Posted on 07/30/2011 1:44:23 PM PDT by Liberty1970
Brian Josephson, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, asked a question on Andrea Rossi’s blog about the quality of the 1MW demonstration in October. He has been a defender of true research in the LENR field, frequently challenging debunkers to back up their objections with logic instead of repeating the same one-sided attacks so often a signature of pseudosceptics. In answer, Rossi invited him to the test. I am assuming that the question did come from Josephson but there is no doubt that the invite is real:
Brian Josephson July 30th, 2011 at 4:17 AM
October demo Andrea,
You’ve said the 1MW E-cat due in October will be the real test, but in what way will it be more convincing than the ones done so far? Will it be done in such a way that people are sure about the amount of water/steam coming out of the reactor, and how dry the steam is (which affects the heat content)?
Andrea Rossi July 30th, 2011 at 6:11 AM
Dear Prof. Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize), First of all, thank you for your very important attention. Please read very carefully what I am writing to you: 1-The 1 MW plant that we will start up in October will be tested, on behalf of our Customer, by very, very high level world class scientists. You are in the list, so please, if you want and you can, take free the last week of October. 2- The test will be witnessed by several very, very high level world class scientific journalists 3- The E-Cats we are working with now in our factories, which will be the modules of the 1 MW plant, are producing perfectly dry steam, mostly without energy input, as you will see yourself if you will honour us with your presence. Very Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi
Done properly (and it will have to be), this public launch should provide enough proof for potential customers. At that point, and not before (no matter who calls for it) we will have some certainty about what happens next. If the launch is also attended by senior science correspondents, this is also the time we should see the story break – one way or another, depending on results. As so many people have said before, proving such a beast will not be hard and the time for preparation should help arm those like Brian Josephson (assuming he accepts) to be ready to give us a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Kevmo, I have responded, either click the “I Accept” button or the “Disconnect” button....really I don’t care...Rossi
To me dila813 posts are much more interesting than mine, because he has focused on the deviant behavior of the cold fusionistas and their marks, dupes and shills. Of course cold fusionism is not right. It cannot be right, which has been what I have pointed out. The much more interesting question is to ask why this cooperative self-organization around the charlattanism has occurred, sort of like a support group of codependants of drunks, bankrupts and adulterers. Its is poor physics, believe me, although the detection of the lengths these guys have stretched principles to try to convince their followers that they have answered their critis has been a bit of a lark. More fascinating though is this study in psychology. I am mesmerized by it because this desire to be duped tells us something dark about the human soul, or at least the American soul.
feel free to post to the mod about this supposed violation of policy
Lurkers will note that dilataunt did not post the press release that he’s been asked to produce.
No, he has Kevmo in the ring chasing his act around and around and around and chearing the cheapest of tricks.
Feel free to explain the EPR [Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen] paradox.
And the 14000 replications of excess heat in LENR experiments.
I know, I know, you won’t do that, even if I nudge you with an insult or two such as “coward” or “lazy”.
Lurkers will note that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a legitimate target due to the simple fact that OBSERVATIONS counteract it. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to find it being modified in a theory like KP Sinha’s. But that just seems too much for the PhD Nuke Phycisist to bear.
Maybe the psychologists would have fun examining your head while it is stuck in the sand. “Rocks cannot fall from the sky”.
??
Yeah, if I were in your position I would post nothing but insults as well. Trying to find logical fallacies to use is so tiring.
Yes, human behavior is very interesting. It is amazing how a human almost desires to be fooled and feels defensive when someone tries to point out that he has been fooled.
Magicians depend on this for many of their tricks.
I am not sure how the paradox of apparent but not real superliminal communication of quantum information relates to cold fusionism, and thus it seems rather off topic, unless another cold fusionista has tried to trot out a theory whereby the uncertainty principle can be violated through some invocation of EPR, which, by the way it cannot, the EPR paradox starting from the same quantum mechanical equations that give rise to the uncertainty principle.
Yes, but it is a lot less amuzing. Now if some scantily clad stunner were to disappear and reappear on my lap I might be more appreciative of the deception. I doubt Rossi, or Kevmo, would meet my standards.
So you say without any directly demonstrable data, like the observation of the spectrum of photons scattered off of an electron wave-function that was created in violation of the HUP. I would note that the cold fusionistas have no data either, the whole point of invoking a violation of the HUP being to argue for the existence of a process which allows for undetectable cold fusion reactions since the normal signs of that quantity of fusion energy release are absent (a noted dearth of dead electro-chemists or melted down laboratories.)
I would note both the circularity of the reasoning as well as the devil may care attitude of the electrochemists doing this work. The absolute insouciance with which they will operate a device, which if it worked as claimed would kill any physicist next to it, is stunning. Having advertised the thing will work they don't take the least precautions against the health physics consequences if the thing did work, and the laws of physics did operate.
The argument that a physical theory must be true because it is the only explanation for why nothing is seen is an interesting argument. The rules of induction don't rule it out, but virtually all scientists would require a more direct demonstration before believing a word of such a cockamamy assertion.
It is all so peculiar.
I tend to lean to the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e., that Q.M. is "really" random, as a faute de mieux. The "surprise" at the collapse of the wave function seems to me to be reminiscent to the resistance to quantum mechanics and / or relativity as they were developed, an ingrained insistence on considering the world in classical terms (complementarity). If one insists on "hidden variables" there seems to be no way to test them (as they are safely buried under the limitations of the HUP); and without testability, we are out of science and into either conjecture or faith (both much maligned unjustly).
I have some private musings which would probably get me laughed off the thread; they are more or less related to the idea that both QM and Relativity are "wrong" and we need a fundamentally different description of the Universe to handle it.
In the late 1800's it was widely felt that classical physics had nearly everything in hand, and within a generation there'd be nothing left to do. The "ultraviolet catastrophe" then deBroglie, Einstein starting with the photoelectric effect, then quantum mechanics kinda blew that away.
So why not suggest that even our best models now are mere special cases (correspondence principle, each new theory must reduce mathematically to the old theory's predictions under conditions where the old theory was known to hold).
Such a theory would probably require someone who is to Einstein and Gell-Mann and Feynman, as they are to the general population, however...
For several interesting links, see below:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Decently technical discussion of EPR.
Cheers!
He doesn't modify it. He runs right over it. Oh - and you forgot all about the concurrent fallacy he commits - muddling single particle effects and many-body effects.
You’re out of ammunition, I see. Once a poster starts talking to another about the one they disagree with, it’s all over. It’s just human nature. You need that reassurance. Nothing to be ashamed about.
Lurkers will note that mr. PhD never addressed the 14000 observations. That’s the same as the scientists in he past refusing to accept that rocks fall from the sky. It betrays a lack of commitment to the scientific inquiry process.
Andy Jackson sure could use a critical thinking class.
Several counterexamples:
Kary Mullis (polymerase chain reaction) but denies that HIV causes AIDS.
John Van Vleck (magnetism) denies magnetic monopoles but IIRC relativistic quantum (P.A.M. Dirac) allows for them. (WTF?)
The IPCC panel (chapter on Himalayan glaciers melting not based on peer review but on WWF, itself apparently cribbed from a newspaper article).
Paul Krugman (not a science but he's not much of a Nobelist either, he got eviscerated in public by Iowahawk.
Cheers!
You’ll have to forgive me for no longer listening to you.
Lurkers have seen why.
I hope grey whiskers can make sense of your muddled bull shiite.
I’m afraid I do not understand your post.
Only on crevo threads and Palin threads.
Cheers!
Think of AGW.
Also consider "trade secrets" -- this is not primarily an academic enterprise.
Jury's still out by me.
Cheers!
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.