Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5588598 - 12/25/12 03:01 PM

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




It always makes me happy to see someone thinking instead of just arguing from authority. But let's recap..

1) There are known phenomena in which behavior within a lattice is completely different than behavior in empty space - super- and semi-conductivity.

2) The slightest deviations from a perfect lattice have enormous effects on the phenomenon of semi-conductivity. The slightest rise in temperature is enough to disrupt the electron pairing behavior responsible for classical super-conductivity.

3) We have an experiment that sometimes works, sometimes does not, done with metals of unknown purity and lattice regularity

4) The conclusions are obvious. Here is a phenomenon which is difficult to reproduce because the lattice substrate is of varying quality and regularity, or perhaps even irregularity.

-drl




I do my thinking in the fields in which I am trained, and in those fields I am published by fully peer reviewed academic journals and university presses, as well as by internationally recognized (and prestigious) book publishers.

But, as I teach my university students, when one is doing research on the Internet, one must assess one's sources, and sources that are self-published and/or published by unknown publishers cannot be taken to be as reliable as sources who have the benefit of peer review and institutional authorization.

Now, let's see what has just happened in this thread. The thread has already morphed, on the basis of speculative assertion by people who have not performed any direct experimentation of their own, into the conclusion that cold fusion exists and simply needs theoretical explanation. But cold fusion is so far from having been proven to exist that its advocates now shy away from the term "cold fusion" and prefer LENR.

Having performed no experiments of my own, I can only go by what the peer-reviewed physicists who are actually working in the field say. If that's "argument from authority," so be it. I do not claim to be the authority.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5588803 - 12/25/12 07:08 PM

Otto,
I think folks here have left out a key part of the reason why fusion generates so much energy. The conversion of mass to energy is governed by Einstein's famous equation, e=mc**2. So, a very tiny amount of mass loss creates a huge amount of energy. It's the same thing that powers thermonuclear weapons. So, if the mass of a gallon of gasoline were completely converted to energy it would yield more than 2 billion times the energy derived from just burning the gallon of gas.

See here: http://www.1728.org/einstein.htm

/Ira


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Ira]
      #5588869 - 12/25/12 08:33 PM

Thank you Ira. This is the type of thing I like reading; what you wrote.

About two centuries ago, Michael Faraday gave a series of Christmas lectures called The Chemical History of the Candle. It was such a complete and fairly easy to understand and indepth analysis about the candle and its chemistry. It would be cool if someone could start to do that for fusion, and quantum stuff, and relativity, and etc. Not sort-of-close-analogies-and-metaphors, but a way to stay true to the math and science.

How did he figure out, Ira, the amazing amount of energy in mass?

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5589059 - 12/25/12 11:35 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




It always makes me happy to see someone thinking instead of just arguing from authority. But let's recap..

1) There are known phenomena in which behavior within a lattice is completely different than behavior in empty space - super- and semi-conductivity.

2) The slightest deviations from a perfect lattice have enormous effects on the phenomenon of semi-conductivity. The slightest rise in temperature is enough to disrupt the electron pairing behavior responsible for classical super-conductivity.

3) We have an experiment that sometimes works, sometimes does not, done with metals of unknown purity and lattice regularity

4) The conclusions are obvious. Here is a phenomenon which is difficult to reproduce because the lattice substrate is of varying quality and regularity, or perhaps even irregularity.

-drl




I do my thinking in the fields in which I am trained, and in those fields I am published by fully peer reviewed academic journals and university presses, as well as by internationally recognized (and prestigious) book publishers.

But, as I teach my university students, when one is doing research on the Internet, one must assess one's sources, and sources that are self-published and/or published by unknown publishers cannot be taken to be as reliable as sources who have the benefit of peer review and institutional authorization.

Now, let's see what has just happened in this thread. The thread has already morphed, on the basis of speculative assertion by people who have not performed any direct experimentation of their own, into the conclusion that cold fusion exists and simply needs theoretical explanation. But cold fusion is so far from having been proven to exist that its advocates now shy away from the term "cold fusion" and prefer LENR.

Having performed no experiments of my own, I can only go by what the peer-reviewed physicists who are actually working in the field say. If that's "argument from authority," so be it. I do not claim to be the authority.




I do my thinking for myself, without regard to any context other than reasonableness. I get tired of having to explain over and over again that the shrill comments of "authorities" are not a substitute for physical reasonableness. Particularly in physics, these last decades have been a shameful exercise in hubris and delusion. The savage treatment of a pair of dedicated electrochemists who were acting, not according to the needs of their own research or results, but the pressures of their department chair and university board, and who were forced to announce their research in a circus context, only then to be excoriated by those who neither understood electrochemical methods nor what was actually being claimed, is perhaps the sorriest episode in science since the "Jewish science" slander against relativity.

So I'm sorry if this is a hot button for me.

The phenomenon of excess heat in hydrated nickel and deuterated palladium metal lattices is established beyond any reasonable doubt. That is an experimental fact. Strange to say, there are many things that we don't understand about matter. This is one of them.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5589412 - 12/26/12 10:17 AM

Quote:

The phenomenon of excess heat in hydrated nickel and deuterated palladium metal lattices is established beyond any reasonable doubt. That is an experimental fact. Strange to say, there are many things that we don't understand about matter. This is one of them.

-drl




Agreed. However, no absolute 'proof' that the heat is from fusion exists either. Circumstantial evidence but no proof. And certainly IF fusion is occurring, it is happening in a manner inconsistent with generally accepted theories of physics.

Just because we can't positively identify a UFO as Earth origin does not ipso facto make it from anther planet.

I don't think the science is suppressed by some grand conspiracy, after all look at the billions going into hot fusion research which would put all the oil companies out of business.

Of course, there are bodies of scientists out there willing to protect their body of work that this new science would invalidate (hot fusion?) Scientists have egos....

As soon as someone comes up with a way to reproduce LENR reliably then research will take off like a rocket.

But right now the paradigm in mainstream science is that it isn't worth the effort.

Einstein faced a lot of criticism for his work...right up until his weird theory and weid'r predictions started bearing fruit.

Pesse (The criticism was all relative to his successful predictions) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5589570 - 12/26/12 11:46 AM

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5589586 - 12/26/12 11:57 AM

Quote:

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.





Exactly right. The proof is in the pudding and all we have,s o far, are verbal promises of a delectable dish.

It is interesting in that it seems every research paper devotes over 50% of its content to explaining just why cold fusion would be such a wonderful gift to mankind...as if that needed to be spelled out.

Pesse (Most sound like sales brochures.) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Skip
Starlifter Driver
*****

Reged: 01/23/08

Loc: Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5589766 - 12/26/12 01:37 PM

Hmmm... But there may be a key to this article. This statement jumped out at me when he wrote about the P & F experiment -

"And besides, what did chemists know about topics that properly belonged to physicists?"

That sounds like a physicist with a huge ego and put a big kibosh on the article for me.

Of course, I am NOT a scientist and I know nothing other than what I read about "cold fusion" (or "hot fusion" for that matter).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Skip]
      #5589831 - 12/26/12 02:21 PM

Quote:

Hmmm... But there may be a key to this article. This statement jumped out at me when he wrote about the P & F experiment -

"And besides, what did chemists know about topics that properly belonged to physicists?"

That sounds like a physicist with a huge ego and put a big kibosh on the article for me.

Of course, I am NOT a scientist and I know nothing other than what I read about "cold fusion" (or "hot fusion" for that matter).




It was obviously an attack article.

Attack the pedigree of the chemists, attack the quality of the people showing up at the annual presentation, attack the publication. etc

But the fact is there is very little grant money available for LENR research and going that route is a good way for a young scientist trying to make their 'bones' to get pigeon holed as a crackpot.

Pesse (Now, I am not defending cold fusion, I am just saying that even paranoids have enemies...) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Skip]
      #5589850 - 12/26/12 02:42 PM

With Skip, I too have noticed something which causes me to take what Chet Raymo says with a grain of salt.

But first, to speak in his favor; that a physicist as he is would write about cold fusion, catches my interest. It further caught my interest that he wrote in an easy to understand way. I gave his words an ear.

In addition to his article on cold fusion to which we were referred, Chet Raymo wrote a book, published in 2008, entitled "When God is Gone Everything is Holy." Wikipedia says this book was to espouse his belief in religious naturalism.

The adjective "holy" when used to describe an action, event, thing, or person means that that thing is dedicated to God and God's use. That is the definition I learned in theology. Similarly, the first definition found in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary is "set apart to the service of God."

Without a God, there can be nothing holy because there would then be no God to whose service the thing could be dedicated. Therefore, the assertion, "When God is Gone Everything is Holy" is incorrect because if there were no God, nothing could be holy.

If Chet Raymo, acting as a theolgian can be wrong on a basic issue of theology, it is possible, though he is a physicist, he could also be wrong in his assessment of a particular area of physics; i.e. cold fusion.

That he is a physicist certainly requires me to listen to what he says about matters of physics. Whether or not he is specialized enough in the area of cold fusion to speak from authority about cold fusion...that assessment in turn must necessarily rest with the observations of those persons here who also have a background in physics; whom I think includes drl, ejn, Joad....

...you know, this gets back to an earlier request of mine...would those of you who are reading and writing in this thread please be so kind as to state your credentials in the area of physics? I would find that helpful....not definitive, in the sense that then no one else would have a right to be heard...but it would help me weigh the opinion offered.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5589866 - 12/26/12 03:09 PM

Raymo isn't at all wrong in his "theology." Maybe you haven't heard of "Transcendentalism." Transcendentalism replaced the personal "God" of Christian theology with a universal spirit that pervades everything. This is the basis for a lot of Romantic belief, including Wordsworth's poetry, and, more importantly, the beginning of environmentalism, which sees unspoiled nature as holy.

Please stop imposing your spiritual beliefs on the rest of us.

And let's also stop the ad hominem attacks. Look at what Raymo says. If you can refute his content, that is all that counts.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5589944 - 12/26/12 04:21 PM

Hear! Hear! on the spiritual hocus pocus. I was taught there is a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter, and from a theology standpoint, I'm just as right as anyone else. Saying someone is wrong in "spiritual whatever" is just goofy and has no place in the forum.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5589962 - 12/26/12 04:40 PM

You are correct in that a theological assertion/belief can never be proven to be factually wrong according to the way science establishes truth.

However, it, as with any assertion, can be proven to be self-contradictory. This is the sense in which I meant the word "wrong". If,the word "holy" in the assertion "When God is gone, everything is holy" is defined as the collegiate version of Merriam-Webster defines the word "holy"; "set apart to the service of God"; then the assertion (When God is gone, everything is holy") is self-contradictory.

It was only in this latter sense that I offered the possibility that Raymo's assertion was wrong.

And I did that, not for the purpose of making a theological statement, but to, by analogy, imply that if he could by wrong, acting as a theologian on a theological assertion, it was then possible he could be wrong as a physicist on the topic of cold fusion.

But, since I know little of physics and math, to sift through and discern the truth of his assertions from physics, I would then be dependent on the informed positions of persons in this forum whose expertise is physics.

I am profoundly impressed by and grateful for those among us who have the knowledge of physics and math necessary to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of issues such as cold fusion. Please, continue to inform me/us!

Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (12/26/12 04:43 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5589984 - 12/26/12 04:57 PM

A lattice is a solid, typcially in crystalline form, where you have layers of atoms stacked upon each other in a regular pattern.

Pictured in condensed form, like marbles neatly packed in a box. But normally folks stretch out the marbles so they are far apart with lines conneting them like your garden lattice hence the term lattice.

In a perfect lattice or crystal, photons and electrons can travel in these layers like a ballistic bullet at great speed. If you add in inpurities (think larger marbles) or if there is a defect in the lattice; the marbles don't line up perfectly then photons and electrons "hit" the marbles. The atom will absorb the photon or electron then emit it or release it. It happens very fast but it still takes time slowing things down so if you want to create a very fast computer chip these defects are not good.

