Elizabeth Warren - Ban Industry Junk Science

[fromderinside]

OK. I did as you asked.

Here is patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8524398B2/en

Surely you can point out the fraud from that barbos. So have at it.

Your posts only make claims never demonstrate reasons. Time to step up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I want to vote for Warren because she proposes common sense policies like this.

But how do you implement it?

Its convenient for companies to self publish 'research' since they can protect it from being explointed by other companies. Unfortunately they often publish opposition pieces under the same auspices as push back against actual science. The latter is the junk science of which Warren speaks It's quite simple to limit inclusion of that stuff refereed scientific journals. And it's nearly as simple to limit that material from being part of scientific review by regulating agencies in government. The problem arises when companies coopt recognized journals by buying off universities and agencies with grants and positions.

Yeah, that was what I was speaking about. I love the idea in theory, but application is much much harder. There are always going to be routes around the road blocks. There is simply too much money involved.

This is why you need scientists in charge of this stuff, being allowed to make science based judgments using science. The GOP has done a grand ole job of politicizing reproducible science.

 

[barbos]

OK. I did as you asked.

Here is patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8524398B2/en

Surely you can point out the fraud from that barbos. So have at it.

Your posts only make claims never demonstrate reasons. Time to step up.

I don't recognize this particular patent, it was a long time ago around 2011. I was following another energy storage scam at the time and proponents of that scam were throwing at me all kind of "discoveries" in order to prove their scam. So this crap was thrown at me among other.
In the first patent which was pointed to me he and his grad student had some device measurement in which they claimed well, they are not idiots to flat out llie, they "interpreted" as storing whole lot of energy. In reality it was clear from the measurement that what they had is basically leaky (tunnel current) capacitor or rather resistor which was not remarkable at all. And they knew they were lying because of the wording they used in the patent and the fact that they used such a crappy method to support their "claim".
Then few other patents followed with attempts to claim BEC (bose-einstein condensate) in his devices at room temperature, then plasma, again, room temperature. (that's a SciFi script I was talking about). Don't get me wrong, it's not unusual to have such crap in patents. Lots of freaks spend their money on BS patents in order to scam someone. Problem is, he was getting ARPA grants on this. Now about that particular ARPA request, in it they openly said that they expected projects to fail So one can say they asked to get scammed. There were few other "winners" in that ARPA funding, Some were ordinary lithium-ion batteries, One group was border-line scam from Pen-State.
One of the fans actually contacted Prinz and relayed my "amusement" at his BS, and then relayed back to me his comments where he promised great things within few months (it was in 2012)
Then "QuantumScape" was created and it was thrown at me as a proof. In reality they quickly "forgot" about ground-breaking All Electron Battery and started working on lithium-ion

 

[Jarhyn]

OK. I did as you asked.

Here is patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8524398B2/en

Surely you can point out the fraud from that barbos. So have at it.

Your posts only make claims never demonstrate reasons. Time to step up.

I don't recognize this particular patent, it was a long time ago around 2011. I was following another energy storage scam at the time and proponents of that scam were throwing at me all kind of "discoveries" in order to prove their scam. So this crap was thrown at me among other.
In the first patent which was pointed to me he and his grad student had some device measurement in which they claimed well, they are not idiots to flat out llie, they "interpreted" as storing whole lot of energy. In reality it was clear from the measurement that what they had is basically leaky (tunnel current) capacitor or rather resistor which was not remarkable at all. And they knew they were lying because of the wording they used in the patent and the fact that they used such a crappy method to support their "claim".
Then few other patents followed with attempts to claim BEC (bose-einstein condensate) in his devices at room temperature, then plasma, again, room temperature. (that's a SciFi script I was talking about). Don't get me wrong, it's not unusual to have such crap in patents. Lots of freaks spend their money on BS patents in order to scam someone. Problem is, he was getting ARPA grants on this. Now about that particular ARPA request, in it they openly said that they expected projects to fail So one can say they asked to get scammed. There were few other "winners" in that ARPA funding, Some were ordinary lithium-ion batteries, One group was border-line scam from Pen-State.
One of the fans actually contacted Prinz and relayed my "amusement" at his BS, and then relayed back to me his comments where he promised great things within few months (it was in 2012)
Then "QuantumScape" was created and it was thrown at me as a proof. In reality they quickly "forgot" about ground-breaking All Electron Battery and started working on lithium-ion

... All-Electron battery? Is that what it sounds like?

We're talking about a material that would literally create a vacuum instability just for existing?

I mean, I suppose that WOULD have some defense applications?

 

[barbos]

OK. I did as you asked.

Here is patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8524398B2/en

Surely you can point out the fraud from that barbos. So have at it.

Your posts only make claims never demonstrate reasons. Time to step up.

I don't recognize this particular patent, it was a long time ago around 2011. I was following another energy storage scam at the time and proponents of that scam were throwing at me all kind of "discoveries" in order to prove their scam. So this crap was thrown at me among other.
In the first patent which was pointed to me he and his grad student had some device measurement in which they claimed well, they are not idiots to flat out llie, they "interpreted" as storing whole lot of energy. In reality it was clear from the measurement that what they had is basically leaky (tunnel current) capacitor or rather resistor which was not remarkable at all. And they knew they were lying because of the wording they used in the patent and the fact that they used such a crappy method to support their "claim".
Then few other patents followed with attempts to claim BEC (bose-einstein condensate) in his devices at room temperature, then plasma, again, room temperature. (that's a SciFi script I was talking about). Don't get me wrong, it's not unusual to have such crap in patents. Lots of freaks spend their money on BS patents in order to scam someone. Problem is, he was getting ARPA grants on this. Now about that particular ARPA request, in it they openly said that they expected projects to fail So one can say they asked to get scammed. There were few other "winners" in that ARPA funding, Some were ordinary lithium-ion batteries, One group was border-line scam from Pen-State.
One of the fans actually contacted Prinz and relayed my "amusement" at his BS, and then relayed back to me his comments where he promised great things within few months (it was in 2012)
Then "QuantumScape" was created and it was thrown at me as a proof. In reality they quickly "forgot" about ground-breaking All Electron Battery and started working on lithium-ion

... All-Electron battery? Is that what it sounds like?

We're talking about a material that would literally create a vacuum instability just for existing?

I mean, I suppose that WOULD have some defense applications?

I think you might have something here, contact ARPA or some SiFi producers.

 

[Jarhyn]

... All-Electron battery? Is that what it sounds like?

We're talking about a material that would literally create a vacuum instability just for existing?

I mean, I suppose that WOULD have some defense applications?

I think you might have something here, contact ARPA or some SiFi producers.

More, I'm referencing discussions like XKCD's proton-earth/electron-moon, and gravity and levity's what if I were 1% charged?

The reality of any material that is, on any large scale, that charged is... well... reality-ending.

Granted making it is literally impossible so....

 

[ronburgundy]

I support that but must add government funding is not without blame either. I have seen successful grant application taken straight from the cheap SciFi movie script - random word salad.

Government grants can fund poorly conducted science, but it doesn't control and bias the findings the way that privately funded research does. Private grants very often give the private funder ultimate control over the findings and what findings are distributed. That almost never happens with government funded research, unless their is some direct security issue involved. Also, government grant panels that review proposal are a peer review process comprised of other University academics who are protected from coercive influence by tenure and do not work for that government agency or private interests. In contrast private funding decisions are made entirely by employees of the corporation giving the money who often do not get input from independent researchers.

Also, notice that your example of fraud "junk science" involves a private for-profit company getting a government grant. IOW, the bias and fraud came from the private sector, while the public sector was the victim of it. For profit interests inherently only value profits and profit can be made with good or bad science. So yeah, whether the funding came from private sources or was given to private companies by public sources, there is often a conflict of interest between good science and profit. That research should get an extra level of scrutiny compared to public funds used for research conducted by academic researchers who don't profit off of particular findings and only benefit in their job security based on making meaningful contributions to the scientific literature.

 

[barbos]

I support that but must add government funding is not without blame either. I have seen successful grant application taken straight from the cheap SciFi movie script - random word salad.

