I always say 'interesting results' -good is in the eye of the beholder.
Fact Check, debunking obviously false information
-
-
And what precisely have you done to advance the cause of science?
Where did I claim that I would have advanced science?
Do you think that people like Rossi have contributed to advance science?
-
Quote
And what precisely have you done to advance the cause of science?
That is certainly of interest but what in the world is the relevance? Only people who have advanced the cause of science need ask questions? Wow.
QuoteDo you think that people like Rossi have contributed to advance science?
In a bizarre sense, yes. People who make specious claims and fool a lot of investors and interested parties before being unfrocked are of interest. They reveal how desirous and gullible some scientists are and how comparatively simple it is to fool them, even with a horrible past record, and very insufficient and defective proposals and demonstrations. This advances science by helping to prevent a misdirection of resources away from scientists and projects with real potential and merit.
One can argue that crooks and liars like Rossi are beneficial in that they attract attention to an area of work which otherwise would be neglected. For example, this can be argued for LENR but I do not think it is a very good argument. One good, proper demonstration or an apparently major claim (yes, yet to be proven) from someone like Mizuno with a good record seems to me to be much more valuable.
-
"some people are easily fooled" => "some scientists are easily fooled"
Those who put scientists on some sort of pedestal don't understand this, but any scientist would tell you it is true.
-
If IH had not been 'Rossified' wouldn't they have been more likely to fund TM and JR now? This is the damage done to science by fraudsters.
-
Not necessarily. I don't assume Mizuno should be funded. I think his reactors should be independently tested, and if one of them shows even +20% clear excess power in independent and rigorous testing, he should be funded. With R20 it is ridiculous, if this works as billed, IH could test quickly and would I am sure provide good funding, notwithstanding past failures. R20 would be the Holy Grail of LENR that IH seek, like Rossi's claims but working, and without Rossi. So much better.
-
Quote
Zephir, the key thing here is that this device does not extract vacuum energy, and does not break second law of thermodynamics. It harnesses energy from thermal changes
Yep, but from spontaneous thermal changes, which are A) driven by vacuum fluctuations and which is B) already breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
-
Yep, but from spontaneous thermal changes, which are A) driven by vacuum fluctuations and which is B) already breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
Zephir, where in that paper does it show that the thermal fluctuation from which energy can be extracted are driven by vacuum fluctuations, or prove theoretically that such could exist in a form that allows power extraction?
It ain't goin' to happen.
-
... I think his reactors should be independently tested, and if one of them shows even +20% clear excess power in independent and rigorous testing, he should be funded. ...
An much simpler, faster and more meaningful way to check the reliability of these claims is to ask Mizuno to show the original data of the "120W active test" carried out on May 19, 2016, ie the data directly generated by the data log system or the HP A/D converter (1), and try to understand why the spreadsheet published in September 2017 (2) - which was used to obtain the sensational curves in Figure 28 of the JCMNS article (3) -
seems to have been manipulatedreplacing the the "Input power" values directly measured by a reliable 16000 $ instrument (4) with those obtained by the product V/DC*I/DC (5).(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat
(2) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results
(3) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf
(4) Mizuno reports increased excess heat
(5) Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Another "language" edit. Shane
-
Quote
Zephir, where in that paper does it show that the thermal fluctuation from which energy can be extracted are driven by vacuum fluctuations, or prove theoretically that such could exist in a form that allows power extraction?
For example here - I always believed, that this interpretation belongs into common understanding of (quantum) physics. For example without vacuum fluctuations the motion of electrons around atoms would immediately cease down as the electrons would radiate synchrotron radiation. The quantum fluctuations of vacuum keep them in neverending motion and the motion of electrons is translated into thermal motion of atoms. The accepted theory for their power extractions IMO doesn't exist yet, but there are theories of arrangements, like time crystals, which would allow draining of this energy effectively. We cannot observe motion without transfer of at least minute energy from moving object to observer - uncertainty principle disallows any interaction free observation. Once time crystals get experimental confirmed, we also have perpetuum mobile driven by vacuum fluctuations, which is permanently able to transfer some energy to every observer of it.
-
The concept of time crystal also explains, how perpetuum mobiles can work. The motion of free atoms is chaotic and random, so that no energy can be permanently drained from it, despite this trembling motion is eternal. But if we constrain group of atoms in two or more directions/dimensions, their motion isn't fully random anymore and it gets harmonic component. In dense aether model it's manifestation of extradimensions of vacuum, which are commonly unobservable but geometric frustration enables to capture portion of their energy.
One can imagine it for example by projection shadow of rod which is regularly spinning in 3D (i.e. along all three axis at the same moment) to 2D matrix/screen. Due to partial lost of information about location in 3D the motion of shadow will not be regular anymore and it will get irregular component. Conversely we can get harmonic component of motion if we constrain random hyperdimensional motion from lower number of dimensions (line or planet) into 3D volume. Therefore most of perpetuum mobiles must utilize constraining of random motion driven by vacuum fluctuations to a lower number of dimensions by proper geometry/arrangement of atoms: carbon nanotubes, semiconductor stripes, magnetic domains, graphene plates and so on.
We can constrain motion of atoms even more, if we would utilize probability function, which will chop their motion along line into sequence of points. This for example happens once the free motion of atoms residing along line gets constrained even more by repulsive forces between atoms - like during unidirectional collisions of atoms along line. This principle should work at all scales and because density of vacuum fluctuations increases with decreasing scale, at the scale of atom orbitals or nuclei these overunity effects could be so pronounced, that they would compete the energy (density) of chemical and/or even nuclear reactions.
-
Note that my theory of cold fusion also considers low-dimensional arrangement of atom collisions, which would allow multiplication of their thermal energy. Both theories of cold fusion and overunity, both their experimental arrangements thus converge each other and some researchers are already starting to realize it too.
-
For example here - I always believed, that this interpretation belongs into common understanding of (quantum) physics. For example without vacuum fluctuations the motion of electrons around atoms would immediately cease down as the electrons would radiate synchrotron radiation. The quantum fluctuations of vacuum keep them in neverending motion and the motion of electrons is translated into thermal motion of atoms. The accepted theory for their power extractions IMO doesn't exist yet, but there are theories of arrangements, like time crystals, which would allow draining of this energy effectively. We cannot observe motion without transfer of at least minute energy from moving object to observer - uncertainty principle disallows any interaction free observation. Once time crystals get experimental confirmed, we also have perpetuum mobile driven by vacuum fluctuations, which is permanently able to transfer some energy to every observer of it.
Zephir, it is a free world and great for you to have whatever ideas you like. But the interesting experimental work in that graphene paper is nothing to do with them.
-
Quote
But the interesting experimental work in that graphene paper is nothing to do with them.
Why not? At any case, my extrapolations regarding the extraction of free energy from graphene don't differ from belief of authors of this article at all. They also firmly believe, that electricity from graphene can be drained for free and they licensed company for this purpose. You may agree with it or you may not - but this is official information even from Arkansas University - so I'm just presenting official stance in this very regard. See also: Nanoscale Mechanical Drumming Visualized by 4D Electron Microscopy, Graphene based battery runs off ambient heat only, to provide a limitless source of power?
-
Preparation of GQenergy graphite cell (source) consists of mixing graphite and quartz (sand or silicone dioxide). Graphite flakes make vibrations, vibrations make electricity with piezoelectric grains of sand. Simple, easy and practical.
-
For example without vacuum fluctuations the motion of electrons around atoms would immediately cease down as the electrons would radiate synchrotron radiation. The quantum fluctuations of vacuum keep them in neverending motion and the motion of electrons is translated into thermal motion of atoms. The accepted theory for their power extractions IMO doesn't exist yet, but there are theories of arrangements, like time crystals, which would allow draining of this energy effectively.
Where did you get that nonsense from???
