Let's see what happens, I hope the experimenters will heat up the reactors continuously, without any interruptions up to the critical temperature where excess heat can happen
Some info-news for you and a remarkable essay at OTHER weekend lecture..
DAILY NEWS
1) Understanding Attenuation of Potential Ionising Radiation in a Parkhomov Style Reactor (MFMP) http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/22/understanding-attenuation-of-potential-ionising-radiation-in-a-parkhomov-style-reactor-mfmp/
2) Presentation of the paper:
Acad. Robert Iskanderovich Nigmatullin
"Thermonuclear phenomena at the collapse of the cavitation bubbles"
3) The Russian LENR company NEW INFLOW;
Their ICCF-19 Presentation/publication:
High-energetic metal nano-cluster plasmoid and its soft x-radiation.Klimov A., Grigorenko A., Efimov A., Sidorenko M.,Soloviev A., Tolkunov B., Evstigneev N., Ryabkov O.
Стендовый доклад ООО "Нью Инфлоу" на конференции ICCF-19 (http://iccf19.com)
Постер доклада PDF
http://newinflow.ru/experiments.htm
4) Rossi thinks e-cat will soon be replicated:
http://energycatalyzer3.com/e-cat/rossi-thinks-ecat-will-soon-be-replicated
5) Firax tech replication series:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1637-Firax-Tech-replic-series/?postID=4791#post4791
5) Firax tech replication series:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1637-Firax-Tech-replic-series/?postID=4791#post4791
6) Parkhomov-style LENR Test by Me356 — Update#4: New Live Test Started (Sat. May 23)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/23/live-parkhomov-style-lenr-test-by-me365-sat-may-9th/
7) Pt Pd LENR test positif
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1682-Pt-Pd-LENR-test-positif/
By Daniel Gendron, more data to come.
OTHER
Physicists Are Philosophers,
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/23/live-parkhomov-style-lenr-test-by-me365-sat-may-9th/
7) Pt Pd LENR test positif
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1682-Pt-Pd-LENR-test-positif/
By Daniel Gendron, more data to come.
OTHER
Physicists Are Philosophers,
Too In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics:
Stenger's essay is actually quite good, I highly recommend a careful meaning. He skewers the physicists who claim that philosophy is dead, but who are unaware that they are themselves philosophers adhering to a particular school of philosophy that is, within philosophy, ah, "discredited."
ReplyDeleteOne said, "ultimately the only source of facts is via empirical exploration"
He really means "observation." And then he would be referring to "exploration" as the formation of hypotheses and the testing of them.
And then he considers "fact" what has been verified by observation and especially by testing. He's leaving something out: the *interpretation* of observations.
Stenger writes: "Nevertheless, most physicists would agree with Krauss and Tyson that observation is the only reliable source of knowledge about the natural world. " I would *almost* agree. The problem, really, is that observation is not reliable, either. What we observe is exquisitely sensitive to our personal history. We normally lose the actual observations, the sense data, and remember how we interpreted it. These memories are, again, sensitive to our language. If we don't have words for some variable, we may lose the memory of it.
As someone with training in science, I consider observation crucial to what may be worthy of knowledge, but what kinds of observation? What about personal observation, and the associated interpretation of reality?
What about the testing of reality through declaration of possibilities, and observing what then happens? This is practical ontology. Yet it may be difficult or impossible to communicate to others who demand "proof," but are not willing to undertake the experiment.
The troubling position that Stenger takes on is the belief that successful models are therefore "real." The map is confused with the territory.
And then, it's a setup, when observations conflict with the theory, to reject the observations, in spite of the lip service made to observation as the only source of knowledge. The models become a "source of knowledge."
(more)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, observations don't conflict with theory, ever. Rather, they are *intepreted* so, and the theory is, as well, interpreted to make predictions contrary to observation. The entire process is fraught with possible error.
The ontology that works, in my experience, is one that proposes, as a stand, a way of looking at life or reality, that there is no "right" or "wrong," that these are invented. This is not a denial of the absolute, but, rather, a position that we don't know the absolute.
Stenger has:
"Thales and other Ionian philosophers who followed espoused a view of reality now called material monism in which everything is matter and nothing else. Today this remains the prevailing view of physicists, who find no need to introduce supernatural elements into their models, which successfully describe all their observations to date."
"Success" is invented. It is obvious: there is a self-defined group which limits "observations" to a particular subset that excludes many other human observations. This group can be quite inventive: it can create possible interpretations of the observations of "outsiders" that frequently are enough to satisfy members of the group. "Fraud." "Delusion." "Wishful thinking." "Error." "Pathological science."
Even without any actual testing of these ideas. This is little more than smug self-satisfaction.
So, the enterprise of science has been highly successful in certain realms. I'd wonder, though, does it bring happiness? I visited the region of Ethiopia where one of my daughters was born. Poorest area on Earth. People there smiled like the sun rose in their eyes, I've never seen anywhere else where this was so routine. What did science do for them? Seems to me that the technology that science has enabled is busy destroying that culture (it is under threat from mechanized agriculture).
It's obvious: there is something else, something not yet captured by the narrowing of observation that is part of the present scientific approach. It is possible it will never be captured, but who am I to say what is possible and not possible?