Slashdot Mirror

I think the author of the story hasn't completely understood. The phenomenon exists, that's quite clear.

Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor for Research University of Missouri: "There have been great advances in this discipline over the last five years by research labs and private institutions around the world, and this work will be explored at ICCF-18. The Naval Research Lab (NRL), and many other excellent laboratories have confirmed that the excess heat effects reported by Fleischmann and Pons are real, and roughly one thousand times larger than can be attributed to a chemical process." http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/welcome.php

Dennis Bushnell, NASA: "The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena. " http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html

President of the Italian National Agency For Energy (ENEA): "In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process." http://old.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/volumi/V2008_16_ColdFusion.html (foreword of the book)

What the phenomenon is, that is still unknown.

The answer lies in here somewhere. I think it might be this one in particular.

The answer lies in here somewhere. I think it might be this one in particular.

Well, here's where the report's from. If you'd like to poke through it, you might very well glean some useful information. It looks very much like they did in fact test all medically-relevant frequencies across a wide range of samples. Feel safe yet?

The summary I posted came from this site, which includes a rather lengthy database of biological and abiotic THz spectra. I am believe what you are saying is medically irrelevant.

I remember the result of a similar study done years ago on an Italian research agency ( http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm ), one of the published report is available at: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

No it doesn't.

Is it too much to ask that we research these things a little bit before posting?

This isn't one of ITER's goals. There are other projects that are designed to address these issues. IFMIF is designed to address the environmental, safety and economic concerns of fusion power http://www.frascati.enea.it/ifmif/. Sometime after ITER and IFMIF there would be DEMO which would first replicate ITER's performance and the preliminary track would then be to produce 1 GW of electric power with DEMO. From there it would be PROTO, a prototype reactor. Concurrent to ITER there are several projects planned such as IGNITOR http://www.frascati.enea.it/ignitor/ and FIRE http://fire.pppl.gov/

Fusion plasmas today already put out more energy then we put in, but we can't turn that energy into electricity yet.

Do you have a source for this? I know of only two tokamaks that have performed D-T fusion, JET (16.1 MW, Q = 0.6) and TFTR (10.7 MW, Q = 0.27). JT-60 has achieved plasma performance which corresponds with Q = 1.25, however JT-60 is not designed to handle tritium fuel and hence has never performed D-T fusion. No machines have exceeded breakeven with D-T fusion.

The main problem (as I see it) with fusion has nothing to do with plasma, but has to do with materials.

I disagree with you about the plasmas not being a main problem, however I agree that the materials side also requires a lot of research and development.

This isn't one of ITER's goals. There are other projects that are designed to address these issues. IFMIF is designed to address the environmental, safety and economic concerns of fusion power http://www.frascati.enea.it/ifmif/. Sometime after ITER and IFMIF there would be DEMO which would first replicate ITER's performance and the preliminary track would then be to produce 1 GW of electric power with DEMO. From there it would be PROTO, a prototype reactor. Concurrent to ITER there are several projects planned such as IGNITOR http://www.frascati.enea.it/ignitor/ and FIRE http://fire.pppl.gov/

Fusion plasmas today already put out more energy then we put in, but we can't turn that energy into electricity yet.

Do you have a source for this? I know of only two tokamaks that have performed D-T fusion, JET (16.1 MW, Q = 0.6) and TFTR (10.7 MW, Q = 0.27). JT-60 has achieved plasma performance which corresponds with Q = 1.25, however JT-60 is not designed to handle tritium fuel and hence has never performed D-T fusion. No machines have exceeded breakeven with D-T fusion.

The main problem (as I see it) with fusion has nothing to do with plasma, but has to do with materials.

I disagree with you about the plasmas not being a main problem, however I agree that the materials side also requires a lot of research and development.

from the TFA.....
Google Earth will not replace high tech programs like AutoCAD or ESRI's ArcGIS

The topic missing from this discussion is a simple question: Where does all this data come from?.

You can't plan bike routes, model road trips, view cityscapes, etc. unless you have good data to start with. Neither Google Earth nor KML function to build geographic data. The tools for doing that are as follows: v

ArcGIS, for vector-based data and some imagery.

ERDAS IMAGINE, for imagery, and

for all you open source kiddies:

GRASS and GRASS for Macs

Without these basic development tools, client-side web apps like Google Earth don't exist. These data have a long history and complex standards for verification and use.

In a community normally so concerned with standards, metadata, etc., I am surprised by the Gee whiz view comparing Google Earth and similar client side apps.

GRASS GIS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is an open source, Free Software Geographical Information System (GIS) with raster, topological vector, image processing, and graphics production functionality that operates on various platforms through a graphical user interface and shell in X-Windows. It is released under GNU General Public License ( GPL ).

I don't understand why xxx hasn't been approved yet. Followed by a mandate that pornographic sites must use

There is Grass (and if you're looking for an OS X version, there is one).

However, GRASS is about as easy to use as Linux was 8 years ago. Its mostly command line driven, with most of the interesting features (DEM models, buffers, raster calculations) being hidden in either half a dozen menus or obscure CLI commands.

On the other hand, ArcMap, the industry standard, costs tens of thousands of dollars, and is about as easy to use, so you can take your pick.