Giorgio wrote:
Merits:
Different than usual approach.
Demerits:
Too many assumptions.
That more or less sums up all what there is to say until they will actually try to verify some of the assumptions they made and feed us some data.
I think the big gap in their paper is how they propose the slow neutrons are generated. They need relativistic electrons and blithely asume that these can exist in a lattice, without considering quantitatively what would need to happen for their mechanism (SPPs) to do this. they have never revistied this initial weak point in their argument.
Tom
Are you referring to their theorized coherent proton oscillation mode?
Yes. Actually, I have just read the critique from Hagelstein & the answer from W&L.
I have to remember covariant forms of maxwell's equations to work out which is correct - Hagelstein says the mass change should depend on on the transverse component of electric field, W&L says it should depend on entire field. Difference is many orders of magnitude - if Hagelstein is right W&L don't work.
One thing. W&L claim, in their refutation of Hagelstein, Mev electrons are not unusual in lattices because static electricity charge transfer can lead to such charge separation voltages in Van der Graaf machines.
This is (a) bad physical intuition & (b) not true.
The voltage at charge separation is small. It then increases as separated charges are pulled apart and capacitance is reduced. In a Van der Graaf the 10Mev energy comes from the power which drives the belt - as the charge goes up the belt so it gains potential energy.
Of course Mev electrons in a lattice are totally weird.
I see Puthoff, the founder of EarthTech, is such a colorful character (to put it mildly) you would certainly darn him, as you did Jannson, but for EarthTech coming up with results you like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff
Edit Very strange. I write "dee ay mn" (have to mangle it or it gets changed) but when posted it comes out "darn"
parallel - I judge on quality of written stuff. Where I cannot judge myself it bhelps also to have peer review in a decent journal. Science is not like politics you know, it is about what is true. (And don't mention AGW, we are talking here about science much easier to evaluate).
All I did was point to the fact there was a new study to look at, and you made these same incomprehensible arguments that BLP was somehow not operating on a schedule you approve, and that this is some sort of evidence of a scam. You provided the same Ad hominem arguments against the Harvard Smithsonian study that you're offering against Rowan--your continuing modus operandi is to complain people aren't on your schedule, and when real studies and real evidence come in, discredit it by attacking the researchers.
"What's coming out of BLP these days. . ." does not form a sensible argument to discredit people and assuredly, there will be something else comes from BLP one of these days, and we'll see more ad hominem attacks rather than wrestling with the real data. . .
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
All I did was point to the fact there was a new study to look at, and you made these same incomprehensible arguments that BLP was somehow not operating on a schedule you approve, and that this is some sort of evidence of a scam. You provided the same Ad hominem arguments against the Harvard Smithsonian study that you're offering against Rowan--your continuing modus operandi is to complain people aren't on your schedule, and when real studies and real evidence come in, discredit it by attacking the researchers.
"What's coming out of BLP these days. . ." does not form a sensible argument to discredit people and assuredly, there will be something else comes from BLP one of these days, and we'll see more ad hominem attacks rather than wrestling with the real data. . .
Right, Gen3 people, The one that are by the same people they need to have their claim validated. We have already said everything there was to say on them and this issue and I still have not been proved wrong.
As for the schedule, I do follow their schedule not mine.
Every single time they are looking for money they post some amazing claim that in 1 year time they will change the world, and than nothing happens.
How many years are you still willing to believe them before opening your eyes?
As for the link I posted it is a clear example of how they are spending their time trying to find ways to squeeze more money out of people instead than actually release a product.
I really do not understand how you don't see the game that they are playing...
All I did was point to the fact there was a new study to look at, and you made these same incomprehensible arguments that BLP was somehow not operating on a schedule you approve, and that this is some sort of evidence of a scam. You provided the same Ad hominem arguments against the Harvard Smithsonian study that you're offering against Rowan--your continuing modus operandi is to complain people aren't on your schedule, and when real studies and real evidence come in, discredit it by attacking the researchers.
"What's coming out of BLP these days. . ." does not form a sensible argument to discredit people and assuredly, there will be something else comes from BLP one of these days, and we'll see more ad hominem attacks rather than wrestling with the real data. . .
Right, Gen3 people, The one that are by the same people they need to have their claim validated. We have already said everything there was to say on them and this issue and I still have not been proved wrong.
As for the schedule, I do follow their schedule not mine.
Every single time they are looking for money they post some amazing claim that in 1 year time they will change the world, and than nothing happens.
