Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
BeAChooser said:
Just curious. Are you an engineer?

And which came first? Engineering or science?

Which reminds me of a joke:

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were given a red rubber ball and told to find the volume. The mathematician measured the diameter and evaluated a triple integral, the physicist filled a beaker with water, put the ball in the water, and measured the total displacement, and the engineer looked up the model and serial numbers in his red-rubber-ball table.

:D
Click to expand...

Who got the right answer?
 
unclep2k said:
I've never heard the story about the felon..don't have a clue if that's true or not. Most of the stuff referenced to that post dated to the early 90's when he was under great criticism for his work with cold fusion. He was the first to confirm tritium and it was more than suggested fraud was involved. His work was later confirmed by George Miley of the university of Illinois. Here is a link that shows what he was put through. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/taubesfabrication/TritiumDiscoveredByBockrisAtTexasA&M.pdf
Click to expand...



He's a successful cold fusion gold transmutationist, yet twenty years later he's still brewing his tea on a hot plate which he paid for with legal tender rather than transmuted garbage gold.

:rolleyes:
 
bruto said:
They probably all did, if the math or science in the engineer's book was correct. The only difference is that the mathematician and the physicist knew they were right and knew why, while the engineer went on faith.
Click to expand...

Well, any engineer can tell you that when you deal with a manufactured item like a red rubber ball, measuring a single article is insufficient to establish either size or tolerances. But both of these things should be (ideally) in the "Chemical Rubber Ball Corporation Handbook" that he looked up the ball in.

Now, based on that you would get samples of the article from several batches, if possible, and carefully measure each one of them with respect to diameter and sphericity. (This before deciding to trust the manufacturer.)

:D
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
It does matter unless I've misread. He could fail or win based on something other than a working device, couldn't he? What will we know differently then that we don't know now?
Click to expand...

Well, for example, he's said that in October they will start up a MW power plant based on linking some 300 e-Cats together. We will know whether that happens. And if whatever he's linked together is indeed producing a MW of power, it will be pretty convincing proof that whatever is happening inside the reaction chambers is not a scam. Unless you think they are going to go out and somehow, surreptiously, steal or generate a MW by other means in order to promote the scam. Is that what you think?
 
BeAChooser said:
Well, for example, he's said that in October they will start up a MW power plant based on linking some 300 e-Cats together. We will know whether that happens. And if whatever he's linked together is indeed producing a MW of power, it will be pretty convincing proof that whatever is happening inside the reaction chambers is not a scam. Unless you think they are going to go out and somehow, surreptiously, steal or generate a MW by other means in order to promote the scam. Is that what you think?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I expect if you could fake on a small scale, you might be able to fake on a large scale. Please do not ask me how to do it, I don't even know how to fake what's been done so far.

But I was more worried about your side of the bet. A glitch in financing or environmental concerns or any of a number of things could cause delay -- unrelated to whether the thing works or not.

I'm just having a hard time imagining a clear endpoint for this thing.
 
marplots said:
Who got the right answer?
Click to expand...

Not the mathematician if he assumed the ball was a perfect sphere (should have collaborated with the engineer) or left out the error analysis or calculated to excess precision (should have collaborated with the physicist).

Not the physicist if he didn't account for the ball compressing or absorbing water (should have collaborated with the engineer) or didn't convert the units correctly (should have collaborated with the mathematician)

Not the engineer if the ball was off spec or mislabeled (should have collaborated with the physicist and mathematician to do some quick measurements and calculations to make sure the answer made sense).

Point being, when nuclear physicists ask where the neutrons are and say the shielding is insufficient to block gamma rays and the chemists ask why the calorimetry is so poor, the proper response is to get the relevant experts into the mix, not wave your hands and say the effect is too big for all those things to matter.
 
Mr.D said:
Not the mathematician if he assumed the ball was a perfect sphere (should have collaborated with the engineer) or left out the error analysis or calculated to excess precision (should have collaborated with the physicist).

Not the physicist if he didn't account for the ball compressing or absorbing water (should have collaborated with the engineer) or didn't convert the units correctly (should have collaborated with the mathematician)

Not the engineer if the ball was off spec or mislabeled (should have collaborated with the physicist and mathematician to do some quick measurements and calculations to make sure the answer made sense).

