Posted on 12/31/2010 1:57:41 AM PST by Kevmo
Feel free to post data. It doesn’t show up on first pass google hits so far.
Petroleum Products Yielded from One Barrel of Crude, 2004
Product Gallons
Finished Motor Gasoline 19.65
Distillate Fuel Oil 10.03
Kero-Type Jet Fuel 4.07
Residual Fuel Oil 1.72
Still Gas 1.85
Petroleum Coke 2.18
Liquefied Refinery Gas 1.68
Asphalt and Road Oil 1.34
Naptha for Feedstocks 0.67
Other Oils for Feedstocks 0.55
Lubricants 0.46
Special Naphthas 0.13
Kerosene 0.17
Miscellaneous Products 0.17
Finished Aviation Gasoline 0.04
Waxes 0.04
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/crudeproduction.htm
“Hey Alan, let’s get a few things straight…
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us “greedy” for calling “bullshit” on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators who are “greedy”. It is you and they who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That’s right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.”
You are incredibly ignorant. It is an industrial fact,
***I just posted an industrial fact which I found while searching for your industrial fact, and it shows you to be incredibly ignorant. So, knock off the personal attacks, STFU, and start addressing the issues. If the list is “vast and thorough” you should have no trouble producing it.
There again, you make brash statements without backing them with facts.
***How is that brash? I asked in the non-assuming tone, “what, 5%?”. You’re the one who is brash.
Which convinces me that the rest of your B.S. is nothing more than just that.
***You’re mighty fast to jump to conclusions, resort to immediate insults, and yet there is not much factual refutation in your post. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Especially your Cold Fusion theory. Which if it were so complete and superior, would be the Worlds most widely used form of Energy by now.
***Same, same, same argument, over and over again. Rehash rehash. If your argument were valid, we’d be driving hot fusion cars by now.
That is, if it were true. You make it sound so abundant and easy, even a Cave Man could do it!
***No I don’t. That’s why I argue that the cold fusion guys should get some of that research money that the hot fusion guys have been getting. But your argument is, of course, a straw argument which leads any lurker to wonder why you would need to resort to classic fallacies in addition to your quick insults, rather than address the facts on the ground.
I clearly pointed out that the list comes from the American Petroleum Institute.
How or why you insist on doing a detailed search on Google under “Petroleum Products” will yield just that. There are also vast manufacturing materials and products, as well as the percentage of those materials listed by the Institute.
55% of each barrel go towards “Petroleum products” and 45% goes to manufacturing products. Including dish soap, toothpaste, and all sorts of things, like the computer you are currently abusing.
Because of the Internet, President Bill Clinton could leave a $127 billion surplus in 2001 for the Bush Administration to squander (it was all gone by 2003).
There never was a surplus, there was a projected surplus! That's it; a projection much like AGW is a projection.
Post it, since it’s so easy to find.
I don’t know much about the articles points on cold fusion,
***Then what are you doing on this thread, other than seagulling?
but I recognize BS when I read it:
***This is an article about cold fusion and its obvious potential. Who cares about how much of a surplus it was or was not in 2001? Such information has no bearing on how much impact cold fusion would on our economy. If you can recognize BS when you read it, can you recognize BS when you write it?
I have a better idea. Forget Green Energy. Drill here Drill Now. Eliminate the alphabet Federal Profit Control Agencies like EPA and OSHA. Slash the size and reach of government. Liberate Free Enterprise and quit ‘getting things done’. In other words abolish Liberalism.
GFY. I’ll write what I want, when I want.
re: $127 billion surplus in 2001 for the Bush Administration to squander (it was all gone by 2003)
Sept. 11, 1991 goes a long way in explaining what happened to that ‘surplus’ that never really was. Between the spinning, hiding an downright lying about the numbers by the Clinton administration to fool the people, and the incredible costs of 9/11, someone did a great job of getting us out of period with no more deficit than we had.
There isn’t going to be some “magic pill” that gets us out of this mess. Wind power was suppose to be such a pill. The people that are building them and putting them in with tax payer subsidizes are happy to have a job, but investors are getting creamed...
From the tone and phrasing, KevMo is just Mark Goldes (Marketing Officer at Chava Energy) who has been a busy camper on the blogosphere, putting the same inane comments elsewhere. Busy setting up websites like the dead www.energyblogs.com.
Looked at the 2 latest publications from BlackLight. One on the chemical experiments. The other on the plasma/emission front.
First, on the chemical front. Looking at the hydride/hydrino experiments at Rowan and at Blacklight in the past 5 years, the excess energy ratio has decreased from 20:1, 10:1, 5:1, and now 3:1. The trend is approaching 1:1 and there is nothing there to be discovered. Most of the heats of formation of the listed reactants have been compiled back in the 1950’s and have not been updated. The margins of error in many thermodynamic evaluations are often large. Once the Rowan/Blacklight researchers recalibrate for corrected heats of formation, the excess energy ratio is approaching 1:1.
The focus has been on halides: Chlorine, Bromine, and - notoriously - Iodine. Iodine has a strong tendency to produce polyiodide ions: negative and even positive ions composed of several iodine atoms. To a lesser extent, Chlorine and Bromine produce similar polyions. Fluorine, by its small size, behaves quite differently than the other halogens.
Second, on the plasma/emission front. The main failure of Mr Mills’ hydrino model is that the model is a free space model and all experiments by Rowan/Blacklight depends on “hydrino” interacting with other matter. Rowan/Blacklight always talk about catalysis. The simplest and most straightforward experiment is to “lase” some hydrogen gas with UV light at 26 ev. This experiment (and variants) have been done and failed. LASER is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission Radiation. Your common variety of hydrogen plasma gas is - according to the hydrino theory - in a perfect population inversion. Just radiate the hydrogen plasma gas with EUV (>=26 ev) and the outgoing radiation should be of greater intensity than the incoming radiation. BIG FAIL!
Now, one may say that the “hydrino” states are of spherical (s) symmetry and the conventional ground state of hydrogen is also of s symmetry and thus the lasing process is symmetry forbidden. NO PROBLEM! Just optically pump the hydrogen plasma gas to the 2p state (p symmetry) and then lase the pumped plasma with EUV radiation of the appropriate frequency. Again, this experiment has been done: BIG FAIL! Synchroton/Cyclotron produce radiation at all intensities and frequencies.
Let us return to Blacklight’s latest publication on their plasma experiments. They pass a beam of hydrogen (and separately helium less than a millimicron above a grated surface and check the outgoing radiation. Per authors, the radiation in the EUV region is characterized as a “continuum”, not “discrete” and therein lies the failure of the experiment. For - according to Mr Mills - the hydrino states are well defined and thus the outgoing radiation should show discrete peaks. The continuum aspect of the radiation indicates that the transition happen from an excited metastable state (key word: metastable) to the convention ground state. The grated surface is a surface in which narrow grooves were carved in: metastable - and excited - hydrogen gas is produced when the gas atoms is well inside these grooves. Upon exiting the grooves, the metastable radiate EUV into the free space and return back to the convention ground state hydrogen atoms.
Looking at the graphs of the Blacklight publication, the helium experiment shows some peaks in the EUV region but they are faint. The same faint peaks show up with the hydrogen experiment: these peaks are characteristic to the grating surface. The helium experiments show little continuum radiation in the EUV region and this is no proof - direct or indirect - of hydrinos. The continuum radiation is essentially a resonance phenomenon (with respect to the geometry of the grated surface).Helium, having a mass 4 times that of of hydrino would produce the same type of continuum radiation at about 1/2 the frequency.
BlackLight cannot see the forest for the trees. It is so focused on the EUV region and did not look at all radiation ranges.
The piece by Joe Shea is just a rehash of some dated publicity pushed out there by “KevMo”. The following is a comment on the posted piece by Joe Shea.
“...which now has been replicated at least 2,000 times. “
Half correct and totally dishonest. The majority of the runs were FAILURES. A small minority of the runs showed excess energy. What the likes of “KevMo” are suffering is called Confirmation Bias: the failures do not register with them.
“...but never on the same scale. His name is Dr. Randell C. Mills, “
Incorrect. The scientific community looked at Mr Mills’ hydrino theory and found it lacking in mathematical consistency and physically inconsistent. To paraphrase the late Wolfgang Pauli, Mr Mills’ theory is incorrect and - what is even worse - it is not even wrong! It is irrelevant. The arguments for Mills’ irrelevancy was given in a previous posting of mine.
