Posted on 05/08/2013 10:47:40 AM PDT by Kevmo
Sure it is. It is always about Rossi. Do you really think we are so stupid or gullible as to allow this type of propaganda to be posted now only to be used later is support of Rossi? We know in a few weeks Kevmo will post that previous articles have been posted “proving” Rossi’s claims. Kemvo has done this before.
Stoyan Sarg has claimed Rossi is the real deal and this article is about Stoyan Sar, ergo, this article is about Rossi.
Rossi is a fraud that made wild claims to have a working system that has been evaluated and sold to many people, per Kevmo’s posts.
“The data for LENR is solid”
No, it is not, and you are no expert in nuclear physics to make such a statement.
“which does a great job of covering the experimental evidence proving CF exists and works. “
Not a single solitary cold fusion device has ever been independently proven. Not a single one.
If there had then there would be billions of dollars thrown at productizing it into a trillion dollar industry.
“Someone writing a book is considered great progress toward flooding the world with free energy “
The only energy that book represents if we were to burn it.
No, and one doesn't need to be.
What I am is an excellent experimentalist with deep knowledge of measurements, both nuclear and chemical. I am more than sufficiently qualified to examine the experimental processes run, the data yielded, and the quality of the work done.
The very best evidence comes from plain old chemical measurements....specifically measurement of heat by calorimetry, and the before and after concentrations of helium by mass spectrometry, both of which are straightforward chemical measurements. The proof is there, and covered suffiently well in Beaudette's book so that even a layman can understand.
Define “experimentalist”. You obviously do not understand nuclear science or what you are reading. If had expert level knowledge you could see what is missing from all those “layman’s” descriptions. Unfortunately, laymen never see what is missing and believe what they are being given is everything they need to know.
If cold fusions worked as easily as it is has been portrayed then cold fusions devices would be everywhere. You “layman’s” knowledge has failed the common sense test.
As far as science goes, they certainly have. That you make this statement simply proves your ignorance. The data is there. Read it for yourself. A comment which I recommend to any lurkers interested in the topic. Don't believe me, don't believe Kevmo, check out the evidence for yourselves.
Again, those without nuclear engineering or physics background wouldn’t know what they are reading. Just as with you. Just as if someone read articles from years back with alchemy. We know better now but if you were to read those articles of yesterday today you might think turning materials into gold was possible. We know better now because we know what was missing from the equations.
Again, your statement that cold fusion works and is provable is ridiculous as it doesn’t pass the common sense test of where are all these cold fusion devices if it is so provable. Where? Show us one.
Free energy would make a world of free people almost instantly.
***It won’t be free, just cheaper & more accessible than gasoline, coal, solar and several other sources.
I know that. Comparatively it will be free. Ever run the number on how much in taxes alone you pay per year for energy?
The author is plainly supportive of the claims of “cold fusion”, fair enough, he has his opinions. But in conclusion he blames the skeptics for demanding the wrong proofs from the P-F experimenters.
The skeptical scientists demanded a nuclear explanation, says the author, while the F-P was a non nuclear phenomenon. The chemists vs. the nuclear physicists and never the twain shall meet.
It is into the F-P experiments that Rossi tries to include himself with p.r., imaginary working models, a new and equally inexplicable science but with a secret!
The author seems to want to throw the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the skeptics, “prove me wrong!”, instead of recognizing that without a clear understanding of what is occurring the "cold fusion" folk have a nice lab experiment and a question not a world saving technology.
I design instrumentation to make physical and chemical measurements. PhD chemistry, minor NUCLEAR SCIENCE.
"You obviously do not understand nuclear science or what you are reading."
LOL. I understand NS quite well. It's been a while since I dug out my hand-dandy "Chart of the Nuclides", or calculated a mass deficit, but I certainly could do so. More important, I understand nuclear instrumentation and nuclear measurements.
"Ifyou had expert level knowledge you could see what is missing from all those “layman’s” descriptions.
And if you had bothered to read Beaudette's book, you would know that he covers the experimental work in quite sufficient depth to satisfy any qualified hard science reader, and he provides references to the original papers, just as any good hard science book would. I've read the original papers, not "layman's descriptions".
"Unfortunately, laymen never see what is missing and believe what they are being given is everything they need to know.
See above. I'm no "layman".
But while we're at this, how about you telling us YOUR bona-fides in science.
No, it started out as a book praised by many, read by none.
Typical change of subject. There is a difference between successfully engineering a commercial device, and a device that works sufficiently well to prove a scientific principle. Show you one??? Read the research papers, there are many there. Celani demonstrated one at the last National Instruments confab.
You mean "not read by you", do you not? I ask the question again...have you read ANY book (or research paper) on the experimental evidence of cold fusion??? My guess is......NO. Of course that is the standard state for the naysayers on these threads.
So read all the monographs and competing theories you wish but you'll have no better understanding of what the F-P effect than anyone else.
I'm for certain not going to chase your “book of the moment”.
I’ve found when someone starts touting their extensive credentials and the number of books they’ve supposedly read the reality is much less, very much less.
But while we’re at this, how about you telling us YOUR bona-fides in science.
***Don’t hold your breath
Bump and LOL
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.