Joseph Chikva wrote:It is a little bit strange that you (the person who as I understand is/was responsible in exploitation of rather complex naval systems) giggle about technical reject which can happen in any system with probability proportionally to its complexity.ladajo wrote:Enginerd wrote:Skipjack wrote:I think Toyota has transmutation, but no excess energy, right?
Toyota has indeed confirmed excess energy,
with replication by NASA and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Good one. Chuckle.
The heaviness of consequences of such failures is another question.
For example, should we giggle on Space Shuttle loss happened as result of one low-quality welding in rocket booster’s case?
This only once again testifies how labor-consuming is the way of maintaining of product from idea to the end-user - process usually called as "commercialization", the process in which there is not and cannot be any trifle.
For example, for me ironical smile is caused by a mention of such companies as Leonardo "Corporation" and Dekfalion. What background they have?
How they can commercialize the product if to assume for a second that is idea correct? Once again, take a look on Toyota's publication and Rossi's or Dekfalion's claims.
I just thought it was a funny joke. Nothing more, nothing less. Outside of that, my limited (have not looked at it in any great detail) understanding is that the process is about transmutation, not about energy produced. And I think it takes energy to make it happen, vice gives it off in some fashion. But I can be completely wrong, as I just haven't really looked at it.