Let us compare Mr Mills’ situation with that of an obscure worker at the Swiss Patent Office by the name of Albert Einstein. His theory of special relativity was disruptive to the scientific community. The german scientific establishment condemned this “jewish” science. Mr Einstein was unfazed and said the arguments of 1 person or experimental results suffice to disprove him. What is more pertinent, Mr Einstein was not “married” to his theory whereas “KevMo” and Mr Mills are so “married” to the hydrino theory. Soon, predictions made from special relativity were confirmed by experiments. In the case of General Relativity the picture was a little bit different: many complicated models of Mercury’s (the planet) had a better experimental fit than Einstein’s 2-parameter model. However, for other astrophysical behavior, Einstein’s theory fit much better the experiments than the many-parameter models of others. Applying Occam’s rule, slowly Einstein’s theory was accepted. This not the case with Mr Mills’ model.
“But the Pons-Fleischmann claim was more immediately and profoundly threatening to a group of well-funded physicists whose careers were buttered with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding for their fruitless hot fusion projects, such as the Tokomak reactor. “
Moonbat theory. First of all, the British (in 1995) went BEYOND the break-even point with the Tokomak reactor. The key point: the fuel used was tritium gas. The american scientists grumbled with envy. But tritium is much more expensive than even deuterium and tritium-based methods are not commercially feasible (too expensive). So talking about “fruitless hot fusion projects” is so much nonsense. The above statement by Shea reflects some kind of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
“To date, none of this funding - perhaps $50 billion worth so far - has produced a working hot fusion reactor,”
Incorrect. Read the above paragraph.
“Instead of the lengthy times needed to allow ....”
Half correct and totally dishonest. The Pons’ electrolysis went on for an average of 10 days before any remarkable heat surge occurred. So one had a large energy input and a large output. Most of the time the output was less that the input. Here Shea and “KevMo” show symptoms of Confirmation Bias. Although not mentioned in Shea’s piece is the account of a lab explosion. The accounts I read about this explosion remind me of UFO accounts: “ the extent of the damage was so extensive, it cannot be explained by a chemical reaction... BLAH. BLAH. BLAH.” Yep. You are producing hydrogen gas for days on end and no venting/ventilation system is perfect. The experiment which exploded was run by a graduate student. A similar explosion occurred at SRI and the account of that incident sounds like a UFO account.
“Later, when a new patent had already been published in the Gazette of the U.S. Patent Office, a “poison pen” telephone call from Bob Park to friends at the patent office got the patent grant to Mills reeled back in and then denied. That had apparently never happened before. “
Incorrect. First, many issued patents have been annulled before. And for Mr Mills, his patent applications have been denied in England. Mr Mills appealed several times and lost every time.
“But Mills has not sought government funding or Wall Street equity money, and has raised $71 million on his own. “
Good for him! So far, no tangible results. With much less funding, atomic energy was demonstrated in Germany in the early 1930’s, well before the Manhattan project. Think about it: if one subscribes to the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory, the Coal and Oil industry would have suppressed Nuclear Energy.
“As impressive as they are, the Energistics results from a cold fusion process pale in comparison to those from Mills’ hydrino reactors. “
A lot of hyperbole. Please quantify “pale”. Here, one enters the Twilight Zone. Recently, General Electric had a EcoImagination competition where individuals and companies compete in the areas of Energy (green preferably), Energy Distribution and EcoHomes. Personally I kept a lookout for any suggestions made by “KevMo” and his ilk. None and “KevMo” missed a great opportunity since GE promised a minimum of 100K investment which can grow to $200 million at the commercialization stage. However there were submissions based on such “wingbat” ideas like the Searl effect generator. Hundreds of people voted for the Searl Effect General and other submissions advocating Perpetual Machines. The Hydrino scheme is at the same level as the Searl generator.
“But Mills already has 20 working 50- and 75-kilowatt reactors at his plant in Cranbury, N.J”
Half correct and totally dishonest. The reactors produced at 75-kilowatt for 1 or 2 seconds. And then go dead. And this after considerable energy input. Produce a 75-kilowatt reactors which run continuously for, say, 24 hours and then talk.
“The latest came from a sprawling Italian multinational, the RadiciGroup, which ordered a 750MW hydrino reactor to power all the Group’s industrial and corporate facilities in a deal announced on March 19, 2010. “
One way Mr Mills raised his 70-odd million dollars is to sell the snake oil and collect the money from the suckers, uh, investors. Selling vapor generators is a good but temporary business.
The rest of Shea’s piece is so much boilerplate snake-oil sales pitch.
Let us take a high-altitude look at things.
