Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

multigraincracker

(37,637 posts)

13. Isn't this a peer review journal?

Reply to NNadir (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 28, 2026, 01:16 PM

Saturday

Can’t it be repeated to verify their result?
Isn’t that how science works? Only in my field of interest and not any expertise.
Might be interesting to see how it works out by others.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Saturday OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Saturday #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Saturday #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Saturday #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin Saturday #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Saturday #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Saturday #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Saturday #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Saturday #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Saturday #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Saturday #3

Why? mr715 Saturday #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Saturday #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Saturday #5

No angrychair Saturday #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Saturday #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Saturday #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair Saturday #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir Saturday #32

So by your logic angrychair Saturday #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin Sunday #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Saturday #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Saturday #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Saturday #15

Nonsense Disaffected Saturday #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 Saturday #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin Saturday #31

Hanford angrychair Saturday #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 Sunday #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin Sunday #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Saturday #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Saturday #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Saturday #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Saturday #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Saturday #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Saturday #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Saturday #27

Recommended. H2O Man Saturday #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon Sunday #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech Sunday #36