Posted on 01/15/2014 4:26:24 PM PST by Kevmo
I have plenty of discernment, numnuts. You presume I made some unit mistake upthread, but I did not. You proceed from your presumption like a properly motivated AssholeBandwagonLuddite.
The equations are far better balanced by using the vmpolesov*bandwagon*asshole*Luddite units. Jus’ sayin’, because then it doesn’t require you to look upthread to see if your asshole presumptions are true. It has an implied laziness factor that can’t be beat.
Actually, your translations are more properly done using the VMPOLESOV*Bandwagon*Asshole*Luddite units. They’re far more suited for you.
Why, Yes I do recognize it. Let’s see how far you take the presumption on this item, seein’ how far you took the last presumption.
And thank you for the insults. It apparently takes a lot of one-sided insults before the mods will decide to keep a LENR thread open.
You think a press release is a peer-reviewed paper.
***Wow, yet another logical fallacy, mind reading. You’re just full of them.
The difference between a con man producing a pulse of power for a nanosecond that may contain a milli-joule of actual energy, and then claiming : “but of course we can do this continuously,” is the difference between having an actual reactor and having a device which does nothing more than separate ignoramuses from their money.
***Then where is your hard screaming against controlled-hot-fusion fraudsters who have pissed away hundreds of $billions? It is silent, because you are a bandwagon joiner.
IF the device can be operated continuously, why has it not been?
***That is a presumption on your part, and the demo on Jan 28 will bear things out one way or another.
This is why your ridiculous fallback to the claim that “running the ‘reactor’ for 20,000 seconds is a ‘hypothetical’” is so lame.
***Bullshit. It is a simple hypothetical calculation that you can’t seem to do. Here, I’ll handhold for you, walk you through with baby steps on a very simple hypothetical. Let’s start with “what is 1Watt + 1Watt”?
Real generators are supposed to run all the time. That’s why — for a real generator — the difference between a KWH and a KW or a KWs and a KW or a KWY and a KW DON’T MATTER.
***Yawn. Look back upthread to see where this isn’t even an issue.
Because in a typical year, a real generator or reactor will be running all year except for [possibly] short maintenance periods.
***POTO
For this device the distinction matters because the “inventor” has never produced the slightest proof [and his own bloviating assurances aren’t proof] that his machine can produce power for any significant length of time,
***His demo is scheduled for Jan 28, so your own bloviating against this is basically an argument from silence, the silence of the future. The thing about that particular logical fallacy is that, even if you turn out to be right about what happens in the future by a precipitating event, your argument itself was INVALID at the time. Because you don’t know the future. Otherwise you could tell me the score of the next super bowl and the next world series. You won’t because you can’t, and arguing from the future is a logical fallacy... Duhh.
and why, in this case, quoting “wattage” is part of his con. Absent sustained capability, we are left with the suspicion that he’s simply charging capacitors or some other smoke-and-mirrors gimmick that isn’t doing anything more than storing the power from the wall for an “impressive” discharge.
***Well, then, we shall see. What’s weird is that when sustained capability HAS been demonstrated by another inventor, the skeptopaths still don’t believe it because the guy isn’t giving out his secret for free.
Nonsense. I have pointed out the theoretical shortcomings and criminal pasts of "LENR" hoaxers. This isn't shouting down anyone.
Those are NOT the actions of a legitimate practitioner of science.
Scientists have an obligation to point out to interested laymen and other scientists not necessarily schooled in a particular field when they are being scammed. It is unethical to do otherwise. If an astronomer were alerted to some astrological claim which purports to be "science" on FR, or a psychologist saw claims that ESP has been scientifically validated, their ethical obligation is to point out that this is nonsense, and to say why. In addition to doing that, I have also repeatedly provided citations from other scientists, just in case you don't believe me. This is the Internet. Anyone can claim to have a PhD. I don't personally believe you have one, and I don't personally believe that Kevmo has ever even taken a science course, let alone passed one. But credentials are irrelevant for the reason given; the quality of argument is all that matters here, and other than sloganeering you've never produced any.
On this thread, I have told you and Charlatan #1 why this BLP's claims are ridiculous. Look up-thread. I'll repeat it and elaborate: The eigenstates of hydrogenic wavefunctions have been known for 90 years. The solutions are EXACT. There are no lower energy eigenstates. If you disbelieve the Schroedinger equation, which is perfectly adequate for all but the finest structure of hydrogen-like atoms, you can use the Dirac equation, which adjusts the result very marginally. Neither of them allows for the existence of lower energy eigenstates than principle quantum number n=0, and neither of them have energy eigenvalues that could produce energies anywhere near those claimed by BLP's "theoretical" mechanism. If you want to argue that those equations for some reason don't apply, you have an even bigger problem, because even if they're wrong, THEY CAN'T BE WRONG BY MUCH: the Uncertainty Principle places an absolute lower bound on the average radius of a hydrogen wavefunction, and it is many orders of magnitude larger what BLP's "theory" claims.
