Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 33Vortex on April 09, 2011, 06:58:04 PM
-
Hi, topic just to spark some attention to the subject. I've not seen it covered here yet though it may have been. Still, there is some interesting new research being done and some of you may have heard of it.
Rossi-Foccardi cell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt2JqEmaUGc&feature=channel_video_title)
There also were a video recorded at the Bologna University open demonstration with english subtitles but the subtitles seem to have been removed on all those videos for some reason. At least they're not working from my computer so you may have better luck in viewing those, especially if you know the italian language well.
Anyway, it's a very interesting development and I'm (NOT really) shocked this hasn't been covered much by the media. IF this is proven, and yes it does look credible so far with not much against it, it will be nothing short of revolutionary and with a real possibility to solve most if not all of our energy problems.
So from what I understand this is the reaction: Hydrogen + Nickel => Copper
It does produce radiation, for as long as the duration of the reaction. As soon as the reaction is stopped so is the radiation with it so it does not produce radioactive waste but does require a lead shield around the device.
One of the observing scientists who had brought their own measuring instruments to the Bologna test observed that there were no hidden cables to/from the device, but it was still possible to hide something else than what was claimed within it. He noted though, that if it was a chemical reaction it would still be revolutionary because the world's most efficient battery would weigh more than 10 times more and still not produce the energy measured by the observers.
I find all of this very intriguing, to say the least. They say there will be a power plant going operational in Greece before the end of the year, and that a Greek company will sell the device internationally. Having said all this, it wouldn't surprise me the least if Foccardi and Rossi would go and die in some freak car accident or airplane crash and all of this forgotten about.
-
Click cc for the sub-titles.
-
60 Minutes had an episode about Cold Fusion as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNn_Z6wCIk&feature=relmfu
If Cold Fusion really is possible, I would love to see this piece of technology replace our current energy sources. Of course it will change everything. For better or for worse.
-
Having said all this, it wouldn't surprise me the least if Foccardi and Rossi would go and die in some freak car accident or airplane crash and all of this forgotten about.
Yep, sadly, I think you might be right.
-
and the navy just tested a neutron laser that requires quite a bit of juice to run.
hmmm.......
-
See Rule #14
-
One of the observing scientists who had brought their own measuring instruments to the Bologna test...
Does anyone else find it amusing that the test was held at a university sharing the name of a particular form of lunch meat whose name is often pronounced "baloney," as in "nonsense?"
-
I heard about this a couple months ago and the report I was reading was very skeptical about the scientists results, so until he can show it working & it be peer reviewed I'm on the skeptical side about what this guy is claiming.
-
It's a scam guys. There is no peer review nor even a patent application for any of their processes. :frown:
-
Does anyone else find it amusing that the test was held at a university sharing the name of a particular form of lunch meat whose name is often pronounced "baloney," as in "nonsense?"
Except that the Bologna is literally the oldest centers of anything you could remotely call 'modern' learning in the world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_University
-
You'll never discover what's on the outside of the box if you don't look.
There is a patent application filed, it has not been accepted yet. There are theoretical problems as our current scence is incomplete and unable to fully explain what is occurring. Rossi worked from a basic (empiric) theory of fusion, tested various materials in practical experiments until he allegedly discovered a process which worked. That is, he simply ignored working out a detailed theory before experimenting knowing that our theoretical science is flawed, because it is. Anyone who claim that our science is complete I'd call a ignorant liar. Why are we then still even looking at the stars? Why are we even bothering with quantum physics if our theories are already accurate?
So what happened was that this guy dared to carry out experiments without a good solid theory behind how it was supposed to work out, and now he's having real issues with working out the explanation of how it works theoretically. It makes sense.
Consider that if anyone 3000 years ago would fold a paper airplane and make it fly, he would in a sense have discovered flight. It doesn't mean that he knew how it works, he just discovered that his practical application does work the way it does. He could then spend the rest of his life trying to figure out the theory behind it.
