Re: [Vo]:Li cell question

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  thomas malloy's message of Tue, 29 May 2007 20:09:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Vortexians;
>
>I was in stupid mode when I failed to realize that 3 Li -> would produce 
>1 O18. I'm wondering if this is the reaction Jones was talking about? If 
>this is the case, what kind of energy relase are we talking about? I 
>assume that O18 a rare isotope, so an isotopic analysis of gas coming 
>off of a Li ion battery would reflect this production?
[snip]
3 X Li6 = F18, though of course this would rapidly decay to O18. Nevertheless
this reaction is not likely to be responsible for much O18 IMO, because Li6 is
only about 7% of Li, which means that even in the unlikely event that 3 Li atoms
fuse, there is only 1 chance in 3000 that all three will be Li6. (unless of
course Li6 and Li7 are usually formed in more equal proportions, and the Li7 is
left over on Earth because all the Li6 fused. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

The shrub is a plant.

[Vo]:******JOSEPH NEWMAN TO BE FEATURED ON THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

[JNPCo.]

**JOSEPH NEWMAN TO BE FEATURED ON THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

Energy machine inventor Joseph Newman will be featured on THE SCIENCE 
CHANNEL four (4) times this coming Friday night & Saturday early 
morning/morning/night, June 1st & June 2nd.


Please consult your local listings for details.

Also, here's the weblink address for the Science Channel broadcast 
times featuring Joseph Newman:


http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=48.13776.120356.11352.x

Please let others know about the upcoming broadcasts!

Best regards,

Evan Soule'
JNPCo./NECorp.
http://www.josephnewman.com
Important 
video seen at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086&hl=en

For additional information, please contact:

Mr. Joseph Nolfe
President & CEO
Newman Energy Corporation
(205) 835-9022

Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

[Jed Rothwell]

PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

>I keep on saying it:  Bring CF to the people - both investors and users - 
>emphatically not the government.  Once a decent application is created . . .

If a decent application could be created, we would not be having this 
discussion. If a researcher could make a cell produce even 10 watts reliably, 
on demand, we would convince the world in a matter of months. The difficulty is 
to get from where we are now to the point where we can "bring CF to the people."


>Keep good ideas away from the government teat.

People are quick to critisize the government, but the fact is, nearly all cold 
fusion funding and research has come from the U.S. Government. The best 
experiments have been performed in U.S. Navy labs, and many of the research 
outside of the government came from DARPA. As far as I know, after 1990 not one 
dollar has come from industry, or the universities, charitable foundations 
(except for one), or any other source. So far, Uncle Sam has been the most 
enlightened and best supporter.

And that is not just true of cold fusion. As I have pointed out before, most of 
the breakthroughs in science and technology of the 19th and 20th centuries were 
paid for directly or heavily supported by the U.S. and British governments. 
Dozens of major breakthroughs from steamships to railroads, airplanes, 
computers, the Internet, the maser and laser, space weather forecasting and 
GPS, and most medical breakthroughs that would not exist were it not for 
government support. There is a lot wrong with the government, but it has done a 
magnificent job supporting technology from the time of the Erie Canal to the 
present. The only objection I have to this is that we, the taxpayers often foot 
the bill for R&D, but private industry ends up raking in the profit. If 
anything, we should keep the good ideas away from the corporate teat, or at 
least allow the government to collect royalties.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I keep on saying it:  Bring CF to the people - both investors and users - 
emphatically not the government.  Once a decent application is created, 
advertised and sold, the people will know what to do with it.  Edison and Ford 
understood that.

Keep good ideas away from the government teat.

P.

- Original Message 
From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:24:52 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

Here is part of a message I just sent to some friends.

. . . This may sound strange coming from me, but I think it is 
unreasonable for us to expect a congressman or government official to 
support cold fusion research. In fact, I think it would be 
irresponsible for a government official to lend support to it. As 
long as nearly all mainstream scientists vociferously oppose cold 
fusion, and as long as they consider it no better than creationism, I 
do not think Congress should overrule them. After all, if cold fusion 
really did resemble creationism or faith healing, we would not want a 
Congressman to step in and promote it over the objections of experts.

In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community, not 
in the national political leadership.

People such as Huizenga, Park and the editor of the Scientific 
American have acted unethically and unprofessionally. They should be 
held responsible. The people at the DoE who reneged on their promise 
should be held responsible. (See 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf) They -- not 
elected officials -- are to blame.

Conversely, I think the public should bring pressure on the Congress 
and on places like the APS to fund cold fusion. The public should 
tell Robert Park to shut up. This is a subtle distinction: Congress 
is not to blame, but if the people tell them to fix the problem, they 
should turn around and order the DoE to fund cold fusion. The fire 
department is not to blame when a fire breaks out, but after you call 
911 and tell them about it, they should come and put it out.

Think about a systematic failure in some other institution. For 
example, it is likely that fast food restaurants are contributing to 
obesity. That is a problem with the food industry, not with the 
Congress, although it is caused in part by agricultural subsidies. 
Perhaps Congress should do something about this, but only if the 
public demands action. Suppose the public is satisfied with the 
quality of fast food. Or suppose it feels that fast food restaurants 
have the right to serve anything they want despite the effects on 
public health. Or that obesity is a personal problem rather than a 
public-health issue. These arguments have merit, and if that is the 
public perception, we should honor it and do nothing about fast-food 
obesity. Political leaders and nutrition researchers should present 
their best case, but in the end, the voters decide the agenda.

If U.S. voters agree that cold fusion should not be publicly funded, 
I reluctantly go along with their decision. I think they have been 
deceived by malicious opponents, but people have a right to be deceived.

You might argue that 0.1% of scientists and the voting public support 
cold fusion research, so it would be fair to allocate 0.1% of the 
energy research budget for this purpose. But, by the same standard, I 
suppose 1% of the public believes in perpetual motion machines such 
as the one Joe Newman claims he has. I would not want to see the 
government spend research money on that sort of thing. Some polls 
indicate that half of the public believes in creationism instead of 
evolution, but I would not want to see government money spent on 
creationism. (I suspect these polls exaggerate the support for creationism.)

Public funding for cold fusion is a complicated issue, but as I said 
in the introduction to the book, in the end it is up to the public. 
Private funding by individuals, universities or corporations is a 
simple issue. They should fund this research as much as they want to!

- Jed

[Vo]:Li cell question

[thomas malloy]

Vortexians;

I was in stupid mode when I failed to realize that 3 Li -> would produce 
1 O18. I'm wondering if this is the reaction Jones was talking about? If 
this is the case, what kind of energy relase are we talking about? I 
assume that O18 a rare isotope, so an isotopic analysis of gas coming 
off of a Li ion battery would reflect this production?



--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---

Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:


In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community,
not in the national political leadership.


I suspect this is not entirely true.  Some of the failure may be due 
to lobbyists and political dogma.


True. There is plenty of blame to go around. I should have said "the 
failure is mainly in the scientific community . . ."



My solution to this old problem was to get it permanently as far out 
of the hands of politics as possible:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf


Honestly, I disagree with this policy. I do not think that any part 
of government can or should be removed from the hand of politics.


We may find the political process distasteful, but politics are an 
inescapable part of human nature. All institutions and all groups of 
people and other primates are political. A standalone, separate 
"Renewable Energy Agency" would be as political as the Democratic 
National Committee, the IBM Board of Directors or Huizenga's ERAB committee.


Furthermore, the U.S. is a democracy, however flawed, and ultimately 
the voters are responsible for all policy and all political outcomes. 
Yes, of course special interests run deceptive advertising. The 
ethanol policy, for example, is an ecological and economic disaster 
foisted upon us by greedy industry flacks and ignorant politicians. 
But the voters fell for it, so it is their fault. I have seen many 
articles about the problems with ethanol in newspapers and magazines. 
The information is out there, and voters have the responsibility to 
keep themselves informed about such important issues. If enough 
people write to their representatives demanding an end to the ethanol 
program, they will end it. If we demand they raise CAFE standards and 
promote the use of hybrids, they will do that, too. And if enough 
people demand cold fusion research I am certain it will be funded.


Some people feel I am an idealist because I express such faith in 
ordinary folks and democracy. This is a misunderstanding. I have no 
more "faith" than any other cynical newspaper reader does. What I 
have is good evidence that ordinary people and social institutions 
USUALLY work. This evidence is grounded in Darwinian evolution and 
history. As I said in the book (chapter 19):



"Our ancestors often choose wisely and accomplished many wonderful 
things, after all. They improved life for everyone, and abolished 
inhuman institutions such as slavery and child labor in the U.S. . . 
. I believe the majority of people favor scientific research and the 
responsible use of new technology. Most people will do the right 
thing, once the issues are clearly explained by the media and by 
moderate political leaders.


Most people are sensible and right-minded. Our species would not have 
survived otherwise. Democracy and the free market system would never 
have worked. . . ."



I know as well as anyone that social institutions sometimes fail 
drastically. Groups of people sometimes destroy their environment and 
go extinct. See Jared Diamond's book "Collapse." Entire nations go 
insane and cause appalling harm, the way Germany and Japan did in the 
1930s and '40s, and the U.S. Confederacy did in the Civil War.


I have no doubt that we can fix the energy crisis. The technical 
means are at hand, with or without cold fusion. Our society has fixed 
equally difficult problems in the past. Human nature has not changed; 
Americans are as smart and capable as they ever were; our political 
institutions have not changed much, and they are no more corrupt or 
run by special interests than they ever were. So there is no reason 
to think we cannot solve this problem. But failure is always an 
option. I am certain that we are capable of making terrible mistakes 
and destroying the continent.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comments on LENR/CANR, Hora and Miley

[Jones Beene]

- Original Message 
From: Horace Heffner 

"The Hora and Miley article prompts suggestion of a CANR experiment.   
That is to codeposit uranium with Pd by using a mixed palladium  
chloride and uranium chloride electrolyte."  


When the full story is revealed - or even before - if the cynic/historian were 
to attempt to explain the years of "official neglect" from the DoE, DARPA and 
other funders in the USA towards LENR since 1989, the most likely hypothesis, 
IMHO, which fits the facts begins along the lines you suggest...

... that this technique was already known in the eighties ... which is to say 
that a range of experiments with deuterium-loaded Uranium- had already been 
done (secretly) and that positive results were such that authorities did not 
want to allow continued civilian work with any kind on D-loaded metal.

This kind of control would have been impossible to implement, since the LENR 
experiments are not that complicated. Rather than intervene "officially" which 
would have indicated some kind of endorsement to countries with nuclear 
aspirations -- like Iran, N. Korea, and the like, they may have decided at some 
level to resort to the policy of having surrogates (in places like MIT) issue 
altered reports which indicated nothing unusual was going on. 

This hypothesis is probably giving the authorities more credit than they 
deserve - as they have never tried to act in so subtle of an approach before... 
not to mention the SPAWARS data - which was published without any intervention 
AFAIK ... which fact argues against an 'official neglect' policy unless the 
Navy was not in on the original discovery. Hey that is not impossible, given 
history.

Side Note: The Navy vis-a-vis the rest of governement wrt nuclear energy. 
Before 1944, President Roosevelt had instructed that the atomic bomb effort be 
an *Army Only* program and that the Navy be excluded from all deliberations.  
Totally excluded. Navy research on atomic power, however, was already being 
conducted primarily for the possibility of submarine use, and was more advanced 
in 1944 than realized. Oppenheimer informed Groves that the thermal diffusion 
experiments of Philip Abelson at the Philadelphia Naval Yard deserved a closer 
look.  He was overruled. In hindsight, that technology could have been combined 
with magnetic or RF to possibly exceed the competing techniques, but instead it 
was bypassed. The was a base level of mistrust which may have endured.

... but anyway... and if nothing else, the possibility of
U-deuteride-anomalies makes for a fine MacGuffin for the next
blockbuster spy thriller... hey the return of Simon Templar, and
another secret tucked away safely in Elisabeth Shue's ample bodice.

Horace mentioned U235 - but it seems equally possible that D-loading of 
depleted U might convert some of it into Pu over time by a yet unknown (or 
unpublished) mechanism.

Needless to say, this outcome is far scarier, from the standpoint of terrorism 
risk, than is hijacking airplanes for instance, since Pu is relatively easy to 
separate and enrich chemically.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Comments on LENR/CANR, Hora and Miley

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 29 May 2007 12:28:49 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Regarding D + Pd cold fusion cathode conditions, Hora and Miley write 
>[1]: "The screened deuterons are mutually repulsed by their Coulomb  
>field at distances less than 2 pm, but thanks to their screening are  
>moving like neutral neutrons. Any attraction by the Casimir effect  
>[29] is too small. But calculating the gravitational attraction for  
>the deuteron masses at the 2 pm distance arrives at values of about  
>ten times higher energy than the thermal motion at room temperature.  
[snip]
The gravitational energy between two deuterons at a distance of 2 pm is 2.3E-33
eV. This is about 1E31 times less than the kinetic energy at room temperature.
Methinks the authors slipped more than one decimal.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

The shrub is a plant.

Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

[Horace Heffner]

On May 29, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community,  
not in the national political leadership.



I suspect this is not entirely true.  Some of the failure may be due  
to lobbyists and political dogma.  I doubt a reasonable energy policy  
is possible soon.  My solution to this old problem was to get it  
permanently as far out of the hands of politics as possible:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf

If it had been implemented, even on the small basis suggested, it  
would have been cooking along these days in high gear, due to the  
present high price of oil.


Regards,

Horace Heffner

[Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is part of a message I just sent to some friends.

. . . This may sound strange coming from me, but I think it is 
unreasonable for us to expect a congressman or government official to 
support cold fusion research. In fact, I think it would be 
irresponsible for a government official to lend support to it. As 
long as nearly all mainstream scientists vociferously oppose cold 
fusion, and as long as they consider it no better than creationism, I 
do not think Congress should overrule them. After all, if cold fusion 
really did resemble creationism or faith healing, we would not want a 
Congressman to step in and promote it over the objections of experts.


In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community, not 
in the national political leadership.


People such as Huizenga, Park and the editor of the Scientific 
American have acted unethically and unprofessionally. They should be 
held responsible. The people at the DoE who reneged on their promise 
should be held responsible. (See 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf) They -- not 
elected officials -- are to blame.


Conversely, I think the public should bring pressure on the Congress 
and on places like the APS to fund cold fusion. The public should 
tell Robert Park to shut up. This is a subtle distinction: Congress 
is not to blame, but if the people tell them to fix the problem, they 
should turn around and order the DoE to fund cold fusion. The fire 
department is not to blame when a fire breaks out, but after you call 
911 and tell them about it, they should come and put it out.


Think about a systematic failure in some other institution. For 
example, it is likely that fast food restaurants are contributing to 
obesity. That is a problem with the food industry, not with the 
Congress, although it is caused in part by agricultural subsidies. 
Perhaps Congress should do something about this, but only if the 
public demands action. Suppose the public is satisfied with the 
quality of fast food. Or suppose it feels that fast food restaurants 
have the right to serve anything they want despite the effects on 
public health. Or that obesity is a personal problem rather than a 
public-health issue. These arguments have merit, and if that is the 
public perception, we should honor it and do nothing about fast-food 
obesity. Political leaders and nutrition researchers should present 
their best case, but in the end, the voters decide the agenda.


If U.S. voters agree that cold fusion should not be publicly funded, 
I reluctantly go along with their decision. I think they have been 
deceived by malicious opponents, but people have a right to be deceived.


You might argue that 0.1% of scientists and the voting public support 
cold fusion research, so it would be fair to allocate 0.1% of the 
energy research budget for this purpose. But, by the same standard, I 
suppose 1% of the public believes in perpetual motion machines such 
as the one Joe Newman claims he has. I would not want to see the 
government spend research money on that sort of thing. Some polls 
indicate that half of the public believes in creationism instead of 
evolution, but I would not want to see government money spent on 
creationism. (I suspect these polls exaggerate the support for creationism.)


Public funding for cold fusion is a complicated issue, but as I said 
in the introduction to the book, in the end it is up to the public. 
Private funding by individuals, universities or corporations is a 
simple issue. They should fund this research as much as they want to!


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

There's a famous psychological case we read about in college:

In an office cube floor,  the temperature could never be set to please all.
Mgmt. Added thermostats at each cube, and morale improved. The thermostats
weren't connected.



-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC


Jed sez:

...

> Perhaps they could put a link on the page: "Click  to
> administer a painful shock to the USPS webmaster." Chances are it
> wouldn't work, given their inability to implement web page features,
> but it might give the reader a moment of psychological satisfaction.
>
> - Jed
>

I believe the late Kurt Vonnegut Jr. dealt with a variation of this in
his issue in his classic novel "The Sirens of Titan." There is a
chapter where the design of a rocket ship was being hammered out by a
group of engineers. The space ship's sole purpose was to transport a
colony of humans on a one-way ticket to a planetary destination. It
was designed as a fully automated vessel where all the "pilot" had to
do was, once everyone was on board and accounted for, push the green
"start" button. This ship's automated controls would take care of
everything else. However, the psychologists involved in the design
project suggested they should also add a red "stop" button alongside
the green start button. They believed this would lend an added sense
of control and security to the pilot and passengers board. The
engineers couldn't come up with a serious objection, and thus, the red
button was incorporated into the control panel. The red button was, of
course, not connected to anything.

I miss ol'Vonnie.

--
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

[Vo]:Comments on LENR/CANR, Hora and Miley

[Horace Heffner]

Regarding D + Pd cold fusion cathode conditions, Hora and Miley write 
[1]: "The screened deuterons are mutually repulsed by their Coulomb  
field at distances less than 2 pm, but thanks to their screening are  
moving like neutral neutrons. Any attraction by the Casimir effect  
[29] is too small. But calculating the gravitational attraction for  
the deuteron masses at the 2 pm distance arrives at values of about  
ten times higher energy than the thermal motion at room temperature.  
This is the reason that the very high deuteron concentration within  
the palladium will produce clusters. Clusters of 100 deuterons have  
then the size of about 10 pm and move within the electron clouds of  
the palladium around the palladium nuclei such that the few pm  
nuclear reactions between a cluster and a palladium nucleus within  
the time probabilities of up to megaseconds may take place."


At nuclear distances, especially in deuterium, magnetism plays a  
significant role in the binding energy.  Similarly, at nuclear  
distances, gravimagnetism[2] plays a significant role.


The Hora and Miley article prompts suggestion of a CANR experiment.   
That is to codeposit uranium with Pd by using a mixed palladium  
chloride and uranium chloride electrolyte.  It seems most useful to  
find out if (1) detectable fission reactions occurred in response to  
electrolysis current, time, etc., or (2) 235U is diminished in  
quantity, or (more readily tested) daughter products produced,  
through time without associated fission reactions.  In the case of  
(1) a most useful tool is then available to reliably demonstrate  
CANR, and to use trace uranium to dynamically measure the cathode  
state with regard to LENR conditions and move toward an LENR model  
creation and validation.  In the case of (2) a remediation method is  
in the offering, as well as a further understanding of CANR.


Due to its ability to tap zero point energy [3], and its large cross  
section, boron may similarly provide a useful element for deuterium  
related LENR/CANR experiments.



[1] H. Hora and G. H. Miley, "Maruhn-Greiner-Maximum of Uranium  
Fission for Confirmation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR via a  
Compound Nucleus with Double Magic Numbers ",Drafted paper for the  
2007 APS Meeting, 5-9 March 2007, Denver CO. paper B31-3 (&  
B31-1). 27JAN07,
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/ 
MileyLENRMaruhnPrepr.pdf


[2] http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf

[3] http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf

Regards,

Horace Heffner

Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[OrionWorks]

Jed sez:

...


Perhaps they could put a link on the page: "Click  to
administer a painful shock to the USPS webmaster." Chances are it
wouldn't work, given their inability to implement web page features,
but it might give the reader a moment of psychological satisfaction.

- Jed



I believe the late Kurt Vonnegut Jr. dealt with a variation of this in
his issue in his classic novel "The Sirens of Titan." There is a
chapter where the design of a rocket ship was being hammered out by a
group of engineers. The space ship's sole purpose was to transport a
colony of humans on a one-way ticket to a planetary destination. It
was designed as a fully automated vessel where all the "pilot" had to
do was, once everyone was on board and accounted for, push the green
"start" button. This ship's automated controls would take care of
everything else. However, the psychologists involved in the design
project suggested they should also add a red "stop" button alongside
the green start button. They believed this would lend an added sense
of control and security to the pilot and passengers board. The
engineers couldn't come up with a serious objection, and thus, the red
button was incorporated into the control panel. The red button was, of
course, not connected to anything.

I miss ol'Vonnie.

--
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

Many of the key experiments in high-energy physics are so difficult 
to reproduce, nobody even tries. After one successful experiment 
they declare victory. Examples include the top quark, the PPPL 
tokamak, and of course, fission and fusion bombs.


The North Koreans recently demonstrated how difficult it is to 
replicate a nuclear bomb. Their test failed either partly or fully, 
despite the fact that they spent lavishly, this was 60 years after 
the first bomb, and hundreds of nuclear bomb tests have been 
performed in other countries. The North Korean scientists must be 
highly motivated to succeed -- or to avoid failure. I assume they 
were sent to concentration camps or summarily shot. Along the same 
lines, the Chinese government today sentenced the former head of the 
food and drug safety administration to death for corruption and 
incompetence. That's one way to deal with an incompetent official! I 
do not endorse it, but I suppose it may be more effective than giving 
the guy a Gold Medal and putting him in charge of the World Bank.


Someone here remarked that the US Postal Service is not renowned for 
efficiency or competence. They recently raised their rates. Since I 
often mail things to Japan, I went to their website, 
http://postcalc.usps.gov/ to download the latest rates. The 
"International Rate Charts (HTML)" link gives you:


"The page cannot be found."

The "International Rate Charts (PDF)" link leads to a long convoluted 
document explaining the rules for mailing human ashes and firearms to 
Japan, without -- so far as I can find -- a single mention of how 
much it costs to mail something to Japan. In other words, the 
International Rate Charts do not include any rates. A small matter, 
you might say, and I would not want to see the person in charge 
condemned to death, but if the option were available I might be 
tempted to administer a painful shock . . .


Perhaps they could put a link on the page: "Click  to 
administer a painful shock to the USPS webmaster." Chances are it 
wouldn't work, given their inability to implement web page features, 
but it might give the reader a moment of psychological satisfaction.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[Jed Rothwell]

leaking pen wrote:


That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the
scientific method.  What, precisely, is your issue with the statement?


*Making* an experiment *more* reproducible is one important aspect of 
the scientific method, but it not the be-all, end-all goal. Many 
important experiments are difficult to reproduce but everyone accepts 
they are real. Electrochemistry, catalysis and surface effects are 
notoriously difficult. Well into the 1950s, the failure rate for some 
transistor types in actual production (not in the laboratory) was 
still 50% to 90%. The reproducibility of biological experiments is 
often very low, as Beaudette pointed out in his discussion of cloning.


Many of the key experiments in high-energy physics are so difficult 
to reproduce, nobody even tries. After one successful experiment they 
declare victory. Examples include the top quark, the PPPL tokamak, 
and of course, fission and fusion bombs.


As often noted, one-off events not under human control such as 
supernovas are fully part of science, even though they are utterly 
irreproducible. Global-scale catastrophes such as global warming are 
certainly part of science, even though we hope to avoid actually 
doing the full-scale real-world global warming.


Many scientists have made a reputation because they were able to 
reproduce finicky, or extraordinarily difficult experiments. It is 
odd that some of these same researchers -- especially in plasma 
fusion -- say that cold fusion should not be believed because it is 
so difficult to reproduce. They would be incensed if someone said: "I 
will not believe the PPPL tokamak is real until you can teach a high 
school kid to make one."



As has been stated before, that is the difference between scientist 
and inventor.  For an inventor, getting it to work now and again is 
enough.  for a scientist, it must be reproducible under the same conditions.


"Must be" in what sense, for what purpose? Textbooks and journals are 
full of experiments that are problematic and difficult to reproduce. 
If an experiment "must be" reproducible before it is accepted or 
published, then no experiment would ever progress from partially 
reproducible to fully reproducible. No theorist would begin work on 
the theory that is needed to make the effect more reproducible. And, 
needless to say, cold fusion will never become a practical source of energy.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[Edmund Storms]

Considerable confusion seems to exist around the concept of 
reproducibility. A phenomenon must be easily reproduced in order to be 
studied by science in general. Difficult to reproduce phenomenon are 
frequently studied by "experts" in an effort to discover the variables 
preventing easy reproducibility. Easy reproducibility is not required to 
believe a phenomenon is real. Acceptance is a psychological event that 
is characteristic of the individual. Some people require some phenomenon 
to be shown to work in an applied device before they will accept their 
existence, while other people will accept what they see happen once. In 
general, most scientists base their belief on who does the experiment, 
how well described the results are, and where it is published. The 
phenomenon does not have to be easily reproduced by anyone who tries to 
make it work. This criteria is only reserved for cold fusion and similar 
phenomenon.


Ed

leaking pen wrote:


That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the
scientific method.  What, precisely, is your issue with the statement?

As has been stated before, that is the difference between scientist
and inventor.  For an inventor, getting it to work now and again is
enough.  for a scientist, it must be reproducible under the same
conditions.

On 5/29/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I have never seen such a dense collection of nonsense about cold
fusion or science in general:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a1045883

See, for example:

"Does a phenomenon have to be totally or partially reproducible to be
real? As far as science is concerned, the answer is 'totally'.
Reproducible phenomena imply reproducible and well-understood
conditions, which then gives the theorists something to get their 
teeth into."


What an incredible thing to say!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[Jed Rothwell]

That's an old article, by the way. There is no point to responding. I 
found it noteworthy because it is such a high-purity distillation of 
nonsense. A sort of all-in-one expression of pathological skepticism.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[leaking pen]

That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the
scientific method.  What, precisely, is your issue with the statement?

As has been stated before, that is the difference between scientist
and inventor.  For an inventor, getting it to work now and again is
enough.  for a scientist, it must be reproducible under the same
conditions.

On 5/29/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I have never seen such a dense collection of nonsense about cold
fusion or science in general:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a1045883

See, for example:

"Does a phenomenon have to be totally or partially reproducible to be
real? As far as science is concerned, the answer is 'totally'.
Reproducible phenomena imply reproducible and well-understood
conditions, which then gives the theorists something to get their teeth into."

What an incredible thing to say!

- Jed





--
That which yields isn't always weak.

[Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC

[Jed Rothwell]

I have never seen such a dense collection of nonsense about cold 
fusion or science in general:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a1045883

See, for example:

"Does a phenomenon have to be totally or partially reproducible to be 
real? As far as science is concerned, the answer is 'totally'. 
Reproducible phenomena imply reproducible and well-understood 
conditions, which then gives the theorists something to get their teeth into."


What an incredible thing to say!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Exciting predictions from 1958

[thomas malloy]

Horace Heffner wrote:


On May 27, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:



Yep.  Looks like there is still 5 years to go:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/dnl-rpb042507.php




On May 27, 2007, at 10:51 PM, thomas malloy wrote:



I thought is was 50 years My nephew, the power company executive  
thinks that hot fusion research is great, but they're not spending  
his money!




Read the above reference I provided to support the statement.  I  
wasn't talking about ITER.  It's 5-7 years to prove the


Interesting post Horace. That design might just work.



--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---