Logimo - You don't have a defensible position, you don't even have a point. All you are doing is posting stuff from the interent without, obviously, any foundation to critically comprehend what you've read.
Atat has produced hard information from a p-chem/physics perspective and I'm coming from the analytical chem side and, in classic troll-science style, you've tried to obfuscate, nit-pick, and throw the witty zings back to try to mask your ignorance of the basic principles involved here.
I have never seen the universe cry. But that doesn't mean that it could not, given the right circumstances.
It would take trillions of years (if not more) for a few moles of atoms that would love to bind to each to be produced in 2 separate, pure phases from the same process.
Statistics and Entropy give such an event such near zero odds, it just won't happen.
Mixing nickel powder and copper powder does not create an alloy. You need quite some thermal energy for that.
So we're forgetting that a supposed fusion reactor created these elements and that quite some thermal energy would be the main energy product of said supposed fusion reactor?
Ah, and you don't know if the device converts entire particles of metal from one element into the other before the process is finished, either. In fact, you don't know anything about it, yet dimiss it already.
If it isn't making perfect molecules (which it won't; Again, Statistics/Entropy), then it should be giving off lots of neutrons and alpha particles.
Cold Fusion is indeed a reality as my fridge is presently stocked with V8.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
Fun read. Soph I would quit. Well I woulda quit while I was ahead but you are past that point.
I have talked science with both Hevach and Atat, they know more than I. Not that that means a lot. I just read the popular stuff and do nothing with science on a professional level.
Atat at least seems to be studying for a reason. To dismiss Atat's inference about Google being bad for research and if he was only at school were he has access to more material is to look a fool.
Not to worry I have appeared as an jackass on the topic of FTL particles in these very forums. Sometimes our enthusiasm gets the better of us. Such is to be human.
As for your earlier insistence that traditional hot fusion is a dead end I disagree. It is just as Atat said. We need to learn, find, acquire and or develop the right materials to do the job. A good example of this is that early fusion attempts produced radioactive components. Fusion with Helium^3 on the other hand does not produce radioactive components.
Problem is while the sun makes abundant He^3 the Van Allen radiation belts block the majority of it from getting to Earth. Terrestrially our sources for this material are from the decay of tritium. We do not get enough He^3 from that to really push fusion research. The US alone consumes some 60,000 liters of He^3 a year and a liter, due to demand can run as high as 2000USD. To power 107 million homes for a year would require some 20 tones or He^3. So the next time you hear someone wonder why we have to go back to the moon remember that the moon has an inert core so it has no Van Allen radiation belts.
Fusion is far from impossible, (technically we already do it on a very small scale), but it is definitely improbable, as a major energy source, for the time being. As for cold fusion well some NASA folk are interested in it, but is seems to be an unlikely candidate in that it seems to violate thermodynamics. Does this mean we should not explore it? Oh we should, but the bulk of research should go to the best horse in the pen and at this time that looks like traditional fusion.
If you are a pickle in a pickle jar you know every pickle's different, sort of, but really they're all just pickles...
I am not enthusiastic. I just observe that there is something going on, and totally dismissing that on the grounds that it is theoretically impossible is just ignorance, in my opinion.
"I know that I know nothing." a wise man once said (a cookie for those who know who that was supposed to be). Preconceptions are an enlightened mind's false friends.
I am all for research in that field, but for the decades, possibly centuries (.) to come, hot fusion as an economically feasible energy source is apparently not going to happen.
DeuteriumDeuterium is not gonna happen. Based on the notion that you appear to ignorant of He^3He^3 fusion my opinion is that you are putting your money on the wrong horse.
If you are a pickle in a pickle jar you know every pickle's different, sort of, but really they're all just pickles...
Yeah, but that is only a test of the end "waste" product. What we really need is a test of the whole device, don't we.
In the case of E-cat, not really. We do know the power switch is a fake, designed to make the device stay on while appearing off, supported by a simple but clever rig in the power cables.
But the results aren't just inconsistent with a nuclear reaction, the only way to balance the equation here is to have three times as much nickle, have two thirds of it completely destroyed, and then have the products sit for several years until decay gets rid of the smoking gun isotopes.
Going back to the F&P experiment, the purported result is consistent with a nuclear reaction occurring. It is not consistent with a conventional nuclear reaction occurring, but it isn't consistent with any natural process, chemical reaction, or combination of elements in their natural forms, and it contains the smoking gun of a nuclear reaction. It's possible to fake or just lie about the results, but it's a "good fake," with results that can't be explained and
In art terms, this would be a period piece with the forged signature from a more prominent artist - it may not even be fake, but it's still highly suspicious until it can be authenticated.
Now, E-cat? Here, the purported results are not consistent with a nuclear reaction, conventional or otherwise. They're not consistent with any chemical, natural, or even metallurgical process, there is no smoking gun of a nuclear reaction. It is, however, consistent with a 90:10 mix of scrap nickle dust and scrap copper dust.
Actually, not even that in this case. The device has a heater in it. The heater raises it to the "reaction temperature," (slightly above boiling at 25 atmospheres), and then the switch is thrown to the off position (but the generator is left on). It stays at that temperature, slowly declining several degrees and then quickly rising back to the reaction temperature, consistent with any thermostat system, and not consistent with any chemical or nuclear reaction, much less unmoderated heavy element fusion. This is also consistent with the two-circuit power cord that can't be switched off, I already provided you the link with the schematic.
If this device fused as much copper as claimed, the excess heat would have melted tungsten from across a large city, but it just slightly warmed a small room.
The device is supposedly finished, thousands are supposedly stockpiled for release, distribution contracts are supposedly in place, it sells for a claimed 850% markup on production costs, but the creator still needs nine digits worth of investment very quickly to actually bring it to market. That alone should say something.
Uhm, again, what is your source for all that? Those are pretty wild claims that contradict anything I can find on the subject.
See? He ignores basic science and then perks up over the allegation of a conspiracy.
You know, Soph - for your next thread you ought to investigate the facts about the Anunakki and how the NWO is keeping the truth about Planet X (Nibiru) away from us.
I don't know science? Gee, I guess I better call my employers and tell them all those KF, MALDI/TOF, CGE and HPLC/SEC test methods I created and validated are total bunk.
That means that the scientists from the European bureaucracy are convinced that cold fusion, the effect first observed by scientists Fleischman and Pons in 1989, is real.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion )
After 1989, few scientists were able to reproduce the effect, so Pons and Fleischman were either called liars or ridiculed, as were all those who claimed they had confirmed it. Apparently, reliable reproduction is possible now.
And this would mean:
Cheap and very clean nuclear power doable in tabletop-sized reactors at room temperature with no radioactive waste, using resources that are abundantly available.
...which was clearly refuted over and over again by people who actually know what they are talking about despite your repeated postings of god-knows-what from whatever Google search you happened to come up with. People then attempted to explain the details of what and why to you which completely went over your head.
If your so-called empirical data can't be repeated, reproduced, cannot be validated by a control test and does not stand up to peer review then you have no data.
I have yet to see any "citation" of yours meet any one of those criteria.
And then, seeing that you could make no traction with the previous argument, you go and post some other website with a person selling a magic 'reactor'.
You know, TODAY I could make a web-page. I could post a whole bunch of fancy diagrams and grab some science-y looking pictures from Corbis or something. Then I could write a few names and claims and then say that I have REAL perpetual motion machine. I will ask for "startup" capital and start taking orders (Mastercard/Visa/Discover) and then have people like you fawning over it saying "Wow- what's going on here? Is it true?"
NO. It's called a SCAM. And you're much too smart to be fooled by something like that. Aren't you? :rolleyes:
....
Just to play devil's advocate, if you really wanted to discuss what was going on here, it might have met with a better response to have started like this:
"Let's discuss 'cold fusion'. What is the FPE? What do you think is going on? Etc."
But that's not what you did. You stated a remarkable claim, backed it up with "internet sources" (since, we all know that EVERYTHING is true on the internet). Ignored basic, logical, rational information that refuted those claims. And then demanded proof from those who call out your bullsh^t.
It don't work that way, bud. You made the claim. The onus is on YOU to back it up. You can't -- and It is not my job to teach you. Then because your ego is too big to admit when you're wrong, you go off on a tangent, try to deflect or discredit everyone else by saying they don't know what/how to do whatever. Which, by the way, is exactly the same thing you did with the entire PvP community with that huge troll-post of your fail-carrier. You didn't want feedback there either - you wanted to prance around flaunting your 'superior' knowledge and engage everyone there in a rhetorical diatribe.
