I have a new fancy name for Bessler's Wheel / RAR .... Low Energy Nutation Research (LENR) or Lossless Anomalous Nutation Rectification (LANR).
CF/LENR/LANR whatever fancy dancy name you're calling it these days is another STEORN. What is your C.O.P? 100 Watts (in the 1990s) tending to zero Watts today. Pathological Science. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: > You're just like the Bessler's Wheel crowd. You're convinced that some new > arrangement of the weights and arm length will make the wheel turn around > in perpetuity. > > Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and > bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is > little point in experimenting. > > Another way... it's like this, we know wheels are round, so there is > little point in experimenting in the shape of wheels (on a flat surface > that is) convincing yourself that some magical arrangement is going to be > more efficient than a flat wheel. > > If you are going to do research, you have to say your logical point of > departure. It is not enough to have hope or belief, you have to say where > in the theory base everyone is getting it wrong. Theory is a summary of > experiments, all the billions of person hours that have been put in. Like > Bessler's Wheel, CF is trying to do the impossible because it cannot say > how it could possibly work in the first instance. Coupled with > observational data (how white dwarves are cooling, not heating), just what > do you have as a starting point? > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As Norman >> Ramsey<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.>pointed out >> in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: >> "However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be >> revolutionary." >> >> Dr. Franks will be gratified to learn that this kook died recently -- >> still believing that scientific funding priorities could be altered by a >> "single" experimental outcome. A "single" experimental outcome is not >> reliable replication comprising the "extraordinary proof" required of >> "extraordinary claims" and surely a "revolutionary" claim qualifies as >> "extraordinary". >> >> Now, for the rest of us to die off so the pious can get back to placing >> argumentation over experimentation the way it was before that pesky thing >> called the Enlightenment came along and caused such a ruckus -- and the way >> Dr. Franks is here. >> >
