Toyota Motor Corp. (TM)

All Comments on TM

  • commenter
    User 168418
    Jun 16 11:08 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    SEAL THE DEAL Reply
  • commenter
    deaverb
    Jun 16 09:35 AM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Interesting about solar in particular. Reply
  • commenter
    Mike Wofsey
    Jun 16 01:08 AM
    My Website
    Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
    By the way Jed and Mark, for the record, I think cold fusion will never work, but don't feel bad, because I think that hot fusion won't work within our lifetimes either, probably never.

    And more than that, fusion -- although slightly better than fission -- still makes a poor energy source.

    The most advanced energy source, from a societal point of view, is human power. Hand-cranked flashlights, bicycles, walking, pedal-powered dynamos that power a batter to run your laptop for an hour, etc. This is the only source of energy that puts people in touch with the true cost of energy. If homes were human-powered (obviously except for HVAC) we would be far more conservative with our energy needs, I am certain. We would also all live a long time and wouldn't need a ton of hospitalization.

    The funny thing is, when I mention human-power to all of the infinite energy geeks I meet, they look at me like I have two heads and immediately blow off my point-of-view. Imagine that, we live in a world where people are more likely to put their faith in a perpetual motion machine than in their own bodies.     Reply
  • commenter
    Mike Wofsey
    Jun 16 12:40 AM
    My Website
    Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
    Hi Jed,

    >> Yes, I have spoken to such people.

    The nature of physics teaches us to have long memories, you need to remember this effect or where to find that method to solve this particular type of differential equation. So you know, fooled us once, there better be a very compelling reason to subject ourselves to getting fooled again. If it were a field that didn't violate our already established theory, that would be one thing. But cold fusion now has two big strikes against it, nobody can explain it within existing theoretical framework, and its foundation was rotten. How could any cold fusionist hold anything against the mainstream physics community after that? And of course there is that guilt by association. Any area of science that is hawked by Lyndon Larouche and other infinite energy folks is just going to seem a little rotten.

    To your credit Jed, you come across as genuinely interested in the science.

    >> What on earth do you mean? The original experiment did not use
    >> “household chemicals”! It used Pd-D. I suggest you review the original
    >> paper, which is at LENR-CANR.

    I'm familiar with the original work, the more recent Japanese work is far more complex.

    >> The NRL people tell me that solid state radar is NOT fully understood by
    >> any means. It was perfected by edisonian techniques.

    Solid State Physics changes by the minute, that is normal. My graduate text in solid state by Kittel was updated every year, it is already on the eighth edition. Compare that to Jackson's E&M, which is only on the third edition, and which is nearly identical to the first. Solid State is full of the 'black arts' there are so many different ways of explaining an effect.

    >> They are confident that cold fusion can be, as well.

    Confident that cold fusion can be explained by existing theory? I'll believe all sorts of things Jed, but if they're getting any more than 2% increase on the output, and if they're measuring helium that wasn't locked up in a lattice, then there is no way in h*ll that they're going to explain that with conventional physics. It's like telling me that I can power the lights in the football stadium with a few D-batteries. The order of magnitudes are comparable.

    >> Hundreds of researchers have repeated cold fusion results, as I
    >> mentioned. Several labs repeated Arata’s previous results.

    References?

    >> The editors at Nature are highly prejudiced against cold fusion, and
    >> they know absolutely nothing about it, because they have read nothing

    Would you expect anything else, after they got burned the first time?

    >> I suggest you review the literature.

    No. I'm done with cold fusion. I am in up to my eyeballs with research in my primary area, which is not even remotely connected with cold fusion And I've been burned by cold fusion, as a science journalist. I vouched for some of these people, I put my name on my reporting with the good faith to may readers that I was reporting on something that had been reviewed and something that was replicatable. It was neither. My science journalism career took a hit because of cold fusion, why should march into the lion's mouth again? If I had more time, and if I wasn't struggling with my own research, maybe. But if cold fusion wants to convince me, it has to come to my area ... let us look at the equipment, let us watch the process.