First, the CalTech electrochemists did not run weeks-long electrolysis. But the Japanese and the Italians did: no confirmation of Pons’ results. Other scientists have submitted palladium (and other palladium alloys) under high pressure deuterium for weeks, even months before using such treated palladium in an electrolysis machine: results are mixed: many failures, few successes. Other scientists have treated the high-pressure (palladium-deuterium) mixes under low frequency EM: the issue is that under electrolysis, there is a small non-zero electric field INSIDE the electrode and this field helps the diffusion of deuterium ions into the body of the electrode. High Pressure deuterium helps in the diffusion and the low frequency EM treatment produces non-zero electric fields inside the electrode. The intensity of the EM treatment changes such that diffusion into the electrode is faster than diffusion out of electrode. The results were mixed: many failures. few successes.
Second, the NSF have looked into the cold-fusion issue and found that the hydrino hypothesis has no grounding in reality and the Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction (LENR) has some merit. Most nuclear experiments are done in the high-energy regime, thus one has a good picture of high-end of the internuclear potential but gain little detail about the neighborhood of the bottom of internuclear potential well.
Third: The physics of hot fusion has been demonstrated by many experiments by many different teams. The physics of hydrinos have not been demonstrated: at best SOME cherry-picked results may suggest hydrinos but always there is a convention explanation (some of these explanations are given in the previous posting).
Fourth: what are the engineering difficulties for hot fusion and cold fusion?
hot fusion: reactions go quickly but: the plasma density is too low, the plasma residency time is too short. cold fusion: LENR reactions go VERY, VERY, SLOWLY. And the density of the reactants (usually solid form) may be too low: very high pressures (about 1,000,000 atm) may be needed.
I hypothesize that the first-general fusion machine will be a fission-triggered cold-fusion set-up. The steady-state of the machine will be a combination of hot- and cold- fusion regimes with a plasma core (hot-fusion) surrounded by a high pressure liquid-inner mantle, with (perhaps) a solid outer mantle. To prevent the plasma core (20 KeV temp) to make contact with the reactor shell, the liquid mantle will be manipulated by time-dependent EM fields (similar to what is done today in conventional metallurgy)
Now that I have given you the God-given truth, please send me my royalty checks.
Well, those are good ideas, I agree. Let’s do all of it.
GFY. I’ll write what I want, when I want.
***GFY, GFY? What does that stand for, Good For You? Well, GFY too, that you don’t know how to tell BS when you’re writing it.
There isn’t going to be some “magic pill” that gets us out of this mess.
***That’s a position of faith, just as much a position as those who have faith in their various solutions.
Wind power was suppose to be such a pill.
***Nonsense. Wind Power was never going to be anything but a stopgap measure. Good for those who have it, but most of us don’t.
The people that are building them and putting them in with tax payer subsidizes are happy to have a job, but investors are getting creamed...
***On the same level, the hot fusion boys all have great jobs but those of us who are footing the bill are getting creamed...
From the tone and phrasing, KevMo is just Mark Goldes (Marketing Officer at Chava Energy) who has been a busy camper on the blogosphere, putting the same inane comments elsewhere. Busy setting up websites like the dead www.energyblogs.com.
***Never heard of Mark Goldes. Why does everything have to have a conspiratorial tone? Maybe Kevmo is just Kevmo, and Mark Goldes is Mark Goldes. Occham’s razor can do wonders in simple situations.
First, on the chemical front. Looking at the hydride/hydrino experiments at Rowan and at Blacklight in the past 5 years, the excess energy ratio has decreased from 20:1, 10:1, 5:1, and now 3:1.
***That’s good info, something I have not noticed.
The trend is approaching 1:1 and there is nothing there to be discovered.
***Maybe so, maybe not. But my position is that the cold fusioneers have generated thousands of Megajoules at pennies per Joule while the hot fusioneers have produced tens of Megajoules at $10k/Joule, or so. The trend is approaching diminishing returns for hot fusioneers, and there is nothing there to be discovered.
Most of the heats of formation of the listed reactants have been compiled back in the 1950’s and have not been updated. The margins of error in many thermodynamic evaluations are often large. Once the Rowan/Blacklight researchers recalibrate for corrected heats of formation, the excess energy ratio is approaching 1:1.
