|
On February 16 2012 01:50 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:34 frogrubdown wrote:On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation. So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense." By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere. Advertising of it becoming illegal was based on racism, but the reason why it was pushed to be illegal was because of economic interest.And since you know about the racism part, you definetly know the economic side as well, for some reason you want to win an argument/you are against anything that resemble conspiracy theories. So, saying that people who are in power and want to stay in power by any means possible is a conspiracy theory ? Yeah, right back at ya. Just stay and think about about what free energy would do for the world.The nature of the people in power is mostly conservative, so going on free energy is a complete risk.You fail to see the implications on it. Basic reasoning behind my thoughts is....so ok, we came from like black&white tv's to IPOD4's and we haven't gone from fossil fuel to good solar energy usage. Do the research, it's easy, just pull the numbers and see how much it was invested in solar energy research.
There's a degree of truth to the marijuana story (much more so for the illegalization of hemp than for the original acts against marijuana). That's said, the Tesla story goes beyond straining credulity and your partial endorsement of it destroys your credibility.
Scientists still have every reason in the world to search for "free energy" since nothing could be better for their careers. If corporations were managing to shut their efforts down, it would have to be by making their inventions illegal after they had already designed them. This has not been occurring.
Yes, corporations that rely on fossil fuels for their profits have slightly hindered some efforts to free us of them, but the idea that they have the power to destroy any new variety of energy is absurd.
|
On February 16 2012 01:50 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:34 frogrubdown wrote:On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation. So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense." By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere. Advertising of it becoming illegal was based on racism, but the reason why it was pushed to be illegal was because of economic interest.And since you know about the racism part, you definetly know the economic side as well, for some reason you want to win an argument/you are against anything that resemble conspiracy theories. So, saying that people who are in power and want to stay in power by any means possible is a conspiracy theory ? Yeah, right back at ya. Just stay and think about about what free energy would do for the world.The nature of the people in power is mostly conservative, so going on free energy is a complete risk.You fail to see the implications on it. Basic reasoning behind my thoughts is....so ok, we came from like black&white tv's to IPOD4's and we haven't gone from fossil fuel to good solar energy usage. Do the research, it's easy, just pull the numbers and see how much it was invested in solar energy research.
You already stated that you know nothing about science, so I guess I won't argue the point here. But the reason we don't have good solar energy isn't because of some kind of nefarious corporate conspiracy, it's because solar energy will never be able to compete with oil or other fossil fuels in cost effectiveness. It's just simple science.
Why didn't the horse breeders and carriage riders hatch a conspiracy to stop the automobile? I mean it's just common sense that they wouldn't want the car to put them all out of business, it just makes sense that they would want to protect their interests. Did Microsoft poison Steve Jobs? I mean that just makes sense, that they would want to do that, to save themselves money.
Come on man... you just come off as kooky and ignorant when you talk like this.
|
You can't shut the whole fucking world up about something as good as free energy....
There are a lot of smart people on the internet believe it or not. People in IT, engineering, science, etc etc... you don't think one of them would post a guide on how to make such a device on the internet if it really were that simple that someone in their garage could make it? ....
EDIT : I'm very skeptical about such devices... However, this man is pretty smart either way.
If this does result in some sort of new field of energy production, then he's a genius.
If this is some sort of very clever scam, then he's still a genius for fooling the many scientists that have seen the results thus far in person.
|
On February 16 2012 02:01 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:50 bOneSeven wrote:On February 16 2012 01:34 frogrubdown wrote:On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation. So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense." By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere. Advertising of it becoming illegal was based on racism, but the reason why it was pushed to be illegal was because of economic interest.And since you know about the racism part, you definetly know the economic side as well, for some reason you want to win an argument/you are against anything that resemble conspiracy theories. So, saying that people who are in power and want to stay in power by any means possible is a conspiracy theory ? Yeah, right back at ya. Just stay and think about about what free energy would do for the world.The nature of the people in power is mostly conservative, so going on free energy is a complete risk.You fail to see the implications on it. Basic reasoning behind my thoughts is....so ok, we came from like black&white tv's to IPOD4's and we haven't gone from fossil fuel to good solar energy usage. Do the research, it's easy, just pull the numbers and see how much it was invested in solar energy research. You already stated that you know nothing about science, so I guess I won't argue the point here. But the reason we don't have good solar energy isn't because of some kind of nefarious corporate conspiracy, it's because solar energy will never be able to compete with oil or other fossil fuels in cost effectiveness. It's just simple science. Why didn't the horse breeders and carriage riders hatch a conspiracy to stop the automobile? I mean it's just common sense that they wouldn't want the car to put them all out of business, it just makes sense that they would want to protect their interests. Did Microsoft poison Steve Jobs? I mean that just makes sense, that they would want to do that, to save themselves money. Come on man... you just come off as kooky and ignorant when you talk like this.