Did you ever hear about the non radiation condition? Or simply no available momentum in radial direction...
-
Why not? At any case, my extrapolations regarding the extraction of free energy from graphene don't differ from belief of authors of this article at all. They also firmly believe, that electricity from graphene can be drained for free and they licensed company for this purpose. You may agree with it or you may not - but this is official information even from Arkansas University - so I'm just presenting official stance in this very regard. See also: Nanoscale Mechanical Drumming Visualized by 4D Electron Microscopy, Graphene based battery runs off ambient heat only, to provide a limitless source of power?
Zephir:
I can say: "pirates cause global warming", and when you are skeptical about this, also say "Why not?".
The authors do believe this can harvest "free energy" but that does not mean it is harvesting vacuum energy. There is always thermal fluctuation, and that can indeed be harnessed to generate power without breaking 2LTD.
You are also confusing PR spin "limitless source of power" with science.
-
Quote
Did you ever hear about the non radiation condition? Or simply no available momentum in radial direction...
It applies only to forbidden transitions between spherical orbitals - it's not definitely the reason why electrons don't radiate synchrotron radiation. Most of orbitals are asymmetric though. Your understanding of physics has cavities...
QuoteI can say: "pirates cause global warming", and when you are skeptical about this, also say "Why not?".
This was simply demand for logical reasoning of your stance. Pirates cannot cause global warming due to low carbon dioxide emissions released by them.
-
Quote
The authors do believe this can harvest "free energy" but that does not mean it is harvesting vacuum energy. There is always thermal fluctuation, and that can indeed be harnessed to generate power without breaking 2LTD.
They don't believe it - they demonstrated it. We can agree this evidence wasn't conclusive - but too many similar systems already emerged in the past for to consider it an experimental error. Harvesting thermal fluctuations is not possible at room temperature: you'll need thermal flux and temperature gradient. I presume, you don't want to seriously argue thermodynamics by lack of understanding of it..
-
They don't believe it - they demonstrated it. We can agree this evidence wasn't conclusive - but too many similar systems already emerged in the past for to consider it an experimental error. Harvesting thermal fluctuations is not possible at room temperature: you'll need thermal flux and temperature gradient. I presume, you don't want to seriously argue thermodynamics by lack of understanding of it..
Zephir. You make my point.
There have been any number of Maxwell's demon claims, they all fail because 2LOT is fundamental - more fundamental than anything else.
They fail for two reasons:
(1) Sometimes the increase in order noted is balanced by a decrease in order elsewhere that correlates and allows the overall system order to decrease.
(2) Sometimes the "free energy" is harnessing unconsidered energy sources, temperature differentials, etc.
I have no idea which this is, but there are so many candidates (including the STM energy flux, and, my suggestion, temperature temporal gradients which always exist but especially when you are pointing an SEM at something exist) it is ridiculous. I stand by my temperature gradient idea, with 1st option being the heating of the sample due to the STM process. If it heats it will do so unevenly thus creating temperature gradients.
It can further be seen from Fig. 2(c) that the velocity
distribution broadens with increasing tunneling current.
The same trend is apparent in Fig. 2(d), which shows
the variation of the FWHM of the velocity PDF with the
tunneling current setpoint over the entire range of this
study. The broadening of the distribution is consistent with
Joule heating due to the STM tunneling current providing
more kinetic energy to the membrane [20]Our measurements uncover an unexplored spatial and
temporal domain in membrane fluctuations with profound
implications both for our fundamental understanding
and technological applications of membranes. Properly
understood, the random membrane fluctuations can be
usefully exploited. For example, energy harvesting from
the continuous movement of a massive system is an
important application of stochastic nanoresonatorsThe paper mentions anomalous behaviour - which clearly comes from the graphene buckling. There has been a lot of interest in this anomalous dynamics. It nowhere mentions anomalous contradiction of 2LOT.
The many similar systems indeed exist, because (1) and (2) together give you a lot of candidates. Just as there are a lot of machines that look like PM, but in fact are not.