Government grants can fund poorly conducted science, but it doesn't control and bias the findings the way that privately funded research does. Private grants very often give the private funder ultimate control over the findings and what findings are distributed. That almost never happens with government funded research, unless their is some direct security issue involved. Also, government grant panels that review proposal are a peer review process comprised of other University academics who are protected from coercive influence by tenure and do not work for that government agency or private interests. In contrast private funding decisions are made entirely by employees of the corporation giving the money who often do not get input from independent researchers.

I don't disagree with any of that, it's just I know there is zero chance of any peer reviewer thinking that Prinz proposal was anything but complete BS.

 

[ronburgundy]

I support that but must add government funding is not without blame either. I have seen successful grant application taken straight from the cheap SciFi movie script - random word salad.

Government grants can fund poorly conducted science, but it doesn't control and bias the findings the way that privately funded research does. Private grants very often give the private funder ultimate control over the findings and what findings are distributed. That almost never happens with government funded research, unless their is some direct security issue involved. Also, government grant panels that review proposal are a peer review process comprised of other University academics who are protected from coercive influence by tenure and do not work for that government agency or private interests. In contrast private funding decisions are made entirely by employees of the corporation giving the money who often do not get input from independent researchers.

I don't disagree with any of that, it's just I know there is zero chance of any peer reviewer thinking that Prinz proposal was anything but complete BS.

It's well outside my area, but I cannot find anyone arguing that the project is "complete BS", "nonsense", or "word salad". I can only find numerous independent sources in the industry who find it promising, that the concepts originated in a reputable Stanford lab, and the fact that VW invested in the project.

I also found the following from Cleantechnia.com
, which is a leading news source focused on the green tech industry.

[P]"Before you diss the concept of an all-electron battery, note that the phrase describes an effect, not the actual mechanism at play.

So, digging a little further we went back to those helpful folks over at TheEEStory, where back in July “B” posted information on a couple of QuantumScape patents that seem to related to new EV battery technology.

And, bingo, sort of. One of the patents is for this:“METHOD FOR FORMING AND PROCESSING ANTIPEROVSKITE MATERIAL DOPED WITH ALUMINUM MATERIAL.”[/P]

Perhaps is total BS, but you need to do more than claim that. This particular funding agency is only 10 years old and this was among it's first funded projects. I have no clue if they follow the review methods of more established agencies, but they are focused more on funding profit-based applied tech research than basic science, which always increases the incentive for fraud.

 

[barbos]

I don't disagree with any of that, it's just I know there is zero chance of any peer reviewer thinking that Prinz proposal was anything but complete BS.

It's well outside my area,

Don't worry, it's well outside Prinz area as well His field is mechanical engineering, basically manufacturing stuff.
He has very little understanding of physics

but I cannot find anyone arguing that the project is "complete BS", "nonsense", or "word salad".

Thinking and saying/arguing are not the same thing.

I can only find numerous independent sources in the industry who find it promising, that the concepts originated in a reputable Stanford lab, and the fact that VW invested in the project.

Why do you think I presented it as a best illustration to my point? There are plenty other examples of BS which got much less traction than that or no traction at all.

I also found the following from Cleantechnia.com
, which is a leading news source focused on the green tech industry.

[P]"Before you diss the concept of an all-electron battery, note that the phrase describes an effect, not the actual mechanism at play.

I am not dissing the naming, although it should be dissed, because their "All Electron Battery" is a fancy way of describing a capacitor,

So, digging a little further we went back to those helpful folks over at TheEEStory, where back in July “B” posted information on a couple of QuantumScape patents that seem to related to new EV battery technology.

And, bingo, sort of. One of the patents is for this:“METHOD FOR FORMING AND PROCESSING ANTIPEROVSKITE MATERIAL DOPED WITH ALUMINUM MATERIAL.”

[/P]

Perhaps is total BS, but you need to do more than claim that.

I did more than that, even here already. The guy claimed BEC at room temperature. and Even if it was BEC he gave no explanation how it was relevant to storing energy, and of course his "measurements" are laughable. And Company which owns these patents now is doing ordinary lithium-ion batteries now, not AEB.

This particular funding agency is only 10 years old and this was among it's first funded projects. I have no clue if they follow the review methods of more established agencies, but they are focused more on funding profit-based applied tech research than basic science, which always increases the incentive for fraud.

You are telling me that?