Eh, technically solar energy "pays for itself" after awhile, though those start up costs take awhile to average out. Also, as oil becomes more expensive, solar power will become a more attractive option.
|
On February 16 2012 02:01 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:50 bOneSeven wrote:On February 16 2012 01:34 frogrubdown wrote:On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation. So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense." By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere. Advertising of it becoming illegal was based on racism, but the reason why it was pushed to be illegal was because of economic interest.And since you know about the racism part, you definetly know the economic side as well, for some reason you want to win an argument/you are against anything that resemble conspiracy theories. So, saying that people who are in power and want to stay in power by any means possible is a conspiracy theory ? Yeah, right back at ya. Just stay and think about about what free energy would do for the world.The nature of the people in power is mostly conservative, so going on free energy is a complete risk.You fail to see the implications on it. Basic reasoning behind my thoughts is....so ok, we came from like black&white tv's to IPOD4's and we haven't gone from fossil fuel to good solar energy usage. Do the research, it's easy, just pull the numbers and see how much it was invested in solar energy research.
You already stated that you know nothing about science, so I guess I won't argue the point here. But the reason we don't have good solar energy isn't because of some kind of nefarious corporate conspiracy, it's because solar energy will never be able to compete with oil or other fossil fuels in cost effectiveness. It's just simple science.Why didn't the horse breeders and carriage riders hatch a conspiracy to stop the automobile? I mean it's just common sense that they wouldn't want the car to put them all out of business, it just makes sense that they would want to protect their interests. Did Microsoft poison Steve Jobs? I mean that just makes sense, that they would want to do that, to save themselves money. Come on man... you just come off as kooky and ignorant when you talk like this.
As someone involved in inorganic chemistry research, I do not believe this to be true. The real issue is that we really don't have that great of an idea as to how solar panels function and how to improve them. Its still a really unexplored area. Well, perhaps a better way to say it would be a really (successfully) unexplored area. There is still tremendous potential for solar panels to reach higher efficiency, but we're not there yet. Its far from scientifically impossible though, as you say it.
On February 16 2012 03:11 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 02:01 liberal wrote:On February 16 2012 01:50 bOneSeven wrote:On February 16 2012 01:34 frogrubdown wrote:On February 15 2012 22:36 bOneSeven wrote:
If a new energy form is invented to save us from fossil fuel technology, it wont' be used because it's not helping the industry lords. I hope you do realize that is an end game for all of new technology that is for example "free". Just do a little research and see how much they invest into refining solar power technology.
Am I talking out my ass ? Yeah ? What happened with marijuana ? It has tons of medical uses, but since big pharmaceutical companies lobby against it, it is illegal to this day ( WHICH IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN AND MORE THAN 1 IQ YOU UNDERSTAND MAKING CANNABIS ILLEGAL IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CORRUPTION ). These corporations would loose billions of dollars if weed started being legalized and utilized all over the world to the best of it's potential.
Same goes for energy industry. Perhaps this is a myth, but when Tesla developed the invention who would provide free energy for free it was shut down because of mere economic interest. Whatever may have happened, it totally makes sense.
Why does arms industry work ? Why does fossil fuel industry works ? Why, why, why no high technology ? Simple : Fat cats remain fat cats, and people will have jobs.
I'm an idiot in the realm of science, but still, no1 should be naive enough to think that a new energy that is 100times better and cheaper than the one that is used atm will go out. More than half of the scientific studies on everything is sponsored by big corporations to kill innovation. So your argument is based on citing conspiracy theories, acknowledging that you don't have evidence for their truth, but then claiming that that doesn't matter because they "totally make sense." By the way, Cannabis become illegal primarily due to racism. At least, that's why it became illegal in the US, which is a large part of why it's illegal elsewhere. Advertising of it becoming illegal was based on racism, but the reason why it was pushed to be illegal was because of economic interest.And since you know about the racism part, you definetly know the economic side as well, for some reason you want to win an argument/you are against anything that resemble conspiracy theories. So, saying that people who are in power and want to stay in power by any means possible is a conspiracy theory ? Yeah, right back at ya. Just stay and think about about what free energy would do for the world.The nature of the people in power is mostly conservative, so going on free energy is a complete risk.You fail to see the implications on it. Basic reasoning behind my thoughts is....so ok, we came from like black&white tv's to IPOD4's and we haven't gone from fossil fuel to good solar energy usage. Do the research, it's easy, just pull the numbers and see how much it was invested in solar energy research. You already stated that you know nothing about science, so I guess I won't argue the point here. But the reason we don't have good solar energy isn't because of some kind of nefarious corporate conspiracy, it's because solar energy will never be able to compete with oil or other fossil fuels in cost effectiveness. It's just simple science. Why didn't the horse breeders and carriage riders hatch a conspiracy to stop the automobile? I mean it's just common sense that they wouldn't want the car to put them all out of business, it just makes sense that they would want to protect their interests. Did Microsoft poison Steve Jobs? I mean that just makes sense, that they would want to do that, to save themselves money. Come on man... you just come off as kooky and ignorant when you talk like this. Eh, technically solar energy "pays for itself" after awhile, though those start up costs take awhile to average out. Also, as oil becomes more expensive, solar power will become a more attractive option.
Not always. There are *A LOT* of different types of solar panels, depending on where they are intended to be used, and some need different types of maintenance and whatnot. Its not something you can juts plop down somewhere and its good to go forever.
edit: Just to elaborate a bit: There are a lot of different types of solar panels both because of situational uses and because there are so many different theories out there right now, just as a result of how poorly understood solid state inorganic chemistry is at the moment. One of the current methods of solar panel design is just trying to emulate photosynthesis as closely as possible. I attended a lecture recently where a guy is essentially trying to build everything a plant does with metals. Down to the very last bit. Recreating proteins etc. Not very successful yet, of course, but it seems like it can go places at some point. And that's where solar energy as a whole is at right now. "We don't really have anything all that great right now, but we seem to be making progress."
|
frogrubdown I'm suggesting that corporations pay big bucks for scientific reports that contradict reason to think there could be a way better form of energy than nuclear/fossil fuel. I'm also stating the obvious, which is this: You can have 10000 scientists be really really interested in free energy, so what?They need funds to perform studies, those studies are extremely expensive, since it will be "free" energy no1 will make a profit out of it, so why bother investing anyways ? Usually the most empathic people who are at the top are involved in social issues not industry/economics.
liberal you just stated an absolute. How am i "kookier" than you ? Pump 1/4 the money of the military industrial complex in solar energy RESEARCH ( of course we don't have reliable form of harnessing energy from the sun, we haven't done though research on it with big bucsk - obviously because you won't profit from it ) and you'll have your solar technology happening in less than 10 years imo.
You don't need to come with a nepharious conspiracy theory to say people who are making big bucks won't invest in a business that will destroy their current industry and not help them in the future to gain $$$. Lol dude, what the hell ?We had the 90's and early 00' invaded by retarded conspiracy theories, and recently anything that might resemble by some far stretch of the imagination with a conspiracy is dismissed by most people.The new hispter thing is.. I don't know if it's healthier or unhealthier than the paranoia.
|
On February 16 2012 03:46 bOneSeven wrote:
frogrubdown I'm suggesting that corporations pay big bucks for scientific reports that contradict reason to think there could be a way better form of energy than nuclear/fossil fuel. I'm also stating the obvious, which is this: You can have 10000 scientists be really really interested in free energy, so what?They need funds to perform studies, those studies are extremely expensive, since it will be "free" energy no1 will make a profit out of it, so why bother investing anyways ? Usually the most empathic people who are at the top are involved in social issues not industry/economics.
liberal you just stated an absolute. How am i "kookier" than you ? Pump 1/4 the money of the military industrial complex in solar energy RESEARCH ( of course we don't have reliable form of harnessing energy from the sun, we haven't done though research on it with big bucsk - obviously because you won't profit from it ) and you'll have your solar technology happening in less than 10 years imo.
You don't need to come with a nepharious conspiracy theory to say people who are making big bucks won't invest in a business that will destroy their current industry and not help them in the future to gain $$$. Lol dude, what the hell ?We had the 90's and early 00' invaded by retarded conspiracy theories, and recently anything that might resemble by some far stretch of the imagination with a conspiracy is dismissed by most people.The new hispter thing is.. I don't know if it's healthier or unhealthier than the paranoia.
I think he's just operating on parsimony. What's more complicated, and therefore unlikely to have occurred? The situation where the tech is unobtainable due to practical limitations, or the situation where tech is unobtainable due to "the man / the corporationz" holding it all back?
What about the drug industry argument you hear from time to time? Is 'Big Pharma' holding back cancer cures? It makes sense, right? They want to profit more, so they want to keep cancer from being cured! Or, rather, is it that cancer is practically impossible to cure (for now)?
|
I don't buy cannabis being mostly illegal because of business interests. After all, some big agriculture company could have realized they could pretty easily monopolize production or whatever and pushed to allow it.
|
On February 16 2012 22:36 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 03:46 bOneSeven wrote:
frogrubdown I'm suggesting that corporations pay big bucks for scientific reports that contradict reason to think there could be a way better form of energy than nuclear/fossil fuel. I'm also stating the obvious, which is this: You can have 10000 scientists be really really interested in free energy, so what?They need funds to perform studies, those studies are extremely expensive, since it will be "free" energy no1 will make a profit out of it, so why bother investing anyways ? Usually the most empathic people who are at the top are involved in social issues not industry/economics.
liberal you just stated an absolute. How am i "kookier" than you ? Pump 1/4 the money of the military industrial complex in solar energy RESEARCH ( of course we don't have reliable form of harnessing energy from the sun, we haven't done though research on it with big bucsk - obviously because you won't profit from it ) and you'll have your solar technology happening in less than 10 years imo.
You don't need to come with a nepharious conspiracy theory to say people who are making big bucks won't invest in a business that will destroy their current industry and not help them in the future to gain $$$. Lol dude, what the hell ?We had the 90's and early 00' invaded by retarded conspiracy theories, and recently anything that might resemble by some far stretch of the imagination with a conspiracy is dismissed by most people.The new hispter thing is.. I don't know if it's healthier or unhealthier than the paranoia.
I think he's just operating on parsimony. What's more complicated, and therefore unlikely to have occurred? The situation where the tech is unobtainable due to practical limitations, or the situation where tech is unobtainable due to "the man / the corporationz" holding it all back? What about the drug industry argument you hear from time to time? Is 'Big Pharma' holding back cancer cures? It makes sense, right? They want to profit more, so they want to keep cancer from being cured! Or, rather, is it that cancer is practically impossible to cure (for now)?
I think thats right...but then logically wouldn't the next question be, how do we determine the likelihood of a vast conspiracy? What do we really know about how complicated and secretive plans can be, be they corporate or government run?
We know that industries have tried to repress certain findings, like the tobacco industry or asbestos mining industries. But its obvious that they have failed in their attempts after so many decades of overwhelming scientific evidence. But if, for instance, we look at very large, established groups of oil companies that make up a major portion of the economy, to what extent does their power reach, how broad can their influence in government be? I think it would be at least good to discuss those issues. But this probably isn't the thread for it.
I think it can be said though that just based on common sense, it would be impossible to hide a miracle technology indefinitely. You can't really stop scientific progress; like all truths they eventually will break free.
|
Show nested quote +
Eh, technically solar energy "pays for itself" after awhile, though those start up costs take awhile to average out. Also, as oil becomes more expensive, solar power will become a more attractive option.
Not always. There are *A LOT* of different types of solar panels, depending on where they are intended to be used, and some need different types of maintenance and whatnot. Its not something you can juts plop down somewhere and its good to go forever. edit: Just to elaborate a bit: There are a lot of different types of solar panels both because of situational uses and because there are so many different theories out there right now, just as a result of how poorly understood solid state inorganic chemistry is at the moment. One of the current methods of solar panel design is just trying to emulate photosynthesis as closely as possible. I attended a lecture recently where a guy is essentially trying to build everything a plant does with metals. Down to the very last bit. Recreating proteins etc. Not very successful yet, of course, but it seems like it can go places at some point. And that's where solar energy as a whole is at right now. "We don't really have anything all that great right now, but we seem to be making progress."
Well, maintenance for most of these panels is cheaper than producing a new barrel of oil or two is it not? So the "average cost" of energy from a solar source decreases over time, while oil remains more or less constant, and at some point, 1kwh of solar electricity is "cheaper" than 1 lwh of oil-derived electricity. It's like buying a LED vs. conventional lightbulb-- LED is much more expensive, but its more efficient and lasts much longer and pays for itself over time relative to the conventional lightbulb.
I think I may have seen that lecture, on TED or at some lecture I attended, I don't recall. I am more familiar with research using enzymes (from termites and the like) to break down cellulose into B-glucose, and converting that to ethanol.
|
On February 16 2012 03:46 bOneSeven wrote:
liberal you just stated an absolute. How am i "kookier" than you ? Pump 1/4 the money of the military industrial complex in solar energy RESEARCH ( of course we don't have reliable form of harnessing energy from the sun, we haven't done though research on it with big bucsk - obviously because you won't profit from it ) and you'll have your solar technology happening in less than 10 years imo.
Actually, all the friends i have that work in biology/physics/chem tell stories about it being much easier to get grants and money for research when it's tied to global warming and alternative energy sources. Some even try to tie their research to global warming/energy just to get noticed and recieve grants.
|
On February 17 2012 03:13 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 03:46 bOneSeven wrote:
liberal you just stated an absolute. How am i "kookier" than you ? Pump 1/4 the money of the military industrial complex in solar energy RESEARCH ( of course we don't have reliable form of harnessing energy from the sun, we haven't done though research on it with big bucsk - obviously because you won't profit from it ) and you'll have your solar technology happening in less than 10 years imo.
Actually, all the friends i have that work in biology/physics/chem tell stories about it being much easier to get grants and money for research when it's tied to global warming and alternative energy sources. Some even try to tie their research to global warming/energy just to get noticed and recieve grants.
Same is true for medical purposes.
|
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/dick-smith-to-work-with-defkalion-to-arrange-testing/
For those of you still amused by this story, the latest update is that Dick Smith (an Australian multi-millionaire and well known sceptic) has offered $1m for a successful demonstration of LENR as claimed by Rossi.
He simply wants a repeat of Rossi's test from March of last year, with some extra-tight controls on the input/output testing, showing at least a 3:1 ratio on output:input. His belief is that the March test was basically a good test, but had some failings which could provide Rossi with an opportunity to fake the results. The easiest way for Rossi to continue committing fraud is to suggest a different test setup every time, in a way that the tests are subtly flawed (and fakeable) in different ways, but an iteratively improved test protocol would be harder to fool.
Rossi has naturally turned this offer down, claiming he already has lots of investors, and doesn't care about a paltry $1m. Imo, this is unconvincing to say the least:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/rossi-on-dick-smiths-offer-i-do-not-need-his-money/
Dekaflion (Rossi's former business partners, who now have their own LENR device) on the other hand, have expressed interest in the challenge, and Dick Smith is in touch with them to set up the simple test. If this test is actually carried out and passed, it will be very convincing proof that they actually have working LENR. Dick Smith has a decent history of scepticism, and should prove difficult to convince unless everything is absolutely above board.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/dick-smith-suggests-testing-protocol-to-defkalion-wants-rossi-like-test/
My own theory is that Dekaflion will back out of the (relatively simple) test before it takes place. Much like Mr Smith, I am extremely doubtful that a successful test will take place. Dekaflion have invited other independent groups to test its device, but have insisted on an unnecessarily complex test protocol. It is possible they are using such a test protocol in order to obfuscate their fraud. Mr Smith's simpler test protocol will be harder to fool, so they are unlikely to agree to it.
|
On February 19 2012 00:16 TheUltimate wrote:http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/dick-smith-to-work-with-defkalion-to-arrange-testing/For those of you still amused by this story, the latest update is that Dick Smith (an Australian multi-millionaire and well known sceptic) has offered $1m for a successful demonstration of LENR as claimed by Rossi. He simply wants a repeat of Rossi's test from March of last year, with some extra-tight controls on the input/output testing, showing at least a 3:1 ratio on output:input. His belief is that the March test was basically a good test, but had some failings which could provide Rossi with an opportunity to fake the results. The easiest way for Rossi to continue committing fraud is to suggest a different test setup every time, in a way that the tests are subtly flawed (and fakeable) in different ways, but an iteratively improved test protocol would be harder to fool. Rossi has naturally turned this offer down, claiming he already has lots of investors, and doesn't care about a paltry $1m. Imo, this is unconvincing to say the least: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/rossi-on-dick-smiths-offer-i-do-not-need-his-money/Dekaflion (Rossi's former business partners, who now have their own LENR device) on the other hand, have expressed interest in the challenge, and Dick Smith is in touch with them to set up the simple test. If this test is actually carried out and passed, it will be very convincing proof that they actually have working LENR. Dick Smith has a decent history of scepticism, and should prove difficult to convince unless everything is absolutely above board. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/dick-smith-suggests-testing-protocol-to-defkalion-wants-rossi-like-test/My own theory is that Dekaflion will back out of the (relatively simple) test before it takes place. Much like Mr Smith, I am extremely doubtful that a successful test will take place. Dekaflion have invited other independent groups to test its device, but have insisted on an unnecessarily complex test protocol. It is possible they are using such a test protocol in order to obfuscate their fraud. Mr Smith's simpler test protocol will be harder to fool, so they are unlikely to agree to it.
Dick Smith (If it is him and not a fake) is an actual person who is totally independent and has allot of technical know-how about this and is therefor the most legit news for a long time regarding this. Will be interesting to see the outcome of this.
|
Rossi has naturally turned this offer down, claiming he already has lots of investors, and doesn't care about a paltry $1m. Imo, this is unconvincing to say the least:
Thread's over guys.
More than 1 year has passed, and still we haven't witnessed any decent proof of LENR happening in Rossi's device. And if you forgot it, i want to remind that he was already for the prolongation scam (hydrocarbons from organic waste), that simply didn't work, and other fails.
|
On February 19 2012 01:33 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +Rossi has naturally turned this offer down, claiming he already has lots of investors, and doesn't care about a paltry $1m. Imo, this is unconvincing to say the least: Thread's over guys. More than 1 year has passed, and still we haven't witnessed any decent proof of LENR happening in Rossi's device. And if you forgot it, i want to remind that he was already for the prolongation scam (hydrocarbons from organic waste), that simply didn't work, and other fails.
It's never over for Rossi 
|
It's not over until the fat lady sings.
Also Dick Smith's offer is probably nothing more than a publicity stunt which Rossi is right to refuse. If you're following ecatnews.com, Smith, who is actually posting there, is already coming up with excuses why he cannot accept testing with Defkalion. I would love to see him go forward with a test though!
|
On February 19 2012 01:33 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +Rossi has naturally turned this offer down, claiming he already has lots of investors, and doesn't care about a paltry $1m. Imo, this is unconvincing to say the least: Thread's over guys. More than 1 year has passed, and still we haven't witnessed any decent proof of LENR happening in Rossi's device. And if you forgot it, i want to remind that he was already for the prolongation scam (hydrocarbons from organic waste), that simply didn't work, and other fails.
Bye. I'll miss ya. (jk i won't)
Hope Defkalion accepts that guys offer. And the sooner the better. 
|
On February 16 2012 23:00 Grumbels wrote:
I don't buy cannabis being mostly illegal because of business interests. After all, some big agriculture company could have realized they could pretty easily monopolize production or whatever and pushed to allow it.
The DEA and prison system did instead. Prison's (billion dollar industry) are packed with non-violent offenders. Check the DEA's funding and spending. Last stat I saw was heinous. The reason marijuana is illegal in the US today is purely political. Older generations (most voters) still have old stigmas.
The idea that big oil would kill this project isn't absolutely insane if you have certain opinions about the war in Iraq and such. Oil money is god money. That being said I don't buy it. The world is dying, if this can help us out, it will.
|
On February 19 2012 01:23 Integra wrote:
Dick Smith (If it is him and not a fake) is an actual person who is totally independent and has allot of technical know-how about this and is therefor the most legit news for a long time regarding this. Will be interesting to see the outcome of this.
He isn't actually technically competent if you read his comments. Don't make him out to be something which he isn't. If he's serious about it, he should hire an expert in calorimetry to assess the proposed testing protocol by Defkalion rather than trying to figure out on his own what's a good test and what isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
