10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[tomclarke]

chrismb,
First you accuse me of making something up out of thin air and I posted a reference to show that was not true.

I didn't comment on your other statement in that same post.

I shall point out that your replies indicate that you do not appear to understand what 'ad hominem' means. You told tomclarke he was rude when all he did was state a fact. THAT is ad hominem. Time for you to roll out the apologies, fella.

An ad hominem is when you attack the messenger (whether rude or not) not the message. Your Latin needs brushing up.

parallel,

I think I agree. Stating facts - even negative ones - is not an attack if they are relevant to the matter at hand.

If I had said "Rossi is a scheming idiot" without evidence of specific schemes or mental incapacity it would be an a.h. attack.

If I had criticised Rossi's sexual exploits it would be an a.h. attck since they have no relevance to the topic.

[chrismb]

chrismb,
First you accuse me of making something up out of thin air and I posted a reference to show that was not true.

WHere?? Missed it... (You posted something that said 'engineer Rossi' , not 'Rossi was trained at ..etc...')


Anyone else spot where parallel has posted a reference to Rossi's training?!?

An ad hominem is when you attack the messenger (whether rude or not) not the message. Your Latin needs brushing up.

Exactly. So how did Tom justify that critique, yet you tell him he's rude for repeating a fact.

I would put you in the class of 'schmoozer' because I think you really believe your bullshit, and to be a qualified bullshitter you have to be trying it on and know you're full of shit. Your exit awaits.

Does anyone want parallel to stay, or schmooz off?

[chrismb]

An ad hominem is when you attack the messenger (whether rude or not) not the message.

Which is exactly what you did, IMHO.

No opinion needed. It was a fact that schmoozer-p did.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

I think I agree. Stating facts - even negative ones - is not an attack if they are relevant to the matter at hand.

If I had said "Rossi is a scheming idiot" without evidence of specific schemes or mental incapacity it would be an a.h. attack.

Going after the messenger is always an adhom. You got lucky in this case, as I don't think you knew at the time you made the comment that Rossi's engineering qualifications were debatable.

Enough already. Unless there is real news of the E-Cat.

[Betruger]

So.... Can we look inside Rossi's black box yet?

[Ivy Matt]

Self-destruct sequence initiated. 10...9...8...7....

[chrismb]

tomclarke,

I think I agree. Stating facts - even negative ones - is not an attack if they are relevant to the matter at hand.

If I had said "Rossi is a scheming idiot" without evidence of specific schemes or mental incapacity it would be an a.h. attack.

Going after the messenger is always an adhom. You got lucky in this case, as I don't think you knew at the time you made the comment that Rossi's engineering qualifications were debatable.

Enough already. Unless there is real news of the E-Cat.

No, you still don't get this 'ad hominem' stuff.

If one were to say "Rossi is unable to get a qualification", that is ad hominem because we just don't know him and cannot judge his ability like that. However, saying a person does not have a qualification may be wrong, but it'd not be 'ad hominem.

For example;

"Rossi is a bullshitter" is ad hominem.

"What Rossi says is bullshit" is not ad hominem. It may be insulting and wrong [or there again!...] and surely ill-mannered, but it is NOT ad hominem.

"You're a twit" is ad hominem.

Do you get it, or is your next reply going to be like a twit's reply [so, you see that wasn't ad hominem. Rude, yes, but not ad hominem]?

Whereas if I were to call you a daft nitwit with such a sub-standard level of intellect that you cannot possibly be trusted to tie two strings together let alone two rational points of debate, then that would be ad hominem.

[chrismb]

Self-destruct sequence initiated. 10...9...8...7....

Ah! Is someone else also counting down schmoozer-p's exit!

[D Tibbets]

Not to interupt the name calling, but it coours to me that Rossi may be very clever.
He may impliment a self distruct mechanism, that doesn't demolish the apparatus, but only decomposes the secrete catalyst to some ambigous product that turns out to look exactly like powdered nickel. Even the isotopic composition may be changed. Anybody that cuts into the can or otherwise operates the system outside of his strict controls would trigger the self distruct. Perfect deniability when others cannot replicate his results or actually looks inside.

Dan Tibbets

[Betruger]

He is a European Engineer, after all.

[chrismb]

He is a European Engineer, after all.

Maybe even a trained engineer, and we're just too stupid to realise it yet!

[cg66]

Replication?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian- ... n-low.html

Article lacks any details - hopefully something more formal forthcoming...

[Joseph Chikva]

Replication?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian- ... n-low.html

Article lacks any details - hopefully something more formal forthcoming...

The good news is there is no radiation detectable above background levels .

The Zirconium becomes Zirconium dioxide when it is baked.

I see that it is really nuke.

[Helius]

It seems the news is spreading....

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy is looking at Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) Cold Fusion as a part of implementing President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs.

http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-look ... 9583.html/

I wonder if the skeptics here will accuse him of being "had" and wasting money, as they all know cold fusion by any name is pathological science..

It's a nice red herring to divert attention further from that which actually *can* compete with the status quo: Fissioning.
Light water reactors took 20% of the Electrical generation market in about one score years, and, frankly, Light water reactors, and their Boiling water cousins with their open fuel cycle, can be economically exceeded IMHO. The competitive potential of closed fuel cycle fissioning is not lost on those vested in the status quo of Fossil fuel combustion. Last I looked, 8 of the 10 largest companies in the world were those provisioning hydrocarbons.
These companies and related Industries wield huge political and social power. They know the huge competitive potential of fissioning, and spend a great deal of their social power to ensure their primary competition is not power dense forms of Energy, but ensure that their main "competitors" are instead a "soft energy path", conservation, and forms of energy that is Diffuse, Unreliable, and Intermittent.

It doesn't surprise me that the Political appointees of the current administration are again pointing to yet another form of energy that they think will maintain the status quo.

Obama has a billion dollars in his campaign coffers already, and he didn't get that rich begging on the streets of Chicago. Before anyone goes all politics on me, I have to say that *any* political party that achieves power, achieves it in part by pandering to those vested in maintaining the energy status quo. Energy Industries are just too rich and socially powerful.

[Joseph Chikva]

...hydrocarbons.
These companies and related Industries wield huge political and social power.

That's truth but half of truth.
There is not viable idea yet considered by them.
I have some correspondence with DOE. They are very open for communication. And I doubt that they would block something if BP or ExxonMobile or someone else asks that.