Lattice defects are usually caused by imperfect growth of the crysal during manufacturing. Problems also arise (but on purpose) when the workers try to layer different sized atoms over each other; think of it as packing one size marble in your tray then a new layer on top with marbles of a slightly different size.

In the real world this can be done if the other marbles (atoms) are not too different. It creates stress within the lattice, but usually well within the limits of the atoms to handle.

The reason for the mixing of elements depends on what you want to make, band gaps, quantum wells, electron tunneling and such - stuff I'm well unqualified to discuss. But I remember lattices!

The Cold Fusion experiments happened while I was in college (physics engineering) and were looked upon with great hope and scepticism at the time. In short order they were pretty much debunked; mainly because no one could reproduce the results. If memory serves; the original "extra energy" was found in the method used to measure the energy of the experiment and not real energy created by the experiment.

This is not to say we could not discover some mechanism in lattice structures that could create excess energy in a cold fusion way; but I don't hold out any hope in it. But I'm far from any sort of authority on the matter either. I think we have a better chance with hot fusion where we seem to be perpetually twenty years from producing a useful reactor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5589997 - 12/26/12 05:05 PM

It is possible for anyone to be wrong on anything. But argument by analogy of this kind is a fallacy. By the same token, we'd have to reject Linus Pauling's profound contributions to science because his opinions on vitamin C are not accepted by medical experts. One could go on. Even Newton wasn't right about everything. Yours is not an argument by analogy anyway; it is an ad hominem argument. You've used it before against Peter Singer. Ad hominem arguments are not effective arguments.

This is one reason why I maintain my anonymity here: I do not want to subject myself to a prying inquisition.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/08/02

Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5590029 - 12/26/12 05:28 PM

Quote:


Please stop imposing your spiritual beliefs on the rest of us.

And let's also stop the ad hominem attacks. Look at what Raymo says. If you can refute his content, that is all that counts.




I'll second that.

Dave Mitsky


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
barasits
sage


Reged: 06/12/11

Loc: Chicago
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5590162 - 12/26/12 07:21 PM

Quote:

...If,the word "holy" in the assertion "When God is gone, everything is holy" is defined as the collegiate version of Merriam-Webster defines the word "holy"; "set apart to the service of God"; then the assertion (When God is gone, everything is holy") is self-contradictory.




Otto, it would stretch credulity to the limit for me to believe that you're unaware of the other definitions of "holy" in your copy of the dictionary. Straw man and/or begging the question seems to be operating here, so I would say that your premise does not stand.

As an anthropologist, I know what Raymo meant, and unless you're unfamiliar with the religious systems of relatively simple cultures (and I can't imagine that this is the case), I suspect that you know what he meant as well.

Geoff


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: barasits]
      #5590170 - 12/26/12 07:27 PM

OK, folks -- put the theology down, and back away slowly. Keep your logic where I can see it, and nobody gets hurt...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5590392 - 12/26/12 10:09 PM

Upon reflection, you are correct Joad. Though i called it the use of analogy it was really an ad hominem. I appreciate that correction and will be more cautious in the future.

I especially liked the analogy you used of Linus Pauling. I liked it for two reasons, first because your point is correct; just because he was possibly off base about Vitamin C, does not in any way limit his contributions in other areas and in fact, should not be mentionned when commenting about his contributions in other areas.


Now, to return to your original thread, to confute (sp?) drl, you cited an article which you said was written by a physicist (Raymo). The question I asked, deserves a response for those of us, with little knowledge of physics, to assess the value of the article...what is Raymo's background in fusion research? I don't know. I would like to know.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5590408 - 12/26/12 10:18 PM

Ron,

That was awesome. you explained it very clearly.

if you or others here could explain to me/us what is meant by things such as "gaps, quantum wells, electron tunneling" I would appreciate that.

I would be very interested to hear what you, drl (and any others here who think there is something valid to cold fusion) have to say about the assertion that "the original "extra energy"...[was] found in the method to measure the energy of the experiment and not real energy created by the experiment."

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
3 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 5191

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics