Define
From WordWeb.
1.Declare or make legally valid
2.Prove valid; show or confirm the validity of something
3.Give evidence for
4.Make valid or confirm the validity of
In the context of contracting EMC2 to do Research & Development, refer to meaning 2. Meaning 3 could also be used but would mean that the research is not as far along as many of us hope.
1.Declare or make legally valid
2.Prove valid; show or confirm the validity of something
3.Give evidence for
4.Make valid or confirm the validity of
In the context of contracting EMC2 to do Research & Development, refer to meaning 2. Meaning 3 could also be used but would mean that the research is not as far along as many of us hope.
Aero
I wonder, what is the context of the question? Is validate used in the context of Wiffleball? Scaling? Net Energy?
Wiffleball - Meaning 4 or perhaps meaning 1,
Scaling - Meaning 2,
Net Energy - Meaning 3.
Interpretation of words like this is the source of many contract disputes, that's in part why big companies maintain a huge contracts department packed with lawyers.
Wiffleball - Meaning 4 or perhaps meaning 1,
Scaling - Meaning 2,
Net Energy - Meaning 3.
Interpretation of words like this is the source of many contract disputes, that's in part why big companies maintain a huge contracts department packed with lawyers.
Aero
In the context of scientific experimentation, 'validate' has a specific connotation:
An observation or measurement can be made which is consistent with a theory, thesis and/or predicted outcome. Clearly, that might be co-incidence. So the process of 'validation' is about acquiring more such observations and data, following a 'consistent observation', and by different and/or more rigorous methodologies, to the point that the weight of data means the theory, thesis and/or predicted outcome is accepted as more probable than not.
The 'more probable than not' bit is the part that gets messy. It need not be a 50% measure, it might well be skewed high due to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" clause, or possibly low if it is a result already expected intellectually. Actually the last case is quite interesting and represents the effect called 'observer bias' - global warming being one such case often sited as such; very little evidence spread thin.....
In the case of Polywell, while it is being pushed along by willing converts to that faith, I would expect 50% will do for them as 'validation'. For me, personally, I would give it a much heavier weighting as it defeats many conventional presumptions of plasma physics. 95% (the 'k=2' definition) is the statistically accepted degree for 'proof', but I need not say that this is still a moot and philosophical point whether anything can be truly 'proven' in the world of physics. We have observations, and we have an accumulation of 'beliefs' that they point to the same conclusion, but we can never hit 100%. This is into Bayesian theory now....
I have now had sight of the WB6 report. The analysis of confinement density is by a method I have never seen before. I will discuss this sometime soon, but the point is that one person may accept the result if they accept the measurement method, and another may not accept that method. The accumulation of data swings the belief-network first one way, and then the other, and it will cross someone's threshold of 'validation' first, but not everyone's.
Not sure if this necessarily helps and gives the clarity you were after, but there it is!....
An observation or measurement can be made which is consistent with a theory, thesis and/or predicted outcome. Clearly, that might be co-incidence. So the process of 'validation' is about acquiring more such observations and data, following a 'consistent observation', and by different and/or more rigorous methodologies, to the point that the weight of data means the theory, thesis and/or predicted outcome is accepted as more probable than not.
The 'more probable than not' bit is the part that gets messy. It need not be a 50% measure, it might well be skewed high due to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" clause, or possibly low if it is a result already expected intellectually. Actually the last case is quite interesting and represents the effect called 'observer bias' - global warming being one such case often sited as such; very little evidence spread thin.....
In the case of Polywell, while it is being pushed along by willing converts to that faith, I would expect 50% will do for them as 'validation'. For me, personally, I would give it a much heavier weighting as it defeats many conventional presumptions of plasma physics. 95% (the 'k=2' definition) is the statistically accepted degree for 'proof', but I need not say that this is still a moot and philosophical point whether anything can be truly 'proven' in the world of physics. We have observations, and we have an accumulation of 'beliefs' that they point to the same conclusion, but we can never hit 100%. This is into Bayesian theory now....
I have now had sight of the WB6 report. The analysis of confinement density is by a method I have never seen before. I will discuss this sometime soon, but the point is that one person may accept the result if they accept the measurement method, and another may not accept that method. The accumulation of data swings the belief-network first one way, and then the other, and it will cross someone's threshold of 'validation' first, but not everyone's.
Not sure if this necessarily helps and gives the clarity you were after, but there it is!....
Chris,
If it makes you feel any better, I was never thrilled by some of the numbers coming out of the early tests, either. They depended too heavily on taking some pretty basic electrical measurements and running them thru an analysis tool that presumed things I would rather have measured.
The San Diego operation needed more diagnostics. The only one they had that I fully trusted was neutrons, and my WB3 never made enough to count. I did work very hard making sure the neutron counters would not pick up stray counts from electrical arcs for the later experiments. so the repeated quick bursts of neutrons seen in the WB6 tests are probably reliable, even if they don't rate a whole decimal place of statistical significance.
Santa Fe seems to have improved diagnostics greatly. Would that we could see the setup and data. But one of the reasons I was delighted to see Nebel and Park (and Rick tells me Park should get the real credit for the lab work) was that they're good at diagnostics.
If it makes you feel any better, I was never thrilled by some of the numbers coming out of the early tests, either. They depended too heavily on taking some pretty basic electrical measurements and running them thru an analysis tool that presumed things I would rather have measured.
The San Diego operation needed more diagnostics. The only one they had that I fully trusted was neutrons, and my WB3 never made enough to count. I did work very hard making sure the neutron counters would not pick up stray counts from electrical arcs for the later experiments. so the repeated quick bursts of neutrons seen in the WB6 tests are probably reliable, even if they don't rate a whole decimal place of statistical significance.
Santa Fe seems to have improved diagnostics greatly. Would that we could see the setup and data. But one of the reasons I was delighted to see Nebel and Park (and Rick tells me Park should get the real credit for the lab work) was that they're good at diagnostics.
I think that should be called "confirmation" rather than "validation", if that is the case.KitemanSA wrote:The statement in the web-site can be true if it was validated that the unit made enough to count 3+ neutrons during a run.
Personally, I would've presumed 'validation' would be a term first used to determining, no more and no less, that wiffleball formation and a virtual well depth does occur beyond reasonable doubt.KitemanSA wrote: There is no DIRECT implication that any physical theory was "validated".
Last edited by chrismb on Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Though it might sound like it from time to time, I have no 'big downer' on Polywell. In fact, I am satisfied that what they've measured then, and since, is consistent with the basic claims for Polywell. But this doesn't mean the basic claims are actually working out and my big worry is that 'egg-meets-face' is too common a story in fusion research.Tom Ligon wrote:Chris,
If it makes you feel any better, I was never thrilled by some of the numbers coming out of the early tests, either. They depended too heavily on taking some pretty basic electrical measurements and running them thru an analysis tool that presumed things I would rather have measured.
In the early days of fusion energy research, there were plenty of false claims of why the experiments were releasing neutrons, so much so that this embarrassing sequence of stories in the early press were exactly what gave fusion energy a bad name. And those guys were presuming some very ordinary basic physics behind their machines, noting remotely as tenuous as Polywell.
