Posted on 01/11/2014 12:24:45 PM PST by Kevmo
Uh, me too. But I know how long it takes to read and digest technical subjects, and you haven't had that amount of time.
"I probably studied cold fusion before you were born."
Doubtful. I was born in 1947, graduated as PhD in 1973, and LENR was discovered (or perhaps rediscovered) in 1989.
“Uh, me too. But I know how long it takes to read and digest technical subjects, and you haven’t had that amount of time.”
You obviously forgot that I outed you last year as the LENR pimper.
“Doubtful. I was born in 1947, graduated as PhD in 1973, and LENR was discovered (or perhaps rediscovered) in 1989.”
What is your PhD and what did you write your dissertation on? In 1989 I went back to my university to discuss cold fusion with the professor doing research on it. I think 14 years is more than enough time given that reading just one article gives one a good idea that this is all conjecture.
“Why are you so invested in shouting down the subject??? “
Just asking where’s the meat? So far I have seen none.
“The author of the article answered the criticism about the danger of no neutron monitoring. “
His answer indicated he knows little about neutron monitoring.
Since I am not an "LENR pimper", you could not have "outed" me.
"What is your PhD and what did you write your dissertation on?"
PhD Analytical, Graphite Furnace AAS. More relevant is that in grad school, I minored in Nuclear Science, so I have the necessary background in nuclear measurements as well as the background in chemical measurements.
"In 1989 I went back to my university to discuss cold fusion with the professor doing research on it.
And who might that have been?
"I think 14 years is more than enough time given that reading just one article gives one a good idea that this is all conjecture.
Excuse me?? The 14 years refers to what?? And when did you read that "just one article??
Fourteen years ago??
"Just asking where’s the meat? So far I have seen none."
Well, since you refuse to read the published work, it is unlikely that you would see anything, now isn't it.
The vehemence with which the anti-LENR proponents (like yourself) attack LENR supporters (“LENR pimper”), and how effectively any research into the subject has been blocked, makes me wonder just what is going on. It seems to be something more than just an old-guard group protecting their scientific bailiwick or funding, which I’ve seen before. Does it have something to do with national defense?
” I minored in Nuclear Science, so I have the necessary background in nuclear measurements “
Then you should have caught the gross errors by your author on page 5.
“The vehemence with which the anti-LENR proponents (like yourself) attack LENR supporters (“LENR pimper”)”
I didn’t attack him. I just asked him to show me specific evidence which he refuses to do. He says the evidence is ‘scattered’! Whoop dee doo!
” It seems to be something more than just an old-guard group protecting their scientific bailiwick or funding, which I’ve seen before. Does it have something to do with national defense?”
Dang. You blew my cover.
Thanks for letting me know.
Page 5 of what??? Your maunderings are hard enough to interpret without "dangling references". I'm still trying to figure out what "14 years" is all about, and now we have "page 5".
But your post is yet another attempt to "change the subject" away from your total refusal to address the published data available from the information I gave you.
The sources I gave you have specific references to specific topics involving LENR. Some are only about excess heat, some are about the "ash" (He4) of the reaction, some are about the low-probability pathways yielding tritium, some describe transmutation. As is totally typical of every other field of research, different LENR researchers study different aspects of the phenomenon.
You're the one who invented out of thin air the notion that there should be a single reference that explains everything.
But of course, this is all smoke and mirrors on your part to deflect attention from your complete refusal to even LOOK at the published data.
“Page 5 of what??? “
Page 5 of post #1.
“You’re the one who invented out of thin air the notion that there should be a single reference that explains everything.”
I would like to see a single reference that explains ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't read it, so I can hardly be accused of not finding an error there. I'm not particularly interested in the "pursuit of neutrons", as it was obvious long ago that the main reaction pathway in Pd/D2 systems is aneutronic.
So read the papers referenced in either of the two review documents I recommended. But you won't. We both know that by this point.
It's been fun watching you dodge and weave to avoid addressing the published work, but I think I've wasted a sufficiency of time in so doing. Typical pathological skeptic antics. Bye!
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.