*Shakes head so hard slobber flies from his chops*
Huh-WHAT?!? LOL
Posted on 09/12/2006 1:05:40 PM PDT by saganite
It is my opinion that this is STILL a worthwhile avenue to pursue...
How about sonoluminescence being a sort of Cherenkov radiation produced by in-spinning bubble components ridding themselves of excess energy to stay under local c as they conserve angular momentum?
*Shakes head so hard slobber flies from his chops*
Huh-WHAT?!? LOL
Unfortunately, the nonsense about outside "audits" in lieu of outside replication should bring an instant cry of "BULLSHIT!" from every physicist in the house.
Funny thing is, the three old women huddled in the corner chanting "Double, double, toil and trouble - Fire burn and cauldron bubble..."
Putterman, the physicist mentioned in the Article as challenging Taleyarkan's results' has produced a working "tabletop fusion" device he says will be useful for things like security scans etc. but did not achieve excess energy. I suspect there's an ongoing battle among these guys to come up with some sort of explanation for this phenomenon and it's getting nasty. I'm reserving judgement on it since I don't even come close to having the knowledge to evaluate any of these claims but I'll stick to the old adage that where's there is smoke there is fire. Something is happening in these experiments and I wish the physics community could come to some conclusion, whether it's a source of excess energy or not.
This is all part of the gov't funded CTNF crowd to deep six Cold Fusion, it's been going on since 1989. No business(and CTNF is a BUSINESS, that will NEVER get over unity energy, but ALWAYS gets over unity FUNDING of your tax dollars)ever funds its competitor that will put IT out of business. Do you have access to a mass spectrometer and $100 for parts? To wit, a 6V battery charger, stainless steel cup and spoon, BB beads, coffee filters, plastic brochure cover, drum-type nickel coating of BB beads(at local jeweler), photographic fluid(KOH)...in a weeks run you transmute the Ni into a whole spectrum of elements as the electrolyte cell cooks away at about 100:1 output over input. As an architect I did this on the kitchen counter. My mass-spec test showed the usual high tritium spike plus K41 went from 8% natural abundance to 15% by actual count.....Thus you see that there is a conspiracy against CF/LENR/sonofusion and this journalist is just one more hit man in a long list of hit men, don't even bother listening to them anymore, you KNOW where they are coming from...LIARS one and all.
I don't understand your contention that this journo is a hit man since this article is sympathetic to Taleyarkhan and his claims for bubble fusion. Also, this online website is sympathetic to his research.
Rule One. The Scientific Method cannot prove anything. Indeed, its only purpose is to disprove false assertions and hypotheses.
Rule Two. Whenever somebody -- anybody -- claims that they have scientifically proven something -- hold onto your wallet and check the silver drawer.
The point of scientific challenge and technical criticism is to knock holes in things.
What a bunch of whiners. Challenge and disbelief are the foundations of good science. Believing what you are told is fine when it's your parents or your priest talking, but not some scientist out on a grant.
When scientists make assertions, they are SUPPOSED to get challenged. HARD.
If you read the article you'll see that Taleyarkan is submitting new papers to refute his critics. Hence, the scientific process goes on.
Neither the scientific community, nor I (a physics major long long ago) care as much for a "paper" as a successfully met challenge. Papers don't refute. Experiments that cah be reproduced refute. Read on please.
> Something is happening in these experiments and I wish the physics community could come to some conclusion, whether it's a source of excess energy or not.
Look, claims and assertions progress from speculation, to conjecture, to hypothesis, to theory only one way -- by making accurate predictions and surviving hard challenges.
The more accurate predictions made, and the more hard challenges met, the better a claim looks. This is fundamental to all science.
The most rigorous testing of all -- decades or centuries of accurate predictions and challenges met -- allows a theory to be considered a Law of Physics. There aren't many of them, for a damn good reason. It's tough.
A couple of experiments like the ones described here are fine and worthy endeavors, and the experimenters should be encouraged.
But don't start talking about changing something like Thermodynamics or Conservation of Energy because of it. Get real. The huge weight of evidence and experience is on the side of the law, not the neat new hard-to-reproduce experiment.
When this has been reproduced in hundreds of labs under rigorous scrutiny, you can talk about the "physics community" giving a rat's ass about it. The history of science is filled with such neat things, all untrue. If this one is real, it'll pan out -- after decades of scrutiny, not before.
The papers submitted are the result of further experimentation. If you read any of my earlier posts you'll see that even the most ardent critic of Taleyarkan has achieved some limited results with his own experiments. The scientific community will decide in it's own time what is happening here (and there surely is a process at work that is not clearly understood) but your assertion that this is all BS isn't credible in light of the results that have been achieved so far.
Nowhere did I say it is BS. Indeed, I said:
"A couple of experiments like the ones described here are fine and worthy endeavors, and the experimenters should be encouraged."
Let the experimenters carry on. I'm an experimentalist myself, I like it when people rock the boat.
I'm only objecting to the idea that these initial forays are already worthy of talk about challenging the laws of physics. Reality check...
Oh, yeah. There's also got to be some serious math behind it. Physics and math are fraternal twins -- not identical, but they are so tightly bonded as to be inseparable. There is not one good scientific hypothesis, much less theory or law, that doesn't have a solid mathematical basis. That's some of what takes decades. If there is anything that smacks of "proof" in physics, it is due to the math, not to any number of experiments. Experiments can only disprove.
Consider something as simple as Ohm's Law in electricity. He got it wrong for years due to the internal resistance of his own batteries. The simple truth emerged long after the original experiments and documents, for which he was roundly criticized.
"New" is not a compliment, in physics. It is grounds for healthy and tough skepticism.
This is a success story for science -- it shows how the checks and balances we have spent hundreds of years building work and work well.
But I agree this should still be pursued.
I recommend that you clam down. Don't overreact as I have in the past.
I'm rather calm and nothing in that post indicates any lack of calmness. Maybe you should try not to read between the lines?
I'm still waiting for the cold-fusion bomb.
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.