***Fascinating. And it sounds well informed. Perhaps you have an article or two we could puruse?
The focus has been on halides: Chlorine, Bromine, and - notoriously - Iodine. Iodine has a strong tendency to produce polyiodide ions: negative and even positive ions composed of several iodine atoms. To a lesser extent, Chlorine and Bromine produce similar polyions. Fluorine, by its small size, behaves quite differently than the other halogens.
***As far as I can tell, the focus for cold fusioneers (of which I include the blacklight slicksters) is on Deuterium.
Second, on the plasma/emission front.
***As soon as the argument comes round to plasma, I lose tracking. It’s too mysterious for the average layman following this phenomenon.
The main failure of Mr Mills’ hydrino model is that the model is a free space model and all experiments by Rowan/Blacklight depends on “hydrino” interacting with other matter.
***What is wrong with that?
Interactions of charged particles on surfaces
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LawandyNMinteractio.pdf
Nabil M. Lawandya
Department of Physics and Division of Engineering, Brown University, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, USA
Received 5 October 2009; accepted 11 November 2009; published online 7 December 2009
Charges of the same polarity bound to a surface with a large dielectric contrast exhibit an attractive
long-range Coulomb interaction, which leads to a two-particle bound state. Ensembles of like
charges experience a collective long-range interaction, which results in compacted structures with
interparticle separations that can be orders of magnitude smaller than the equilibrium separation of
the pair potential minimum. Simulations indicate that ensembles of surface bound nuclei, such as D
or T, exhibit separations small enough to result in significant rates of fusion. © 2009 American
Institute of Physics. doi:10.1063/1.3270537
A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by KP Sinha - Related articles
The central idea of this paper is that the solid matrix in which LENR takes place ..... K. P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg, “Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in ...
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SinhaKPamodelfore.pdf
Rowan/Blacklight always talk about catalysis. The simplest and most straightforward experiment is to “lase” some hydrogen gas with UV light at 26 ev. This experiment (and variants) have been done and failed.
***Nonsense
Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf
06/08/2010
Hagelstein, P.L., D. Letts, and D. Cravens. Progress on two-laser experiments (PowerPoint slides). in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy: ENEA.
TianJexcessheatb.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TianJexcessheatb.pdf
11/26/2008
Tian, J., et al. Excess Heat Triggering by 532nm Laser in a D/Pd Gas-Loading System. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC.
LASER is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission Radiation. Your common variety of hydrogen plasma gas is - according to the hydrino theory - in a perfect population inversion. Just radiate the hydrogen plasma gas with EUV (>=26 ev) and the outgoing radiation should be of greater intensity than the incoming radiation. BIG FAIL!
***It appears that Professor Ch. E. Stremmenos begs to differ:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338
Now, one may say that the “hydrino” states are of spherical (s) symmetry and the conventional ground state of hydrogen is also of s symmetry and thus the lasing process is symmetry forbidden. NO PROBLEM! Just optically pump the hydrogen plasma gas to the 2p state (p symmetry) and then lase the pumped plasma with EUV radiation of the appropriate frequency. Again, this experiment has been done: BIG FAIL! Synchroton/Cyclotron produce radiation at all intensities and frequencies.
***At this point, you have gone past my ability to understand. If you’re so right, then publish a paper on it and send it to Dr. Mills’s investors.
Let us return to Blacklight’s latest publication on their plasma experiments. They pass a beam of hydrogen (and separately helium less than a millimicron above a grated surface and check the outgoing radiation. Per authors, the radiation in the EUV region is characterized as a “continuum”, not “discrete” and therein lies the failure of the experiment. For - according to Mr Mills - the hydrino states are well defined and thus the outgoing radiation should show discrete peaks. The continuum aspect of the radiation indicates that the transition happen from an excited metastable state (key word: metastable) to the convention ground state. The grated surface is a surface in which narrow grooves were carved in: metastable - and excited - hydrogen gas is produced when the gas atoms is well inside these grooves. Upon exiting the grooves, the metastable radiate EUV into the free space and return back to the convention ground state hydrogen atoms.
***See my previous post. While you’re at it, please explain the excess heat being produced on Cold Fusion experiments. Excess Heat. - This is a complete copy of the book: Beaudette, CG ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Beaudette, C.G., Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. 2002, Concord, NH: Oak. Grove Press. LENR-CANR would like to thank the author, ...
Http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
“...which now has been replicated at least 2,000 times. “
Half correct and totally dishonest. The majority of the runs were FAILURES. A small minority of the runs showed excess energy. What the likes of “KevMo” are suffering is called Confirmation Bias: the failures do not register with them.
