Rossi is claiming to be ready to demonstrate a 10kW generator. You have cited 14,000 papers claiming to have produced 100's of Megajoules of excess energy. There is nothing subtle about that much energy. It burns things down, blows things up, fries the dumb electrochemist who forgot about radiation effects (or would have if it worked).
And you and your crowd keep up this lie about the bar for hot fusion being lower than for cold fusion. It is every bit as high, but first, hot fusion has demonstrated a process that produces fusion (D+T= neutron + alpha + lots and lots of energy). Cold fusion asserts that none of the known reaction pathways operate (in defiance of every phisicl principle known to man) but cannot demonstrate that the pathway they claim to be operational actually exists.
Anyone can go to any hot fusion research facility and take a geiger counter or a neutron monitor, or whatever and measure lots of radiation. Hot fusion has not reached breakeven (except in nuclear weaponry - which does work you keep forgetting - by well understood principles and reaction pathways you keep forgettting). Indeed, you can do this measurement very simply. Take a copper (it must be copper) penny and tape it to the outside of the hotfusion facility. After a claimed event that produces neutrons take your penny to a radiation counter and plot the count rate vs time. Knowing the activation cross-section of copper, the area of the penny, and the measured decay rate you can infer the total number of neutrons produced in the system. Indeed, these measurements are done every day and the results are published and are open to scientific peer review. Such reviews happen frequently.
But no one claims that there is any credibility to any claim that hot fusion is ready to power cars or put electicity on the grid.
Well physics isn’t my field, but I have never seen where Rossi calls this cold fusion. He calls it LENR and I have seen at least one people that proposes a pathway that releases neutrons but doesn’t involve fusion. If you want me to I’ll look for it and send you the link.
What is my field is finance/markets/economics, and to me what we have here is a drop-dead date of October, and from a business angle he will either succeed or fail spectacularly. So none of the questioning of the details of Rossi’s process particularly phase me as the proof will either be or not be paraded in front of all the world to see very soon.
Rossi is claiming to be ready to demonstrate a 10kW generator.
***Right there, you admit my point that the technology is not at the point where you ridicule it with your straw argumentation. Why should we believe you have a PhD if you cannot refrain from using freshman level straw argumentation required to pass a critical thinking class?
You have cited 14,000 papers claiming to have produced 100’s of Megajoules of excess energy.
***So, now you admit you can read what I write to you but you do not address whether you accept this observation. What is the point of discussing meteors with a scientist who keeps claiming that rocks do not fall from the sky?
claiming to have produced 100’s of Megajoules of excess energy. There is nothing subtle about that much energy. It burns things down, blows things up, fries the dumb electrochemist who forgot about radiation effects (or would have if it worked).
***We have been through this before on a previous thread, and yet you blather on and on and on and... well, you know the drill.
Again what you have done here is a straw argument, by assuming that the hundreds of MJoules are released instantaneously whereas the stated conditions are otherwise.
If you continue to use straw arguments, the kind that freshmen are not allowed to use in a freshman level critical thinking class, why should we believe you have an advanced science degree? At least these guys are doing their stuff in public, but you are flopping around making freshman level mistakes on an anonymous forum.
And you and your crowd keep up this lie about the bar for hot fusion being lower than for cold fusion. It is every bit as high, but first, hot fusion has demonstrated a process that produces fusion (D+T= neutron + alpha + lots and lots of energy). Cold fusion asserts that none of the known reaction pathways operate (in defiance of every phisicl principle known to man) but cannot demonstrate that the pathway they claim to be operational actually exists
***It has been demonstrated in 14000 replications of the original excess heat effect. You claim the bar is to have a cold fusion car, so the bar should be the same for hot fusion. Your argument does not address the actual statement, making it a non sequitur. Yet another example of freshman level thinking from someone claiming to have a PhD. Your credibility is low, and getting lower with each post.
Anyone can go to any hot fusion research facility and take a geiger counter or a neutron monitor, or whatever and measure lots of radiation.
***Your assumption here is that the radiation leakage for hot fusion has the same branchings that cold fusion has. It is a legitimate assumption, other than the observation of 14000 replications which suggest that experiments trump theory.
Hot fusion has not reached breakeven (except in nuclear weaponry - which does work you keep forgetting - by well understood principles and reaction pathways you keep forgettting).
***We covered this before in a prior thread. You forget that you backtracked when it was pointed out that the fusion weapon is not the same field as controlled fusion for energy production. That makes you disingenuous, or forgetful (which you accuse me of being) and basically the same hypocrite that I have been pointing out in these posts so that lurkers can take what you have to say with a grain of salt, mr. PhD Nuke Physicist.
Indeed, you can do this measurement very simply. Take a copper (it must be copper) penny and tape it to the outside of the hotfusion facility. After a claimed event that produces neutrons take your penny to a radiation counter and plot the count rate vs time. Knowing the activation cross-section of copper, the area of the penny, and the measured decay rate you can infer the total number of neutrons produced in the system. Indeed, these measurements are done every day and the results are published and are open to scientific peer review. Such reviews happen frequently.
***This is just further obfuscation of a point which is already demonstrated to be a logical fallacy. The fallacy is one of invalid assumption. In this case the invalid assumption is that the same nuclear branchings occur for LENR as they do for hot fusion. The 14000 replications of the excess heat effect go directly to invalidating that assumption. And, for the lurkers, this is yet again a simple use of fallacious reasoning that a freshman level college student is expected to pass well before becoming a supposed PhD in Physics, as this anonymous freeper AndyJackson claims to have.
But no one claims that there is any credibility to any claim that hot fusion is ready to power cars or put electicity on the grid.
***As we demonstrated on the last thread, where you backtracked. It appears to be the same show here. I can see why you choose not to publish your arguments in scientific journals, you are basically incompetent at critical thinking.