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)
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: barasits]
      #5590423 - 12/26/12 10:30 PM

Hi Geoff. If you are the Geoff with whom I've spoken before...good to hear (read) you again. If not, glad to make your acquaintance.

You are correct; the word "holy" has many definitions. I, too, would hazard a guess that Raymo was using one of those other meanings.

However, "dedicated to or set apart for God/God's use" is the primary understanding of the word in the Collegiate Merriam Webster, in the education many (perhaps most) theologians receive, and I believe it might be correct to say, in original (historical) derivation.

Words have common (denotative) and secondary connotative meanings. This is true in science/math and in theology. The common meaning of a line is the shortest distance between two points. We all know that this applies to Euclidean space and not to other more esoteric space such as Boolean space or Minkowski's spatial formulations (if I remember my math correctly). The reason we are so attached to the euclidean definition is it works so well in the normal day to day reality in which we live and work; find joy, thrive, fade, die.

Well, the common/primary/original meaning of holy may have some functional superiority other less common/connotative meanings do not have. This point, cannot be asserted as a fact. It can only be proven from discussion, just as the suitability of the euclidean definition of line is suitable to a discussion of whatever scientific matter one is probing.

I would thoroughly enjoy getting into a discussion here about the suitability and value of different definitions of the word "holy". I don't think our friends Dave and jarad will allow it. But it would be good I think, and fun for me; fun because this seems to be a forum where no quarter is given in the matter of philosophical and theological speech.

As to Raymo's assertion, "When God is gone, everything is holy", I would really enjoy a discussion of what meanings the word "holy" could have in that statement, how practical those definitions are, and finally, how consistent the reasoning is based on the use of those definitions taken singly.


But......

we can't do that here (yet??)....so let us get back to a discussion of a far, far simpler matter...an assessment of cold fusion.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5590519 - 12/26/12 11:31 PM

The nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a cloud of electrons (if you can call one electron in a hydrogen atom a cloud) that form discreet layers at unique energy levels. Blend atoms of different elements together the outer shells that do all the conducting form energy bands and where they meet things are not equal. Workers choose different elements not only for their ability to supply loose electrons for current, ease of fitting into the lattice structure but also the height of the energy well; the area where the two energy bands meet. One will be higher than the other, so electrons from the lower energy atom will be pushed liked sheep against a fence up against the higher band gap of the other element - usually the doped element (My classes were in solid state devices so silicone was the base element, sometimes galium, and it was doped with something else) until enough energy (voltage) was applied to push the electrons over this hump.

Sometimes this well is on both sides and electron has to tunnel through the forbidden zone (were theory says the electron can not be found) to get to the other side; this happens millions of times a second in some molecules where you have electrons being shared by several atoms e.g. oxygen and hydrogen in a water molecule.

Now I've forgotten more that I know and if I venture any further, especially without a chalk board, I'll make a holy mess of things. Besides, quantum physics becomes very important but the gist of things - it's how your computer works. Once you get a basic understanding of the physics and what it takes to make the extremely small structures on the chips inside everything you use you'll scratch your head and wonder how it ever works; and for the most part, stays working.

In essence; if you take two dissimilar substances and bond them together there will be a band gap (energy gap) between the two conducting shells of the elements. Electricity can easily flow from the high side to the lower side (like falling off a cliff) but going the other way, well there is this cliff the electrons have to push up. It's a diode.

There is always a voltage drop across a diode. Since you end up with a "diode" where ever two dissimilar elements are bonded, workers can have some fits because you have one where the gold wires are bonded to the silicone substrate of your chip, across layers in the chip (usually on purpose), where the gold wires are bonded to the leads coming out of the chip and where the legs of the chip interface with the socket on the board and so on. It's bloody holy mess!

Some parts are simple. Some are not. sigh....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
Snowed In
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5590588 - 12/27/12 12:27 AM

Otto, here is a technical article on transition metal / hydrogen systems. It is a safe 382KB PDF downloadable document.
Hydrides

Credentials? I have been an amateur enthusiast of the periodic table of the elements for forty five years sort of following in the footsteps of Mendeleev.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5590654 - 12/27/12 01:44 AM

I've always liked the Periodic Table, too. I'm told my coffee has its own place on it.

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

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5590830 - 12/27/12 08:31 AM

There are some well-respected mainstream scientists who think there is something to LENR. The Widom-Larson theory is explained here: NASA link on LENR
The basic idea is that hydrogen gas gets trapped in a metal lattice. The immobilized atoms get ionized by local strong voltage gradients, and the electron and proton then combine to create a free neutron. Because the free neutron was created from an immoblized source, it is sitting nearly still and therefore has a large uncertainty in it's location (quantum uncertainty principle), which allows it to fuse with the heavy nuclei of the metal lattice (the large uncertainty allows it to sort of quantum overlap with the nuclei, similar to quantum tunneling by electrons). This produces a heavier isotope of nickel. A series of such events eventually leads to conversion to copper, and release of significant energy.

Jarad

Edited by Jarad (12/27/12 08:39 AM)


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

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5590908 - 12/27/12 10:01 AM

How ironic would that be if transmutation made a comeback and changing lead to gold became the key to clean energy.

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


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5590961 - 12/27/12 10:44 AM

Quote:

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

Read this.




This drivel, so typical of the hubris from the physics community (most of whom wouldn't recognize a genuine idea if it bit them), from 12 years ago yet, isn't worth rebutting. Suffice it to say that the experiments and ideas are far more sophisticated than Mr. Raymo.

-drl


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


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5590991 - 12/27/12 11:09 AM

Ron, Ted, Rick, Jarad, drl....et al...the material you are teaching me is well written and easy to understand. Sure, there are pieces I can get my mind around (i.e. electrons going through where they cannot be) and sure, I can't on my own even hope to verify the assertions y'all made....but, wow, it is clear what you write.

Please.....load more on!

Otto


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

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5591008 - 12/27/12 11:21 AM

Quote:

There are some well-respected mainstream scientists who think there is something to LENR. The Widom-Larson theory is explained here: NASA link on LENR
The basic idea is that hydrogen gas gets trapped in a metal lattice. The immobilized atoms get ionized by local strong voltage gradients, and the electron and proton then combine to create a free neutron. Because the free neutron was created from an immoblized source, it is sitting nearly still and therefore has a large uncertainty in it's location (quantum uncertainty principle), which allows it to fuse with the heavy nuclei of the metal lattice (the large uncertainty allows it to sort of quantum overlap with the nuclei, similar to quantum tunneling by electrons). This produces a heavier isotope of nickel. A series of such events eventually leads to conversion to copper, and release of significant energy.

Jarad




I gather that this idea goes back to somewhere around 1920, Jarad. Since it appears to be a given in this thread that LENR is a spectacular success and that only employed physicists with academic tenure or responsible employment in industry or government have expressed skepticism about it (even Japan threw in the towel, not to mention the University of Utah), why hasn't someone solved the world energy problem by now?

Oh yes, Rossi has. It's a done deal because he and his website say so. People on web forums say so, so it must be true.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillFerris
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/17/04

Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5591018 - 12/27/12 11:27 AM

Let's play, What He Wrote, What He Meant

Quote:

Quote:

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

Read this.







What he wrote:
Quote:

This drivel,




What he meant: I can't present an objective rebuttal to the article so, I'll simply dismiss it.

What he wrote:
Quote:

so typical of the hubris from the physics community (most of whom wouldn't recognize a genuine idea if it bit them),




What he meant: The overwhelming majority of scientists who understand this subject don't agree with me so, I'll simply dismiss them.

What he wrote:
Quote:

from 12 years ago yet, isn't worth rebutting.




What he meant: Just in case people catch on to the fact that I have no rational rebuttal to the article, I'll dismiss it as being old; ignoring the fact that cogent, rational analysis becomes neither less cogent nor less rational with age.

What he wrote:
Quote:

Suffice it to say that the experiments and ideas are far more sophisticated than Mr. Raymo.




What he meant: I can't win an argument with Raymo so, I'll insult him. Hopefully, this will dissuade people from focusing on the rational analysis in his article.