***And the successes do not register with guys like you.
“...but never on the same scale. His name is Dr. Randell C. Mills, “
Incorrect. The scientific community looked at Mr Mills’ hydrino theory and found it lacking in mathematical consistency and physically inconsistent. To paraphrase the late Wolfgang Pauli, Mr Mills’ theory is incorrect and - what is even worse - it is not even wrong! It is irrelevant. The arguments for Mills’ irrelevancy was given in a previous posting of mine.
***That means nothing— that it is not even wrong. A simple dispute of the theoretical and empirical evidence is all that’s needed.
Let us compare Mr Mills’ situation with that of an obscure worker at the Swiss Patent Office by the name of Albert Einstein. His theory of special relativity was disruptive to the scientific community. The german scientific establishment condemned this “jewish” science. Mr Einstein was unfazed and said the arguments of 1 person or experimental results suffice to disprove him. What is more pertinent, Mr Einstein was not “married” to his theory whereas “KevMo” and Mr Mills are so “married” to the hydrino theory.
***Kiss off, bozo. As I’ve posted prior on this thread and others, I don’t care much about Mills’s theory one way or another, I consider it one of many datapoints in the cold fusion inductive pursuit.
Soon, predictions made from special relativity were confirmed by experiments. In the case of General Relativity the picture was a little bit different: many complicated models of Mercury’s (the planet) had a better experimental fit than Einstein’s 2-parameter model. However, for other astrophysical behavior, Einstein’s theory fit much better the experiments than the many-parameter models of others. Applying Occam’s rule, slowly Einstein’s theory was accepted. This not the case with Mr Mills’ model.
***As I’ve stated, my interest is where this intersects with Cold Fusion.
From Wikipedia’s article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrinos
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]
When laymen like me start to see professors use the same language as a discredited predecessor, it starts to appear that Planck’s observation is coming true: science progresses one funeral at a time.
Professor Ch. E. Stremmenos begs to differ:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338
So talking about “fruitless hot fusion projects” is so much nonsense. The above statement by Shea reflects some kind of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
***No, it doesn’t. It is just the laymen trying to grapple with how someone could spend $Billions and get nothing, while backwater scientists spenc $Millions and show far more progress towards ignition and control over fusion.
“To date, none of this funding - perhaps $50 billion worth so far - has produced a working hot fusion reactor,”
Incorrect. Read the above paragraph.
***Incorrect. Read the average detractor on cold fusion threads who demand that they be able to drive a cold fusion car. The reason why they don’t demand driving a hot fusion car is because they know the position is a cascading failure of logic.
“Instead of the lengthy times needed to allow ....”
Half correct and totally dishonest. The Pons’ electrolysis went on for an average of 10 days before any remarkable heat surge occurred. So one had a large energy input and a large output. Most of the time the output was less that the input.
***Here, you’re engaging in your own version of confirmation bias. Dr. Yoshiaki Arrata’s experiment starts producing excess heat within minutes. Why do you yourself call it a “remarkable heat surge”? Because it is just that: remarkable. It is worth investigating.
Here Shea and “KevMo” show symptoms of Confirmation Bias.
***And above, “BarracudaBSer” shows his own confirmation bias.
Although not mentioned in Shea’s piece is the account of a lab explosion.
***And, just in case the average reader didn’t appreciate the fallacy of position that the barracudaBSer takes, here we see the classic fallacy of arguing from silence, an invalid argument.
The accounts I read about this explosion remind me of UFO accounts: “ the extent of the damage was so extensive, it cannot be explained by a chemical reaction... BLAH. BLAH. BLAH.” Yep.
***And note that this article does not mention this episode, so “BarracudaBSer” is proceeding from an invalid argument from silence. Gee, Barracuda, you haven’t pointed out that you are not a paid guvmint disinformation agent, so let’s talk about all the wonderful evidence, blah blah blah, that you are one. See how invalid this argument is?
You are producing hydrogen gas for days on end and no venting/ventilation system is perfect. The experiment which exploded was run by a graduate student. A similar explosion occurred at SRI and the account of that incident sounds like a UFO account.
***More argument from silence. Please, Please take a critical thinking class.
“Later, when a new patent had already been published in the Gazette of the U.S. Patent Office, a “poison pen” telephone call from Bob Park to friends at the patent office got the patent grant to Mills reeled back in and then denied. That had apparently never happened before. “
Incorrect. First, many issued patents have been annulled before. And for Mr Mills, his patent applications have been denied in England. Mr Mills appealed several times and lost every time.
***Well, hopefully this datapoint is useful and trustworthy. Thanks for pointing it out. I have no experience with patents, but I have noted that there are some patents issued to some cold fusioneers over the years.
“But Mills has not sought government funding or Wall Street equity money, and has raised $71 million on his own. “
Good for him!
***Well, it looks like we’re on the same page here.
So far, no tangible results. With much less funding, atomic energy was demonstrated in Germany in the early 1930’s, well before the Manhattan project.
***Ahah, another fallacy: false analogy. Show me one person who was riding around in an atomic car in the 1930’s. That’s the level of demonstration that has been demanded of cold fusion, and it is unattainable. We all know that with a bunch of resources thrown at the problem, the energy was directed to a bomb. I’m saying that this cold fusion stuff deserves similar levels of resources thrown at it.
Think about it: if one subscribes to the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory, the Coal and Oil industry would have suppressed Nuclear Energy.
***And if one does not subscribe to such conspiracy theories, one ends up in the same spot of vying for resources from the hot fusioneers.
“As impressive as they are, the Energistics results from a cold fusion process pale in comparison to those from Mills’ hydrino reactors. “
A lot of hyperbole. Please quantify “pale”.
***I agree with you here.
Here, one enters the Twilight Zone. Recently, General Electric had a EcoImagination competition where individuals and companies compete in the areas of Energy (green preferably), Energy Distribution and EcoHomes. Personally I kept a lookout for any suggestions made by “KevMo” and his ilk.
***Yer starting to sound paranoid. At the very least, shrill.
None and “KevMo” missed a great opportunity since GE promised a minimum of 100K investment which can grow to $200 million at the commercialization stage.
***This sounds interesting. This is the kind of opportunity that I would consider to be prime hunting ground for a breakthrough like cold fusion. It is time to open up a new thread and explore these possibilities. I opened my own thread when I made money off cold fusion at Intrade, so I’m keen on layman-level possibilities with low barriers to entry.
However there were submissions based on such “wingbat” ideas like the Searl effect generator. Hundreds of people voted for the Searl Effect General and other submissions advocating Perpetual Machines. The Hydrino scheme is at the same level as the Searl generator.
***I think you’re off in your own wingbbat land on this one. Mills already attracted $70M worth of investors, so he probably isn’t interested in $100k and giving up future control, most likely suffering from entrepreneur’s disease.
“But Mills already has 20 working 50- and 75-kilowatt reactors at his plant in Cranbury, N.J”
Half correct and totally dishonest.
***If it’s even half correct then this is worth pursuing.
The reactors produced at 75-kilowatt for 1 or 2 seconds. And then go dead. And this after considerable energy input. Produce a 75-kilowatt reactors which run continuously for, say, 24 hours and then talk.
***Yeah, right. When the hot fusion reactors can run continuously for 24 hours then let’s talk. In the meantime I’m advocating taking public money from them and sending it this way, towards cold fusion, which has had reactors run for several days at a time.
“The latest came from a sprawling Italian multinational, the RadiciGroup, which ordered a 750MW hydrino reactor to power all the Group’s industrial and corporate facilities in a deal announced on March 19, 2010. “
One way Mr Mills raised his 70-odd million dollars is to sell the snake oil and collect the money from the suckers, uh, investors. Selling vapor generators is a good but temporary business.
***Maybe you’re right, maybe not. Edison had his detractors before he lit up a whole town. It wasn’t easy for him then, and it won’t be easy for whoever fills this void. I can’t tell if Mills is the Edison of our day, but I can tell that the hot fusioneers are the Smithsonian of their day compared to the Wright Brothers.
The rest of Shea’s piece is so much boilerplate snake-oil sales pitch.
***And so was Steve Jobs’s stuff in the 1970’s. Today he runs a $100M company.
Let us take a high-altitude look at things.
First, the CalTech electrochemists did not run weeks-long electrolysis. But the Japanese and the Italians did: no confirmation of Pons’ results.
***What are you talking about?
Other scientists have submitted palladium (and other palladium alloys) under high pressure deuterium for weeks, even months before using such treated palladium in an electrolysis machine: results are mixed: many failures, few successes.