    >> There is no evidence that any physical laws are challenged, outside of a
    >> narrow range of laws applying to plasma fusion, which evidently do not

    No laws challenged? Do you mean except for Coulomb's Law? How do you not considered those challenged?

    >> you would know that moving one anywhere is impossible.

    Fleishman and Pon's fit on a tabletop.

    >> They don’t but Yamaura does. Where did you get the paper? Do you
    >> read Japanese?

    I read the English translation, I assume.

    >> researchers who replicated various cold fusion experiments, from
    >> the papers that I consider superb.

    But if you have no way of verifying either the theory or the experiment, how can you have an opinion one way or another on these papers?

    >> Why should you suspend belief? And why do you hold a cold fusion
    >> researcher responsible for what someone else “hawks” to you?

    I don't blame them for the hangers-on, but the hanger-on do muck things up a bit. If anyone were looking for a conspiracy to suppress cold fusion, they need look no futher than guys like Larouche and Mallove. Those guys could make an IRS audit seem fishy.

    >> They can no more “decide” how the flakes will act than you or I can.

    Not true. Fleischmann is a terrific physicist, definitely better than me, he actually wrote my undergraduate physics textbook. But I wonder why he didn't take his lumps and work back into trust. I don't think it was the best decision to make the same mistake that got him in that jam to begin with.

    >> This is nonsense. I have never met a group of researchers as honest or
    >> self-critical as the top cold fusion researchers, and I have met a wide

    The cold fusion papers that I have read would largely not be published in a regular journal, they are missing transparency. Just the fact that you are under the impression that this process can happen without somehow breaking through a Coulomb barrier doesn't say a lot for the transparency of their communications.

    >> In my opinion, Fleischmann is one the greatest scientists who ever lived.

    I suspect that in the future, history will remember Ovinshky more than Fleischmann when the subject turns to inventor scientists. My favorite inventor scientist is Ashok Gadgil, he is my inspiration and the reason I do what I do. My favorite scientist is Planck, the polar opposite of Fleischmann. All Planck wanted, more than anything else, was for someone to invalidate his theory, so that he wouldn't have to rely on such an act of "desperation.&quo... He changed the world forever, and simply hated the results of his brilliance.
     Reply
  • commenter
    User 41124
    Jun 15 11:34 PM
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    As a small survey today (Sunday 6/15) I drove my Camry on speed control at 68 mph. I was constantly passed by other vehicles. 7 & out 10 of the other vehicles was an SUV or large pickup! I have to guess that these other drivers must make a lot more money than I do! Reply
  • commenter
    Jed Rothwell
    Jun 15 07:15 PM
    My Website
    Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
    Mark Anthony wrote:

    “I appreciate your discussion with Mike on cold fusion. I believe for the field to move ahead it is very necessary for you guys to come out of the closet, do public demostrations, discuss with the public on open forums like here and else where, and do all you can to raise public awareness.”

    I do not know any cold fusion researchers in closets. They are (or were) nearly all distinguished scientists at major universities and national labs. Most of them now are retired, or dead. They were distinguished and politically powerful because otherwise they would not have been allowed to do these experiments.

    There is no chance any of them will do public demonstrations. It is physically impossible. You can barely fit a dozen people into Arata’s lab, and in any case this was not really the public. It was an audience of researchers and a few science reporters. An ordinary person observing this experiment would not be able to make head or tail of it. I have seen many cold fusion experiments and it took me a while to figure out what’s what with this one.


    "Jed, you are saying if cold fusion is successful it does not need palladium? I do not understand. All cold fusion experiments use palladium."

    No, several use Ti, some use Ni, and a few use HTSC ceramics. I am not convinced Ni works, but the Italians have published some darn good work with it. Pd produces the most heat as far as I know, and it is the only material that has achieved power density and temperatures as high as U fission reactor cores. But once the physical principles are worked out I think it is likely that Ti will work equally well. Not a sure thing of course, but nothing about cold fusion is certain, except that it exists.

    "There may be a few attempt of using other metals, but they at best could only be described as marginally successful . . ."

    The Ti results at BARC were not marginally successful in my opinion. See the autoradiograph (x-ray film) they sent me:

    www.lenr-canr.org/Expe...


    "I guess your logic is you believe the limited supply of palladium makes it impossible to commercialize cold fusion."

    Not impossible. Martin Fleischmann estimated that Pd could produce about 1/3rd of our primary energy, in centralized power plants. (I think that’s what he said.) I did some crude estimates and came up with similar numbers. Other materials would allow decentralized generation, which would be far more cost-effective. See my book for details.


    "I can assure you the world has plenty of palladium to supply the hydrogen fuel cell and the cold fusion industry . . ."

    I doubt that. More to the point, Fleischmann and Bockris doubt that, and they are the world’s top experts in platinum group metals, fuel cells and the like. They invented a large part of that technology, and they made huge contributions to cold fusion.

    - Jed
     Reply
  • commenter
    Jed Rothwell
    Jun 15 06:13 PM
    My Website
    Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
    Mike Wofsey wrote:

    ">> Yup. It gets even worse: I knew several scientists who were demoted
    >> because they DID get positive results. You can’t win.

    A few months after Cold Fusion was announced, while I was an undergraduate in physics in NYC, our physics club went to Princeton to tour the Tokamak project they had going on there. Someone asked about cold fusion, and the response from one of the P.I.s there was one of being very encouraged, something along the lines of "if that works I guess we work on something else.""

    Yes, there were and still are many mainstream scientists who support cold fusion. A public opinion survey in Japan many years ago showed about half favor it, and the U.S. 2003 DoE panel was also split roughly 50-50. Unfortunately, some of the scientists opposed to it are influential and they are noisy. You mention the PPPL. Compare that to the response at the MIT PFL. They did a replication and achieved positive results, but they modified the data to remove the heat, published it with great fanfare, and called for the arrest and imprisonment of Fleischmann and Pons for fraud.


    "It's a mistake to think that the mainstream physics community was always against cold fusion, because they weren't."

    I realize that, as I said. All 2000 of the cold fusion researchers I know of are from the mainstream community. As I mentioned, they tend to be senior scientists such as Nobel laureates, FRS, the Indian Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commision, Distinguished Professor this or that, and so on. Scientists with less influence and power would not dare do this experiment, because they would fired. Also, 1.5 million people have visited LENR-CANR, and they have downloaded 1.2 million papers. These papers are only of interest to scientists. They are VERY, VERY boring.


    "It developed as researchers around the world were unable to replicate Pons and Fleishman's results. A lot of people felt angry that they were duped."

    Yes, I have spoken to such people.



    "Now, you report on a flavor of LENR that has little or nothing in common with Fleishman's and Pons' results."

    No, it is almost exactly the same, except for the method of loading. (Gas loading.) This method has been widely used.


    "Maybe the Japanese experiment did achieve a non-chemical reaction somehow, perhaps by tunneling, but it's a very different thing to do it as they did, with deuterium, than with some household chemicals, as the original results claimed."

    What on earth do you mean? The original experiment did not use “household chemicals”! It used Pd-D. I suggest you review the original paper, which is at LENR-CANR.

    "Aegis just exploits Maxwell's Laws to the fullest, there is no new physics there."

    There may not be in cold fusion, for all anyone knows. The NRL people tell me that solid state radar is NOT fully understood by any means. It was perfected by edisonian techniques. They are confident that cold fusion can be, as well.


    "The scientific process demands that OTHERS have to be able to repeat the results from their published method."

    Hundreds of researchers have repeated cold fusion results, as I mentioned. Several labs repeated Arata’s previous results.


    "Even in Arata's paper, there is really little description of exactly how to do what he did. The paper needed some peer-review."

    It was peer-reviewed, but despite that it is of very poor quality, in my opinion. There is practically no description of what he did. I do not think the experiment could be replicated from this paper. In my opinion, Arata write bad papers. He is without doubt a genius with 63 major patents, an international award in his name, a building named after him at a top National University, an award from the Emperor, etc, etc., but he writes badly.

    Fortunately, a paper written by Yamaura and several others including Arata describes the same work, and it is superbly written. Plus it is in English, so I don’t have to translate it.
    I think the experiment can be replicated from this paper. If it can, it will be soon, I expect.


