|
|
|
skepticality
Skeptic Friend
USA
105 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2005 : 23:05:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Skepticality should interview this inventor. 
Dude...
Don't tempt me... |
Derek Colanduno
host - skepticality
http://www.skepticality.com/ |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 00:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by skepticality
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Skepticality should interview this inventor.
Dude...
Don't tempt me...
Phone interview. Don't actually invite the guy into the the studio. I'm sure he's...unhinged.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 03:27:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by skepticality
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Skepticality should interview this inventor.
Dude...
Don't tempt me...
Phone interview. Don't actually invite the guy into the the studio. I'm sure he's...unhinged.
I gotta sawbuck I'll bet against a bent nickle that you won't get this clown in either type of an interview. A better idea would be to invite him in here where we can all drink his blood....
But he wouldn't show for that, either, alas.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 04:41:28 [Permalink]
|
You think that guy is nutz? Check out this guy!
http://www.cheniere.org/
I don't think i'll be buying his DVD. He claims "energy from the vacuum is not the same as zero point energy.
Sheesh |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 20:31:36 [Permalink]
|
Well I don't think it is *crazy* to propose that useable energy can be extracted from the the quantum vaccuum.
Storm referenced a very good site (http://www.calphysics.org/) on another thread which has as it's primary goal,
"the formulation and execution of experiments to elucidate the properties of the quantum vacuum and to search for possible technological applications."
(Hint, that may very well include extracting energy from the vaccuum.)
Speaking of vaccuum energy, many think that it may have something to do with what is behind the various (and spotty) "cold fusion" results.
Here's extracts from a recent article at
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050712.Xu.fusion.html
describing an experiment that essentially confirms that fusion can indeed occur on a tabletop apparatus:
quote:
...A key component of the experiment was a glass test chamber about the size of two coffee mugs filled with a liquid called deuterated acetone, which contains a form of hydrogen known as deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. The researchers exposed the test chamber to subatomic particles called neutrons and then bombarded the liquid with a specific frequency of ultrasound, which caused cavities to form into tiny bubbles. The bubbles then expanded to a much larger size before imploding, apparently with enough force to cause thermonuclear fusion reactions.
Fusion reactions emit neutrons that fall within a specific energy range of 2.5 mega-electron volts, which was the level of energy seen in neutrons produced in the experiment. The experiments also yielded a radioactive material called tritium, which is another product of fusion, Xu and Butt said....
"The two key signatures for a fusion reaction are emission of neutrons in the range of 2.5 MeV and production of tritium, both of which were seen in these experiments," Xu said.
It would be ironic indeed if in a few decades some crochety old skeptics who mocked cold fusion in their youth are having their buns warmed by electicity generated by cold fusion stations. :o
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 20:55:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It would be ironic indeed if in a few decades some crochety old skeptics who mocked cold fusion
Skeptics don't mock cold fusion.... they mock the bad science that permeated the claims of cold fusion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 21:28:18 [Permalink]
|
Bring it on.
I'd rather be warm than right, anytime.
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 06:15:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
...A key component of the experiment was a glass test chamber about the size of two coffee mugs filled with a liquid called deuterated acetone, which contains a form of hydrogen known as deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. The researchers exposed the test chamber to subatomic particles called neutrons and then bombarded the liquid with a specific frequency of ultrasound, which caused cavities to form into tiny bubbles. The bubbles then expanded to a much larger size before imploding, apparently with enough force to cause thermonuclear fusion reactions.
Fusion reactions emit neutrons that fall within a specific energy range of 2.5 mega-electron volts, which was the level of energy seen in neutrons produced in the experiment. The experiments also yielded a radioactive material called tritium, which is another product of fusion, Xu and Butt said....
"The two key signatures for a fusion reaction are emission of neutrons in the range of 2.5 MeV and production of tritium, both of which were seen in these experiments," Xu said.
It would be ironic indeed if in a few decades some crochety old skeptics who mocked cold fusion in their youth are having their buns warmed by electicity generated by cold fusion stations. :o
Mark
To start with, bombarding a matter with neutrons, there will be cases where neutrons fuse with other nucleus. When a neutron fuses with deuterium, tritium is formed. Tritium does not necessarily have to come from fusion.
About "emission of neutrons in the range of 2.5 MeV" I have no comment at this time, other than I always though that when fusion occurs, photons and neutrinos were emitted, not neutrons.
I bet one of our nuclear-power-working members can shed more light on this.
[snipped long rant about bubbles and vacuum]
For a hydrogen nucleus to fuse with another, it must first be stripped of its electron. In that state it is plasma, and cannot be bound to an acetone molecule. So why use acetone in the first place? Why not heavy water, that will have a much higher yield of hydrogen (greater chance of getting a reaction)?
Acetone however do have a lower boiling-point (50-60 degrees Celsius) which makes it bubble easily when heated, which is cool-looking and impressing to laymen when doing woo-woo experiments. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 20:13:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well I don't think it is *crazy* to propose that useable energy can be extracted from the the quantum vaccuum.
Storm referenced a very good site (http://www.calphysics.org/) on another thread which has as it's primary goal,
"the formulation and execution of experiments to elucidate the properties of the quantum vacuum and to search for possible technological applications."
(Hint, that may very well include extracting energy from the vaccuum.)
Bigger hint: the articles they list don't seem to indicate any such thing. Searching for applications isn't the same thing as dreaming one up and attempting to force-fit physics to your dream, as every one of the zero-point-energy kooks out there has done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 20:38:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Bigger hint: the articles they list don't seem to indicate any such thing. Searching for applications isn't the same thing as dreaming one up and attempting to force-fit physics to your dream, as every one of the zero-point-energy kooks out there has done.
Well, here are a few quotes form the site:
quote:
The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.
quote:
If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel.
quote:
A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless.
So are guys like Bernard Haisch borderline 'kooks'? I tip my hat to guys like this who try and push the envelope.
It's clear to me that what is observed with UFOs, namely apparent freedom from gravitational and interial considerations, is entirely consistent with what Haisch and company are getting at. It is also consistent with the proposal that UFOs extract energy from space for interstellar travel.
quote:
Originally posted by dude
Skeptics don't mock cold fusion.... they mock the bad science that permeated the claims of cold fusion.
If by bad science you mean the lack of consistent repeatability, I think a reevaluation is in order. Generally, scientists are simply reporting what they have observed, and if their results are not repeatable, who is to say it doesnt' have to do with some non-evident experimental conditions which unknowingly are not transferred to the new experiment? There are *alot* of unknowns in highly experimental work. Repeatability should be more a benchmark requirement for experiments having to do with phenomena which are already presumed to be well understood, unlike cold fusion.
Who might not like the idea of cold fusion? I have some guesses as to where the original, strongest dissenting voices regarding cold fusion came from. Sometimes the loudest voices of orthodoxy are heard over the whispers of emerging truth. Most skeptics I imagine prefer the loud and clear sounds.
Mark
|
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 22:27:13 [Permalink]
|
I don't care about loud or quiet, just as long as the claim is described accurately, and the way the results were obtained is described accurately. When someone with an extraordinary claim can't or won't describe accurately how they got it, or they do but no one can repeat their claims, and the original claimants keep pointing out how someone didn't cock their head just so when they did the experiment, or didn't look in the 12th sigma hard enough for results, or whatever, that's not science - that's wishful thinking and self-delusion. At best.
The capper is when the kvetching about "powerful forces" and "orthodoxies" bent on suppressing this bold new science starts. Cold fusion, hafnium isomer power generation... we keep hearing how the breakthrough is just around the corner. The faithful will keep following with bated breath, but sometimes there's just nothing there. |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 22:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Not long after CF started to lose momentum, some Japanese scientists reported how they obtained a reduction of mass with some spinning-apparatus thing. They did good science: they published their results and exactly how they were obtained. Others were able to figure out their mistake, which they acknowledged.
A pity. At the time, I was hoping for cold-fusion-powered, room-temperature-superconductor-wired, anti-gravity machines. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 03:22:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If by bad science you mean the lack of consistent repeatability, I think a reevaluation is in order. Generally, scientists are simply reporting what they have observed, and if their results are not repeatable, who is to say it doesnt' have to do with some non-evident experimental conditions which unknowingly are not transferred to the new experiment?
You know the saying... Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Cold Fusion is an extraordinary claim. Consistent repeatability is a major part of that evidence. Scientists are human, and humans have flaws (greed and a need to make a name for themselves among many things). To take a ground-beaking discovery at face value from a scientist without double checking his work is unwise.
quote:
Who might not like the idea of cold fusion? I have some guesses as to where the original, strongest dissenting voices regarding cold fusion came from. Sometimes the loudest voices of orthodoxy are heard over the whispers of emerging truth. Most skeptics I imagine prefer the loud and clear sounds.
Who wouldn't like to have access to cold fusion?
My understanding is that we don't know any shortcuts. Massive energy is needed to fuse two atomic nucleus, and playing with acetone bubbles won't solve a thing. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 05:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Generally, scientists are simply reporting what they have observed, and if their results are not repeatable, who is to say it doesnt' have to do with some non-evident experimental conditions which unknowingly are not transferred to the new experiment?
Like i said, bad science. If you can't explain to another how to duplicate your results, then you are conducting bad science.
quote:
There are *alot* of unknowns in highly experimental work. Repeatability should be more a benchmark requirement for experiments having to do with phenomena which are already presumed to be well understood, unlike cold fusion.
Nope. Repeatability is what you need to prove your work. If it isn't repeatable, then you didn't do what you think you did, and any claims based on such will be (rightly so) rejected.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