"Absolute certainty is a privilige of uneducated minds and fanatics." - C.J. Keyser
-
It's a scam guys. There is no peer review nor even a patent application for any of their processes. :frown:
Don't even know where to begin on this guy Rossi and his history, on what they did wrong in their demo (didn't do simple stuff like weigh apparatus before and after), on them owning the "journal" they published the "reports" in.... But they reportedly do have a company in Greece (?) buying their gizmos and (iirc) Lockheed Martin also is doing business with them. Could such a big company be fooled by one kook? Well, what's up with EESTOR?
Vortex this isn't fusion.
-
Vortex this isn't fusion.
No, they are not claiming it to be cold fusion either. A misnomer by me however it 'might' be a type of cold fusion. They call it a "energy catalyzer". However if you have a reaction between Hydrogen and Nickel with Copper being the product of the reaction, is that not fusion? Whatever it is, it's something new.
The real test will be whether they can make this into a real world application. If they can succeed in doing that they are not only proving validity to their claims but they will also have defeated the energy corporations who have a certain interest in keeping the price of energy up.
Just because a application doesn't make it into a commercial product doesn't mean it's not working or 'not true'. I've seen patented inventions bought up by big corporations and shelved because there's no interest in or profit on investing in new technology which would make the older and more profitable technology obsolete.
-
nor even a patent application for any of their processes. :frown:
Well they actually do have a patent application for it.
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2009125444&KC=&FT=E (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2009125444&KC=&FT=E)
-
Vortex
It's something new for sure, and the 'fusion' tag is incorrect and furthers the 'cold fusion' train wreck/connotations for... what reason? I'm saying there's no good reason to keep calling it that, other than press' benefit from sensationalism.
On #2: Yes it remains to be seen that Rossi & cie do have something that works. It isn't at all ruled out because the "cold fusion" AKA Low Energy Nuclear Reaction AKA Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction has definitely been repeatedly spotted, despite all the "Bad press" (another reason why it's no good to expect anything from the Press' standards, they change on their whims) it got. E.G. it could be the same phenomenon that Randal Mills (famous vaporware-ish funding fiend) reported and used to give credence to his nutty lower than ground state "hydrino" "theory".
#3 shenanigans are true in general but how do you know this particular case is an instance of it? It's not clear and Rossi, in either confidence trick savvy or fair commercial shrewdness, has arranged it so that we won't know the actual science till roughly the same time his technological gizmo hits the commercial jackpot.
Another somewhat more credible instance of the dogmatic and parochial faults of the "Church of Science": Dr. J. Prins' superconductivity research. He has been literally black balled and his reputation smeared for defying established understanding of superconductivity. Labs refuse to test his material without ever justifying why. He claims to have affordable room superconductivity solutions (with experimental evidence) and a completely different model that makes predictions the status quo (BCS theory) doesn't.
-
Yeah, if you are not prepared to re-evaluate previously known "laws" when new test results defy them, it is not science you are occupied with but religion.
Some people really need to get their head out of their arse. But that's beside the point, yes I agree it remains to be seen if this is indeed as good as they claim it to be. I'm just excited about these events unfolding and wanted to drag it out for discussion here. :)
-
Yeah, if you are not prepared to re-evaluate previously known "laws" when new test results defy them, it is not science you are occupied with but religion.
{snip}
Well said.
-
Yeh right... a black box that is claimed to produce energy, which nobody knows how it works or is allowed to test it - and people are surprised that nobody take these guys seriously. I swear that I saw Uri Geller bend spoons and there were no wires coming out of those either. A guys I know who has a room-mate whose sister dated Uri Geller's drivers says it is all true.
The may be onto some absolute amazing discovery, but they sure do not act like it. Since it not "seeing is believing". When the device is thoroughly tested and there is half an explanation to what is going in there I will believe it.
-
Yeh right... a black box that is claimed to produce energy, which nobody knows how it works or is allowed to test it - and people are surprised that nobody take these guys seriously. I swear that I saw Uri Geller bend spoons and there were no wires coming out of those either. A guys I know who has a room-mate whose sister dated Uri Geller's drivers says it is all true.
The may be onto some absolute amazing discovery, but they sure do not act like it. Since it not "seeing is believing". When the device is thoroughly tested and there is half an explanation to what is going in there I will believe it.
