External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
What is the quantum measurement problem?
Trying to educate us axil ?
I got the book of Dr. Hossenfelder, very informative.
Rossi’s ceramic device never reached 1000 C and so claims relying on this assertion should be struck.
The Rossi device certainly has no valid safety certificate of any kind.
SGS are toothless and allow flagrant abuse of their reputation by ignoring certificate abuse and and blatant coat tail riding of their name by insinuated association.
Researchgate are also toothless and allow fragrant abuse of their so-called service.
let me ask you Paradigmnoia, if Mizuno gets a patent would you have the same argument for complaining about the safety certificate? Does any patented device need a safety certificate to be patented?
I don't think so
well I READ the comment as I am a Member of RG and the appeal to authority is t he main argument of Zoepfl’s comment. No technical argument is used, whatsoever.
Bob Greenyer was sent and shared the link to this interesting video of an aluminum foil subjected to the same treatment as the indium foil, where one can see very dramatic macroscopic damage to the foil in a very short period of exposure (I assume is real time, nothing indicates it’s not the case).
Given that the input power of this kind of cleaning baths is not usually beyond 100 W and normally much less one can only wonder what kind of process is happening there.
Wyttenbach‘s personal vendetta against all and everything that is related to SM and even more to all CERN physists becomes boring (at least to me). No wonder if his theory of a new and better physics that could and may replace the current SM and its limitations at some point in the future can hardly be accepted by those he is critizing all day long for their “church”...
I don’t see it as a personal vendetta but a strong personal opinion based in his work with the SO(4) model. I think this discussion is sterile and circular anyway because no controversy will ever be solved by arguing. So far What I have seen from the SO(4) model is very interesting but is a work in progress for anyone outside Wyttenbach’s mind.
I think His frustration with the SM comes also from the difficulty of attempting to publish his work, which seems to have met resistance and from there I think comes the SM church idea, from the fact that this resistance is less based on the quality of his ideas than to the preponderance of a model no one in a position of decision making wants challenged.
Wanted to paste here the quote of Alan Smith in the thread about the rest mass of photons, which is really fitting to the topic of this thread, too:
“......these dead-ends continue to represent the fields in which the leading theorists and experimentalists cluster to investigate. These blind alleys, which have borne no fruit for literally two generations of physicists, continue to attract funding and attention, despite possibly being disconnected from reality completely. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder adroitly confronts this crisis head on, interviewing mainstream scientists, Nobel Laureates, and (non-crackpot) contrarians alike. You can feel her frustration, and also the desperation of many of the people she speaks with. The book answers the question of "have we let wishful thinking about what secrets nature holds cloud our judgment?" with a resounding "yes!"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…on-nonsense/#149b4aa97566 “
Great recommendation Alan!!! Ms. Hossenfelder nails it. Got the book now thanks to your recommendation. Loved the name of chapter 6...
“Chapter 6: The Incomprehensible Comprehensibility of Quantum Mechanics
In which I ponder the difference between math and magic.”
......these dead-ends continue to represent the fields in which the leading theorists and experimentalists cluster to investigate. These blind alleys, which have borne no fruit for literally two generations of physicists, continue to attract funding and attention, despite possibly being disconnected from reality completely. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder adroitly confronts this crisis head on, interviewing mainstream scientists, Nobel Laureates, and (non-crackpot) contrarians alike. You can feel her frustration, and also the desperation of many of the people she speaks with. The book answers the question of "have we let wishful thinking about what secrets nature holds cloud our judgment?" with a resounding "yes!"
Great recommendation Alan!!! Ms. Hossenfelder nails it. Got the book now thanks to your recommendation. Loved the name of chapter 6...
“Chapter 6: The Incomprehensible Comprehensibility of Quantum Mechanics
In which I ponder the difference between math and magic.”
While I recommend the entire book of “The 4th phase of water” here I paste another selection of paragraphs from the preface that fit in here like the crystal shoe to Cinderella.