How many years are you still willing to believe them before opening your eyes?
As for the link I posted it is a clear example of how they are spending their time trying to find ways to squeeze more money out of people instead than actually release a product.
I really do not understand how you don't see the game that they are playing...
You haven't said anything about Gen 3 except that they were paid by BLP. I reminded you, labs don't work for free. Your statement that BLP has been making claims they'd go commercial in 1 year is just plain false. I've followed them for 14 years, and seen that sort of claim just once. Regardless, this is not evidence for or against a scam. How is it you cannot understand that these things happen with legitimate and illegitimate enterprises alike?
Just as Ad homenim attacks cannot be used to determine the credibility nor feasibility of a supposedly emergent technology, neither can associations, timelines, inauspicious beginnings, etc.
I suggest a good book on logical and rhetorical fallacies in this regard. These are the kinds of mistakes we're here talking about.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
tomclarke wrote:
I think the big gap in their paper is how they propose the slow neutrons are generated. They need relativistic electrons and blithely asume that these can exist in a lattice, without considering quantitatively what would need to happen for their mechanism (SPPs) to do this. they have never revistied this initial weak point in their argument.
Tom
Are you referring to their theorized coherent proton oscillation mode?
Yes. Actually, I have just read the critique from Hagelstein & the answer from W&L.
I fully agree with that. No coherent oscillation = no slow neutron.
For me is useless to go into further details until they experientamlly prove (or show indications) that this "entangled" state can be obtained.
Giorgio wrote:
Are you referring to their theorized coherent proton oscillation mode?
Yes. Actually, I have just read the critique from Hagelstein & the answer from W&L.
I fully agree with that. No coherent oscillation = no slow neutron.
For me is useless to go into further details until they experientamlly prove (or show indications) that this "entangled" state can be obtained.
i just reposted this thread over on Theory Section (here: viewtopic.php?p=61739#61739 ), together with a few humble thoughts of my own, - lest it should get buried here.
from what i understood, that entangled state had been established/observed elsewhere, just not under these circumstaces, with these downstream effects. (i have yet to read the Hagelstein paper - apologies if i missed something there).
GIThruster wrote:I suggest a good book on logical and rhetorical fallacies in this regard. These are the kinds of mistakes we're here talking about.
I suggest you on the other hand a good book on business and business practice.
Private companies that promise and do not deliver do close in real world, they do not complain because they cannot squeeze more than 500 investors before being requested to become a public reporting company.
You live in a weird world if you do not find this to be absolutely outrageous.
I see Puthoff, the founder of EarthTech, is such a colorful character (to put it mildly) you would certainly darn him, as you did Jannson, but for EarthTech coming up with results you like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff
Edit Very strange. I write "dee ay mn" (have to mangle it or it gets changed) but when posted it comes out "darn"
I actually was paid to recondition an EEG by a guy (Norman Don) who was working in the crazy area.
The thermodynamic work on calorimetry seems sound to me from what I have read about EarthTech in the links given.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Axil wrote:But in the end, Piantelli explanation of the Ni-H theory rings true to me and fits all the thousands of pieces of Rossi stuff floating around up till now and this theory is consistent with know quantum theory.
After curing cancer, Piantelli moved on to solving the worlds energy problems - and all with the same device!
"It started with this biophysics experiment," Piantelli said. "This machine changes the electromagnetic state on a cellular level. If you put a biological cell in this machine, you can see the effect. It eliminates cell division, cancer, melanoma. I've been working on cancer research for 18 years. We are making devices, based on these experiments, on demand. They are being used now in clinical trials in a local hospital."
MSimon wrote: If you have evidence Lilienfeld was BUILDING transistors I'd like to see it.
By your statements, P&F weren't building LENR devices either (since they don't exist you know) so theirs was just an announcement too.
Such sophistry would not pass design review where I come from. Perhaps the standards are lower in your neck of the woods.
Sorry if you didn't detect the subtle implication that the history of one technology doesn't REALLY apply to the timeline of another. I was trying to keep things light and jovial, not saying things like "that analogy is a pile o shyte". The take away point was intended to be that the two time-lines are in fact NOT equivalent.
Folks,
We seem to be working ourselves into a battle attitude on something that is largely unknown.
None of us know, one way or the other. Please remember that in your communications.
It seems to me that it is the "absolutist" statements from both sides that generate the most friction. Do we REALLY need to go there?