***FEW SUCCESSES? IF there’s even ONE success, it bears further investigation. Guys like you are engaging in pathological antiscience.
Other scientists have treated the high-pressure (palladium-deuterium) mixes under low frequency EM: the issue is that under electrolysis, there is a small non-zero electric field INSIDE the electrode and this field helps the diffusion of deuterium ions into the body of the electrode.
***Unfortunately, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
High Pressure deuterium helps in the diffusion and the low frequency EM treatment produces non-zero electric fields inside the electrode. The intensity of the EM treatment changes such that diffusion into the electrode is faster than diffusion out of electrode. The results were mixed: many failures. few successes.
***The fact that the output is higher than what chemical processes can account for means that it is worth pursuing. By your own words, there have been successes.
Second, the NSF have looked into the cold-fusion issue and found that the hydrino hypothesis has no grounding in reality and the Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction (LENR) has some merit.
***Okay, this sorta makes sense, on one or 2 levels. But I consider the hydrino theory to be simply one of many datapoints in the LENR field, which you yourself say has merit.
Most nuclear experiments are done in the high-energy regime, thus one has a good picture of high-end of the internuclear potential but gain little detail about the neighborhood of the bottom of internuclear potential well.
***And with the successes that even you have acknowledged, there is a great deal of potential to be discovered in this arena of research.
Third: The physics of hot fusion has been demonstrated by many experiments by many different teams. The physics of hydrinos have not been demonstrated: at best SOME cherry-picked results may suggest hydrinos but always there is a convention explanation (some of these explanations are given in the previous posting).
***Who cares if the energy output phenomena has some prosaic conventional explanation? My favorite cold fusion theory for now is highly conventional:
A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of
metal deuterides
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SinhaKPamodelfore.pdf
K. P. Sinhaa and A. Meulenbergb
a Department of Physics, IISc, Bangalore 560012, India (kpsinha@gmail.com)
b HiPi Consulting, Frederick, MD, USA (mules333@gmail.com)
Abstract
Our study shows that the cross-section for fusion improves considerably if d-d
pairs are located in linear (one-dimensional) chainlets or line defects. Such nonequilibrium
defects can exist only in a solid matrix. Further, solids harbor lattice
vibrational modes (quanta, phonons) whose longitudinal-optical modes interact
strongly with electrons and ions. One such interaction, resulting in potential
inversion, causes localization of electron pairs on deuterons. Thus, we have
attraction of D+ – D- pairs and strong screening of the nuclear repulsion due to
these local electron pairs (local charged bosons: acronym, lochons). This
attraction and strong coupling permits low-energy deuterons to approach close
enough to alter the standard equations used to define nuclear-interaction crosssections.
These altered equations not only predict that low-energy-nuclear
reactions (LENR) of D+ – D- (and H+ – H-) pairs are possible, they predict that
they are probable.
Fourth: what are the engineering difficulties for hot fusion and cold fusion?
hot fusion: reactions go quickly but: the plasma density is too low, the plasma residency time is too short. cold fusion: LENR reactions go VERY, VERY, SLOWLY. And the density of the reactants (usually solid form) may be too low: very high pressures (about 1,000,000 atm) may be needed.
***And yet, it is the cold fusioneers who have achieved ignition and long term control, with far less atmospheres than what you say is needed.
I hypothesize that the first-general fusion machine will be a fission-triggered cold-fusion set-up.
***Interesting that, yet again, you give credence to cold fusion.
The steady-state of the machine will be a combination of hot- and cold- fusion regimes with a plasma core (hot-fusion) surrounded by a high pressure liquid-inner mantle, with (perhaps) a solid outer mantle. To prevent the plasma core (20 KeV temp) to make contact with the reactor shell, the liquid mantle will be manipulated by time-dependent EM fields (similar to what is done today in conventional metallurgy)
***I hypothesize that Dr. Pamela Mossier-Boss will be given the Nobel prize for her CR-39 tracks research, but only really because both Pons & FLeischman will be dead and Nobel Prizes are not issued to dead people.
‘Cold Fusion’ Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial ...Mar 23, 2009 ... In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an ... A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in ... The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may ... Pam Boss, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR)) ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm
Now that I have given you the God-given truth, please send me my royalty checks.
***I’m more than happy to. Let’s set up some contracts at Intrade so that we can take each other’s money. I’ve already made a profit betting on Dr. Yoshiaki Arrata, and I’d love to bet on The Boss.
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
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.