    ">> In 3,000 papers, as I mentioned, including about a 1000 in major peer
    >> reviewed journals. Not all of the editors oppose the research.

    Not Infinite Energy, not New Energy Times, or others like it, but a regular, plain vanilla peer-review journal like Physical Review Letters or Nature."

    Infinite Energy and New Energy Times are not journals, and not peer-reviewed. If you review the bibliography at LENR-CANR you will see that I mean there have hundreds of papers published in first-rate peer-reviewed journals such as Jap. J. Applied Physics and Phys. Lett. A. Not, however, in Nature. The editors at Nature are highly prejudiced against cold fusion, and they know absolutely nothing about it, because they have read nothing about it.


    "Because they [the P.O.] consider it another flavor of perpetual motion devices, which has been outlawed at the U.S.P.T.O. for nearly a hundred years."

    That is not given as a reason. They simply order that all applications be summarily rejected. Anyone familiar with the claims will see that cold fusion cannot be form of perpetual motion. It converts deuterium into helium.


    " But there is nothing to prevent a patent from being filed and issued on components in Low Energy Nuclear Reactors. This one was filed in 2001:

    patft.uspto.gov/netacg...


    I realize that a few people have circumvented the ruling.


    "As I've followed the progression of this process it gets further away from the original cold fusion experiment, which claimed more energy out than in. Even Arata doesn't claim that, even with deuterium."

    Of course he does! For one thing, there is no input energy. It is all output, 250 kJ of heat in 100 hours. All successful cold fusion experiments produce heat.

    I do not understand why you think this is further away from the original claims, or what household chemicals you have in mind. You seem confused. I suggest you review the literature.


    ">> That is a theoretical issue. Theory never overrules experimentally proven
    >> facts, as I mentioned.

    If you're telling me that Coulomb's Law fails at some point, or that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply in some area . . ."

    This is nonsense. There is no evidence that any physical laws are challenged, outside of a narrow range of laws applying to plasma fusion, which evidently do not apply. All cold fusion experiments are predicated on calorimetry, which in turn is predicated on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it is invalid, all cold fusion excess heat results would be meaningless.



    "Why don't Arata and Zhang take their show on the road and bit and see what the response is?"

    Not sure which road you have in mind but if you have ever seen a cold fusion experiment you would know that moving one anywhere is impossible. I know one that had to be moved down the hall, and that took months. You seem to have some unrealistic notions about how this research is conducted.


    "And also, their process doesn't look like it would be all that expensive."

    It isn’t expensive. It should cost ~$250,000 in specialize equipment, plus the use of a mass spec and some other stuff that runs maybe $300,000 but you can find one at any lab. Most cold fusion experiments cost way more than this.

    "I think any decent condensed matter lab should be able to do it if they supplied clear instructions, which they don't in their paper."

    They don’t but Yamaura does. Where did you get the paper? Do you read Japanese?


    ">> Which two papers? As I mentioned, I have 3000 papers on this subject.
    >> A lot of them are bad, but hundreds are superb, in my opinion.

    How can you judge the relative worth of these papers if you have no way to replicate their findings?"

    I am not a researcher. I don’t replicate anything. I know hundreds of researchers who replicated various cold fusion experiments, from the papers that I consider superb.


    "I mention "infinite energy" crackpots because those are the people that hawk cold fusion to me. I'm willing to suspend disbelief on nearly any area of physics, even Coulomb's Law and Conservation of Momentum."

    Why should you suspend belief? And why do you hold a cold fusion researcher responsible for what someone else “hawks” to you?


    "But the minute someone finds a way to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they better have a good show."

    I am not aware of any such violations. As I said, they would render the results meaningless.


    "As for "sloughing" off the crackpots, LENR has a decision to make ..."

    LENR is not person or organization. It is a natural phenomenon. It is not capable of making decisions. Researchers in this field have no responsibility for one another or control over one another. They can no more “decide” how the flakes will act than you or I can.


    "But most importantly, they're going to have to be a little harder on themselves, critical of themselves, that's what good science is -- 50 misses and one hit."

    This is nonsense. I have never met a group of researchers as honest or self-critical as the top cold fusion researchers, and I have met a wide variety of people. They are best scientists of the WWII “greatest generation” and far better than most researchers under age 60. In my opinion, Fleischmann is one the greatest scientists who ever lived.

    - Jed
     Reply
  • commenter
    Mike Wofsey
    Jun 15 03:16 PM
    My Website
    Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
    Hi Mark,

    >> Who said you need to doubt the second law of thermodynamics and
    >> principles of quantum mechanics to accept the cold fusion experiments?

    You don't. But if someone found a way of making it work, they need to both show their apparatus to an open forum, and open their results and method to inspection.

    >> uncertainty principle, that allow cold fusion to happen, when judged from
    >> a classical (non-quantum mechanical) point of view, the coloumb barrier
    >> was impossible to overcome.

    And ... ? Are you saying that they overcame the barrier through tunneling? You can't propose a purely conventional explanation to explain it because the energies are nowhere close to high enough to overcome the barrier in anything more than the tiniest tail end of the exponential.

    Please understand, I have no problem with an experiment showing results and theory not able to explain those results. I've thought of some possible mechanisms to explain a process like that, specifically, that small amounts of fissionable material may be mechanically held in the metal lattice through, and the symmetrical chemical reaction from the components might induce some self-limiting nuclear reactions, the energy is still nowhere close enough, but Sam Cohen, of Lawrence Livermore has suggested a path for such reactions.

    Once again though, I can't help but feel cheated in a way. I am a trusting person, and when I read results from the Japanese lab I want to believe, and then I spend valuable time looking into it. But aren't these results presented in a mainstream, peer-review fashion?

    >> These cold fusion researchs do the experiments and see what happens.
    >> They have to believe their own eyes. So the research has continued on for

    Without critical analysis, the mind capable of producing all sorts of magic. Calorimetry requires the most careful of experimental process, it's not the kind of thing that can be done without full transparency of process.

    >> No crackpot could have survived 19 years of scrutiny by experiments.

    I'm not claiming the researchers are crackpots, I claim that infinite energy groupies are the crackpots. I suspect the LENR researchers -- if they had their druthers -- would rather be rid of people that want the world to run on cold fusion power.

    >> But we do not need to count on cold fusion demand on palladium.

    It's not a bad investment, it's definitely an excellent precious metal, and there are all sorts of uses for it in thin film deposition. But unlike you, I am not convinced of the future of catalytic converters and batteries. I think that both of these technologies -- at least for transportation -- are nearing the end of their useful lifespans. I've explained my reasonings above.

    >> Jed, you are saying if cold fusion is successful it does not need palladium?

    Mark, go read the results from the Japanese labs. I'm a cold fusion skeptic and even I can see that what they're proposing doesn't necessarily rely on platinum. They're talking about increasing the intermolecular separation between the deuterium by induction into a metal lattice. Platinum is so valuable in part because of its nonreactivity, so follow their logic, the key is their lattice, why is platinum critical to that?

    >> You can not believe how the establishment have dominated the science
    >> community suppressing real science while allowing absolute crackpots to

    I have personally experience the brutal nature of the scientific establishment. But those shortcomings were not theirs, they were mine. If your science is anything less than top-notch, it probably won't go anywhere. And yes, some science that is less-than-top-notch is published, because novelty counts for something. I suspect you can put Pons, Fleishman's and Jones' original results in the latter catergory, they were rushed to publish without the proper review.

    >> something else, you make menioning of nuclear reaction without the
    >> extreme high temperature condition, it's automatically rejected without
    >> reading it through.

    Of course, just as Relativity was rejected for some time before the results were found to jibe with observations. If you want to change people's perceptions, then the results have to be presented and allowed to be carefully examined. Transparency is key here, and in my opinion, that has been severely lacking.

    >> I am even surprised that APS would conduct cold fusion discussin sessions
    >> durin the March Meetings of recent years.

