Posted on 09/04/2016 12:33:41 PM PDT by Normandy
Yeah, he’s an “expert” that has ZERO peer-reviewed articles in his field, his degree is in philosophy, and he’s been making grandiose claims since the 1970s on this kind of stuff and has delivered NOTHING. This guy isn’t showing me that he’s much of an expert on anything except mystifying rich people and taking their money.
Its hardly spam. But, I wouldn’t worry its probably over your head anyway.
In the 26 years since the ill-named, and ill-timed, announcement of “cold fusion” by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah critics have consistently raised five concerns: 1. Fusion neutron production isn’t commensurate with observed heat 2. Lack of a theory 3. Counter to “all that’s known in nuclear physics” 4. Irreproducibility 5. Lack of independent replication It can be argued that the phenomenon is neither “cold” nor “fusion”: but it is nuclear . Neutrons are not easily produced, nor, are they produced by purely chemical means. Hence, neutrons are the hallmark of nuclear reactions. Although neutron production isn’t commensurate with measured heat, several of our papers discuss neutron production. There is an abundance of contradictory theories, and hence, we’ve shied away from theory until we had data. Although the mantra, “theory guides, data decides”, doesn’t preclude experimental data, several voices outside the field refuse to recognize the phenomena unless there is a theory. However, our model-ing has provided guidance and suggests previously unrecognized magnetic and nuclear effects that clearly enable condensed matter nuclear reactions. The major “cold fusion” criticism has been the need to overcome the Coulomb Barrier between two positively charged deuterons at room temperature, 0.025 eV, as opposed to the hot fusion ion temperature of 5 keV (55 million K). However, low energy accelerator experiments with metal deuteride targets demonstrate enhanced electron screening that significantly raises the Gamow Factor thereby increasing the low temperature deuterium fusion cross-section. Other nuclear theories have been suggested to lower the Coulomb Barrier, though few of these are consistent with our data. Most important, the patented co-deposition protocol (US 8,419,919) discussed in these papers has shown independent reproducibility and replication across multiple laboratories in four countries negating two primary criticisms of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS): irreproducibility and lack of independent replication.
The one I was talking about is from Penn State and a computer guy. Somebody else verified the UNM guy and he looks to be real and in the field.
Laz, I think you’ve reached critical mass. Unless you have some carbon rods nearby, prepare for an explosion.
I don’t claim to be an expert in the field, I’m just pointing out what a sketchy organization E-Cat is. And the more I dig, the more weirdness I find. This guy Rossi has been making grandiose claims like this since the 1970s. The surest way to shut me up is to DELIVER on something. Dude’s like a politician, all he does is talk talk talk and produce nothing of substance. He’s been at this for 40 years.
I want to see it happen, I really honestly do. But it’s hard to get behind an organization that lies to me. How do you make a first impression that’s worse than that? The headline is that the US DTRA has publicly released their article. The report shows a staff-summary sheet showing DTIC release. But when I go to those websites and search on the title or control number, I find NOTHING. I’d love to hear an explanation for that.
Dude, you’re coming off a little unhinged here.
My dishwasher runs on LENR.
60% of GOVERNMENT and government workers are USELESS...
it is a cancer eating the country..... glorified WELFARE
LENR will herald the second coming of CHRIST.
The Soviets invented LENR first, which is why they put a satellite in space before us.
Don’t you wish you understood LENR?
LMAO.
LENR cures cancer.
This is nothing compared to what Lynrd Skynrd can do.
Common netiquette is to indicate what a link points to. Trying to get people to click on links with no knowledge of what the link points to is spammy behavior. Sorry if my point went “over your head” I thought it was obvious to any 5th grader nowadays.
Your name-calling is impressive. Like I said, the biggest way to shut me up is to show results. If it’s valid science, it shouldn’t require some kind of religious awakening to believe in it. Show me something running on LENR and I’ll believe it.
You’re no different than the UFO people, Lazamatz. You don’t want to talk facts, you just want to call people stupid and ignorant for, ironically, not blindly believing.
Call me a tard all you want, you’re not coming off real impressive right now. Every post that you rack up on here just kicks up your nutjob quota.
Got anything to say about the article or are we just posting vanities today?
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.