Wednesday, October 9, 2013

1. There is no such thing as Cold Fusion!
see below

2. It's not SCIENCE! Cold Fusion/LENR are hoaxes, pathological science, pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, popular science, cargo-cult science, and voodoo science!
the bottom of this page.
see below

3. There is no proof of a working Cold Fusion device!
see below

1. Cold Fusion/LENR is impossible!
see below

1. Actually scientist have known of fusion occurring at room temperature for decades. The subtext of the question is really the issue of whether it is one measure better than breakeven. Next the question may be is it lower in cost than other energy producing processes? So far the answer to those questions is yes for cold fusion but not yet for the later question. Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. This type of cold fusion has been known, at least theoretically, since before 1950. The great nuclear bomb scientist, Erico Fermi even worked on the science in this area

...

How can this be?

2. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method. In 1987 Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8] In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism .

...

How can this be?

Again the subtext really is a question about efficiency and commercial viability. CR-39, or allyl diglycol carbonate (ADC), is a plastic polymer and its use includes a purified version that is used to measure neutron radiation, a type of ionizing radiation, in neutron dosimetry. U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons using a heavy water electrolysis set-up and a CR-39 detector,[12][112] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[113

...

How can this be?

Even Einstein originally said that a nuclear bomb would be impossible. It took Leó Szilárd to get Einstein going on this issue in a letter to the U.S. President.

...

How can this be?

my title text MYTHS REGARDING COLD FUSION/LENR

1. There is no such thing as Cold Fusion! You will change that to it is Science that provide at least one measure better than breakeven.
2. Its not SCIENCE! Cold Fusion/LENR are hoaxes, pathological science, pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, popular science, cargo-cult science, and voodoo science!
3. Is this right?






























Answers
1. Actually scientist have known of fusion occurring at room temperature for decades. The subtext of the question is really the issue of whether it is one measure better than breakeven. Next the question may be is it lower in cost than other energy producing processes? So far the answer to those questions is yes for cold fusion but not yet for the later question. Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. This type of cold fusion has been known, at least theoretically, since before 1950. The great nuclear bomb scientist, Erico Fermi even worked on the science in this area/
























Top
2. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method. In 1987 Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8] In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism .
























Top
3. a finishe product
























Top

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Sunday, December 25, 2011

There is a lot of questions about the economic situation in the United States and a lot of elected officials are claiming that the economic situation is not sustainable. But I see that Japan has borrowed up to or more than 220 percent of their GDP. I was wondering if you thought the US is there any breaking point? Can they borrow 250% of their GDP?
A: The main deference between the debt of Japan and the United S. Number one is that Japan owes the money to its own People. The US owes approximately 50% to foreigners. But almost 50% of our dept is international debt.
Q: I saw one conuntries economic situation Iceland in 2008____, they had such a bad economic situion, that the value of their currency went half just almost over night. I was wondering if you could compare the US situation currently to any historical situation like Iceland, Weimar Germany, Zimbabwae or something what would you compare it to.
A: Its two different things. The similarities all of the countries you mention they owe money. Thier all in debt. The US is the wealthy countries in the world. At the same time it is the larges debtor nation in the world. Number two the US owes all of its debt in its own currency. Which means if your Thailand , Greece or Zimbawae and you owe money this is in currency that you can not create. So you must work hard or you go bankrupt. The US can do neither one to repay its debt. The US can monitize its debt. That is create the money and repay its debt. Its a unique situation that no one else on this planet has owes money in its own currency.
Q: We have indeed monitizing our debt in the past few years more agressively than we have ever done in the past in the History of the US.
A: Yes, yes we are doing that.
Q: That would be QE 1.
A: Yes, exactly.
Q: Are there anythings coming up that might be a danger? Is it possible that China would stop buying US treasuries. Even though it might be unlikely.
A: Everything is possible. In todays environment everything is possible. However, Chinese are facing the following dilema. Should we continue lending money to the US? Taking the risk that we might lose it through this inflationary monitiziation approach. That the US might chooses to do in the near future. Or if we stop and do not buy additional US debt we might put at risk all the debt we are holding right now in our hands plus economic stability of the planet therefore the econic sitaitution of China would deterioriate. So they are in a very, very tough sitatuion as well.
Q: Some of the past landmarks of the US in this economic turbulance was monitizing our debt. That was something that was pretty new in the past couple years. Are there any landmarks in the future that you might say people should look for similar to that in the next six months to a year should we expect to see anything like a sharp reduction in Chinese buying bonds, comoditties panic or something like that.
A: First of all to put the record straight the US used to be the largest net creditor in the World. In the last 25 years it has become the largest debtor nation. SO prior to 85 we did not face the same financial problems we are facing today. So that is the number one thing for us to consider. Number two we have used monitization in the past. In the 70's. Thats why we used to have high inflation. Double digit inflation. In the past thirty years in the 80's When Volker was the chairman of the fed then Greenspan they used very tight monetary policy. They did not monitieze our debt. That is why we had no inflation in the past 25 years in the US. Now things keep changing. We might have come to the point that we need eventually to monitize our debt. That is something the Chinese are afraid. Because monitization of our debt means that everthing they have invested in the United States will will be inflated. Thats a major issue of concern for that.
Q: The value of their holding really go down because we are paying in dollars that are less valuable.
A: Exactly. And when you inflate the US economy through the monetization. By the end of the day they will buy much, much less of their own currency.
Q: Ok if things get much worse, should we . . .
A: They will.
Q: Should we then anticipate possibly a commodities panic or precsious metals panice or something else like that.
A: All these panices, one follows the other one. Because if you lose faith in the monetary system then in a way you are inclined your forcing yourself to get more involved into commodities or metals. Its a substitute in a way. Thats why you see right now the price of gold is going up and other metals. So in a high inflation situation it can be the worst.
Q; So far, monetizing the debt has been a bane for China and a benefit for the US because we are the default currency. The US dollar is.
A: Although we have still not utilized the full monitization approach. Still we borrow money. We are still finding creditors, they are sending money to the US. Still we are not forced to monitize our debt. That would be the last resort. When everbody will stop sending their money to the US to buy the government bonds then we have no other alternative but to monitize our debt. Still we are not in that situation.
Q: So there is some cushion, maybe some wiggle room there.
A: Yes, yes.