Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

  • I think it would be enlightening to have a place to expose obviously false material posted by people here and on ECW. This is not meaning posts that are controversial because they are counter to the standard model etc, I mean basic information where the poster claims evidence or accomplishments that are patently false. I have a couple of recent examples to post myself. Of course this will be cotroversial but let's try to keep it to obvious nonesense.

  • Claim from Zephir on ecw, is that a recent paper proves graphene sheets can extract energy from the vacuum.

    The real paper states that the energy comes from Brownian motion and temperature gradients:


    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.126801


    Here is Zephirs claim:


    Avatar Zephir

     Zephira day ago

    edited

    There is also damn question, whether we really need to look for more stable form of matter (like helium, iron or hydrino) at all in explanation of E-CatSK/SunCell/Electroniva or Papp/Chernetski/Langmuir overunity systems. For example in this study a quite substantial energy can be drained from vacuum with using of graphene membranes.

  • PhysicsForDummies   Alan Smith

    I am completely opposed to that!

    who will sort out what is a priori true, what seems true,what is false or seems false etc..YOU ?

    To see again your very recent sarcastic comments, what legitimacy would you have, what background do you have?

    I have never encountered depth in your pseudo analyzes on the forum.

    I do not claim to know the truth about LENR or physics. What I do know is that the post said that the paper showed substantial energy was extracted from the vacuum. I read the paper and it claimed no such thing (i couldn't find the link to the full paper at the moment) The temperature of the SEM scanning was 3000k (from memory) A fact check is important because someone will read that post and claim energy was proven extracted from the vacuum and it will spread. BS needs to be called out if we want to legitimise the science. This was just my first example ;)

  • PhysicsForDummies

    a pseudo truth must be verified 1000X before being accepted, take the example of P & F.

    Also, we should also check 1000X errors / scams etc.

    What you know about Rossi isn't a fine technical analysis but just what is said and written right to left.

    Be proactive, take a meeting with him and go to interviever, maybe you will be surprised ?

  • I think it would be enlightening to have a place to expose obviously false material posted by people here and on ECW. Of course this will be cotroversial but let's try to keep it to obvious nonesense.


    Hi PhysicsForDummies ,


    This thread, your alias, your ideas, the spelling errors...i'm still not sure you are not a troll. If it weren't so scary it would be pretty funny. "Let's start a group that, after we have identified all our enemies and talked about LENR for a while, marches in straight rows while we sing and wave our red and black banners".


    I hope you have fun while creating your little ranking of whose right and whose wrong, because that's the only benefit it will carry.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Cydonia What PhysicsForDummies want to call out is the following (in this example):

    Some stranger from the internet (Zephir over at ECW) found and read a paper about an interesting but not revolutionary physical effect.

    Then Zephir wrote on ECW that this paper is proving the energy extraction from the vacuum, which is NOT what the paper is about.

    So he either did not unterstand the paper, or he intentionally over-interpreted the conclusion of the paper.


    But (especially on ECW, where many "very open minded" people are haning around) people read this, buy it, and spread it over the internet.

    This is something we can and should distance from, if we want to make the LENR field as clear and serious as possible.

  • barty   PhysicsForDummies

    Sorry for misunderstanding.

    I'm just a poor french who try to speak english :)


  • I think the playground is more for “out there” ideas than for fake information. However, deciding what is fake and what not is sometimes a thing of criteria. In the case of the post from Zephir_AWT that prompted PhysicsForDummies to post this thread I think is less fake than misinterpretation or simply over statement. Not long ago I read some news about iron oxide thin fims in salt water that were being touted as the next energy revolution and when I read the news in detail I found it was interesting but not a revolutionary technology, at best could serve as an alternative to solar panels in coastal areas. Some people get high in positive sounding news and forget to read the details, but they are not intentional fake, just clueless.


    Here is the iron oxide thin film in salt water news I was referring to, some people got really worked out concluding this was the end of oil dependence. I chuckled. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2019/07/190730092630.htm

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

  • I think the playground is more for “out there” ideas than for fake information. However, deciding what is fake and what not is sometimes a thing of criteria. In the case of the post from Zephir_AWT that prompted PhysicsForDummies to post this thread I think is less fake than misinterpretation or simply over statement. Not long ago I read some news about iron oxide thin fims in salt water that were being touted as the next energy revolution and when I read the news in detail I found it was interesting but not a revolutionary technology, at best could serve as an alternative to solar panels in coastal areas. Some people get high in positive sounding news and forget to read the details, but they are not intentional fake, just clueless.


    While that is true; pretty well every small medical or technological advance is headlined in a way that ignores all of the (factual) negatives, I think there is a distinction between exaggeration (for example ignoring negatives) and stating something that is just not true (like that a temperature differential energy harvester is working on zero point energy etc).


    I don't think we need to, nor should, comment on whether such errors might possibly be deliberate. Mistakes (perhaps enhanced by wishful thinking) are common was deliberate false statements much less common.


    THH

  • I am in complete agreement that while we may question the facts presented, we have in most cases no proper way to determine the motives for publication. We do have a 'Caveat Emptor' thread already, where the efforts of some of the more colourful characters in the field are posted. I think if someone publishes information that is not totally verifiable from the data presented that is their priviledge so long as they don't demand funding on that basis alone, there may be many and sometimes complex reasons for doing so. It is far too easy for armchair scientists to criticise those who get their hands dirty in the lab. As my colleague Russ says ' the best way to get attacked in the cold fusion business is to get some good results'.

  • Quote

    The real paper states that the energy comes from Brownian motion and temperature gradients


    Why not, I don't want to spread misinterpretations here or there. The article in question is freely accessible via preprint from here, so we could check it. Could you please cite verbatim the above claim of yours from it? My stance is based on this citation instead.


    adk1SEj.gif


    the energy extraction from the vacuum, which is NOT what the paper is about


    In my understanding the spontaneous mirror buckling of graphene is powered by spontaneous thermal fluctuations of graphene lattice strictly speaking and once it occurs, then the lattice leaves colder spot on it. It means, the graphene sheet should cool itself slightly bellow room temperature during it and whole process violates merely 2nd law of thermodynamics rather than 1st one. We shouldn't therefore use energy from graphene for heating of our homes, because heat by electricity generated would be compensated by cooling of graphite. Please note, I'm not sure about it, as from published experience with lets say magnetic motors (with honest exception of Searle engine replications) the energy generated is always higher than the observed cooling and motors get warm during it due to various loses.


    Nevertheless if we would neglect the heating and leave the graphene to cool spontaneously by radiation to a free space, buckling of graphene will still run spontaneously without presence of external source of heat or thermal gradient at ambient temperature and thermal fluctuations are driven by vacuum fluctuations in essence. For example liquid helium doesn't freeze even at absolute zero even when absolutely nothing can heat it from outside - the thermal fluctuations from vacuum must therefore prohibit atoms from their solidification. BTW I'm rather convinced that the above observation isn't bogus, as it was preceded by many similar macroscopic observations, systems and patents - see for example:

  • Graphene Energy Harvesting: Nano-Generator Chip


    NTS Innovations has obtained the exclusive license from the University of Arkansas to develop a GEH nano-generator chip, based on Dr. Paul Thibado’s recent breakthrough discoveries in Graphene Energy Harvesting. This chip will use no fuel and produce no harmful emissions. It is clean, efficient, customizable and represents a tremendous opportunity to change the landscape of power generation and availability. This chip could eliminate the need for conventional batteries and enable self-powering for small electrical devices such as mobile sensors, phones, watches, pacemakers and far more. The energy density of Graphene Energy Harvesting is predicted to be over 100 times higher than other common renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, making the applications for this new source of electricity virtually endless.


    Organized Brownian Motion in Freestanding Graphene: A New Type of Thermal Motion


    Conversion of omnipresent thermal motion into stored electrical charge has been achieved using vibration energy harvesting technology. Our studies demonstrate that the thermal movement of freestanding graphene produces an alternating electrical current when near a biased metal electrode. The magnitude of this induced electrical current is consistent with a constant-voltage, variable-capacitance power generator. The key mechanism behind this discovery is the spontaneous curvature inversion of ripples, during which thousands of atoms move coherently. The collective motion of the atoms is a many-body effect and represents a new type of thermal motion with long time correlations enabling energy extraction. Our results lay the groundwork for a new source of thermal power originating from organized Brownian motion. Circuit details and quantities of energy harvested from this new many-body thermal force will be highlighted in the presentation.

  • Zephir, the key thing here is that this device does not extract vacuum energy, and does not break second law of thermodynamics.


    Interestingly, these ripples undergo spontaneous curvature inversion in response to the ambient temperature [3]. As each ripple flips from concave to convex, more than 10,000 atoms move coherently in the same direction, creating an extremely large force [4]. We have converted this collective thermal motion into stored electrical charge using a variable-capacitance machine [5]. This brings to mind another well-known assertion by Feynman: he stated that there is “plenty of room at the bottom” as he challenged scientists to successfully develop tiny motors.

    It harnesses energy from thermal changes

  • It’s rather that way: The best way to get attacked in the cold fusion business is to claim some good results (and this as usual without independent, reliable verification).


    And what precisely have you done to advance the cause of science? Independent verification of your answer not required.