10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

Ok, I get you. So all those folks in staged protests shouting "Death to Americans" are REALLY after the Brazilians and Peruvians, and Mexicans, and Canadians.....

I expect more from you Kite. You ignored the fact that I said U.S. citizens have appropriated the name "American" incorrectly. We're so entitled here, we really could use some humility.

People around the world have been calling the people who lived in the 13 original states "Americans" since before the citizens of the 13 original states called ourselves "Americans". We used o call ourselves "New Yorkers" or "Virginians" or whatever. "Americans" was acceptedfrom overseas.

Then we got "big" and such people stated accusing us of all sorts of nasty stuff. Well, F' em, let them be jealous. I'm not going to cry over it!

[KitemanSA]

Wait until you get booted in the trunk.

Is that like being kicked in the kaboose?

trunk (trungk)
1. torso; the main part of the body, to which head and limbs are attached.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trunk

Yup, that is another meaning for trunk. But do the Brits use it any differently?

[ladajo]

I wonder what Vermont was thinking when they established themselves as the Republic of Vermont? Short lived as it was before they became the 14th State, they still get to be only one of four that were independant countries prior to becoming states.
Of course the bigger question looms...if England won the French and Indian War, and then gained control of Canada, why did not Quebec join the revolution and the original 13 when all that went down? Hmmm.

[Crawdaddy]

Incorrect.

If you read the article and those that cite it you will see that this system fulfills the conditions for a 2D BEC. And that the emission properties are dependent on the number of photons in the resonant cavity.

Generally people don't get nature publications simply by making a dye doped resonant cavity (which is so old it was probably first experimented with before I was born).

So yes 2D BEC of photons here folks.

That article and those that cite it are well known to me.
Their experiment made its way in Nature because is a very smart experiment, and deserved to be there. The critic is (and will still be for many years to come ) if this can be indeed considered a BEC or not.
Their attempt to justify it as a BEC is mainly residing on the hypothesis that frequent collisions of dye molecules with the solvent creates a fast de-coherence phenomena that prevents the coupling of the phases of dipole and photon. From this they assume that the particles are only photons instead of polaritons.
Nice assumption in theory, but still to be proven true IMHO.

There is more critics of course, but this will suffice until they prove that the particle are all photons.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to link a relevant critique of the experiment. Superficial similarities of the apparatus to exciton BEC experiments not withstanding, the photon BEC seems to fit theoretical predictions very well.

No critiques seem to cite the original paper, this is very strange practice.

[JoeP]

I don't believe Americas are so entitled. It is my understanding that we worked hard and many of our ancestors starved to give us what we have today. Some of us still like to work hard. For the fun of it.

If I understand the philosophy correctly, it is this:

Work little and get lots of entitlements.
Work harder and lose these entitlements.
Work even harder and pay more for other peoples entitlements.
Work exceptionally hard, and the government will broker what you are entitled to.

And remember, you are never entitled to call yourself American.

Nice summary of the current situation.

Simulate the same thing using a game theory engine in software and not be at all surprised why your virtual population ends up backrupt. The path of least resistance to gaining the most rewards for most individuals will be be to maximize entitlements. And the system as a whole eventually collapses.

[Giorgio]

Okay you got me Gorgio ... arguing semantics is always the last resort for the never-wrongs, you will always win since you can change the definitions as often as you please to make sure you are never wrong ....

And what definitions did I change? Please be specific, post all of them so I can realize what is confusing you.

... the BEC maths stats. "as commonly understood" says it is a BEC ... if you have your own definition for BEC (or bipedal monkeys) that is fine but you must realise you are arguing semantics at that point, not physics .... or are you not as clever as you make out?

A definition IS a definition, and I gave you mine few posts ago.
I am asking you to write and tell me what your definition of a BEC is.
Do it in words or do it by math if you prefer.

Saying that your definition of BEC is "as commonly understood" or as "BEC maths stats" without actually stating WHAT is the definition that you believe is correct, is exactly what being semantics means.

[Giorgio]

Take a Bose. Put it together with an Einstein. Drip some water on them from the humidity condensing on the cold ceiling. I believe that fully satisfies your rigorous definition for a BEC.

ROTFL, great example!
If we could teach science that way I am sure more and more young people will feel the urge to get involved into science

[Giorgio]

But again, no BEC of photons here folks.

Wow, you have REALLY gone off on a side comment.
How bout a BEC of excitons. Or Polaritons. Can those exist?

I still think a laser is equivalent to a BEC, but that is inconsequential to our basic discussion.

Do we still have a basic discussion going on? I thought you just said that our positions are not compatible and each one of us will keep his own.
Did I understand wrong?

