Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA Officially confirms: Cold Fusion(LENR) is REAL

page: 13
102
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
In other news Bumble Bees can't fly according to some scientific academia circles... LOL

www.sciencenews.org...

edit on 17-1-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


You do realize that just outlined that it is a myth about scientists saying bees can't fly right? Myth busted.





posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I was poo-pooed and ridiculed when I said Blacklight Power would change the world with their nickle reactors.

I was poo-pooed when I said Einstein was wrong.

Vindication is sweet.

Reality does not change to conform to broken cosmological models.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I was poo-pooed and ridiculed when I said Blacklight Power would change the world with their nickle reactors.
So nothing has changed.


I was poo-pooed when I said Einstein was wrong.
So nothing has changed.


Vindication is sweet
What vindication? You mean the guy at NASA behind this video who said he's skeptical about it? That's not vindication.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
NASA will never confirm LENR, because they know nothing, they are "out of the loop",
and they are not allowed to confirm anything of that kind.
They obey orders from above.

About LENR and Rossi, very probably it is true and valid.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I was poo-pooed and ridiculed when I said Blacklight Power would change the world with their nickle reactors.

I was poo-pooed when I said Einstein was wrong.


Has Blacklight Power changed the world with their nickel reactors? No.

Is Einstein wrong? No. In fact, in general relativity, time and time again when it's Einstein vs X for any values of X, Einstein wins.

Note that what Einstein's most fundamental point is that all laws of physics must be expressed in the correct relativistic form. Nothing has yet been found to violate this principle and I bet nothing ever will.



Vindication is sweet.


Charlie-Sheen style 'vindication'.

Timmy Tebow trash talking Tom Brady before the game style 'vindication'.



Reality does not change to conform to broken cosmological models.


Indeed. Or wishful thinking.
edit on 17-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Congratulations my friend this and Arkens Post on the Rossi E-Cat may be the two greatest and most historically significant posts on ATS!

LOL at theses NASA guys scrambling to play catch up when Andrea Rossi has had a 1 megawatt plant working since October to the satisfaction of his customer.

And LOL even more at the flat earthers still whining for peer reviewed papers. Here's a news flash for you guys; RESULTS trump peer reviewed papers in stuffy orthodox scientific academia cults that are bought and paid for by energy cartels and their lap dog politicians.

Sailors knew for decades the earth was round before Columbus proclaimed it to the PTB of his time and the so called scientific experts were still calling him crazy even after several trips to and from America.

Tesla was portrayed as an eccentric crazy man even while he was inventing the foundation for our modern electrical world and is just now in the last several years barely starting to get the recognition he deserves and still the power brokers suppressed the greater parts of discoveries to ensure their continued profits from the status quo.

The Wright Brothers were soaring over their heads while orthodox scientific academic cultist proclaimed flying was impossible and that the Wrights were crazy... And on it goes...


Both are historically false. Telsa was not crazy when he was pursuing his useful inventions, most importantly the three phase induction AC motor. He was sufficiently not-crazy to get Westinghouse to fund him.

Later, he was probably crazy, as in truly mentally ill (OCD one guesses), and by the 1920's or 1930's he was completely out of touch and ignorant of the progress of modern physics, which had accelerated tremendously from 1880 to 1930. He didn't understand quantum mechanics one bit. The MIT Radiation Lab and the R&D on radar had well surpassed him.

"Orthodox scientific cultists" were also pursuing aircraft as well. The Wrights were well aware of the latest developments in research & engineering from inventors and scientific community. They read journal articles. They understood the differential equations for fluid mechanics, and modern thermodynamics and engines. They built their own wind tunnel and did careful experimental measurements which cast some doubt on previous results. Their crucial inventions were in the control system and understand dynamic stability.

They weren't a "bicycle mechanic" like your random guy at the shop these days, they were engineering industrialists. They formed a successful aircraft company.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Rossi has had many, many, many opportunities to give clear proof of his system working as described.

So far he has proved his system can generate a level of output no greater than the output of the traditional commercial generator that remained conveniently connected to his "plant" throughout.

The only thing he has done successfully at this stage is string people along. Promises that never quite materialise. Always a reason, an excuse, not to come up to proof. Even if his invention is genuine, who is going to believe him now? Well, apart from the handful of people who would believe him if he said he could create diamonds via the miracle of his bowel movements.

The most damaging thing to Rossi's claim is no longer the science, it's Rossi himself.

I would be incredibly happy to be proven wrong. I'm bracing myself for the next 50 "demonstrations" that demonstrate nothing and the next mysterious "buyers" who all love his technology but cannot be named...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
A much more indepth and informative analysis of this subject can be found here

www.nyteknik.se...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
All these double posts on the LENR Cold fusion are confusing the topic, I posted a link to this story at least six hours before this thread here; First Above Top Secret Post about NASA video

This topic needs to be consolidated. It is spread out all over the site making it harder to track.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Cold fusion is not real...the very idea of cold fusion contradicts itself...fusion must take place at temperatures that can replicate the core of a star...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJM8507

The elite understand this, and have opted for dirtier, but much more expensive energy technologies in order to slow the rate of development and consumption in order for science to catch up and provide solutions that will balance the equation.



wow...so you're saying they are the good guys?

that's a fresh approach if I ever saw one



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Yup for instance superconductors at above (absolute) 0 degrees seems also to elude full theoretical comprehension, and I also like that Japaneses scientists studding superconductors found during a party that red wine seems to increase superconductivity...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by RING0
All these double posts on the LENR Cold fusion are confusing the topic, I posted a link to this story at least six hours before this thread here; First Above Top Secret Post about NASA video

This topic needs to be consolidated. It is spread out all over the site making it harder to track.


Oh thanks for that link, i had not seen that thread before. Also noticed you posted the vid pretty deep into the thread, which might be why.

Would you not agree this matter deserves the additional attention that this topic on the subject may have gathered though?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Yes they can, if energy is less costly other methods to produce competing products that have so far not been profitable as replacements can now flourish. From simple agricultural production to the bio-engineered yeast that produces diesel it will all cost a lot less more if the extraction, transport and refining of oil is bypassed...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Yes they can, if energy is less costly other methods to produce competing products that have so far not been profitable as replacements can now flourish. From simple agricultural production to the bio-engineered yeast that produces diesel it will all cost a lot less more if the extraction, transport and refining of oil is bypassed...



So you have a recipe for a replacement for some of the hundreds of petroleum solvents that are used in everyday manufacturing?

No.

I didn't think so...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Yes they can, if energy is less costly other methods to produce competing products that have so far not been profitable as replacements can now flourish. From simple agricultural production to the bio-engineered yeast that produces diesel it will all cost a lot less more if the extraction, transport and refining of oil is bypassed...



So you have a recipe for a replacement for some of the hundreds of petroleum solvents that are used in everyday manufacturing?

No.

I didn't think so...


Trying to think seems to be your problem, don't hurt yourself. Alcohol can replace ninety percent of them and yes there are many recipes for non petroleum solvents. No one is saying oil has to go away completely however there is no need for us to be dependent on it.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Since you say your thought process is much better than mine (or infer as much), tell me how to produce benzene without using a petrochem source.

This time try not to be a smart ass and perhaps consider commercially viable quantities of production. Once your head is removed from your sphincter, I await an answer you don't have.

edit on 20-1-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Since you say your thought process is much better than mine (or infer as much), tell me how to produce benzene without using a petrochem source.

This time try not to be a smart ass and perhaps consider commercially viable quantities of production. Once your head is removed from your sphincter, I await an answer you don't have.

edit on 20-1-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


I see the truth hurts... Why would I want to do that since benzene happens to be highly toxic and terrible for the environment? Oh let me guess fools think we couldn't possibly manufacturer plastics and rubber etc. without benzene...Sigh. Here's a clue ( I won't be holding my breath) Henry Ford did it nearly a century ago and it is being done today also...



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Here is another hint on the subject of making plastics..

www.hemp.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiyeHere's a clue ( I won't be holding my breath) Henry Ford did it nearly a century ago and it is being done today also...


So you indicate that it can definately be done, the people who disagree are clearly fools... but you rely on vague allusions rather than prove any actual data?

You studied at the Rossi School of PR, didn't you






top topics



 
102
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join