Article

2011-08-06 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by phil_b 2011-08-06 08:24|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Thank you phil_b. Hydrogen and cold fusion will see interesting futures in my opinion. Sad that the post modern 'consensus' science can be so intrusive.
Let people develop and get out of the way. Pet projects, funding cuts, politics and just plane greed. So much to overcome but people keep trying.

Posted by Dale 2011-08-06 09:02|| 2011-08-06 09:02|| Front Page Top

#2 1. At the reactions they're talking about, having 10% of the nickel transmuted into copper would have produced nuclear reactor levels of radiation and nuclear bomb levels of energy. Since it didn't, it's probably a salted sample.

2. When he actually had his tests of his machine run, he managed to do it with a system where material was constantly run through the system and then disposed of, instead of a system where you could do honest calorimetry with. This also suggests that the device is a scam. Instead for demos he trickled water into the system at a rate that was hard to measure and trickled the heated water down the sink, through a sealed electrochemical cell made out of the same metal hydrates used to power an electric car. There's a lot of potential for fakery there.

Chances are greater than 50% that you're reading this on a laptop computer or tablet with some sort of metal/hydrogen reaction battery. Chances are small but growing that you have a hybrid car that uses a metal/hydrogen reaction battery. He's running water through a tube full of nickel metal hydrides and saying any heat generated MUST be from nuclear fusion. I'm sure it's a coincidence.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-08-06 11:12|| 2011-08-06 11:12|| Front Page Top

#3 The rush to to discredit and ridicule Fleischman/Pons and other researchers was an early example of the new post modern 'consensus' science

Permit me to disagree. Unlike the global warming hucksters, Flieschman and Pons DID provide their data, calculations and results - just like scientists do. Unfortunately, IIRC, no one was able to duplicate their results. Despite whatever nonsense was generated in the press, there was some interesting stuff going on. Obviously, other people besides me and phil_b thought so because research is still going on with catalyzed reactions. Like this, for example.

Remember that the most exciting phrase is science is not "Eureka!", but "hmmm, that's interesting".

Posted by SteveS 2011-08-06 11:17|| 2011-08-06 11:17|| Front Page Top

#4 Could be a scam.

But I know Italy is one of the places research on the FP phenomena has been going on for the last 20 years.

Posted by phil_b 2011-08-06 11:33|| 2011-08-06 11:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Build it, show it, sell it. The science can come later.

If you can't sell free steak you can't sell anything and it likely doesn't exist. Build it, sell it. Get rich.

Posted by S 2011-08-06 11:35|| 2011-08-06 11:35|| Front Page Top

#6 I'll go one farther: we don't waste time on this website on how we can double our goddamn money by investing with Bernie Madhoff. Why do we waste time treating this asshole like he's serious when he's followed typical scammer behaviors all through _this_ venture, on top of his history.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-08-06 12:09|| 2011-08-06 12:09|| Front Page Top

#7 "Cold Fusion hots up"

What - again?

Posted by Barbara 2011-08-06 18:10|| 2011-08-06 18:10|| Front Page Top

#8 SteveS, I wasn't saying FP was a an example of post modern science. Rather I was referring to the reaction of the powers that be in the scientific community and the media.

Amongst other things cold fusion as a potential energy source would have derailed the global warming bandwagon right at the begining.

Posted by phil_b 2011-08-06 18:12|| 2011-08-06 18:12|| Front Page Top

#9 One other point to bear in mind is that US and EU patent offices reject cold fusion patents out of hand.

With no IP protection, I'd be secretive in their position.

Posted by phil_b 2011-08-06 18:24|| 2011-08-06 18:24|| Front Page Top

#10 Call me when you can buy such a device to run your house. Until then - scam.
Lubos Motl has a good take on this at The Reference Frame.

Posted by Aussie Mike 2011-08-06 18:58|| 2011-08-06 18:58|| Front Page Top

#11 Steve, IIRC from reading a review of research in the field a few years back, nobody was able to duplicate their results but some found a small energy excess. Others didn't. The high pressures and temperatures involved make high sensitivity radiation monitoring hard to arrange. I think one group claimed to see some radiation, but plenty of others didn't. Way back in the day Jones (since become a truther nut) claimed to see increased radiation levels, but at the tiny level expected from known physics.

Posted by James 2011-08-06 23:33|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com 2011-08-06 23:33|| Front Page Top

23:33 James
23:01 49 Pan
22:43 Free Radical
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:18 Dale
22:17 JosephMendiola
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:35 Eohippus Phater7165
21:28 trailing wife
21:26 Procopius2k
21:23 Angaviter Angimp5208
21:23 Eohippus Phater7165
21:16 trailing wife
20:45 Perfesser
20:42 lotp
20:39 Skunky Glin****
20:35 Glusoger Gruter1463
20:32 lotp
20:17 Redneck Jim
20:12 Redneck Jim
20:08 phil_b
20:03 Scooter McGruder
19:47 Water Modem