Anything that is not yet completed can be said to have some probability that it will never be completed, but that does not mean that it is being drawn out on purpose or still being attempted even with the full knowledge that it will never be completed. That would constitute fraud, and that would require some proof. Another way to put it is that we do not blame people for a crime just because it looks like a crime COULD be in progress, instead we look for tangible proof.

 

That would constitute fraud, and that would require some proof.

When taxpayer dollars are involved, fraud -- in the absence of proof otherwise -- is proper, and necessary, to assume.

 

When taxpayer dollars are involved, fraud -- in the absence of proof otherwise -- is proper, and necessary, to assume.

I have to question the words you are using; I don't think you really mean that.
It might be proper to 'suspect' but you cannot 'assume' otherwise you could sue them immediately.
You could move from 'suspect' to 'assume' with the proper proof however, which was my whole point.

Example, compare these two statements:
"Let's assume that they have committed fraud so we'll lock them all up."
"We suspect that they have committed fraud, so let's charge them with fraud and go to trial."

 

When taxpayer dollars are involved, fraud -- in the absence of proof otherwise -- is proper, and necessary, to assume.

Yes, and there is never any fraud in projects funded privately.

 

I have to question the words you are using; I don't think you really mean that.
It might be proper to 'suspect' but you cannot 'assume' otherwise you could sue them immediately.
You could move from 'suspect' to 'assume' with the proper proof however, which was my whole point.

Example, compare these two statements:
"Let's assume that they have committed fraud so we'll lock them all up."
"We suspect that they have committed fraud, so let's charge them with fraud and go to trial."

I meant what I said.

 

Yes, and there is never any fraud in projects funded privately.

But it's not my money.

 

"We suspect that they have committed fraud, so let's charge them with fraud and go to trial."

With no investigation?

 

But it's not my money.

As usual, nothing bothers you as long as it does not affect you. Some people care about others.

 

Some people care about others.

And some people rely on that -- to their great advantage and to the great disadvantage of civilized society.

 

And some people rely on that -- to their great advantage and to the great disadvantage of civilized society.

Have a nice day.

 

It may not be organized intentional fraud , but rather the sort that comes from a lack of adequate understanding. I have had to rescue projects after the extended efforts of folks who honestly believed that they knew what they were doing and honestly thought that they were doing things correctly. But nothing worked right, so the results were not as they should have been.

 

Nobody is even mentioning the very real possibility that small or medium scale fusion systems are not ever going to work. Of course, admitting that probability would totally destroy a lot of very well paying research careers. So it will always be "twenty years in the future". And we are every one of us paying for it.

No, no, no. They all know it works but are receiving secret payments from the evil fossil fuel companies to pretend it's always twenty years in the future.

Buried deep.

 

I don't appreciate post #432. Not at all.

 

I don't appreciate post #432. Not at all.

OK, don't post silly conspiracy theories in this thread and you won't get silly conspiracy theories in return.

 

I was not suggesting any conspiracy at all.

 

I meant what I said.

I'm sure you did
I am also sure you do not go to court very often.

 

With no investigation?

Hi,

You took that out of context. That was meant to show exactly what you are saying, that it's not right to do that. That's what I used to show how the word "assume" is not the right word to use, because it means that we hold someone or some group guilty until proven innocent, and in the USA we do it the other way around, innocent until proven guilty. I do realize however that not all countries on earth do it that way.

 

A very hard engineering problem.

Well, I guess that's it, then.

 

Well, I guess that's it, then.

It's a fusor (reactor as in processing chamber) that's primarily designed for water/waste product purification. Cool stuff but no hope for a actual fusion power generation reactor for it.

Is this guy really channeling Tony Stark as a Used Car Salesman 101 meme?
https://nuclearocity.com/quantum-kinetics-unveils-the-quantum-kinetic-well-in-nuclear-technology/
Quantum Kinetics Unveils the Quantum Kinetic Well in Nuclear Technology and Doubts on Claims

Doubts on Quantum Kinetics’ Claims
While Quantum Kinetics’ claims regarding their Well technology sound promising, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of their ability to achieve all outlined. Foremost, altering nuclear isotopes and inducing radioactive decay synthetically would require unprecedented control and understanding of atomic physics that has not been demonstrated. Transmutation through technologies like the QKW has long been pursued with minimal success through fields like muon-catalyzed fusion (Holmlid, 2022). No experimental data, methodology details or peer-reviewed research is provided to back this extraordinary claim. Collaboration with reputable national labs is promising, but their specific findings validating E-PTT must be disclosed. Achieving controlled, efficient transmutation of radioactive nuclear waste through an “Electro-Physical Transmutation” process as described would be an extraordinary scientific feat. Independent verification and proof of their technical claims are still needed.

Additionally, while versatility is touted, no explanation is given for how transmutation mechanisms differ or perform across various water sources. This raises doubts about whether water properties like salinity, mineral content or radioisotope mixtures impact effectiveness. Understanding limitations is crucial for assessing practical deployment scenarios (Abdulla et al., 2019). Cost-efficiency claims also lack objective support. No cost models or comparisons to existing technologies are presented. According to IAEA (2018) claims, long-term cost analyses should include manufacturing at scale, transportation, installation, maintenance, and component replacements over decades in hazardous environments.

 

It's a fusor (reactor as in processing chamber) that's primarily designed for water/waste product purification. Cool stuff but no hope for a actual fusion power generation reactor for it.

Is this guy really channeling Tony Stark as a Used Car Salesman 101 meme?
https://nuclearocity.com/quantum-kinetics-unveils-the-quantum-kinetic-well-in-nuclear-technology/
Quantum Kinetics Unveils the Quantum Kinetic Well in Nuclear Technology and Doubts on Claims

So, this is all a big elaborate joke, right?