Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Alcassin wrote:Argument from authority.
Show me one working device that's not connected to the electric grid. Then maybe I may lose some reservations...
Rune wrote:When you go up against "Carlhole" you know you're going to lose.
Rune wrote:Operational prototypes are forthcoming from Defkalion in July/August and Leonardo in October 2012. In the meantime, this thread follows developments in LENR whatever they may be.
Dear Andrea Manganelli:
...I am very practical: I am not at all interested to theories of “gurus” who explain theories more or less TCL ( time-consuming-and-losing). I am exclusively interested to apparatuses able to work. In our field we are too much filled up with theorists who write stupidities of which they are not liable because they have not to produce something that actually works. Take for example the ridiculous theories coming from the “papers” of Widom, Larsen and accolites: they suppose groundless behaviours of virtual particles just if they could behave like Fermions, and they simply ignore the leptons’ conservation law: this is ridicolous, but the “theoretical gurus” are all around this pure loss- of- time- theory, just because none of them has the anxiety deriving from the necessity to make the money necessary to refund the expenses of the research : they just ask for money of the taxpayer, like the other (Italian) guru who is using since 20 years the taxpayer’s money to make ridiculous research on the cold fusion electrilytic processes. This is also why we count on our Customers to repay ourselves, while they ask for Taxpayer’s contribution. Some imbecile has written that we are sellers, not scientists: well we are scientists who want not to steal the money of the taxpayers, therefore we have to sell our (really working) products. While they make mental masturbations with ridiculous theories totally groundless, we are working 16 hours per day to make real working products. With our money, not with money of the Taxpayers.
All this is not from your comment, but your comment has triggered this answer after I read from a blog a letter of an imbecile who says we are not scientists, but sellers. I got the chance to repeat that to “think” without to be able to make anything useful is a loss of time, if made without money, and is a fraud if made with the money of the Taxpayer. In Italy we have a paradigmatic example of this, specifically in the LENR field.
Alcassin wrote:Humbleness and modesty by a true believer.Rune wrote:When you go up against "Carlhole" you know you're going to lose.
Rune wrote:Take for example the ridiculous theories coming from the “papers” of Widom, Larsen and accolites: they suppose groundless behaviours of virtual particles just if they could behave like Fermions, and they simply ignore the leptons’ conservation law: this is ridicolous,
diemos wrote:Rune wrote:Take for example the ridiculous theories coming from the “papers” of Widom, Larsen and accolites: they suppose groundless behaviours of virtual particles just if they could behave like Fermions, and they simply ignore the leptons’ conservation law: this is ridicolous,
Rossi says the Widom-Larsen theory is ridiculous.
I thought you were telling us that Widom-Larsen explains everything Carl.
That's mostly dozens of items each from a handful of names.Rune wrote:That's pretty much well-established by hundreds of researchers worldwide.
Keith_McClary wrote:That's mostly dozens of items each from a handful of names.Rune wrote:That's pretty much well-established by hundreds of researchers worldwide.
What is the origin of the name of the Society?
It is difficult to trace the origin, but the historic Jones' 1989 paper, Nature 338 p 737 "Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter" certainly stimulated many similar titles. According to Prof. Xingzhong Li, the phrase "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" was suggested at a meeting of the ICCF-9 International Advisory Committee and he adopted it as the title for the conference proceedings. Subsequently the title was adopted for the electronic journal as announced at ICCF-10 Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. The Society's name may be abbreviated to ISCMNS.
Bill Collis made a public call for an International Cold Fusion Society at the Asti workshop in 1999 and this was repeated by Jean Paul Biberian at ICCF-8 in 2000. Further discussion took place at ICCF-10 in 2003, and the first formal Presentation on a possible society was was made in November 2003 at ENEA, Frascati (Italy).
Condensed matter nuclear physics is not a new science. It includes neutron and muon physics, fields which are of interest to CF (but often overlooked).
Why have you avoided "Cold Fusion" in the name of the Society?
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is about multiple anomalies and it is unlikely that these can be explained by just one class of nuclear reactions be they fusion or fission. "Cold Fusion" is a widely used name of software and could be a source of confusion.
Why do we need a Society at all?
Experience shows that organizing any scientific initiative on an personal basis can place unreasonable burdens on the individuals concerned. For example, to organize a meeting, the organizers need to advance deposits on the conference hall, hotels and restaurants etc. Attendees benefit from discounts without taking any of the risks. It is not appropriate that these risks are taken by organizers who may be donating their time free of charge. Of course there are many other initiatives which the Society intends to take - organizing meetings is just one example.
The community needs an organization that is democratic and seen to be democratic. Democracies necessarily have to respond to their members and tend to provide better service. Because democratic organizations can claim to represent their members they are able to negotiate with other institutions including government from a stronger position.
2. Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases (as of 2009)
It has been widely reported in the mass media that cold fusion was never replicated, and that
peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion have not been published. The primary claim made by
Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 was the production of excess heat without chemical changes. This
tally shows that the claim was replicated and reported in the peer-reviewed literature.
This tally includes positive, peer-reviewed papers describing excess heat experimental results
only. It does not include things such as: negative papers describing null results; papers describing
tritium or other effects but not heat; theory papers; or non-peer reviewed papers published by
national laboratories, corporations and in conference proceedings.
Papers reporting both excess heat and also tritium, neutrons and other effects are included in
this tally. The titles are culled from both the Britz and LENR-CANR database.
Totals from this tally include:
348 authors and co-authors
62 principle authors
51 affiliations of principal authors
There are 62 principal authors (Table 2). Altogether they have 51 affiliations, because a few
authors come from the same laboratory, such as Kainthla and Lin, who were graduate students
with Bockris at Texas A&M U. In some cases, multiple laboratories in the same institution are
listed, such as Hokkaido U., Catalysis Res. Center and Hokkaido U., Engineering Dept.
Researchers from these two laboratories worked and published independently of one another.
The Brillouin Energy Corporation has apparently found the money that it needs to commercialize its low energy nuclear reaction boiler technology. Sterling D. Allen of LENR to Market weekly reported that Brillouin’s CEO Robert W. George II told him that the company had received $2 million in financing. Allen did not reveal the source of this funding.
George and his partner Robert Godes have said they need $2 million in order to fund the next stage of development of their cold fusion boiler technology. Allen presented no evidence to verify this claim but if it is true it is very good. George has said that Brillouin’s boiler technology could begin replacing coal, oil and natural gas fired boilers in existing power plants within a few years.
...That means development of the Brillouin boiler technology is about to begin.
ENTER THE COLD FUSION MARKETPLACE
With NASA and many others we are able to quickly replace all major sources of energy with cold fusion. At a cost savings, both in implementation and future use, ad infinitum.
Every friend, neighbor, coworker, student, teacher, politician and activist, liberal and conservative, both young and old should become aware of this as soon as possible.
Then the harm caused from continued use of dirty crippling coal, asthma inducing oil, or birth defective radioactive nuclear becomes a matter of criminal negligence. Do all you can to both get the word out and enable this energy transition. It is the most important topic of our time.
Bård Havre / Reply
Hopefully this can sober up the debate on LENR, or whatever one chooses to call it. The scientific record of this phenomenon goes back 100 years, the only thing missing is verification of theory, Wisdom-Larsen or other.
As for Rossi, he is an inventor, and does what inventors do, invent an manufacture a device exploiting LENR. Being an inventor myself, I se nothing out of the ordinary with his behaviour. Secrecy is a must, you dont publish anything important in the process, so the lack of independet testing is natural. As for the reality of the Ecat, and the other devices, we just have to wait, they will hit the market(or not), that will be the moment of truth for Rossi. Claiming him a fraud at this time is premature, if he does not deliver in this decade I may consider him an overoptimistic failure, As far as I know he has not swindled anybody out of their money yet on this project..
Rune wrote:And now there are some 6 different companies vying for commercialization and the market.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests