On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> I found a really dumb comment by Joshua Cude <[email protected]> in > the trash: > > >> I am sure the COP can be set anywhere you like. It is just a matter of >>> engineering. [...] >>> >> >> >>> It is not an issue. It never has been. Since 1990 I think it has been >>> clear that cold fusion can have any ratio you like, once you learn how to >>> control it. >>> >> >> I wonder why Defkalion would design their hyperions with a COP of 25, >> when a COP of infinity is just a matter of engineering. Could they not find >> engineers? Haven't they been working on the engineering since May or >> whenever? >> >> They claim they have learned how to control the reaction, so therefore, >> according to Rothwell, any COP is just a matter of engineering. >> > > You, Josh. Do you understand the term "just a matter of engineering?" > > Okay, maybe you don't. Maybe that is not a dumb comment, merely > uninformed. That term does not mean something is easy or cheap to do. It > means the way forward is clear. It is proven that it can be done. In 1962, > it was clearly possible to send manned rockets to the moon. It was just a > matter of engineering; it did not require any fundamental breakthrough in > physics. However, it took a prodigious amounts of money and thousands of > the world's best engineers to do it. > The moon landing took science. Rocket *science*. Not rocket engineering. No one says: "It doesn't take a rocket engineer to figure that out." It took new ideas and new applications of fundamental principles. That's science. All of chemistry, even biology, is based on the electromagnetic force and quantum mechanics. So, there has been no science in chemistry since the 30s? If that's what you meant by "it's just engineering" then it's a meaningless statement. It would mean it could take decades or centuries to develop. What's the use of a "COP that can be set anywhere you like", if you mean "maybe, some decades in the future" after the necessary development (whether engineering or otherwise)? No, when you said that, you meant using engineering that's already established. And of course it would be. Converting heat to electricity is perfectly well-established. Once the heat is made in a controllable way, as is the claim by Defkalion, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Standard existing techniques can be used to make it self-sustaining. This is *not* rocket science. > To take another example circa 1962, once they invented integrated circuits > with photo lithography, it was inevitable that they would make single chips > with thousands of circuits on them. It was just a matter of engineering, > If you think going from the invention of lithography to today's chips involves no science, you don't have any idea what science is. It involved materials science, and thousands of trained scientists, as well as engineers, and the development of new knowledge, new techniques, new materials, new processes. And again, if you were referring to the possibility of 5 decades of engineering, then the statement itself, "it's just engineering" would be, dare I say it, *dumb*.