So, take your quote tool and pick out your next snippets that you think you can spin and have fun.
Oh, PM me for the address to send that $1000 to me and I will send you those plans for that reactor. I will even provide a whole list of references. Just ignore the coffee-cup stains on the napkin.
I don't know science? Gee, I guess I better call my employers and tell them all those KF, MALDI/TOF, CGE and HPLC/SEC test methods I created and validated are total bunk.
Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization
High-performance liquid chromatography
Forgive my ignorance but you develop tests for chemistry?
Cool beans if so.
If you are a pickle in a pickle jar you know every pickle's different, sort of, but really they're all just pickles...
Obviously, the temperatures he measures are lower than in anything you would call "fusion".
*Blink* *Blink*
You can't have it both ways bub. You can't call it "cold fusion" one moment because it requires low activation energy and then call it "cold fusion" because it puts out low energy the next moment.
In fact, if you're referring to Cold Fusion using the latter definition; Congratulations, you've just created a device which wastes atoms to produce useless heat. You cant even use heat that's a few degrees over ambient.
It is, from my perspective, impossible to judge if you know science. But when it comes to the matter at hand you clearly don't use any possibly existing knowledge of scientific methodology.
Gee... if there was only something to use it on.
wrote:
My conclusion is that there is probably some kind of phenomenon going on.
BRILLIANT DEDUCTION, PROFESSOR!
Please tell me when your next lectures on Shell-Game Debate and Alchemy are scheduled for.
Comments
Atat has produced hard information from a p-chem/physics perspective and I'm coming from the analytical chem side and, in classic troll-science style, you've tried to obfuscate, nit-pick, and throw the witty zings back to try to mask your ignorance of the basic principles involved here.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/troll-science-troll-physics
You are doing a disservice to the very principles that your forum name implies.
Statistics and Entropy give such an event such near zero odds, it just won't happen.
LOL - based on your replies so far, I think Atat can rest safe.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
I have talked science with both Hevach and Atat, they know more than I. Not that that means a lot. I just read the popular stuff and do nothing with science on a professional level.
Atat at least seems to be studying for a reason. To dismiss Atat's inference about Google being bad for research and if he was only at school were he has access to more material is to look a fool.
Not to worry I have appeared as an jackass on the topic of FTL particles in these very forums. Sometimes our enthusiasm gets the better of us. Such is to be human.
As for your earlier insistence that traditional hot fusion is a dead end I disagree. It is just as Atat said. We need to learn, find, acquire and or develop the right materials to do the job. A good example of this is that early fusion attempts produced radioactive components. Fusion with Helium^3 on the other hand does not produce radioactive components.
Problem is while the sun makes abundant He^3 the Van Allen radiation belts block the majority of it from getting to Earth. Terrestrially our sources for this material are from the decay of tritium. We do not get enough He^3 from that to really push fusion research. The US alone consumes some 60,000 liters of He^3 a year and a liter, due to demand can run as high as 2000USD. To power 107 million homes for a year would require some 20 tones or He^3. So the next time you hear someone wonder why we have to go back to the moon remember that the moon has an inert core so it has no Van Allen radiation belts.
Fusion is far from impossible, (technically we already do it on a very small scale), but it is definitely improbable, as a major energy source, for the time being. As for cold fusion well some NASA folk are interested in it, but is seems to be an unlikely candidate in that it seems to violate thermodynamics. Does this mean we should not explore it? Oh we should, but the bulk of research should go to the best horse in the pen and at this time that looks like traditional fusion.
DeuteriumDeuterium is not gonna happen. Based on the notion that you appear to ignorant of He^3He^3 fusion my opinion is that you are putting your money on the wrong horse.
In the case of E-cat, not really. We do know the power switch is a fake, designed to make the device stay on while appearing off, supported by a simple but clever rig in the power cables.
But the results aren't just inconsistent with a nuclear reaction, the only way to balance the equation here is to have three times as much nickle, have two thirds of it completely destroyed, and then have the products sit for several years until decay gets rid of the smoking gun isotopes.
