collative_forum
cold fusion - Printable Version

+- collative_forum (http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload)
+-- Forum: About (/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Forum: Social and political (/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+--- Thread: cold fusion (/showthread.php?tid=933)


cold fusion - imdbstar - 12-06-2011 08:11 PM

in case you haven't come across this before, maybe you would find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k


RE: cold fusion - blueshift - 12-08-2011 02:13 PM

(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)imdbstar Wrote:  in case you haven't come across this before, maybe you would find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
I put the issue of cold fusion to the members at bautforum and they should respond to it at this link in a day or so:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/125261-Cold-Fusion-discussion?p=1966920#post1966920

You might also consider this article:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

It appears to be snake oil and it appears the two scientists were doing a lot of covering up themselves, something a lot of conspiracy freaks are guilty of.


RE: cold fusion - imdbstar - 12-08-2011 07:22 PM

(12-08-2011 02:13 PM)blueshift Wrote:  
(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)imdbstar Wrote:  in case you haven't come across this before, maybe you would find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
I put the issue of cold fusion to the members at bautforum and they should respond to it at this link in a day or so:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/125261-Cold-Fusion-discussion?p=1966920#post1966920

You might also consider this article:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

It appears to be snake oil and it appears the two scientists were doing a lot of covering up themselves, something a lot of conspiracy freaks are guilty of.


the article you showed is actually dated 1989. initially the claims were rejected, due to lack of reproducibility, but later when the experiment was reproduced in many labs in countries like japan,russia,india,etc apart from the US and UK where it was originally discovered, the subject continued to be debated due to a lack of understanding and a valid hypothesis of the phenomena.

the cold fusion phenomenon enters into dark areas such as
1) possibility of nuclear reactions happening without the application of high temperatures/pressure
2)possibility of transmutation of elements
3)possibility of the role of microorganisms and living cells

now with points 2 and 3 this almost enters into the realm of alchemy.
the main reasons for the labelling of this research as pathological science is mainly because of points 2 and 3 but also because of point 1 because conventional nuclear physics cannot explain cold fusion.

but even if one just wants to build the thing initially without worrying too much about trying to theorize the process, there are many factors that need to be addressed such as the chemical composition of the electrolyte, structure/nano structure of electrodes, etc, the method employed to transmit the energy needed to start the reactions, etc.

this process seems to work under different cathodes, different solutions, different initiation processes etc.

there have also been papers published in journals although not in the top tier journals like science/nature,etc(it was initially published in nature but later withdrawn i think)

here is an article from a mainstream science magazine(IEEE,spectrum)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/new-cold-fusion-evidence-reignites-hot-debate


http://www.lenr-canr.org/
this website is useful for people who aren't familiar in this field. student's guide to cold fusion is also a useful article for dummies.


RE: cold fusion - blueshift - 12-09-2011 04:14 AM

(12-08-2011 07:22 PM)imdbstar Wrote:  
(12-08-2011 02:13 PM)blueshift Wrote:  
(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)imdbstar Wrote:  in case you haven't come across this before, maybe you would find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
I put the issue of cold fusion to the members at bautforum and they should respond to it at this link in a day or so:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/125261-Cold-Fusion-discussion?p=1966920#post1966920

You might also consider this article:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

It appears to be snake oil and it appears the two scientists were doing a lot of covering up themselves, something a lot of conspiracy freaks are guilty of.


the article you showed is actually dated 1989. initially the claims were rejected, due to lack of reproducibility, but later when the experiment was reproduced in many labs in countries like japan,russia,india,etc apart from the US and UK where it was originally discovered, the subject continued to be debated due to a lack of understanding and a valid hypothesis of the phenomena.

the cold fusion phenomenon enters into dark areas such as
1) possibility of nuclear reactions happening without the application of high temperatures/pressure
2)possibility of transmutation of elements
3)possibility of the role of microorganisms and living cells

now with points 2 and 3 this almost enters into the realm of alchemy.
the main reasons for the labelling of this research as pathological science is mainly because of points 2 and 3 but also because of point 1 because conventional nuclear physics cannot explain cold fusion.

but even if one just wants to build the thing initially without worrying too much about trying to theorize the process, there are many factors that need to be addressed such as the chemical composition of the electrolyte, structure/nano structure of electrodes, etc, the method employed to transmit the energy needed to start the reactions, etc.

this process seems to work under different cathodes, different solutions, different initiation processes etc.

there have also been papers published in journals although not in the top tier journals like science/nature,etc(it was initially published in nature but later withdrawn i think)

here is an article from a mainstream science magazine(IEEE,spectrum)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/new-cold-fusion-evidence-reignites-hot-debate


http://www.lenr-canr.org/
this website is useful for people who aren't familiar in this field. student's guide to cold fusion is also a useful article for dummies.



I'll show you these and see if the dates match up well and I will reread yours. I would read all of the responses.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/122685-Whats-up-with-the-Cold-Fusion-Energy-Catalyzer-or-E-Cat?highlight=cold+fusion


Two issues need to be brought up here.

1. How quantum physics must verify an experiment
2. How advancements in science have never made past theories all wrong

First, before one can call a quantum physics experiment at Fermilab, or any other nuclear facility, they cannot make claims to any discovery until they come up with predicted results 99.999% of over one billion experiments. That is not an exaggerated number at all. If there is over 68% showing predicted results it can only be called a finding.

Secondly, there must be independent laboratories coming up with the same results. Read up on the November Revolution of 1974 concerning two labs, Brookhaven and SLAC, coming up with the same results independently with experiments that differed with one using high energy electrons and the other using high energy protons and getting the same energy signature at 3.11 GeV. The Charm Quark was discovered after billions of trials with 99.999% accuracy. And in all experiments since there has been further verifications of these accuracies. There are claims of String Theory being verified by observations that were taken back years later.

In terms of how science advances, science does not falsify the past. Science only points to where the limits of present science exist. Aristotle's geocentric view of the universe was not falsified. We still use its limits to this day when we create our star charts and map out the night sky. Copernicus had a limit that Kepler exceeded. Kepler would realize limits to his own earlier writings and came up with the term "force" to replace what he thought were religious spirits that guided the planets around the Sun. He would write 3 laws that Newton then modified and derived his 3 laws of physics. Galilean relativity and Newtonian Relativity would not explain what it was that non-uniform motions moved relative to. Nor could they explain what light moved relative to. Ernst Mach, Einstein and Maxwell would extend upon those limits . And from Rutherford to Bohr to Planck to Schrodinger to Lamb to Feynman to Ting to Richter to Lederman and others, each of which showed shortcomings to their predecessors in the quantum world.

Most important of all, one must have a math that bridges the gap from the limited view to the extended view. The law of cosines bridges the gap from flat space-time to curved space-time. Newtonian gravity is extended by a mathematical time delay of General Relativity. Differential calculus is realized from algebra and geometry with Newtonian orbits described by the former and Keplerian orbits described by the latter two. The bridge between quantum physics and GR has not been realized yet, if that turns out to be possible. GR is winning out on some grounds at the moment with some experimental evidence. So where is the bridging math to justify their claims?

Any making a claim that all the past has been falsified brings suspicions of pseudoscience complete with smoked up claims of being suppressed is a touch off base, playing physics babble that sounds like one has a grasp and needs to cover up a few things themselves. They don't have things that add up.

People are claiming cancer has been cured. It hasn't. There are too many cancers with extreme complications and scientists are watching cancer cells enter host cells with high energy X-rays generated from undulators and finding reason why there are different side effects when certain drugs are applied to certain situations and how all the different forms of cancer behave quite differently from the others.

The plot world really runs out of gas when it extends itself all over the place.


RE: cold fusion - CultureWarrior - 12-09-2011 05:11 PM

I dont know what cold fusion is but I had some poor old man rant up and down about how his friend was assassinated for inventing it.

Isnt cold fusion the idea of using two magnets with opposite charges to perpetually push each other and create energy?

I always thought that should work and wondered why nobody did it but Im guessing even if it did work it would fry any electronics it was connected with.


RE: cold fusion - imdbstar - 12-09-2011 11:11 PM

i'm not sure if the discovery of cold fusion negates any particular present scientific theory.

+ i don't think many physical phenomena conform to the 99.99% reproducibility in experiments. most common example is fluid turbulence.

although what you say is right as in, reproducibility must be perfected before people must start taking the phenomenon seriously.

anyhow here is an interesting article on peer review in science. although peer review helps to eliminate dross, it does many a time bring down pathbreaking discoveries.

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

also claiming that science does not falsify the past is i think an egotistical approach. i think science must ideally extend upon the limits of 'the science of its particular time' and also falsify any theories which have proven to be wrong.

also physical sciences(atleast in the macroscale, maynot be in nanoscale or megascale) tends to be a lot cleaner than say medical sciences,etc. main cause of cancers are poor quality diets.


RE: cold fusion - blueshift - 12-10-2011 04:42 AM

(12-09-2011 11:11 PM)imdbstar Wrote:  i'm not sure if the discovery of cold fusion negates any particular present scientific theory.

+ i don't think many physical phenomena conform to the 99.99% reproducibility in experiments. most common example is fluid turbulence.

although what you say is right as in, reproducibility must be perfected before people must start taking the phenomenon seriously.

anyhow here is an interesting article on peer review in science. although peer review helps to eliminate dross, it does many a time bring down pathbreaking discoveries.

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

also claiming that science does not falsify the past is i think an egotistical approach. i think science must ideally extend upon the limits of 'the science of its particular time' and also falsify any theories which have proven to be wrong.

also physical sciences(atleast in the macroscale, maynot be in nanoscale or megascale) tends to be a lot cleaner than say medical sciences,etc. main cause of cancers are poor quality diets.
The points you are raising concerning peer-reviews are not something I would take issue with. Cold fusion is a quantum physics experiment and it cannot be run like a Newtonian experiment such as fluid turbulence. It is a probabilistic and not a deterministic experiment.

But back to your interesting issue concerning peer review and how it is conducted. Much has to be realigned. John Archibald Wheeler's classroom structure is still a case in point.

Wheeler was asked shortly before he died what he was trying to convey to his students and what he thought the younger generation had to learn from him. His reply: "My students did not learn anything from me. Students don't learn from teachers at all. I went into teaching in order to learn. A straight A student only has to take one opinion into account, the teacher's, in order to pass some test and survive. The teacher has to take into account the entire classroom of student's cross examinations they present him from all of their different backgrounds. Preparing the class has to be different than just sitting up and taking notes and memorizing things that will just slow fade into nothing right after the exam. One can only learn calculus by teaching it."

Wheeler and other like him did not give students lectures. The students were told the first day that each day a different student would have to get up and have class prepared and that the whole class was going to be graded on how well the student did. Therefore, no one did his own work. They had to work in teams to prepare the student for the class presentation. Secondly, Wheeler was going to be in the audience asking questions to the student to clarify things and he would ask them questions that he did not know the answers to. It was up to the student to design an experiment and utilize the calculus to make predictions on the outcome of the experiment that would answer his question. Then the experiment had to be carried out.

In such a case faking it would be rather difficult and science would get done. There are many modifications of this method and it is being pushed at the American Science and Math Institute that Leon Lederman started years ago here in the Chicago area. They emphasize that students must become "self-taught" in order to survive. Peer review systems need to be rearranged to where the "peers" become more participants than passive audiences because once one extends energy doing anything, one becomes defensive of the efforts and understands them better. The peers then understand more clearly what the scientist being reviewed is talking about. After all, many in science are terrible in communication and Einstein was one of them. He was no match to Richard Feynman in social skills but what saved him was all of the inventions that followed due to special relativity being valid...radar, television, radio dispatch, lasers, etc.


Anyway, that is my two cents


RE: cold fusion - imdbstar - 12-11-2011 04:13 AM

i actually have almost zero knowledge about quantum physics, but aren't theories like the heisenberg's uncertainity principle and other similar theories probabilistic rather than deterministic. actually even the field of statistical mechanics is probabilistic. i'm not sure in what context the 99.x% is used.

actually it is not just fluid turbulence, but even phenomena like random vibrations, mechanics of non newtonian materials/fluids, rheology,etc still largely continue to remain a mystery and people always encounter something new in their findings/experiments.

i do agree that 'self teaching/learning' must always be the stressed hallmark of science.
i do agree that 'peers' should engage themselves in the research because it is almost impossible for someone to tell whether errors exist or not in the findings of the authors of these papers. these errors could be unintentional due to genuine mistakes or could be due to fraud(like some of the examples shown in the previous article)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWocYKqvhw

here is a video lecture by the michael nielsen again on open science. something that doesn't seem to be happening today is large scale collaboration. secrecy exists even today and researchers continue to indulge in it either to ensure that they and their work gets recognized or maybe because the research work is of a controversial nature. if research work was encouraged to be a lot more open science could progress at a much faster pace.

in this age of the internet, scientific results can be archived on dedicated servers on the net. ideally for experiments the setup, methodology,etc can be documented and a weekly record of updates on the results can be maintained. unlike journals where papers remain frozen with time, if any errors are picked up on they can be corrected. if with the same methodology if it is possible to generate similar kind of results on particular experiments across independent labs in different parts of the world, then one can start to establish the facts.
similar is the case with scientific code. if code were to be released and made public, researchers can continuously build upon existing code thus increasing the scientific output.

also another gripe people have with the scientific journals is the very high price. scientific papers are so expensive that no researcher actually buys individual papers. journals are usually subscribed by universities and papers are usually accessed from there. but it is strange that these scientific journals would charge such a high sum for their annual subscription when almost no money is sent to the people who actually conduct the research?? where does this huge amount of the subscription money go?? science research still continues to be funded by governments or big corporations, and never by these scientific journals.

another thing that kind of surprises me is sciences like climate science through computer modelling. problems like a flow through a pipe still pretty much continues to be a mystery, but still people work on highly complicated systems like the climate and attempt to study it through a computer code to predict climate change, etc. such things baffle me Smile


RE: cold fusion - blueshift - 12-11-2011 11:37 AM

(12-11-2011 04:13 AM)imdbstar Wrote:  i actually have almost zero knowledge about quantum physics, but aren't theories like the heisenberg's uncertainity principle and other similar theories probabilistic rather than deterministic. actually even the field of statistical mechanics is probabilistic. i'm not sure in what context the 99.x% is used.
Heisenberg's uncertainty does deal with quantum physics. Statistical mechanics is probabilistic but not a part of quantum physics, the micro world. A simple explanation of quantum physics deal with how far one can keep dividing something. Is there a limit or can we keep dividing things forever and forever? There is a limit, meaning that energy is quantized. Space is quantized as well. Also, all sub atomic particles have a dual nature, meaning they are all both wave and particle.

In quantum physics the experiment cannot be contaminated when trying to do fusion. That is why at particle accelerators there can be no stray molecules, positrons or electrons in the beam line of a proton particle accelerator nor can there be any stray molecules, antiprotons nor protons in an electron particle accelerator. The beam line is so sensitive that if a child were accidentally trapped inside the lead walls of an electron accelerator or the cement walls of a proton accelerator, the slightest movement or scream or tear drop hitting his skin on the way down his face would throw the beam off course, shutting the beam line down and setting off alarms.

As far as the math of quantum physics goes, it takes students an entire semester to figure out one problem in quantum physics. The math is that complicated and precise. The results is that they can calculate the magnetic moment of an electron to twelve decimal places to the right of a decimal point. In the macro world this is the equivalent of firing two bullets from opposite sides of Lake Michigan and having them collide head-on. That is the accuracy need to make positron beams collide head -on with electron beams at a precise target.

And relativistic science is a part of quantum physics experiments in the accelerators. Relativity has to be taken into account. Space and time get contracted in the reference frame of the accelerated particles. Where the two are not cooperating is in the cases of extreme curvature, inside of black holes.
Quote:actually it is not just fluid turbulence, but even phenomena like random vibrations, mechanics of non newtonian materials/fluids, rheology,etc still largely continue to remain a mystery and people always encounter something new in their findings/experiments.
Rheology is still a part of Newtonian science even though things are quite statistical. One can still determine the position and velocity of objects even if one does not understand some of the reasonings as to why some experiments work within certain environments. There is still a lot of growth in the Newtonian sciences and still many unresolved issues. It does not make them non-Newtonian. Bumble bee flight had scientists baffled until recently.
Quote:i do agree that 'self teaching/learning' must always be the stressed hallmark of science.
i do agree that 'peers' should engage themselves in the research because it is almost impossible for someone to tell whether errors exist or not in the findings of the authors of these papers. these errors could be unintentional due to genuine mistakes or could be due to fraud(like some of the examples shown in the previous article)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWocYKqvhw

here is a video lecture by the michael nielsen again on open science. something that doesn't seem to be happening today is large scale collaboration. secrecy exists even today and researchers continue to indulge in it either to ensure that they and their work gets recognized or maybe because the research work is of a controversial nature. if research work was encouraged to be a lot more open science could progress at a much faster pace.
When rebellions in science are successful it is because they resolved crises in science that could not be overcome without the rebellion. The Rutherford/ Bohr model of the atom is a case in point. The concept was that electrons revolved around the nucleus of an atom like planets around a star - the solar system model. If this was true,they reasoned, then the electrons would be accelerating charges and all accelerating charges give off electromagnetic waves. None of the neutral atoms do. Secondly, an accelerating charge will lose energy and should, therefore, spiral down into the nucleus, giving off different frequencies of light like a rainbow, and then annihilating the nucleus, leaving us with nothing but neutrons in the universe. In other words, we should not be here. Quantum physics would resolve the issue.
An electron is not influenced by the proton in a hydrogen atom. Nor is the proton influenced by the electron associated with it. Each is influenced by the field nearby. If an electron moves just less than 10 ^-33 cm, it will influence the electric field at its locality, increasing energy to its new position while leaving a depletion from the location it just left. The field wants to stabilize so the depleted region borrows energy from the increased region and that energy overshoots the point of equilibrium and then swings back through it several times like a swing, producing magnetic fields that are twisted in opposite directions just as positrons and electrons do. These swings are the virtual particle/antiparticle pairs that annihilate just as the swing on a swing set does when it is left to eventually stop swinging on its own. But billions of times each second the real electron becomes annihilated by one of the positron swings and, since electrons have no radius or size, nature cannot distinguish between what is real and virtual at that given moment. The remaining charge has to be accounted for and nature provides that with the virtual electron twist becoming real. To put it simply, electrons change position without moving, like looking at fire flies in your back yard in the summer and imagining that each one that lights is showing you where the electron is as it lights, but holding the pressure to be the same. I hope this didn't make misunderstandings worse.
Quote:in this age of the internet, scientific results can be archived on dedicated servers on the net. ideally for experiments the setup, methodology,etc can be documented and a weekly record of updates on the results can be maintained. unlike journals where papers remain frozen with time, if any errors are picked up on they can be corrected. if with the same methodology if it is possible to generate similar kind of results on particular experiments across independent labs in different parts of the world, then one can start to establish the facts.
similar is the case with scientific code. if code were to be released and made public, researchers can continuously build upon existing code thus increasing the scientific output.

