Thermonuclear Squeeze: Altered method extends bubble-fusion claim

Science News ^ | 20 Jan 06 | Peter Weiss

[Mycroft Holmes]

Thanks for the ping. This is more of the sonofusion work, the cold fusion stuff used a palladium or platinum catalyst. This currently dosn't look useful as a power source since you are pumping a lot more power in than can be extracted by these methods.

regards,

[Mycroft Holmes]

Quantum entanglement is replicable in any well equipped optics lab. You can even buy today, off the shelf equipment using entanglement to do cryptography. QE may be spooky action at a distance that nobody really feels comfortable with, but it is damn replicable and not in just a statistical sense, but at the level of individual EPR pairs.

regards,

[theFIRMbss]

"... Lohse, Schmidt and co-workers at Twente and the University of Marburg in Germany tethered seven shrimps inside an aquarium and gently nudged their claws to persuade them to snap shut. A hydrophone recorded the sounds emitted and a high-speed camera observed the behaviour of the bubbles. The team's suspicions were confirmed when they found that the main peak of the 'snap' always coincided with the collapse of the cavitation bubble, not with closure of the claw. Lohse would now like to know if the collapsing bubbles can also produce light, a phenomenon known as sonoluminescence. "It would be neat if light came out of the bubble," he told PhysicsWeb. "We will have a look with a photomultiplier out of curiosity". ..."

[Brilliant]

Well, when I used the term quantum entanglement, I was not talking broadly about pair creation. I was just using the term as a shorthand for these experiments they are doing in Switzerland that supposedly prove that quantum entanglement really is action at a distance, and that spin is not determined at the moment of pair creation. Those experiments ARE based on statistics.

I've always been a bit suspicious of any conclusion based on statistics, particularly when you don't really know the operative mechanisms you are studying. I think it's curious that the scientists have such a problem with this guy's conclusions, but not with the Swiss experiments, which are also statistically based. Of course, those experiments have at least been replicated, so maybe that's the difference.

And even though the Swiss experiments have been touted by physicists as proof of their hypothesis, the jury is actually still out. People keep doing the experiment over and over to make sure they aren't overlooking something.

[saganite]

I fully understand your point. As someone interested in seeing a new energy source that would be useful in replacing oil I'm hoping it amounts to more than a scientific curiosity. Still, the science alone is exciting even with no guaranteed payoff.

[grey_whiskers]

Science is based on fact.

The key word here was the quote "believe" which indicated opinion, taste, or faith, rather than unfettered reliance on facts...

On the whole, science tries to pay more attention to facts in the abstract to a greater extent than other approaches to things; but scientists remain human, with their own beliefs, tastes, and cliques, just like other groups of people.

PS did you look up "polywater" ? Cheers!

[festus]

His biggest problem is he can't do it consistently. Doesn't mean it is not happening it could be who knows. But they'll have to figure out why it only works sometimes before they'll get anywhere.