    They sponsored a whole symposium on it. Us 'establishment' jerks are not really the enemy Mark. In fact, if you read though some of the articles I've written for Physical Review Focus, you'll see that I've covered some extremely controversial subjects.

    >> One example of the biggest crackpot theory in modern history that
    >> dominate the science community is the Global Warming Theory.

    Maybe, maybe not. The jury is still out and minds far superior to mine are grappling with the problems. But my own research is in Collision Induced Absorption, which has applications to atmospheric spectra does give me an opinion on this. And my opinion is that "Global Warming" is more a political than a scientific term. The real problem is air pollution, which nobody who has any expertise in the field disagree with. Air pollution is getting worse, it is killing people, trees and birds, it is a tremendous public health cost, and it can be controlled through intelligent combustion and a migration away from combustion. So what's the solution? Simple, get people to argue between themselves on a political issue, namely 'Global Warming' rather than focusing on the more immediate, direct and solvable problem of air pollution

    >> world's coastal cities will all be submerged and all that, complete pananoid.

    Maybe, maybe not. I will never underestimate a complex system's ability to completely change based on some small boundary effects. The message of the global warming 'hawkers' is for us to lower emissions, and I think that's a good idea whether global warming is real or not, because air pollution is definitely real.

    >> for any three year old who understand that ice melts at or above
    >> melting points.

    They're talking about boundary conditions. Go read the papers, slight shifts in boundary conditions can do that.

    >> Cold fusion could not gain funding support because there is a huge
    >> vested interest in the hot fusion gangs to see cold fusion supressed.

    And you claim that the global warming theorists are paranoid? Good science cannot be suppressed for very long.

    Also, one other thing ... why do we need fusion, hot or cold? Will it really help society? Will having a terrifically complicated power source that is tightly controlled by a ruling elite really help common people? Fusion (hot or cold) is not clean either, it bombards the reaction vessel with neutrons making yet more toxic nuclear waste. Do we really need a society with limitless energy? You've seen what dirt cheap energy has done to the U.S.A. since WWII, it's made us fat, it's driven us away from our neighbors and inside in front of our televisions. It's prompted us to start wars that have no end, for instance from Mosadeq to Hussein, as one continuous chain. And this is only cheap energy, how much worse would 'free energy' make things?

    As an alternative, solar energy forces us to conserve, it puts us on bicycles and in lightweight cars rather than hulking urban tanks. It lets us experience the heat of summer, the cold of winter, and be part of the world around us. It drives us to rely on neighbors and friends, it forces us to walk to the store, it encourages us to eat locally-grown food rather than exotic delicacies that have been flown in from half a world away. It encourages local manufacturing rather than offshore outsourcing. It decreases consumption of needless objects, of more food than we need.

    From this perspective, fusion is EXACTLY what the ruling class would love, and solar power (along with wind, conservation and intelligent building) represents a threat to the ruling class, it is the democratization of energy and technology.     Reply
  • commenter
    Dusty
    Jun 15 03:15 PM
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    A lot of driving is unnecessary or recreational. Multiple trips could often be reduced to one trip with planning. For time alone or just to 'get out of the house/apartment' a trip around town for an hour or two was cheap. Recreational traffic makes an amazing difference on the roads everytime gasoline prices spike. Commercial drivers are well aware. Reply
  • commenter
    Mark Anthony
    Jun 15 12:55 PM
    My Website
    Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
    Jed Rothwell:

    I appreciate your discussion with Mike on cold fusion. I believe for the field to move ahead it is very necessary for you guys to come out of the closet, do public demostrations, discuss with the public on open forums like here and else where, and do all you can to raise public awareness.

    Mike:
    Who said you need to doubt the second law of thermodynamics and principles of quantum mechanics to accept the cold fusion experiments? I think my education allows me to speak on matters related to physics. It is exactly because the second law of therodynamics, as well as the uncertainty principle, that allow cold fusion to happen, when judged from a classical (non-quantum mechanical) point of view, the coloumb barrier was impossible to overcome. In any case, solid experimental result always trump over any theory, even Newton's theory or Einstein's theory. These cold fusion researchs do the experiments and see what happens. They have to believe their own eyes. So the research has continued on for 19 year and now has attracted renewed interest from the researchers community. No crackpot could have survived 19 years of scrutiny by experiments.

    My main focus is palladium and platinum investment. This thesis is based on many many bullish factors, cold fusion, if successfully commercialize, is just the ice on the cake. But we do not need to count on cold fusion demand on palladium.

    Jed, you are saying if cold fusion is successful it does not need palladium? I do not understand. All cold fusion experiments use palladium. There may be a few attempt of using other metals, but they at best could only be described as marginally successful, and there is been no confirmation on non-palladium based experiments.

    I guess your logic is you believe the limited supply of palladium makes it impossible to commercialize cold fusion. And hence if the latter is to be successful it must see a non-palladium solution?

    I can assure you the world has plenty of palladium to supply the hydrogen fuel cell and the cold fusion industry, it's just NOT at current price level. There's plenty of low, very low ore grade palladium mines, impossible to produce economically at current metal price, but will become profitable to produce when the metal price goes much higher.

    Mike:

    You can not believe how the establishment have dominated the science community suppressing real science while allowing absolute crackpots to prosper. You attempt to submit a cold fusion paper. Doesn't matter you call it something else, you make menioning of nuclear reaction without the extreme high temperature condition, it's automatically rejected without reading it through.

    I am even surprised that APS would conduct cold fusion discussin sessions durin the March Meetings of recent years.

    One example of the biggest crackpot theory in modern history that dominate the science community is the Global Warming Theory. It started as a simple hypothesis that higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help raise the earth surface temperature ever slightly by a small fraction of one degee. That in itself is a legitimate science pursuit. But it now grow into a full blown catastrophe theory claiming that the polar ice cap is melting and that half of the world's coastal cities will all be submerged and all that, complete pananoid.

    A temperature raise of 0.2 degree due to CO2 will not be able to melt an inch of polar ice, for any three year old who understand that ice melts at or above melting points.

    But Al Gore win the Nobel Prize nevertheless with a few video showing the supposed melting of polar ice. I voted for him but I am disappointed at his lack of common sense.

    Cold fusion could not gain funding support because there is a huge vested interest in the hot fusion gangs to see cold fusion supressed. There are hundreds of billions of dollars involved here.

    Watch the "War Against Cold Fusion" video on YouTube.
    Reply
  • commenter
    galewhitaker
    Jun 15 11:49 AM
    My Website
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    Imagine the effect that less driving is going to have on the U.S. economy. Hundreds of millions of people are involved in building cars and maintaining them. As the total number of miles driven decreases the number of layoffs in the auto industry is going to increase. These layoffs are going to throw the economy into a tailspin. When folks get layed off they won't need to drive to work. This feedback loop is going to be very nasty. Similar problems are going to occur in the airline industry. Reply
  • commenter
    jimocarroll
    Jun 15 10:55 AM
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    It won't be too good in Mexico if we keep diverting corn from their tortillas to our gas tanks. Ethanol is folly. Drill here, drill now, and save a taco. Reply
  • commenter
    Shaggieman
    Jun 15 10:49 AM
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    I heard gasoline in Mexico runs $2.75 per gallon cause of the Gov subsidies. So a lot of Mexicans I talk with are either going back or making plans to. They all say "it's better over there" and I believe them. I don't think we'll see big immigration from now on as things are worse here from the immigrants perspective.

    Demand was up last week to 9.5 mgpd from 9.1 mgpd of gasoline.     Reply
  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jun 15 10:37 AM
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    Indeed, that's our dilemma. Should gasoline prices stay at their current levels or go higher, we will continue to see significant so-called "demand destruction" in the use of gasoline. Conversely, the more we successfully increase supplies, the greater the likelihood we will revert to our previous profligate use of this fuel. Reply
  • commenter
    User 158320
    Jun 15 04:52 AM
    A Closer Look at the Impact of Higher Gasoline Prices on Driving [view article]
    Too bad higher prices don't effect our immigration policies, we could all cut use by 1% but if we get 1 or 2% more people from immigration our cutting is obliterated. Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: