Re: [Vo]:Basil Hiley Comments on Theoreticians and Experimental Science

[Peter Gluck]

The lack of realism, combined with ignorance of the theoretical physicists
was only one subfield of the war lost by cold fusion. A more holistic view
of the situationi
is necessary I daretothink.
Nobody was able to explain CF- it seemed unknown nuclear multi-mystery
phenomena with a weak correlation between nuclearity and the essential heat
release take place. However, as the experimental results have multiplied
and diversified- the seemingly inborn weakness of bad reproducibility has
fatally eroded the reputation of cold fusion.
The usual culprits- il-willed, sadistic, stupid, stubborn skeptics- enjoy
the help of the inner. inherent flaws of cold fusion.
All these facts can be simply understood if we admit that cold fusion was
discovered before its time- when it could not been explained or
demonstrated experimentally.
It iis very sad that these problems stay still unsolved
despite heroic efforts; and this shows the efforts are not going in the
proper direction. The scientific method
ALONE cannot solve the CF's existential problems.

Peter


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Foks0904 .  wrote:

> I thought this was an interesting viewpoint expressed by B.J. Hiley, David
> Bohms longtime collaborator, on the nature of theoreticians and their
> relationship to experimental science. As he puts it:
>
> *I didn’t mind doing it because I think it’s very important if you’re
> doing theoretical physics to get a feel of what it’s like in a laboratory,
> making things work. I’ve heard some theoreticians talking and it’s quite
> clear they don’t even know what a laboratory is. They’ve never been in a
> laboratory and they’ve never tried to get even simple bits of apparatus
> working. They just have ideas of what the measurement is—and it’s nothing
> like that. It’s much too idealized.*
>
> I feel this captures perfectly the character of the controversies
> surrounding Pons and Fleischman in 1989. Most of the critics of their work
> were theoreticians who, beyond knowing what constituted good neutron
> detection, didn't know a thing about what constituted good lab work in
> chemistry generally and calorimetry specifically. As a result the majority
> of people threw the baby (excess heat) out with the bathwater (nuclear
> products). They were silly enough to proclaim that P and F were "working
> outside their area of expertise" when in fact its likely not a single
> critic from the physics community would have even know how to set up an
> electrolytic cell, let alone how to upkeep and monitor one over an extended
> test period.
>
> The rest of the article can be found here for those that are interested:
>
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Gravity Rotation Energy Prototyp (GREP)

[Brad Lowe]

Since it is slow on the LENR front, I thought I'd share a video of a
perpetual motion machine prototype:

Gravity Rotation Energy Prototyp (GREP) from YouTube.

http://youtu.be/TzsqU8YG_iY

German translation (via google):
patented combination of gravity and rotation energy conversion and
storage of mass acceleration without the use of magnets.
The mechanical prototype shown here produces the following measurable
performance values:
Power output: 125 watts
Power consumption: 100 watts
surplus generated: 25 Watt



Speaking of crazy Perpetual Motion Machines... Anyone have an update
on Rar Energia?
http://rarenergia.com.br/
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:RAR_Energia_Ltda_Gravity_Motor
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/75/#.UpS-QY1NQUE=
http://theeestory.ning.com/forum/topics/perpetual-motion-for-lensman
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/09/brazilian-company-building-claimed-gravity-engine/
https://maps.google.com/?q=40.762640,-88.012383&hl=en&gl=us

Someone around Gilman, IL care to take a look?

- Brad

[Vo]:Basil Hiley Comments on Theoreticians and Experimental Science

[Foks0904 .]

I thought this was an interesting viewpoint expressed by B.J. Hiley, David
Bohms longtime collaborator, on the nature of theoreticians and their
relationship to experimental science. As he puts it:

*I didn’t mind doing it because I think it’s very important if you’re doing
theoretical physics to get a feel of what it’s like in a laboratory, making
things work. I’ve heard some theoreticians talking and it’s quite clear
they don’t even know what a laboratory is. They’ve never been in a
laboratory and they’ve never tried to get even simple bits of apparatus
working. They just have ideas of what the measurement is—and it’s nothing
like that. It’s much too idealized.*

I feel this captures perfectly the character of the controversies
surrounding Pons and Fleischman in 1989. Most of the critics of their work
were theoreticians who, beyond knowing what constituted good neutron
detection, didn't know a thing about what constituted good lab work in
chemistry generally and calorimetry specifically. As a result the majority
of people threw the baby (excess heat) out with the bathwater (nuclear
products). They were silly enough to proclaim that P and F were "working
outside their area of expertise" when in fact its likely not a single
critic from the physics community would have even know how to set up an
electrolytic cell, let alone how to upkeep and monitor one over an extended
test period.

The rest of the article can be found here for those that are interested:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process

[Jed Rothwell]

David L Babcock  wrote:

 The bad news negates itself:
>
> Considering C of E, a miss-aimed craft could not apply more energy to a
> planet than was originally applied to the craft to bring it up to speed. A
> continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting supply
> of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft.
>

I don't think this adds up.

First, the fuel would be used slowly, over many hours or days as the ship
speeds up. Or if it were incoming from another star, the fuel might have
been used up over years. Suppose, for example, something goes wrong and it
never reverses thrust to slow down. It comes in out of control after
accelerating for 5 years in a 10-year trip. Wham!

Second, you might actually use up a continent-melting supply of fuel, if it
was external to the ship. This statement does not follow:


> Another consideration:  The craft has to carry with it a similar amount of
> energy, stored, to use for deceleration. And twice that again, to come home.
>

The fuel might be expended at a fixed orbiting base that accelerates the
ship with something like a laser beam.

Or, as mentioned, the fuel might be scooped out of interstellar space. The
hydrogen in the flight path might be deployed in space before the flight,
by robots that keep the space lanes filled with gigantic quantities of
hydrogen from surrounding star systems.

You might find a way to tap a significant fraction of the sun's output to
power a ship without vaporizing the ship. I cannot imagine how, but there
might be a way. This is enough solar energy to easily accelerate a
million-ton ship to 0.9 c. It might power the ship for 0.5 light years out,
with another gigantic machine at the destination star to slow it down. The
point is, the ship would not have to carry the fuel or the reactors.

You might need a gigantic mass of fuel, or building material, for some of
these schemes. More than you can conveniently mine from planets and
asteroids. In the far distant future suppose people figure out a way to
convert the energy from the sun back into mass. The sun loses 4.7 million
tons of matter per second in mass-energy conversion. If you could intercept
a small part of that and convert it to mass, you would soon have plenty of
free hydrogen to deploy in the space lanes, or enough to build a gigantic
shell to intercept and concentrate solar energy, and other construction
projects as large as the solar system.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM, David L Babcock  wrote:

 A continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting
> supply of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft.
>

You make an excellent point.  But we should not become too complacent in
feeling safe that no mis-aimed spaceship will obliterate us.  If they have
a (hypothetical) cold-fusion-powered thruster, the amount of energy they
can draw upon is quite high, provided they have enough fuel (whatever that
is).  Assuming they don't use a trick with a wormhole or something similar,
would the main gating factor not be the maximum thrust/power and the
distance from us at which they set out?  Also, they could use Dave's
slingshot trick to get quite a boost, perhaps even a continent obliterating
one.  Drivers licenses will be especially important for interstellar travel.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process

[Axil Axil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

The *Bussard ramjet* is a theoretical method of spacecraft
propulsionproposed
in 1960 by the physicist Robert
W. Bussard ,
popularized by Poul
Anderson 's novel *Tau Zero
*, Larry
Nivenin his Known
Space  series of books, Vernor
Vinge  in his Zones of
Thoughtseries, and
referred to by Carl
Sagan  in the
televisionseries and
book  *Cosmos
*.
Bussard proposed a ramjet  variant of
a fusion rocket  capable of
reasonable interstellar spaceflight, using enormous electromagnetic fields
(ranging from kilometers to many thousands of kilometers in diameter) as a
ram scoop to collect and compress
hydrogenfrom the interstellar
medium . High speeds
force the reactive mass into a progressively constricted magnetic field,
compressing it until thermonuclear fusion occurs. The magnetic field then
directs the energy as rocket  exhaust
opposite to the intended direction of travel, thereby accelerating the
vessel.

When this hydrogen collection strategy is integrated with cold fusion,
there is no limitation on the amount of energy that that be applied to a
Ram Jet propulsion ship.

The conceptual implications of magnetically induced cold fusion is
currently beyond the imaginations of most people at this early juncture.


On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:20 PM, David L Babcock  wrote:

>  The bad news negates itself:
>
> Considering C of E, a miss-aimed craft could not apply more energy to a
> planet than was originally applied to the craft to bring it up to speed. A
> continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting supply
> of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft.
>
> Another consideration:  The craft has to carry with it a similar amount of
> energy, stored, to use for deceleration. And twice that again, to come home.
>
> If you account for different depths of gravity wells, it comes out
> different, but not much.  We were talking about speeds up towards light, no?
>
> So conservation of energy, having obliterated CF (a little gratuitous
> snark), now moves on to ruin our dreams of visiting other stars.
>
> Dave B.
>
>
> On 1/10/2014 5:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> That is amazing!   -snip-
>
> I have never considered how much damage a space craft traveling near light
> speed would inflict, but apparently it would be bad news.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process

[David L Babcock]

The bad news negates itself:

Considering C of E, a miss-aimed craft could not apply more energy to a 
planet than was originally applied to the craft to bring it up to speed. 
A continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting 
supply of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft.


Another consideration:  The craft has to carry with it a similar amount 
of energy, stored, to use for deceleration. And twice that again, to 
come home.


If you account for different depths of gravity wells, it comes out 
different, but not much.  We were talking about speeds up towards light, no?


So conservation of energy, having obliterated CF (a little gratuitous 
snark), now moves on to ruin our dreams of visiting other stars.


Dave B.


On 1/10/2014 5:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:

That is amazing!   -snip-
I have never considered how much damage a space craft traveling near 
light speed would inflict, but apparently it would be bad news.


Dave

[Vo]:Hot new releases

[Frank Znidarsic]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/top-rated/digital-text/158107011/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_tr#5

It's like pushing a rope but I am making progress

[Vo]:Another Bettery

[Ron Wormus]