LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • As Hume would agree, if two things obviously and clearly have nothing to do with one another, then one surely doesn't cause the other.


    "Obvious" and "clear" are states of mind. Whether anyone has these states of mind has no bearing on causality. Things often turned out to be causally related that people never suspected would be. Such as mosquitoes and yellow fever. As I said, Kotch did not list anything about obvious or clear known connections between a bacteria and a specific disease. Only that they were always found together in four ways.


    I do not think Hume would agree. That is not how I understand his essay. He said if A always follows B, no matter how many times we see it, and A never happens without B, they are causally related (perhaps with a common cause). That is the only proof there can be. Social scientists generally take this a given, since it impossible to prove any logical statement about society as a whole, or about people's states of mind.


    Some Hume scholars disagree with what I say here. Quote:


    "Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction -- that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world. Among Hume scholars it is a matter of debate how seriously Hume means us to take this conclusion and whether causation consists wholly in constant conjunction."


    https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/


    I think he meant it seriously. He was a serious fellow, albeit witty. He meant what he said.

  • Neither I, David Hume, or pretty much anyone else would disagree. What’s your point?


    I stated my point clearly. Kotch gives NO requirement for a logical connection, or a mechanism, or any known reason for causation. You mentioned "obvious" and "clear" connections. Kotch did not have them. As far as I know, when he announced the criteria in 1890 scientists had no idea how most bacteria causes most diseases. They just knew for a fact that bacteria does that. They also had no idea how the body fights off infections, or the fact that such reactions were sometimes the cause of damage from disease. Antibody research also began in 1890.


    Even in ancient times, everyone knew that infectious diseases spread from one person to another, and that if you survive one, you are likely to be immune. They did not have the slightest idea why, but they knew it. They often ascribed the effect to evil spirits or witchcraft or people offending God. Those are not "obvious" or "clear" reasons from our perspective. I would say those people did not have reasons at all, but they were quite right the other people infect you, and you often become immune.


    Knowledge of a mechanism or a clear reason is never needed to establish causality. That is one the great mistakes of late 20th century science, and one of the reasons cold fusion has been mistakenly rejected. The notion that "correlation does not imply causation" is a somewhat useful rule of thumb, but taken too far it becomes pernicious nonsense. It definitely does imply causation. In the case of infectious disease and cold fusion, it is rock solid proof. There is no doubt whatever that palladium deuteride causes fusion. There is no generally agreed upon reason. On the contrary, the phenomenon appears to violate many laws of physics, practical experience, previous observations, and even common sense. Nevertheless, it is true.

  • Constant conjunction is often hard to find in the real world. In many instances, we are stuck with probabilities. B usually or even almost always follows A, but there are exceptions. We generally don’t then conclude that the causality is no longer correct. Instead, we assume there are factors we are unaware of that make the cases different. It is all empirical, not logical. On the other hand, if there is truly constant conjunction with no exceptions, it is pretty hard to avoid declaring causality. One can head down the Humean rabbit hole exploring these things and people make a career of it. Practically speaking, most of us (apart from our Zephir) can tell the difference between observable causal relationships and random correlations.

  • Knowledge of a mechanism or a clear reason is never needed to establish causality. That is one the great mistakes of late 20th century science, and one of the reasons cold fusion has been mistakenly rejected. The notion that "correlation does not imply causation" is a somewhat useful rule of thumb, but taken too far it becomes pernicious nonsense. It definitely does imply causation. In the case of infectious disease and cold fusion, it is rock solid proof. There is no doubt whatever that palladium deuteride causes fusion. There is no generally agreed upon reason. On the contrary, the phenomenon appears to violate many laws of physics, practical experience, previous observations, and even common sense. Nevertheless, it is true.


    I find probabilities more significant than just a correlation. When I look at data I am more impressed by "what are the chances that the data is a result of probability?" Palladium deuteride does not cause a colder version of fusion rather there is a series of events that lead to a lower coulomb barrier which causes a colder version of fusion. I know palladium deuteride is not involved if it is not present. It is not present when a mixture of atmospheric gas and deuterium is exposed to an electric arc. But what are the chances of getting a mass balance to within four 9s, from which one can derive a equation showing transmutation of oxygen and several deuterium into nitrogen and hydrogen. The reality is so improbable that no one would even have imagined it. Yet it happened. The overall mechanism seemingly too simple. The coulomb barrier is the electric field repulsion of target and projectile. In a resonance situation, the energy in the electric field is reduced when the energy in the magnetic field is increased. Colder fusion happens by creating atoms whose magnetic field is so strong they can bond. The proof is circular. One must assume and assign unknowns based on them being magnetically bonded atoms. Then with those assumptions and a little math one get a conclusion: a colder fusion occurs because the probability that it happened by chance is ridiculously small. One then works out more a detailed mechanism which shows the greater complexity of the process, numerous details like fusion followed by fission and enough surprises to be irritating to almost everybody. The biggest surprise was that very little of expected energy is produced. One of great mistakes of late 20th century science is to reject a solid conclusion because its has irritating ramifications which if accepted would change everything.


    https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

  • Sorry to be boring but we have to simply lose our cars, ride around on electric motorcycles and throw away or at least recycle all our jet planes. The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels. Makes no difference but reduces only local pollution in cities. Sorry Elon Musk but your tesla is an anachronism, outdated tech at least and far far too expensive for the average budget. Maybe you should launch the rest of them into outer space, along with all the nuclear weapons that threaten the human race.

  • I know I shouldn't be using this forum to promote our music but this is a subject of Stardriver by Future Primitive UK which keeps being banned. It kicks the ass of the Vaccines even if they do promote the issue of vaccination which we all know works. My song was recorded on a mobile phone excuse the singing not my strong point, the BBC played the backing track but not the lyricicised version. So you will have trouble finding it. But avoid Konstruktivists because it will just do your head in it you are of a sensitive nature. Or if you like heavy metal of a Gothic nature vampires and all that crap, then Dark Odyssey is on YouTube recently posted on Facebook by our record label on youtube. Just spend some time Googling it before it all gets banned again. All money made will be donated to medical research and our fantastic NHS who my wife worked for. But has sadly passed away. So as she was a band member, this is a tribute to her, my Bridgette.

  • Sorry to be boring but we have to simply lose our cars, ride around on electric motorcycles and throw away or at least recycle all our jet planes. The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels. Makes no difference but reduces only local pollution in cities. Sorry Elon Musk but your tesla is an anachronism, outdated tech at least and far far too expensive for the average budget. Maybe you should launch the rest of them into outer space, along with all the nuclear weapons that threaten the human race.

    No,


    And to prove my point, lets look at the numbers,


    CO2 intensity in european grid varies from country to country, like 204 g/KWh in UK, 46 g/KWh in France, 377 g/KWh in Germany.


    Lets use German number further:

    In 2018 New European passenger cars had an average emission factor of 120 g/KM.


    In Germany the Tesla model 3 emission factor will be:

    160 wh/KM * 377 g/KWh = 60 g/ km.


    So Tesla model 3 has 50% of the average emissions Even with Germany mostly Coal grid.


    And for lifecycle CO2 emissions, we have seen reports that Ev's will be far better than IC's.


    And also, what kills IC's are often expensive engine repairs, So Electric cars will last many times longer than IC's.


    My mother in law still have a washing maschine running from 1960 😁

  • The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels.


    It depends where 'you' is in the world

    In the UK only 33% of the electricity came from fossil fuels

    (very recently)

    https://www.edie.net/news/10/R…or-first-quarter-of-2020/

    In NZ 83% of the electricity comes from hydro, geo. solar , wind..

    its a more Fozzil story in Oz. with the state of Queensland being the most(93%) fossilized..

  • Again everyone stay out of the sun it is unnaturally bright at the moment with harsh radiation in the ultraviolet band Sunspots or something. But it will go to ridding us of this Corona virus which will disappear as quickly as it began. Skin cancer might result if you don't take care and even high factor 50 may not screen it out. Take D3 as a supplement instead. :)

  • Sorry to be boring but we have to simply lose our cars, ride around on electric motorcycles and throw away or at least recycle all our jet planes. The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels. Makes no difference but reduces only local pollution in cities. Sorry Elon Musk but your tesla is an anachronism, outdated tech at least and far far too expensive for the average budget. Maybe you should launch the rest of them into outer space, along with all the nuclear weapons that threaten the human race.

    Once again, a polemic of demonstrably false claims. The subject of the emissions associated with the manufacturing and operation of electric cars has been extensively researched and reported on and your statement that they use the same amount of fossil fuels as ICE vehicles is flat out false and by a considerable margin. To be technically accurate, it may almost be true in Poland, where virtually all electricity is generated by coal.

  • The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels.


    That is completely wrong. Electric cars use 3 to 4 times less fuel than gasoline cars when they fueled with coal or natural gas combustion plant electricity. For three main reasons:


    1. The Carnot efficiency of the plants is much higher than a gasoline car.

    2. Electric motors are far more efficient than gasoline motors, especially at low speeds and when starting up.

    3. Electric cars regenerate. So do hybrid cars, and this recovers a lot of energy, as you see when you drive a Prius.


    When electric cars are charged with nuclear, hydro, wind or solar, they use no fossil fuel at all. They are usually recharged at night when the rates are lower. In many places, fossil fuel is not used at night, or only a little is used. Baseline nuclear or wind energy predominates at night, because demand is low, and the operating cost of these are much cheaper, and because you cannot turn them off. (The construction cost of wind is somewhat higher, and the construction cost of nuclear is astronomically high.)


    Here are some good descriptions of transportation technology efficiency. This is out of date, but very clear:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf

  • Your wallet will usually tell, what is more efficient. Your attitude is typically scientific as it ignores all externalities. Average price of electromobile in my country 35.000 USD, gasoline car 10.000 USD. For price difference, i.e. 25.000 USD you could run 300.000 km with gasoline car - but this is also distance, after which you must change battery (10.000 USD) of electric car and you still have to pay 15.000 USD for electricity = 60.000 USD total. So that buying car + 300.000 km combo will cost you nearly twice as much at the case of electric car. This cost will reflect carbon footprint of your car.

  • I was kidding when I wrote: "Coincidence? I don't think so!" about this graph showing a correlation between arcade income and computer science doctorates. But, come to think of it, there might be a connection. Arcade games are computerized these days. An arcade is where people go to play with computers. Computer science majors spend their whole career playing with computers. When there is a fad for computers and computer games, and more people go to arcades, perhaps more people are also inspired to get a doctorate in computer science. That connection is tenuous but plausible. I think it would be impossible to prove.


    Sometimes what looks like a ridiculous correlation with no possible causal basis turns out to have a causal basis after all.


  • Your wallet will usually tell, what is more efficient. Your attitude is typically scientific as it ignores all externalities.


    The cost of an electric car is not a good indication of the overall economics, because very few electric cars are manufactured, compared to gasoline models.


    The calculation of "whopping quantity of energy is used in the mining and processing of lithium, cobalt, and manganese" is complete bullshit, as several analyses have shown, and as you can easily determine for yourself. Claims like this are either right wing or fossil fuel disinformation. The embodied energy in batteries cannot be that high, because the cost of batteries is low, and it is dropping quickly. Battery makers do not sell at a loss. They would have to sell at a loss if the embodied energy in a battery was even a tiny fraction of the cost of the gasoline it takes to run a car for 9 years (the average lifetime). That's $63,000. Do you think a battery costs anything close to that? Your wallet will tell you this is impossible. The price of goods and services in a capitalist economy is a reasonable guide to things like embodied energy costs, except when those costs are distorted by things like pollution.


    Also, as noted, most electric cars are not charged with electricity from fossil fuel, because fossil fuel is not used much at night.


    Plus this article forgets to include the energy overhead of refining gasoline, which is much higher than the energy overhead for other fossil fuels. You have ignored this and the pollution, and other externalities.


    As noted, if you cannot see for yourself why electric cars are more energy efficient, you need to study heat engines, Carnot efficiency, thermodynamics, electric motors and batteries. Frankly, you have no business making comments in the forum if you do not understand these subjects. Thermodynamics are the key to understanding cold fusion. The proof of cold fusion is grounded in thermodynamics.

  • Quote

    The cost of an electric car is not a good indication of the overall economics, because very few electric cars are manufactured, compared to gasoline models.


    Sorry, but the (unsubsidized) cost is the very basis of load of life environment. Electric cars are already produced in fully robotized factories (with compare to classical ones, which are more complex) and their price doesn't go down anymore. The paying higher cost means, you should pay someone's raw sources, energy for their mining, energy for keeping his human force alive and well being etc.


    It's thus all about the total cost of ownership and nothing else. I'm of course aware, that the cost of fossil fuels doesn't reflect price of technological switch, once their reserves will get finally depleted. But electric cars have very same problem with raw sources: lithium, cobalt, neodymium, which will get depleted even faster. And they're still get powered by ~ 86% from fossil fuels and this share doesn't go down. These two factors: i.e. TCO and fossil fuel share indicate, that our "strategy" of fossil fuel replacement simply doesn't work from both micro- both macro-economical perspective.