[Giorgio]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to link a relevant critique of the experiment. Superficial similarities of the apparatus to exciton BEC experiments not withstanding, the photon BEC seems to fit theoretical predictions very well.

No critiques seem to cite the original paper, this is very strange practice.

You mean a direct published critique to their original paper? I never saw one, and I will be surprised if one exists.
The paper and the related experiment, as I said, is very smart and deserved to be published in Nature.

They have indeed discovered something novel, the issue is defining what they have actually discovered. They like to overstress that it is a BEC, and to do so they assume certain yet (as far as I know) unproven hypothesis.

A general critique on the definitions of these type of experiments is well resumed in this article: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25971
If you want some article with critics specifically related to Weitz I can give to you only once I am back to Italy.

But again, to be clear, the critique here all turns around the definitions, not on the value of the experiment.

[Crawdaddy]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to link a relevant critique of the experiment. Superficial similarities of the apparatus to exciton BEC experiments not withstanding, the photon BEC seems to fit theoretical predictions very well.

No critiques seem to cite the original paper, this is very strange practice.

You mean a direct published critique to their original paper? I never saw one, and I will be surprised if one exists.
The paper and the related experiment, as I said, is very smart and deserved to be published in Nature.

They have indeed discovered something novel, the issue is defining what they have actually discovered. They like to overstress that it is a BEC, and to do so they assume certain yet (as far as I know) unproven hypothesis.

A general critique on the definitions of these type of experiments is well resumed in this article: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25971
If you want some article with critics specifically related to Weitz I can give to you only once I am back to Italy.

But again, to be clear, the critique here all turns around the definitions, not on the value of the experiment.

I see no confusion. The ground state of the cavity is the TM00 mode and the BEC forms when the cavity is irradiated such that the photon population in the ground state is large.

I see no one actually disputing the fact that this system can be described mathematically as a 2D BEC. The link you provided does not even address the case of photons.

I find your arguments unconvincing and poorly sourced. You have failed to back up your statement "no BEC here folks!".

[Giorgio]

I see no confusion. The ground state of the cavity is the TM00 mode and the BEC forms when the cavity is irradiated such that the photon population in the ground state is large.

What you do not understand is that there is no ground state here. There is a "lowest possible energy state" which is dependent from the size of the cavity.
Your failing to understand this makes any additional attempt from my side to explain to you the difference between this phenomena and a BEC pretty useless.

I see no one actually disputing the fact that this system can be described mathematically as a 2D BEC. The link you provided does not even address the case of photons.

I see no one actually disputing that oranges and apples are different judging from their external shape.
They actually need to bite them to understand that there is a difference.
Is not hard to understand, try to put some effort into it.

The link I provided, as I wrote, was just a quick attempt to explain to you some of the main issues surrounding the definitions of BEC from photons and derived particles. I see that the attempt failed, or that there was never any interest from you to actually get to the root of the issue.

I find your arguments unconvincing and poorly sourced. You have failed to back up your statement "no BEC here folks!".

Start understanding what a BEC is, when you have that clear you will need no source to understand where you are mixing things up.

[MSimon]

What you do not understand is that there is no ground state here.

Bravo!!! You beat me to it.

If I set a fire to some brush in my back yard the ions generated by the fire may be "ground state" relative to the center of the sun. But they are not in fact in a ground state.

Very difficult concepts for many here - to be sure.

[olivier]

Of course the bigger question looms...if England won the French and Indian War, and then gained control of Canada, why did not Quebec join the revolution and the original 13 when all that went down?

Missed opportunity, bad timing and bad understanding of other peoples' expectations by the Americans. This happens from time to time.
Considering the starting point with the expulsion of the Acadians and statements like this in in the 1760s:

It would give me pleasure to see the Canadian vermin sacked and pillaged and justly repaid their unheard-of cruelty.

one might think that Quebec should have automatically joined the revolution 15 years later.
But the Quebec Act came in 1774, restoring religious freedom and French civil law. The English had done what was needed to satisfy the local bourgeoisie and clergy (a scheme which Napoleon applied in Europe with success, at least in the beginning).
Then the Patriots opposed the Quebec Act as one of the Intolerable Acts. the French Canadian bourgeoisie rallied the Crown and the majority of the people remained indifferent to this English war.

[MSimon]

We feel the need to tell others how to live their lives and attach social stigmas on anything we don't agree with (drug arguments).

A subject near and dear to my heart. Look me up on this blog or on the I'net on the subject. I have been rather prolific.

[KitemanSA]

I wonder what Vermont was thinking when they established themselves as the Republic of Vermont?

That they were tired of being argued over by New York and New Hampshire that both claimed that land?

Ma got into geneology and found an ancester that was born in both Vermont and New Hampshire. Same place, different record keeper.