The critics here remind me of Harold Hill, the music man, trying to persuade the town residents of the evils of the billiard hall.
Such proof as there is about LENR can be debated but will not be resolved until a device is sold commercially that actually works. As Rossi concluded some time ago.
Why go on with the endless, repetitive insults? Why fail to support funding for careful science to try replication? You certainly have less proof that it doesn't work than the supporters have that it does. You will never prove a negative.
BLP news
When did BLP become LENR? What the heck does Rossi have to do with it? I'm surprised you didn't bring up John Hutchinson's floating bowling ball as if it was connected.parallel wrote:The critics here remind me of Harold Hill, the music man, trying to persuade the town residents of the evils of the billiard hall.
Such proof as there is about LENR can be debated but will not be resolved until a device is sold commercially that actually works. As Rossi concluded some time ago.
Why go on with the endless, repetitive insults? Why fail to support funding for careful science to try replication? You certainly have less proof that it doesn't work than the supporters have that it does. You will never prove a negative.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
He brings up Rossi because I did and I did because ScottL did in response to GIThruster. It's a side argument to the lack of credibility that Rossi, Mills, and others have dug themselves into, which GIThruster and Parallel, for their own respective reasons, equate to being unscientific and in Parallel's case extrapolate as something pathological. Or maybe that last part I'm confusing with some other internet gungho Rossi defender. I can't remember anymore. I think I remember Icarus bringing up "obsession with hot fusion" (paraphrasing) out of the blue whenever someone argued anything against what he considered cold fusion or LENR.seedload wrote:When did BLP become LENR? What the heck does Rossi have to do with it? I'm surprised you didn't bring up John Hutchinson's floating bowling ball as if it was connected.parallel wrote:The critics here remind me of Harold Hill, the music man, trying to persuade the town residents of the evils of the billiard hall.
Such proof as there is about LENR can be debated but will not be resolved until a device is sold commercially that actually works. As Rossi concluded some time ago.
Why go on with the endless, repetitive insults? Why fail to support funding for careful science to try replication? You certainly have less proof that it doesn't work than the supporters have that it does. You will never prove a negative.
It all still boils down to the same thing. Who cares if it's purple monkey powered. If it does work and is economical, that's good enough. We can use it. The trouble is that Rossi and Mills & cie have managed, with millions and years if not decades, to keep screwing up that step from experimental to useful. I mean... It really shouldn't be hard to distinguish proper scientific brass tacks like.... Woodward, March & co.... And people who seemingly can't help but make a mess of things like Rossi.
Night and day difference.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
Or it is found not to be vialbe for significant energy generation, or it's found to be experimental error. Or....if another solution such as the many fusion projects pre-existing work, then it really won't matter. There are always more possibilities than the assumption it will simply work.Such proof as there is about LENR can be debated but will not be resolved until a device is sold commercially that actually works. As Rossi concluded some time ago.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I just have to laugh. People here complain that there's no physical evidence until BLP builds a 50 kw thermal reactor. Outsiders still don't believe it so Rowan builds the same reactor, mixes the catalyst independently and runs the experiment as open science for two years. People complain the results aren't published until I point out there are 95 papers published over 20 years. People complain that what Mills has might be a LENR reaction until BLP builds a fuel cell that can't possibly be a LENR reaction. A real chemist with real credentials does a real analysis and comes to the conclusion that BLP ought to be funded for their two scale ups and people here whine that BLP hasn't already done this.
Just seems to me some people here need an enema more than they need to be typing in this folder. No value added with these kinds of posts and you look more and more foolish as time goes on. Whether BLP has what they claim or not, these kinds of childish criticisms are not value added.
Just seems to me some people here need an enema more than they need to be typing in this folder. No value added with these kinds of posts and you look more and more foolish as time goes on. Whether BLP has what they claim or not, these kinds of childish criticisms are not value added.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster,
I couldn't agree more.
Even Betruger seems to have trouble comprehending my post, written in plain English. LENR is as good a generic term as any to describe all these phenomena until it is sorted out how they actually work.