Bill in Flag


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5591040 - 12/27/12 11:39 AM

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.


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

Reged: 08/19/04

Loc: Leeds, UK, 54N
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591072 - 12/27/12 11:57 AM

Quote:

Let's play, What He Wrote, What He Meant




Nice analysis

If this thread attains critical mass I suspect I could get a college education in physics out of it. Each question leads to an answer that incites 3 more questions - example of an attempt to start a chain reaction perhaps?


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


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Tonk]
      #5591102 - 12/27/12 12:19 PM

drl did me an invaluable service by confirming what a high school physcis teacher told me, and articulating clearly for me that macrocosmic events are not examples of microcosmic quantum phenomena playing out in the normal world. At best, macrocosmic phenomena can be used as analogies, often limping, to illustrate and illuminate and explain quantum phenomena for physics-math-light minds like my own. And it serves this function as long as, as he told me/us, that I do not make the mistake of thinking that the macrocosmic phenomena is a quantum manifestation.

His comments, and the helpful comments of others since are leading me to the following understanding. I would appreciate you reading this, reflecting on it so that you understand what I am (trying to) say, and then giving me objective feedback. Here goes,

I think what my difficulty is with getting my mind around quantum phenomena is that I accept the material world in which I am in as presented to me by my senses and brain, is the way reality is...e.g. to get from Lexington, KY to Louisville, KY, I must pass by Frankfort, Kentucky; e.g. my hand does not go through the wall it touches because my hand is solid and the wall is solid, etc.

However, electrons according to the math of quantum physics, do get to one place by passing through a space they cannot be, and the hand that touches the wall is 99%+ space empty of material stuff just as is the wall, yet they don't flow through one another. All of these, and many others because of quantum type dynamics.

So, what I am starting to understand is that the quantum construction, architecture of things is also true of my hand, the wall, and getting from one city to another. What I mean to say is that, these phenomena of solidness and distance which I see as normal due to my senses and brain, are in fact the way my senses and brain perceive and present realities so that I can get on with life. They (senses and brain interpretation of sense data) simply were not designed through evolution to be aware of quantum phenomena as they are in truly real things.

Reality at the macrocosmic level is embed and pulses with quantum and relativistic phenomena. My senses and the brain which interprets the sense data are just immune to those quantum and relativistic presentations because evolution has "chosen" that such sensitivity is not important for not breaking my hand against the wall, and for getting to Louisville.

What do you think?

Otto


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

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591106 - 12/27/12 12:20 PM

Quote:

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.




I know this quite well (in fact, if I wanted to play that game I could dream of some future wherein the ideas of my own book on theory became a game changer—but I really don't bother with that dream and simply carry on with what I'm doing now).

But the thing about LENR/cold fusion is that it isn't simply a theory. A number of people have claimed it to be a fact: that they themselves have actually experimentally achieved cold fusion. That isn't theory. But when scientists all over the world seek to replicate their experiments, the experiments don't replicate. (Even scientists from Georgia Tech and Texas A&M who at first claimed to replicate Pons and Fleischman's results later retracted their claims.)

Now we have the e-Cat, for which practical, not theoretical, results have been claimed. But we all know here what has happened when scientists who are perfectly willing to accept that the device works if they could only have a chance to examine it ask permission to conduct objective tests of the device. It has been well over a year since the big claim of e-Cat success in 2011: so, where's the beef?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5591161 - 12/27/12 12:55 PM

I'll be bold and say it's still a theory until experimental results can be verfied at will by anybody (well, anybody with a proper lab!). Even then, it's still a theory (and I'd even venture to say it was just a hypothesis) until it was fully understood what was really going on.

You can claim just about anything; but until it can be replicated; until it stands the withering attacks of naysayers all you have is a claim. These guys have to prove that what they are measuring is actually coming from their gizmo and not from errors in measurement or something sneaking in from the outside. And that is very tough to do. Some very clever people have been tripped up at that step.

After the initial excitement about cold fusion and its downfall I have ignored it so I am probably more prone to outright dismissing these guys and their claims because of my historical bias which is really unfair but their you go.

Once reputable labs start reproducing the experiment and the results or Honda builds a portable generator based on the theory I'll sit up and pay attention. But that's just me.


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: rboe]
      #5591188 - 12/27/12 01:13 PM

What Jarad wrote above, if expressed quantitatively, would qualify as a theory, but I've not seen anyone get to that stage of explanation yet. At best, it's a hypothetical idea, and testable only in a general sense.

It doesn't seem that it would be difficult at this point to make specific hypotheses and do rigorous testing on them. If that's what Rossi's doing, great -- more power to him. But that's not what he's showing to the scientific community.


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


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: BillFerris]
      #5591228 - 12/27/12 01:46 PM

Quote:

Let's play, What He Wrote, What He Meant

Quote:

Quote:

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

Read this.







What he wrote:
Quote:

This drivel,




What he meant: I can't present an objective rebuttal to the article so, I'll simply dismiss it.

What he wrote:
Quote:

so typical of the hubris from the physics community (most of whom wouldn't recognize a genuine idea if it bit them),




What he meant: The overwhelming majority of scientists who understand this subject don't agree with me so, I'll simply dismiss them.

What he wrote:
Quote:

from 12 years ago yet, isn't worth rebutting.




What he meant: Just in case people catch on to the fact that I have no rational rebuttal to the article, I'll dismiss it as being old; ignoring the fact that cogent, rational analysis becomes neither less cogent nor less rational with age.

What he wrote:
Quote:

Suffice it to say that the experiments and ideas are far more sophisticated than Mr. Raymo.




What he meant: I can't win an argument with Raymo so, I'll insult him. Hopefully, this will dissuade people from focusing on the rational analysis in his article.

Bill in Flag




I'm tired of presenting the same links to the same completely open information all the time. It doesn't matter - we live in anti-scientific times despite all the "scientism", which is what I call aping of the forms without the content.

You're a grown-up, go find out for yourself.

-drl


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


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591243 - 12/27/12 01:58 PM

Quote:

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.




There are no actual theories to attack, and the Widom-Larsen ideas are not to be regarded as a theory of cold fusion yet. Instead, a zillion experiments need to happen first. Superconductivity did not just spring into the world overnight. An actual theory that was based on an definite new phenomenon was not formed until the 1950s, 70 years after the first experiments in low-temperature conductivity. The same is true of semi-conductivity, which was discovered in the 1920s and lay dormant and ignored for 30 years.

The army of bad physicists one sees on TV and in print have got the lay public completely bamboozled about how science actually works. I doubt that most of those people could even visit a real lab without breaking something.

-drl


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

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5591280 - 12/27/12 02:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.




There are no actual theories to attack, and the Widom-Larsen ideas are not to be regarded as a theory of cold fusion yet. Instead, a zillion experiments need to happen first. Superconductivity did not just spring into the world overnight. An actual theory that was based on an definite new phenomenon was not formed until the 1950s, 70 years after the first experiments in low-temperature conductivity. The same is true of semi-conductivity, which was discovered in the 1920s and lay dormant and ignored for 30 years.

The army of bad physicists one sees on TV and in print have got the lay public completely bamboozled about how science actually works. I doubt that most of those people could even visit a real lab without breaking something.

-drl




We don't need a 'correct' theory about how cold fusion works.

We just need a working model that is reproduceable with consistent, measureable results. How the darn thing works can come later.

The E-Cat is a joke until such time as it can be examined in detail and reproduced from patents. How come it is not patened technology yet? They have customers (supposedly). All one customer has to do is open it up and reverse engineer it and steal the technology.

I use to rpactice as a magician a long time ago. Uri Geller fooled distinguished scientists that he, indeed, possesed 'magical powers' to bend spoons and noted scientists attested to that fact.

It took another magician, Amazing Randi, to show how easily the scientists were fooled.

Pesse (The E-Cat is as real as a perpetual motion machine until they file a patent.) Mist


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

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5591284 - 12/27/12 02:42 PM

Yeah, the E-Cat to me seems reminiscent of the old Blarney Stone soup fable.

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


Extra information
1 registered and 2 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: 5117

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics