Posted on 02/07/2013 12:43:29 PM PST by Kevmo
Again, take it up with him. It’s fun to see you squirm when you’re so obviously wrong. You don’t know how to drop it. Thanks for bumping the thread. Perhaps you’d like to try to get on the ping list again, or is it going to be some other nitpicking that might save face for you?
For some strange reason or another he seems obsessed with doing so. Go figure.
Here's a link to a publication by Dr. Kim where he relates his non viable theory to con artist Rossi and his Ecat. That destroys his credibilty. No wonder a Rossi fanbois like you was able to reach him by email.
"Yes, the formation of a BEC of deuterons (or other Bose nuclei) makes my theory more viable."
Maybe it would, but sadly,that is not what this paper does. The paper does not claim room temperature BEC of deuterons; it claims a room temperature BEC of quasi-particles. Polaritons are not involved in nuclear fusion, they are not deuterons, they are not nucleons, they are not Bose nuclei. So, as I have said, this result is inapplicable.
If the BECNF theory is actually valid, this phenomenon should be seen all the more clearly at low temperature, where the formation of a deuteron BEC is not controversial; then arguments about whether deuteron BEC can be formed at ~300K don't enter the question, and arguments about whether the applicability of the formation of a polariton trap has any implications for the statistical mechanics of deuterons doesn't matter.
Unfortunately for the BECNF theory, I'm not aware of any low temperature results which show any signs of BECNF.
You can cite all of Kim's self referencing papers you like. But ask him to send me an experimental result where someone has seen an enhanced cross section at low temperature. Until then...
Similarly, BECNF predicts that high-pressure should increase the cross section. Again, unfortunately, there is no experimental evidence of this (and indeed there are negative experimental results, which are even cited in the Kim paper.)
The fundamental problem with BECNF (apart from the fact that at temperatures where we expect to see significant numbers of deuterons condensing, we have no experimental evidence of increased fusion reaction cross section) is that hidden in its bowels it still depends on the optical theorem formulation of LENR. This is a hand-waving argument in which the Coulomb potential more or less magically disappears. Conveniently so, since electromagnetic repulsion is the principle reason nobody believes LENR occurs in the first place.
Send YE Kim a personal email and tell him he's just flunked my class.
That destroys his credibilty.
***Hah hah hah hah hah.... only in your twisted Alice-in-Wonderland mind.
Why don’t you call his boss at Purdue and get him removed as director , professor and Group Leader?
Professor of Physics
Group Leader, Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group
Director, Center for Sensing Science and Technology
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml
The reason why you won’t do that is because you’re completely full of baloney. You’re just trying desperately to save face, somehow, some way. If a professor was truly discredited, a buffoon like you wouldn’t hesitate to make a stink to his boss. But you won’t be doing that because you know that you’re just posturing. Geez, you’re a loon.
You do it. You should have been the one getting in touch with him in the first place. But you won’t be doing that because you’ve been proven wrong, and now your credibility is out the door. It must really suck to be you right now.
Take it up with YE Kim. Or better yet, change your login name to FredZagonner because you won’t be able to get your credibility back after getting trounced by a pedestrian. What a pasquinade.
It always gets back to Rossi the scammer when you're involved.
keep trying to save face, this is fun watching you squirm
As they say in the South, bless your heart.
As the Irish say,
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you’re dead.
"Conveniently so, since electromagnetic repulsion is the principle reason nobody believes LENR occurs in the first place."
And interesting (and contradictory) pair of comments. You want experimental data provided for one phenomenon, yet reject a second phenomenon on the basis of theoretical objections, while ignoring the experimental evidence for the latter.
I suppose the replicated studies showing the the existence of "excess heat", and the correlation of said heat with helium production is not, in your mind, evidence that LENR exists.
There is no contradiction. I know you cold fusion crackpots don't understand basic physics or even how scientific inference actually works, but please do TRY to pay attention if you're going to "critique" those of us who do.
