Paradigmnoia Member
  • Member since Oct 23rd 2015

Posts by Paradigmnoia

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Edmund Husserl - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org

    The elaboration of phenomenology[edit]

    Some years after the 1900–1901 publication of his main work, the Logische Untersuchungen (Logical Investigations), Husserl made some key conceptual elaborations which led him to assert that in order to study the structure of consciousness, one would have to distinguish between the act of consciousness[70] and the phenomena at which it is directed (the objects as intended). Knowledge of essences would only be possible by "bracketing" all assumptions about the existence of an external world. This procedure he called "epoché". These new concepts prompted the publication of the Ideen (Ideas) in 1913, in which they were at first incorporated, and a plan for a second edition of the Logische Untersuchungen.

    From the Ideen onward, Husserl concentrated on the ideal, essential structures of consciousness. The metaphysical problem of establishing the reality of what we perceive, as distinct from the perceiving subject, was of little interest to Husserl in spite of his being a transcendental idealist. Husserl proposed that the world of objects—and of ways in which we direct ourselves toward and perceive those objects—is normally conceived of in what he called the "natural attitude", which is characterized by a belief that objects exist distinct from the perceiving subject and exhibit properties that we see as emanating from them (this attitude is also called physicalist objectivism). Husserl proposed a radical new phenomenological way of looking at objects by examining how we, in our many ways of being intentionally directed toward them, actually "constitute" them (to be distinguished from materially creating objects or objects merely being figments of the imagination); in the Phenomenological standpoint, the object ceases to be something simply "external" and ceases to be seen as providing indicators about what it is, and becomes a grouping of perceptual and functional aspects that imply one another under the idea of a particular object or "type". The notion of objects as real is not expelled by phenomenology, but "bracketed" as a way in which we regard objects—instead of a feature that inheres in an object's essence founded in the relation between the object and the perceiver. In order to better understand the world of appearances and objects, phenomenology attempts to identify the invariant features of how objects are perceived and pushes attributions of reality into their role as an attribution about the things we perceive (or an assumption underlying how we perceive objects). The major dividing line in Husserl's thought is the turn to transcendental idealism.[71]

    In a later period, Husserl began to wrestle with the complicated issues of intersubjectivity, specifically, how communication about an object can be assumed to refer to the same ideal entity (Cartesian Meditations, Meditation V). Husserl tries new methods of bringing his readers to understand the importance of phenomenology to scientific inquiry (and specifically to psychology) and what it means to "bracket" the natural attitude. The Crisis of the European Sciences is Husserl's unfinished work that deals most directly with these issues. In it, Husserl for the first time attempts a historical overview of the development of Western philosophy and science, emphasizing the challenges presented by their increasingly (one-sidedly) empirical and naturalistic orientation. Husserl declares that mental and spiritual reality possess their own reality independent of any physical basis,[72] and that a science of the mind ('Geisteswissenschaft') must be established on as scientific a foundation as the natural sciences have managed: "It is my conviction that intentional phenomenology has for the first time made spirit as spirit the field of systematic scientific experience, thus effecting a total transformation of the task of knowledge."[73]

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    But Rossi has completely disavowed his old theory, claiming zpe. You can't at the same time believe Rossi's ecat is for real while contradicting his theory. There also is a complete lack of evidence it works, or even exists really. Please nkodama before you post any more supporting Rossi, post any evidence at all that the current ecat exists. This is hurting your credibility. We all want to believe in LENR, or we wouldn't be here. But Rossi is the antithesis of a positive influence.

    Rossi doesn’t know what zpe is

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Actually, I have never heard of any attempts to replicate the embodiment in Rossi’s patent.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    I built an ecat-like thing that made a good-enough-for-Rossi-and-the-Professors COP of 7.2 , twice as efficient as the Lugano device.
    Then I built a simple quark-x like thing, (the Nog-Y), that uses no power when measured like Rossi does, and can operate without the ground wire connected at all! (Once started). The controller could easily fit inside a cigarette pack, just like Rossi’s.

  • What is the current state of LENR?

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Great..

    actually Staker had 1 ton of Benelexon the outside... but then his reactors were surrounded by glass..

    not 316ss


    for the Pluton101 I may need Benelex or concrete.. since the zircon has about 400 ppm Actinides...

    I bet one could construct a constant delta T mass air flow calorimeter using fan RPM feedback to control DT, and it would be perfectly legitimate and people would have a fit about air mass and fan laws etc till the cows come home.

  • What is the current state of LENR?

    Quote from RobertBryant

    So... no flaw in Mizuno's airflow measurement?? there were so many tantalising posts...on the Mizuno thread..

    but never a big reveal..

    It should be more than big enough to hold my pre-embryonic borozircon Pluton 101 reactor... needs to run at 535C...just a gleam in my mindseye... tantalizing??

    There are plenty of things that could be fairly easily improved, (and maybe some of these things have been already addressed) that could possibly cause errors as large as the reported excess heat. I have reported them, and made simple suggestions to ameliorate these potential issues. However, despite any shortcomings, Mizuno’s calorimeter is sufficient to detect excess heat compared to a calibration run in similar conditions, as far as I can tell. Truthfully, a cardboard calorimeter box would work, probably at about 50% recovery in the 150-3OO watt range.


    The most important improvements that I suggest are (in no particular order):


    1) Improve the air inlet geometry. Get the wires, tubing, etc. out of the intake orifice. Get the inlet thermocouple away from the calorimeter box envelope (5 cm is probably lots). Use a dedicated inlet duct which is larger than the outlet. Be very cautious of the thermocouple geometry within the inlet airflow. Ensure that calorimeter inside air cannot be drawn by back eddy to the thermocouple. Pulsing/oscillating/cycling outlet temperatures can be (often) caused by the outlet fan fighting the inlet or outlet for enough air flow, resulting in a ‘hunting’ condition.


    2) Get heavy bricks, and any other excess mass out of the calorimeter envelope wherever possible. Excess mass means excess time to reach temperature equilibrium for a given power step. Just three standard fire bricks, for example, can add 40 minutes to an hour (or more) to the settling period at each input power step, and even longer if the calorimeter recovery is poor. Acrylic (Mizuno’s calorimeter box) has a large specific heat, and itself is a considerable source of delayed equilibrium. The acrylic box itself seems to add about 30 to 40 minutes to the temperature equilibrium settling period. (Each material has its pros and cons, so some compromise is expected here.)


    3) Improve the insulation. Bubble foil is poor insulation except for radiant heat, and only then if it does not touch anything. It has an R value of about 1.2 at best.


    4)Be certain the calorimeter actually reaches thermal equilibrium. Plots from several tests seem to show reactors not reaching equilibrium in either or both calibration and active tests (equilibrium is signified by a horizontal Delta Temperature trace over an extended period). The power steps, calibrations, etc cannot be effectively compared to each other except with data collected at thermal equilibrium.