The device has been tested and the energy output and input measured as well as the device itself weighed before and after the open tests. None of the observing scientists came up with contradicting information that would question Rossi's claims. The only limitation was that the device itself is not opened, because he said he did not want to reveal the inside until the patent is accepted.
There is something going on with this project and it may not be cold fusion but it's a new way to produce energy nevertheless.
-
The device has been tested and the energy output and input measured as well as the device itself weighed before and after the open tests. None of the observing scientists came up with contradicting information that would question Rossi's claims. The only limitation was that the device itself is not opened, because he said he did not want to reveal the inside until the patent is accepted.
There is something going on with this project and it may not be cold fusion but it's a new way to produce energy nevertheless.
^^ This
What I found interesting, and somewhat disturbing, was the fact that the radiological expert found no signs of decay. In my uneducated mind, one would think that there would be some measurable amount of radiation due to Beta decay.
Help me to understand this please.
-
If there was a radiation then it would not have been cold fusion :)
Beta decay is much easier to control than other forms of radiation. It produces an electron and charged particles can be easily (OK, relatively) controlled by electro-magnetic fields. This is in contrast to emission of gamma and neutrons which penetrate most materials very easily and are unaffected by EM fields.
The only limitation was that the device itself is not opened, because he said he did not want to reveal the inside until the patent is accepted.
This is what I would expect from someone who developed a revolutionary device for removing women facial hair, not from someone who just made the biggest technological advancement since electricity. Do you really think that the patent office would have this laying on the desk in the backlog of applications?
I may be wrong but the whole business is very suspicious.
-
ooo goody its the latest free energy scam!
of course we wont need it because everything will soon be powered by Steorn's Orbos ... :lol
-
Scam? Maybe, but who/what are the Swedish Skeptics Society? Apparently they've just validated it. Also there is a plant being built in Greece.
So if its a scam or its real, we'll find out soon enough.
-
It certainly would reveal just what LENR is and pull the carpet from under the feet of any other scammers like Blacklightpower that gobble millions of $$ for no result.
-
I'm thinking that whether it's real or not has nothing to do with if it'll make it to the market or not. Big business have their ways of suppressing small business, nice ways and then there are not so nice ways. Even killing people is not a problem. So all you science moralists who believe the "laws" are as true as daylight I wonder what you really are thinking.
Geordani Bruno wrote some ~415 years ago that the universe is infinite and populated by thousands of galaxies. For that he was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church in the year 1600 after years of imprisonment. So howcome we know of and remember Copernicus and Galilei, who mistakenly left the sun the center of the universe but not Geordani Bruno who saw the infinite? It would be foolish to claim to have all the answers, but I can offer you some food for thought. Those who control the present, also control the past.
-
scientific moralists
:headscratch:
-
:headscratch:
I applaud your effort, but not everyone will understand and I never expect it.
-
I like your way of thinking Vortex, you really get 'it'. You use your own mind to think things through and come to conclusions. Most people just assume they are enlightened because they study other's work and possibly add a little experimental evidence of their own on to it. But to be truly enlightened one must think for themself from the ground up. Which you clearly do. I enjoy reading your posts very much sir, thank you. I could learn alot from you.
-
So all you science moralists who believe the "laws" are as true as daylight
Point em out.
-
I applaud your effort, but not everyone will understand and I never expect it.
I'm just not familiar with the term. they sound a weird bunch.
-
I'm just not familiar with the term. they sound a weird bunch.
Yes, :aok english is not my first language so expect more of that. :D
-
If you read the pdf patent request there is more to this than just hydrogen and nickel interacting to change the nickel into a copper isotope. The reaction takes place inside of a copper tube at preassure and temp. Sounds familiar from several unrelated groups attempts at separating hydrogen from water to fill hydrogen cells. Nickel and copper have been looked at as cataylists.
I'm not sure this is technicaly cold fusion. The hydrogen has to be externaly heated before being injected into the chamber. The temperature of the hydrogen is varyed periodicly during the injection raction resulting in supposedly some release of energetic particles requiring Lead and Steel sheilding. A Water/Boron solution is used to carry away heat. Sounds more like accidental particle scaveging by weakening of bonds via heat and preassure. Didn't the russians use liquid boron to cool their nuclear subs reactors and the leakages kept killing their crews.....
Reminds me of a digital H2O cracking device in the late 80's where the inventor claimed he could weaken the hydrogen bond via a polarity change at some harmonic frequency he determined of the H and O bonding. He supposidly demonstrated real time hydrogen production at amounts to run a car engine from tap water. Funny in 88 he ran out of a Denny's in I think Kansas holding his chest yelling he had been poisened then dropped dead in the parking lot. No one has yet to duplicate his work because he never documented the frequecy for the polarity switch.......
Wonder if this guy after the patent is issued will claim his reaction is a zero point energy reaction leveraging the casimir effect....
-
The Myers cell is another interesting topic which I'm sure would upset some more people here. :devil I think your thoughts of the two being related are interesting. I've not seen this patent request in .pdf format, do you have a link?
Anyway, Rossi never claimed his device to be based on cold fusion, afaik. I just pulled a dirty trick drawing attention to the thread because I think people need to wake up from the "this can't be done" mentality.
-
You are confusing "it can't be done" with "it has not been done".
-
No, you are confusing things. People are stuck with the formulas they were taught in school and many (most it seems) can't get their head around the fact that these laws are nothing but approximations based on assumptions in the first place. These approximations are adequate for our environment (in our environment) but are incomplete. Repeating what others have said and written before you doesn't make you a more intelligent person. People who say something is impossible because it goes against this or that law that we know is "true" and therefore it can't be done, well... we won't be pushing any boundaries with them unless perhaps when it comes to patience.
Some people treat science like a religion, some of these people are very influential in senior positions at various institutions around the world. They don't want their circles disturbed, because they know most everything already and would just prefer to occupy researchers with endless string theories which will lead us nowhere.
Ok I'm done with my rant, who wants the floor?
-
I don't think you understand what a physical law is. "Impossible" in science VERY improbable, not "absolutely cannot be". The days of absolute truths and philosophical science are over.
It is interesting that you keep repeating that: "Repeating what others have said and written before you doesn't make you a more intelligent person". The thing is that not repeating what other people said does not make their words not true. If someone did something right and came to the correct conclusion, should I refrain from using this conclusion because he said it first? I love the couch & joint philosophers that say you can't believe any scientific law and conclusion until you have done the experiments yourself... oh yes, and the galaxies can be like atoms in a fingernail of some giant whose world is in itself atoms of another giant which is an atom in our world... wow dude!
They don't want their circles disturbed, because they know most everything already and would just prefer to occupy researchers with endless string theories which will lead us nowhere.
If you knew anything about science and getting grants you'd know that what the scientists love the most is to emphasize how much we do not know yet. I have no idea what you mean about string theories. It is a very niche branch of theoretical physics that employ a tiny number of researchers and an even smaller number of scientists are interested in what is (not) happening in that field.
-
Not "repeating" ie working from someone's conclusions is nothing but a recipe for gridlock. Just completely unreal idea. All for some philosophical satisfaction.
You could do 1000 replication runs and still have the "philosopher" looking over your shoulder going "yeah, but what if the 1,001st time is when it stops working?"
-
I don't think you understand what a physical law is. "Impossible" in science VERY improbable, not "absolutely cannot be".
If only people would get that one thing right. Because the majority of people seem to assume the "laws" to be absolute. The best methods always are practical experimentation in correlation with theory. When it becomes too theoretical it can deviate from reality significantly. Experimentation is the foundation of science, without practical knowledge we could never build a viable theory or formulate "laws". So the logic has to be that experimental results supersede theory in importance, and theory be revised to accommodate any new results if they are found to be accurate. This is why I'm having problems with people who cry "fake" whenever they hear something in contradiction to their own theoretical knowledge of science. It reminds me more of religious dogma than science when people take on that behaviour. We would have no, or very little, scientific progress if those people were in charge. Luckily there are some maverick researchers out there who dare go their own way. If you remember, the Wright brothers were much like that.
-
Those mavericks are outnumbered by cranks. The average joe is correct in noticing that empirical trend.
-
quite.
Luckily for us most researchers arent mavericks and spend their time doing rigorous science in potentially fruitful areas of research rather than wasting their time and our money chasing wild geese.
-
The mavericks are the ones that go down in history as great. The rest, like I said in another topic, end life unstisfied, unappreciated and misserable having never really done anything worthwhile despite their intelligence and hard work.
-
quite.
Luckily for us most researchers arent mavericks and spend their time doing rigorous science in potentially fruitful areas of research rather than wasting their time and our money chasing wild geese.
Depends on whether you consider progress to be a faster, better looking, safer and more comfortable car, or something better than a car. I say the potential for something better than a car is there, we just have to do the research. For a scientist looking for a career it's a safer bet to do research which pays off, rather than let go "chasing wild geese" as you say. It's the golden rule once again. He who has the gold make the rules.
I guess basically it's about where you set your level of ambition. If you look around you everything in this world are built on dreams, a vision that someone had and made real. It's everywhere in the corporate and construction businesses just to name a couple, oh and aviation of course. Yet somehow as a scientist you are not encouraged to dream, but to carry on analytical work for a company looking for easier money, i e a bigger profit margin to show their share holders. So, do we want more of the same, but enhanced, products... or do we want some real change?
-
I'm interested in these mavericks. traditional science involves the usual mix of observation, experimentation, theory and intuition, following the scientific method. usually you study hard at school and show some talent for your subject, go to a universtity study some more, get a degree, then start doing proper research and work towards further academic advancement, profit, personal fulfillment, whatever. somewhere along the way you might discover something cool, you submit it for peer review and if it passes muster it goes on for further review. if enough people have reviewed it and think its worthwhile, they will start using it in their own theories or research.
name some useful scientific theories discovered by a maverick - ie. someone who didnt follow the path above. I'm struggling with this. :headscratch:
-
No, you are confusing things. People are stuck with the formulas they were taught in school and many (most it seems) can't get their head around the fact that these laws are nothing but approximations based on assumptions in the first place. These approximations are adequate for our environment (in our environment) but are incomplete. Repeating what others have said and written before you doesn't make you a more intelligent person. People who say something is impossible because it goes against this or that law that we know is "true" and therefore it can't be done, well... we won't be pushing any boundaries with them unless perhaps when it comes to patience.
<snip>
Ok I'm done with my rant, who wants the floor?
I see this how I would see a movie that involves magic from some unused part of the brain.
It's impossible, most people would agree. That doesn't mean there is no possible way that
it can happen. I'm not saying I believe in magic or something, I'm just comparing the ideas.
Some people believe magic is truly possible, and they tend to be outcasts.
Just my thought on the matter. It appears to me the same concept. Just thinkin it would be
really, really cool to snap my fingers and have a fireball at my hand :D
-
I'm interested in these mavericks. traditional science involves the usual mix of observation, experimentation, theory and intuition, following the scientific method. usually you study hard at school and show some talent for your subject, go to a universtity study some more, get a degree, then start doing proper research and work towards further academic advancement, profit, personal fulfillment, whatever. somewhere along the way you might discover something cool, you submit it for peer review and if it passes muster it goes on for further review. if enough people have reviewed it and think its worthwhile, they will start using it in their own theories or research.
name some useful scientific theories discovered by a maverick - ie. someone who didnt follow the path above. I'm struggling with this. :headscratch:
You are confused as to what the term maverick means.
1) Darwin
2) Einstein
Two great mavericks, widely considered as mavericks by most people of their time.
Just an intersting piece on the subject:
Science creates 'own mavericks'
British scientists fuel controversies by shunning colleagues with rebel ideas, according to research.
A Cardiff University study found British scientists ousted 'maverick' colleagues to avoid giving their arguments legitimacy.
In comparison, Swedish colleagues believed exclusion only served to exacerbate problems.
The author said this might explain how controversies around issues such as MMR have become health scares in the UK.
Dr Lena Eriksson surveyed 30 expert scientists from Sweden and the UK about their opinions on a high-profile controversial topic in their field of expertise - genetically modified food.
She found significant differences between the two groups' attitudes about scientist Arpad Pusztai who was suspended from his workplace after claiming in 1998 that a type of GM potato had adverse effects on the immune systems of rats.
The Swedish scientists were more inclined to take the view that there has to be scope for scientists to make mistakes, and therefore the treatment of Pusztai was to be condemned, regardless of the truth to his claims.
The British scientists on the other hand only said it was wrong to suspend Pusztai when they believed he was right in his conclusions.
When they did not hold the same unorthodox views as a maverick scientist, their first instinct was to shut out any dissenting voice, said Dr Eriksson.
Outcast
She believes research communities that punish scientists who present contentious results will risk disenchanting an already sceptical public even further.
"This increases the likelihood of scientific controversies moving into a public domain, as the ousted scientists are forced to seek new audiences for their claims."
She cited the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine following Dr Andrew Wakefield's suggestions of a link between MMR and autism and bowel disease was an example.
"It's a matter of how controversies are handled within scientific communities.
Dr Eriksson told BBC News Online: "A Swedish 'big tent' strategy, in which room is made for marginal views, could potentially serve to diminish the risk of all-out battles between scientists in the full glare of mass media," she said.
The British scientists were also more accepting of management and employer control over the publication of their material.
They saw it as necessary for their own protection in a hostile world, while their Swedish counterparts tended to resent excessive "red tape".
Dr Piers Benn, a lecturer in medical ethics at Imperial College London, said: "In my view, there is a general tendency in any profession to close ranks when somebody has said something controversial.
"There is a kind of closing of ranks around views that are regarded as maverick.
"People who have research that may be respectable tend to be dismissed on grounds of character rather than science," he said.
Bob Ward, spokesman for the Royal Society said: "It is hard to believe that Britain tries to suppress well-founded but unorthodox ideas any more than other countries because it has produced more than its fair share of mavericks who have made great steps forward for science.
"Just being a maverick does not ensure that your ideas are good. It is established practice that new ideas in science should be assessed for quality by one's peers, and that is as true in Sweden as it is in Britain.
"Perhaps British scientists react more strongly against researchers who bypass this scrutiny by their peers and instead go straight to the media before the quality of their work has been assessed.
"Nobody wants to see the public made more anxious because a researcher sought publicity for flawed results before the work was properly checked. The public deserve to hear why a controversial idea may be wrong if it is made public by any researcher."
-
Personally I hope that this thing works like he says it does, I think the problem most people are having with his research & results is that no one other then him knows exactly how the thing works, hopefully this will change after his patent is completed and he's able to share more about the device with his peers, but until that happens I think that the majority of people are going to be skeptical about what he's claiming can be done with it, history is fraught with people who have claimed to be able to do what he's claiming only to be found out to be frauds.
-
I see this how I would see a movie that involves magic from some unused part of the brain.
It's impossible, most people would agree. That doesn't mean there is no possible way that
it can happen. I'm not saying I believe in magic or something, I'm just comparing the ideas.
Some people believe magic is truly possible, and they tend to be outcasts.
Just my thought on the matter. It appears to me the same concept. Just thinkin it would be
really, really cool to snap my fingers and have a fireball at my hand :D
A very interesting observation. Consider this, how would a man from 3000 BC percieve you if you came to him at that time? Showed him a lighter with which to make fire, took for a ride in your off-road vehicle. Perhaps even take him up in a helicopter, and maybe something simple as fireworks. Tell me he wouldn't percieve this as magic, and worship you as a god.
All of these things are very ordinary to us today. It's all in what perspective you have, what level of knowledge you have. The things you mentioned can not be ruled out as impossible, after all we only use some ~12% of the brain. If you want to get really lost into psychedelic wonderland talk to a quantum physicist. He would tell you things like conciousness being the only thing that's real in this universe.
-
A very interesting observation. Consider this, how would a man from 3000 BC percieve you if you came to him at that time? Showed him a lighter with which to make fire, took for a ride in your off-road vehicle. Perhaps even take him up in a helicopter, and maybe something simple as fireworks. Tell me he wouldn't percieve this as magic, and worship you as a god.
Thats like the famous quote from Arthur C. Clarke that states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
All of these things are very ordinary to us today. It's all in what perspective you have, what level of knowledge you have. The things you mentioned can not be ruled out as impossible, after all we only use some ~12% of the brain. If you want to get really lost into psychedelic wonderland talk to a quantum physicist. He would tell you things like conciousness being the only thing that's real in this universe.
That's actually not true about only using 12% of our brains, we do use our entire brains, there's not any part of it that's just sitting there not ever being used or ever accessed, it's just that were not using every part of the brain at the same time. It's just one of those old wives tales that been repeated so many times people believe it to be true.
-
You are confused as to what the term maverick means.
1) Darwin
2) Einstein
Two great mavericks, widely considered as mavericks by most people of their time.
yes I am! both of them were great scientists in the traditional sense, and Einstein was about as establishment as you can get.
neither of them proclaimed to the world in general (and specifically to investors) that they had something new and spectacular, but refused to explain how it worked or allow other scientists to examine and test it ...
-
well perhaps I am confused as to what the term maverick means then :eek:
Definition of Maverick
1. independent person: an independent thinker who refuses to conform to the accepted views on a subject
2. unbranded animal: an unbranded animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother and herd. By convention, it can become the property of whoever finds it and brands it.
I was thinking number (1)
A maverick personality is one where they are wilfully independent all the time and in all circumstances. They are keen to make their mark and do things their way and often blaze innovation and lateral thinking to the projects and problems that they are working on. They often exasperate the people around them and peers can feel that they can’t keep up or hurt if an objective comment from a maverick is delivered in their usual blunt and brutally honest way
Perhaps I have missunderstood the entire thread and original use of the word maverick in this thread.
By the definition I understood, both Darwin and Einstein were mavericks.
-
hehe, I suspect we actually agree here. I'm just not sure what about :D
-
"To punish me for my contempt for authority, they made me an authority myself."
- Albert Einstein
-
I though the whole purpose of a fusion reaction was a huge amount of heat energy that can be harvested.
-
That's actually not true about only using 12% of our brains, we do use our entire brains, there's not any part of it that's just sitting there not ever being used or ever accessed, it's just that were not using every part of the brain at the same time. It's just one of those old wives tales that been repeated so many times people believe it to be true.
God, I'm so happy to see one person who understands this concept. It's tiring to have to repeat the same thing over and over again, while some folks view it as "mysterious" and such, saying that there are "mystical untapped resources" in our heads.
We, in fact, use 100% of our brains (well, most people). We just don't use it all at once. Some tasks require a larger percentage, some smaller. You never use 100% of your brain at one time for one task. Much like your computer, if you did that a lot, you would not function well.
-
hehe, I suspect we actually agree here. I'm just not sure what about :D
about archery and drinking being perfectly safe and fun at the same time :rock
-
How do you drink and pull a bow at the same time?
-
How do you drink and pull a bow at the same time?
Very carefully, lest you spill the drink.
-
Skuzzy knows
-
The days of absolute truths and philosophical science are over.
Is this an absolute truth or just a probable truth?
Sorry just couldn't help myself. :devil :bolt:
-
7500.. hijack! :lol
The question isn´t perhaps so much "does this odd technology work or doesn´t it?" I for one do not consider it impossible, but by saying that I´m not sayin it works either. This is a question of attitude. We must always strive to keep our minds open, and realise that they are not. As soon as a mind considers itself open, it has been closed. We really need to start doing some ground breaking research. We are in a bad place at the moment and we need to turn things around. What is the main factor? Scarcity. Scarcity creates inequality. This means untold wealth for some, ditto poverty for others. We live in a scarcity driven economy. Without scarcity it is impossible to charge someone for a commodity. What is our most scarce resource? Energy. Why? With energy you can do anything. Our entire economy runs on energy. Colonising Mars is just a question of energy. Forget the gold standard, enter the energy standard. What would it take to eradicate scarcity? Abundant energy. Why have we not got abundance (few do, most do not)? Scarcity is profitable. To maintain profits scarcity needs to be maintained. How do we free ouselves from this ball and chain? Not by coming up with new gadgets or ways to kill eachother.
So, as a species and civilisation, how far have we come? Not that far. How many scientific discoveries were there to be made at the beginning of time? An infinate amount. How many have we made? A finite amount. The difference between infinity and a finite number is infinity, so we have a long way to go. Is anything and everything possible? Yes. Get on it.
-
hurrah for platitudes! :banana:
-
Thats like the famous quote from Arthur C. Clarke that states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Originally skeptical, Arthur C. Clarke came to believe that something was going on with CF.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue20/clark2.html
You can also see in the video (link below) Clarke and others make the case that something is producing excess energy, though admitting that theoretical explanation fails because of lack of knowledge.
(The video says its by "UFO TV" but I think they may have purchased rights to an existing video, though I don't know).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FilflaqbVI&feature=relmfu
-
...though admitting that theoretical explanation fails because of lack of knowledge.
If I've not misread it, this is what Rossi says too and he can't get the theoretical bit sorted out. If he has succeeded or not I can not tell but I do applaud his efforts. Unlike you he has the means and the guts to have a serious go for it, instead of entertaining a impossible attitude.
However this is something of great importance to understand. I do not believe our laws of thermodynamics will survive in their current iteration if we are to reach the next level. Nano engineering for example if we are to get there will require vast amounts of energy and we need to master the atom if we are to build with atoms. If you are really into science, expansion of knowledge tends to not quell questions but raise more of them. Which in turn demand more knowledge in order to be answered. It's a hopeless cycle which is seemingly infinite however I tend to believe that we in this situation would be limited by our own capacity to understand the universe. It would be a shame to let it end at this point, don't you all agree?
"Don't let your mathematical problems trouble you, I can assure you mine are far greater." - Albert Einstein ;)
-
... though admitting that theoretical explanation fails because of lack of knowledge.
thats what homeopathy quacks say too ...
-
...Unlike you he has the means and the guts to have a serious go for it, instead of entertaining a impossible attitude...
thats what homeopathy quacks say too ...
:confused: ... Well I'm not making any claims one way or another, nor do I entertain an attitude that CF is necessarily impossible (if that comment was directed at me :D ). I was just providing links to an article and video about people who appear to have sufficient credentials to at least consider their claims that something is happening with the so-called CF, though they do not know precisely what causes it. Time will tell. One thing's for sure, billions have been poured into hot fusion, and it'd be nice to know when that will go commercial...
-
Example of a Maverick Scientist
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k483/xPingx/episode511.jpg)
:noid
-
I'll see your maverick scientist and raise you ... Prof Frink!
(http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/0/06/Professor_Frink.png)
-
I will see your Prof Frink, And raise you The Brain
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k483/xPingx/pinkybrainthx1138wz4.jpg)
-
mmmm ... too rich for my blood, Im out!
-
:confused: ... Well I'm not making any claims one way or another, nor do I entertain an attitude that CF is necessarily impossible (if that comment was directed at me :D ). I was just providing links to an article and video about people who appear to have sufficient credentials to at least consider their claims that something is happening with the so-called CF, though they do not know precisely what causes it. Time will tell. One thing's for sure, billions have been poured into hot fusion, and it'd be nice to know when that will go commercial...
doesent the sun run on fussion...better not that reaction get out of hand.
-
doesent the sun run on fussion...better not that reaction get out of hand.
Ironically, we are safe as long as the reaction continues and it is self regulating. It is when the solar core runs out of hydrogen that we should really start to worry. Want to see some real global warming? wait till our little dwarf turns into a red giant.
-
Don't worry, we are all children of the sun. One day big momma is gonna call her boys home. So whatcha gonna do about it, worry?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-czNUxsVImM/TNxY1eSCnQI/AAAAAAAAARY/6XL1kcscV2E/s1600/einstein.jpg)