I used Rossi's comment about peolple not believing LENR until there is a commercial version available, because as you point out, that is true. It doesn't matter that there is plenty of evidence that would be accepted in conventional scientific fields.
ScottL's posts would be more useful if he just cut and pasted portions of the phone directory. I forget who was complaining about the time it takes to commercialize a whole new science, but they forget how long Polywell has been trying. Why not complain about that too? They are all so superior they could doubtless have done it in half the time.
I couldn't agree more.
Even Betruger seems to have trouble comprehending my post, written in plain English. LENR is as good a generic term as any to describe all these phenomena until it is sorted out how they actually work.
I used Rossi's comment about peolple not believing LENR until there is a commercial version available, because as you point out, that is true. It doesn't matter that there is plenty of evidence that would be accepted in conventional scientific fields.
ScottL's posts would be more useful if he just cut and pasted portions of the phone directory. I forget who was complaining about the time it takes to commercialize a whole new science, but they forget how long Polywell has been trying. Why not complain about that too? They are all so superior they could doubtless have done it in half the time.
A work still in progress.LENR is as good a generic term as any to describe all these phenomena until it is sorted out how they actually work.
I rather like phlogiston as a generic term though. I believe it to be more accurately descriptive.
LENR is still a science problem. At least hot fusion has progressed to engineering. And the engineering is slow going. I admit. But the general theory is not in question.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote: LENR is still a science problem. At least hot fusion has progressed to engineering. And the engineering is slow going. I admit. But the general theory is not in question.
One doesn't need theory for a working product. High temperature superconductors are a good example, but I bet guys who build bicycles never had any theory on why they don't fall.
Quite so. A theory or a plant. (Better if you have both). And when you have neither..........pbelter wrote:One doesn't need theory for a working product. High temperature superconductors are a good example, but I bet guys who build bicycles never had any theory on why they don't fall.MSimon wrote: LENR is still a science problem. At least hot fusion has progressed to engineering. And the engineering is slow going. I admit. But the general theory is not in question.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It is kinda ironic that Mills is being tied into the LENR discussions given that Rossi defenders seem to always be talking about Bose-Einstein condensates, Superfluids, and latices.GIThruster wrote:I just have to laugh. People here complain that there's no physical evidence until BLP builds a 50 kw thermal reactor. Outsiders still don't believe it so Rowan builds the same reactor, mixes the catalyst independently and runs the experiment as open science for two years. People complain the results aren't published until I point out there are 95 papers published over 20 years. People complain that what Mills has might be a LENR reaction until BLP builds a fuel cell that can't possibly be a LENR reaction. A real chemist with real credentials does a real analysis and comes to the conclusion that BLP ought to be funded for their two scale ups and people here whine that BLP hasn't already done this.
Just seems to me some people here need an enema more than they need to be typing in this folder. No value added with these kinds of posts and you look more and more foolish as time goes on. Whether BLP has what they claim or not, these kinds of childish criticisms are not value added.
Nobel Prize laureate for low temperature physics and Bose-Einstein condensate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Ketterle, says that Mills claims are "scientific nonsense".
Nobel Prize laureate for the study of superfluids at low temperatures, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Leggett, said that BLP is unable to prove its claims about Quantum physics.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park, author of hundreds of papers and an expert in single-crystal surfaces, says that all that BLP has to sell is bull shit.
These guys seem to know their stuff. More so than the renowned chemistry department at second rate Glassboro State College does (oops, I mean Rowan University. I still can't believe they started calling that place a University).
That said, Mills is orders of magnitude more likely to be legitimate than Rossi. That just ain't sayin' much.
Regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
Pretty sure that hot fusion work started about 14 billion years ago.parallel wrote:MSimon,
Hot fusion work was started fifty years ago and you can't give Rossi another six months?
Like to make another bet on who will first generate significant, continuous net power out by LENR, Polywell or hot fusion?
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
Parallel, you bring nothing to the conversation. You have no expertise in any field and often, you ramble on about how weak evidence is clearly evidence of proof. It's a common theme with you and it grew tiresome about 200 pages ago on the Rossi thread.
Rossi has made a claim and has yet to back up that claim in a scientific manner. IE: no peer review, no third-party replication, no viewing of the inner workings of his reactor. This is simply not scientific. Can he commercialize it? Sure, more power to him. I actually support this 110%. The sooner he gets to this stage, the sooner we'll know for sure and history will be based on the result. My question to you is, are you going to purchase his mini heaters when they're released?
As for your apples to oranges comparison to EMC2 (which mind you I don't find currently viable) is ridiculous. EMC2 isn't currently pursuing or claiming to have created a commercial reactor. They haven't even claimed their theory is right. They've simply stated they have a theory and it looks promising, nothing more, nothing less. How you contorted this to a comparison with Rossi is very dishonest, but you are right, I'm more than willing to give Rossi 6 months to prove my opinoni false.
BLP has a long history of research with regard to Mills theory. After initial data release, scientists pointed out obvious concerns in the experimental setup, and presumably with the Rowan confirmation, these concerns were addressed, however; the current edition of Mills Theory plagarizes directly (cut/paste) several pieces of previous theories. Furthermore, I have provided previously a quote that states that they intended to develop/produce a 50kw reactor 12-18 months after I believe it was May 2008. Well that time has long since passed without the reactor. I can definitely understand a business changing direction and deciding to license vs actually produce based on their theory. My problem stems from the peer-review. BLP still has proprietary information so independent replication can't happen. When I say this I mean that if so inclined, no-one here on this board could replciate the experiments as we don't know the "catalyst".
To GIT, I didn't mean to hurrang you for posting data, I simply don't expect anything from BLP. My personal view (please note personal) is that they're just drumming up PR for another round of investments as they've done in the past. To me, this throws up several red flags. Furthermore, Chris has at least proven via direct conversation with Mills that hydrino gas is inert per the quoted email. Also, I noted that Mills has claimed to have trapped hydrino gas for measure, so technically the proposed experiment by Chris should prove or disprove a significant part of the theory.
Rossi has made a claim and has yet to back up that claim in a scientific manner. IE: no peer review, no third-party replication, no viewing of the inner workings of his reactor. This is simply not scientific. Can he commercialize it? Sure, more power to him. I actually support this 110%. The sooner he gets to this stage, the sooner we'll know for sure and history will be based on the result. My question to you is, are you going to purchase his mini heaters when they're released?
As for your apples to oranges comparison to EMC2 (which mind you I don't find currently viable) is ridiculous. EMC2 isn't currently pursuing or claiming to have created a commercial reactor. They haven't even claimed their theory is right. They've simply stated they have a theory and it looks promising, nothing more, nothing less. How you contorted this to a comparison with Rossi is very dishonest, but you are right, I'm more than willing to give Rossi 6 months to prove my opinoni false.
BLP has a long history of research with regard to Mills theory. After initial data release, scientists pointed out obvious concerns in the experimental setup, and presumably with the Rowan confirmation, these concerns were addressed, however; the current edition of Mills Theory plagarizes directly (cut/paste) several pieces of previous theories. Furthermore, I have provided previously a quote that states that they intended to develop/produce a 50kw reactor 12-18 months after I believe it was May 2008. Well that time has long since passed without the reactor. I can definitely understand a business changing direction and deciding to license vs actually produce based on their theory. My problem stems from the peer-review. BLP still has proprietary information so independent replication can't happen. When I say this I mean that if so inclined, no-one here on this board could replciate the experiments as we don't know the "catalyst".
To GIT, I didn't mean to hurrang you for posting data, I simply don't expect anything from BLP. My personal view (please note personal) is that they're just drumming up PR for another round of investments as they've done in the past. To me, this throws up several red flags. Furthermore, Chris has at least proven via direct conversation with Mills that hydrino gas is inert per the quoted email. Also, I noted that Mills has claimed to have trapped hydrino gas for measure, so technically the proposed experiment by Chris should prove or disprove a significant part of the theory.