tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post1996991040265991167..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: DEC 11, 2016 LENR LEGO- INSPIRED BY SIMON DERRICUTT Georgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-35271092167636097622016-12-14T03:44:25.306-08:002016-12-14T03:44:25.306-08:00Peter - since we can't actually see or handle ...Peter - since we can't actually see or handle atoms with our eyes or hands, and we infer all the properties of them by the effects seen, the metaphors come thick and fast in our theories. We can see waves in the oceans, and interferences, and so we can take that metaphor and apply it to all sorts of other situations and talk of the DeBroglie wavelength of an electron. The answers fit what we experience at a human scale, and so we build a whole structure of properties and reasons for why things happen. <br /><br />Despite that seeming-applicability, the reality may be something else altogether and may not be able to be even thought of since we don't have the reference-points in daily life to even have the words to describe things. If we don't have the right words or concepts, we can't even think the thought. Metaphors are thus pretty important, and trying to get more exact ones is useful. <br /><br />I suspect being multi-lingual helps in flexibility of thinking, in that some languages have particular structures that allow different thinking than others. In English, the meaning of a sentence gradually develops so that you can see where it's heading; in German the meaning is only complete at the end. It's much harder to get double-entendres in German, too. <br /><br />Your opera metaphor may not be the best. That was around 3.7 years ago when Defkalion were promising a lot but, in retrospect, lying about their data and observations. <br /><br />So, in another metaphor, how can we tell what is Gold and what is Pyrites? For LENR theories, we look for a comparison between what is predicted and what is measured. For claims of success, we look for other experimenters having done the same things and getting the same results, and also that the methods used for measurements have no loopholes for systematic errors. If we're talking about muons being produced, then really I want to see cloud-chamber analysis or similar that definitively tells us the mass, speed and charge of the particles. If we're talking neutrons then I want to see activation of, for example, Aluminium and again analysis of the particles generated as a result. A Geiger counter or neutron counter are pretty imprecise as to what particles they'll respond to, after all. <br /><br />Given our problems with getting a theory that predicts what we actually see as results (including the essential non-repeatability of the results) then maybe getting a better metaphor could be the key task in understanding the process. Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-82210239821585814572016-12-13T22:53:24.533-08:002016-12-13T22:53:24.533-08:00It's miles better to discover the solutions of...It's miles better to discover the solutions of those questions earlier than clearly start hunting for the proper product. you could additionally take recommendations and advices from the physicians or health experts. <a href="http://musclegainfast.com/ef13-muscle-supplement/" rel="nofollow">http://musclegainfast.com/ef13-muscle-supplement/</a>nataliebahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15125085364973660800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-66697850696415812272016-12-13T06:20:10.280-08:002016-12-13T06:20:10.280-08:00dear Simon,
Your metaphor is simply excellent
Wha...dear Simon,<br /><br />Your metaphor is simply excellent<br />What you say about LEGO is correct, however all metaphors are approximate, fuzzy, imprecise a bit like humour..<br /><br />But see what I wrote about metaphors:<br />http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/search?q=metaphors<br /><br /><br />I taught managers Management of Technology (locl Eco_management US-Romania Univ) and I have expleined that models, metaphors, paradoxes have to taken cum grano salis not with total seriousness Evan the best as Windowa...Anyway o=please read my essay..<br /><br />I have today difficulties writing here sall letters.. ut no problem, excuse my typos<br /><br />Peter<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-14316600668056209442016-12-13T05:27:51.363-08:002016-12-13T05:27:51.363-08:00Peter - it's nice that you found my post usefu...Peter - it's nice that you found my post useful for a change. The problem with Lego, though, is that it's designed such that any one piece will fit with any other piece, so the construct is only limited by perseverance. If you want a better 3D analogy, then maybe go for dry-stone walling (with field-stones that aren't worked to be nice rectangular shapes). It's said that each such stone has but one place to fit in the wall, and also that it always takes two people to build a wall - one remains holding it up while the other goes off to get paid for the completed wall.<br /><br />If you follow the consequences of having ultra-low momentum neutrons loose in a collection of atoms, you'll see that we can predict that all species present will have extra neutrons and that such isotopes (even if not radioactive/unstable) would be measurable. There's not thus really much point in trying to fit the W-L hypothesis into the wall, and the wall will fall over. <br /><br />Holmlid's results should fit, though maybe his explanation doesn't. It's sad that his experiments haven't been replicated so we'd have a bit more confidence that there isn't a systematic error in there. <br /><br />Currently we have the three foundation-stones I mentioned, with the Thermacore meltdown evidence being somewhat lost leaving only reports behind. That Dewar might however turn up at some point in some scrap-yard, not having been recycled. Slim chance.... <br /><br />Note that the W-L hypothesis may to a large extent be true, except that when that happens we get both radiation and a radioactive residue. It won't explain the production of heat without nuclear radiation. <br /><br />Whereas a master waller only needs to handle each stone once, and can see where it fits, we're stuck with a lot of bits that don't seem to fit. Greg's examples give us something more to think about.<br />Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-1021178580400639502016-12-11T19:01:17.548-08:002016-12-11T19:01:17.548-08:00Peter, This probably relates more to what you disc...Peter, This probably relates more to what you discussed a few days ago, regarding what is holding back LENR today.<br />I added one item to your list of things which are holding back the acceptance of LENR today, which I copy and paste to here.