@Lou

Quote:

This is the best thing I've seen a "democratic" government propose! Now the big question is: will it pass and does it apply to the military....

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man the answer has to be No... and irrelevant, as it will not pass.
While lines like the ones quoted below from tha opening statement look very impressive,
Quote:

(1) the Federal Government funds basic and applied research with the expectation that new ideas and discoveries that result from the research, if shared and effectively disseminated, will advance science and improve the lives and welfare of people of the United States and around the world; and (2) the Internet makes it possible for this information to be promptly available to every scientist, physician, educator, and citizen at home, in school, or in a library.

the recent actions of these same individuals concerning the free movement of information leave a great deal to be desired. As a result I am unsure if (2) in the quote is a boast, or a complaint.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: This is the best thing I've seen a "democratic" government propose! Now the big question is: will it pass and does it apply to the military.... At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man the answer has to be No... and irrelevant, as it will not pass. While lines like the ones quoted below from tha opening statement look very impressive, Quote: (1) the Federal Government funds basic and applied research with the expectation that new ideas and discoveries that result from the research, if shared and effectively disseminated, will advance science and improve the lives and welfare of people of the United States and around the world; and (2) the Internet makes it possible for this information to be promptly available to every scientist, physician, educator, and citizen at home, in school, or in a library. the recent actions of these same individuals concerning the free movement of information leave a great deal to be desired. As a result I am unsure if (2) in the quote is a boast, or a complaint.

It's nice to know you are an authority on US Government now too...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Higgs Boson stands at a 99.996% accurate probability If the lHC ramps up another 1000GeV it's predicted by end of 2012 we'll have sufficent certainty to establish, or discard.

Perhpas you should watch the video at the end of the article...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ The science exists, it's slow ding-batted engineers that have failed to make it applicable. I agree that various serious people have been trying to achieve this dream for many years now, but a bit of excess heat for a few hours is not sufficient to prove that the method actually works. While it is not the total reason for scientific scepticism this article has an added reason to be skeptical when looking at energy production. Quote: Cheap fusion power would transform economies, and con-artists play on the dream of free energy. But fraudsters usually keep asking for a bit more money to complete their invention and keep delaying the actual proof. Add to this the fact that nuclear power was supposed to have given us "Electricity too cheap to meter" and you can probably see why some of us are not inclined to be too gullible. If however Rossi's contrivance can manage to produce significant amounts of energy for a significant amount of time, without Rossi having to be present, then I will be delighted. But until such time as it has been proven to work, it remains unproven. It really is as simple as that. Quote: You will actually never get it... Oh I will get it... Just as soon as I can park my car above the garage instead of in it.

Perhaps you didn't follow the update: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

Quote:

Quote: Remember, this is where Nimrod gets lost so don't bother sharing this with him. Lou, even if I accepted the proposition that light slows down inside an atom, the statement in this video (5m40s) that "through this process, energy can be pumped into the atoms and effectively transformed into gravitational propulsion" is pure, unadulterated technobabble worthy of Scotty from Star Trek. As things stand, Podkletnov and Znidarsic are no closer to anti-gravity than this.

If light passes thru water and slows down, is not light passing thru the atoms of water? So all the other quantum strangeness is OK in your book but light refraction indexes are just a possibility...?

Quote:

One part of this video that I did like was the quote displayed at 8m25s Quote: It doesn't matter how smart you are, or how brilliant your theory is, if it doesn't agree with experiment... Its wrong. R. P. Feynman You may like to apply this idea to the concept of the Schwartzchild proton.

So tell me oh wise one, what is it about atoms that slows down light when light strikes an atom? Could it be the gravity of the nucleus perhaps? Wait! Is that more observational evidence?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Thanks for continually displaying how lost you are on this... You will actually never get it... Another big failure of association of Authority. You have successfully put Zdnarsic and his work in an untouchable realm. And you appear to have put down Nimrod's comments because they came from Nimrod.

I have put down Nimrod's comments because they were simply comments where as has given us this: http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/ZNIDARSIC.wmv

Quote:

How about putting your money where your mouth is. PROVE Nimrod's wrong and PROVE Zdnarsic is right. Show us your math.

Perhaps you failed to see where Zdnarsic posted math and Nimrod's debunking was simply an "I don't believe it"? How about Nimrod use rational logic to dispute it? Oh, that's right, the math is correct so he can't other to climb to the top of the empire state building, beat his chest and shout "cold fusion and anti-gravity don't exist!"...

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you didn't follow the update: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

"the US customer remains anonymous. In other words, a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked"
Lou, this is just another example of you ignoring the need for evidence.

"The customer's controller, one Domenico Fioravanti, apparently reports to a man whose title is "Colonel". This suggests that the mystery customer might be DARPA, " Complete assumption. Many nations have Colonels as do businesses. And I wouldn't be too suprised to find out one of the "defense consulting companies" (for example Blackwater) allowed their employees to be referred to by military titles.

We do have historic evidence that many people have been duped into investing into the promise of boundless energy without fulfillment of the promise. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may. What it does mean is spending money is not indicative of validity. Thus, again we return to a story you should know so well. Lou until there's evidence that's reviewable, duplicatable, and testable one cannot fairly draw a supported conclusion.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Feb-2012 at 09:17 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 10-Feb-2012 at 08:40 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Perhaps you didn't follow the update: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success "the US customer remains anonymous. In other words, a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked" Lou, this is just another example of you ignoring the need for evidence. "The customer's controller, one Domenico Fioravanti, apparently reports to a man whose title is "Colonel". This suggests that the mystery customer might be DARPA, " Complete assumption. Many nations have Colonels as do businesses. And I wouldn't be too suprised to find out one of the "defense consulting companies" (for example Blackwater) allowed their employees to be referred to by military titles. We do have historic evidence that many people have been duped into investing into the promise of boundless energy without fulfillment of the promise. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may. What it does mean is spending money is not indicative of validity. Thus, again we return to a story you should know so well. Lou until there's evidence that's reviewable, duplicatable, and testable one cannot fairly draw a supported conclusion.

Equally so: You've named 1 ONE UNO company that allows military titles. So you have nothing duplicable where as alot of companies who are sub-contracted by the military usually have a military representative as a go-between.

@Lou

Quote:

Equally so: You've named 1 ONE UNO company that allows military titles. So you have nothing duplicable where as alot of companies who are sub-contracted by the military usually have a military representative as a go-between.

There's a BIG difference here. I highlited my point that one must not assume a company, such as the author did, when more than 1 company fits the bill. At no time did I make any assumptions on the supposed customer. Heck we don't even know if was a real customer or a real US citizen if we believe the articles 'unverifible' claim.

Did you read the pro-Rossi e-catnews website? It appears he's making 1 million of these devices. (Though no manufacturing partners are announced to date nor does he appear to own any machine shops. So I'm not sure who or how.) I'll be waiting with baited breath.


Other Google tidbits:
Back in 2010 it appears he claimed to take 400W input convereted to 1500kW output.

And I remind our readers that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/AndreaRossiAndHisEnergy-Catalyzer.shtml

@Lou

Quote:

It's nice to know you are an authority on US Government now too...

Actually I am not. I merely based my response on my limited experience of the actions of the U.S. Government.
I have a good enough memory to remember a recent wikipedia blackout, and the reason for it. I am also aware of the arrogant attitude of the U.S. Government over the extradition of a group of bankers from the UK, the arrest of David Carruthers for accepting business from US, contavening a local monopoly arrangement, and their treatment of Gary McKinnon, who accessed various websites hosted on US servers to find out about ufo's. Despite the claims of US Government, I can find no evidence that he caused $5000 worth of damage to warrant automatic extradition, followed by a term of 70 years in Guantanamo bay. I also compare this with the attitude of US Government when asked to extradite suspects in other cases.
Do you honestly think that somebody who believes that US Government is concealing evidence of ufo activity, anti-gravity technology and free zero point energy should be penalised in this manner. While I disagree with his opinions, I support his right to hold them and I (unlike your government) am not threatening Mr McKinnon.

So yes, the statement that the internet allows free exchange of information IS a source of complaint in some parts of the US Government.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

I have put down Nimrod's comments because they were simply comments where as has given us this: http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/ZNIDARSIC.wmv

From the second static graphic in the display Quote:

Magnetic flux is not conserved. Energy Yes Momentum Yes Charge Yes Magnetic flux No

At what point does magnetic flux become something other than energy. When you switch on an electromagnet, magnetic flux is produced by the current flowing through the coil. For this flux to remain after the current is shut off would seriously violate the laws of conservationof energy.

Energy may be transformed from one form to another, but it can not be created nor destroyed. Even Einsteins famous E=MC2 only transforms matter to energy, it does not actually produce energy from nowhere. It looks from this video as if the much vaunted Mr. Znidarsic has forgotten the basics.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you didn't follow the update: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

From what few actual details Rossi has released I can see that he is putting Nickel and hydrogen together and getting energy. It may be that he is not hiding a battery in his apparatus, merely camouflaging a battery as LENR. Until his equipment has been properly tested by relevant scientists and engineers his technology remains unproven

Quote:

If light passes thru water and slows down, is not light passing thru the atoms of water? So all the other quantum strangeness is OK in your book but light refraction indexes are just a possibility...?

Light is refracted when the medium it is passing through changes density. Examples of this are the refraction on the surface of water, or heat ripples as objects are viewed through hot air. If light were slowed to 0.175% of its speed at every single atom of the atmosphere as Znidarsic asserts, the image would become so smeared we would be unable to see the sun, let alone distant stars. Refraction indexes are a fact, just not the fact that you seem to think that they are.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Do you honestly think that somebody who believes that US Government is concealing evidence of ufo activity, anti-gravity technology and free zero point energy should be penalised in this manner. While I disagree with his opinions, I support his right to hold them and I (unlike your government) am not threatening Mr McKinnon.

The conspiracy is BIGGER than just the US.

Germany, France, Russia, China - ALL are competitors with the US. It's be hugely beneficial to them to be the first kid on the block with anti-gravity or ZPE. NONE are able to do this, to date.

IMO the choices here are two either this stuff doesn't work (again to date) OR there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide it. Which in turn is nearly impossible as these nations are always trying to get a leg up on each other. Therefore the conspiracy must be driven from something larger than the governments. The only entity with that much power are Aliens.

The existence of aliens is covered up by governments who are paid for by the aliens. QED this stuff is all real.

@Lou

I thought you might like to follow this. Witness Error
"We have come a long way since the days when people accepted without question an individual who would take the witness stand, point to the defendant and say, ‘I’ll never forget his face, that’s the person I saw,’” said Gottlieb. “It really was not until the advent of DNA analysis that we have been able to show that eyewitness identifications are one of the weakest forms of evidence.”
...
“Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications. From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real,” the court said. “Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country.”

==
Go EVIDENCE!

I'm amused that something that doesn't exist is being taught at MIT...
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue101/mit.html

Hurray for evidence!

Ofcourse if you are blind, evidence means nothing.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: I'm amused that something that doesn't exist is being taught at MIT... http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue101/mit.html Hurray for evidence! Ofcourse if you are blind, evidence means nothing.

No enrollment limit, no advance sign up, no college credit given.

I think at the same time I'd go to the Intro to Synthetic Biology. I'd personally be more interested in wet hacking.

Did you happen to read the rest of the article?
"I would expect to mention Rossi briefly. But my part of this is intended to be scientific, and there is very little available from Rossi that is of scientific value. For example, there is no useful description of the experiment. There is no reliable data. There is no reliable assay of samples before and after. There are no scientific papers of high quality that I can direct people interested to"
--Even other 'cold fusion' scientists see Rossi as unproven, undemonstrated, undemonstrateable, and unuseful to date.

@Lou

LHC to increase power by 14% This should help improve the Higgs accuracy. I know you've concluded it won't. I choose the open, we shall see what the evidence bears, approach.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: I'm amused that something that doesn't exist is being taught at MIT... http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue101/mit.html Hurray for evidence! Ofcourse if you are blind, evidence means nothing. No enrollment limit, no advance sign up, no college credit given. I think at the same time I'd go to the Intro to Synthetic Biology. I'd personally be more interested in wet hacking. Did you happen to read the rest of the article? "I would expect to mention Rossi briefly. But my part of this is intended to be scientific, and there is very little available from Rossi that is of scientific value. For example, there is no useful description of the experiment. There is no reliable data. There is no reliable assay of samples before and after. There are no scientific papers of high quality that I can direct people interested to" --Even other 'cold fusion' scientists see Rossi as unproven, undemonstrated, undemonstrateable, and unuseful to date.

Pleae NOTE that it was Nimrod who mentioned Rossi in this thread initally in this thread. Nimrod loves finding worst case scenerios as a way to discredit anything he doesn't believe in...

So while Rossi is 'unproven', the science behind LENR is not.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou LHC to increase power by 14% This should help improve the Higgs accuracy. I know you've concluded it won't. I choose the open, we shall see what the evidence bears, approach.

How much energy does it take to find something that is supposed to be elementary to every atom?

Again, if you watched the video in one of the links you provided where they interview the scientists studying the data, they were open to the possibility of the standard model being wrong because frankly there isn't anywhere else to look.
Since 'probablility' is not actuality, perhaps you too should open yourself up to it...

@Lou

Quote:

Pleae NOTE that it was Nimrod who mentioned Rossi in this thread initally in this thread.

Following the thread back I first find Rossi as one of your sources from the link you posted in #1409
Quote:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/ The science exists, it's slow ding-batted engineers that have failed to make it applicable.

Seems to me you cited a site as evidence which that site was citing Rossi. Do you find any posts before yours on #1409 indicating Rossi?

Quote:

the science behind LENR is not

To date there is no room temperature Cold Fusion.

Quote:

How much energy does it take to find something that is supposed to be elementary to every atom?

Different components in an atom have differing energy levels. To improve accuracy one must narrow the scope. That's continually been done with Higgs, and other particles. Giving us the better than 95% confidence level we have at present. The further narrowing in will change our confidence level. As the evidence isn't in we can only guess at how. The current common postulate will be to refine to a 99.999% or better. Your is this won't work. Again what happens we'll see once we have the evidence.

Quote:

Again, if you watched the video in one of the links you provided where they interview the scientists studying the data, they were open to the possibility of the standard model being wrong because frankly there isn't anywhere else to look.

I must add awesome scientists! They are testing a postulate and not presupposing the conclusion until the evidence was in. And noteably what I've been saying all along. We have postulates which we can't fully accept until we have evidence confirming or denying them. Higgs looks good at present, but further evidence will help us to confirm or deny it.

Oh and again in the Standard Theory of gravity a Higgs particle is not a necessary condition. There are other postulates to Higgs Mechanisms that aren't particle based. So even if Higgs is wrong, aka you guessed the right lottery numbers, there are other postulates which will need confirming or denying prior to complete rejection of the Standard Theory. Why? Because so far the Standard Theory has provided us the best predictive evidenced model to date.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Pleae NOTE that it was Nimrod who mentioned Rossi in this thread initally in this thread. Following the thread back I first find Rossi as one of your sources from the link you posted in #1409 Quote: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ The science exists, it's slow ding-batted engineers that have failed to make it applicable. Seems to me you cited a site as evidence which that site was citing Rossi. Do you find any posts before yours on #1409 indicating Rossi?

The site had much more to it than just Rossi. Again you are picking the potentially bad apple despite a healthy tree.

Quote:

Quote: the science behind LENR is not To date there is no room temperature Cold Fusion.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

Quote:

Quote: How much energy does it take to find something that is supposed to be elementary to every atom? Different components in an atom have differing energy levels. To improve accuracy one must narrow the scope. That's continually been done with Higgs, and other particles. Giving us the better than 95% confidence level we have at present. The further narrowing in will change our confidence level. As the evidence isn't in we can only guess at how. The current common postulate will be to refine to a 99.999% or better. Your is this won't work. Again what happens we'll see once we have the evidence.

Most of your countering has been based on relativity and the standard model, I'm glad to finally see that you are finally seeing that all your CRAP has yet to be proven. ;)

Quote:

Quote: Again, if you watched the video in one of the links you provided where they interview the scientists studying the data, they were open to the possibility of the standard model being wrong because frankly there isn't anywhere else to look. I must add awesome scientists! They are testing a postulate and not presupposing the conclusion until the evidence was in. And noteably what I've been saying all along. We have postulates which we can't fully accept until we have evidence confirming or denying them. Higgs looks good at present, but further evidence will help us to confirm or deny it.

Side note: why didn't they call gluons, duct-tapons? As if Higgs is the only amusing particle in the model...

Quote:

Oh and again in the Standard Theory of gravity a Higgs particle is not a necessary condition. There are other postulates to Higgs Mechanisms that aren't particle based. So even if Higgs is wrong, aka you guessed the right lottery numbers, there are other postulates which will need confirming or denying prior to complete rejection of the Standard Theory. Why? Because so far the Standard Theory has provided us the best predictive evidenced model to date.

Hurray for hypocrits!
It's nice to see you admitting that your CRAP is no better than mine. Settling for something that you know is broken only leads down more broken roads.