Oh, but since you're an experimentalist, AND "experiment trumps theory," try this on for size: the manufacturer of the spectroscopy equipment BLP uses has been saying for years that their equipment cannot measure the wavelengths claimed by this "experimentalist."
Contrary to the nonsense you constantly post, that "extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary proof," the fact is that if you want to challenge literally thousands of experiments and a whole edifice of scientific thought which is interconnected with additional supporting evidence, experimental and theoretical, then YES, you must provide extraordinary proof of your claims, part of which includes at least a plausibility argument for why earlier experimenters results supports a theory which yours doesn't.
Example: Researchers at CERN claim to have seen neutrinos moving at greater than light speed. Does anyone currently believe them? NO! Why not? Not because there is any bizarre conspiracy against CERN and its researchers, but because even an experiment that's been verified as well as their result has, is simply NOT going to be accepted until it's duplicated in more than one place -- AND -- and this is a key feature that you don't seem to understand -- we must also have a mechanism which explains this experimental result in light of the fact that so much science, so many experiments by competent researchers over so many years and so many interconnected results say it CANNOT happen.
So ... whatever the reason for superluminal neutrinos -- IF THEY EXIST -- we must know not only why this result is seen, but why it does not -- [and cannot] -- overturn so many other, previous experiments which at least appear under existing explanation to say it shouldn't happen.
Instead, you and Charlatan #1 jump around like a bunch of aborigines in war paint around a campfire screaming "Experiment Trumps Theory! Experiment Trumps Theory!" NO. IT DOESN'T. Not when that theory explains countless other experiments which themselves imply that the experiment you're touting IS WRONG. Good theories and good experiments support each other. The "absolute trumping" of theory is only valid science in very young fields when there is no previous experimental work held together by mutually supporting explanations. Your idea of "science" is troublingly immature and naïve for someone who claims to have a PhD. [And one of the reasons I don't believe you do.]
And please don't quote Feynman to me. Feynman was not a child, and the oversimplification he felt necessary to explain complex scientific principles and the scientific method for public consumption doesn't mean he believed a few people diddling with electrodes should overturn quantum electrodynamics.
Do you seriously believe that if an experimenter came up with a result that seemed to contradict the basics of atomic theory that every scientist in the world -- including all but a handful of experimentalists would throw up their hands and say, "Well experiment trumps theory. And, after all, he only really required ordinary proof to overturn everything, according to Wonder Warthog, so ... OK. And even though he has nothing even so much as a sketch of how this works, we've got to erase all the blackboards... just because."
No.
I have read the theoretical papers of LENR advocates. AND THEY ARE NONSENSE. We have literally hundreds of thousands of experimental results which say that low energy nuclear reactions CAN NOT HAPPEN, and we have a number of theories which support each other, from basic classical nuclear understanding of 100+ years ago, through non-relativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and quantum field theory to say why this is so. These theories all come at this issue from different perspectives, and they all reinforce each other, and they explain the countless experiments. And they say that overcoming the Coulomb barrier does not, under any circumstances we understand, happen at low energies. And ... other experiments verify them, and don't validate LENR.
And until YOU have a workable theory which explains why we should overturn countless well established experiments by competent researchers, no one gives a sh!t about some silly, badly reported, very problematically duplicated heat anomalies in a handful of cases. And simply rerunning those experiments doesn't make them any more convincing, nor supply any explanation for why we should believe them.
In addition to which, your problem is compounded by the fact that BLP, Rossi, and many other cold fusion "researchers" are frauds and conmen. Rossi is a convicted tax cheat and conman.
To this Kevmo replies that everybody cheats on their taxes, including thousands of FReepers. Sorry, BUT I DON'T cheat on my taxes, and painting your fellow conservatives as criminals to defend one hoaxer isn't going to get you any credibility or friends on this site. Kevmo also claims that Rossi never defrauded anyone but himself -- WRONG. I've put up a link to the court record against Rossi. Charlatan #1's response: Oh that's from a biased source. No, it isn't. It's from the Italian Court in which he was convicted and sentenced, reproduced in full on a web site he simply doesn't like because it has fully documented all of Rossi's crimes.
Frankly, I'll put my scientific ethics up against yours any time of the day, pal. People who post crap and then call everyone else names because they don't have the science on their side are NOT going to get a pass from me. 99% of what Kevmo breathlessly posts -- and you support -- is complete drivel. My only ethical lapse is that I only weigh in a small fraction of the time to refute this bilge. I should be on every thread denouncing you two scam artists, but frankly, your constant name calling and ad hominem attacks, and the fact that in all of these years you haven't yet produced a single clue as to how this stuff supposedly works, or why it can't be turned into practical energy are self-refuting, and I don't even need to bother. When I do, it's for the benefit of educable but naïve FReepers who think these press releases are "science." They aren't.
Finally, I'll tell you this: I myself was not a high energy physicist, and in fact most practicing physicists aren't. They suck most of the air out of the room in terms of money, public awareness, and public interest, and given the fact that almost all actually useful science being done in physics is being done by condensed matter physicists and materials researchers, and not by cosmologists and particle guys, I actually have no particular use for them, knew very few of them when I was in the life, and don't feel any compulsion to defend them ... but ... Contrary to the lies told by faux fusion fanbois, hot fusion researchers have NEVER claimed they were on the brink of producing a controlled fusion. They always said this is a very remote endeavor. They have been honest about that. I did go to seminars, and heard them say it on every single occasion where they represented the state of their work, including some of the most famous people in the world.
But even if they had, their failures DO NOT justify the con-artists plying their trade in the cold fusion business.
0 times anything is still zero. Which means that the real fusion guys are still very far ahead of the “cold fusion” conmen, who have never produced so much as an erg.
“Kevmo: Since I do know my stuff, if I had published that the resistor was dissipating too much heat in Joules, my boss would have changed it to the industry standard of Watts. If you knew YOUR stuff, you’d know that.”
Aqua: It’s “engineers” like you who cause thermal issues in the field. You don’t even understand the basic concepts, you just “cook book” it, and hope you have low warranty returns. So typical of the laziness of many.
***You just made a huge stride here. You acknowledge I’m an engineer, that I’m a published author, that there is evidence I’m involved in heat calculations and perhaps even warranties. That’s a far cry from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a Watt and a Joule, which if you look upthread I didn’t make that misstep, but you PRESUMED it. And you presume that the product I generated was somehow cookbooked or lazy WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT. You might want to look in the mirror on that laziness thing.
Did you happen to work on the XBOX 360 by any chance?
***And on top of that laziness thing, you throw in a demonstrated hyperwillingness to engage the mean-spirited vector. Double loser.
If you don’t plan for the amount of thermal *energy* you are dumping into a system, your stuff will more than likely fail rapidly.
***Gosh, that’s EXACTLY what a THERMAL CALCULATOR is for. And I am the one who developed it. Your presumptions just go on to infinite, don’t they?
Sorry you can’t see this,
***Once again, a presumption. But we can all see, without presumption but with REAL PROOF, that you didn’t look at my thermal calculator and proceeded from a bunch of presumptions plus mixed in mean-spirited and ignorant comments. That’s an amazing level of uselessness.
most UC engineers I know, are actually very smart. You give them a bad name.
***You have demonstrated a high index of useless presumption just in this one post.
His "demo" will mean nothing more than a trick by David Copperfield or Harry Blackstone if he does not give competent scientists full access to his device while it is disconnected from the grid.
That "demonstration" you are never going to see.
For a train driver, he has to do the lookup or the calculation, based on his tonnage.
***But you expect a FReeper to do a conversion in his head from BTUs/lumpOfCoal (or whatever the hell it is you’re whining about) to Watts or Joules or, once again, whatever the hell it is you’re whining about. I gather this means we can add hypocrisy to the list of things you’re doing wrong.
Go figure, your just too ignorant to realize it.
***Maybe at some point you will tell all of us non train-nerds-who-still-live-with-their-mother’s why the vast majority of DVMs don’t have Joules (orBTUs/CoalLump) but do have Watts as a setting. And of course, we would fully expect you to presume that this is somehow evidence that I don’t know the difference or some other ridiculous whine.
What are you whining about now? One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Have you EVER read any paper on LENR? You sound a lot like the kind of skeptic that WW manages to corner once in a while.
Thanks for the insults. They help keep the thread open.
You don’t get it. The whole sideshow doesn’t matter. You expect freepers whom you disagree with to be able to convert birdpoop/mile (or whatever the hell it is you’re whining about) conversions to catcrap/meter (or whatever the hell it is you’re whining about) in their head, you presume that what you’ve been keying up on actually happened upthread when it didn’t.
So now that we have all these one-sided insults allowed by the mods and they decide to keep the thread open after closing so many other threads where I was getting the best of the skeptopaths, it simply becomes necessary to draw the jerks in so they can throw a few punches before I’m allowed to smoke out the Luddites. You can go on and on about some imagined engineering misconcept, but it won’t matter. Someone who VALUES science would act differently — they would check their presumptions, they would further the scientific discussion and they’d save their insults for after the fact when their scientific arguments have won the day. But we don’t see that in you, do we?
so when they hit it with 12000 amps at 80 some volts,
***Where does it say 80 Volts?
What I want to know is what should we look for on this January 28th demo?
***I think the skeptics have properly given us the right thing to look for: The fuel can be continuously fed into the electrodes to continuously output power. If they say it can but then handwave over this aspect and don’t do it, it’s just an appeal for more funds.
But, if Tweedledee and Tweedledum can outlast you on the thread, then LENR must be true. On Internet forums crazy people have the edge.
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.