<br /><br />"6/. Some glaringly bad basic science being used against all convention to produce supposedly amazing results. "<br /><br />And now, a few days later we have the perfect example of exactly what I refer to.<br /><br />From the Rossi-blog;-<br /><br />"Patrick Ellul<br />December 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM<br />Dear Andrea. <br />With “control”/”dummy”, it is meant to be a quarkX without one of its crucial elements (like fuel) that is fed the same input and whose output is measured in the same way as your fueled quarkX.<br />This will cross check your calculations against another reference.<br />Do you still think such experiment is useless at this stage?<br />Regards."<br /><br />Rossi replied;-<br /><br />"Andrea Rossi<br />December 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM<br />Patrick Ellul:<br />Of course it is useless.<br />The COP is what counts.<br />Warm Regards<br />A.R"<br /><br />Really? It's the COP that counts and it's useless to check the validity of the results by way a doing a control run on an un-fueled or known inert reactor?<br />No wonder there is such a reluctance by almost everyone to accept the Rossi results at face value.<br /><br />It's equally amazing that some people keep referring to lenr+ as though it was a proven truth, when in fact it is so far from it. The main support for lenr+ are the claimed results of Mr Rossi. <br /><br />Can you imaging where science and engineering would be if scientific theories were accepted as proven fact on the same basis as Mr Rossi uses. ?Pweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09197878743499245329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-85633928511321748382016-12-11T13:06:43.460-08:002016-12-11T13:06:43.460-08:00The big challenge in science is to find out what i...The big challenge in science is to find out what is fundamental and what is emergent. It's the chicken and the egg problem. The theories of LENR are filled with this chicken and the egg problem.<br /><br />As an example, let's look at the "Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR"<br /><br /><br />The Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR is a theory that requires exceptional behavior on the part of the weak force. Normally, heavy electrons, that is, electrons that have a kinetic energy over the threshold that makes amalgamation of the electron and proton together to form a neutron in a beta decay requires the formation of a weak force mediation particle, the W or Z boson.<br /><br />en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier<br /><br />W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields are required to produce the Widom-Larsen effect.<br /><br />en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons<br /><br /><br /><br />Weak Force boson Mass<br /><br />W: 80.385±0.015 GeV/c2<br /><br />Z: 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2<br /><br />the weak force bosons are very short-lived, with a half-life of about 3×10e−25 sec. <br /><br /><br />That weak force mediation effect requires a huge amount of energy to be formed, close to a giga electron volts of the proton mass out of the vacuum.<br /><br />IF the Widom-Larsen effect is occurring, it is because the is an exceptional condition in place where the weak force is greatly amplified. The Widom-Larsen effect can be considered a emergent weak force process that is being produced by a special environment in which the weak force is operating. To the best of my understanding, the description of the special environment that the weak force is operating under is not described by the WL effect. The WL effect is describing what may be happening by not why it is happening. <br /><br />Furthermore, the production of low energy neutrons may not be the only thing that the modified weak force is causing. The decay of the proton may be also occurring as witnessed in the Holmlid experiments. Another effect of weak force amplification may be rapid decay of radioactive isotopes that leave only stable isotopes on the ash after the LENR reaction occurs.<br /><br />The chicken and egg structure produces a treelike pattern of causation where one cause results in many emergent results. For example based on the same cause, LENR can occur in a plasma, a transition metal lattice, or a microbe. <br /><br />The next post is an attempt to climb down the causation tree and find as a next step, to find the tap root of what might amplify the weak force.<br /><br />Axilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190120527431077518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-56422682820377024192016-12-11T13:04:50.680-08:002016-12-11T13:04:50.680-08:00Translate
Andrea Rossi
December 11, 2016 at 11:34 ...Translate<br />Andrea Rossi<br />December 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM<br />Dr Irina and Vitaly Uzikov:<br />Thank you for your continue and very important attention. You will be surely invited to the presentation.<br />Warm Regards,<br />A.R.<br /><br />Frank Acland<br />December 11, 2016 at 3:57 AM<br />Dear Andrea,<br /><br />I recall you once paid Sergio Focardi to find the errors in your measurements for the early E-Cat. Now you hired another expert to do the same — don’t you trust what you see for yourself?<br /><br />Congratulations!<br /><br />Frank Acland<br /><br />Andrea Rossi<br />December 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM<br />Frank Acland:<br />You are right, I made the same as with Prof. Focardi. No, I do not trust myself when I am too enthusiast.<br />Warm Regards,<br />A.R.<br /><br />A Goumy<br />December 11, 2016 at 4:02 AM<br />Dear Mr Rossi,<br /><br />Did the engineer use the same calorimetry technique as yours, or another one? If not confidential, can you tell us more, without going into details, about it?<br /><br />Warm regards,<br /><br />A. Goumy<br /><br />Andrea Rossi<br />December 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM<br />A. Goumy:<br />Another one, that now I adopt. Datails will be disclosed in the public presentation.<br />Warm Regards,<br />A.R.<br /><br />Andrea Rossi<br />December 11, 2016 at 11:28 AM<br />Malcom:<br />You mean a dummy? I already answered to this issue: the dummy is any sistem with COP < 1. Warm Regards, A.R.<br /><br />Translate<br />Malcolm<br />December 11, 2016 at 9:07 AM<br />Dear Andrea,<br />I assume calibration was performed using a control reactor as is normal scientific practice.<br />Regards,<br />Malcolm<br /><br />Irina and Vitaly Uzikov<br />December 11, 2016 at 3:48 AM<br />Dear Andrea!<br /><br />The most sincere congratulations on the successful conclusion of a very important stage of your great work! You’re too much work, so watch out your health! We look forward to the presentation in Februarysam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.com