Going back to the F&P experiment, the purported result is consistent with a nuclear reaction occurring. It is not consistent with a conventional nuclear reaction occurring, but it isn't consistent with any natural process, chemical reaction, or combination of elements in their natural forms, and it contains the smoking gun of a nuclear reaction. It's possible to fake or just lie about the results, but it's a "good fake," with results that can't be explained and
In art terms, this would be a period piece with the forged signature from a more prominent artist - it may not even be fake, but it's still highly suspicious until it can be authenticated.
Now, E-cat? Here, the purported results are not consistent with a nuclear reaction, conventional or otherwise. They're not consistent with any chemical, natural, or even metallurgical process, there is no smoking gun of a nuclear reaction. It is, however, consistent with a 90:10 mix of scrap nickle dust and scrap copper dust.
If this device fused as much copper as claimed, the excess heat would have melted tungsten from across a large city, but it just slightly warmed a small room.
The device is supposedly finished, thousands are supposedly stockpiled for release, distribution contracts are supposedly in place, it sells for a claimed 850% markup on production costs, but the creator still needs nine digits worth of investment very quickly to actually bring it to market. That alone should say something.
See? He ignores basic science and then perks up over the allegation of a conspiracy.
You know, Soph - for your next thread you ought to investigate the facts about the Anunakki and how the NWO is keeping the truth about Planet X (Nibiru) away from us.
That would be an interesting read.
No, you didn't.
You said...
...which was clearly refuted over and over again by people who actually know what they are talking about despite your repeated postings of god-knows-what from whatever Google search you happened to come up with. People then attempted to explain the details of what and why to you which completely went over your head.
If your so-called empirical data can't be repeated, reproduced, cannot be validated by a control test and does not stand up to peer review then you have no data.
I have yet to see any "citation" of yours meet any one of those criteria.
And then, seeing that you could make no traction with the previous argument, you go and post some other website with a person selling a magic 'reactor'.
You know, TODAY I could make a web-page. I could post a whole bunch of fancy diagrams and grab some science-y looking pictures from Corbis or something. Then I could write a few names and claims and then say that I have REAL perpetual motion machine. I will ask for "startup" capital and start taking orders (Mastercard/Visa/Discover) and then have people like you fawning over it saying "Wow- what's going on here? Is it true?"
NO. It's called a SCAM. And you're much too smart to be fooled by something like that. Aren't you? :rolleyes:
....
Just to play devil's advocate, if you really wanted to discuss what was going on here, it might have met with a better response to have started like this:
"Let's discuss 'cold fusion'. What is the FPE? What do you think is going on? Etc."
But that's not what you did. You stated a remarkable claim, backed it up with "internet sources" (since, we all know that EVERYTHING is true on the internet). Ignored basic, logical, rational information that refuted those claims. And then demanded proof from those who call out your bullsh^t.
It don't work that way, bud. You made the claim. The onus is on YOU to back it up. You can't -- and It is not my job to teach you. Then because your ego is too big to admit when you're wrong, you go off on a tangent, try to deflect or discredit everyone else by saying they don't know what/how to do whatever. Which, by the way, is exactly the same thing you did with the entire PvP community with that huge troll-post of your fail-carrier. You didn't want feedback there either - you wanted to prance around flaunting your 'superior' knowledge and engage everyone there in a rhetorical diatribe.
So, take your quote tool and pick out your next snippets that you think you can spin and have fun.
Oh, PM me for the address to send that $1000 to me and I will send you those plans for that reactor. I will even provide a whole list of references. Just ignore the coffee-cup stains on the napkin.
<munch>
<munch>
<munch>
<munch>
<munch>
Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization
High-performance liquid chromatography
Forgive my ignorance but you develop tests for chemistry?
Cool beans if so.
You can't have it both ways bub. You can't call it "cold fusion" one moment because it requires low activation energy and then call it "cold fusion" because it puts out low energy the next moment.
In fact, if you're referring to Cold Fusion using the latter definition; Congratulations, you've just created a device which wastes atoms to produce useless heat. You cant even use heat that's a few degrees over ambient.
Gee... if there was only something to use it on.
BRILLIANT DEDUCTION, PROFESSOR!
Please tell me when your next lectures on Shell-Game Debate and Alchemy are scheduled for.