Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lets try to defraud some people.

Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 11:36:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So apparently there's this guy Andrea Rossi who claims to have cracked the
"cold fusion" mystery. Basically he has some secret catalyst or process that allows
him to fuse Hydrogen gas to Nickel to make Copper at room temperature, releasing
energy in the typical fusion process, just at low energy levels.

http://phys.org...

Now of course this seems to be a hoax, because he's selling units full of these things for over a million dollars but won't let anyone look inside or explain how it works. Im not arguing or even questioning that this is likely utter fraud.

My challenge to you all is: try to make up an explanation of how he got this to work. I kind of like looking at videos of things like Bedini motors and Tesla Radiant energy captures, and I'm always kind of impressed at how dedicated people are to these convoluted explanations they have for how they've bent the rules around the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. I want to see how easy/difficult it is to fabricate some theoretical means of explaining technology that contradicts what most other science says shouldn't be. Go at it
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 7:43:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 11:36:53 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So apparently there's this guy Andrea Rossi who claims to have cracked the
"cold fusion" mystery. Basically he has some secret catalyst or process that allows
him to fuse Hydrogen gas to Nickel to make Copper at room temperature, releasing
energy in the typical fusion process, just at low energy levels.

http://phys.org...

Now of course this seems to be a hoax, because he's selling units full of these things for over a million dollars but won't let anyone look inside or explain how it works. Im not arguing or even questioning that this is likely utter fraud.

My challenge to you all is: try to make up an explanation of how he got this to work. I kind of like looking at videos of things like Bedini motors and Tesla Radiant energy captures, and I'm always kind of impressed at how dedicated people are to these convoluted explanations they have for how they've bent the rules around the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. I want to see how easy/difficult it is to fabricate some theoretical means of explaining technology that contradicts what most other science says shouldn't be. Go at it

Sounds like the cold fusion version of that faux quantum computer called the "D-Wave".

Well, I did find this interesting from that link you gave: "With that being said, exactly what kind of reaction is producing the large amount of heat energy remains unknown. While the reaction was originally touted as cold fusion when Rossi first unveiled the device a few years ago, most analysts now suspect that the mechanism is more likely a low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) that is not fusion. If the reaction involves the conversion of nickel into copper, as it seems, then it would be considered a transmutation."

Calling it a 'transmutation' sounds pretty cool in that 'alchemical' sort of way.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 6:49:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 11:36:53 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So apparently there's this guy Andrea Rossi who claims to have cracked the
"cold fusion" mystery. Basically he has some secret catalyst or process that allows
him to fuse Hydrogen gas to Nickel to make Copper at room temperature, releasing
energy in the typical fusion process, just at low energy levels.

http://phys.org...

Now of course this seems to be a hoax, because he's selling units full of these things for over a million dollars but won't let anyone look inside or explain how it works. Im not arguing or even questioning that this is likely utter fraud.

My challenge to you all is: try to make up an explanation of how he got this to work. I kind of like looking at videos of things like Bedini motors and Tesla Radiant energy captures, and I'm always kind of impressed at how dedicated people are to these convoluted explanations they have for how they've bent the rules around the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. I want to see how easy/difficult it is to fabricate some theoretical means of explaining technology that contradicts what most other science says shouldn't be. Go at it

I commend the scientists for there work, but until they are allowed to take the unit apart and study the interior, its rubbish. Also until they can conduct tests in an independent lab, its rubbish. I think this sentence from the article says it all. We will see when the paper gets rejected what he has to say.
"However, the tests were performed on E-Cat prototypes constructed by Rossi and located in Rossi's facilities in Ferrara, Italy."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:30:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Something for those interested in "cold fusion", there is a really interesting type of fusion that can indeed happen at room temperature called Muon catalysed fusion.

Replacing electrons in an atom with muons (207 times heavier) it can cause fusion reactions at very much lower temperature.

But no, can't be used for lots if free energy due to the problems of creating and maintaining the muons :(
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I've got too many irons in the fire to discuss global warming here and now (I've still got to answer your Neanderthal comment), my main point, which you probably agree with is that this free energy thing is just another reiteration of snake oil. I will say about global warming, nearly every solution involves confiscating wealth and freedom from producing citizens, funneling it through powerful government agencies who get their six-figure cut, then giving large amounts of it in grants and aid to others. Even if science itself is perfect and incorruptible, scientists and government officials are susceptible to greed, and therefore worthy of scrutiny when much money and power is involved.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I've got too many irons in the fire to discuss global warming here and now (I've still got to answer your Neanderthal comment), my main point, which you probably agree with is that this free energy thing is just another reiteration of snake oil. I will say about global warming, nearly every solution involves confiscating wealth and freedom from producing citizens, funneling it through powerful government agencies who get their six-figure cut, then giving large amounts of it in grants and aid to others. Even if science itself is perfect and incorruptible, scientists and government officials are susceptible to greed, and therefore worthy of scrutiny when much money and power is involved.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 10:28:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
I've got too many irons in the fire to discuss global warming here and now (I've still got to answer your Neanderthal comment), my main point, which you probably agree with is that this free energy thing is just another reiteration of snake oil. I will say about global warming, nearly every solution involves confiscating wealth and freedom from producing citizens, funneling it through powerful government agencies who get their six-figure cut, then giving large amounts of it in grants and aid to others. Even if science itself is perfect and incorruptible, scientists and government officials are susceptible to greed, and therefore worthy of scrutiny when much money and power is involved.

That's not an argument against global warming; that's an argument against the proposed solutions for global warming. The two are not mutually inclusive.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 11:16:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.

Do you have a source for that experiment. I would like to read what they did exactly. Thanks in advance.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 12:47:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

That's still hot fusion. Temperature is average heat, not total heat.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.

... You realize that middle school girls are horrible at conspiracies, yes?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 1:25:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 12:47:52 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

That's still hot fusion. Temperature is average heat, not total heat.

That's very technical and I agree with you.

But I think skynet is using the popular term, which refers to nuclear fusion at room temperature. Or from WIkipedia: Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for "hot" fusion.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.

... You realize that middle school girls are horrible at conspiracies, yes?
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 12:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Skynet, the reason that is still considered "hot" fusion is because the room temperature version is miniscule. If you tried to scale that up to get a usable reaction, that energy would grow along with the amount of reactant. So its hot because if you tried to use that method on the amount of reactants another fusor would use, it would require energy on the scale of conventional reactors.

What I've seen that is interesting, if nothing else, is that new cold fusion proponents have abandoned fusion itself as a means to that end, and taken up LENR as a replacement. One theory everyone seems to go back to is the Widom-Larsen theory. The explanation I read was loaded with esoteric jargon every other word, but from what I understand the basic idea is to simulate the principles of Muon catalyzed fusion that Ramshutu mentioned. Electromagnetic force is somehow applied to raise the effective mass of an electron, not as high as a muon, but high enough to significantly lower activation energies for reactions of the weak nuclear force.

As it applies to something like the E-Cat, the idea is to make it so that a proton undergoes Beta+ emission to become a neutron, which can then be absorbed by Nickel without dealing with the Coulomb barrier because it is electrically neutral. I haven't checked the math, partially because I don't know all the math necessary, but this still seems fishy because

1. Pumping enough energy to raise the mass of an electron sounds like it would incur the same negative returns as making a muon, since you have to do this for every hydrogen, and

2. Nickel still has lower binding energy than Copper, I think, so it should be endothermic to transmute it. If raising the mass of an electron is supposed to compensate for this, then you would expect that because of conservation of energy you'd spend more energy that you get back, as in 1.

But I'm not an expert in nuclear physics, so maybe I'm missing something. Lots of people seem to throw this theory out as a defence, so it probably makes a convincing lie from a physics standpoint. Can anybody who knows more about electroweak interactions weigh in on the validity of this?

Side note: I'm glad theres at least a couple topics on the Science forum now not about evolution. Evolution is fun and all, but I hear enough of that getting dragged into the Religion and Politics and Education forums. It's nice to talk about something novel occasionally.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 8:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 11:16:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.

Do you have a source for that experiment. I would like to read what they did exactly. Thanks in advance.

Sorry about the long wait. I know there's at least one forum out there I left unresponded to before I stopped logging in to prepare my house for the arrival of my son.

Here are links to DIY Nuclear Fusion Reactors.
http://makezine.com...
http://www.fusor.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nbcnews.com...
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 8:29:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 8:15:06 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:16:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.

Do you have a source for that experiment. I would like to read what they did exactly. Thanks in advance.

Sorry about the long wait. I know there's at least one forum out there I left unresponded to before I stopped logging in to prepare my house for the arrival of my son.

Here are links to DIY Nuclear Fusion Reactors.
http://makezine.com...
http://www.fusor.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nbcnews.com...

Thanks I will check it out.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 8:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 8:15:06 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:16:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:45:15 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:32:28 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:56:08 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:41:22 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:37:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

The NW Passage is as real as cold fusion, it's just neither are practical. The only reason we can kind of use it nowadays is probably because we moved away from shipping dependent on winds. Even then, it still freezes over.

Man made Global Warming, I mean "Climate Change," is a hoax. The Earth's capacity to regulate it's own temperature overwhelms all the hopes of mankind to the contrary.

LOL, I was just pointing out the North West passage is feasible. Its not a question of whether its practical. As for col fusion, no there is no direct repeatedly verifiable evidence for a fusion reaction at room temperature. The Muon reactions, are something else, but actual cold fusion defined as nuclear fusion at room temperature is a definite no.

As for climate change been a hoax. I think that"s absurd, just read Nature and Science every week to see what the evidence says.
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
This article relates to what can happen as it deals with a past climate change induced by man.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

People have made desktop devices that produce very small amounts of nuclear fusion, and the unit isn't really "hot," by room temperature standards, but it takes far more energy to create the reaction than it yields. It is a normal fusion reaction, not cold. So yes, I was mistaken in calling it cold fusion.

I would say that it is not nuclear fusion that you are talking about but rather some other form of reaction. There is currently no scientific data that says fusion can take place at room temperature. There are some kinds of reactions taking place, but they are not fusion.

I'm not giving enough information. It was a small, well insulated device, which built up a very high voltage charge, and discharged it into a very small mixture of deuterium and lithium to produce a tiny, tiny, fusion reaction. It was hot, but so small the total heat could be absorbed by room temperature surroundings in an office.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Conspiracies are real. Ever been around middle school girls? So I feel OK theorizing about conspiracies, since sometimes, they're real.

Do you have a source for that experiment. I would like to read what they did exactly. Thanks in advance.

Sorry about the long wait. I know there's at least one forum out there I left unresponded to before I stopped logging in to prepare my house for the arrival of my son.

Here are links to DIY Nuclear Fusion Reactors.
http://makezine.com...
http://www.fusor.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nbcnews.com...

I was checking this out, I thought I would just comment quickly to say all these methods do not produce excess energy. I mean sure they can produce the fusion reaction (so I stand corrected on that), but the whole point of cold fusion (well even hot fusion) is to produce more energy than input.

Oh congratulations on the new arrival :)
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 9:01:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 8:46:20 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:

Do you have a source for that experiment. I would like to read what they did exactly. Thanks in advance.

Sorry about the long wait. I know there's at least one forum out there I left unresponded to before I stopped logging in to prepare my house for the arrival of my son.

Here are links to DIY Nuclear Fusion Reactors.
http://makezine.com...
http://www.fusor.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nbcnews.com...

I was checking this out, I thought I would just comment quickly to say all these methods do not produce excess energy. I mean sure they can produce the fusion reaction (so I stand corrected on that), but the whole point of cold fusion (well even hot fusion) is to produce more energy than input.

Oh congratulations on the new arrival :)

Thanks!
Don't get the wrong idea, I don't think they're practical for anything unless you need a small neutron/gamma ray source. It will always be an energy loss. But you can genuinely produce fusion on your desk. The best way to collect fusion energy would probably be to move to a sunny place and set up a solar farm. Or wind. That's indirectly sun powered.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 10:38:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading and the dismissal of anything that would contradict it. Even if it were proven to be a fabricated lie used to control the behavior of people you would still believe it as you are so heavily invested in it you could not bring your self to accept that you have been made a fool of. There's one born every minute. The climate changes all the time and even if man were to cut all man made carbon emissions by 100% it would have no effect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The EPA"s so-called "temperature change calculator," which shows how reducing carbon emissions would affect climate change, indicates that a doubling of fuel economy in trucks by 2018 would have virtually no impact on rising temperatures. Analysts at the Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100.

"Any policy that the U.S. does that purports to be climatically important, in fact is not," said Patrick Michaels, director of the center.

Anyone with a shred of intellectually honest critical thinking would deduce that if reducing carbon emissions by 100% would have no effect on the changing climate then they must conclude that the carbon output by man has little or no effect on the current changing climate. As mans total contribution represents less than 1% and all the rest 99% is produced by the planet itself. But again you have to possess critical intellectually honest thinking to understand this.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 10:38:50 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading and the dismissal of anything that would contradict it. Even if it were proven to be a fabricated lie used to control the behavior of people you would still believe it as you are so heavily invested in it you could not bring your self to accept that you have been made a fool of. There's one born every minute. The climate changes all the time and even if man were to cut all man made carbon emissions by 100% it would have no effect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The EPA"s so-called "temperature change calculator," which shows how reducing carbon emissions would affect climate change, indicates that a doubling of fuel economy in trucks by 2018 would have virtually no impact on rising temperatures. Analysts at the Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100.

"Any policy that the U.S. does that purports to be climatically important, in fact is not," said Patrick Michaels, director of the center.

Anyone with a shred of intellectually honest critical thinking would deduce that if reducing carbon emissions by 100% would have no effect on the changing climate then they must conclude that the carbon output by man has little or no effect on the current changing climate. As mans total contribution represents less than 1% and all the rest 99% is produced by the planet itself. But again you have to possess critical intellectually honest thinking to understand this.

The great thing about your comment shows a lack of critical thinking in itself as it assumes I am not well read on the different feedback mechanisms and all the current data which supports the trends. Maybe you should read the published data from peer reviewed journals.

Like for example the study that shows when CO2 gets too high in the atmosphere, it makes plants release methane which is an even far more potent greenhouse gas.
Or you can see that the famous/infamous hockey model is actually underestimated, with new evidence emerging all the time showing this.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:29:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 6:14:00 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/12/2014 10:38:50 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading and the dismissal of anything that would contradict it. Even if it were proven to be a fabricated lie used to control the behavior of people you would still believe it as you are so heavily invested in it you could not bring your self to accept that you have been made a fool of. There's one born every minute. The climate changes all the time and even if man were to cut all man made carbon emissions by 100% it would have no effect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The EPA"s so-called "temperature change calculator," which shows how reducing carbon emissions would affect climate change, indicates that a doubling of fuel economy in trucks by 2018 would have virtually no impact on rising temperatures. Analysts at the Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100.

": :
Anyone with a shred of intellectually honest critical thinking would deduce that if reducing carbon emissions by 100% would have no effect on the changing climate then they must conclude that the carbon output by man has little or no effect on the Any policy that the U.S. does that purports to be climatically important, in fact is not," said Patrick Michaels, director of the center.
current changing climate. As mans total contribution represents less than 1% and all the rest 99% is produced by the planet itself. But again you have to possess critical intellectually honest thinking to understand this.

The great thing about your comment shows a lack of critical thinking in itself as it assumes I am not well read on the different feedback mechanisms and all the current data which supports the trends. Maybe you should read the published data from peer reviewed journals.

Like for example the study that shows when CO2 gets too high in the atmosphere, it makes plants release methane which is an even far more potent greenhouse gas.
Or you can see that the famous/infamous hockey model is actually underestimated, with new evidence emerging all the time showing this.

"Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading" You fail to understand that politicians use science to make arguments. And by use science I mean they choose what parts of a study that support their argument and leave out what doesn't. For instance, I agree that the climate is getting warmer so does all of science. This is where politicians and people such as yourself stop. What is not proved to any degree on any scientific level is what is causing it. Yet mandates and restrictions flow from congress to reduce carbon output which has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt using scientific data that it will have no effect at reducing the overall climate temperatures. Even if all carbon emissions were cut by 100% today right now. The EPA says so but you don't want to hear that because it doesn't support your position.

"Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100" And this is just a wild guess
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 7:29:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/12/2014 6:14:00 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/12/2014 10:38:50 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading and the dismissal of anything that would contradict it. Even if it were proven to be a fabricated lie used to control the behavior of people you would still believe it as you are so heavily invested in it you could not bring your self to accept that you have been made a fool of. There's one born every minute. The climate changes all the time and even if man were to cut all man made carbon emissions by 100% it would have no effect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The EPA"s so-called "temperature change calculator," which shows how reducing carbon emissions would affect climate change, indicates that a doubling of fuel economy in trucks by 2018 would have virtually no impact on rising temperatures. Analysts at the Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100.

": :
Anyone with a shred of intellectually honest critical thinking would deduce that if reducing carbon emissions by 100% would have no effect on the changing climate then they must conclude that the carbon output by man has little or no effect on the Any policy that the U.S. does that purports to be climatically important, in fact is not," said Patrick Michaels, director of the center.
current changing climate. As mans total contribution represents less than 1% and all the rest 99% is produced by the planet itself. But again you have to possess critical intellectually honest thinking to understand this.

The great thing about your comment shows a lack of critical thinking in itself as it assumes I am not well read on the different feedback mechanisms and all the current data which supports the trends. Maybe you should read the published data from peer reviewed journals.

Like for example the study that shows when CO2 gets too high in the atmosphere, it makes plants release methane which is an even far more potent greenhouse gas.
Or you can see that the famous/infamous hockey model is actually underestimated, with new evidence emerging all the time showing this.

"Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading" You fail to understand that politicians use science to make arguments. And by use science I mean they choose what parts of a study that support their argument and leave out what doesn't. For instance, I agree that the climate is getting warmer so does all of science. This is where politicians and people such as yourself stop. What is not proved to any degree on any scientific level is what is causing it. Yet mandates and restrictions flow from congress to reduce carbon output which has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt using scientific data that it will have no effect at reducing the overall climate temperatures. Even if all carbon emissions were cut by 100% today right now. The EPA says so but you don't want to hear that because it doesn't support your position.

"Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100" And this is just a wild guess

Selective reading, in other words Nature, Science, PNAS are selective reading. OK got it.

BTW I agree if you had to cut all emissions today that the temperature would still increase. Probably for the next 6 to 10 years as there is a lag.

You also say there is no scientific proof for emissions causing an increase, then why if we plot CO2 and CH4 (methane) levels in the atmosphere does it follow the same trend as the temperature change? I mean sure we cant be 100 % sure, but the evidence is pointing that way.

http://www.aip.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 8:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:29:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/12/2014 6:14:00 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/12/2014 10:38:50 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:06:40 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:57:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
1100 Transmutate lead into gold
1400 Fountain of Youth
1600 Northwest Passage
1850 Socialist Utopia
1900 Free energy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But the Northwest Passage is a reality now. Which is sad as it shows that climate change is a reality if anyone needed more proof than is already available.

Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading and the dismissal of anything that would contradict it. Even if it were proven to be a fabricated lie used to control the behavior of people you would still believe it as you are so heavily invested in it you could not bring your self to accept that you have been made a fool of. There's one born every minute. The climate changes all the time and even if man were to cut all man made carbon emissions by 100% it would have no effect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The EPA"s so-called "temperature change calculator," which shows how reducing carbon emissions would affect climate change, indicates that a doubling of fuel economy in trucks by 2018 would have virtually no impact on rising temperatures. Analysts at the Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100.

": :
Anyone with a shred of intellectually honest critical thinking would deduce that if reducing carbon emissions by 100% would have no effect on the changing climate then they must conclude that the carbon output by man has little or no effect on the Any policy that the U.S. does that purports to be climatically important, in fact is not," said Patrick Michaels, director of the center.
current changing climate. As mans total contribution represents less than 1% and all the rest 99% is produced by the planet itself. But again you have to possess critical intellectually honest thinking to understand this.

The great thing about your comment shows a lack of critical thinking in itself as it assumes I am not well read on the different feedback mechanisms and all the current data which supports the trends. Maybe you should read the published data from peer reviewed journals.

Like for example the study that shows when CO2 gets too high in the atmosphere, it makes plants release methane which is an even far more potent greenhouse gas.
Or you can see that the famous/infamous hockey model is actually underestimated, with new evidence emerging all the time showing this.

"Your proof of climate change is based on selective reading" You fail to understand that politicians use science to make arguments. And by use science I mean they choose what parts of a study that support their argument and leave out what doesn't. For instance, I agree that the climate is getting warmer so does all of science. This is where politicians and people such as yourself stop. What is not proved to any degree on any scientific level is what is causing it. Yet mandates and restrictions flow from congress to reduce carbon output which has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt using scientific data that it will have no effect at reducing the overall climate temperatures. Even if all carbon emissions were cut by 100% today right now. The EPA says so but you don't want to hear that because it doesn't support your position.

"Cato Institute"s Center for the Study of Science said the government calculator shows that even reducing total U.S. carbon emissions to zero this year would prevent global temperatures from rising by only 0.2 degrees by the year 2100" And this is just a wild guess

Selective reading, in other words Nature, Science, PNAS are selective reading. OK got it.

BTW I agree if you had to cut all emissions today that the temperature would still increase. Probably for the next 6 to 10 years as there is a lag.

You also say there is no scientific proof for emissions causing an increase, then why if we plot CO2 and CH4 (methane) levels in the atmosphere does it follow the same trend as the temperature change? I mean sure we cant be 100 % sure, but the evidence is pointing that way.

http://www.aip.org...

Drink the Kool-Aid. I look forward to your favorite politicians, unelected officials and law makers do nothing regulations and mandates that will benefit no one or anything but only stifle job growth in this country and competition abroad.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 8:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And again you completely fail to understand or acknowledge that mans output of all the green house gases you list is less than 1%. The planet produces 99%. Yet you insist that it is mans out put that is responsible for 100% of any climate change regardless of cooling or warming. Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change? So they could include any kind of change in climate or any weather event as being caused by man. But this is preposterous because you can neither falsify warming or cooling if everything is blanketed under the same theory. It's the act scientific heretics.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 9:48:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 8:11:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
And again you completely fail to understand or acknowledge that mans output of all the green house gases you list is less than 1%. The planet produces 99%. Yet you insist that it is mans out put that is responsible for 100% of any climate change regardless of cooling or warming. Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change? So they could include any kind of change in climate or any weather event as being caused by man. But this is preposterous because you can neither falsify warming or cooling if everything is blanketed under the same theory. It's the act scientific heretics.

I am not denying natural fluctuations, however when the data shows a trend that is not natural then you have to look at why. This rate of increase has been only over the last 100 to 150 years.

Also the CO2 level is higher now than it ever was during the ice ages from thousands of years back. (280 versus 377 ppm in 2007) So we cannot even use the ice age as an excuse that this cycle is normal, which would make sense only if it was within range.
http://www.aip.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 11:56:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 9:48:37 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:11:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
And again you completely fail to understand or acknowledge that mans output of all the green house gases you list is less than 1%. The planet produces 99%. Yet you insist that it is mans out put that is responsible for 100% of any climate change regardless of cooling or warming. Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change? So they could include any kind of change in climate or any weather event as being caused by man. But this is preposterous because you can neither falsify warming or cooling if everything is blanketed under the same theory. It's the act scientific heretics.

I am not denying natural fluctuations, however when the data shows a trend that is not natural then you have to look at why. This rate of increase has been only over the last 100 to 150 years.

Also the CO2 level is higher now than it ever was during the ice ages from thousands of years back. (280 versus 377 ppm in 2007) So we cannot even use the ice age as an excuse that this cycle is normal, which would make sense only if it was within range.
http://www.aip.org...

"data shows a trend that is not natural" We have data showing carbon emissions being 5 times what they are today from ice core samples. Please explain in your own words how science came to the conclusion that the current warming trend is not natural. And also please explain how science came to the conclusion that 288 or 377 ppm is optimal? Based on what? All of this is speculation based on selective input.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 12:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even a device that performed fusion at the 'mild' temperature of perhaps 5000K would be considered 'cold' fusion. As those conditions are infinitely more practical than the several millions of degrees currently required, and we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems involved in containment.

If such a device were produced however, it would not be by a random scientist in his backyard garage, it would be a multinational effort at the very least.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:35:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 11:56:14 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/12/2014 9:48:37 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:11:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
And again you completely fail to understand or acknowledge that mans output of all the green house gases you list is less than 1%. The planet produces 99%. Yet you insist that it is mans out put that is responsible for 100% of any climate change regardless of cooling or warming. Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change? So they could include any kind of change in climate or any weather event as being caused by man. But this is preposterous because you can neither falsify warming or cooling if everything is blanketed under the same theory. It's the act scientific heretics.

I am not denying natural fluctuations, however when the data shows a trend that is not natural then you have to look at why. This rate of increase has been only over the last 100 to 150 years.

Also the CO2 level is higher now than it ever was during the ice ages from thousands of years back. (280 versus 377 ppm in 2007) So we cannot even use the ice age as an excuse that this cycle is normal, which would make sense only if it was within range.
http://www.aip.org...

"data shows a trend that is not natural" We have data showing carbon emissions being 5 times what they are today from ice core samples.

Could you give me the citation for this please. Journal peer reviewed.

Please explain in your own words how science came to the conclusion that the current warming trend is not natural. And also please explain how science came to the conclusion that 288 or 377 ppm is optimal? Based on what? All of this is speculation based on selective input.

If you analyzed those graphs (the links) you would see that the trend from ice cores is not 5 times above the current levels as you claim but in fact only a maximum of 288 ppm. The current level (377 ppm in 2004) is 399 ppm today. This figure is way above the maximum level in ice core, more than 100 ppm.

You say its selective input? Then again show me the peer reviewed publication, those figures I showed you by the way come from AIP which published peer reviewed journals.

I don't mean to undermine you by saying what AIP is, I just don't want to get junk references back.