Point being, when nuclear physicists ask where the neutrons are and say the shielding is insufficient to block gamma rays and the chemists ask why the calorimetry is so poor, the proper response is to get the relevant experts into the mix, not wave your hands and say the effect is too big for all those things to matter.
Click to expand...

Point taken, thanks.

Dave
 
Mr.D said:
the proper response is to get the relevant experts into the mix, not wave your hands and say the effect is too big for all those things to matter.
Click to expand...
The proper thing would be to reproduce the 'effect'. Lacking information to do so...
 
unclep2k

Some of the people mentioned by you or the Bockris wiki article as having "verified" cold fusion are referred to in an article in blog "smartertechnology": Cold Fusion Resurrected from Batteries to Bacteria, R. Colin Johnson: 03-30-10

H t t p://w w w.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Technology-For-Change/Cold-Fusion-Resurrected-from-Batteries-to-Bacteria/

The breakthrough demonstration at the ACS meeting this week is a new "calorimeter" apparatus that has been verified by multiple research groups to detect the energy produced by cold fusion—the main claim by Fleischmann and Pons that others were previously unable to reproduce—according to its inventor, professor Melvin Miles at Dixie State College (St. George, Utah).

Michael McKubre, an electro-chemist at SRI International (Menlo Park, Calif.), gave the overview presentation, citing recent evidence that excess heat production in the calorimeter apparatus does indeed derive from nuclear fusion.

Other researchers backed McKubre's claims with evidence of their own, including professor Tadahiko Mizuno at Hokkaido University (Japan), professor Peter Hagelstein at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge), and professor Xing Zhong Li at Tsinghua University (Beijing).

Professor George Miley, director of the Fusion Studies Lab at the University of Illinois (Urbana), reported on a new type of battery design that harnesses cold fusion to extend its shelf life beyond that of ordinary batteries. The special electrolytic cell operates at very low temperatures using a specially "doped" electrode with intentionally created defects.

One novel research direction was offered by Kiev National Shevchenko University scientist Vladimir Vysotskii, who claims to have found evidence that bacteria can participate in cold fusion reactions, a fact that he hopes to use to transform nuclear waste into stable isotopes.
Click to expand...

These are certainly exciting developments, particularly the long shelf life nuke power batteries. I use a wood burning camping stove which has a small fan powered by AA batteries, and they always seem to run out when I am miles from the nearest village. But as long as I keep the stove full of twigs or pinecones I get "excess heat" output greater than what the batteries put in. I'm pretty sure of that even though i don't yet have the "new 'calorimeter' apparatus that has been verified by multiple research groups" referred to above.

Vysotskii's nuclear bacteria sound a bit scary, by the way.

Michael McKubre, of Menlo Park CA is the next person on your list of cold fusion verifiers whom I intend to research.
 
BeAChooser said:
Just curious. Are you an engineer?

And which came first? Engineering or science?

Which reminds me of a joke:

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were given a red rubber ball and told to find the volume. The mathematician measured the diameter and evaluated a triple integral, the physicist filled a beaker with water, put the ball in the water, and measured the total displacement, and the engineer looked up the model and serial numbers in his red-rubber-ball table.

:D
Click to expand...

"Science" came first, or better said knoweldge of basic physic : lever, barycenter of stones, pulley, ramp. Science and engineering in their form are much more recent concept.
 
Last edited:
Mr.D said:
Not the mathematician if he assumed the ball was a perfect sphere (should have collaborated with the engineer) or left out the error analysis or calculated to excess precision (should have collaborated with the physicist).

Not the physicist if he didn't account for the ball compressing or absorbing water (should have collaborated with the engineer) or didn't convert the units correctly (should have collaborated with the mathematician)

Not the engineer if the ball was off spec or mislabeled (should have collaborated with the physicist and mathematician to do some quick measurements and calculations to make sure the answer made sense).

Point being, when nuclear physicists ask where the neutrons are and say the shielding is insufficient to block gamma rays and the chemists ask why the calorimetry is so poor, the proper response is to get the relevant experts into the mix, not wave your hands and say the effect is too big for all those things to matter.
Click to expand...

By ar one of the best psot I saw in this thread. very eloquentely put. Nom worthy IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom