Posted by amdx on February 5, 2012, 3:20 am
Here's a pretty good article about LENR progress and what has held it
back.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Cold-Fusion-is-Here-It-s-by-steve-windisch-120202-446.html
Mikek
Posted by Vaughn on February 5, 2012, 5:07 pm
On 2/4/2012 10:20 PM, amdx wrote:
> Here's a pretty good article about LENR progress and what has held it back.
>
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Cold-Fusion-is-Here-It-s-by-steve-windisch-120202-446.html
> Mikek
I enjoy your cold fusion posts (but remain unconvinced).
In this case...
I would appreciate it if you wish to post any more references from that
particular blog (or whatever it is) please use cut and paste. That site
tried to load so much shit into my computer that I finally had to force
my browser to close. Therefore I never got to read the article you
posted, and certainly won't risk another try.
Vaughn
Posted by Jim Wilkins on February 6, 2012, 3:34 pm
> ...and we hear very little about it in the mainstream media.
There isn't necessarily an evil bogeyman, usually things just don't work
because the developer couldn't solve one last "little" problem, the same one
that stymied everyone else. And that's the part you never hear in the media,
which doesn't understand the technology or its difficulty anyway. In this
case it's the Coulomb Barrier.
http://www.evaluationtoolkit.org/illustrations/4/original/miracle_cartoon.jpg?1231530108
Sometimes the real story circulates in the scientific community. A good
example is Bill Lear's steam car project which depended on polywater
(Learium) for cylinder lubrication. When polywater turned out to be a false
artifact of bad experimental technique the steam car project disappeared
without a whisper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
Compare that reality to the hype and conspiracy rumors:
http://steamautomobile.com/phorum5214/read.php?1,105
jsw
R&D lab tech
Been there, done that, can't discuss it.
Posted by Morris Dovey on February 6, 2012, 6:37 pm
On 2/6/12 9:34 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> ...and we hear very little about it in the mainstream media.
> There isn't necessarily an evil bogeyman, usually things just don't work
> because the developer couldn't solve one last "little" problem, the same one
> that stymied everyone else. And that's the part you never hear in the media,
> which doesn't understand the technology or its difficulty anyway. In this
> case it's the Coulomb Barrier.
I think this is the point at which we need to 'fess up that we don't
know everything there is to know. The newly-posed question, to which we
appear to not yet have a solid answer, is: "What does it take to
overcome the forces involved?".
It seems to me that the folks who're tossing pat answers on the table
for the press to feed on are, in effect, claiming that their egos are
more worthy of belief than experimental observations. They're the kind
of folks who'd happily announce that honeybees can't possibly fly...
> Sometimes the real story circulates in the scientific community. A good
> example is Bill Lear's steam car project which depended on polywater
> (Learium) for cylinder lubrication. When polywater turned out to be a false
> artifact of bad experimental technique the steam car project disappeared
> without a whisper.
Yuppers - there's no shortage of examples of ideas that didn't work as
researchers/developers expected, but those examples prove nothing beyond
the fact that those particular ideas didn't pan out for reasons specific
to each individual case.
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey
Posted by Jim Wilkins on February 6, 2012, 10:27 pm
> On 2/6/12 9:34 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> ...and we hear very little about it in the mainstream media.
>>
>> There isn't necessarily an evil bogeyman, usually things just don't work
>> because the developer couldn't solve one last "little" problem, the same
>> one
>> that stymied everyone else. And that's the part you never hear in the
>> media,
>> which doesn't understand the technology or its difficulty anyway. In this
>> case it's the Coulomb Barrier.
> I think this is the point at which we need to 'fess up that we don't know
> everything there is to know. The newly-posed question, to which we appear
> to not yet have a solid answer, is: "What does it take to overcome the
> forces involved?".
Who said we do know everything? Relativity and quantum mechanics were
unrelated competing theories. Both survived only because they don't conflict
experimentally. Newton's law of gravity stops working as expected at the
edge of our Solar system.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/82174-Voyager-anomaly-vs.-Pioneer-anomaly
> It seems to me that the folks who're tossing pat answers on the table for
> the press to feed on are, in effect, claiming that their egos are more
> worthy of belief than experimental observations. They're the kind of folks
> who'd happily announce that honeybees can't possibly fly...
The bumblebee claim came from a grad student who had switched from
aeronautics to biology in the late 20's or early 30's (?), when most
airplanes had two pairs of incorrectly cambered wings.
>> Sometimes the real story circulates in the scientific community. A good
>> example is Bill Lear's steam car project which depended on polywater
>> (Learium) for cylinder lubrication. When polywater turned out to be a
>> false
>> artifact of bad experimental technique the steam car project disappeared
>> without a whisper.
> Yuppers - there's no shortage of examples of ideas that didn't work as
> researchers/developers expected, but those examples prove nothing beyond
> the fact that those particular ideas didn't pan out for reasons specific
> to each individual case.
It shows that conspiracy buffs see malice when the cause is error.
Not that R&D is free of malice. I've lost good jobs because frustrated
competitors crippled the small company with lawsuits, which are very
effective at draining resources and distracting engineers even if they lose.
I avoided having to testify only because I had seen the "secret" circuit
idea on the electrical schematic of my car.
jsw
XML site map
>