First: There is NO EVIDENCE, none whatsoever that low energy reactions are overcoming the Coulomb Barrier between protons, allowing their nuclei to fuse via the Strong Force. NONE. There are anomalous artifacts in some experimental results, and that is ALL.
Second: In order to explain those results, SOME (very few) scientists have made the claim that the artifacts are the result of thermonuclear reactions. The objection to the CLAIM that these experimental results point to a thermonuclear reaction is that there is no theoretical basis for the experimental result.
[If you're not still with me, (and I know some of you aren't) here's an analogy: It rains. We have the experimental result that people on the ground are getting wet. As a result, the simple explanation that water vapor in the atmosphere condenses is offered. An alternative explanation preferred by a handful of crackpots is that molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen are combining in the sky under certain conditions, producing water. Since ordinary chemistry does not really allow for this explanation (the Free Energy change of the reaction under the conditions known is positive), it is now incumbent on the crackpots to provide a credible mechanism.]
Third: Enter the BECNF, which does explain some of the artifacts. Unfortunately, it introduces its own self-destroying problems, because you see, if boson condensation into the ground state is a catalytic mechanism it should produce higher cross sections under precisely those conditions where BEC condensation is ordinarily most favorable. [i.e., temperatures ~5K or less.]
Fourth: The author of the BECNF theory himself admits this, and he also admits that it doesn't happen.
So, let us now summarize why these statements are not contradictory and why you are completely full of crap. The original LENR theory does not explain how LENR overcomes the far-range electromagnetic potential, to allow the short range interaction to occur, and it also does not explain all the artifacts. Therefore, the "established experimental results" you cite are not indicative of anything, accept their own existence. They are not, in fact connected, to any known theoretical principle except wishful thinking. Something (maybe) is going on. But there is no more reason to believe it is caused by thermonuclear reaction than Maxwell's Demons, or monkeys flying out of your @ss.
The modified theory, built upon the old one, explains the artifacts, but sadly, under the typical experimental conditions which should a fortiori resoundingly vindicate the BECNF theory ... bupkis.
Congratulations: you are now left with a "new" theory, which is even worse than the old one.
As a note added in proof, Kevmo now provides an email reply from Kim which actually has nothing to do with the experiment cited. The crackpots and their wizard -- who apparently can't read -- are 0-3.
So, let us now summarize why these statements are not contradictory and why you are completely full of crap...
Kevmo now provides an email reply from Kim which actually has nothing to do with the experiment cited.
***You yourself are the one who’s completely full of crap here. YE Kim said that the experiment cited has plenty to do with his theory and in fact makes it more viable. He’s a distinguished physicist. You are someone who can’t even get past simple freshman year critical thinking fallacies, as demonstrated in this thread. Why is it you don’t take up your issue with YE Kim? Because you know you can’t take the heat with a real physicist.
In effect, I did your job for you. By claiming higher knowledge of physics, you have a responsibility to us freepers to get to the bottom of this discrepancy and contact the physicists whom you say are so wrong. But you didn’t. Yet you still display a willingness to talk to other freepers. Because you don’t have what it takes to wrestle with physicists like YE Kim. There’s no reason to listen to you, your credibility is flattened. If you had an ounce of credibility, you’d be getting in touch with YE Kim, the guys from U Michigan, KP Sinha, and others. But you won’t be doing that because you have zero capability to defend your views in physics. You are full of crap, to use your words.
PhD chemist here-forty+ years practice. I think I understand basic physics and scientific inference reasonably well. Certainly well enough to evaluate the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.
"First: There is NO EVIDENCE, none whatsoever that low energy reactions are overcoming the Coulomb Barrier between protons, allowing their nuclei to fuse via the Strong Force. NONE. There are anomalous artifacts in some experimental results, and that is ALL."
'Sfunny. When I go to the experimental literature on the subject, I find LOTS of experimental evidence on pretty much every facet of "the phenomenon". Much of that evidence directly involves my specialty....chemical measurements. Things like calorimetry, mass spectroscopy, and other routine chemical tools. As an odd occurrence, I also have a lot of expertise in nuclear measurements as well. And I find those experiments well done and convincing.
"Second: In order to explain those results, SOME (very few) scientists have made the claim that the artifacts are the result of thermonuclear reactions. The objection to the CLAIM that these experimental results point to a thermonuclear reaction is that there is no theoretical basis for the experimental result.
Which statement simply says that you, despite all your background, are simply a pseudoscientist. EXPERIMENT TRUMPS THEORY! PERIOD! Science does not NEED theory to ascertain a correct result. Well-done, replicated experiments are all that is required.
"So, let us now summarize why these statements are not contradictory and why you are completely full of crap. The original LENR theory does not explain how LENR overcomes the far-range electromagnetic potential, to allow the short range interaction to occur, and it also does not explain all the artifacts.
See above. No theory necessary. Deuterium in, heat and helium-4 out (calorimetry and mass spec. "However" it happens, that certainly "looks" a lot like fusion.
"Therefore, the "established experimental results" you cite are not indicative of anything, accept their own existence. They are not, in fact connected, to any known theoretical principle except wishful thinking.
AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE.
"Something (maybe) is going on. But there is no more reason to believe it is caused by thermonuclear reaction than Maxwell's Demons, or monkeys flying out of your @ss.
You need to go back and take some basic classes in "how science works". The order of business in REAL science is "Experimental evidence first......theory second". If experiment contradicts theory then the theory is modified or discarded, no matter how long established, how much you may be enamored of it, how pretty the math is, or how many people agree with it. And REAL physicists actually work by those rules....guys like Einstein, Feynmann, Schwinger and on and on.
What I see here is that today's practitioners of physics, including yourself, have seriously lost their way. You're so enamored of the "beauty" of your mathematical models that nowadays the cart precedes the horse. This leads to things like "global warming science", which is another bad example promulgated largely by physicists enamored of their mathematics ignoring the experimental data.
EXPERIMENT TRUMPS THEORY! PERIOD! Science does not NEED theory to ascertain a correct result.
It is fundamental to science and yet so many involved in the process have lost track of this simple thing. Rocks did fall from the sky, as observed by farmers for centuries, even though scientists said it was impossible.
Once more: IF for the purposes of advancing a hypothetical we agree there is experimental evidence of heat and helium that doesn't prove it's been created by fusion. There's heat and helium in my basement. One of them comes from a space heater. The other comes from the Radon decay chain.
IF I were in your shoes, I'd be claiming there's fusion going on in my basement, and telling everyone else that they need to provide the mechanism, because "experiment trumps everything." [As silly an absolutism as any ever written on FR.]
Unfortunately, the BECNF theory as advanced doesn't hold up in exactly the experimental region where the theory itself predicts it will be most pronounced; in fact, in that region is isn't seen at all. This isn't my claim. This is affirmed in the very paper where Kim lays out BECNF.
The proposition that ordinary low-energy reactions can produce fusion requires extraordinary proof. You don't have any that actually connects the artifacts seen in an experiment to any plausible model, so you resort to lecturing people about keeping an open mind.
Congratulations. This puts you in the same class as believers in Astrology, Psi-phenomena, and Phlogiston.
I'm glad you brought that up, because it's a great refutation of the asinine claim that "EXPERIMENT TRUMPS EVERYTHING!!!!"
Two of these statements are possibly true. One of them is possibly true but is not science. Three of them are certainly false.
In the "scientific" world of Kevmo and Wonder Warthog, all of these statements are valid ... because ... wait for it ... wait for it ... please roll drums for our two "scientists" ... THEORIES DON'T MATTER AND EXPERIMENT TRUMPS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Thanks for being my entertainment for the weekend, guys.]
Yeah, that silly absolutism that experiment trumps theory as put forth by Nobel Prize Winning Nuclear Physicist Richard Feynman is the WORST ever written in FR.
Actual quote:
In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.