For most scientists of the Enlightenment and Renaissance, meteorites were nothing more than superstition, silly nonsense that didn't really deserve attention.
The seventh of November, 1492. A young boy was working in a wheat field near the town of Ensisheim, on the border of present-day France and Germany.
Suddenly the boy heard a tremendous whistle above his head. He looked up and saw a large and fast bone crashing with great force into the wheat field and throwing mud and earth everywhere. The frightened boy hurried to call the people of the town and lead them to the crash site: he was the only witness to the crash, but the sound of the explosion was heard by all the residents of the surrounding towns and villages. In the wheat field, in a pit about one and a half meters deep, rested a strange stone that was gray-black in color and weighed about 130 kilograms.
The rumor about the mysterious stone that fell from the sky soon also reached the ears of the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, Emperor Maximilian I. Maximilian was at the same time - well, all the time more or less - in the midst of a long land dispute with the Ottoman Empire. He came to the town to examine with his own eyes the miracle in question, and was soon convinced that it was indeed a sign from heaven.
Now it only remains to determine what exactly the stone wants to say. He convened the king's council for an urgent meeting and at the end of it it was decided - how surprising - that the stone that landed in Ensisheim was a sign from heaven heralding success in the coming war. To make sure that the stone would not regret this prophecy and try to escape at night, he ordered it to be placed in a local church and fixed in place with chains.
It is difficult to estimate what effect the Ansisheim Stone had on the successes or failures of the Emperor Maximilian. He won some fights and lost others, so the result here is not clear cut. The stone—or rather, the Ensisheim meteorite—had a more significant impact, however, on another man's future and reputation several centuries later.
Ernst Friedrich Chaldani was hardly a scientist. His father, a well-known law professor, insisted that his son continue his path and become a lawyer. Chaldani did complete his law studies, but in the end he insisted on following his heart's inclination: physics.
Soon Chaldani made some very important breakthroughs in the field of acoustics: he calculated the speed of sound in different gases, and discovered the way in which waves propagate in solids. Today he is considered the father of the science of acoustics, but in those days, the end of the 18th century, acoustics was a rather remote and neglected field of science. Chaldani was not even able to win a university position due to his achievements.
Apparently Chaldani was not the type of person for whom reputation and the pursuit of honor outweighed inner truth and curiosity. Otherwise, he would never have stepped into one of the most dangerous intellectual minefields of his day: meteorites.
For most scientists of the Enlightenment and Renaissance, meteorites were nothing more than superstition, silly nonsense that didn't really deserve attention. There have been hundreds of recorded cases of meteorite falls throughout history, but in all cases the celestial stone almost immediately became an object of deep religious and mystical meaning - like the 'sign from heaven' received by Emperor Maximilian I. The scientists naturally sought to distance themselves from these mystical beliefs and therefore tended to ignore and disparage the testimonies of the common people who witnessed these falls.
In addition, the accepted interpretation of Newton's laws stated that there could be no rocks in the space between the planets. Isaac Newton himself stated in his rulings that there were such rocks in the past - they must have been attracted and fell long ago to the more massive planets. And if Newton said that...who is going to argue with him? It's like saying Michael Jordan doesn't take a step and a half right. The common knowledge was, therefore, that these were nothing more than earthly stones blown into the air by the eruption of a distant volcano or a powerful hurricane. Rocks from space? Not a chance.
In 1793, Arsenet Chaldani talked with an old and respected professor who happened to witness with his own eyes the fall of a meteorite. The professor was convinced that it was a stone that came from space - but he had no intention of risking his reputation and admitting it out loud. Chaldani was very curious about the matter, and the professor suggested that he try and look for more evidence of meteorite falls from which it would be possible to conclude, perhaps, that these are rocks of extraterrestrial origin.
Chaldani accepted the challenge. For three weeks he rummaged through the archives and collected hundreds of reports from all over the world and from all eras. From the hundreds of stories, Chaldani chose a few dozen that were, in his eyes, the most reliable. Here, perhaps, his training as a lawyer came into play: he knew how to look for the cases where the witnesses had no interest in lying or making things up, or cases where different witnesses from different backgrounds told the exact same story.
From the reports he chose - and the event in Ensisheim was one of them - Chaldani calculated what the speed of the meteorites was when they passed through the atmosphere. In all cases it was concluded that they were much faster than one would expect from a fact that all their speed is due to a strong wind or a volcanic eruption. That is to say, the meteorites were moving at tremendous speed even before they reached the earth, and could not be the result of a local event.
A year later, in 1794, Chaldani published a book in which he explained the results of his research. He claimed that the speed of the meteorites, as well as the fact that they seem to come from every possible direction of the sky, is evidence that the origin of these rocks - completely contrary to Newton's opinion - was in outer space. According to Chaldani, Newton's assertion that there are no small rocks in space is arbitrary and dogmatic, and not based on facts and observations. In other words: Move over, Michael Jordan, I'll show you how to take a step and a half.
I suppose no one will be surprised if I say that all the reviews of Chaldani's book have been fatal and mocking. The biggest objection was to the very method by which he conducted his research: collecting written testimonies of people without scientific education or experience, without any scientific experiment or observation he himself conducted. Most scientists thought (and you can understand them) that such evidence simply cannot be trusted.
The professor who came up with the idea for the study, and whom Chaldani generously thanked in the book, later said that he felt as if a meteorite had hit his head. Chaldani himself was also convinced that his scientific career was nearing its end.
But then luck played out for Ernst Chaldani - and for science as a whole, one might say.
Only two months after the book was published, one of the largest meteorite falls in European history took place. Near the city of Siena in Italy, before the eyes of thousands of people, dozens of stones fell from the sky in a very dramatic vision of explosions, clouds of smoke and glowing trails. A year later, a heavy and massive meteorite fell in England - the second largest meteorite ever in Europe, after the one that fell in Ensisheim.
These two cases spurred young scientists who had read Chaldani's book and whose ideas were still fresh in their minds, to examine for the first time in a scientific and orderly manner the meteorites collected over the years. The English chemist Edward Howard analyzed the composition of the metals in several meteorites - and the results were amazing. He found in them alloys of metals that do not exist on Earth, such as a compound of iron and nickel. Terrestrial rocks do not contain a pure alloy of iron and nickel because most of the heavy metals sank long ago into the Earth's core in the process of the planet's formation, and those that remained on the surface oxidized and rusted ages ago. The large Ansisheim meteorite belonged to this type of metallic meteorites, which is the explanation for its dark and shiny color.
In another type of meteorites, rocky meteorites, Howard discovered tiny spheres called 'chondrolites', which also do not exist in any rock of terrestrial origin. Today we know that the tiny spherules are formed when interstellar dust heats up quickly, as a result of a collision between asteroids for example, and cools very quickly in the vacuum of space.
Another researcher, a Frenchman named Jean-Baptiste Bio, accurately mapped the crash site of several meteorites in the Normandy region. He showed that the distribution of the falls completely corresponds to a path of penetration of a meteorite from space and through the atmosphere.
These and other studies resulted in a complete reversal of the trend within just a few years. The scientists stopped doubting the possibility of the existence of small rocks in space, and even began to search for them actively. When the first asteroid, Ceres, was discovered in 1801, the matter was sealed and done. In just eight years, an idea that was initially considered ridiculous and outlandish in the eyes of most scientists, became a strong and well-established theory that only when a few persistent researchers continued to question it. The story of Ernest Chaldani is an excellent example of the power of the scientific method. Even ideas that initially seem implausible may become solid theories following a series of independent studies that all come to the exact same conclusion.
Chaldani himself, who today stands in the scientific canon in the same line as the greatest scientists of his time, did not get to enjoy the fruits of his success. Despite his successes in the fields of acoustics and astronomy, he still had trouble finding his place in the scientific community, and even when he was already an old man, he had to move from city to city and village to village with a horse and carriage and earn his living from exhibitions and lectures to those who were willing to pay for them.
106 תגובות
safkan
"I'm not going to argue with people who have no idea what's really going on with the e-cat"
This is the root of the problem. You yourself don't know what's really going on with the e-cat thing. In fact, no one outside of Rossi's limited inner circle knows, as all information is classified and secret.
You choose to believe people who make claims without backing them up in any verifiable way. In order to justify this choice, you decide to ignore anything that might challenge their credibility and drift into a maze of contradictory and nonsensical claims (because the academy (and publishing in it) does not interest Rossi, so he bothers to waste his time performing experiments for it. Rossi does not need a bigger budget At the same time that the development will be monitored a lot because there is not a sufficient budget. There are attempts at independent reconstructions of the technology that you are absolutely clear in advance for some reason that they will fail and will not be able to achieve Rossi's results or similar results.).
When it is pointed out to you, you choose to close your eyes, block your ears, ignore and dismiss it by saying that these are irrelevant attempts at deception, or something like that.
How do I mislead someone when I ask what existing evidence is there for the operation of the e-cat? What the hell reason do I have to mislead anyone? Why should I be satisfied with evidence that at best when I look at it optimistically is extremely partial and very flawed?
I really want this technology to be practical and applied. Why do you think I should just believe that she works based on press releases? Why can't I exactly demand quality information to evaluate the programming of the matter?
I don't know if Rossi is cheating or not*, but at the moment, it is absolutely impossible to present the e-cat as something that has proven itself and that all that stands in its way is the time needed to solve technical problems. It's just a lie. Feel free to live in it if you want, but stop presenting it as a fait accompli because it really isn't the case right now.
*This isn't surprising given that any person who tells me they have a machine that does something and won't show me it works and does what they say it does or won't show me evidence that a machine is capable of doing what they say it does will effectively leave me with no tools to judge whether He is telling the truth or not.
I no longer expect a factual response from you, since you have become a religious believer in the matter, there is no point in expecting you to behave differently from them here.
I have to "balance" this discussion on a site that thinks differently, like most people in the field:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box
Here is a quote from there:
But Rossi soon began to raise suspicion. Since a public E-Cat demonstration in October 2011—his most recent, and probably his last—he has issued a steady stream of contradictory statements and unfulfilled promises. He claims to operate a state-of-the-art E-Cat factory in Florida, but the only property he owns there is a condo in Miami located a few blocks from the beach. He has no verifiable customers or investors. He has severed ties with business partners and reneged on every agreement to test the E-Cat. Josephson recently put a disclaimer on his YouTube video saying he doesn't endorse Rossi's E-Cat. Some of Rossi's most steadfast supporters—mostly starry-eyed bloggers on the alternative energy beat—have stopped astroturfing for him online.
At least I brought a link...
I see that my short comment with a direct link to photos from Rossi's lab has gone into hiatus on the science website. Maybe it's because the inclusion of links causes stoppages in the knowledge site's filters. Hope the short response will be published eventually.
In any case, I wrote enough details in my accompanying notes today, February 23, how to reach the delayed link. This is a post on my recommended blog for tracking e-cat in particular and LENR in general. The news with the photographs is a news published on February 18. With a little effort you can get to the photos without waiting for my delayed link.
In the accompanying comments to the long response I sent today, November 23, I did not include a direct link to the photos from Andrea Rossi's development lab that were published around February 18, 2015. Here is a link to the blog post
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/19/new-official-web-site-andrea-rossi-com-pictures-of-the-new-plant/
As far as I understand, what you see in the photos is the construction of ikat miners, one of which was sent to the customer for a follow-up year. I wrote in the additional comments I sent today about this reactor that was sent to the customer.
I finally see that my long comment (on Andrea Rossi's ikat quilt) is out of hiatus. It saved me a lot of headache. I hope the links there work as they were and in any case you can restore the required links through Google. The long response (about three pages of a book) was published here a few days ago.
Regarding what I wrote in my long response, the old Hillel said: ".. and by that you are a complete waste". I wrote in the long response only the things that I think are the most important. The full details are in the links I provided, where everything is written in an orderly and detailed manner. From the link
http://www.e-catworld.com
From the links I gave you can reach other quality sites.
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Below are my accompanying comments to my long response (which was made a few days ago).
As I've said several times, I'm not going to argue with people who have no idea what's really going on with e-cat. Their arguments are idle arguments that arise from ignorance and deception, therefore such arguments only add confusion and deception while I try to eliminate the confusion and deception.
My comments are aimed only at those who desire correct and quality information about e-cat. These people have difficulty reaching correct and high-quality information because of the misleading information that is constantly distributed on the Internet. Some of those disseminating misinformation are sources that are supposedly disseminating reliable information, this confuses the readers more because, due to their inability to understand the details, they try to replace "self-understanding" with relying on "authority". I provide here the direction to quality sources of information; The quality sources give more correct details and also give partial explanations that improve self-understanding.
In addition to the direction to quality sources of information. I make brief comments about phenomena that seem important to me but are difficult to understand even if you know all the details correctly.
On the site I mentioned here e-catworld, on February 18, 2015, photographs were published from the laboratory where the 1 MW ICAT facility (beta version) is manufactured and delivered to the customer for trial and monitoring. As I wrote in the long response - the duration of the trial and monitoring of the facility that is placed at the client's site is about a year (the trial period is expected to end between November 2015 and February 2016). Probably - after the end of the experiment, the IH company and Andrea Rossi will decide on the continuation of their path.
It is not entirely clear what products you see in the photos. Rossi says that the volume of a 1 MW reactor that is produced these days is 500 liters, that is, the size of a refrigerator; Rossi also says that a large ikat reactor is accompanied by water piping that disperses the heat away from the reactor (for example: central heating dispersion for a large building). From explanations elsewhere - there are several copies of the 1 megawatt reactor, one of the copies was delivered to the customer for a trial year. The photographs apparently show several reactors (from those that were produced a few months ago), as well as water piping parts of heat spreaders.
All the talk that there is currently no product that produces excess heat in an Ikat nuclear reactor, are the deceptions that exist on the Internet. The problems with the development of large Ikat reactors have nothing to do with the fact that Ikat reactors do not produce excess heat in a nuclear reaction. The miners produce such heat.
So what are the problems in producing large ikat miners? The problems with large ikat reactors are high quality demands of the commercial market. The quality requirements of the commercial market are many times greater than the quality requirements of an experimental product presented in scientific tests. The main requirement in the commercial market is _stability_: the reactor should work strongly _without interruption_ for several months.
The stability problem of the Russian effect is the main problem of ecat technology. (I mention: "Rossy effect" is the nuclear reaction inside the Ikat reactor.) The stability problem weighed on the discovery of the Russian effect in 2005. The stability problem weighed on the verifications of the process until about 2012. The problem of stability weighed on all attempts to produce commercial products since 2012 until today. The stability problem will burden the production of ikat products for many years to come (because there is no magic solution to eliminate the stability problem). However, there is no reason to assume that they will not eventually find good solutions to the stability problem.
As mentioned - large ikat will not be marketed to the commercial market as long as the product does not meet the strict requirements of the commercial market. Even if it takes years for the reactor to meet the strict requirements - the reactor will not be marketed before then. Marketing a failed reactor prematurely, due to the impatience of Rossi and his partners, will cause them financial damage that will be difficult for them to recover from.
The production of ikat in a tiny model (the so-called "home ikat") is probably not too complicated in terms of energy and stability, but in Rossi's opinion it has serious flaws as a "product that is marketed first". At the moment, Rossi's clear preference is to market "Ikat 1 MW" as a "first marketed product".
It is possible that in the current period, until the end of the beta model experiment of "Ikat 1 MW", part of the time in Rossi's development laboratory is the development of home ikat. Rossi hinted at it. But at the moment any such development is put in a drawer until commercial marketing of home ikat is decided.
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Another issue worthy of attention is the temperature at which the heat is emitted from an ikat wick. In the Perera (2013) experiment, the reactor was at a low temperature of up to 400 degrees Celsius. In the Lugano experiment (2014) the reactor was at a temperature of up to 1400 Celsius. The higher the temperature, the less stable the process.
It is possible that in the Ferrara experiment Andrea Rossi was afraid to use a reactor whose temperature was higher than 400 degrees Celsius lest he lose the stability of the process. Despite the low temperature, in the first experiment in Ferrara (before the two successful experiments) there was a loss of stability (the loss of stability caused the reactor to break down, so the experiment was stopped). In the Lugano experiment, operational stability was achieved even though the reactor was operating at a higher temperature. It is possible that the difference in temperatures between the Ferrera test and the Lugano test expresses Rossi's progress on the subject of stability. The 1 megawatt reactor supplied this year to the customer for a trial year - probably operates at a low temperature.
Why is it important for an ikat contractor to be able to operate at a high temperature?
It is important to reach as high a temperature as possible when you want to _efficiently_ convert heat energy into other types of energy. In every conversion from heat energy to mechanical energy there is a loss of energy due to the laws of thermodynamics (in particular: Carnot's laws of efficiency). Since the production of electricity has as an intermediate step the conversion to mechanical energy, the problem of the utilization of heat also applies to the production of electricity from heat. In other words: if the Ikat miners were only able to produce heat at a temperature of 400 Celsius, then the electricity generating stations would only produce electricity with low efficiency. Compared to this - today sophisticated electricity generation stations use gas heated to a temperature of 1200 Celsius to produce electricity with high efficiency.
On the other hand, why is it sometimes important for an ikat rental to operate at a low temperature?
Because when the reactor is used for heating at a low temperature (such as residential heating) - a low temperature of the reactor ensures a higher heating efficiency. (Explanation for the efficiency of heating: if the reactor emits heat at a high temperature and the goal is heating at a low temperature, some of the heat produced will leak into the environment close to the reactor, this leaking heat is wasted.
From the many experiments that Rossi does, it turns out that he masters different techniques of ikat reactors, which allows him to build reactors that operate at different temperatures as needed.
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
I have some additional comments to my long response. But I will refrain from including them in this response so as not to prolong it. I may add these comments in the future if needed.
I will mention at the moment only the things listed below.
During the publication of the Lugano report, in October 2014, details regarding the Ikat reactor used in the Lugano experiment were leaked. The leaked information seems to be sufficient for the construction of a nuclear reactor similar to the Ikat reactor in the Lugano experiment. Few researchers have made and are making attempts to imitate the reactor, meanwhile the success in imitations is limited but encouraging. The hope of the researchers is that they will be able to build a reactor that will demonstrate the Russian effect in a way that leaves no doubt. It is estimated that if such an imitation is successful, it will be found already this year.
In the event that independent researchers (who are not related to Andrea Rossi at all) succeed in building a simulated reactor that clearly demonstrates the Russian effect - the campaign of denying the existence of a Russian effect will end. Again they will not continue the delegitimization campaign against Andrea Rossi (which is based on slander and lies).
Again there will be no need to wait for Andrea Rossi to bring a commercial product to market (which could take several years from today).
Another hope of some researchers is that imitation of the ikat reactor will prevent the issuing of patents on the scientific principles. If patents are issued as it were - a possibility will be given to a _few_ to take over a Russian effect, the takeover will be under the auspices of the law and will translate into an economic takeover of a Russian effect. The takeover of Russian effect by a few may allow those few to be exclusive in the distribution of technology based on Russian effect, or alternatively to shelve the development of Russian effect technology for decades more.
Thanks
walking dead
Viabili in Hebrew - practical, practical; Bar-Kima
Beauty.
At this point, Paul for 30 prostrations, in connection with Shabbat, will be seen later.
Back to the instructions of the Defense Ministry
Wookie
Rather, it is related to the second law. By turning thermal energy into electricity and vice versa.
Israel
What are you asking? by whom?
: )
This is supposedly the input and output data of Rossi's product. But there is no need to worry about the second law, it has nothing more to do with it than anything else.
It seems to me that one typo in a response in which I typed 1400 words is within reasonable limits.
This is getting ridiculous :). Someone really wrote "It is impossible to operate the reactor without considerable external energy investment for its operation; Whoever claims that there is another possibility (running the reactor for a long time without external electricity investment) does not understand how the Ikat reactor works."
So, I want to invest! I will give the Russian NIS 20 million, on the condition that he gives me NIS 100 million a month...
same logic…..
Say, did you smell glue?
Because I was asked:
"In my understanding, at the moment, about 3 kilowatts of electricity are needed to produce a megawatt of heat" isn't it a bit the other way around? Second rule, Alec..
Skepki, not that I'm taking a stand, but how many years have we been talking about this Russian? Isn't it time for receptions?
I liked the comparison to the Wright brothers. 1903, the industrial revolution is in full swing, transcontinental trains, ships the size of the Titanic are being built in shipyards, thousands of Ford T cars are about to flood the markets, but the greatest invention of all, the airplane, is left to two uneducated bike builders from Ohio. big.
And hell with this always denying. It sounds ridiculous.
safkan
I thought that if you put so much effort into the long response, you should get an answer to it.
"I don't have time to explain what's wrong with the questions you asked."
This is probably because there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to answer them hurts how you want to see the world. There are no wrong questions in the world. There are relevant and irrelevant questions for any context. When you are unable to answer questions relevant to the context you are dealing with and your answer is that the question is misleading or wrong, you are simply ignoring. Inelegant evasion of the matter.
What the hell is wrong with asking to know what progress you are talking about when you say the development of an ikat facility is progressing nicely? What is wrong with asking what results there are in independent and independent reconstructions? What is wrong with asking why a person who develops a product to make money does not want people to invest in his product?
Your second paragraph is pure excuses. The media does not report because the general public does not understand? Are you listening to yourself here? It makes no basic sense. The general public does not understand 90 percent of what the media reports on. Somehow these things are still being reported. Those who are supposed to report do not understand what is developing? really? This is not serious, since when does any average journalist really understand what they are reporting on?
Will the sale of ikat be delayed due to lack of budget? Who is responsible for this lack of budget? Maybe of the head of the project who in your opinion is not interested in investors at all? Choose, if there is a lack of budget then the Russians have all the interest in the world to advertise in academia and/or recruit investors and not reject them because they are not serious enough (or any excuse you won't find), and if there is no budget problem then please don't present it as a hindering factor.
"There are countries and powers that want to delay progress"? Like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia? So they could just kill him and end the matter because he didn't share his secret with anyone. I can already see the next step. When INDUSTRIAL HEAT will not release a product from the ikat, the claims will come that they bought the ikat to torpedo its development.
"Or other reasons." You mean more excuses.
Regarding the third paragraph. Somehow you haven't seen anyone asking these questions. "Russi is not selling because the products he has are not yet ready for sale."
An interesting claim when in the meantime we have received several reports about times that Rossi has already sold units, and that he is maintaining a website that "sells" them.
Some of the supposedly working units are already with customers. And in some of them, for some reason it turns out after a while that the report is incorrect or that he did not deliver what he supposedly already sold.
One of your examples of progress in development is the unit that has been working for a client for three months. (You know that bit where you contradict yourself?)
Your fourth and fifth paragraphs are taken directly from Raphael's playbook. Also straw man, no one asked you to explain or interpret. And also a kind of claim that in order to really understand you have to believe.
"Three strong evidences for the correctness of ikat action."
Congratulations (or not, we'll see)
Why start with a straw man? No one asked you for acceptable scientific proof.
So we have as evidence of the development in the development of ikat the Perera experiment, the Lugano experiment, and the measurements of the developers of the ikat products in the IH development laboratory?
Well, I assume that since you have read so much about the matter then you are already aware of the problems in the first two, and I won't bore you with the matter, regarding the third I am not clear how and why you want me to refer to something that is at best no more than a press release.
In any case, it certainly doesn't add up or even come close to being strong evidence.
"The vileness of the pathological skeptics is intolerable. Their behavior is part of what I called earlier "false questions", they pull the discussion in misleading and incorrect directions to confuse the readers. Most of the readers fall into the trap that the pathological skeptics put them in and deal with the wrong questions that keep them away from a substantive discussion"
I don't know what specifically you are talking about here, but most of the questions I saw, in the places I read, were technical and completely relevant to the course and results of the experiments. And also, to claim that an experiment that Russian was involved in in a practical way (even if this practical way is small) is not an independent and independent experiment, it is a simple truth and not slander or slander. In any case, this whole tirade is just evasive bullshit. You don't even say what their claims are not talking about what is supposedly wrong with their claims. There's really no point in addressing it but it's so dirty I had to address it.
"Researchers were not allowed to see the inside of the reactor for reasons of commercial secrets"
Because the research scientists are known to be untrustworthy and are going to steal Rossi's secrets, make millions off his back and leave him destitute. Rossi can't trust the scientists but we have to trust them. So on the one hand these scientists are reliable and you can trust them and on the other hand you can't?
Now I don't think the scientists are unreliable at all, but that should show you how ridiculous this claim is.
"This is an expensive experiment that is not worth risking with an unsafe measurement method"
What exactly is an unsafe measurement method? Do you think one of the suggested measurements would have caused the ikat to explode or something? I don't understand this argument at all. It makes no sense. This is about an experiment in which measuring the temperature is one of the most important elements, if not the most important, and you decide to carry it out while measuring the temperature in a way that borders on the minimum of the minimum, while making substantial errors?
"In all the operations of the reactor it is necessary to invest energy and you receive as a return doubled energy, it is impossible to operate the reactor without investing considerable external energy for its operation; Whoever claims that there is another possibility (running the reactor for a long time without external electricity investment) does not understand how the Ikat reactor works."
a) Who claims it?
b) You have a reactor that produces heat, your goal is to produce electricity I guess, (all this trouble is not for producing furnaces) the way it is usually done is to create steam from the heat, transfer it through a turbine and create electricity. You don't have to put this together yourself there are systems you can buy that do this conversion. If the system is to work, it needs to generate enough electricity from the heat produced to supply itself in addition to a significant enough surplus for commercial use to be worth the investment. This is what we are talking about when we talk about an independent system. Something that can only function as a more efficient furnace will not revolutionize the global energy economy. If you don't understand that, then I'm not sure what you do understand.
"There is a capital of 2 billion dollars, so it should not be underestimated in terms of reliability and monitoring of Andrea Rossi's actions"
How much of this capital is even invested in the project? They bought the ikat from Russia for 11 million dollars, didn't they? Why is this even relevant? Companies invest in all kinds of R&D projects that don't always come out of them (you can even say most of the time).
"There is no question about the scientific correctness of cheap surplus energy production"
A complete lie. As long as there is no independent system that produces surpluses that can be sold, it is not possible to price the energy production at all.
In my understanding, at the moment, about 3 kilowatts of electricity are needed to produce a megawatt of heat. And they are not at all able to produce steam in a way that would allow the production of electricity in a turbine. So I don't understand why you are so sure there is no question.
"The places of development and experiments are secret places (because this is a very important development with effects on the global energy economy, its secrets may be stolen, the plant may be harassed or its people may be harmed)."
Do you really think that someone interested in stealing industrial secrets could not easily discover these development sites? This is in the USA, the land of democracy and bureaucracy, there are records on everything (ask Israel if you don't believe me). There is no need for these places to be secret. Google, Apple and Samsung (for example, there are many companies that meet the requirements) have secrets and secret developments as well, and they do not maintain secret development places. Who is going to harass the factory or harm its people? If they wanted to torpedo Ikat as your imagination suggests, they could have eliminated Rossi a long time ago and Ikat would not have been a problem for the evil companies of the global energy economy.
Regarding the mysterious customer there is nothing to comment on because there is no information about it. Not what he does with the device, not how long it has been with him, and not even data on its function. Even Rossi can't say exactly when the facility has been with this customer.
In short, 3 pieces of evidence are not strong at all, unfortunately.
I explained to you that the motivation to publish in academia is financial. One peer reviewed publication and the Russians will have all the investors he has dreamed of, and has not dreamed of in the world. You can't say it's not in his best interest, and sound serious at the same time. Maybe it doesn't interest him (it does, by the way) but that's another matter.
Do you know how to sell things and make money in the business world? in views (not secret). Do you know why in non-secret displays? Because you want people to see your product. People who don't see your product, and/or don't know it exists, can't buy it.
Russian but somehow all these things have to be done in secret. Why? Apparently he is busy at the same time researching innovative forms of marketing.
Rossi owes nothing to the Academy, but it goes both ways. The Academy owes nothing to Rossi. He cannot expect the academy to validate his product without being prepared for the academy to test it. And contrary to what you claim, he is indeed interested in this validation, otherwise he would not have wasted his time in these experiments under the eyes of scientists that you are proud to flaunt in his name, as strong evidence of Ikat's action.
Rossi's biography and the Ikat are not relevant to the essence of the evidence regarding the Ikat's action. This is a meaningless link.
"(I have not read the books, but I have come across most of the important material in them elsewhere, these books are good for those who want to read concentrated material, good for those who want to know the subject with a clear head without the deceptions that flood the Internet.)"
Are you serious? Did you notice that you said here that you read the important things in the books even though you didn't read them? How do you know you've read the important stuff in something if you haven't read it? Is this a regular practice in your reading style? When you read my comments you don't read them but read the important stuff somehow anyway?
"Another source of information is the website e-catworld.com"
Am I supposed to get objective information from a website with built-in bias? Why wouldn't I choose to get all my information on the matter directly from Rossi's website? Why wouldn't I choose to get all my information about the world from youtube videos of people who think there are alien ships fighting each other on the moon on mars and around the sun?
From your whole list of natza I didn't come across any of these names during my search for information about the Ikat and LENR, so I really don't know what your point is about all these companies. But somehow everyone who criticizes Rossi or the Ikat (or whatever they didn't do), becomes a clown and/or an idiot and/or a lunatic and/or an obsessive and/or a fool and/or an industrial spy. Don't you think it's strange? It's about how I'll decide to treat anyone who says things that support Ikat or Russia as part of their branching system of scams and fraud. Don't you think it's stupid?
Miracles
What I said is that the fact that he is a convict who has been in prison is irrelevant to the matter of the programming or not of the technology. Even a skeptic will eventually be able to admit that Russia is a rogue if that is indeed the case, but probably even if that happens, he will still argue that the technology is workable, and it is only a matter of time before it is implemented.
Therefore, what is significant is what confirmations and information there are that support (or challenge) that the technology itself is viable (chaim, what is the Hebrew word for this?).
walking dead
Give me one reason to read beyond what is written on Wikipedia about the scammer named Andrea Rossi. The man spent 4 years in prison. The man caused damage of tens of millions of euros. The man is not a physicist at all.
Read, for example, in http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box
Here is a quote from there:
But Rossi soon began to raise suspicion. Since a public E-Cat demonstration in October 2011—his most recent, and probably his last—he has issued a steady stream of contradictory statements and unfulfilled promises. He claims to operate a state-of-the-art E-Cat factory in Florida, but the only property he owns there is a condo in Miami located a few blocks from the beach. He has no verifiable customers or investors. He has severed ties with business partners and reneged on every agreement to test the E-Cat. Josephson recently put a disclaimer on his YouTube video saying he doesn't endorse Rossi's E-Cat. Some of Rossi's most steadfast supporters—mostly starry-eyed bloggers on the alternative energy beat—have stopped astroturfing for him online.
The rest of the article is fascinating... this is another subtle part.
Do you really think his past doesn't matter in this case?
safkan
Why do you refer to Rossi's past? It's not important at all.
Why don't you address the reason in the garden, according to your perception, he doesn't want them to invest in his projects?
My long response is pending. Maybe because I included three links in it. We'll see tomorrow what the situation is.
Regarding Rossi's past. Rossi has never been banned, he was in custody for several months after his company Petroldragon was declared a violator of environmental laws, soil pollution. Acquitted of not guilty of this offense. Immediately after his company was declared criminal, the company's assets were frozen and the company went bankrupt. Because of the bankruptcy, Rossi committed tax offenses (I don't know the details). He got out of the tax offenses with light penalties.
We will not be judged for additional offenses.
It is not clear why he was charged, because he did not violate environmental laws. Some say Italian corruption
We will not be judged for another offense.
Before that, he was invited by President Jimmy Carter to set up a factory in the United States, but refused because he preferred to live in Italy. He could live happily in the United States, he would make more money there than in Italy. A very positive man.
The internet is full of lies about him. Shows how much the internet is worthless when a human being gets dirty.
Behind the dirt there may be financial interests.
This is just some of the messes that unjustly tarnished him. It seems that economic interests are naming the slanders against him.
safkan
Nobody asked you for summaries. I asked you for sources that support that this is working and that progress is being made. So far I have only received excuses.
Indeed, I am not familiar with the subject, so I am asking you for information on the subject you claim to have.
"I give links to good sources and a warning from bad sources."
So basically what does this mean that everything that supports Ikat is a good source and everything that criticizes it is a bad source? Thanks for the warning.
I don't understand what is the distraction in talking about an entrepreneur who probably doesn't want to be invested in his project, doesn't want a product to come out of his entrepreneurship, and doesn't want anyone else in the world to be able to share his amazing secret that is supposed to change the whole world.
Your long response has been written for two days, isn't it? So publish it already.
walking dead
Below is the long response.
The story of Ikat (and of LENR in general) is a complicated story and different from the usual stories about scientific discoveries. It is impossible to give good answers when the questions asked about the story are wrong questions. I don't have time to explain what is wrong with the questions you asked.
The story of Ikat is a story that is moving forward at full speed all the time, although there are not many media reports on the subject. (There are not many reports perhaps because the general public does not understand the nature of developments, or those who are supposed to report on developments do not understand what is developing, or those who are supposed to report think it is not important). Although the story of the development of ikat is progressing nicely - the sale of ikat in the market may even be delayed for many years. The delay can be because of the great complexity of the product, or because of the lack of budget, or because there are countries and powers that want to delay the progress, or other reasons.
What I want to say about the "delay" is this:
If you hear from skeptics the questions "What? Come on ? Why doesn't Rossi already sell his wonderful ikat? Isn't that a sign that he's a cheater?" Know which are misleading questions. Rossi does not sell because the products he has are not yet ready for sale.
Despite my reservations about the form of your questions, because they are wrong, I am bringing below the main answers that it is proven with high certainty that ikat works well. Commentary and explanations for what I write here will not be brought, what is important I wrote; Beyond what I wrote I am not ready to add because I am not ready to spoon feed people after I have brought everything that is important. I gave links to the serious interested.
It is recommended to use the links for those who are really interested and willing to invest time, the subject is too complicated to explain it simply here. I'm not a follower of simplistic explanations, because simplistic explanations give birth to Klotz Cashes that will never end.
%%%%%%%%%%% Below are three strong evidences for the correctness of Ikat action.
In the last two years, there have been three very strong pieces of evidence for the correctness of Ikat's operation, although none of them are in the scope of "acceptable scientific proof" (the demand for acceptable scientific proof at the moment is an example of a "wrong question" because this demand does not fit the circumstances). First terminology. To use a short formulation, the physical phenomenon in dispute is called the "Russian effect", the devices he builds are called Ikat devices. Ikat devices are those that work using a Russian effect. The Russian effect is one of the examples of a group of effects called LENR, the acronym LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTION. The field of LENR as a whole is a controversial field in physics that has only recently gained more recognition, it is possible that the improvement in LENR status is due to Rossi's success. Below are the three developments that indicate with high certainty a Russian effect:
* Experiment 1.
It's a Ferrera experiment (?) that ended around March 2013 and there is a summary report on it on the arxiv website. The report was published in May 2013. A third of the experiment was stopped because the reactor with which the experiment was carried out "burned". In the experiment there were two successful trials of running the reactor, 100 consecutive hours each successful run of the reactor. A total of about 200 hours of testing. The length of the report summarizing the Ferrera experiment is about twenty pages or so (I don't remember the exact length of the report), the report is distributed in PDF format.
* Experiment 2.
The Lugano experiment that ended around March 2014. A summary report on the Lugano experiment was published somewhere I don't remember. Search Google by keywords E-Cat Lugano Report. In this experiment, the reactor ran continuously for 1000 hours (as I thought, first at a temperature of 1250 Celsius, then at a temperature of 1400 Celsius). The length of the summary report is 53 pages, the report is in PDF format.
— Comments on experiments 1 and 2.
The Perera experiment and the Lugano experiment were performed by the same team of 6 quality scientists. Rossi was not involved in the experiments in any significant way, despite all the accusations of the pathological skeptics.
The pathological skeptics claim that Russians are crooks, so he was a behind-the-scenes partner in conducting the experiments. According to the pathological skeptics - Rossi is a crook who used his control behind the scenes in the management of the experiments to create a false appearance of success in the experiments. (The vileness of the pathological skeptics is intolerable. Their behavior is part of what I previously called "wrong questions", they pull the discussion in misleading and incorrect directions in order to confuse the readers. Most readers fall into the trap set by the pathological skeptics and engage in the wrong questions that keep them away from substantive discussion .)
Experiments 1 and 2 were done using the black box method: the researchers were not allowed to see the inside of the reactor for reasons of commercial secrets, in both experiments the scientists measured incoming energy and emitted energy. The calorimetric measurement method chosen in both experiments was the safest possible, it is an expensive experiment that is not worth risking with an unsafe measurement method. (The "scholars" who offer "more successful" calorimetric measurements do not pay out of their own pockets for the failure of the experiment in the event that unsafe measurements cause a malfunction). The energy measurements were accurate enough for the following conclusion: according to the amount of energy created, it can only be nuclear energy. In the Lugano experiment, the researchers also measured the fuel before and after the experiment and discovered that there is a significant change in isotopes (isotope change is only possible in a nuclear reaction).
In all the operations of the reactor it is necessary to invest energy and you receive as a return doubled energy, it is impossible to operate the reactor without investing considerable external energy for its operation; Those who claim that there is another possibility (running the reactor for a long time without external electricity investment) do not understand how the Ikat reactor works.
— This is where the comments on experiments 1 and 2 ended. Experiment 3 is presented below.
* Experiment 3. (The "experiment" is measurements by the developers of the Ikat products in the IH development laboratory).
From about January 2014 until today, Andrea Rossi and a team of developers are building Ikat facilities at the IH company that is subordinate to the CHEROKEE corporation. The CHEROKEE Corporation has a capital of 2 billion dollars, so it should not be underestimated in terms of reliability and monitoring of Andrea Rossi's actions. The development at IH is at an advanced commercial development stage, there is no question about the scientific correctness of producing cheap excess energy (if there was a serious question about the scientific correctness of creating cheap excess energy - the development would have been stopped a long time ago). The places of development and experiments are secret places (because it is a very important development with effects on the global energy economy, its secrets may be stolen, the plant may be harassed or its people may be harmed). Among the "developers" I include here a customer who has a 1 megawatt Ikat reactor at his workplace. This customer has had a reactor at his workplace for several months. The customer monitors the heat output of the reactor (using simple temperature gauges), he also monitors the energy consumption of the reactor using the electricity meters installed on behalf of the electricity suppliers. If the customer felt that he was being cheated (in terms of energy profit) he would probably terminate the contract for the use of the reactor. According to a rough estimate - the reactor at the customer has been in use since November 2014, that is, in use for at least three months.
End of providing 3 strong evidences for correctness of Ikat operation %%%%%%%%%%
Anyone who has complaints about the nature of the experiments and offers full academic experiments including the structure of the ikat and the details of the fuel - does not understand that currently full academic experiments are out of the question. This is a commercial development activity that will not be changed in favor of academia because the developers have other priorities.
Developer priority:
* First finish developing a well-functioning product, then offer the functioning product for sale,
* Alternatively, additional and secret displays that will only be done for heavy investors who come to the display with money in their pockets.
Satisfying the wishes of academia (meaning providing a systematic proof worthy of academic publication) is a waste of time and money as far as Rossi and his partners are concerned. Rossi doesn't ask for anything from the Academy, so he doesn't owe them anything.
Below is a discussion of quality sources of information regarding Rossi's biography and regarding Ikat. Each paragraph in the discussion begins with an asterisk.
* Books.
In another response I brought two books on the history of Rossi and the history of Ikat. See the other comment. (I have not read the books, but I have come across most of the important material in them elsewhere, these books are good for those who want to read concentrated material, good for those who want to know the subject with a clear head without the deceptions that flood the Internet.) On second thought, I still bring here the names of the books in question and the authors, as well as their websites:
THE NEW FIRE, by VESSELA NICKOLOVA,
http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com
AN IMPOSSIBLE INVENTION, by MATS LEWAN,
http://animpossibleinvention.com/
* Internet sites.
Another source of information is the website e-catworld.com which includes regular announcements on relevant advances, on technological developments relevant to Ikat, including reports on various tests, including qualitative discussions of commenters. The site and the comments refer to other important sites.
* Read English Wikipedia? No !
Learning from Wikipedia about ikat is a complete waste of time and an unnecessary mess in your head. The editors at Wikipedia have no idea what is really going on with regards to Ikat, they just spout half-truths or complete nonsense. This is a known problem in all the controversial topics presented in Wikipedia: the authors of the articles are unable to decide between differing opinions and therefore they choose to present only the accepted opinion (the unaccepted opinion is given a very insulting and insulting status)
* garbege team.
Ethan Segal - a clown with a degree in physics who rambles and offers idiotic experiment suggestions (his suggestions prove that he does not understand how Ikat works). Anyone who looks at the picture of Segal, the man with two beards, gets the impression that he is just a guy looking for tatzumi. Steven Pomp is another clown with a degree in physics - it's stuck in his head that Rossi is cheating without having a shred of proof of the cheating, the cheating is a fictional invention of Pomp's as long as it is not proven. Krivit - this is a science reporter who was kicked out by Rossi from an exhibition he held for those interested, Rossi kicked him out because he pushed his nose in an industrial espionage attempt, since then Krivit hates Rossi. Krivit's website, according to my impression, is in danger of being closed due to its disconnection from the work of LENR (perhaps the expected closure of the website is another motive for Krivit's negative behavior towards Rossi). A man named wrights - this man sounds to me crazy with an obsession or he is trying to do industrial espionage. Marie Yugo - she's just a fool who makes comments from time to time. What are a bunch of "stars" that I remember, who have raved about Rossi in recent years. What are the famous distributors of "wrong questions".
walking dead
My message here is not the _long_ response I promised. The long response will be published separately.
My message here is a response to your message today because your message today greatly interferes with the publication of my _long_ message. Your message today distracts from the orderly explanation I bring in my long message.
My message to you from yesterday was mainly to make sure you are present in the forum. Unfortunately, I got carried away and addressed some of your claims that were ringing in my ears. But I had no intention of getting into an argument with you.
My goal was not to argue with you, since you do not know the subject and you make false arguments instead of studying the material in an orderly manner. Arguing with you will not add anything, it will only perpetuate the confusion by your attending to marginal matters (which only seem important) or your distorted interpretation of the happenings.
My goal in writing the long response is to explain some things that seem to me to be the basis for understanding and appreciating Russian and Ikat. After giving the basis, I give links to good sources and a warning from bad sources.
I recommend to anyone reading: to skip my message to you yesterday, your message to me this morning 16.2.15/XNUMX/XNUMX and my response here. Any reference to these three messages is a distraction. In any case, I will ignore these three messages in the future, as far as I'm concerned, messages that have never been written.
In my long message I bring links to those who are interested in the case of Rossi and Ikat. My message is too short to cover everything. I do not give links to summaries for the lazy - sorry, there is no summary worth reading for beginners. Most summaries only add to the confusion. Those who are lazy to read a lot of material and think that they will understand well what is happening from short questions - will remain in their ignorance. It is not a disaster to remain in ignorance, but it is bad to ask questions based on ignorance and later claim that you do not receive satisfactory answers.
I will try to upload my last message as one piece, if I fail I will divide it into several parts.
I will not answer your claims in your comment today, or any other day because it is distracting.
Miracles
It is not relevant to the matter. Even a person who was not convicted and spent time in prison can commit fraud, and also a person who was convicted and spent time in prison can return to the beneficiary and carry out legal initiatives. At most it's a suspicious factor, but it's a negligible suspicious factor compared to other, much more significant things.
walking dead
Rossi is a convicted crook who has been in prison. Need to expand?
safkan
"For 4 years there has been great progress in the development of Ikat, only you are not aware of it."
So where is the answer to why this progress?
"There is very strong evidence that the facility works well in principle"
where? That's all I asked for.
"Most people only understand what a finished product is, most people don't understand a product that is in the process of development"
Oh, no. There are endless investments in the world in unfinished products and technologies that are only in development stages. Generally, however, people prefer to invest when they have a basis for thinking that their investment will bear fruit. For this, they often demand to see things like proof of concept, and progress in their investment before they invest more.
"There are other problems regarding little that there is no place to detail here."
Why not? What's wrong here?
"Developing complicated things takes time. 4 years is nothing compared to the complexity of his products"
It's okay, it takes time to reach a finished product, but where is the progress in the meantime?
As far as I know, Darwin didn't develop a product, make any promises, or make any claims about the amazing theory he was going to publish while he was working on it.
The Wright brothers were not the only ones involved in attempts to develop airplanes. Many others at the time tried and achieved various partial successes in the matter. After they succeeded others learned from them and succeeded as well. Rossi supposedly claims to have already succeeded but is unable to actually present this success and no one else can reproduce his success.
Elon Musk (or more precisely his company) performs various experiments in which the system that is supposed to perform a vertical landing is tested. Not repeating the same flawed demo over and over again. As far as I know Rossi has not yet disconnected his device from the main power system.
"The development of an ikat facility is progressing nicely."
really? What is the evidence for this claim?
"Rossi doesn't work in the academy but in production, so he doesn't have to prove anything to the academy."
Not asking Rossi to publish in the academy to prove anything. Publishing in academia, however, will improve his ability to raise investment in the development of his product so he has every interest in the world to do so.
"Rossi does not appeal to the general public to invest in him, therefore he does not have to convince the public."
Why not? When you develop a product and you don't have enough budgets, you want investors. How will you get them if no one has heard of you?
"Rossi only appeals to serious investors and those who have no interest in public advertisement beyond the minimum required."
So the money of these serious investors is better than the money of the public? Have you heard of the term crowdfunding?
Elon Musk is going to say no to people who are going to throw money at him so that he can do more experiments and develop his products faster? Rossi only wants very certain special investors?
According to your claims, it seems that Rossi is a very special person who does not want to be invested in his product and does not want his product to ever reach the stage where it is an existing product, and not a theoretical object.
"At the same time as Rossi's work, today there are parallel attempts to build an Ikat-like device that would also verify the correctness of Rossi's claim"
Beautiful, independent and independent restoration. And results are there?
"The attempts are based on information that was leaked from an attempt on an Ikat facility that was carried out in March 2014"
leakage? Isn't this the experiment where he got scientists to write a paper on ikat? A non-peer-reviewed article.
"It is not certain that the parallel attempts will be successful, because the process they are trying is not as sophisticated as Rossi's process"
So basically there is already an excuse ready as to why they can't actually reproduce Rossi's results?
You seem to be predicting that only Rossi would be able to do that with his secret formula.
Why is your answer to my questions (which seem legitimate to me) a repetition of things you have already said?
Why don't you answer this question: how many years like this, in which no functioning system is created, nothing is published, no independent independent reconstruction is carried out by another party, while Rossi continues to keep secret information without which it does not work, should pass So that you have a doubt about it?
walking dead
I have a long response. I'm currently refraining from posting because I didn't see your response today. For 4 years there has been great progress in the development of Ikat, but you are not aware of it. There is very strong evidence that the facility works well in principle. Why is there no extensive exposure? Because most people only understand what a finished product is, most people don't understand a product that is in the process of development. There are other problems regarding little that are not here to be detailed.
Rossi did not invent a small chopstick that could be easily presented to the public. He invented a complicated process to operate that the good scientists had not found before him. Developing complicated things takes time. 4 years is nothing compared to the complexity of his products.
Are you complaining to Charles Darwin for not publishing anything about his findings for twenty years? Are you making claims about the Wright brothers that it took them 8 years from their first experiment until they produced a serious airplane? Are you complaining to Elon Musk that he promised 10 years ago that he would produce a rocket with a vertical landing and to this day has not succeeded in doing so? Patience - the development of an ikat facility is progressing nicely.
Rossi does not work in the academy but in production, therefore he does not have to prove anything to the academy. Rossi does not appeal to the general public to invest in him, therefore he does not have to convince the public. Rossi appeals only to serious investors and those who have no interest in public advertisement beyond the minimum required. His finished product will be finished in two to 30 years, depending on the circumstances (not all circumstances are under Rossi's control, Rossi is optimistic about the schedule, I am less optimistic).
Parallel to Rossi's work, today there are parallel attempts to build an Ikat-like device that would also verify the correctness of Rossi's claim. The attempts are based on information leaked from an experiment on an Ikat facility that was carried out in March 2014. It is not certain that the parallel attempts will succeed, because the process they are trying is not as sophisticated as Rossi's process, if they succeed this year I may report.
safkan
Did I talk about the history of Rossi?
It's been 4 years and nothing has really changed. How many years like this, in which no functioning system is created, nothing is published, no independent independent reconstruction is carried out by another party, while Rossi continues to keep secret information without which it doesn't work, do you have to pass for you to have doubts about it?
Trust me, there aren't many things that would make me as happy as this technology becoming real, but somehow it doesn't seem to be happening. Why do you think this is the case?
For young people - I suggest reading here - "The bulb that will light up all of Ramat Gan":
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A8_%D7%90%D7%AA_%D7%9B%D7%9C_%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%92%D7%9F
safkan
I have always said that Wikipedia is a collection of liars and only our safkan knows everything 🙂
The comments on the internet about Rossi's dubious history are mostly bullshit. The bullshit is roughly at the level of "Sarah Netanyahu's bottles". The paper tolerates everything and the internet suffers even more because anyone can publish on the internet whatever they want. Andrea Rossi is a genius (probably), some people have a hard time understanding geniuses, that's why they make fun of them.
Shell Rossi's project and its continuation will last many years even if properly budgeted. Because the product is a monumental product in its complexity (you didn't invent Chopchik and we're done).
For a working commercial Ikat product, it is necessary to solve very complex problems in physics, chemistry and engineering - all this under conditions of great uncertainty (unknown laws of physics) and on a low budget. A great invention of once in 50 years.
Demanding a quick solution for ikat products is like demanding the Wright brothers to develop a sophisticated airplane within 10 years of the first test. It also took them about 8 years until they built the first Machukmak product that flew only tens of minutes (I think).
Reliable information about Rossi's history is in the books THE NEW FIRE and AN IMPOSSIBLE INVENTION
safkan
So what exactly has changed in the last 4 years?
Publications, any?
Working units that provide energy independently, are there?
Repetition of results by other people in other places independently and separately from Russian, is there?
If so, can I have a link please?
safkan
safkan
What do you say about the following quote:
Andrea Rossi (born 3 June 1950) is an Italian convicted fraudster[1] and claimed inventor.[2][3][4]
He claimed to have invented a process to convert organic waste into oil for which, in 1978, he founded a company named Petroldragon. In the early 1990s, the company was disbanded and Rossi jailed following accusations of dumping environmental toxins, as well as tax fraud.[5]
In 2008 he attempted to patent a device called an Energy Catalyzer (or E-Cat), which is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) thermal power source.[6]
So what will we have in 30 years??? 🙂
The same comment about the Russian nuclear reactor was probably written twice. Only the latest version is interesting, because maybe the first message has minor errors.
I came across this article by chance a few days ago as well as the comments regarding Andrea Rossi's cold nuclear reactor.
In the meantime (in the last four years) the picture about Rossi's reactor has become quite clear, there are only a few doubts which I will explain immediately.
The situation is that it is most likely that Andrea Rossi did invent a silent nuclear reactor. The reactor probably does not melt atoms but does a simpler nuclear operation:
The reactor probably transfers neutrons from atoms of one type to atoms of another type, meaning it only creates a change in the mix of isotopes. The transfer of the neutrons creates nuclear energy which is expressed in a large amount of heat, this in the absence of radiation emission or sparks.
These reactors will probably be used within 30 to XNUMX years, depending on the type of use (large products will require many years of development because large products are very complicated products, cannot explain on one foot why large products are more complicated than small products).
י
There are currently 3 high-quality experiences that support with great certainty the correctness of the reactor at the principle level. Maybe this year there will be several more experiments that will meet all the strict requirements of physics. As soon as the last experiments are done, the matter is finished from a scientific point of view - there is cheap nuclear energy that is safe and clean of any contamination (sufficient cleanliness on a practical level). As mentioned, the full realization is on the order of 30 years from today, according to my rough estimate.
I came across this article by chance a few days ago as well as the comments regarding Andrea Rossi's cold nuclear reactor.
In the meantime (in the last four years) the picture about Rossi's reactor has become quite clear, there are only a few doubts which I will explain immediately.
The situation is that it is most likely that Andrea Rossi did invent a silent nuclear reactor. The reactor probably does not melt atoms but does a simpler nuclear operation:
The reactor probably transfers neutrons from atoms of one type to atoms of another type, meaning it only creates a change in the mix of isotopes. The transfer of the neutrons creates nuclear energy which is expressed in a large amount of heat, this in the absence of radiation emission or sparks.
These reactors will probably be used within 30 to XNUMX years, depending on the type of use (large products will require many years of development because large products are very complicated products, cannot explain on one foot why large products are more complicated than small products).
י
There are currently 3 high-quality experiences that support with great certainty the correctness of the reactor at the principle level. Maybe this year there will be several more experiments that will meet all the strict requirements of physics. As soon as the last experiments are done, the matter is finished from a scientific point of view - there is cheap nuclear energy that is safe and clean of any contamination (sufficient cleanliness on a practical level). As mentioned, the full realization is on the order of 30 years from today, according to my rough estimate.
Machel
Welcome back safe and sound.
By the way, what surgery was it exactly? Did you say goodbye to the cosine? 🙂
Another word about the analysis:
When I told one of my friends that I was about to go into surgery, he asked me - knowing my fondness for mathematics - if it was an analysis of a function or an analysis of the body.
I enjoyed answering him that in this case both answers are correct 🙂
And another word:
It was the first surgery I had and I was really nervous before it.
I was mostly afraid of the anesthesia because I didn't want them to mess with my brain (and the anesthesia works on the brain).
I must say that this part of the surgery was ultimately a pleasant experience.
really!
I fell asleep in the chic and woke up like from a good, normal sleep - no nausea, no confusion - without any of the things I've always heard about waking up from anesthesia.
I need to find out more because there may be several types of anesthesia and the side effects may be attributed to other types.
(Provided as a public service for cowards like me)
sympathetic:
The two scientists mentioned inLink brought by Ulysses they:
we are Essen
Sven Kolander
A serious scientist who works with Rossi is Sergio Focardi
Thanks, for the wishes, my friend.
Well - it turns out that the surgery was really relatively easy and I'm already home.
Although with a puffy face that reminds me a bit of Popeye, but still at home.
Ulysses,
Not for nothing did I advise you to read the book
Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion
He describes exactly your fallacy. You rely on news in the newspaper to determine that cold fusion is already here and it works, but that's exactly the trouble with the media, it's very easy to convince them, especially with sensational news. Without effort I can find you news about the landing of aliens in certain newspapers and you will surely be alarmed if they are here among us! The existence of aliens does not contradict the laws of nature as they are known to us, but I still find it hard to believe that they are here among us even though news was published in some newspaper. On the other hand, cold fusion does contradict the laws of nature, so it is unlikely to me that it exists until it is scientifically proven otherwise. I will give you an example that I already mentioned in my first response. Prof. Dan Shechtman from the Technion claimed that he saw pentagonal symmetry in the crystals, which contradicted existing scientific knowledge. Against Dan Schechtman came Prof. Linus Pauling, one of the greatest chemists of the twentieth century (winner of two Nobel Prizes). Pauling would start his lectures by claiming that there are no quasi-crystals and there are quasi-scientists. Despite Pauling's authority, Shechtman published his paper and the subject gained momentum and today there is a whole field of so-called quasi-crystals.
What is the difference between the above story and the story of cold fusion? While quasi-crystals have been observed and studies published on them in the scientific press, cold fusion does not receive this kind of publicity. The following argument is presented eloquently and at length in the book I recommended to you: Whoever succeeds in achieving cold fusion will not only receive a Nobel Prize, he will be a billionaire and solve the world's energy problems. Don't you think there is motivation to research on the subject? Well, many people have researched the subject, including a Russian that the book tells about. A lot of people had claims that they reached cold fusion after Pons and Fleishman but claims that they did not hold water (or heavy water in this case). You are welcome to read at length in the book I recommended or continue to believe in practicality.
One last thing:
You will notice that in the last link Andrea Rossi answers the questions of the commenters.
I'm sure he'll give you a specific answer if you ask in a respectful way
All the best.
You are welcome to read the studies on the device and the process itself
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
There is fusion here. Even if you don't like it. this stage, thank God,
Andrea Rossi has already passed
The device works and skeptical senior scientists took it upon themselves to test the device in detail and tell you that it is not a chemical reaction.
And the product is also visible
The two isotopes 62Ni and 64Ni are apparently being transmuted into non-radioactive isotopes of copper and trace amounts of other stable and non-radioactive elements such as zinc
But Ehud says, gentlemen scientists, go read the aforementioned book
Do you realize what nonsense you are talking, do you realize how old fashioned you sound?
At most you can say - I don't understand how it works
The device does produce radioactivity inside it
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_Rossi%27s_Cold_Fusion_Energy_Catalyzer_%28E-Cat%29:_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Does_this_system_produce_any_radioactivity.3F
Don't argue with me - go to Italy and prove everyone else wrong.
We have a device that produces energy cheaper than a nickel and will finally revolutionize the world of energy -
You are supposed to help spread the idea not oppose it.
sympathetic,
As I admitted, I am not familiar with the details of the cold fusion process, so I thought you were claiming that in any fusion process neutrons must be emitted. My mistake.
Regarding the second point, you are so right (my logic is the same as yours), but relying on past experience (of discoveries that before their discovery seemed impossible, contradicted the logic that physicists had at the time and were forced to invent new physics) I tend not to slam the door on The whole business before the end of the tests.
Thanks for recommending the book to Ulysses.
Ulysses,
If you agree that the energy does not come from fusion (since no neutron emission is detected) and its source is chemical, then it is not a tremendous energy source but a finite and expensive energy source. Regarding the analysis of the cold fusion questions, I can recommend you an excellent popular science book called:
"Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion"
Written by Gary Taubes
jewel,
First I talked about cold fusion. The reaction in the proton-proton channel occurs as you wrote in the sun, i.e. high temperature and the reason is of course the electrical repulsion between the protons. In addition the Proton Proton channel
Also requires beta decay which causes positron emission which would lead to annealing and 0.5MeV gamma radiation
Radiation that was undoubtedly harmful to the experimentalists. Beyond all that, the experiment of cold fusion was carried out with heavy water, so where did hydrogen suddenly come from?
Regarding your second claim, indeed a solid state configuration complicates the problem and you need to use a little physical intuition. The lattice is built on the atomic scale by chemical interactions determined by the electrons and not the nuclei. The Coulombic repulsion is obtained when the nuclei are brought closer to each other on the scale of typical nuclear distances and here the mask of the anomaly will not help if it exists at all.
sympathetic,
Nuclear fusion actually requires the emission of a neutron. For example, the proton-proton chain in the good old sun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_proton_chain#The_pp_chain_reaction
Regarding the chance of tunneling when examining a single atom, I agree with you, but in this type of experiments it is a lattice of atoms, which makes the analysis very difficult. Solid state physics is a complicated matter that does not provide an answer to many phenomena in lattices that logically should not exist in single atom analysis methods.
Ulysses,
I don't understand what the problem is then? There are people who study it, there are publications, professors confirm that there is something here. so whats the problem? You are contradicting yourself.
So wait patiently for the continuation of the findings and when everything turns out to be true (and if it works then there is no reason why it shouldn't happen) there will be a complete celebration here.
Maybe your problem is that the whole world is not jumping for joy at this very moment? If so, let me explain something to you about science - it takes a long time for your achievements to be recognized. They should be well established, reliably reproduced and well tested. See for example the Nobel Prizes - most of them are given after 20-30 years after the discovery for which they are given. This has disadvantages (which bother you) and advantages - that the garbage is filtered.
Machel
Successfully!
(Let's hope all kinds of trolls don't take advantage of the situation)
Michael,
Good luck with the surgery!
Michal
I wish you health from the bottom of my heart (no kidding)
and come back to the site soon
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Basic physics 4 hydrogen atoms do not give a helium atom. Hydrogen has a positive charge therefore
1+1+1=1=4 while the nucleus of a helium atom has a +2 charge I wasn't talking about natrino I was talking
About neutrons!
Ulysses,
In the reference you gave me about the physicists who checked that it was fusion and not a chemical reaction, no measurement of neutrons was mentioned at all! Talk only about the energy balance. In the pictures you can see that the experimental system is not protected from radiation, i.e. do not be afraid of gamma radiation. I will repeat this again in order for it to be cold fusion, gamma radiation must be emitted as a result of the emission of neutrons.
Michael
As far as I know there are no serious scientists dealing with the subject. A little knowledge of nuclear physics is necessary to get an estimate of the chances of the tunnel and it is clear that according to all the scientific knowledge available to us today, the process is impossible! If you know any willing scientists I would love to hear about them.
By the way, on the topic of releasing blocked comments.
I help my father on the subject and many times I am the one who releases the comments.
Tomorrow I go in for surgery (which should be easy - if there is such a thing - easy surgery). Therefore, I will be disabled for a while and it is possible that the time needed to release the comments will be extended.
By the way - the operation was intended to remove from my sinus a foreign body that was mistakenly inserted there by a second doctor.
