The Playground

  • Digging around for my MFMP Dogbone Lugano Style conversion file I see a problem I had forgotten about.

    Using the 2015_02_03 Dogbone Multi Calibration file, the highest input power setting that can be converted to Lugano Style temperatures is the GMT 20:57:00 row with 704 W input.

    The two higher input W runs exceed the maximum temperature that the Optris Connect software will display when the emissivity is changed to the values from Plot 1, Lugano report. When an emissivity of 0.95 is used, the highest temperature that can be converted is 864.4 C, (which becomes 1524.6 C at an emissivity of 0.394).

    The maximum temperature the software will report is 1524.7 C


    Edit: One could cheat in an average body temperature version using the 23:09:00 row temperature average. Not quite as accurate, but close enough for discussion.

    Edit 2: Using an averaged body T for the 813 W input MFMP Dogbone row gets an easy COP of 3.98. The hottest row (872.67 C average real body T) should get to Lugano Style COP 4.2 without any trouble, except it would require a lot of extrapolation and borrowing temperature-emissivity translation data from other sources... which is a bit questionable. (I used LDM's rib factor of 1.7 for the convection part to convert from a smooth cylinder to a ribbed one).

  • LOL. I have been following Abd's antics, starting with the build up (how dare they do this to me!), and now filing suit. No one is interested in the least about his war with Wikipedia, or all these characters he claims violated his rights. Such a tangled web he has weaved, I gave up trying to understand. Glad you put it in perspective. Wonder if his lawyers have a good grasp of it all?


    I thought he was being paid to promote LENR?, but apparently he has better things to do now. Certainly, he won't save the planet by suing some kid in the UK.

  • Navid


    Here we can complain all what we want about how poor Randy has been victim of a global conspiracy for denying the value of his theory of everything that puts QM to shame (pardon the sarcastic tone).


    I will say here, that I could agree to a great extent that QM and the Standard Model seem to be revered as Dogma and questioning them, or mentioning their shortcomings, is often met with irate lashing out from the defenders of the cult, as you might want to call them. However, you must never forget the QM has been the single most succesfull theory and has greatly allowed our advances during the XXth century. One can argue that QM reached its limits of describing reality and follow pursuing it has caused stagnation of science, and you will be surprised to know this is mucho more thought of than many would openly agree. But from acknowledging that, there's a huge leap to claim that Mills's theory is the holly grail to save us from our institutionalized ignorance.


    Most if not all coming here have read or are familiar with Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" so we might agree to the general idea that true advances of science are initially met with strong opposition, and we tend to see that reflected on LENR in general as the main topic of interest in this forum.


    So, in that sense, your tale of how great is Randall Mills for facing the stablished paradigm is preaching to the choir here. We all are in some way or in other just for being interested in LENR.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I could agree to a great extent that QM and the Standard Model seem to be revered as Dogma and questioning them, or mentioning their shortcomings, is often met with irate lashing out from the defenders of the cult


    I'm not saying that never happens. However my experience is that scientists like new ideas and are very open in particular to

    • reformulations of QM (everyone thinks it is somehow unsatisfactory since the multiple interpretations hint at some underlying physics)
    • ideas for alternates to standard model (that is the stuff of theoretical particle physics, and also SM does not explain why that set of symmetries, so deeper explanations are welcome)

    I'm happy to produce vast numbers of papers showing both of these peer reviewed in high impact journals.


    What are your "lashing out" examples?


    THH

  • Quote

    Here we can complain all what we want about how poor Randy has been victim of a global conspiracy


    Meanwhile, "poor Randy (Mills)" has done nothing concrete for almost thirty years except to make constant promises of power plants just a year or two away. Oh, and he also dumps gigantic currents into tiny, uncooled spaces and marvels that fireworks result. Great accomplishments for all the dozens of millions of dollars he has spent. In all that time, not one convincing independent experiment, not one device convincingly making power from hydrinos, and of course, the hydrinos themselves always turn up missing. Maybe hydrinos are the perfect solvent and there is nothing you can contain them with? LOL.

  • I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.

    Well, there are two kinds of Nobel Laureates: the good ones who say the stuff you want to hear (Brian Josephson and Julian Schwinger) and the bad ones that don’t (pretty much the rest of the lot.)

  • I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.


    I need the actual comment? Things get taken out of context, etc...


    But, even if this guy was intemperate that would not be in peer reviewed publication, and I'm sure if you look for informal comments you will find a lot of such on any subject under the sun.


    For example, people here who say: THH is biassed about LENR and a drag on the field might perhaps repeat this opinion in stronger terms with expletives on some other occasion.


    And while if on checking this guy is doing irate lashing out, how does that compare with the larger amount of non-irate rational criticism?

  • I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • “If you could fuck around with the hydrogen atom, you could fuck around with the energy process in the sun. You could fuck around with life itself,” claims Dr. Phillip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics at Princeton University. “Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That’s why I’m so sure that it’s a fraud.”


    from https://www.villagevoice.com/1999/12/21/quantum-leap/


    So: a casual comment made to a journalist using expletives for emphasis but not in a personalised way. I'm not sure that comment can be called irate lashing out, though it is certainly a strong summary


    Note Mills:


    “I’ll have demonstrated an entirely new form of energy production by the end of 2000,” Mills responds. “If Dr. Kaku has escaped our universe through a wormhole by then, I’ll send my first $1000 in profits to his new address.”


    That slipping timescale remind you of anything?



    Park, Wilson, Kaku all criticise Mills, without irate lashing out. Many others reserve judgement.


    Note in that long article:


    Mills argues that the universe is forever oscillating between matter and energy over thousand-billion-year cycles, expanding and contracting between finite set points. In fact, he says, the universe doesn’t get much smaller than it is now.

    His theory predicted in clear language two recent astronomical discoveries—one, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and, two, there are stars that measure as older than the expansion of the universe itself.


    Well, although we cannot know what happened very early on, the evidence for a much smaller denser universe is very very strong indeed, and has got more so since that comment by Mills. He was wrong, so his theory is, if it made that prediction?


    But, personally, I go on the demos, and the fact that they have got less convincing and less easy to validate, over the years.

  • In any case, please understand that I don’t think that criticism of ideas that challenge QM are a mere knee jerk reaction, and so far as Mills has not been able to demonstrate any of his claims in a exhaustive and rigorous way, I think he will keep harvesting that kind of criticism.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Also, I brought the issue of Mills here as a way to show Navid where to come with his Mills praise (and also be prepared to face opposition to it). I have already stated my state of simultaneous interest and disappointment with Mills before.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • In any case, please understand that I don’t think that criticism of ideas that challenge QM are a mere knee jerk reaction, and so far as Mills has not been able to demonstrate any of his claims in a exhaustive and rigorous way, I think he will keep harvesting that kind of criticism.

    agreed.


    I'd just point out that scientists are in the business of criticising all ideas - both non-standard theories and QM. You will find lots of both.


    One thing, a lot of the "interpretations" criticism of QM turns out to be non-paradoxes that only seem like paradoxes because there are embedded mistakes. For example the guy who thought he had many worlds giving different probabilities from other interpretations. That thought experiment was rong, and nicely proven so (sorry - I don't immediately have the peer reviewed refs).

  • Mills has one serious problem: He first has to prove that dense Hydrogen aka Hydrino aka H*-H* is harmless and can be disposed anywhere in the world. Or he has to use it for LENR and doe produce real amount of energy.


    But he seems to live under a high mental stress because as a theorist he partially had huge success, but the part he needs for his company now seems to fail. There is just one state for Hydrinos (H*-H*) and some clustering is possible but a general Hydrino will never be discovered as it violates basic mechanics laws. (H*-H*) energies can be calculated by SO(4) physics and at least this state is confirmed.

  • agreed.


    I'd just point out that scientists are in the business of criticising all ideas - both non-standard theories and QM. You will find lots of both.


    One thing, a lot of the "interpretations" criticism of QM turns out to be non-paradoxes that only seem like paradoxes because there are embedded mistakes. For example the guy who thought he had many worlds giving different probabilities from other interpretations. That thought experiment was rong, and nicely proven so (sorry - I don't immediately have the peer reviewed refs).


    Not sure why this post exchange, relevant to Navid's point, deserves clearing!