also another gripe people have with the scientific journals is the very high price. scientific papers are so expensive that no researcher actually buys individual papers. journals are usually subscribed by universities and papers are usually accessed from there. but it is strange that these scientific journals would charge such a high sum for their annual subscription when almost no money is sent to the people who actually conduct the research?? where does this huge amount of the subscription money go?? science research still continues to be funded by governments or big corporations, and never by these scientific journals.
A couple of things here. High sums can be for many reasons, many on the opposite pole from others but national security often winds up taking priority. An example is needed. Astrophysicists were studying neutron stars in the early 1930s. Fritz Zwicky published a proposal for their existence. Put a tack there. At the same time other events took place. Lev Landau, a Soviet astrophysicist, questioned whether or not our Sun had a neutron star core in a publication. He was trying to avoid imprisonment and was desperate to come up with something profound that would give him great respect, preventing Stalin from imprisoning him. His wife tried to murder Stalin. Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder responded with publications that this was not possible because the Sun would have far more enormous X-rays and would appear far different than it does. Also, at the same time, a Frenchman named Pierre published that volcanoes were likely caused by nuclear fission within the planet. Yakov Zeldovich and Novinsky then published a response that it was not possible without plutonium in a critical state. They were explosive experts. American John Archibald Wheeler and one of his students, Kip Thorne, were good companions of Zeldovich and Novinsky and Sakharov and all showed interest in the behavior and mathematical possibilities of neutron stars from the equations of general relativity and all had done work on the compressablility of magnetic field lines. Could the lines be compressed into a black hole? Dennis Scianna and Stephen Hawking were also greatly involved and were publishing responses.

By now I think you can get the picture. All of those names above, minus Thorne, would become involved with the bomb in each of their own countries. Make these publications all public, which they were, and you have collaboration between scientists all over the world, a habit started by Tycho Brahe 4 centuries earlier. This seemed behind the backs of political leaders who had to step in.

But on the positive side, amateur astronomy can buck the establishment the easiest. All investment comes from the astronomer and professional astronomers are quite often making great progress in their own field when collaborating with amateurs. There are too many of us to ignore. Our data is too valuable and we have saved their fannies too many times in the past. We can image all night long whereas professionals can only image for the time their company rents the big equipment for. We calculate the difference in apertures of our equipment and increase our imaging time to compensate for our smaller apertures plus we can add filters the pros didn't take into consideration.
Quote:another thing that kind of surprises me is sciences like climate science through computer modelling. problems like a flow through a pipe still pretty much continues to be a mystery, but still people work on highly complicated systems like the climate and attempt to study it through a computer code to predict climate change, etc. such things baffle me Smile
If you go back to the quantum physics experiments and the amount of math and time consumed by humans to solve such enormous mathematical puzzles, one can see the need to feed the equations and possibilities to a computer which can come up with approximations more accurately than humans can and in greater numbers. The Grape 4 computer does 64 trillion computations per second. Differential geometry gets done in the same manner and the flows of energy of fluids use similar tensor calculus that is used to study the gases of nebulae as they collapse to form stars or as galaxies collide to form tidal tails.

Even with all of that, the best math only becomes science when it steps into the lab for verification. String Theory has to step up with some valid experiments or its funding is going to get the ax. That could be happening soon at Cern. If super particles fail to show their existence then ST is dead. If they do show existence it stays until experiments reveal the nature of the LSP, the lightest supersymmetric particle. If it is a squark, then ST gets caste aside for 5 centuries.