Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

LENR history, future, and the politics delaying it - Page 2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Curbie on February 7, 2012, 1:09 am
Extraordinary claims, especially extraordinary claims that can't be
explained by the laws of physics as currently understood, require and
demand extraordinary proof, before they can be proposed as reality.

It's one thing to study, research and test this idea, the very act of
which is a valuable exercise in and of itself, it's quite a different
thing to give this idea any credit before it's conclusively proven

I'm still waiting for proof.


Posted by Morris Dovey on February 7, 2012, 4:22 am
On 2/6/12 7:09 PM, Curbie wrote:

I'm willing to accept demonstration as evidence of a physical
phenomenon. In other words, I'm content to see the bumblebee fly from
point A to point B - and I  don't really care whether anyone can explain
the phenomenon in terms of existing laws.

My only interest is in having a low-cost device capable of producing
heat in the neighborhood of 400C independent of existing energy
distribution networks.

Then don't give it any credit. I might find it a bit disturbing if you
actually watched one work and then heard you say that you didn't believe
it worked - but I'd still have to admit that the decision to not believe
was yours to make.

I'm not. I intend to find out if I can reproduce the reported phenomenon
for use in a part my project. If I can do that, I'll be content to move
on and let the physicists continue haggling about how many angels can
ride on a neutrino and how many strings are needed to make a ball of
twine. :-)

Morris Dovey

Posted by Curbie on February 7, 2012, 7:12 am
 I'm willing to accept an independent verification as proof regardless
of the explanation of physics, or a verifiable test by you or anyone
else, but that hasn't happened yet... extraordinary claims require and
demand extraordinary proof, and so far, there's no explanation of
physics and no flying bumblebee.

I'll be happy to work with reality until reality changes.

Posted by Jim Wilkins on February 7, 2012, 1:10 pm

I'd believe if independent researchers (like you) can duplicate the
experiment, or test a released product.

I've had plenty of fun doing fake UFOs, trick photography, theatrical and
movie effects and laboratory magic tricks as well as dog-and-pony shows to
impress investors and I know how easy it is to reinforce rebellion against
the authority of established science.

It's possible that the flying toys I released as a kid in Exeter NH started
their UFO craze. The most likely ones were plastic film parachutes with the
least possible ballast, which floated up on thermals like milkweed seeds.
They did look like flying saucers as they drifted away over the treetops,
reflecting the sun and clouds.

I'm glad you are attempting your own proof. That is the right attitude. My
mindset in a research project is to be very careful with the procedure and
try not to become so hopeful or skeptical that I overlook anything. Keep
good records.


Posted by Morris Dovey on February 7, 2012, 3:59 pm
 On 2/7/12 7:10 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

That's fine with me - but while I admire your talents and skills (and
envy some of your work experience) I'm not much inclined to worry about
what you believe so long as it doesn't threaten me or those I care about
- in much the same way that I don't worry about whether you happen to be
a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or athiest.

I like to think that the science is important, but when those who claim
"authority" make contradictory pronouncements without bothering to get
off their butts to engage in research, they make themselves irrelevant
as scientists so far as I'm concerned. It's difficult to rebel against
something that doesn't manifest.

Exeter is a pretty locale - I'm glad you had fun as a kid. :-)

Excuse my bluntness, but screw the proof - I want heat. If I get that,
the log data will help me to determine the most advantageous starting
temperature/pressure values, and real-time data will allow dynamic
control of the reaction rate - which would facilitate designing and
building safe reactors capable of substantially higher output.

Morris Dovey

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread