I don't find that to be the case at all. Simple minds said the world was flat, that lightning was god's wrath, that strapping rockets to a car is a good idea. Simple minds are prone to fantastical and fanatical explanations, not simple ones.stefanbanev wrote:Well, simple minds are prone to simple explanations...Carl White wrote:Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation for anything new (i.e. the inventor is a fraud)?MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud.
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
Your problem is that there is objective proof that Rossi is a fraudster. Two objective proofs. Has the leopard changed his spots? So far there is no objective evidence of that.stefanbanev wrote:Well, simple minds are prone to simple explanations...Carl White wrote:Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation for anything new (i.e. the inventor is a fraud)?MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud.
Secret sauce. Secret customers. Secret evidence. Changing explanations. Then there is the radiation problem - assuming Rossi actually knows what is going on in his "working" experiments. And the little problem of "depletion" of the Ni. Or enrichment if you prefer.
And of course we have people trying to explain how Rossi is consistent with what we know (or think we know).
Now of course there are many who say "look at the fine set of clothes the Emperor is wearing". I say the Emperor is naked. And I get howls of protest - "you just can't see his clothes because they are made of a material so fine that only the privileged can see it". I'd like some of that privilege. I'll bet it goes really good with the right kind of dance music.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Impressive. But what would you have been teaching? ME or reactor physics.It is true that I have no had a "course of study" in nuclear physics but I am widely enough read in the matter to be beyond the layman level. I was offered a job teaching at the Idaho facility about 30 years ago and was hired by Naval Reactors in Puget.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
But there is very good evidence that Rossi does fraud. So I'd have to have a LOT more proof than that shown so far that he has accomplished more that covering thirty or forty styrofoam boxes with tinfoil and added a few technical protrusions to each.Carl White wrote:Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation for anything new (i.e. the inventor is a fraud)?MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud.
And of course getting 470 Kw out of a 450 Kw generator is not some great technical feat.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Evidently, Rossi ecat being a scam, that is null hypothesis, most likely to happen. Obviously, there is no fun discussing that... (and yes, your posts are not that much fun to read either, you seem to repeat yourself a lotMSimon wrote:
Neutrons were discovered in the 30s and by the 40s we had nuclear reactors.
Field effect transistors were patented in the late 20s and by the early 50s they were being manufactured. By several different manufacturers. So far we only have the word of a known fraudster that the E-Cat effect is real.
.Anyway, I think it is valid to _discuss_ the _possibility_ that ecat is real. When you compare this to the past discoveries, you should also note what might made the difference.
I believe that what could have made difference in experimenting compared to "golden age of experimental physics" is availability and understanding of nano-materials, which a new factor of past 15 years or so.
Teaching Sailors how to run naval reactors. Might have taught you if I'd taken the job.MSimon wrote:Impressive. But what would you have been teaching? ME or reactor physics.It is true that I have no had a "course of study" in nuclear physics but I am widely enough read in the matter to be beyond the layman level. I was offered a job teaching at the Idaho facility about 30 years ago and was hired by Naval Reactors in Puget.
==========
edit = Final clarifying phrase added
Last edited by KitemanSA on Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Giorgio wrote:ROTFL like if I have any obligation whatsoever to coach you!icarus wrote:So in the end, nothing but more hot air from Giorgio. I'll just remind you of your claim because you have omitted it:
You look so good at using google when you make up your nonsense theories but you are unable to type two words to actually check that research in this field is like 20 years old?
Before trying to ask "pertinent questions" why don't you try to get some knowledge in those subjects?icarus wrote:Time to back up your BS and emotional outbursts Giorgio ... and if there is little you do not know you won't mind if I ask a few pertinent questions in the field?
Giorgio wrote:According WHO? Based on WHAT data? Or is this yet another one of those web rumors?icarus wrote:I agree there seems to be prior research on loading H into nickel, including mono-layers, but the specific sequence of loading, evacuating, heating, etc for 10-12 cycles sound crucial. Like a combination lock to get the right H loading into the metal ... removing as much O as possible I suspect.
Troll much?Giorgio wrote:What do you think this board is? A tuition center at your disposal?icarus wrote:So you don't really know or you do? It is not made clear by just throwing it back at me.ladajo wrote:Not my job. If you want to know, go read the pubs, take the courses, and get yourself certified as a contracting officer.
Or you can continue to live in the world you are where "blacks ops" can do as they wish. As I said, fine by me. Doesn't affect my life at all.
It is your job to tell me I don't know but not your job to tell me exactly how it works ... smells like BS to me.
It didn't occur to me when I signed up that this was supposed to be one of our duties.
Let me go and read the fine prints......
So any further serious question directed at you will get an indignant "google it" boilerplate reply henceforth I take it (unless you wish to lord your supreme knowledge over someone, is in the fineprint). And in the end nothing but hot air as ever ... sigh.
You would have remembered me. My instructors told me that I had the top qual scores they had seen in 2 or 3 years. Despite the fact that my Machinist interrogator never gave a non machinist better than a 3.20 in plant mechanicals. I got a 3.20 from him.KitemanSA wrote:Teaching Sailors how to run naval reactors. Might have taught you.MSimon wrote:Impressive. But what would you have been teaching? ME or reactor physics.It is true that I have no had a "course of study" in nuclear physics but I am widely enough read in the matter to be beyond the layman level. I was offered a job teaching at the Idaho facility about 30 years ago and was hired by Naval Reactors in Puget.
Normal final orals ran about an hour from who ever was handy. For me they assembled 12 or so top Navy and civilian people and grilled me for 3 1/2 hours. It took them that long to find something I hadn't studied well. After I got done I was debriefed by my instructors and they were all beaming.
=====
What I have noticed over the years is that people either like me or hate me (I get a LOT of that hate/dislike. It doesn't bother me - in case you hadn't noticed.). No one who has any significant contact with me ever forgets me.
=====
So you were qualified to be an RO? Or just a nuke MM?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Not the simplest hypothesis possible, but I like it.rcain wrote:STOP! LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! can't you see what is happening? Rossi has caused you all to destroy yourselves by your own (lack of) arguments. the forum is EATING ITSELF ALIVE!
it is all part of his evil plan! RESIST!
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
Rossi is almost as bad as religion. Or Drugs.Ivy Matt wrote:Not the simplest hypothesis possible, but I like it. :wink:rcain wrote:STOP! LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! can't you see what is happening? Rossi has caused you all to destroy yourselves by your own (lack of) arguments. the forum is EATING ITSELF ALIVE!
it is all part of his evil plan! RESIST!
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
You're making yourself look like a fool...Am wrote:Yes, you dunno. So now you make inflammatory statements seemingly to hide your own ignorance. You're making yourself look like a fool...MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
I dunno. As far as I can tell nuclear science has not been your field of study in any respect. Thus your - one wild theory after another. What I see is one phlogiston theory after another from you in an attempt to explain Rossi.
I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud. Or to be charitable experimental error.
The fact that Rossi is a KNOWN fraudster biases me towards fraud.
Proudly. Because when the dust settles in 6 months or two years I expect to either be vindicated (most likely) or eat a LOT of crow (possible). Either way I calls 'em as I see 'em. As any good engineer should.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Have yet to see any serious question coming from you. Unless serious for you is synonymous of "collection of meaningless web rumors".icarus wrote:So any further serious question directed at you will get an indignant "google it" boilerplate reply henceforth I take it (unless you wish to lord your supreme knowledge over someone, is in the fineprint). And in the end nothing but hot air as ever ... sigh.
Check your definitions straight and ask questions in a polite way than people might reply to you if they find your questions interesting and have time to do so.