Talk-Polywell.org

I was in Vegas and five hundred people saw a tiger fly around the room an disappear. I would say there was a few credible witnesses

Enginerd wrote:No the burden is on you to accept the truth of the wonderful invisible pink unicorn. We are thinking of breeding them. I suggest you invest now.

Ah, now you have set a situation where I NEED to decide, i.e., to invest or not. My decision... no thanks, I believe you are full of shyte.

PS: I don't think I would call your wife a credible witness; after all, she married you didn't she?

Who said I was in Vegas with my wife???????
Always applying your logic to situations

paperburn1 wrote:Who said I was in Vegas with my wife???????
Always applying your logic to situations

Nope, you are applying ladajo's logic. I responded to Enginerd, not you.

And isn't what happens in Vegas supposed to STAY in Vegas? You broke the pact, dude. The mob will be after you soon.

Fugetaboutyit, da mob if as figment, see
Have nonttin to do aboutit, see
Ya don't know beans, nothin ever happens in sincity capish?

Enginerd wrote:We interrupt the ongoing discussion of how great Rossi may or may
not be for a bit on the psychology of being open-minded vs closed-minded.
If nothing else, it might at least provide something new to argue about.

Who’s More Open-minded, You or Them?

I liked this list. Especially:

Flawed Test #2: People who believe unusual things are more open-minded.

However, the following ...

The Best Test: A person is sufficiently open-minded if he can make strong cases against his committed belief.

... fails when it is impossible to make a strong case, as is the situation when trying to make a case in support of Rossi. Basically the only case that can be made in support of Rossi amounts to - "If you can't 100% disprove it, then your evidence is worthless and you have no foundation for a strong opinion."

My opinion is that open-mindedness is about the ability to apply reason in situations where there is incomplete information. It is not about dismissing with reason when something cannot be proved beyond doubt. Incredible claim(s), criminal past, obvious lies, and apparently deliberately flawed demonstrations cannot be dismissed under the guise of open-mindedness and using the premise that slivers of possibility carry the same weight as mountains of in-your-face reality.

Just sayin'.

2- I can say that the cost for enrichment is not substantial for the global economy of the process

This is somewhat reminiscent of something Rick pointed out a while back -- the fuel cost is generally so proportionately small for fission LWRs that consumers would barely notice the difference if uranium prices increased 10x. That's why ITER>DEMO>ARES is such a dead end -- even the advanced vaporware designs have an estimated cost that makes them even more expensive than extracting thorium from seawater, which might yield a 100K year energy supply.

I suspect Rossi does not have any particularly novel enrichment process.

Rossiworld is at it again.
Our boy says he has manufactured and shipped three 1MW variants to the US. Now the fun part is trying to figure out where they were suppossedly manufactured, or not. And where and who he shipped them to. It could be a customer, it could be his "U.S. Partner". It could be secret. As for the units, they were made in the US. They were made in Italy. They will take 20 days to ship, and will ship on 30 April. They arrived and were accepted (after an acceptance test) on 1 May.

Pick a story, you can find a "Rossisaid" to support it. Have fun.

He is also promising photos (again). Apparently, he is moving on from the "independant 3rd party testing" that will be released independantly. Sometime. Somewhere. Eventually. Probably.

Of course the Rossibots will once again ignore or dismiss obvious inconsistancies in Rossiworld. After all, why let reality get in the way of a good belief?

TallDave wrote: That's why ITER>DEMO>ARES is such a dead end -- even the advanced vaporware designs have an estimated cost that makes them even more expensive than extracting thorium from seawater, which might yield a 100K year energy supply.

Can you provide ANY link to where there is 100ka supply of thorium in seawater? Everywhere I look suggests that there is VERY little Thorium in seawater.

KitemanSA wrote:

TallDave wrote: That's why ITER>DEMO>ARES is such a dead end -- even the advanced vaporware designs have an estimated cost that makes them even more expensive than extracting thorium from seawater, which might yield a 100K year energy supply.

Can you provide ANY link to where there is 100ka supply of thorium in seawater? Everywhere I look suggests that there is VERY little Thorium in seawater.

TallDave> "have an estimated cost that makes them even more expensive than extracting thorium from seawater, which might yield a 100K year energy supply."

This statement may be valid for any thorium concentration; as soon as "estimated cost" & "more expensive" are not defined ;o) even if there is no Thorium in sea water at all, it is not a problem as soon as cost is a free parameter (dissolve it and extract back ;o) The issue with energy from Thorium is not the fuel cost anyway, there are plenty more practical ways then extracting it from sea water. Thorium is definitely one of top viable/practical alternatives (as soon as LERN turns out to be a fantasy - the definitive conclusion is still out-here). It's clear that ITER is apparently the most non efficient way to spend tax money; it would be more efficient to spend fraction of it to investigate LENR and small scale hot-fusion tech (via private business) - more intrigue issue is that such banal insight apparently is not self-evident for government clerks.

Translation... from stefanbanev - no.

TallDave, the question is still open to you.

KitemanSA wrote:Translation... from stefanbanev - no.

Ignoring would definitely make more sense...
Take care

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=th ... n+seawater

4×10^-11 kg/t (kilograms per metric ton)


http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

Tonnes of seawater : 1.4x10^18

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Curre ... n/Thorium/

303 wrote:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=th ... n+seawater
4×10^-11 kg/t (kilograms per metric ton)
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
Tonnes of seawater : 1.4x10^18
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Curre ... n/Thorium/

So, many tons but extremely diffuse and seems not recoverable. Maybe one day. A day in the F A R future since average dirt is ~6ppm. Given a density near twice typical rock, this suggests about 12E-6 kg/kg or 12E-3kg/t.

Rock before sea water.

Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.



http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat ... -the-jonp/