Search

Create an account	Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10

	Mission Statement Modules · Home · Forum · LATEST COMMENTS · Special Sections · SUPPORT ZPEnergy · Advertising · AvantGo · Books · Downloads · Events · Feedback · Link to us · Private Messages · Search · Stories Archive · Submit News · Surveys · Top 10 · Topics · Web Links · Your Account Who's Online There are currently, 120 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online. You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here Events Hot Links Aetherometry American Antigravity Closeminded Science EarthTech ECW E-Cat World Innoplaza Integrity Research Institute New Energy Movement New Energy Times Panacea-BOCAF RexResearch Science Hobbyist T. Bearden Mirror Site USPTO Want to Know Other Info-Sources NE News Sites AER_Network E-Cat World NexusNewsfeed ZPE NE Discussion Groups Energetic Forum EMediaPress Energy Science Forum Free_Energy FB Group The KeelyNet Blog OverUnity Research Sarfatti_Physics Tesla Science Foundation (FB) Vortex (old Interact) Magazine Sites Electrifying Times (FB) ExtraOrdinary Technology IE Magazine New Energy Times Interesting Links		The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register Re: COLD FUSION RETURNS TO MIT (Score: 1) by StevenKrivit on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 @ 21:41:06 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) Rock_nj: I wish it were that simple. But as I understand, the Wright brothers flew their plane for 5 years before people took it/them seriously. And all one needed back then was a pair of eyes! With CF, you need skill, precision calorimetry and/or other highly specialized instrumentation (example: Iwamura experiment) to make accurate assessments. So a simple pair of eyes won't convince anyone anymore - even if a researcher claims to have 100% reproducibility. The thing is, science discoveries are not like an apple falling off a tree and hitting you in the head anymore. Try this on: You don't get neutrons with the excess-heat-producing type of cold fusion! So you can't readily use that "simple and straightforward" test. You get helium, but you have to have a very sophisticated lab to both capture and analyze the helium. You get heat, but you must be an expert in heat measurement. There is a "macro" version of a calorimeter which has just been pioneered by Dennis Cravens. This -may- make it easier to measure the excess heat. I will report on this in the New Energy Times newsletter on May 10. So, even "seeing" a 100% reproducible experiment won't make much difference. But it will greatly accelerate the process because more people will have the patience to try it. And that's when things will start to cook. I think it's a matter of first-hand experience, trust, courage, and greed that will get cold fusion accepted. What on earth do I mean by all that? I talk to skeptics all day long and I hear a million and one reasons why the claims of cold fusion require "extraordinary" evidence. Check out the recent discussion page on Wikipedia's cold fusion page for an example. Yet, if you go and ask them to -define- those parameters, one of two things happen. Either they can't do it - because they realize that the whole concept is subjective, or they make their list, and then the cf researchers achieve the requirements, but then the skeptics find some reason to discard the presented evidence. It's called "moving the goalposts." It's happened time and time again with CF and other new sciences. You can find good references for it on Boerners' site: suppressedscience.net. When more folks start being able to do the experiments and see the results first-hand, that will build their confidence. When more scientists outside of the "inner cold fusion circles" start playing around with it, that will make it easier for others to trust the work. Nobody trusts data. People trust people - that's the bottom line as I see it. And then greed will set it. When more people realize there is a source of energy here and the world - the way it is - continues, it won't be long before scientists find that people want to pay them to work on cold fusion. Then they'll all "accept" the claims. I talked with one at the APS meeting. "I don't care if it's real or not, I want to see if I can make it work." Oh, by the way, Storms, Miles, De Ninno, Takahashi, Iwamura, Chicea and Karabut claim 100% reproducibility. If I make it to Mass.. please find me. It would be nice to talk with you more. Steve Krivit www.newenergytimes.com ...your best source.... | Parent Re: COLD FUSION RETURNS TO MIT by Rock_nj on Thursday, April 21, 2005 @ 08:06:44 UTC

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice. Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.