Posted on 09/17/2011 1:27:43 AM PDT by Kevmo
My question about SPAWAR was really rhetorical. SPAWAR is one of seven SYSCOMs (System Command for the US Navy, like a major department) primarily devoted to C4ISR. Let me assure you, that is a very long way from anything of merit in the government research world. The potential of CF is beyond mind blowing, yet the research is essentially the backwaters and laughed at in open forums. It is the equivalent to the SETI project in astrophysics. Of course I like the SETI project too, but it is not really science in the classical sense (or it can at least be argued as such).
In the last week, I have been at the Office of Naval Research, the Naval Research Laboratory (Edison's Lab), two Naval Surface Warfare Centers and NIST, all on energy and materials related research business. CF or its derivatives ARE NOT topics of interest or real effort. I have folks that sit on Task Force Energy for the US Navy and again, no real discussion on this topic.
By your own discussion, they do not know the mechanisms. I would agree with this and the particle physicist that I know have no real understanding of how this activity could even be possible. I have a few of those on staff too. My point is guided by this axiom: Extraordinary scientific claims must be back by extraordinary scientific evidence. So far, the CF type are WAAAAAAAAAY far away from this and are releasing information via news report/press conference and keeping the real internals and useful data secret. That is not science, that's a charlatan.
You have no way of verifying that, or that he isn’t running extra power cables to the hot plate that’s boiling water.
***The scientists who have investigated Rossi’s contraption have weighed the hydrogen before & after. So this little field in the knowledge matrix isn’t available for you to seagull in and squawk over.
Of course, expecting you to be aware of that is asking too much of a seagull.
You’re so convinced it’s a fraud, then generate evidence towards it. Starting here:
How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2730401/posts
Sunday, June 05, 2011 7:52:15 PM · by Kevmo · 53 replies
LENR.QUMBO.com ^ | April 6, 2011 | Alan Fletcher
But you won’t do that, because it requires you to know something about what you’re talking about; and you’re lazy; and you’re fond of betting on failure rather than encouraging folks who are working towards solutions; and instead you choose to seagull onto these threads.
By seagulling onto these threads, you try to impose your conclusion about this technology. But you cannot justify your own conclusion because it’s just intuition.
Naysayers are fond of demanding proof, but they can’t provide proof that it’s a fraud.
I can’t even get you worthless seagulls to put your money where your mouth is, to take my money when I put it down on Cold Fusion.
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
That makes your “contribution” less than worthless. Even seagull poop is good fertilizer. Your output is just poison.
We can’t do anything analogous with Rossi’s water boiling machine.
***Sure you can. But you won’t.
How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2730401/posts
Sunday, June 05, 2011 7:52:15 PM · by Kevmo · 53 replies
LENR.QUMBO.com ^ | April 6, 2011 | Alan Fletcher
The word “catalyst” is used metaphorically for the action that results.
***Why is it too much to ask a PhD chemist to be able to see that? It seems like this guy is being intentionally stupid.
I see post #27 was removed. Is it because the mods don’t agree with Allmost’s position on scientific inquiry? Or is it because Allmost needs to learn some FR Manners.
Lurkers can decide for themselves.
Again, every time I hear this story it is always followed by more request for funding,
***You obviously haven’t been following the Rossi story or you’d know that’s false. Indeed, you don’t even seem to have followed THIS particular thread, where a Freeper had offered Rossi $200K ten years ago but was turned down.
Why should we listen to you?
Inaccurate. ROSSI is "...WAY far away from this and are releasing information via news report/press conference and keeping the internals and useful data secret". There is quite a bit of published information on cold fusion by other researchers.
And Rossi's position is precisely that of someone who doesn't yet have his patent position fully secured. I seriously doubt that your organization releases the technical details "...of the internals" of technology that they develop until the patents are secured, and I'll bet that they talk about what they have done, in general terms, long before any peer-reviewed publications happen, if they ever do.
The last project my firm did with LLNL had LOTS of press releases about the general accomplishments of the project YEARS before a paper (actually several papers) came out (biowarfare agent detection via microfluidics). Rossi has actually released more details than we ever did at an equivalent stage of research.
And the fact that Rossi has committed to release two E-Cats (one to U. of Bologna and one to U. of Upsala) for independent review indicates that he intends to present precisely the "extraordinary scientific evidence" required.
NOT precisely the actions of a charlatan.
I have to ask, by whom is the funding being requested, and from whom?? As I pointed out previously, the ONLY non-privately funded activity that I know of is the very small effort at SPAWAR.
"No real scientific discovery or exposure of methods, theories or developments, secrecy but continual request for funding, obscurity in the scientific community....yeah, that is not the world of science that I'm familiar with."
The ONLY point above that is true is "..obscurity in the scientific community". The above "might" be true of Rossi. There is plenty of that activity by OTHER CF researchers. But instead of actually examining the data yourself, you quote "your guys".
“When your match flame burns out and produces 100 degree heat after death for 35 minutes, then your experiment would be on a par of the one you are criticizing.”
My mechanism can do far better than that. My ‘Match + Oil Lamp’ generator will produce brilliant light and 450’ heat for many hours after the initial input of the match catalyst.
Classic fallacy: moving the goal post. No mention of Oil lamp in the beginning, now trying to add it in order to save face. So, to update your stupid analogy, when your OIL runs out and the device produces 100 degree heat after death for 35 minutes, then you’d be on a par with the experiment you are criticizing.
Let’s see how many more fallacies you can engage in.
oops, my turn to identify my own fallacy/mistake... you did mention a “special liquid” and I didn’t catch that.
The Heat After Death analogy still applies.
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.