coming from.
Well, you’re right, there are millions of tons of DHMO in water, because it IS water. I doubt that “Huge majorities of the country believe that it should be totally banned.”
Thanks for bumping the thread.
I gather you haven’t been reading the thread, or you wouldn’t have said “the laws of physics are absolute.”
Your first sentence doesn’t make much sense.
There is nothing to prove except that PT Barnum was right.
***I ran into a lot of big mouth blustering like yours when I posted this article
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
I noticed that almost every one of the blusterers slunk away when the time came to put their money where their mouth is, to put up or shut up. Most of them do neither, like a pack of cowards.
You can’t be serious. This is the chemical equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
***I’ll post the same thing to you. I ran into a lot of big mouth blustering like yours when I posted this article
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
I noticed that almost every one of the blusterers slunk away when the time came to put their money where their mouth is, to put up or shut up. Most of them do neither, like a pack of cowards.
If there were merit there they would see it. They don’t.
***Then your physicist friends are doing the world a disfavor by not publishing their findings and retorts in the same peer reviewed journals that this article was posted.
If you think it’s a scam then you’ll have no trouble betting against cold fusion experiments being replicated in peer reviewed journals. After all, if you’re right, you get to make money off it. And you know you’re right.
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
One, cold fusion has never been done in the lab, regardless of what you think.
***And why should we listen to what you think? I have money in my pocket that came directly from the fact that a certain cold fusion experiment was replicated, and it was money taken from people who are so cocksure “it has never been done in the lab”, like you.
Asking for a working car or model is hardly raising the bar,
***Sure it is. You’re not even asking that from the hot fusion boys.
it is simply asking the people who are making these claims to put up or shut up.
***No, it ain’t. The cold fusion arena is in its infancy, starved of research dollars while it has generated thousands of Megajoules of energy. In the meantime the hot fusion arena is fed $Billions while it has produced, what, maybe 10 Megajoules of energy. It is the hot fusion boys who have not put up nor shut up.
Do I believe this Hydrogen BS? Nope, and if you do you are considerably more naive than you sound.
***I am naive enough to bet on certain hydrogen experiments in cold fusion getting replicated in a peer reviewed journal, and yet my naivete’ was rewarded with money in my pocket. But I doubt you really ‘believe’ in your position because you won’t be selling me any contracts at Intrade — and certainly not at the price that such vehemence would suggest is appropriate.
If you published an article in a peer reviewed, scientific journal that replicated your result, I’d be interested. And I’d especially be interested in putting my money where my mouth is to support your technology. Been there, done that.
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
From the article their machine sounds an awful lot like “cold fusion” of the early 90’s.
***That’s perceptive. I think this is interrelated with cold fusion. From the wikipedia entry on this company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
2007: In a review of cold fusion research, Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher, concludes that the hydrino model provides a possible explanation for cold fusion.[20]
I never did read about the conclusion of cold fusion, by the way. “Mainstream” scientists claim bad measurement were the reason for observed energy gain, but I have never seen it proven - only conjecture
***Here’s a free online book that mostly would bring you up to speed.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
Kevmo: All the while in this backwater technology, guys have produced both.
r9:
They say they have produced both. And, they say they’ll have their working model in 2011 ...
***You’ve conjoined what I said about cold fusioneers producing ignition and sustained reaction with these Blacklight guys who claim to have a working plant.
how can we believe what you say, given that they evidently don’t have a working model yet?
***These blacklight guys are just one datapoint in the cold fusion arena. They are the first to claim they have a working model, whereas everyone else in the cold fusion field have just laboratory experiments. My position is that these guys are all making good progress and deserve the lion’s share of fusion research money, rather than the hot fusioneers who have had 50 years + $Billions and given us nothing.
The same “Leap of Faith” is required to believe in “Man Made Global Warming” Which is why “Carbon Credits” are equally as valuable as this “Stock”
***I don’t think it’s the same at all. If you trust your data and put your money down at Intrade, you can make money off global warming cultists with contracts such as these:
Climate and Weather - Global Temperatures
Will Global Average Temperatures for 2010-2012 be THE warmest on record?
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
2010.GLOBALTEMP.WARMEST
Average Global Temperature for 2010 to be the warmest on record M Trade 88.1 92.9 88.1 2482 -5.0
2011.GLOBALTEMP.WARMEST
Average Global Temperature for 2011 to be the warmest on record M Trade 28.1 29.1 29.2 1088 0
2012.GLOBALTEMP.WARMEST
Average Global Temperature for 2012 to be the warmest on record M Trade 32.0 44.0 37.9 216 0
Will Global Average Temperatures for 2010-2014 be AMONG FIVE warmest on record?
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
2010.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5
Average Global Temperature for 2010 to be among five warmest years on record M Trade 88.0 98.0 98.1 528 0
2011.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5
Average Global Temperature for 2011 to be among five warmest years on record M Trade 50.0 59.0 53.0 129 0
2012.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5
Average Global Temperature for 2012 to be among five warmest years on record M Trade 54.0 73.0 54.1 113 0
2013.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5
Average Global Temperature for 2013 to be among five warmest years on record M Trade 50.0 69.0 65.0 14 0
2014.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5
Average Global Temperature for 2014 to be among five warmest years on record M Trade 36.0 88.9 61.0 4 0
Will 2010 be a warmer year than 2009?
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
GLOBALTEMP.2010>2009
Global Average Temperature for 2010 to be higher than for 2009 M Trade 95.5 98.2 92.0 265 0
Will 2019 be a warmer year than 2009?
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
GLOBALTEMP.2019>2009
Global Average Temperature for 2019 to be higher than for 2009 M Trade 84.0 85.0 85.0 198 0
Will 2019 be 0.2 degrees celsius warmer than 2009?
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
GLOBALTEMP.2019.0.2C>2009
Global Average Temperature for 2019 to be 0.2 degrees celsius (or more) higher than for 2009 M Trade 40.0 87.9 98.0 1 0
Will Global Average Temperature for 2010-2014 exceed 2005-2009 by 0.1 degree C?
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
GLOBAL.TEMP.10-14>05-09
Global Average Temperature for 2010-2014 to exceed that for 2005-2009 by 0.1 deg C or more M Trade 2.1 69.0 49.5 4 0
Monthly Global Temperature Anomalies 2010
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
GTA.NOV2010.>0.40
Global Temperature Anomaly for Nov 2010 to be greater than 0.40 Degrees C M Trade - - - 0 0
GTA.DEC2010.>0.40
Global Temperature Anomaly for Dec 2010 to be greater than 0.40 Degrees C M Trade 81.0 - 60.0 2 0
Monthly Global Temperature Anomalies 2011
Your moving in the correct direction and the Research is really fascinating but George Noory hasn’t done a show on it yet so I’m still on the fence.
***To each his own.
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.