“
“Serious challenges abound throughout science. You may be unaware of these challenges, just as I had been until fairly
recently, because the challenges are often kept beneath the radar. The respective establishments see little gain in exposing the chinks in their armor, so the challenges are not broadcast. Even young scientists entering their various fields may not know that their particular field’s orthodoxy is under siege.
The challenges follow a predictable pattern. Troubled by a theory’s mounting complexity and its discord with observation, a scientist will stand up and announce a problem; often that announcement will come with a replacement theory. The establishment typically responds by ignoring the challenge. This dooms most challenges to rot in the basement of obscurity. Those few challenges that do gain a following are often dealt with aggressively: the establishment dismisses the challenger with scorn and disdain, often charging the poor soul with multiple counts of lunacy.
The consequence is predictable: science maintains the status quo. Not much happens. Cancer is not cured. The edifices of science continue to grow on weathered and sometimes even crumbling foundations, leading to cumbersome models and ever-fatter textbooks filled with myriad, sometimes inconsequential details. Some fields have grown so complex as to become practically incomprehensible. Often, we cannot relate. Many scientists maintain that that’s just the way modern science must be — complicated, remote, separated from human experience. To them, cause-and-effect simplicity is a quaint feature of the past, tossed out in favor of the complex statistical correlations of modernity.
I learned a good deal more about our acquiescence to scientific complexity by looking into Richard Feynman’s book on quantum electrodynamics, aptly titled QED. Many consider Feynman, a legendary figure in physics, the Einstein of the late 20th century. In the Introduction to the 2006 edition of Feynman’s book, a prominent physicist states that you’ll probably not understand the material, but you should read the book anyway because it’s important. I found this sentiment mildly off-putting. However, it was hardly as off-putting as what Feynman himself goes on to state in his own Introduction: “It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That’s because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”
The book you hold takes an approach that challenges the notion that modern science must lie beyond human comprehension. We strive for simplicity. If the currently accepted orthodox principles of science cannot readily explain everyday observations, then I am prepared to declare that the emperor has no clothes: these principles might be inadequate. While those foundational principles may have come from towering scientific giants, we cannot discount the possibility that new foundations might work better.”
Why look backwards?
I think that looking for a way of avoiding the problems and incoherences of QM and the SM is not looking backwards, but moving forwards.
Again, citing Pollack “Treating any scientific formulation as sacred is a serious error”.
Came across randomly with this video of the MythBusters that I had never seen before and it caught my attention that they seemed befuddled by the result and could not readily explain it. Anything that is unexpected and surprising kind of tickles t curiosity.
They were trying to replicate an internet video of ice bars exploding with surprising force by being put in contact with a bucket of reacting thermite. It’s remarkable that the explosion is very sudden and energetic leaving no traces of steam, very few pieces of ice and even no pieces from the bucket with the thermite.
I find these few paragraphs of the preface of "the 4th phase of water" fitting to the discussion:
"Treating any scientific formulation as sacred is a serious error. Any framework of understanding that we build needs to rest on solid foundations of experimental evidence rather than on sacred formulations; otherwise, the finished product may resemble one of M.C. Escher’s renderings of subtle impossibility — a result worth avoiding. Even long-standing models remain vulnerable if they have not managed to bring simple, satisfying understandings. Galileo’s story teaches us that when an established foundation requires the support of elaborate “epicycles” to agree with empirical observations, it’s time to begin searching for simpler foundations.
This book attempts to build reliable foundations for a new science of water. The foundation derives from recent discoveries. Upon this new foundation, we will build a framework of understanding with considerable predictive power: everyday phenomena become plainly explainable without the need for mind-bending twists and jumps. Then comes the bonus: the process of building this new framework will yield four new scientific principles — principles that may prove applicable beyond water and throughout all of nature.
Thus, the approach I take is unconventional. It does not build on the “prevailing wisdom”; nor does it reflexively accept all current foundational principles as inherently valid. Instead, it returns to the root method of doing science — relying on common observation, simple logic, and the most elementary principles of chemistry and physics to build understanding. Example: in observing the vapor rising from your cup of hot coffee, you can actually see the clouds of vapor. What must that tell
you about the nature of the evaporative process? Do prevailing foundational principles sufficiently explain what you see? Or must we begin looking elsewhere?
This old-fashioned approach may come across as mildly irreverent because it pays little homage to the “gods” of science. On the other hand, I believe the approach may provide the best route toward an intuitive understanding of nature — an understanding that even laymen can appreciate.
I certainly did not begin my life as a revolutionary. In fact, I was pretty conventional. As an undergraduate electrical engineering student, I came to class properly dressed and duly respectful. At parties, I wore a tie and jacket just like my peers. We looked about as revolutionary as members of an old ladies’ sewing circle.
Only in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania did someone implant in me the seeds of revolution. My field of study at the time was bioengineering. I found the engineering component rather staid, whereas the biological component brought some welcome measure of leavening. Biology seemed the happening place; it was full of dynamism and promise for the future. Nevertheless, none of my biology professors even hinted that students like us might one day create scientific breakthroughs. Our job was to add flesh to existing skeletal frameworks.
I thought that incrementally adding bits of flesh was the way of science until a colleague turned on the flashing red lights. Tatsuo Iwazumi arrived at Penn when I was close to finishing my PhD. I had built a primitive computer simulation of cardiac contraction based on the Huxley model, and Iwazumi was to follow in my footsteps. “Impossible!” he asserted. Lacking the deferential demeanor characteristic of most Japanese I’d known, Iwazumi stated in no uncertain terms that my simulation was worthless: it rested on the accepted theory of muscle contraction, and that theoretical mechanism couldn’t possibly work. “The mechanism is intrinsically unstable,” he continued. “If muscle really worked that way, then it would fly apart during its very first contraction.”
Whoa! A frontal challenge to Huxley’s muscle theory? No way.
Although (the late) Iwazumi exuded brilliance at every turn and came with impeccable educational credentials from the University of Tokyo and MIT, he seemed no match for the legendary Sir Andrew Huxley. How could such a distinguished Nobel laureate have so seriously erred? We understood that the scientific mechanisms announced by such sages constituted ground truth and textbook fact, yet here came this brash young Japanese engineering student telling me that this particular truth was not just wrong, but impossible.
Reluctantly, I had to admit that Iwazumi’s argument was persuasive — clear, logical, and simple. As far as I know, it stands unchallenged to this very day. Those who hear the argument for the first time quickly see the logic, and most are flabbergasted by its simplicity.
For me, this marked a turning point. It taught me that sound logical arguments could trump even long-standing belief systems buttressed by armies of followers. Once disproved, a theory was done — finished. The belief system was gone forever. Clinging endlessly was tantamount to religious adherence, not science. The Iwazumi encounter also taught me that thinking independently was more than just a cliché; it was a necessary ingredient in the search for truth. In fact, this very ingredient led to my muscle-contraction dispute with Sir Andrew Huxley (which never did resolve)."
Wyttenbach - I'm not 100% sure what you are asking, but perhaps it will help to say that I'm currently using hydrogen and nickel and palladium.
I think this is what Wyttenbach was asking as he asked for the kind of fuel and that normally in LENR has referred to the metallic lattice one is loading with H or D.
Display MoreHey Curbina
This is the type K thermocouple I'm using https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/thermocouples/3971236/
The following posts from my log might help you see how it fits into the reactor:
https://gitlab.com/mklilley/lenr/issues/1#note_213760182
https://gitlab.com/mklilley/lenr/issues/1#note_213760246
I'm actually starting to have some trouble with my thermocouple the last couple of days - it keeps randomly jumping down by about 10C. I suspect it could be something to do with the hydrogen getting into the stainless steel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple#Type_K). Apparently Inconel has better resistance to hydrogen in this regard.
ok matt, that was illustrative, thanks! so you have the TC completely inside the vessel with a long probe. That should be pretty good to avoid hot spots. However, and as you are now realizing, I asked about the type precisely because TCs, being built of metals, without doubt interact with Hydrogen and this makes them unreliable. That’s why they are often thought to be useless in this kind of experiments as they can’t really be trusted, this has been found many times, and that’s why some type of flow calorimetry is always favored so the TCs are never in direct contact with the internal chamber where the reaction is to take place.
matt, one question I have just out of curiosity and because is usually a matter of heated debate when a positive result is reported, and I have just not been able to answer myself by reading your experiment log, is what kind of thermocouple you are using, how many of them and at what positions within the setup they are located, as to better understand your baseline model and your measured data.
About the temp room effect I understand Dr. Mizuno also measures it to be able to subtract its effect from the data. I know, easier said than done, experiments are a lot of work and thus I am more than grateful for your hands on approach.
Zephir_AWT I'm currently working with hydrogen so it's fine to be using KOH to make the electrolyte. When I move to use heavy water I'll need to use a different substance to make the electrolyte like the one that Alan has described.
As a general point, I'm happy to answer queries that people have about the work I'm doing so long as they are asked in a respectful and supportive way that helps us all to move forwards.
Let's support each other rather than try and catch each other out.
And that’s the spirit, precisely. We are happy to have you here matt , some of our members are a little grumpier but take no offense, we mods are here to keep discussion civil, polite and cooperative, even disagreeing can be done in those terms.
Display MoreRecent reprint, and copyrighted - to avoid in a blog.
Try
https://b-ok.cc/md5/0E2B5497B7DB703697A487B7ED71CDCC
instead
thanks a lot for that link Ahlfors. Found there a particular book that I have not found elsewhere. One that Alan Smith used to have in paperback but lost, (the 4th phase of water)
Nowhere near as well, judging from the results reported by Patterson, Takahashi and Mizuno. Multilayer metals with Ni and something else -- especially Pd -- seem to work best. Ni - Cu - Ni - Cu seems to work, which surprises me.
Yes, Thanks for bringing this up, I just am talking in the context of what Matt did in his exploration with Ni mesh rubbed with palladium and in a chamber with Hydrogen that showed no clear excess heat, all this done along the way to prepare for a Mizuno Analogue.
Curbina - thanks for messaging, I appreciate having the opportunity for discussion.
I did follow the comments about annealing and I did actually try this in my experiment (although I didn't report it in my video - you can see all the details here https://gitlab.com/mklilley/lenr/issues/1). Once I annealed, I got a purple layer which I subsequently sanded off. From my chats with Ed, I now think that this palladium oxide layer is actually what I want to rub onto the nickel. Apparently, it is easily reduced by hydrogen and will form a nice fresh Pd layer free of contamination and therefore ready to accept hydrogen.
Regarding the nickel oxides - isn't the idea that burnishing will physically remove the oxide and allow the palladium to make a direct contact with the nickel?
It is one of the hypothesis, indeed, but Ni-H systems have worked without Palladium if one credits Piantelli, Focardi and Parkhomov.
Well Matt, just read your answer to my comment to your YT video. I just wrote it there on the rush of the moment but this is surely a much better place for comments.
I understand you did this as an exploratory experiment and I commend you for your hands on approach. I wonder if you read the comments made in the Mizuno Replication thread about the annealing of the palladium rod for making it softer and avoid it scrubbing Nickel off the mesh (which was a problem some replicators reported). I think that what Edmund Storms recommends is precisely going to have the same effect.
But allow me to back to mention that is not only the palladium that needs to be free from oxydes but also the Nickel, and that’s what has been known since Thomas Graham did his hydrogen diffusion experiments, and that has also been mentioned as a key part of successful experiments, at least that I know of, by Piantelli, Parkhomov and Mizuno himself.
If that is the case, why did this site - given a long time to consider - not recommend google replicate these "seeming to work as expected" Rossi-like reactions?
Errr, replicating Mizuno, which is Ni-H (well, Ni-D) was perhaps the most recommended item in that thread, and it was expressly said by Team Google that it not be included because they intended to talk to Mizuno directly at ICCF 22. So, I think you missed that part.