So yes - I am also a victim of doctors' mistakes - but that does not make me against scientific medicine and in favor of alternative medicine.
Yoel Moshe
If you didn't understand, Sabdarmish's logic says:
If you take the bar out of the hay - then the chaff doesn't exist at all.
And if someone says that the chaff exists after all, then Sabdarmish will tell you that the chaff is a 'hole' that should be ignored.
And according to his logic:
Until someone comes and explains everything to everyone, you have to sit idly by, because no one knows anything.
Okay, thank you very much.
There is a good article here regarding the cold fusion radioactivity debate.
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/no-fear-of-radiation-from-cold-fusion/
But bottom line, and this is the most important - it works.
And if the word fusion bothers you - give it another name.
Ulysses:
What delayed your response was the fact that it contained a link.
There are all kinds of words that have been identified as appearing in trolls' comments and the system blocks comments that contain them.
Of course there are trolls who learn to bypass the limitations but normal people do not need this measure because the sane comments are freed anyway - as your comment was freed.
True - sometimes it takes a certain amount of time because it requires human intervention, but there is nothing to be done about it because the alternative is completely trolled discussions.
No factual comment has ever been censored on this site.
Avi:
Since Yehuda no longer says anything and devotes all his time and energy to sabotage, slander and quarrels - maybe it's time to block him personally?
sympathetic:
I agree with all your words, but reading on Wikipedia I see that the issue of neutrons is not being ignored and that there are serious scientists working on the issue.
The fact that they haven't succeeded yet doesn't prove that they never will - at least not in the eyes of those scientists who are still trying.
In any case - even if cold fusion is not proven - it is possible that some of the techniques that will be developed will be useful.
sympathetic
Why if four hydrogen atoms combine to become a helium atom that will emit a neutron?? Where does he come from?
Maybe you mean that it should be ejected in the Natrino process?, but it probably won't affect those present.
sympathetic
Two well-known skeptical physicists from Sweden came to test Rossi's device.
There is nuclear fusion here - not a chemical reaction
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
to Ulysses
Welcome to the censored science site.
In it we will give you some ways to bypass the censorship
It is forbidden to write the names of saints such as God. If I had written it with Y it would have been censored
It is also forbidden to write the holy name M*kal because Mr. Mihachel must watch
And besides, it is forbidden to write excessively about things that are not in the scientific consensus
One must not agree too much with what Yehuda Sabdarmish writes
And it must not be said that there is censorship on the science site
And there are a few more things you will learn later
Check your response and try sending it again
Successfully!
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Clarification about those who claim cold fusion. Ponce and Fleishman, the first to announce cold fusion in the wave brush, were chemists. They tried to show that they get more energy than they put in, and therefore, according to their claim, the excess energy originates from fusion. Many, including the Israeli group, rely on the energy claim as a basis for fusion, but that is not enough. It is not enough to show that more energy is received, in order to claim that it is cold fusion, we must show the emission of neutrons!!! Neutron emission is the smoking gun of fusion!!! None of the groups claiming to receive fusion work in a radiation shielded system. If there was even the slightest bit of truth in their claim, all the scientists involved in the experiment would have died from the intensity of the radiation in the experiment, the emitted neutrons would have produced gamma radiation in the water and this radiation would have been very dangerous if they had calculated it according to the energy they claim was released in the experiment.
When people who are not scientists or are not knowledgeable in the field claim to receive fusion they are not aware of what is required to prove fusion. It is possible that in the experiment they do not know how to calculate the energy balance, this is a much more complex process than it seems, and it is possible that chemical energy is released that was a penny in the experimental system, however cold fusion does not occur!
Well, it's hard for me to have a discussion when my comments suddenly need approvals for publication
Adi I have a response that is awaiting approval with a link to a scientific magazine in Sweden Niteknik with explanations about Russian
This is the weekly magazine of
The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers
Ulysses (40),
Let's examine your claims, and I'm not that knowledgeable about things, so correct me if I'm wrong:
1. Rossi created a device that he claims performs cold fusion.
2. Rossi does not know how to explain how it works.
3. Rossi does not tell anyone how to build such a device, so scientists cannot confirm his discovery with independent measurements.
If so, what do you think those well-known scientific journals, the refusers, were supposed to publish?
And they can certainly be understood - the world has already been burned by this in the past. If Rossi had allowed others to conduct independent tests of his revolutionary device I guarantee you that within a year the matter would have been in the headlines of all the scientific journals.
Grandfather Darmosh, Andela Andela Arrriva, Ola Ola!
Ulysses:
It's not a lie and the things I wrote speak for themselves.
Do you not think there is a contradiction between the claim that the subject seems to scientists to be a joke and the claim that many of them deal with it?
It turns out that you didn't even listen to the first three minutes with the proper attention.
Let's see you explain this contradiction before you award me some title.
I did not write that cold fusion has no value.
If and when it is discovered, it will definitely advance science and will certainly have a huge technological value, but that's not what it's about! If scientists were credited with a great resistance to anything of practical value, we would not have discovered the transistor, or even the steam engine.
Mr. Miko
There is something about the cold fusion that changes the world. The cold fusion! Because regarding hot fusion we have already seen the hydrogen bomb or alternatively fusion with a laser where more energy is invested than the one received.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic. You only reinforce what I described in my first response.
I recommend you watch the report on the 60 Minutes investigation as well, where an expert recommended by the American Academy of Sciences is going to check in Israel if there is indeed cold fusion and it is not a mistake in the devices.
And read an article about Rossi's device and its testing in the Swedish scientific magazine Niteknik
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3166552.ece&sl=sv&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
It's a lie and you know it.
Even the science website has a quote
"After that, most of the scientific community treated ice melting as a dubious joke and synonymous with unfounded quasi-scientific activity,"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%94%D7%94%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94/
And if you watch the entire investigation and not just the first 3 minutes, you will hear the expert interviews and there is even a visit to an Israeli laboratory
Doesn't matter world order? Rossi's cold fusion device produces 30 times more energy than it receives.
The well-known scientific journals refused to publish his discovery because he could not explain exactly why this happens. - But it works and has been tested many times by experts, and that's what's important
Ulysses,
Cold fusion does contradict scientific knowledge. It is impossible. The story of the "fake" discovery of cold fusion is an example of what happens when scientific ideas go directly to the media without scientific criticism. The reason why you are cold contradicts the scientific theory is that in order to get fusion two light nuclei must be fused but before that the coulombic repulsion resulting from the negative electronic charge must be overcome. The electrical repulsion is long-term in relation to the strong force and must first be overcome. To overcome the electronic repulsion one must either create a hot plasma (requires high temperatures) or give the atoms enough kinetic energy to overcome the potential barrier, which would require enormous temperatures. By the way, you can get a type of cold fusion by tunneling if you replace the electrons in the atom with ions.
And by the way - there is nothing in cold fusion that changes world order in terms of existing science. In fact, the opposite is true and that is why they have been trying to do this for many years.
Ulysses:
The scientific establishment is not opposed to anything with teeth. It's just a plot.
The subject of cold fusion does not demonstrate resistance to conclusions but resistance to experiments that no one can reproduce.
Even the narrator who participates in the farce of the conspiracy is not ashamed to say that the subject has become "junk science" and yet many scientists deal with it today.
It's the opposite, but in the media (and among the fools who eagerly drink up all its words) the talk has no importance if it's another opportunity to discredit the scientific establishment.
Yehuda:
When I get tired of writing comments, if I decide someone should replace me, I won't contact you about it.
All the more as long as I wasn't tired.
The scientific establishment stubbornly resists accepting innovations that turn its world upside down
A very well documented example is cold fusion
Watch the American 60 Minutes investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNn_Z6wCIk
And what kind of war is being waged against Andrea Rossi who has already issued a patent and luckily the Prime Minister of Greece is interested in the subject -
And it moves to the production line this year.
But from You attack me and you were supposed to attack Yoel
It is not possible for Joel to say, for example, that it is better to assume that we have a "hole" in the definition and you will sit quietly
You are really disappointing
Check it again.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And by the way, Yoel Moshe:
Also here on the website, it has been explained many times why scientists have reached conclusions regarding the existence of dark matter and why these conclusions are well confirmed by the findings.
I will not repeat it here because there are already dozens of discussions on the site that Yehuda trilled on the subject and in the current article that did not mention the subject at all, the trilling is already really excessive.
Thank you, Yehuda, for drawing my attention to Yoel Moshe.
Yoel Moshe:
The one attacking, if you haven't noticed, is Judah.
There are many serious scientists who have reached certain conclusions and these conclusions are well anchored in experiments and observations.
There is Yehuda who, without any experimental basis and in the absence of basic knowledge on the subject, claims that he knows better than them.
You probably don't know history because even though Yehuda has no scientific reason to attack the existing theories - he has an emotional reason for it: he has been trying for many years to sell to anyone who doesn't know enough to understand his mistakes - alternative theories that contradict both themselves and reality.
Yoel Moshe
Thank you for your understanding.
Apologies in advance for the attacks that Mikhael and his friends are about to attack you.
See what they do to the chastity man
requires modesty
Be strong and courageous!
All good and a good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
requires modesty:
Have you heard of the phrase "nice demands, nice fulfills"?
You meet this condition.
You talk about the scientific establishment without knowing anything about it (and the encouragement you received from Yehuda illustrates this well).
The scientific establishment is built to accept innovations and it turns out that its intellectual flexibility is greater even than certain individual people who still have difficulty digesting ideas like dark mass.
In the scientific establishment, there is no built-in mechanism that prevents innovations, but on the contrary - there is everything that is needed to prevent stagnation.
Perhaps you can tell us on which finding you based the idiotic claim that "today's scientists are of a declining breed"? About the "simple universe"?
requires modesty
Beautiful sermon!
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A- The biblical hay and bar relate to 'bar' in the sense of food like 'to break a bar'. Those who thought that the bar was meant to be taken out took the Aramaic meaning of 'bar' = outside of which wild animals are derived.
B - Even if it turns out that Yehuda has not yet come up with a solution for what to mock. He intuitively assumes that 'dark matter' and 'dark mass' = things we don't know. It is therefore better to assume that we have a 'hole' in the definition of the action equations of the existing material and energy, than to assume the existence of another material but which does not meet any category of existing/known material.
If we sum up - we lack information and we are groping in the dark. Whoever manages to provide a solution that will correct either our knowledge of the forces acting on matter/reality or alternatively introduce us to something that has never been observed to date, will be blessed!!!.
And in the meantime we will continue to grope in the dark and preferably without teasing our friends.
Successfully
This story, and many others, only remind those who have forgotten that scientists and the scientific establishment are human and subject to all the ills of any establishment.
Brilliant people who don't find their way into the mainstream, ideas that are rejected outright as illogical, mental fixation and the creation of a corpus of boring and pointless studies between one scientific revolution and another...
How many ideas, inventions and benefits does humanity lose a year because of the fossilization of this establishment, and the lack of a worthy alternative to it?
There is no doubt that the scientific method is the most effective for researching the "truth", but today scientists are of a breed that has become less and less in the generation, and only those who follow the rut get anywhere.
Too bad.
It was an interesting game. But I don't understand why the majority treat this game as if something important happens in that a ball passes through an imaginary plane bounded by a fixed marker. It is the enthusiasm that creates this something that happens. And what's going on? enthusiasm. If they had agreed not to get excited, nothing would have happened.
Indeed, in science, like any other human occupation, authority is important. Scientific authority is important and many times it helps in sorting the chaff from the chaff or perhaps the wheat from the chaff, but also sometimes scientific authority harms the development of science. The beauty of the scientific method as distinguished from religion or government is that scientific authority is not absolute and the end of scientific truth to be revealed. In this context, I will bring a number of cases in which scientific authority stopped the development of science for a while.
Newton came up with the particle theory of light and was strongly opposed to Huygens' wave theory, this fact was a flaw in the development of Epitaph (although today we know that the particle theory is also valid for light - photons).
Lord Cloyne came out against evolution because, according to Darwin, evolution was supposed to take place over a time scale of hundreds of millions of years, while the estimate of the life time of the sun at that time (before nuclear physics) was only a few million years.
Linus Pauling (winner of two Nobel prizes, in chemistry and in peace) came out against Prof. Dan Shechtman from the Technion who claimed to have discovered pentagonal crystal symmetry. Today we know that Schechtman was right and thus laid the foundation for the quasi-crystal theory.
The experimenter Andronkashvili showed that under the rotation of a superfluid, the sides of the vessel rise in contradiction to the accepted theory. Nobel laureate in physics Lev Landau shelved the results of the experiment and published them only after he heard that a similar phenomenon had been measured in England.
Among these cases are rare cases in which famous scientists made a mistake, but science eventually corrected the mistake.
By the way, the situation today is much better than 200 years ago. Scientists have tenure and their salary is guaranteed even if they come up with theories that seem far-fetched, and the chance that those who go against the accepted opinion will find themselves walking the streets with a horse and buggy trying to sell their wares is much smaller.
Adi Baba is coming
First of all, for the sake of good order, let's tell everyone that Barcelona beat Manchester United. Three, one. Second, I don't like gummies.
All the best
Yehuda Sabdarmish
The ads end if anything.
There is nothing new under the sun. Grandfather Darmosh - a brave Don Quixote in his noble war against the rotten scientific establishment that emerges from all sides in the form of windmills that trample his body, but not his spirit. The brave warrior refuses to surrender! Even though he is riding a rat infested with fleas, a watermelon rind for his head and a gummy candy in his hand, it seemed to him that he was riding a knight's horse, his helmet shining in the sun's rays and a forged sword in his hand.
Señora, have you learned yet what the magical power of conservation of angular momentum is? Or were you too busy for such petty matters?
Sabdarmish:
You said (10):
"Renew something, don't you notice that you're repeating yourself?"
I couldn't have said it better than you.
Dear R. H. Rafaim
Why hurry and define my words as nonsense?
What to tame the bar, is a biblical expression. In the book of Jeremiah it is said: The prophet who has a dream, will tell a dream, and the one who speaks to him, will speak the truth: What is the straw for the hay, says the Lord (XNUMX:XNUMX). and truth are compared to the bar. According to the Babylonian Talmud: "Just as it is impossible to believe without understanding, so it is impossible to dream without empty words" (Berakhot XNUMX na). In other words, the words of the prophecy come mixed in the vain dreams and must be clarified from the things that are taken care of.
Thanks to Google.
It's hard for you
The game is waiting
Ads end
Barça or United? The main thing is to have a nice game!
Successfully
Sabdarmish Yehuda
So that's it, Judah, in order to separate the chaff from the chaff, the scientific method was developed.
The problem is that there are those whose argument is dismissed by the scientific method, but they continue to stick to it indefinitely and use every discussion to remind everyone how unhappy they are.
This discussion, for example, was hijacked by one such.
Yehuda
She came up with nonsense again: "But how do you separate the wheat from the chaff?"
Chaff is a mixture that includes bran and chaff.
What is separated from the hay is the chaff from the bar.
http://www.language-editing.co.il/asheri2
- "According to the biblical interpretation, it is possible to accept the expression "to separate the chaff from the chaff", that is, to separate the chaff from the kernels, "but then the question arises" writes Ashari "where did the chaff go (that is, the husks)".
point
Unfortunately, I agree with you!
Although yes, most thinkers talk nonsense. But how do you separate the bar from the chaff?
The truth is, I don't know a definitive method.
Does it follow from this that it must be overwhelmingly decided that all the opinion thinkers are talking nonsense?
It's unfortunate to think so
But soon Bresa against Manchester United, European Championship Channel 10
That's where the action will begin
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
point
I did not understand. Are you talking about yourself or Sabdarmish? 🙂
And what is so special (according to you) in this article?
Yehuda, you are forgetting a big and important detail. This article was written precisely because of its specialness.
If they wrote an article about every nonsense that some mindless moron comes up with, they would have to double the amount of hard disks in the world.
Most of the things most humans have conceived are nonsense. And so it would be very reasonable to assume that anything new that someone comes up with is nonsense. This is a fact and there is nothing to be done.
The claim of such a common nonsense thinker would be: here is also what Einstein said, they thought it was nonsense... or here, also what Galileo said was thought to be nonsense... when he forgets the simple task that with all the other millions of "thinkers" what they said remains nonsense to this very day .
Interesting is the phenomenon that every nonsense thinker immediately associates himself with Einstein and the other pioneers... a mental disorder
Sabdarmish
Neither I nor others here defended Makal - but the facts that represent the truth.
I am really fascinated by how many righteous angels are standing by the side of someone whose name is blessed to protect him from all evil.
Good luck to you all
And I apologize for the nonsense I wrote in the response instead of the nonsense. Happens. T.L.H.
All the best to you
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish
You write to Michael:
"I had a hard time coming down to your philosophy and I almost defined it as nonsense until suddenly the light dawned on me and I realized that the meaning is that even if all the parts of the claim are not silly the claim as a whole is nonsense!"
- When I read it, I realized that you understood what Machal meant.
but,
Immediately afterwards you wrote:
"In other words, you did not find any nonsensical part of my response and yet you hereby declare that it corresponds to 1+1=3, that is, nonsensical!"
- and here it becomes clear to me that you didn't understand after all. Or you did realize that you were wrong but you don't want to admit it, so you look for a way to fix it.
Well, the way you chose to justify the above statement is also wrong, because it matches the correctness of Michal's words - while you try to show that it justifies the correctness of your words.
So what are you saying Mr. Adi Baba, that the person chose to be poor and not a dizzying career out of personal choice?? Poor claim. I assure you that all those who argued that he was wrong also made sure that he did not get a job. Why? Because that's how the world works. And in the end, with the help of people like you, they try to convince him that he even likes it.
Did you understand that, Adi Baba?
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It is indeed fascinating how Grandpa Darmosh's logic (lack thereof) works.
Within two months of the publication of Chaldani's book there were already proofs of its correctness, and within six years his point of view became mainstream in science. This means that if he wanted to he would have made a dizzying scientific career. Apparently his own human factor prevented this, but that does not prevent the grandfather from distorting facts.
A demagogue in half a pound.
ravine
Do something new, don't you notice that you are repeating yourself?
I thought it was an alloy. As far as I know this is the basis for stainless steel - stainless steel.
And last but not least regarding the philosophy of M.
I had a hard time coming down to your philosophy and I almost defined it as nonsense until suddenly the light dawned on me and I realized that the meaning is that even if all the parts of the argument are not nonsense the argument as a whole is nonsense!
That is, you did not find any nonsensical part of my response and yet you hereby declare that it corresponds to 1+1=3, that is, nonsensical!
I must say that this is a perfect claim that will be very difficult to disprove or prove just like dark mass and energy.
Godel would make it delicious!
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To 8
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%94
I may be wrong but from what I understand it is not an alloy.
Rather, two different materials that are simply 'connected' to each other and form one block of material that consists of two different chemical elements. That is, without the compound of both mixing or changing to another type of compound. (Similarly if you put shawarma in a pita - this will not cause the pita and the shawarma to combine into a different substance).
The comments here are more sophisticated than the article... well done.
Question - is NiFe an alloy or a mixture?
Yehuda:
So here we have more nonsense:
"For a claim to be nonsensical there must be a nonsensical word in it"
For example - if Yehuda claims that one plus one equals three and I say that this is nonsense, Yehuda will tell me:
"One" is nonsense?
"And more" is nonsense?
"One" is nonsense?
"Worth" is nonsense?
"Three" is nonsense?
You can't even find a word or half a word that is nonsense, but it doesn't bother you, etc.
And yet - the claim was nonsense, and yet - nothing would prevent Yehuda from defending it passionately.
Did someone say obsessive compulsive?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%99
Mr. What?
You will not find a single word in my response that is nonsense, not even half a word!
But that doesn't stop you from saying from time to time about the science commentators that they are talking nonsense
Why?,
hat!
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Of course, you knew that I react whenever nonsense is said.
Lm.
And who did I think would respond to me?, one guess!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I knew you would respond here and in exactly this way.
I am still waiting for the response of Hanan Sabat and his aliens.
Well done to you Newton, I am fascinated by the strength of your power!
Notice how conclusive evidence there was for the existence of meteorites, from observation to clear logic that some of the meteorites obviously also reached the earth as meteorites. All this did not help to convince the best scientists because the reason was:- Newton does not agree with it. People are careful not to go against the consensus even if they do not believe in it just so that their fate will not be bitter like Chaldani who had to support himself with difficulty even when he was coming days.
And of course, everyone knows that Newton affects from a distance of hundreds of years not only the meteorites, he also affects my beloved, the dark mass and energy, which we are all sure exist forever and forbid to mention another possibility.
Please respond gently
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda