a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
in another conversation, maybe. certainly not in your statement that we're talking about.Skipjack wrote:Actually, I did.But neither of us even mentioned Rosie' setup
The best thing is – the conference is growing. Now in its 17th session the progress from the repeatable experimental facts are gaining substantial ground. As more people realize the facts will have to lead the theory in terms of the reality the oncoming progress to commercial energy production is looking more likely. The naysayers might have us all think that conventional physics preclude any of the LENR or cold fusion facts. But trying to apply theories and “laws” that simply do not apply or work in reality for justifying a conclusion is too close to the mental state of ‘beliefs’ instead of research into the wonders of the universe.
Gradually the perception of these phenomena is changing for the better, the mystery is slipping away and eventually a way or ways to explain what’s going on can be completed setting out an engineering framework for intense progress.
It’s going to be a furious year before the next ICCF.
The best thing is – the conference is growing. Now in its 17th session the progress from the repeatable experimental facts are gaining substantial ground. As more people realize the facts will have to lead the theory in terms of the reality the oncoming progress to commercial energy production is looking more likely. The naysayers might have us all think that conventional physics preclude any of the LENR or cold fusion facts. But trying to apply theories and “laws” that simply do not apply or work in reality for justifying a conclusion is too close to the mental state of ‘beliefs’ instead of research into the wonders of the universe.
Gradually the perception of these phenomena is changing for the better, the mystery is slipping away and eventually a way or ways to explain what’s going on can be completed setting out an engineering framework for intense progress.
It’s going to be a furious year before the next ICCF.
happyjack27 wrote:in another conversation, maybe. certainly not in your statement that we're talking about.
Skipjack wrote:In the cases of higher claimes excess heat such as Rossi and Defcalion, the experimental setup has to be doubted. Also these have never been independently verified.
I'm glad they think this. But don't hold your breath. There are claims now for many repeatable demos with significant (larger than chemical) excess heat of long periods.Kahuna wrote:NEW ENERGY AND FUEL has posted a nice summary of ICCF-17 thus far:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen ... -underway/
It concludes:The best thing is – the conference is growing. Now in its 17th session the progress from the repeatable experimental facts are gaining substantial ground. As more people realize the facts will have to lead the theory in terms of the reality the oncoming progress to commercial energy production is looking more likely. The naysayers might have us all think that conventional physics preclude any of the LENR or cold fusion facts. But trying to apply theories and “laws” that simply do not apply or work in reality for justifying a conclusion is too close to the mental state of ‘beliefs’ instead of research into the wonders of the universe.
Gradually the perception of these phenomena is changing for the better, the mystery is slipping away and eventually a way or ways to explain what’s going on can be completed setting out an engineering framework for intense progress.
It’s going to be a furious year before the next ICCF.
Most (including LENR advocates) would say these guys are the least convincing of the LENR wannabes.painlord2k wrote:Defkalion and Rossi are not out for a cheap Nobel Prize (~1.1 M US$), they are out for the tens billions of US$ in profit.
Next they will be able, if so disposed, to finance their own prizes with perpetual endowments able to finance prizes 10x of the value of the Nobel.
Sure. Every single LENR researcher foregoes the acclaim to come from proving LENR to scientific community, because they are all hoping to make money commercialising the process. In spite of the fact that their current experiments may or may not provide scientific proof but sure don't provide anything commercial.painlord2k wrote:They choose not to get Nobel prizes because this would endanger their billions profits.
Anyway, what you forgotten is to get a Nobel Prize you need results AND political connections. Today more the latter than the former.
Cearly an astute person. And he makes a forcast that is trivially bound to be correct.parallel wrote:tomclarke,
It looks like Rossi was correct in his forecast that no paper or scientific experiment would silence the pathological critics. He forecast that only the commercial sale of working units would do that.
Accusing Rossi of being a fraud and a liar, as you have done, shows that you are too biased to think clearly.
Oh. Where? Give us some examples. He has done better than average in fulfilling promises when he will do something.Rossi has repeatedly lied on his blog.
I know you saw Ladajo's quote-A-thon of Rossi....parallel wrote:tomclarke,Oh. Where? Give us some examples. He has done better than average in fulfilling promises when he will do something.Rossi has repeatedly lied on his blog.