Tom, I agree that you'd need a profound amount of evidence before you abandon the current scientific paradigm and theories. I think though, that you're picking and choosing the evidence you want to admit. You're still ignoring the BLP reactor when it suits you. It released hundreds of times more energy than can be explained through standard chemistry.
Also you're ignoring that the CIHT is not a thermal reactor but a fuel cell. That is decidedly more difficult to explain through other means such as WLT.
In any event, one needs to keep the issues separate and you have not. Evaluation of the evidence needs to occur on its own terms, without reference to whatever scientific theory it might overturn eventually. If one prejudices the evaluation of evidence based upon the consequences to the current theory, one is never in a position to see what the evidence has to say.
BLP news
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Sensible man: The Earth is round, I tell you. You can't walk off the edge. . .
Skippy: Have you personally tested it? Do you know anyone personally who tested it? Do you know anyone despite a few selected individuals who have tested it?"
Skippy: Have you personally tested it? Do you know anyone personally who tested it? Do you know anyone despite a few selected individuals who have tested it?"
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
so... has anyone read mill's gut-cp theory? , anyone have a copy of Millsian v2.0 ?
tomclarke wrote
tomclarke wrote
i'd go one further and suggest, if you had a theory that went against mainstream, surely as scientist your main focus is experiment, publish results, get many people to confirm , not spend 10 years working on a 'reactor' with everyone still arguing over theory ????The problem is this. There are any number of companies which claim to be developing a commercial product based on non-standard physics. That is very exciting. Unfortunately none (including BLP) have ever actually got such a product to work. Repeated claims are therefore rightly treated with skepticism.
True. Let us evaluate the evidence for the fuel cell. We have something which looks like a battery, and is repeatedly charged/discharged.GIThruster wrote:Tom, I agree that you'd need a profound amount of evidence before you abandon the current scientific paradigm and theories. I think though, that you're picking and choosing the evidence you want to admit. You're still ignoring the BLP reactor when it suits you. It released hundreds of times more energy than can be explained through standard chemistry.
Also you're ignoring that the CIHT is not a thermal reactor but a fuel cell. That is decidedly more difficult to explain through other means such as WLT.
In any event, one needs to keep the issues separate and you have not. Evaluation of the evidence needs to occur on its own terms, without reference to whatever scientific theory it might overturn eventually. If one prejudices the evaluation of evidence based upon the consequences to the current theory, one is never in a position to see what the evidence has to say.
We don't have access to the details so we cannot tell what errors there may be. The total energy out is positive, but small (18kJ) over a very long time.
Ignore CF etc. You have this very complex experiment, with loose hydrogen, temperature up at 400C, etc. You get results which are slightly surprising. Do you view this as evidence that physics is broken? I don't think so. That is why this stuff is not publishable, because if you strip the interpretation the experimental data is so weak.
You know how easy it is to get errors, and how much care is needed to detect them.
Tom
It is what the tech startup companies that actually have something do. You get scientific proof of concept so people take you seriously and give you funds, then you go into stealth, optimise it, try to commercialise.303 wrote:so... has anyone read mill's gut-cp theory? , anyone have a copy of Millsian v2.0 ?
tomclarke wrotei'd go one further and suggest, if you had a theory that went against mainstream, surely as scientist your main focus is experiment, publish results, get many people to confirm , not spend 10 years working on a 'reactor' with everyone still arguing over theory ????The problem is this. There are any number of companies which claim to be developing a commercial product based on non-standard physics. That is very exciting. Unfortunately none (including BLP) have ever actually got such a product to work. Repeated claims are therefore rightly treated with skepticism.
In the cas eof LENR one experiment with unambiguous results is all you need, written up without reference to CF theories.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Tom, I agree with all you're saying. I am still though, on another issue. I'm agreeing with the guy from calTech, that it is worth seeing this funded and scaled up to make a better showing. That was my take-away.
Even if we here agreed with BLP's findings and physics, it is likely to take decades to win such a debate. In general, it has not even begun because the detractors hand-wave it away as "fringe" etc. Who can blame them. I want no part in that. What I want to see is they get scaled up so we know of we have a viable technology that is enough for an electric car or a powerful robotic probe like JIMO, but that costs 1/1,000 as much.
Even if we here agreed with BLP's findings and physics, it is likely to take decades to win such a debate. In general, it has not even begun because the detractors hand-wave it away as "fringe" etc. Who can blame them. I want no part in that. What I want to see is they get scaled up so we know of we have a viable technology that is enough for an electric car or a powerful robotic probe like JIMO, but that costs 1/1,000 as much.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
This is however easily verified in experiment and via observations available to anyone. Whatever BLP claims they have is not. Do you see the difference?Sensible man: The Earth is round, I tell you. You can't walk off the edge. . .
Snakeoil salesman "This heals every ailment, the limb can walk, the mute can talk! Just ask these two clients here that have conveniently aggreed to testify how great my snakeoil is!".
GIThruster "I buy, I buy, I buy!"
GIThruster wrote:... I'm agreeing with the guy from calTech [who used to work there 20 years ago]...
