Gauge Boson

There is one reason why home-brewed biodiesel is not made in the US: gas is cheaper here. And that is a horrible example of a 'good technology' being 'suppressed'. The home-brewed biodeisel is horrible on the engines and stinks like rancid oil when it is burned.
But let's get to the real issue. There are claims by companies with a vested interest in making such claims (to get investors) that they are close to a "marketable CF product". But that is all they are: claims. Dennis Lee claims to be close to producing a marketable free-energy machine. That doesn't make it true. Another parallel between CF proponents and this fraud: both have made many claims in the past of being close, and the date always passes uneventfully. You clearly did not read, or chose to ignore, the link I provided about the <a href="http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/mmbet.html" target="_blank">The Merriman-Mallove Pact</a>.

The key word, Chip, is "speculation". You, however, are making a claim that something is true, not may be true. I don't claim that cold fusion cannot be true, just that it is highly unlikely and that no good evidence exists that it is so. I have no reason to continue this conversation because clearly you are too faithful and too paranoid to reason with. Some advice for you, Chip: when you see consiracies everywhere, you need psychiatric help. I'm sure you'll say that psyciatry is simply a conspiracy to make people easy to control or to hide the 'truth' from them.

You must keep an open mind, but don't make it so open that your brain falls out. This 'open mind' argument is another one that is very common with pseudoscience and other nonsense. An open mind should be one that will evaluate the evidence on its merits, not one that will accept something without evidence. “We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads, but to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.” -- Carl Sagan. You have made it abundantly clear that you make no such distinction and are hostile to skepticism.

You are not freethinking. If you were, you would demand evidence to back up these claims. The only things you provide, however, are unsupported claims, wild speculation, and argument from ignorance.

The same false reasoning applies to Dennis Lee and Joe Newman. BlackLight Power, too. Are you claiming that they really have working technology that is being 'suppressed' by 'powers-that-be'? If not, what is the difference? If so, you have confirmed my worries that you lack any reasoning ability. BTW, such a technology does exist and will enter production within the next few years. It has already been shown to work (unlike cold fusion) and satisfies all of the criteria you claim guarantee that the technology will be 'suppressed' to the point of being made to appear false when it is not. This technology is hydrogen fuel cells. It is not entering mainstream use very quickly, but few technologies do, especially when they require so much associated infrastructure. One of the main inhibitors to its widespread acceptance is consumers. They just don't want it. Eventually they will be forced to accept fuel cell-powered cars when oil prices increase and supplies dwindle. Strangely, and inadvertantly, the oil companies are speeding this process. Their solution to dependence on oil is to find it faster, drill it faster, and use it faster. The tragedy of the commons will eventually catch up with us and fuel cells will become widespread. The main advantages are: the fuel is cheap (can be made by electrolysis of water); the hydrogen fuel cells are almost 100% efficient; if all the cars in an average city were powered by fuel cells, 3% of them plugged into the power grid would provide all the city's needed power (I'd like to see terrorists blow up a few 100,000 cars instead of a single power plant); and they are completely clean sources of energy (only waste product is water). Since fuel cells are not being hidden by some massive conspiracy, why is cold fusion? BTW, the earliest purchasers of fuel cell-powered vehicles have been government agencies, particularly municipal government.

Corwin

Of course the oil companies are supporting fuel cells.... they'll sell hydrogen. There's only one problem with that....

Where exactly do you think hydrogen comes from?

Chip

Yup. You are losing it Gauge ole buddy. I think it would be wise for you to adhere to your statement "I have no reason to continue this conversation..." no matter your judgmental opinions. But still you go on painting me with your accusations and insinuations. Where did I say that CF is true? Oh, I shouldn't get sucked in to addressing your allegations any more. I tried, I gave you the chance, the benifit of the doubt but, you just had to go and bury yourself further. Seems like I've virtually attacked the existence of your god.

It is good that you show your colors. Yes it would be wise for you to refrain from this thread. You appear to have lost it.

Respectfully, Chip

Butters

Posted by Corwin,
No, here's the problem. People are attempting to establish that cold fusion works based on witch scientist they CHOOSE to believe. The situation with cold fusion is not that complicated, I am a layman, and I understand the P&F experiment very well. P&F claimed to have fused deuterium nuclei in a palladium cathode, releasing energy. The problem is that IF this had occured, large amount of nuclear radiation would be emited. P&F detected about a million times less neutrons than should be expected if their theory was correct. Of couse at that time the accurate measurment of neutrons was difficult to detect. Instead of solveing this problem, they ignored it. They did not do any control experiments until long after they announced results, and the first was a dismal failure, and should have stopped the whole thing then and there. They substituted ordinary water for heavy water. They got the same results! This was proof that they were interpreting the results wrong. This should have been the end of the story(actually it shouldn't have gotten this far).

The whole affair shows why the scientific method is so valuble.
P&F ignored every aspect of it. They ran no control expirements. They accepted results that ran counter to their theory, and even the laws of physics. They ran to the press instead of publishing in a peer reviewed journal. And they got themselves in such a bind, that they couldn't back out.

As for conspericy buffs, I believe that most of your concerns have been answered, but please think about this.

Scientists all over the world tried to duplicate this experiment. Only a few claimed to have even gotten SOME result. Now tell me, what orginazation in the world could silence EVERY scientist, student, and amateur in the entire world! What is more likely? That an experiment that was flawed, whose results contradicted the laws of physics, and could not be repeated is a total failure? Or that some mad consperisy group is running around the world silencing EVERY scientist and basement experimenter IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!

I am also not saying that some form of cold fusion will never be found, I'm just saying don't unhook your house from the power grid just yet.

Corwin

I'm not saying unhook your house either. But all over the world people HAVE gotten it to work.

The 'logic' that's been used here is 'oh gee, MIT said it was a bust... what? Falsified their data? No they didn't... oh... wait... ok... well... they still say it was a bust even if they did fudge things so there's no point in even looking any further....'

A lot of you 'freethinkers' swallow data from MIT that's been proven to have been fudged and immediately refuse to consider the possibility that there might be something to it. You also refuse to even acknowledge positive results, implying that either the people who got them had to have been wrong or were lying (gee... conspiracy theories Mr Pot?)

None of us are saying we have a cold fusion reactor powering our houses. But given the potential benefit, and what's already been done, how can anyone endorse NOT looking into it?

Butters

Posted by Corwin,
You see, you have the whole argument backwards. I don't care what MIT "SAYS". I don't care what any other scientist "SAYS". Just show me the theory and the RESULTS. I see no indication that MIT "fudged their results. Not that there is no point in looking any further, but that we must abandon any theory that does not produce predictable and repeatable results, which at this time includes ALL results.


Still wrong. Show me where MIT "fudged" their data. Please don't show me a claim that they did, show me the evidence. I am not implying that these results are wrong, I'm saying it, no conspiracy theory needed. When you are dealing with results that are basically below your level of dectition, you can easily fool yourself.
You still haven't shown me a theory that you believe works. You are engaging in a war of authorities and claims, show me something.

A couple of books I reccomend highly to you and chip,
"Why people believe weird things" by Micheal Shermer
"Voodo science" by Dr. Robert Parks.
I'm sure you will find them interesting, but after reading through this thread again, I can see that Chip is a conspiracy nut, willing to believe anything that shows the wealthy and powerfull are all in collusion to keep the masses under control.

Corwin

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html</a>

From the above link:

Chip

Butters, please check your PMs.

Thank you, Chip

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>

Butters

Nope, don't read 'em, don't send 'em, say what you want in the open.

Chip

My PM says that you have read my PM to you. I find you ever less trust worthy, Butters. I have sent a notification of your flame to a moderator. Just wanted to give you a chance to correct your apparent distaste for rational communication. It appears you would rather make a greater show of your propensity to post misinformation.

So be it, Chip