E-Cat (cold fusion sigh..)
- Started
- Last post
- 28 Responses
- ernexbcn0
@georgesIII why are you always referring to iPads or Apple stuff on threads that are not about that, I think you are obsessed.
The bridge is still on sale, let me know.
- ernexbcn0
Numbers guy?
- don't you have some ipad to go advertise, we're somehow trying to have an interresting conversation here, grow upgeorgesIII
- joke isn't funny when it's used on a long-time qbn membermonospaced
- :Dmonospaced
- I don't even own an iPad.ernexbcn
- GeorgesII0
btw: have you heard of the 100 year starship?
there are so many project currently going on, it's hard tracking them all
http://www.100yss.org
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scienc…
- monospaced0
Thanks for the clarification, detritus. I was hoping this wasn't some "free energy" thing. Thanks again.
Regarding "Earth-like" planets, the "proof" is in the statistics. There are sweet spots for size, distance from a sun, etc that make for possible planets like ours, and the sheer number of possibilities makes their existence a no-brainer. Yet, searching for them is almost pointless as communicating and/or traveling between them IS impossible.
- yep, but makes us think our kids will be able to escape this planetGeorgesII
- that's what they said in the '50s and '60smonospaced
- :(
have you forgotten balloon boy?GeorgesII - there are no resources for exploration anymore, it's really sadmonospaced
- maybe the private enterprises will get into space travel, but I hold no hopes for NASA anymoremonospaced
- detritus0
Unfortunately, media speculation about 'Earth-like' planets tends to be the product of the over-inflated imaginings of eager press-releasing scientists and non-fact-checking journos.
ALL we know about extra-solar planets is *roughly* their size and *roughly* their orbital period around their parent star, from which we can hopefully speculate onwards.
You'll note that in the second paragraph of that Beeb thing it says 'models suggest a temperature of..'. Which applies to any chemical constituencies.
We're abat least 15-20 years off from being able to directly measure the chemistry of extra-solar planets (with the next generation of telescopes, some of which *might* be able to spectroscopically analyze atmosphere of far-flung worlds) - 'til then, everything is imagination and good wishings.
- GeorgesII0
link from nasa
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/…
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_page…
http://www.skymania.com/wp/2011/…
obligatory scientific claim
- GeorgesII0
Detritus here is what I wrote,
"mono, you were probably the kind of person who were saying that another earth like planet were impossible 15 years ago or photographing black holes, or communicating world wide on a handset or eating kraft dinner"1: off course photographing a black hole is impossible but photographing the plasma sucked in will reveal it,
what scientist expect to find
link to article
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012…2: earth like planet, the idea was inconceivable 20 years ago,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scienc…
bonus: documentary
- detritus0
mono - this is NOT free energy and that video above is from NASA.
http://technologygateway.nasa.go…
Everyone's being massively hesitant around this subject now with good reason, but just as equally, this tech needn't necessarily rely on impossible physics ... just the '99%' of physics we don't understand yet.
Georges - Could you please link me to something that proves we've photographed a black hole and/or could you send me a link to proof of another 'Earth-like planet', as far as I'm aware, we have no evidence for either right now.
Unless, of course, you meant 'event horizon' around Black hole, and/or planets about Earth's size... but by that metric, so is Venus, and we've known about her for a good few years now.
- Sorry, 'no evidence for having photographed a black hole', which is by it's very nature, impossible.detritus
- dzing!jadrian_uk
- monospaced0
sine: "in theory, creating this energy would be free..."
What theory is that? Problem is, they aren't even sure what exactly is responsible for creating the energy, so it's premature to call it "free." And, if they wanted to really save the world, they wouldn't keep it secret, they'd share it with physicists to test and prove. If it's secret, it won't be free or liberating.
- sine0
oxygen is free, but if you want it in a cannister you pay for it.
in theory, creating this energy would be free... doesn't mean the people with the technology to make it is going to be giving it away for free.
/end ramble
- GeorgesII0
I'm not at home, but I found another great link from another third rate university aka cambridge, watch the video,
I want to believe
-http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/11502…
In January 2011 Andrea Rossi demonstrated a device that purported to develop 10 kW of power from a nuclear reaction. This video discusses its credibility, the investigations that have been done on the device, and its future prospects. The nuclear power claim can be tested by measuring total energy over a period of time and comparing it with what would be possible from conventional energy sources[1]. Previous claims of this kind, beginning with that of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 [2], have been generally doubted, but it is argued that this general doubt owes more to the persuasive power of rhetoric than to the actual facts.
In contrast to the ITER thermonuclear project, where practical application is decades away, reactors of the Rossi type are already in production and, according to NASA Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell, may be capable of "completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate and energy"[3].
- GeorgesII0
I'm just as skeptic as anyone, but I'll just wait and see,
if it's another scam we'll find it sooner than later
- monospaced0
I hate this kind of stuff when it comes to these free energy trials:
"The reactor itself, which is loaded with the nickel powder and secret catalysts pressurized with hydrogen, has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters (3.2 cubic inches)."
Why secret? What are you hiding? Why can't you just publish it so people can get on with creating free energy? Oh wait, it's secret. Such bullshit.
- do you know how a iphone or ipad works, why should he just give it away when he sold his house to finance it. free energy doesn't meanGeorgesII
- doesn't mean give your work for free, but giving the possibility to people to not be linked to big corporationsGeorgesII
- There is a difference between patented and 'secret'maikel
- terrible analogymonospaced
- vaxorcist0
wait...
Balony University?!?!?
- you know that's a city with some of the oldest university/school in europe :)GeorgesII
- hahahahahamonospaced
- fuck now I'm hungryGeorgesII
- I know.... it's true that it's a historical university, but I couldn't resist....vaxorcist
- monospaced0
"Doomed from the start," free energy is impossible.
- laws of physics, innitsine
- close mindedjadrian_uk
- me, close minded? I'm being realistic jadrian. it's simply impossible, and it will be proven againmonospaced
- and again, and againmonospaced
- mono, you were probably the kind of person who were saying that another earth like planet were impossible 15 years ago..GeorgesII
- or photographing black holes, or communicating world wide on a handset or eating kraft dinnerGeorgesII
- nah man, not at all, I love this shit and WISH it were true, but riht now even THEY don't believe itmonospaced
- there's no "proof," just evidence, and they're waiting to seemonospaced
- animatedgif0
"If energy prices go down across the board, theoretically goods will become much cheaper, and people won't need to work in the same way that they do now just to survive."
Doomed from the start, people at the top of the pile would never let this happen.