Before 1996, Henry was in academia at University of California, Santa Barbara as Professor of Chemical Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Chemistry from 1989 through 1996 and at California Institute of Technology as Professor of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Physics from 1972 through 1989. He is also a member of the National Academy of Engineering since 1995.
GIThruster would merely insist on the philosophical defensibility of that salesman. Rather than ignore his years-long recurrent insistence that this time his latest snakeoil formula will yield effects undeniably due to the snakeoil. Rather than ignore everything political and grab that oil from the damned salesman to put it thru analysis and 2x blind trials.
If you do not know in the first place whether someone is selling new physics or BS, you do not have a useful case for "the fairness of the physics establishment, etc." For all you know, that someone is 100% crank if not outright crook.
If you do not know in the first place whether someone is selling new physics or BS, you do not have a useful case for "the fairness of the physics establishment, etc." For all you know, that someone is 100% crank if not outright crook.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Betruger needs to stop putting words in the mouth of others.
In all my posts to date concerning BLP, I have never proposed people adopt BLP's physics. Rather, all I have ever said is people ought to be aware of what is being said.
If BLP comes up with a fuel cell in the next 24 months, that generates the kinds of power that has been stated is possible, then physicists and chemists around the world will need to weigh in on this.
We're here talking about a power density far in excess of what has been demonstrated in the past--enough for electric cars and extremely powerful robotic planetary probes. This is "disruptive technology" by anyone's standards.
If BLP doesn't show forth, then we need to ask why. If it turns out they didn't have the funding to demonstrate what they propose, then we're again in the place of ignorance. If they do show what they're saying is possible, then we'll leave it to the physicists who will be looking for an explanation.
Not that revolutions in scientific theory aren't interesting, but in science, we expect people to "show, not tell".
All I'm saying is, given the fantastical gains to be had, we ought to call for a real showing.
In all my posts to date concerning BLP, I have never proposed people adopt BLP's physics. Rather, all I have ever said is people ought to be aware of what is being said.
If BLP comes up with a fuel cell in the next 24 months, that generates the kinds of power that has been stated is possible, then physicists and chemists around the world will need to weigh in on this.
We're here talking about a power density far in excess of what has been demonstrated in the past--enough for electric cars and extremely powerful robotic planetary probes. This is "disruptive technology" by anyone's standards.
If BLP doesn't show forth, then we need to ask why. If it turns out they didn't have the funding to demonstrate what they propose, then we're again in the place of ignorance. If they do show what they're saying is possible, then we'll leave it to the physicists who will be looking for an explanation.
Not that revolutions in scientific theory aren't interesting, but in science, we expect people to "show, not tell".
All I'm saying is, given the fantastical gains to be had, we ought to call for a real showing.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Where did I edit a quoted post of yours? Also the above supposed GIT behavior fits reality. Philosophy over brass tacks ... over goal oriented empiricism.
Not what BLP or Rossi or Steorn are doing.in science, we expect people to "show, not tell".
"If". Will you bet your life or something else of great value to you on it?If BLP comes up with a fuel cell in the next 24 months, that generates the kinds of power that has been stated is possible,
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Betruger, I'm just posting here, what I found as news on the BLP web site. I always expect people here will dig in and find something I haven't. As I haven't much free time of late, it's no surprise to me that Chris seems to have found info on the prof at Cal-Tech that says he's no longer a prof. That's useful detail. Kudos for Chris, though I would not want to be the one to insinuate that the ex-prof was wrong in his very specific field of inquiry. Chris might. He's more reckless than I am.
OTOH, you're posting up drivel about me insisting on "the philosophical defensibility of that salesman". You sound like a pleeb. If you don't have valued-added remarks to make, why make remarks?
OTOH, you're posting up drivel about me insisting on "the philosophical defensibility of that salesman". You sound like a pleeb. If you don't have valued-added remarks to make, why make remarks?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
The value is pointing out the damned salience here that you'll defend some guy over some totally general, abstract principles... truisms ... when the guy IN REALITY has shown near zero productivity towards either theoretical or technical progress.
Those guys walk and talk like ducks, and you're insisting there's some outrageous injustice here. They don't deserve their scientific ear-bending driver's license so long as they're so far in the negative points range from so many broken promises. Why don't they just get their gizmos working beyond some marginal, ambiguous experimental demo and then pretend there's something to it?
Tens of millions in funding and decades is not injustice. Tens of M$ and decades in, and still walking and quacking like ducks. Yep, there's surely something wrong with Chris, Tom Clarke, Skipjack, & co's common sense if they're more than a little skeptical.
And the indignation at my irreverence is meaningless.
Those guys walk and talk like ducks, and you're insisting there's some outrageous injustice here. They don't deserve their scientific ear-bending driver's license so long as they're so far in the negative points range from so many broken promises. Why don't they just get their gizmos working beyond some marginal, ambiguous experimental demo and then pretend there's something to it?
Tens of millions in funding and decades is not injustice. Tens of M$ and decades in, and still walking and quacking like ducks. Yep, there's surely something wrong with Chris, Tom Clarke, Skipjack, & co's common sense if they're more than a little skeptical.
And the indignation at my irreverence is meaningless.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.