UW fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal

October 8, 2014 by Michelle Ma, University of Washington
The UW's current fusion experiment, HIT-SI3. It is about one-tenth the size of the power-producing dynomak concept. Credit: U of Washington

Fusion energy almost sounds too good to be true – zero greenhouse gas emissions, no long-lived radioactive waste, a nearly unlimited fuel supply.

Perhaps the biggest roadblock to adopting is that the economics haven't penciled out. Fusion power designs aren't cheap enough to outperform systems that use fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

University of Washington engineers hope to change that. They have designed a concept for a fusion reactor that, when scaled up to the size of a large electrical power plant, would rival costs for a new coal-fired plant with similar electrical output.

The team published its reactor design and cost-analysis findings last spring and will present results Oct. 17 at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Fusion Energy Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia.

"Right now, this design has the greatest potential of producing economical fusion power of any current concept," said Thomas Jarboe, a UW professor of aeronautics and astronautics and an adjunct professor in physics.

The UW's reactor, called the dynomak, started as a class project taught by Jarboe two years ago. After the class ended, Jarboe and doctoral student Derek Sutherland – who previously worked on a reactor design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – continued to develop and refine the concept.

The design builds on existing technology and creates a within a closed space to hold plasma in place long enough for fusion to occur, allowing the hot plasma to react and burn. The reactor itself would be largely self-sustaining, meaning it would continuously heat the plasma to maintain thermonuclear conditions. Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.

"This is a much more elegant solution because the medium in which you generate fusion is the medium in which you're also driving all the current required to confine it," Sutherland said.

There are several ways to create a magnetic field, which is crucial to keeping a fusion reactor going. The UW's design is known as a spheromak, meaning it generates the majority of magnetic fields by driving electrical currents into the plasma itself. This reduces the amount of required materials and actually allows researchers to shrink the overall size of the reactor.

Other designs, such as the experimental fusion reactor project that's currently being built in France – called Iter – have to be much larger than the UW's because they rely on superconducting coils that circle around the outside of the device to provide a similar magnetic field. When compared with the fusion reactor concept in France, the UW's is much less expensive – roughly one-tenth the cost of Iter – while producing five times the amount of energy.

The UW researchers factored the cost of building a power plant using their design and compared that with building a coal power plant. They used a metric called "overnight capital costs," which includes all costs, particularly startup infrastructure fees. A fusion power plant producing 1 gigawatt (1 billion watts) of power would cost $2.7 billion, while a coal plant of the same output would cost $2.8 billion, according to their analysis.

"If we do invest in this type of fusion, we could be rewarded because the commercial reactor unit already looks economical," Sutherland said. "It's very exciting."

Right now, the UW's concept is about one-tenth the size and power output of a final product, which is still years away. The researchers have successfully tested the prototype's ability to sustain a plasma efficiently, and as they further develop and expand the size of the device they can ramp up to higher-temperature plasma and get significant output.

The team has filed patents on the reactor concept with the UW's Center for Commercialization and plans to continue developing and scaling up its prototypes.

Explore further: Research team uses remote control to replace the fusion reactor cassette collecting impurities

More information: www.sciencedirect.com/science/ … ii/S0920379614002518

Related Stories

Fusion energy facility promises clean energy

July 10, 2014

The search for star power – fusion – has received a major boost with the launch of the Australian Plasma Fusion Research Facility (APFRF) at The Australian National University.

Plasma experiment demonstrates admirable self-control

November 13, 2013

A team of Chinese and American scientists has learned how to maintain high fusion performance under steady conditions by exploiting a characteristic of the plasma itself: the plasma self-generates much of the electrical current ...

A new clean nuclear fusion reactor has been designed

January 14, 2013

A researcher at the Universidad politécnica de Madrid (UPM, Spain) has patented a nuclear fusion reactor by inertial confinement that, apart from be used to generate electric power in plants, can be applied to propel ships.

Recommended for you

Magnetoresistance ratio enhancement in Heusler-based alloy

December 18, 2018

Magnetic field sensors can enhance applications that require efficient electric energy management. Improving magnetic field sensors below the picoTesla range could enable a technique to measure brain activity at room temperature ...

535 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

holoman
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
How many nanoseconds can it stay online ? right now.

This will be fantastic if it can stay online 24 x 7.

I see there is still some work but hopefully someday !!
tadchem
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
It sounds like a stationary plasma soliton - ball lightning in a bottle.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2014
Well, why not give it a whirl.

As a side note: whenever I hear:
Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?

If we ever want to go deep space we'll surely need fusion power (if nothing better presents itself)...and a steam cycle seems just not sensible in that scenario.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Here's another "small fusion" concept that a private company is working on: http://lawrencevi...ics.com/

The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion." They're currently rebuilding their experiment to eliminate arcing that was vaporizing their electrical connection and contaminating the plasma. They expect to have the new device up in a few months; they've already moved the connector outside the vacuum chamber, and have successfully used an indium ring and silver plating on the steel baseplate to reduce the resistance to 6 μΩ.

And another, unfortunately their website is being rebuilt, called "Polywell fusion" that's based on the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, as extended by the late Dr. Robert Bussard. They have finished proving that their magnetic containment scheme will work for a net-power-output fusion device, and posted a paper on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/...33v1.pdf

There are a few others out there, including an LENR ("cold fusion") concept.
(cont'd)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
Also worthy of note are Electron Power Systems http://www.electr...ems.com/ and General Fusion http://www.generalfusion.com/ both of which are less promising to my mind than either the Plasma Focus or the Polywell. LENR isn't dead, but it's going very slowly.

Here's a blog post on the Polywell arXiv paper, which details what they've accomplished and announced, and what remains to be done: http://nextbigfut...hes.html

I hope fusion will be solved this decade; I think it's a virtual certainty that if it's not, it will be in the 2020s.
RealScience
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Perhaps the biggest roadblock to adopting fusion energy is that the economics haven't penciled out.


That might be a future road block, but as of now a bigger roadblock is that we haven't yet achieved a sustained fusion reaction that exceeds break-even.

@AA - it does indeed seem steampunk, and charged particles should lend themselves to more direct generation of electric current. And for space, magnetic fields that release the particles in one direction, at their fusion energies (or at least at the full plasma temperature) should be the most efficient thrust producer.

However for the first reactors the scientists and engineers have so many other things to think about than replacing a tried-and-true off-the-shelf turbine with an experimental generation approach, so steam turbine make sense. And if the reactor has to be cooled anyway to keep it from melting, then using the heated coolant for a steam turbine may remain as a 'combined cycle' even in the future.
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mbee1
2 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
The tiny problem is none of these designs have created sustained fusion at a rate that generates more power than it takes to get it going. They consume energy, they do not generate it. This state of affairs has been going on for fifty some years with each person wanting a grant saying theirs is the greatest thing ever. Hucksters comes to mind.. The other tiny problem is the currents generate fields which twist and bend shorting out the field against the wall when run at the currents neccessary for power production fusion and unless this device has solved that problem it is just way to get grant money and that PHD position. From the picture it is a variation an old design which never worked at fusion current densities.
mbee1
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
The tiny problem is none of these designs have created sustained fusion at a rate that generates more power than it takes to get it going. They consume energy, they do not generate it. This state of affairs has been going on for fifty some years with each person wanting a grant saying theirs is the greatest thing ever. Hucksters comes to mind.. The other tiny problem is the currents generate fields which twist and bend shorting out the field against the wall when run at the currents neccessary for power production fusion and unless this device has solved that problem it is just way to get grant money and that PHD position. From the picture it is a variation an old design which never worked at fusion current densities.
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealScience
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
The conditions at the core of Sun are much more aggressive both in temperature, both in plasma density - yet the hot fusion generates only few watts per cubic meter


While the density in the sun's core is indeed much higher than in a hot fusion reactor (~1,000,000x), the temperature is LOWER. The sun's core is ~15,000,000 Kelvins, and the ITER is expected to have a plasma temperature of ~10 times that, or ~150,000,000 K.

Because the fusion rate depends much more strongly on the temperature than on the density, 10x higher temperature more than makes up for 1,000,000x lower density. This combined with fusion reactors using easier-to-fuse isotopes instead of bare protons means that the ITER is expected to produce 500 MW in 840 cubic meter of plasma, or~600,000 Watts per cubic meter. This is over four orders of magnitude more than the sun (~4x10^26W in a core of ~~10^25 m3 = ~40 \W/m3).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2014
Princeton had a spheromak back in the 80s which I saw in the flesh.
http://books.goog...ZwEACAAJ

-Big vertical stainless steel clamshell device.
The cold fusion deniers just managed the deletion of few thousands of my posts from this forum
Leider so.
but what the did actually prove? Only the fact, the science is driven with the same ideology, like the totalitarian regimes
Naw it proved you are a pest.

Say, I guess you missed the publication of rossis 3rd party peer-reviewed report today?

"The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume."
http://www.e-catw...eleased/
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MikPetter
3 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free ... see below

http://www-pub.ia...S-24.pdf
"Table 1.6.3-1 Masses of Radioactive Materials
Total radioactive material at shutdown ~ 30,000 [t]
Material remaining as waste after a decay time up to 100 years ~ 6,000 [t]"

https://www.iter.org/safety
"During the operational lifetime of ITER, remote handling will be used to refurbish parts of the vacuum vessel. All waste materials will be treated, packaged, and stored on site. The half-life of most radioisotopes contained in this waste is lower than ten years. The fusion reaction will produce no long-lived waste: within 100 years, the radioactivity of the materials will have diminished in such a significant way that the materials can be recycled for use in future fusion plants. This timetable of 100 years could possibly be reduced for future devices through the continued development of 'low activation' materials..."
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free ... see below


That is not true, aneutronic fusion is totally clean without any harmful waste.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Here's another "small fusion" concept that a private company is working on: http://lawrencevi...ics.com/

The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion." They're currently rebuilding their experiment to eliminate arcing that was vaporizing their electrical connection and contaminating the plasma. They expect to have the new device up in a few months; they've already moved the connector outside the vacuum chamber, and have successfully used an indium ring and silver plating on the steel baseplate to reduce the resistance to 6 μΩ.
Good man! That's a real option which hasn't received anywhere near the (comparable to other fusion projects) grants funding from govts/science institutions it should have. Some years back I made a donation to that Focus Fusion project. I then went on to make my own modifications solving some of the troublesome technical issues. That will be one of my 'for profit' projects once I finalize/publish my 'not for profit' ToE. Cheers!
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free ... see below


That is not true, aneutronic fusion is totally clean without any harmful waste.
So is this device.http://www.generalfusion.com/

-Talk about steampunk. I suppose you could use steam for the pistons instead of hydraulics.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
whenever I hear:
Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?
MHD offers some possibilities, but is extremely mathematically complex, and work is ongoing. Also, you have to figure out how to get the energy out of the plasma without cooling it so far that you lose so much heat that it's not worthwhile, and we have a lot of engineering experience in using and building turbines and heat exchangers, especially compared to MHD.

Fusion powered rockets will most likely discard the plasma as reaction mass, probably combined with some material that will increase the specific impulse, like methane or water. The heat will then be used to accelerate the reaction mass in the fairly traditional way in a rocket engine.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
Why do those infatuated with cold fusion think we are all in some kind of conspiracy to keep us from getting it?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion."
Not exactly,
Errr, it says "plasma focus" right there at the top of the front page of their web site.

What exactly isn't exact about it?

The tiny problem is none of these designs have created sustained fusion at a rate that generates more power than it takes to get it going.
Polywell has recently (June of this year) shown their device scales at the seventh power of the size. This is one of the three things they need to prove to show it will work. I seriously suggest you read up a lot more on it.

The UW project probably scales approximately the same way, given what I've read about it since posting. I'm still studying it, but it looks workable at this point. It's certainly not a boondoggle.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free
So? They generate orders of magnitude less waste. That's not good enough for you?

Why do those infatuated with cold fusion think we are all in some kind of conspiracy to keep us from getting it?
Because humans are used to making determinations based on insufficient evidence, and are therefore infatuated with conspiracy theories. It's a mental defect we all share. The scientific method is specifically designed to avoid this sort of thing, but most conspiracy theorists ignore it.
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
guybb
5 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
Scaling has always been the problem. You can't just make the parts 10x bigger. Further, you can't easily predict how the plasma will behave with 10x the radius, magnetic field strength and temperature.
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion."

Not exactly,

Errr, it says "plasma focus" right there at the top of the front page of their web site.

What exactly isn't exact about it?


The UW process above mentions they heat a coolant which in turn spins a turbine. The Lawrenceville PP process creates electricity directly from the excess protons flowing out of the reactions which reduces the cost and increases the efficiency a great deal.

WillieWard
3.5 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
It should be tried multiphase acceleration instead of magnetic compression to produce cheaper scalable prototypes. http://youtu.be/u8n7j5k-_G8
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2014
We do not need a magic box to provide us with unlimited power.

Think of unlimited power in the hands of someone you do not trust.
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
someone11235813
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
When I saw the copper and rivets the first thing I thought was 'Jules Verne'
gkam
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Why is nobody talking about break-even?
TimLong2001
2.3 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Good Luck, but I still think an emphasis should be put on Electric Fusion (using Lithium blankets) which directly produces electricity (electrons) without the intermediary conversion required to make steam for turning electric generators.
TimLong2001
1.9 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
Good Luck, but I still think an emphasis should be put on Electric Fusion (using Lithium blankets) which directly produces electricity (electrons) without the intermediary conversion required to make steam for turning electric generators.
ddrJsM
5 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2014
What about the Thorium reactors?
TimLong2001
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
Good Luck, but I still think an emphasis should be put on Electric Fusion (using Lithium blankets) which directly produces electricity (electrons) without the intermediary conversion required to make steam for turning electric generators.
chrisn566
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
I don't get why hot fusion guys go after cold fusion guys and vice versa. I for one would be tickled pink for both technologies to succeed.
PeakSpecies
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Like most fusion power proposals this is a bunch of hype from a university press release and it was beneath Phys.Org to publish this. It's a lie to claim that the only thing holding fusion energy back is its economics. Billions of dollars have been sunk into this research for at least five decades with only tiny, momentary evidence that fusion energy was actually achieved. In this article there wasn't even the claim that they had achieved a self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction, or even evidence of break-even energy production. It is not beneath great universities, like the University of Washington to fool the public in the effort to attract investors.
PeakSpecies
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Please investigate the history of fusion power energy research. Look at the claims of the managers of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LANL) in California. They have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars over about a 20-year period in the effort to demonstrate a break-even fusion reaction on a tiny scale and nanosecond time-scale. It has failed miserably over and over again, missing many milestone goals and going way over budget. It's always been funded as H-bomb project but sold to the public as a viable path to a fusion power future. Many of to users don't care because it's a really fun toy to play with.
golgolta
2.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Sounds great but economics isn't the real hold back. It is the fact that plasma physicists have no idea how to control microinstabilities that tend to become sizable rapidly. Their only solution is to make it bigger and bigger and hope that the time-constants will eventually be long enough to sustain a reaction that is not trivial. It was the same problem 35 years ago. That plasma physicists continue to pretend that they have a solid grasp on controlling the nonlinearities of the problem is why they haven't been able to either abandon the magnetic confinement designs or to come up with serious proposals to even understand the issues.
Osiris1
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
People should check out Dr. Lerner's Focus Fusion. He currently has a problem with funding so is trying to 'crowd fund'. I would think he would do better to allow small investors to really invest in it rather then throw their money away without any stock certificates to show for it. Sell some stock, Dr Lerner, to the little guy and do not turn away from us. Going to Iran is kinda like selling out we Americans. Your process is gonna work. You already have generated temperatures in the billions of degrees where no other process even comes close. So do not just take our money and run with that glitzy 'crowd funding' scam. Let us reallllly invest, no matter how small...and get voting stock for our money. Before you only let the rich invest in you and that was wrong.
siquijorisland
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
it would be nice to see real science debated by intellectually honest individuals not close minded agenda driven propagandist for a change.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2014
So do not just take our money and run with that glitzy 'crowd funding' scam. Let us reallllly invest, no matter how small...and get voting stock for our money. Before you only let the rich invest in you and that was wrong.


Don't blame Mr. Lerner, the reason why you cannot invest is because of our masters at the SEC. Rules and regs written by them only allows "Accredited" investors to participate. "Accredited" basically means "rich". http://www.sec.go...cred.htm
In order to allow small investors, it would require teams of accountants, lawyers, and other such costly leeches to report to the head leeches at the SEC.
Going to Iran is kinda like selling out we Americans.

He is partnering with a Japanese group, Iranians not sure. If we really want to break the geopolitical choke hold by the petrochemical/military/industrial complex, does it really matter who does it?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
Please investigate the history of fusion power energy research.

Part of this issue has been a misunderstanding of plasma and how to contain it. Iter type fusion devices are doomed to failure. Aneutronic fusion such as Lerner's at least has a chance.
Eikka
5 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?


One can use CO2, helium or nitrogen as the working fluid to achieve higher temperatures and efficiencies, but the question then becomes that the materials of the reactor can't withstand it.

The problem with other than "steampunk" approaches is, that the energy from the fusion reaction is carried in the kinetic energy of the resulting particles. It's heat. Only a small portion of it is stored in the electric potential of the charged particles, like helium ions.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Fusion powered rockets will most likely discard the plasma as reaction mass

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of fusion powered rockets but more of the mundane energy needs of any kind of large-ish spacecraft over long periods of time. Given that energy delivered by voulme of fuel is the figure of merit in that case fusion seems like the natural choice.

In the end we'd be talking about long travle times - and that rules out (to me) anything with moving parts. Which steam turbines can't do without.
Tec12
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
it would be nice to see real science debated by intellectually honest individuals not close minded agenda driven propagandist for a change
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already. To urge for change of the dismissive attitude after one hundred years is close-minded by you? Maybe I'm Martian or something...
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
We do not need a magic box to provide us with unlimited power.

Think of unlimited power in the hands of someone you do not trust.

Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse. You could crack one open and nothing much would happen.
And those whom we do not trust already have fission (and fusion) warheads.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
"Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse. You could crack one open and nothing much would happen."
---------------------------------------------

That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world..
MR166
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
"That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world.."

Any heat that man is able to create is miniscule in comparison to the output of the sun. You worries are groundless.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
We are not on the Sun.

Q - For every Btu of electricity put out by nuclear plants, how much heat is put into the environment directly in addition?

A - About four!
SoylentGrin
5 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already.


What technology existed 100 years ago that isn't easily recreated now?
Instead of constantly asserting that mainstream science is out to get them and is keeping them down, why don't cold fusion proponents just do it themselves? If it's so obvious and well established, just make a generator already.
MR166
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
Let me be a little more specific. The solar energy hitting the surface of the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

http://www.ecowor...rth.html

The amount of heat man contributes to the system is meaningless.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
BTW, Eric Lerner is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe and uses the same physics developed by Alfven, Peratt, et al.
@cd
funny thing... that would mean that he supported the electric star crap too then, right? and how can he support that while building a fusion generator? that voilates the eu philosophy a great deal, as it directly contradicts the main arguments that eu uses to define stars and large masses of plasma
it also directly defends the basic premiss that moder physics and plasma physics uses to support the conclusions that stars are huge fusion reactions made from gravity etc
Oddly he has made more progress in the last few years than ITER-type
which also suggests that he is studying fusion and modern techniques, right?
which have been used to support modern star creation as well as define and improve the accuracy of the knowledge of fusion reactions in stars.
his science is not a bad thing IMHO
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already. To urge for change of the dismissive attitude after one hundred years is close-minded by you? Maybe I'm Martian or something
@tec12 -Zephir
yeah... right
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

To piggyback on what SoylentGrin posted:
build it yourself and prove that it works and we will have free energy

You keep making this sound as though the world is ignoring cold fusion, and yet just yesterday you linked a site that was strictly LENR ... this is a direct contradiction
the only one being "intellectually dishonest" here is you

if there is a viable working technology that give great results, it would be in production right now, Zeph, and the makers would be stupid rich- beyond bill gates rich
LOGIC 101

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world..

No power without heat. That's just entropy at work. We just need to make sure that the heat isn't retained (e.g. by covering the planet in a CO2 blanket).
The heat generated by powerplants isn't really a problem (no matter the type). That's inconsequential compared to the amount of heat the sun imparts to the planet.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
It is not inconsequential. It warms the waters and the air around it, with gross amounts of thermal pollution which change the biota in the local area. It is especially bad in rivers and oceans, where the thermal plumes change the local biota, then shut off periodically for maintenance or refueling, killing off the new biota.

The need for water to cool nuclear plants, which have the lowest thermal efficiency of any major system, is especially significant, since the thermal efficiency is in the twenties.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
We are not on the Sun.

Q - For every Btu of electricity put out by nuclear plants, how much heat is put into the environment directly in addition?

A - About four!


That is completely inconsequential. The sunlight hitting the earth dwarfs all the electricity and heat man is currently using and producing by a factor of 6000.

The need for water to cool nuclear plants, which have the lowest thermal efficiency of any major system, is especially significant, since the thermal efficiency is in the twenties.


That's just a bald lie. Steam turbines in nuclear plants don't differ from any other steam turbine. They're limited by the temperature where superheated steam becomes corrosive, to about 37-41% efficiency.

A gas cooled reactor design that operates on a combined cycle with a secondary steam turbine can feasibly operate up to 80% efficiency, so there's that as well.
Eikka
5 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
with gross amounts of thermal pollution which change the biota in the local area.


That can be a good thing.

They're growing grapes for wine in Finland by pumping a part of a nuclear plant's waste heat to underground pipes to keep the ground free from frost well into the winter and thaw it early in the spring. If all the waste heat was used that way, they could extend the growing season over vast areas of land by months.

TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse
Actually, theoretically, fusion reactors could be used to breed plutonium.

"Produced 239Pu is compared with two typical fission reactors to find performance of plutonium breeding ratio in the case of the fusion reactor. We found that 0.92% of initial U is converted into fissile Pu by our suggested fusion reactor with thermal power of 3000 MW. For comparison, 239Pu yield of suggested large scale PWR is about 0.65% and for LMFBR is close to 1.7%. The results show that the fusion reactor has an acceptable efficiency for Pu production compared with a large scale PWR fission reactor type."
And those whom we do not trust already have fission (and fusion) warheads
Ahhahaa aa is talking about the US. How droll. Aa did you see the vid of B-1 bombers over ISIL positions? How about we let the luftwaffe field this one instead? Jah I am sure you think they are our fault as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
You keep making this sound as though the world is ignoring cold fusion, and yet just yesterday you linked a site that was strictly LENR
The world is indeed reacting favorably to the latest independent 3rd party testing report.

"Elforsk CEO: Swedish Energy Institute to Build LENR Research Initiative... Today on Elforsk's web site and in the Swedish science and technology magazine Nyteknik, Elforsk's CEO Magnus Oloffsson has written an article responding to the E-Cat testing report published yesterday by the independent European research team... "Clear isotope changes in the analyzed fuel indicates instead that in the case of nuclear reactions at low temperatures. It suggests that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy.Probably without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could eventually become very important for the world's energy supply . . ."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2014
if there is a viable working technology that give great results
-A 1 mw commercial plant has been installed in a customers facility and is operational.
http://www.e-catw...etitive/
it would be in production right now
-This is like saying that if self-driving car tech was viable then it would be in production right now. You may want to reflect on all the regulatory, legal, insurance, etc issues involved with both technologies. Which is why they are being fully tested and implemented in steps.

With devices which put out this much energy supposedly involving nuclear reactions, they want to be sure no one is fried or blown up. Which has happened you know.
http://www.scienc...0u19.htm
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Scaling has always been the problem. You can't just make the parts 10x bigger. Further, you can't easily predict how the plasma will behave with 10x the radius, magnetic field strength and temperature.
It's just the radius, now. The EMC guys have already shown the behavior at full operating temperature and full magnetic field strength, and they've just shown that the plasma is better-behaved at high values of β (the magnetic field pressure/plasma pressure ratio) near unity. When β is high, the plasma becomes stable even with large perturbations, according to their results. This is a unique characteristic of the cusp-based confinement system of the Polywell. The two remaining questions are whether they can reduce the electron loss to a low enough level that they'll get net power output, and whether the electrons can sufficiently accelerate the ions in the plasma to support a continuous reaction. Their preliminary tests indicated so, but they have yet to show scaling effects.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion."

Not exactly,
Errr, it says "plasma focus" right there at the top of the front page of their web site.

What exactly isn't exact about it?
The UW process above mentions they heat a coolant which in turn spins a turbine. The Lawrenceville PP process creates electricity directly from the excess protons flowing out of the reactions which reduces the cost and increases the efficiency a great deal.

OK, while all of that's true, it still doesn't prove it's not called "plasma focus" fusion. What did you think I was claiming?

Why is nobody talking about break-even?
Because if they were we'd already have fusion energy. Baby steps at first. Prove the concepts before you get the big bucks to build the full-sized one. Then they'll give you the money.

Good question, though. I gave 5 stars.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
We do not need a magic box to provide us with unlimited power.

Think of unlimited power in the hands of someone you do not trust.
It's not unlimited, and the major people I don't trust already have fusion weapons. You can't use it to blow stuff up. And the reactor won't blow up much, either, any more than a coal-powered steam plant would. Most of all, it doesn't burn fossil fuel. Think of the Chinese and Russians with all those coal deposits, and consider whether you want them to burn all that coal for electricity. Much better if they have an alternative.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
What about the Thorium reactors?
They're still fission reactors, and they still make loads of radioactive waste, and they can still melt down. They have their place, but fusion is far cleaner and safer. It doesn't blow up, doesn't melt down, and makes minimal amounts of radioactive waste from neutron bombardment of the vacuum containment. Plus the supply of fuel is many orders of magnitude larger than thorium and uranium put together.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Sounds great but economics isn't the real hold back. It is the fact that plasma physicists have no idea how to control microinstabilities that tend to become sizable rapidly. Their only solution is to make it bigger and bigger and hope that the time-constants will eventually be long enough to sustain a reaction that is not trivial.
You should read the blog post I linked and the arXiv paper associated with it. In fact the Polywell guys have shown that at magnetic-to-plasma pressure ratio (β) near unity, and with a cusp confinement system, large-scale perturbations (generated by the microinstabilities you speak of) are suppressed; the plasma is stable.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
It warms the waters and the air around it, with gross amounts of thermal pollution which change the biota in the local area.

True. that's why I think doing steam turbine conversion isn't optimal. But in the end it's going to replace existing reactors and other sources (wind, PV) are going to make up a larger and larger fraction. So the the thermal pollution from these reactors will be less than that from current reactors (as a total). Not optimal, but way better than what we have now.

And I do think that havig some massive powerplants with short run-up times as backup is a good idea. And in that category fusion would be better than even gas.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
"Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse. You could crack one open and nothing much would happen."
---------------------------------------------

That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world..
Heat is not causing global warming, at least not the heat humans generate. Nor will it in the foreseeable future. The problem is CO₂ trapping solar heat. Fusion doesn't generate much CO₂, and most of what it does generate is during construction, by using concrete and steel, production of both of which generates a lot of CO₂.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse
Actually, theoretically, fusion reactors could be used to breed plutonium.
Not if they're low- or a-neutronic, which several of the systems being discussed here are. Plutonium breeding turns U238 into U239 by adding a neutron to it, which decays into Np239, which decays into Pu239, the primary fertile isotope of plutonium. No neutrons, no plutonium.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
if there is a viable working technology that give great results
-A 1 mw commercial plant has been installed in a customers facility and is operational.
http://www.e-catw...etitive/
Ummm, actually not so much. They're still claiming they're *going to* install it.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealScience
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
@Ghost - thanks for yesterday's link to a peer-reviewed paper on the E-cat (https://www.scrib...e-fuel).

While previous Rossi reports have sounded like they involved rigged demos, this one is good write-up of a decent experiment with very interesting results, and was well worth reading.
MR166
4 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
If Rossi has actually accomplished what he has claimed well God bless him for he will be known as a savior of modern society. All that I can say for sure is that if this technology is real it will be funded and will become a commercial reality. If it does not succeed then undoubtedly the conspiracy theorists will blame it on "Big Oil" and not the fact that the underlying science cannot be proven.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
thanks for yesterday's link to a peer-reviewed paper on the E-cat
Bite me stinking troll ;)

From ExtremeTech

"Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline... produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours... The researchers were also allowed to analyze the fuel before and after the 32-day run, noting that the isotopes in the spent fuel could only have been obtained by "nuclear reactions"... there is an isotope shift from a "natural" mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion). The researchers say there is just 1 gram of fuel inside the E-Cat..."
"http://www.extrem...gasoline
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
During last five years you all opposed me regarding the cold fusion as a single man - and from the same reason: your ability to determine, what is physically feasible and what not is close to zero. You're brainwashed with your educational system. Now you're demonstrating it again regarding the hot fusion: most of things you're dreaming here about are just a plain nonsense ideologically motivated. A collective Dunning-Krueger effect just manifest itself here. You can downvote me into oblivion, but you cannot change the apparent facts.
All those posts... all that effort... all that unparalleled wisdom and unique insight... gone. Too bad you didnt put all that time into something more permanent eh?

Oh well. Its not like it was actually something real.

"Father McKenzie writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear
No one comes near... Father McKenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
No one was saved."

-Its just... so... sad...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
"A large part of Thursday's selling happened in energy stocks, particularly oil and coal companies. The price of oil fell sharply again Thursday, continuing its multi-week decline. Investors are concerned that global oil production remains high despite signs that global demand is slowing."

-Strange. I wonder if this has anything to do with the rossi ecat report. Probably just a coincidence.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
@Ghost - thanks for yesterday's link to a peer-reviewed paper on the E-cat (https://www.scrib...e-fuel).

While previous Rossi reports have sounded like they involved rigged demos, this one is good write-up of a decent experiment with very interesting results, and was well worth reading.
LMK when it's peer-reviewed. Not to mention published in a scholarly journal of record, not scribd and not arXiv.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2014
From Cd to CapS:
BTW, Eric Lerner is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe and uses the same physics developed by Alfven, Peratt, et al.
From CapS in response to that from Cd:
@cdfunny thing... that would mean that he supported the electric star crap too then, right? and how can he support that while building a fusion generator? that voilates the eu philosophy a great deal, as it directly contradicts the main arguments that eu uses to define stars and large masses of plasma it also directly defends the basic premiss that moder physics and plasma physics uses to support the conclusions that stars are huge fusion reactions made from gravity etc


Again from Cd to CapS:
Oddly he has made more progress in the last few years than ITER-type


And again from CapS in response to that from Cd:
which also suggests that he is studying fusion and modern techniques, right? which have been used to support modern star creation as well as define and improve the accuracy of the knowledge of fusion reactions in stars. his science is not a bad thing IMHO


Hi CapS, it is clear from your responses to Cd above that you either didn't read or understand properly what the Focus Fusion Device is all abut. The device uses the self-pinching plasma streams created by electron flows into the device from the periphery and meeting at the 'focus' position where they 'coil and constrict' the plasma streams into what is called a PLASMOID which produces huge temps and fuses the fuel ionised gases, producing a polar exiting stream of Helium nuclei.

In other words, the FUSION system in this Focus Fusion device is NOT like the fusion system in the conventional fusion devices.

And in fairnss to Cd, I must point out that our sun is replete with internal/surface plasma streams which twist and converge and pinch/coil into PLASMOID features on large scales, and that is where some of the fusion is taking place. The 'confinement/pressures/temps' due to gravity creates fusing conditions deep down, but in the intermediate and surface layers there is much fusion possible due to the 'self-confinement/pressures/temps' which these PLASMOID features create. So it's not all as black and white as you would think.

Is that enough REAL UNBIASED SCIENCE for you to be going on with, CapS?

Withall, then, your above remarks to Cd would appear as irrelevant as they are incompetently based on your own IGNORANCE in the matter which you still parrot and crow and allude to without understanding properly what you link/allude to in your repeated spam posts. Stop it, CapS. Take a few days off until that homebrewed 'speed and moonshine' wears off. Ok?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
Ummm, unfortunately RC, it seems you're beating up on the Cap'n for agreeing with you.

Say "d'oh."
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Meanwhile, according to http://fusedweb.l...ers.html 99% of the fusion in the Sun happens inside the middle 24% of its radius. Where did you get all this stuff about fusion in the radiative zone, RC? It's not dense enough to support fusion.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
BTW Fusion Education Web is produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who I would say are probably the foremost fusion experts on Earth.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2014
Hi Scneib. :)
Ummm, unfortunately RC, it seems you're beating up on the Cap'n for agreeing with you. Say "d'oh."
NO science in your post, Schneib. What's worse, your 'observation' is misrepresenting what happened in the context. How can you call yourself a 'scientist' when you collude, approve and otherwise countenance such idiots as your buddy and his even greater idiot Uncle when they are being so hypocritical and just plain anti-science-ethics with their spamming and uncomprehending links, suckups and allusions to stuff they have no hope of even coming close to understanding let alone qualify them to keep making comments/votes which are a mockery of all they 'profess' to stand for?

How about advising your idiot buddy to 'cool it' and stop baiting and trolling and then accusing his targets of doing it? It's so silly that even you must have twigged that "he isn't the full quid", and is just another internet loser pretender and riding on the coat-tails of those he sucks up to.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
But there's logic in it, and I notice you didn't refute it.

Not to mention all your weird stuff about fusion in the radiative zone of the Sun. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
RealScience
2 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
LMK when it's peer-reviewed. Not to mention published in a scholarly journal of record, not scribd and not arXiv.

It's worth reading regardless of being published on the E-cat web site instead of Physics Letters B. The power output exceeding the input is exhaustively documented and is cross-checked by isotopic analyses of the fuel and the ash.

It is still possible that there was sleight of hand on the fuel-to-ash - what I'd like to see is the experimenters 'tag' the fuel with another element's isotope know only to them.(e.g., add a microgram of silicon 29). This would verify that the 'ash' came from the fuel rather being pre-fabricated (nickel-62 and lithium 6 can both be purchased from Trace Sciences in enrichments comparable to those in the 'ash').
(There is no evidence that the ash was tampered with, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Oh, I read it; but I want to see the peer review results. Rossi's a bit too slick to be real. And there are lots and lots of free energy hustlers out there. Mostly they prey on old people.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
But there's logic in it, and I notice you didn't refute it.
What 'logic' are you alluding to in CapS' post? CapS had confused focus fusion methods with conventional fusion methods. Obviously.

Not to mention all your weird stuff about fusion in the radiative zone of the Sun. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
What? Are you claiming there is no crossing over and/or coiling of plasma streams within the plasma convection/magnetic flux dynamics/process within the various layers of the sun plasma? The 'density' is created 'locally' within the PLASMOID feature itself and by its self-pinching/coiling pressures which are strong enough. That is what happens in the Focus Device which fuses fuel within the plasmoid which is NOT using any gravity/external pressure confinement for its fusion process/conditions. Nothing unusual or 'alternative' about the physics involved at all, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
No, I'm referring to the logic in *my* post.

No, I'm claiming there's little or no fusion in the radiative and convective layers of the Sun.

Change the subject much? Just askin'.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2014
PS: It may even be that such plasmoid fusing features arising at the surface layers cause such solar-plasmoid fusion products to shoot out the fusion products away from the sun as 'solar flares' whenever the direction of such plasmoid poles are approriately oriented.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Ummm, no, actually active areas are created by magnetic confinement and don't contain fusion, they contain heat (that is, gas hotter than the surrounding areas). You know, kinda like how steam comes out of a pot of boiling water: in spurts. But confined by the magnetic field lines.

You have some really weird ideas about the Sun, RC.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No, I'm referring to the logic in *my* post.
What 'logic'. The Caps responses to Cd were insensible and uncomprehending. That was the point. What was your 'logic' supposedly pertaining to other than that?

No, I'm claiming there's little or no fusion in the radiative and convective layers of the Sun.
Did you now catch my above PS to you?

Change the subject much? Just askin'.
I haven't changed the subject. What 'subjects' do you think has been the subject if not CapS bad responses; and the perfectly valid solar plasma/plasmoid fusion science I mentioned to you?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Ummm, no, actually active areas are created by magnetic confinement and don't contain fusion, they contain heat (that is, gas hotter than the surrounding areas). You know, kinda like how steam comes out of a pot of boiling water: in spurts. But confined by the magnetic field lines.

You have some really weird ideas about the Sun, RC.

Where do you think the 'heat' comes from, mate, the 'heat elves' workshop? When the flux streams cross and pinch and create unusually high heat from extra fusion, the magnetic flux tubes break as usual. No biggie. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
The core. Duh.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
TEP320
You stated.
"During last five years you all opposed me regarding the cold fusion as a single man"

Funny but your account was created at October 8, 2014, 4:38 pm NOT 5 years ago.

You're not an individual. You're multiple accounts, the number of which ebb and wane as they are banned from this site.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The core. Duh.
That causes the convection overall, such that the flux tubes form and writhe etc as they rise and twist due to sun rotation/coriolis etc. But I am speaking of the local processes when plasma streams behave like in the focus fusion device but at larger scale. Solar flares are local not from the core.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
@ Captain Stupid,
@cd
funny thing... that would mean that he supported the electric star crap too then, right? and how can he support that while building a fusion generator? that voilates the eu philosophy a great deal, as it directly contradicts the main arguments that eu uses to define stars and large masses of plasma

As RC points out, you are completely wrong once again. It is your own stupidity that precludes your ability to grasp that there is fusion in an electric sun as well. After all this time you still don't get it, but you've already proclaimed your inability and lack of desire to learn anything new. I think you said you're too old and suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's disease, wasn't that right?

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
PS: Sorry Schneib, gotta go. Friend with car emergency. Have to pick them up. Speak to you tomorrow. :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Flux tubes are empty of plasma.

Convection happens in the convection layer, which is outside the radiative zone. We can see the tops of convection cells on the photosphere; they're called "granules" and I've personally seen them through a telescope (a Coronado; it's specially filtered, don't try this with your ordinary telescope without precautions!).

Yet more weird beliefs from RC.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
RC leaves again right about the time he knows he's going to get pwnt for more weird stuff.

Not merely typical, but invariant, behavior. Straight up trolling, nothing more or less.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2014
Schneib. :)
RC leaves again right about the time he knows he's going to get pwnt for more weird stuff.

Not merely typical, but invariant, behavior. Straight up trolling, nothing more or less.

Not at all. I said I would return to this. Why make such comments before we resume? I will try later today if I get back in time. Logging out...now. :)
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealScience
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
Rossi's a bit too slick to be real.


@Da Schneib - Hence my suggestion to tag the fuel to eliminate the possibility of slight of hand.

I found it a bit suspicious that the reaction was still going full force until the experimenters stopped it after 32 days, yet when they analyzed the 'ash' ~99% of the lighter nickel had already been converted to nickel 62. That implies 1: that the experimenters coincidentally stopped JUST before the lighter nickel ran out (or that Rossi knew how long the experiment would run and tuned the almost fuel exactly, which decreases the independence of the experiment), and 2: that the reaction does not slow down as it gets low on lighter nickel fuel.

While that is far from evidence that the ash was tampered with, the experiment could easily be enhanced to eliminate the possibility.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
it also directly defends the basic premiss that moder physics and plasma physics uses to support the conclusions that stars are huge fusion reactions made from gravity etc


Once again, totally wrong. As I mentioned, Lerner is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology and as such sees gravity with it's limited role within the Plasma Universe. You must have also missed his book 'The Big Bang Never Happened', before long I'm sure you'll start claiming he is a pseudo-scientist in direct conflict with reality. Dementia and reality don't really go hand in hand, do they.

which also suggests that he is studying fusion and modern techniques, right?

Yes, MODERN techniques, not those that were theorized back in the 20's that astrophysicists use.
which have been used to support modern star creation as well as define and improve the accuracy of the knowledge of fusion reactions in stars.

I said he's a Plasma Cosmologist.

his science is not a bad thing IMHO


So what is it? In one thread you'll call PC (Alfven, Peratt, Lerner) pseudoscience, but here where "his science is not a bad thing".

Your stupidity is endless, or as Einstein put it;
"Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Captain Stupids stupidity..."
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
Rossi's a bit too slick to be real.
@Da Schneib - Hence my suggestion to tag the fuel to eliminate the possibility of slight of hand.

I found it a bit suspicious that the reaction was still going full force until the experimenters stopped it after 32 days, yet when they analyzed the 'ash' ~99% of the lighter nickel had already been converted to nickel 62.
Yep. Another thing too slick to be real.
Egleton
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
Sorry I am late for the turd throwing contest.
Otto beat me to the punch. I recieved the third confirmation of Rossi's apparatus in yesterdays mailbox.
I posted it on peakprosperity but it went over like a lead balloon. Why are the deniers so adverse to the empirical evidence? The best explanation is that they are trying to protect old people from charlatans.
How about protecting them from Peak Oil? (Modern farms are machines that convert 10 units of oil energy int 1 unit of food energy)
Even with cold fusion in the bag there will be a 20 year lag-time rolling out the technology. We are talking about moving the economy off oil and onto nuclear.
There is too much rah rah about ensuring that the production of energy remains in the hands of large utilities, instead of in the hands of the people.
Expect the Utilities to go down swinging like the whip makers with the advent of the automobile.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
I'll believe Rossi when his method is transparent and he's submitted to complete outside control of the experiment.

Like I said, too slick to be real.
Egleton
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
He has sold the whole kit and kibudle to Industrial Heat and they keep him on as a researcher. Does that count?
As for his character, he is in good company. Newton was very unpopular at fun events. A real party pooper.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
He has sold the whole kit and kibudle to Industrial Heat and they keep him on as a researcher. Does that count?
No.

As for his character, he is in good company. Newton was very unpopular at fun events. A real party pooper.
It's not about his character. It's about how slick everything is. And how there's always a hole where someone could be committing fraud. Always.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Meanwhile, according to http://fusedweb.l...ers.html 99% of the fusion in the Sun happens inside the middle 24% of its radius. Where did you get all this stuff about fusion in the radiative zone, RC? It's not dense enough to support fusion.

BTW Fusion Education Web is produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who I would say are probably the foremost fusion experts on Earth.


Regardless of what LLNL says, ALL that which supposedly happens within the Sun is completely hypothetical. Until you provide some in situ data, it is conjecture.

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
But there's logic in it, and I notice you didn't refute it.

Not to mention all your weird stuff about fusion in the radiative zone of the Sun. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?


As mentioned, the "radiative zone" is the hypothesis from a theory developed by a man born in the gas light era who deemed proper the guess the sun is as they claim.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Ummm, no, actually active areas are created by magnetic confinement and don't contain fusion, they contain heat (that is, gas hotter than the surrounding areas). You know, kinda like how steam comes out of a pot of boiling water: in spurts. But confined by the magnetic field lines.

You have some really weird ideas about the Sun, RC.

You have some really weird ideas as to how plasma behaves. You're so 19th century.
Egleton
1 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
Lord help me keep my ego out of this.
The real problem is better explained by Dr Iain McGilchrist (phyciatrist) in his well read book "The Master and his Emissary."
http://www.iainmc...tion.asp

Basically, the Left brain makes up a model of the universe and it confuses the model with reality. Because it has Vernica's and Brocka's areas, it is very vocal on it's own behalf.

Here is a video with a quick rundown on the problem.
https://www.youtu...9WO2B8uI
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. My friend got through to his sister at last and she was closer, so she went to pick them up. So I didn't have to go. Now, where were we....oh yes.

What do you think is happening below the surface layers where you see the 'granules' and the spiraling plasma streams which come up one 'granule' paired 'pole' and down into the other pair 'pole' where the 'loop' flows break the surface? The plasma streamlines may be swirling together and self-pinching. And when that becomes extreme 'plasmoid' situation, there may be fusion within that plasmoid feature....just as the Focus Fusion device demonstrates with its swirling plasm streamlines and plasmoid forming pinching/coiling process. Not strange at all. Happens quite ordinarily, just as it dos in the Focus Device scenario/process. Ok?

PS: Just to be clear, my ToE has gravity as an emergent phenomena. Here I am just pointing out the plasma processes/complications as to the sun's behavior/processes. That's all.
OZGuy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
RC
Which peer-reviewed journal is your ToE going to be published in and when?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
Hi OzGuy. :)
RC
Which peer-reviewed journal is your ToE going to be published in and when?
The WHOLE COMPLETE reality-based maths-physics ToE, including gravity consistent from go to whoa, will be published WHOLE in a BOOK as that is the only way to do it 'all at once' and avoid endless piecemeal and cross-conversation BS that afflicts all current incomplete theories. It wll be done when it is done properly and in toto, as I have no 'publish or perish' or other 'premature publishing' imperatives, since I am totally independent.

And when are you, OZGuy going to wait until a conversation is done properly before voting like a 'lemming' gangmember due to your own trollish prejudices/tactics? Wise up to yourself, OZ. :)
OZGuy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
RC
So you're ToE is a novel...
Your "conversations" NEVER end, you ramble on and on with the same tripe. You post crap and I'll vote 1 every single time.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
RC
So you're ToE is a novel...
Your "conversations" NEVER end, you ramble on and on with the same tripe. You post crap and I'll vote 1 every single time.
Spoken like a true troll already prejudiced regardless what the developing exchanges may bring.

It is prejudiced stupidid UN-scientifc mentality like that which had decided me to mostly withdraw from detailed science discussion on the forums. You merely confirm I am right about the daisy-chain-wankers parading so blatantly on the ratings pages, like here...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...where your username is part of the sad case parade of trolls and nitwits pretending to have anything to offer original conversations advancin science. Sad.

I only enter now on the rare occasion when an interesting item arises and my input to the discourse will not put my upcoming publication in jeopardy of being plagiarized. Or whenever silly trolls make hypocritical stupid cheap shot posts to/about me. :)
OZGuy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
"You merely confirm I am right "
No I don't, what I wrote confirms nothing of the sort and simply stating that it does is spurious .

So when is is Toejam the novel being released?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Meanwhile, according to http://fusedweb.l...ers.html 99% of the fusion in the Sun happens inside the middle 24% of its radius. Where did you get all this stuff about fusion in the radiative zone, RC? It's not dense enough to support fusion.

BTW Fusion Education Web is produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who I would say are probably the foremost fusion experts on Earth.
Regardless of what LLNL says, ALL that which supposedly happens within the Sun is completely hypothetical. Until you provide some in situ data, it is conjecture.
We can see it.

Maybe you forgot.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
What do you think is happening below the surface layers where you see the 'granules' and the spiraling plasma streams which come up one 'granule' paired 'pole' and down into the other pair 'pole' where the 'loop' flows break the surface?
Those aren't granules, they're sunspots.

So you think fusion makes the Sun cooler?

Like I said, you have some really odd ideas about the Sun.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
"You merely confirm I am right "
No I don't, what I wrote confirms nothing of the sort and simply stating that it does is spurious .

So when is is Toejam the novel being released?
You said clearly that you vote based on the person irrespective of the conversation results. Period.

Have patience. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
What do you think is happening below the surface layers where you see the 'granules' and the spiraling plasma streams which come up one 'granule' paired 'pole' and down into the other pair 'pole' where the 'loop' flows break the surface?
Those aren't granules, they're sunspots.

So you think fusion makes the Sun cooler?

Like I said, you have some really odd ideas about the Sun.
Of course. The point was that the violent areas of such 'granules' break up into the polar features (ie, the sunspots regions) when the flux tubes have plasma streams on their periphery which swirl as they flow from one 'spot/pole' region to the other where the surface is breached by the flux tubes. Below the visible 'spots' is where the flux tubes may swirl and coil together and 'self-pinched' into a plasmoid feature which creates conditions for fusing the plasma therein. As per the Focus Fusion Device processes.

Who said anything about them "making the sun cooler"?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
You just moved the goalposts, RC. That's a logical fallacy.

You also ignored that flux tubes are empty of plasma again.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You just moved the goalposts, RC. That's a logical fallacy.

You also ignored that flux tubes are empty of plasma again.
The plasma stream are ON the flux tube, not in it. I just explained that. The pinching below the surface of the sun causes the 'sunspot' loops to break below the surface when the plasmoid fusion explodes the plasmoid and the HEAT load and directed fusion products heat the surroundings and also propel the solar flares/mass ejections we see.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
PS: Schneib: It could be the mechanism mainstream has been looking for to explain those huge mass ejections which are still unexplained as to how they are propelled away from the surface of the sun.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
That wasn't what you claimed at first.

You only started claiming that when you found out they're empty.

Like I said, moving the goalposts.

Now you're claiming there's fusion under sunspots... but sunspots are cooler, not warmer, than the surrounding areas.

Furthermore, the Sun is not dense enough to support fusion outside its core, which is only the middle 25% of the Sun. 99% of the fusion happens there, where it's hot and dense enough to support it. The Sun is 800,000 miles across; that means the core is the middle 200,000 miles, the top of which is therefore some 300,000 miles from the surface. The radiative transfer zone is outside the core, and the convective transfer zone is outside the radiative zone and just under the surface.

The magnetic currents make sunspots, which are cool spots, where they exit and enter the solar surface. They are not associated with fusion, which is happening 300,000 miles away in the core.

Please stop making stuff up.
gopher65
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2014
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?

If we ever want to go deep space we'll surely need fusion power (if nothing better presents itself)...and a steam cycle seems just not sensible in that scenario.

I bet you always wondered what those burst pipes on Star Trek were, every time they got into a battle. Turns out that the ship is steam/antimatter powered! (antimatter reactor powering a steam turbine)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
PS: Schneib: It could be the mechanism mainstream has been looking for to explain those huge mass ejections which are still unexplained as to how they are propelled away from the surface of the sun.
CMEs originate in the corona, as their name states in as many words. They are often associated with active areas (sunspot groups) on the photosphere. Since sunspots are cooler than the surrounding surface of the Sun, it's obvious that fusion has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if the interior below the surface doesn't get hot enough to support fusion, how can the corona possibly support it? It's only a million degrees, not nearly hot enough, to say nothing of the density.

Stop making stuff up, RC. You're making a fool of yourself.
OZGuy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Patience?
I vote based on the content, so far I haven't read anything worth more than a 1; as I said if you write crap I'll vote 1.

You claim on a publicly accessible science forum that you have written a ToE and are certain is it 100% correct, then you are aghast that anyone questions it. If it is a validated ToE then CERN and a LOT of universities are going to be looking for new work and Stephen Hawking will have a new bestie!
You will not put your ToE up to scientific scrutiny, you will not state when it will be published., you do not provide any evidence that it even exists. Have you been in touch with ANY accredited scientific groups regarding your ToE... my guess is you never have and never will!

You make unsubstantiated grandiose claims regarding a ToE then you will be subject to ridicule. Please prove me wrong and publish your ToE and once validated I'll sing your praises from the rooftops. Until it's validated I'm assuming (yes it is an assumption) that your ToE is BS!
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
That wasn't what you claimed at first. You only started claiming that when you found out they're empty. Like I said, moving the goalposts.
I noted the flux tubes and the plasma streams which swirl around it, just as in the focus fusion device, they are FANNED OUT when they are not 'pinched', hence they form the tube 'surface', not the interior of the tube there.

Now you're claiming there's fusion under sunspots... but sunspots are cooler, not warmer, than the surrounding areas.
they are not 'cooler', they are less radiative than their surroundings but the energy is IN there but channeled along rather than escaping for us to 'see'. It is hot but not radiating the energy as readily the rest of the unaffected solar surface is.

Furthermore, the Sun is not dense enough to support fusion outside its core, which is only the middle 25% of the Sun. 99% of the fusion happens there, where it's hot and dense enough to support it. The Sun is 800,000 miles across; that means the core is the middle 200,000 miles, the top of which is therefore some 300,000 miles from the surface. The radiative transfer zone is outside the core, and the convective transfer zone is outside the radiative zone and just under the surface. The magnetic currents make sunspots, which are cool spots, where they exit and enter the solar surface. They are not associated with fusion, which is happening 300,000 miles away in the core. Please stop making stuff up.
The 'density' is NOT a probem if PLASMOID process occurs and the plama is CONCENTRATED and 'pinch' within the pasmoid, just as in the Focu Fusion Device which has ordinary pressures UNTIL the gas is confined and constricted BY/WITHIN the plasmoid.

Do you understand this now?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
Patience? I vote based on the content, so far I haven't read anything worth more than a 1; as I said if you write crap I'll vote 1. You claim on a publicly accessible science forum that you have written a ToE and are certain is it 100% correct, then you are aghast that anyone questions it. If it is a validated ToE then CERN and a LOT of universities are going to be looking for new work and Stephen Hawking will have a new bestie! You will not put your ToE up to scientific scrutiny, you will not state when it will be published., you do not provide any evidence that it even exists. Have you been in touch with ANY accredited scientific groups regarding your ToE... my guess is you never have and never will! You make unsubstantiated grandiose claims regarding a ToE then you will be subject to ridicule. Please prove me wrong and publish your ToE and once validated I'll sing your praises from the rooftops. Until it's validated I'm assuming (yes it is an assumption) that your ToE is BS!

What is the matter with you, mate? Can't read? I already told you I won't risk being palgiarized now. And the scrutiny will come all at once on th whole kit and caboodle, including the readlity-based axiomatic maths to go with the reality-based physics ToE, which includs gravity consistently....which no current 'theory' can do. If you haven't seen it whole, then don't make pronouncements based on your ignorance of anything in it. A real scientist would wait until it IS published before attacking the 'person' and disparaging what you imagine it will or will not be like? Ok, OZ? If you are a scientist, then be patient and see what issues before going off on some 'personality-cult' rant. Good luck. :)

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Sunspots can be seen, so their temperature can be measured. It is 4,000 kelvins, about 2,500 kelvins cooler than the surrounding photosphere surface. This is a brute physical fact. Magnetism does not affect the flow of heat. This also is a brute physical fact. Both of these physical facts show incontrovertibly that you are wrong, there is not more energy associated with sunspots but less. And there certainly is no fusion happening there; if there were, we'd've had fusion decades ago, if it were happening at the comparatively low temperature and pressure in the photosphere and convective transfer zone. Furthermore, hydrogen is a lousy insulator at those pressures, so there's nothing to contain the heat. We'd be able to see its effects on the surface. We don't.

I repeat, stop making stuff up. You're embarrassing yourself.
OZGuy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
RC
plagiarize YOU? hahaahaha

Mate you're so full of it I have to laugh! Say hi to Hawking for me once you're best buds...

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Sunspots can be seen, so their temperature can be measured. It is 4,000 kelvins, about 2,500 kelvins cooler than the surrounding photosphere surface. This is a brute physical fact. Magnetism does not affect the flow of heat. This also is a brute physical fact. Both of these physical facts show incontrovertibly that you are wrong, there is not more energy associated with sunspots but less. And there certainly is no fusion happening there; if there were, we'd've had fusion decades ago, if it were happening at the comparatively low temperature and pressure in the photosphere and convective transfer zone. Furthermore, hydrogen is a lousy insulator at those pressures, so there's nothing to contain the heat. We'd be able to see its effects on the surface. We don't. I repeat, stop making stuff up. You're embarrassing yourself.
Inside the sun's surface is all roiling and many such avriously scaled fluxes/pinches are occuring. The 'granules' also give an indication where hot spots may be due to not only the rising plasma from deper layers, but also from the 'pich-fusion' heating locally just below the surface. And the ejection mechanism has still not been identified for the mass ejections FROM the active sun surface.

And you just misread that wiki, Schneib! It is called 'coronal mass ejection' because the mass ejected from the sun's active surface RISES to the corona region on its way out FROM the sun's surface, NOT because the ejected mass 'originates' in the corona. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Meanwhile, flux tubes can't exist below the surface. The plasma pressure is too high and the magnetic pressure too low to sustain them. The magnetic currents that make them, however, continue on through the Sun to the core.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
RC
plagiarize YOU? hahaahaha

Mate you're so full of it I have to laugh! Say hi to Hawking for me once you're best buds...

Your mate just misread a wiki. How about you, what's your excuse?

I said I care not a whit about people and associations, irrespective of who they are or on which 'side' they are on in any discourse. I am scrupulously independent and have no need to be 'best buds' with anyone. I follow the science for its own sake, not for the reasons which apparently motivate you and your 'best buds'. You're more about personality cult than science discourse, OZ. Not good.

Speak to me when you have something ORIGINAL to offer the scientific discourse, OZ. Good luck with that. :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Furthermore, CMEs and flares happen when magnetic reconnection causes flux tubes to be *disconnected from the Sun*. The material inside the flux tube then rises into the chromosphere and the corona, causing flares, solar storms, and CMEs. There is no fusion involved at all; the energy is due to the reconnection cutting off a chunk of magnetic field, which carries charged plasma trapped in the flux tube along with it, and is the result of the change in energy from old, long connections to new, short ones.

The same thing happens in Earth's magnetosphere.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib.
Meanwhile, flux tubes can't exist below the surface. The plasma pressure is too high and the magnetic pressure too low to sustain them. The magnetic currents that make them, however, continue on through the Sun to the core.
That is why they would swirl and 'pinch' just below the surface. The closure of the 'tube' is when all hell breaks lose, because the temps and pressures within the plasmoid are huge enough to fuse the plasma streams which coalesce and constrict into such a fuisng plasmoid process/feature.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
They can't pinch enough to support fusion. They're not powerful enough. You need temperatures two orders of magnitude higher than those in the photosphere and the top of the convective layer to support magnetically contained fusion, and that's with a much stronger magnetic field.

Lerner's device uses a far stronger electric field than the Sun can make.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Furthermore, CMEs and flares happen when magnetic reconnection causes flux tubes to be *disconnected from the Sun*. The material inside the flux tube then rises into the chromosphere and the corona, causing flares, solar storms, and CMEs. There is no fusion involved at all; the energy is due to the reconnection cutting off a chunk of magnetic field, which carries charged plasma trapped in the flux tube along with it, and is the result of the change in energy from old, long connections to new, short ones. The same thing happens in Earth's magnetosphere.
So you now understand that the mass is initially ejected from the surface of the sun. Good. But your reasoning is back to front as to the magnetic 'bubble' containing the plasma. It is the hot plasma PLASMOID fusion products which take their TANGLED plasmoid magnetic 'lines' WITH them to the corona and beyond, and when the magnetic 'lines' unwind as the plasma instabilities make the mass more chaotic, the whole mass is forced away from the coronal region and into space.

The 'reasons' you have just provided are the usually 'accepted' explanation. Howvwer, most solar physicists admit they still have problems explaining the mass ejections in that way; which is why they are still studying the phrnomena more closely now.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior. And it flies away because it's the same polarity as the Sun's magnetic field, and like magnetic fields repel. Basic physics.

Squirm as you might, you don't know enough solar physics to keep up.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior.
Didn't you earlier insist the flux tubes were 'empty'?
OZGuy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
RC
hahahaha
What now I'm part of a conspiracy with mates to undermine you... This is a public forum I don't know Da Schneib at all but it's patently obvious he writes better than you.

OK I'll stop pointing and laughing at you and go back to ignoring you and your mystical ToE ,HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry couldn't help myself and had to laugh at your BS one last time.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior.
Didn't you earlier insist the flux tubes were 'empty'?
They are, compared to their surroundings.

You really ought to study flux tubes a bit more carefully before you start casually flinging them around like you know what you're talking about.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ.
RC
hahahaha
What now I'm part of a conspiracy with mates to undermine you... This is a public forum I don't know Da Schneib at all but it's patently obvious he writes better than you.

OK I'll stop pointing and laughing at you and go back to ignoring you and your mystical ToE ,HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry couldn't help myself and had to laugh at your BS one last time.
It is a figure of speech. The connection is that you and he and 'the gang' vote based on the person not the discussion results, even before any proper discussion has been completed. In that sense you appear as a 'troll gang mate on this page...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...where you and Schneib are acting like a downvoting 'tag team'. Quit it, for your own reputation's sake, OZ. :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Just for grins, http://lawrencevi...-fusion/ says they use billion-gauss magnetic fields in the plasmoids. A gauss is 100 micro-tesla, so that's about 100,000 T. The magnetic field of the Sun at the photosphere is about 50-400 micro-teslas (source: http://en.wikiped..._field), so that's about 250,000,000 times weaker than the fields Lerner is using.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib.
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior.
Didn't you earlier insist the flux tubes were 'empty'?
They are, compared to their surroundings.

You really ought to study flux tubes a bit more carefully before you start casually flinging them around like you know what you're talking about.
So, you have learned that the mass ejection is from the sun's 'active' roiling surface, not from the corona like you initially claimed. Now you say the flux tube has less in it than its surroundings, but is the 'mass' that is ejected? Which is it? Is there such 'mass density' within the flux tubes to compose the huge mass ejected?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Just for grins, http://lawrencevi...-fusion/ so that's about a fifty trillion times weaker than the fields Lerner is using.
*Sigh*. The fields are CREATED by the PLASMOID FORMATION and implosion/explosion processes associated with the SELF-pinching, not applied from outside. That is the whole POINT and ADVANTAGE of the focus fusion device/process. It doesn't require the external systems to generate large mag fields for 'confinement' etc. It all happens within the process that forms the plasmoid and fusion therein.

It's the same thing with the 'densities/pressures/temps involved. They are NOT applied 'externally, but are created BY and within the plasmoid forming process etc in normal pressure/temp fuel gas environment. Do you understand this now?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Ummm, apparently you don't know what the photosphere and chromosphere are. They're comparatively low-pressure gas; the top of the (very, very thin) photosphere is the "surface of the Sun," and the chromosphere is the solar lower atmosphere; the corona is its upper atmosphere. The flux tubes exist within the chromosphere, and when they form, trap some of it inside themselves. Due to the geometry of the flux tube, it's harder for things to get in than get out; therefore, they bleed pressure into their surroundings. That's why they're comparatively empty.

And you're apparently blissfully unaware of how Lerner's device works. The billion-gauss plasmoid is created by a high-voltage current in the gas inside the device; as usual, moving electric fields create a magnetic field, and this electric field is strong enough to create a billion-gauss magnetic field, 250 million to 2 billion times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.
OZGuy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
"...where you and Schneib are acting like a downvoting 'tag team'. Quit it, for your own reputation's sake, OZ. :)"

Eff off, I'll vote how I see fit whenever I choose on whatever i choose.

Bottom line is you wrote crap and Da Schneib countered i every time, that's' why you got 1's and he didn't. If the comments were written the other way around he would have gotten the 1's.

Don't worry yourself about my rep, you should be more worried about the tatters your rep is in following your grandiose ToE claims, bwahahahaha - damn it makes me laugh every time I think about it.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
There are no billion-gauss magnetic flux tubes on the surface of the Sun.

We'd be able to see them.

Also, there are no plasmoids on the Sun's surface. Plasmoids are formed by an electric field, not a magnetic one.

This is duh.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Ummm, apparently you don't know what the photosphere and chromosphere are.

And you're apparently blissfully unaware of how Lerner's device works. The billion-gauss plasmoid is created by a high-voltage current in the gas inside the device; as usual, moving electric fields create a magnetic field, and this electric field is strong enough to create a billion-gauss magnetic field, 250 million to 2 billion times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.

Now you're denying conservation of energy.
But its when the plasma streams swirl together and coil up into a plasmoid that the magnetic fields created are huge. Until then the magnetic fields are merely the usual surrounding 'current' going through the each 'arm' of the plasma swirling from the periphery into the plasmoid forming region 'pinch zone'. That's where the magnetic fields are huge, and that how the pinch is self-effected there. The 'confinement' has nothing to do with external fields away from the 'pinch'.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
There are no plasmoids on the surface of the Sun. There aren't electric currents dense enough to form one.

There is no fusion on or near the surface of the Sun. Conditions aren't dense and hot enough to support fusion.

There are no "plasma streams" on the surface of the Sun. There is convection from below, which creates granules.

Stop making stuff up, RC.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
There are no billion-gauss magnetic flux tubes on the surface of the Sun.

We'd be able to see them.

This is duh.
Who said there was? I keep pointing out that the huge fields/heat effects arise TRANSIENTLY at the SELF-PINCHING point ONLY, not the whole 'system'. Once the pich and fusion unravels the self-containment effects, the whole mass explodes because it has just been heated by the fusion within the TRANSIENT plasmoid feature. The rest is a matter of observable effects once the ruptured process ejects the mass into space if the orientation is suitable for it doing so. Else the effect is hidden below and the heat trapped into one/more of the convection cells which will be more violent in nearby regions.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
If there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, there are no plasmoids.

And there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on or near the surface of the Sun. If there were we'd be able to see their effects and we don't.

There are no clouds of plasma fusing in the solar atmosphere. We'd be able to see them, and we don't.

Stop making stuff up, RC. You're just trolling.
yep
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
It would help if you guys could understand what RC is trying to convey. The confusion from granules to sunspots reminds me of an article I read. Is it the top or the bottom...
http://www.kronos...here.htm

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
There are no plasmoids on the surface of the Sun. There aren't electric currents dense enough to form one.

There is no fusion on or near the surface of the Sun. Conditions aren't dense and hot enough to support fusion.

There are no "plasma streams" on the surface of the Sun. There is convection from below, which creates granules.

Stop making stuff up, RC.
What do you think plasma 'currents' are? They are charged particle currents which create the magnetic fields and plasma stream swirls that self-pinch as we observe in such plasma current processes in the lab under the same suitable flows geometry.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
It was his confusion, not mine. I know the difference between a granule and a sunspot. Also between a billion gauss and four gauss.

The magnetic fields are created in the Sun's core, not at the surface. The Sun rotates at different rates at different latitudes, which breaks the field lines off and causes the reconnections that cause CMEs, solar storms, and solar flares. Fusion has nothing to do with it (other than the mass creation of positrons at the core, which causes the magnetic fields).

Stop making stuff up, RC. Stop trolling, RC.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
If there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, there are no plasmoids.

And there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on or near the surface of the Sun. If there were we'd be able to see their effects and we don't.

There are no clouds of plasma fusing in the solar atmosphere. We'd be able to see them, and we don't.

Stop making stuff up, RC. You're just trolling.
Why are you referring to "solar atmosphere"? The self-pinch plasmoid-fusion processes we were discussing are going on at and below the active surface of the sun, not in its 'atmosphere'. You keep misreading references, bringing in irrelevancies, and yoy say I am trolling? I am discussing. I don't know what it is you are now doing, using such tactics and remarks and miss the point made.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
There are no flux tubes below the surface, RC; we already went here, the magnetic pressure is too low and the plasma pressure too high, yielding a low beta which cannot support fusion, even if the plasma pressure was high enough (which it's not by two orders of magnitude).

Stop making stuff up, RC. Stop trolling, RC.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
You know nothing about solar astronomy, heliology, solar astrophysics, fusion, flux tubes, or how Lerner's device works.

All of this is obvious from your numerous and grievous errors. Why are you here, if not to troll?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
There are no flux tubes below the surface, RC; we already went here, the magnetic pressure is too low and the plasma pressure too high, yielding a low beta which cannot support fusion, even if the plasma pressure was high enough (which it's not by two orders of magnitude).
What do you think those paired 'poles' associated with the sunspot processes are? They are ARCING flux tube 'ends' which go down INTO the suns surface for probably kilometers.

And the huge fields which form when the self-pinching creates a plasmoid feature is as TRANSIENT as the plasmoid/fusion 'burst' itself. There is nothing to 'see' of these huge fields because they are self-localizing as part of the plasmoid coiling/constriction topology.

And once the plasmoid explodes and the fields with them into a chaotic HOTTER mass, the effect is easy to observe that there is some heating going on locally which can propel the huge mass ejections from the active sun surface. It may explain the mass ejections.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Sunspots are on the solar surface, RC. We can see them, remember? That means the flux tubes that emerge from them are in the atmosphere, AKA the chromosphere and corona.

They cannot exist below the surface; the plasma pressure is too high and the magnetic fields, around 400 microtesla, aren't strong enough.

You're confusing field size, which on the Sun is enormous and implies a great deal of energy in the field en masse, with field strength, which is extremely low in terms of the sorts of magnetic fields that exist in any practical fusion reactor.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
Da Schneib,
You are preaching the standard theory, everything you claim is based off of that model. These are not facts you claim, they are the result of the "currently accepted" models of ideal MHD ionized gas mainstream astrophysics rely on. The sun contains real plasmas where birkeland currents and instabilities (plasmoids) are ubiquitous. The predictive ability of solar phenomena by the Eddington gas ball theory is pathetically weak, if it weren't astrophysics the models would have been discarded long ago.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Everything I claim is based off what we can see. Are you denying we can see the Sun, cd85?

We see the tops of the convection cells. We see the effects of the magnetic field reconnections, and of the loops of magnetic field cut off from the main field and pushed away like all same-pole magnets push each other away. We see the sunspots, and we know their temperature, and we know how hydrogen behaves at those temperatures and pressures. We can see the whole Sun shaking with vibration modes like a bowl of jello. We can see sunquakes propagate, and we can see their S-waves' effects just like the S-waves in an earthquake, and we can see the effects when the S-waves hit the boundaries between the convective, radiative, and core layers, just like we can see the effects on Earth of the Mohorovic discontinuity, the boundary between the mantle and core, and other internal features of the Earth.

All of this is clear if you study heliology and solar seismology, as well as physics.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Sunspots are on the solar surface, RC. We can see them, remember? That means the flux tubes that emerge from them are in the atmosphere, AKA the chromosphere and corona.
Did you read where I pointed out that the 'spots' are actually 'paired', and that each 'spot' is actually the 'end' of an arcing fluxtube whose arc is in the 'atmosphrere' but whose 'ends' are IMBEDDED IN the sun's roiling surface layers down for KILOMETERS? And that the swirling, coiling and self-pinching palsmoid/fusion 'burst' is happening DOWN THERE, not in the atmosphere? So its not the part of the flux tubes we can see that are important, it is what we can NOT see down there which transiently creates huge fields and density/temperature spikes within the normal plasmoid which is just the same principle of the Focus Fusion Device process?

Did you read and understand that properly? It's not what you are thinking of, it's what I keep describing it to you as. You are taking of other things.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
You guys are lucky Torbjorn hasn't shown up. He knows a lot more about the Sun than I do.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Ummm, you apparently still don't understand magnetic reconnection, RC. Nor flux tubes, nor how sunspots are connected with the solar magnetic field, nor where CMEs come from, nor what pressures and temperatures are required for fusion. There are no flux tubes beneath the surface of the Sun, RC. There is no fusion within 300,000 miles of the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun, RC.

You're making stuff up again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You guys are lucky Torbjorn hasn't shown up. He knows a lot more about the Sun than I do.
It's about the plasmoid formation processes that is relevant. The 'known' things about the sun is not what is the point. It is about what is NOT known about the sun, and the processes I just described that could be going on as described, and which could be the explanation which solar scientists have been still trying to come up with in the case of the huge solar mass ejections which are not easily explained by the conventional 'coronal region' mag fields approach. :)

Anyhow, I must leave it there, as I don't want to stray into more 'sensitive' territory and risk being plagiarized.

See ya, Schneib. And again, to be clear, I 'belong' to NO 'side' regarding all this. I merely made my own objective observations about some solar processes which may explain huge mass ejections. That's ALL. I've my own complete ToE, and it's like no other amateur/professional partial theory extant.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
There isn't any plasmoid formation process on the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, RC, and the plasma pressure isn't high enough, RC.

Bye now. Run away and lick your wounds.

Thanks for stopping your trolling, RC.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Scneib. :)
Ummm, you apparently still don't understand magnetic reconnection, RC. Nor flux tubes, nor how sunspots are connected with the solar magnetic field, nor where CMEs come from, nor what pressures and temperatures are required for fusion. There are no flux tubes beneath the surface of the Sun, RC. There is no fusion within 300,000 miles of the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun, RC.
I explained where you are talking of different aspects/things, not what I described to you. That's ok. We'll leave it at that, mate! I haven't any more time to give this discussion; and I have already said all I wanted to say, for your benefit as much as anything else. No hard feelings. Good luck in future, Schneib. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
There isn't any plasmoid formation process on the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, RC, and the plasma pressure isn't high enough, RC.

Bye now. Run away and lick your wounds.
What is the point of continuing if you keep missing the point and making it all pointless to continue? Better we part with our own opinions intact and end the conversation at this impasse. No point in making it unpleasant for everyone by prolonging a pointless impasse. Bye for now, mate! :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics.

What is the point of continuing if you keep missing the point and making it all pointless to continue? Better we part with our own opinions intact and end the conversation at this impasse. No point in making it unpleasant for everyone by continuing a pointless conversation. Bye for now, mate! :)
I never saw any point in your weird made-up version of physics in the first place other than as a tool for trolling the science forum, so I guess not much point at all.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
All those things we "see" are interpreted by someone and "what they know". You see it through the eyes of someone taught ideal MHD models. You are correct that these phenomena are not possible in those models which you refer.

The disconnect, similar to that of Captain Stupid, you are unwilling to step back from those models and view it from the models developed by Alfven, Peratt, et al., which consider those MHD models to be wrong. Lerner uses the "Physics of the Plasma Universe" in the development of his fusion device, this is a very different model and all those things you claim are impossible become possible. The irony is that the evidence is right in front of your face, but due to ignorance of the actual processes they are misidentified as "magnetic reconnection" and other such pseudoscientific nonsense. If what you claim about what we can see were true then you'd admit the hottest part of the sun is the corona, and coolest below the photosphere. We have never measured the core.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics.
I was talking ONLY and SPECIFICALLY about the principle of the Focus Fusion Device for fusion at ordinary temp and pressures by making use of the well known and demonstrated plasmoid formation processes. I then applied that principle to what may be happening below the active surface of the sun that may explain something which scientists are still unsure about, and that is: how such huge mass ejections from the sun's surface may be created/propelled like they are. Period.

Anything else you bring into it from one 'side' or the other has no relevance to just that aspect I spoke about for that purpose only, and not to support or reject anyone else's whole cosmology, whether amateur or professional. Ok?

Good luck Schneib, everyone! :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
All those things we "see" are interpreted by someone and "what they know".
No, they're visible in a telescope, and their explanations are available from standard physics. Pressure on the Sun (or in it) isn't somehow "special" or "different" from pressure in the lab. Same with temperature, and we can make temperatures nowadays an order of magnitude or more greater than the core of the Sun, in the lab.

You're committing a fallacy: special pleading. The rules for fusion on the Sun are the same as they are on Earth.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
The focus fusion device has nothing to do with how fusion works in the Sun, RC.

You're still making stuff up, RC. You're still trolling, RC.

I will retain bad feelings as long as you keep trolling, RC. I'm very straightforward and easy to understand: if you lie and I catch you I won't trust you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
The focus fusion device doesn't work at ordinary temperatures and pressures, RC.
yep
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics.

Does not get more ironic then that.
Check that article out, there is a good history lesson in it.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
yep, learn about magnetic reconnection.

I know a fair bit more about magnetism than most EEs, and for that matter most physicists. It comes from designing the magnetics for switchers (EE slang for switched-mode power converters, AKA switching power supplies). Magnetic reconnection is a major hazard there; it can blow either the diode or the transistor in the switch. Properly gapping the cores before you wind them is crucial. This is one of the basics of Dr. Middlebrook's canonical model, and of the Cuk converter, of which I have built several working samples that currently control the current from the batteries I use in the field for power to my telescope equipment. Magnetics, and lack of knowledge of magnetics design, is a principal barrier to the adoption of better, more efficient power converters.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The focus fusion device has nothing to do with how fusion works in the Sun, RC. You're still making stuff up, RC. You're still trolling, RC. I will retain bad feelings as long as you keep trolling, RC. I'm very straightforward and easy to understand: if you lie and I catch you I won't trust you.
What's the point, mate? I keep telling you about known science re the LOCALIZED and TRANSIENT PLASMOID self-pinching fusion system which creates LOCALLY HUGE FIELDS transiently. But YOU keep rabbiting on about oveall huge fields, as if the whole system was involved and not just the plasmoid? The huge fieldds/temps/densities in the PLASMOID system are only within the plasmod! and NOT the whole system. Ok?

Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics. Does not get more ironic then that. Check that article out, there is a good history lesson in it.
I am not talking "EU" as such. Just stand alone aspects irrespective of any 'side'.

Again, Schneib, what's the point if you keep making it about the WHOLE system while I keep pointing out it is only about the PLASMOID REGION/PROCESS?

The Focus Fusion Device is NOT as hot or as dense as the sun, is it? No. Therfore the low temps and low density of the gaseous environment within the device is just that, ORDINARY...until the PLASMOID FORMS...and that is where the LOCAL SPIKE in pressure/density/temp is CREATED by the PINCHING of the plasma streams to form the plasmoid.

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that it is not the whole system but the plasmoid which creates the necessary conditions/fusion? If you still don't get it, then what's the point of you making such comments which miss the point again and again?

So....let's leave it there, hey? And just agree to disagree like reasonable gentlemen. Bye for now, Schneib. :)

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there. If they did we could see them, or their effects.

There simply is no place for this conversation to go but you admitting you're wrong. I obviously know far more about magnetism than you do, not to mention the Sun, flux tubes, fusion, and the dynamics of hydrogen. You've made numerous, serious errors of fact, demonstrating your lack of knowledge. You really need to learn what to do when you're out of your depth, dude. Lying simply makes it obvious that you have a major character problem.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there. If they did we could see them, or their effects.
Why do you keep repeating that mantra, mate? We DO see the AFTER effects. We don't see the plasmoids form and explode because they are happening below the roiling surface; and because the plasmoids are transient; and because they quickly explode, as fusion therein causes huge local spikes in temps/pressures. The mass ejections could be the things we are seeing which indicate these are happening as I described. So we ARE seeing something which the solar physicists are still trying to fathom. The huge mass ejections. That is what we are seeing, and that may be the result of what I have been describing. And that may be the mechanism/process which ejects/propels such huge mass ejections which the solar scientists are trying to explain differently than with the magnetic reconnection approach. That was the point. Ok? Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
I blundered; apparently there aren't many S-waves in the Sun. They're mostly P-waves. Nevertheless, they refract from the layer boundaries, just like on Earth, and we can therefore see their effects and use them to find the layer boundaries, just like on Earth.

I also ignored the fact that the core of the Sun can be considered a giant plasmoid; however, this does not obviate the observation that there are no plasmoids on or near the solar surface (photosphere).

Just for accuracy's sake.

There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there.
Why do you keep repeating that mantra, mate?
Because it's the truth, RC.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
We fathomed it, RC. Magnetic reconnection of enormous fields implies enormous energies; that doesn't imply enormous field strength, like that required to form plasmoids like those in the focus fusion device. The energy released by reconnection gets pumped into the low-density plasma inside the flux tube, and results in a flare, CME, or solar storm. This is settled science you apparently missed while chortling over your fake TOE.

I have had magnetic reconnection blow heavy-duty MOSFETs and high-current diodes, not to mention tantalum capacitors, in my power supply breadboards. I know from personal experience what it can do. Your denial of it is yet another denial of brute fact.

BTW, tantalum caps burn with a red flame and release smoke you DO NOT want to breathe. Toxic sxxt. I've had to flee the workshop while they burned. This is reality.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Turns out we can even make pictures of the far side of the Sun from observing the seismic waves on the near side. That's harder than finding the internal structure by observing them. These pictures are used to forecast solar storms, and they work quite well.

So, cd85, seems that we can see *inside the Sun* quite well using this technique. That makes these layers brute fact, not some sort of theory. You really ought to study these matters far more closely before making blanket statements like "it's all theory." It's not.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I blundered; apparently there aren't many S-waves in the Sun. They're mostly P-waves. Nevertheless, they refract from the layer boundaries, just like on Earth, and we can therefore see their effects and use them to find the layer boundaries, just like on Earth. I also ignored the fact that the core of the Sun can be considered a giant plasmoid; however, this does not obviate the observation that there are no plasmoids on or near the solar surface (photosphere). Just for accuracy's sake.
There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there.
Why do you keep repeating that mantra, mate?
Because it's the truth, RC.
For someone who blunders but nevertheless downvotes me while blundering,it's a bit rich for you to end your post with "Because it's the truth", mate! But the active roiling surface ans subsurface layers are what the solar psycisists are tring to get a better handle on. The seismic waves approach and other superficial observations/interpretations methods also leave the solar scientists still perplexed as to the mechanism behind the huge mass ejections. That's the point of trying new approaches and hypotheses based on KNOWN SCIENCE involving the TRANSIENT and DYNAMIC focus fusion LOCALISED plasmoid processes which may be the mechanism for delivering the necessary huge spikes of pressure and temps to create localised 'bursts' of hot plasma mass ejections.

That's it, mate. No more no less than that was the point about the focus fusion plasmoids approach/explanation for something which still perplexed the scientists about the mass ejections (which masses are ejected from the sun's surface, and from not the corona as you thought, even though they are called 'coronal mass ejections, yes?). Cheers. :)

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
It wasn't relevant. I talked about it to be honest, something you appear to be unfamiliar with. And stupid enough, and transparent enough, to try to use as a stick to beat up on me with. It's more like a wet noodle, since you're criticizing me for being honest.

You're despicable, RC. You'll use anything to troll.

Meanwhile, CMEs and flares originate in the solar atmosphere, not below the surface.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
It wasn't relevant. I talked about it to be honest, something you appear to be unfamiliar with.
It was relevant; insofar as it highlighted the previous methods which did not provide sufficient info on the localised/transient 'spikes' behind the huge mass ejections process. It makes it obvious that other approaches/ideas were necessary to explain what was going on just below the sun's surface to produce such massive 'bursts'. I merely pointed to known plasma Focus fusion principles for the purpose of explaining what may be happening that explains the huge mass ejections. Cheers! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
It wasn't relevant; in fact it was part of a different conversation. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

There still aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic field strength isn't sufficient to support them, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

The CMEs and solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

You're cherry-picking my posts, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
I can see why you got kicked off Sapo's Joint. You're a troll, plain and simple. You make stuff up on the spot and claim it's part of some imaginary Theory of Everything you claim you're gonna publish Real Soon Now and never do. You won't talk about your TOE, because you claim it will be plagiarized, which is typical troll baiting. You talk about subjects you know nothing about, and deny physical fact regularly and without any apparent embarrassment or even awareness that it's fact, not opinion. You don't know the difference between a conjecture, a hypothesis, and a theory, and don't appear to care.

This is a waste of time. I'm willing to waste time as long as you are; but I make sure the n00bs know you're full of BS.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
HI Schneib. :)
It wasn't relevant; in fact it was part of a different conversation.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

There still aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic field strength isn't sufficient to support them, RC.
The source if info doesn't matter, it is the import that counts. The import of that info was that you highlighted thereby the fact that such seismic etc approaches and superficial observations/interpretations still hadn't provided the solar scientists with the explanation they are still seeking for the processes behind huge mass ejections. Why not consider known science and the plasma focus fusion 'plasmoid' processes as a possibility? No more, no less than that is what this was about, mate. Please don't get upset by new ideas; it is what's needed if the science is to advance, you know, mate. Cheer up, at least you know there're people on the case who are willing to think about/around the probs, hey? G'night, Schneib. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I can see why you got kicked off Sapo's Joint.
No you don't. You don't know the half of it, mate. He sold out in order to make his buddies happy and try to curry favor with crooked types in order to benefit his own site and to try to suck his way into other sites, at whatever cost to his own impartiality and honor and reputation, such as it was. Leave it alone, mate. G'night. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Erm RC...if all that you posted in this comment section is in line with your 'magnus opus' ToE...then maybe you should start over from scratch.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
That goes against the scientific method principles. The idea/info is what counts, and what is the subject of testing for falsifying or confirming, not the source. How can you have been missing that crucially important distinction all this time? Remember the 'source' for that BICEP2 'info' and 'claims'? What price that 'source' when the 'work' was tested and found to be flawed, despite the 'respectable source'? Think again, mate. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
RC, what do you hope to accomplish? Your lack of knowledge, and your arrogance, are clear signs of a massive Dunning-Kruger complex. No one can possibly think you know what you're talking about after this. And this is not the first time you've been pwnt like this; I've looked at the history, and this is a regular occurrence, after which you start whining about some imaginary conspiracy or something, apparently a conspiracy of all the smart people against you.

Why don't you give this up and start behaving normally? You know, ask questions when you don't know, and stop trying to pretend you've got a physics TOE, and stop this EU BS. Are you that attached to trolling? Really?

The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
That goes against the scientific method principles.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing in the scientific method that guarantees you'll be proven right.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Erm RC...if all that you posted in this comment section is in line with your 'magnus opus' ToE...then maybe you should start over from scratch.
No mate, that is why I CAN post/discuss these aspects. These are KNOWN SCIENCE related to the plasma focus fusion device and such like similar situations in nature. Including the sun, as described earlier, that may explain huge mass ejections which still perplexed the solar scientists. That was all. Known science and a specific known possibility for an observed phenomena on the sun. My ToE is not in any way involved on that score. It is the more fundamental aspects underlying the whole universal phenomena per se which the ToE covers, not just such obvious phenomena which already has 'ordinary physics' explanations based on the known plasma science. Cheers. :)
yep
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
http://adsabs.har...44...85H
Maybe this will help your understanding of the topic since your perspective is from a steady state condition.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Furthermore, the scientific method is adept at dealing with facts, RC, something you're very bad at. You should study it a lot more in order to understand it, instead of trying to undermine it.

Hi Schneib. :)
Errr, thanks for confusing me with a moderator, but I'm not AA.
Erm RC...if all that you posted in this comment section is in line with your 'magnus opus' ToE...then maybe you should start over from scratch.
No mate, that is why I CAN post/discuss these aspects.
No, it's why you're always wrong when you do.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
http://adsabs.har...44...85H
Maybe this will help your understanding of the topic since your perspective is from a steady state condition.
If the Sun isn't in a steady state, we're in serious trouble.

Just sayin'.

Furthermore, the solar surface is definitively not in a steady state; so you've made up another one, cd85. Naughty.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Amusingly, the EU seems to be "astrophysics of the gaps," which keeps retreating as we discover more and the gaps get smaller and smaller. It's a common technique religious nutjobs use to try to preserve their super magic sky daddies and their books by stone age sheep herders.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
RC, what do you hope to accomplish? Your lack of knowledge, and your arrogance, are clear signs of a massive Dunning-Kruger complex. No one can possibly think you know what you're talking about after this. And this is not the first time you've been pwnt like this; I've looked at the history, and this is a regular occurrence, after which you start whining about some imaginary conspiracy or something, apparently a conspiracy of all the smart people against you. Why don't you give this up and start behaving normally? You know, ask questions when you don't know, and stop trying to pretend you've got a physics TOE, and stop this EU BS. Are you that attached to trolling? Really?
The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
That goes against the scientific method principles.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing in the scientific method that guarantees you'll be proven right.
Accomplish? Publish my complete and consistent ToE as an independent researcher not 'beholden' to any 'side' or 'association' which could compromise my independence and objectivity while doing so, of course.

As for the rest, perhaps you could learn from this phys.org article...

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

The necessary humility and objectivity, and less of the trolling prejudicing and condescension and block downvoting in lieu of comprehension, on your part and that of 'the gang' would be a good place for you all to start anew.

Yes, no guarantee in the scientific method that that any source will be proved right. But that wasn't the point, was it? The source doesn't matter a fig. It's the ideas/work that is everything which should stand alone and not be prejudicially 'favored/disfavored' just because of its 'source'. As the BICEP2 fiasco tried to get past by being 'favord' by all who fell for it, just because the 'source' was 'favored' despite my cautions and suggestins for closer scrutiny before you continued bashing the cranks with it.

Anyhow, if that is how you want to do science/discourse, that's your business. My business is objectivity at all costs to personal preferences as to self or source. Period. Cheers, mate. Read you round! :)

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Unfortunately, as AA notes, it appears your TOE is full of holes and not very well informed as to the current (real) states of astrophysics, cosmology, and particle physics.

You should probably fix all that before you try to publish it.

Just sayin'.

First thing you should learn about is magnetism, and the second is a far better understanding of the conservation laws and their impact on what is and is not possible.

It would also probably help if you weren't so arrogant that you defamed real physicists.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Unfortunately, as AA notes, it appears your TOE is full of holes and not very well informed as to the current (real) states of astrophysics, cosmology, and particle physics.

You should probably fix all that before you try to publish it.

Just sayin'.

First thing you should learn about is magnetism, and the second is a far better understanding of the conservation laws and their impact on what is and is not possible.


You mean the same antialias who fell hook line and sinker for that stinker of a BICEP2 fiasco, and wouldn't listen when I tried to waen him not to use it to bash the cranks? You mean that antialias and the 'usual suspects' gang who likewise showed NO cientific objectivity and just ;went with mainstream source' even though it was obviously flawed to anyone who actually read it UNbiased?

Get real, guys! You've no leg to stand on for preaching/criticizing me. You have failed the test, even when it was an obviously easy test! LEARN from it. G'night.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
You continue to miss understand.
Maybe, forget you already know everything and read the paper.
Maybe, take a look towards yourself as to what you accuse others of.
Are you on the sauce?
And I'm not CD.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
No, I mean the fact that you've made many major gaffes in astrophysics during this discussion, such as placing flux tubes under the solar surface, not understanding that the chromosphere is the lower solar atmosphere, postulating fusion where things are cooler, not hotter, and so forth. Your lack of understanding of the most basic thermodynamics and quantum physics is painfully obvious. You really ought to bother yourself to learn some real physics and stop posing.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib.
No, I mean the fact that you've made many major gaffes in astrophysics during this discussion, such as placing flux tubes under the solar surface, not understanding that the chromosphere is the lower solar atmosphere, postulating fusion where things are cooler, not hotter, and so forth. Your lack of understanding of the most basic thermodynamics and quantum physics is painfully obvious. You really ought to bother yourself to learn some real physics and stop posing.
Your knowledge is based on what you are told. I make my own observations on what data/science available and come up with possible connections which have been missed by those that have told you what they have so far. When scientists are perplexed, its time to think around a bit more, Schneib, and not be so 'sure' what you 'know' is "the truth", mate. I explained a possibility. I have no more to say about it. Your 'real physics' still hasn't figured it all out. Time to think some more, hey mate? G'night. :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
No, I mean the fact that you've made many major gaffes in astrophysics during this discussion... Your lack of understanding of the most basic thermodynamics and quantum physics is painfully obvious...
Your knowledge is based on what you are told.
You're lying again, RC. I was taught the derivations of the things I know, and the brute facts, not just the theory. And I've proven it to myself in the lab, and on the bench. My components have seen Earth orbit and my designs have seen mass distributions in major computer manufacturers' products, and my software has seen mass distribution among the Fortune 500. I use my own power converters for amateur astronomy field work to control the current from my batteries and make them last longer and perform better.

You are a clown making insults up when you are totally unaware of who you're dealing with. I've given you enough hints that you should be smart enough to stop. You're not.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Gaps like this http://phys.org/n...sts.html Still missing a large chunk of reality.

Amusingly, the EU seems to be "astrophysics of the gaps," which keeps retreating as we discover more and the gaps get smaller and smaller. It's a common technique religious nutjobs use to try to preserve their super magic sky daddies and their books by stone age sheep herders.


More irony. You might want to dwell on the middle of my last post awhile.
Super magic sky daddies? We are not talking about black holes are we?

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
If you're going to deny relativity I see little point in talking to you. It would be talking to someone about physics who doesn't "believe in" physics. Go ahead with your super magic EU "theory." Somewhere else, preferably.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
HI Schneib. :)
No, I mean the fact that you've made many major gaffes in astrophysics during this discussion... Your lack of understanding of the most basic thermodynamics and quantum physics is painfully obvious...
Your knowledge is based on what you are told.
You're lying again, RC. I was taught the derivations of the things I know, and the brute facts, not just the theory. And I've proven it to myself in the lab, and on the bench. My components have seen Earth orbit and my designs have seen mass distributions in major computer manufacturers' products, and my software has seen mass distribution among the Fortune 500. I use my own power converters for amateur astronomy field work to control the current from my batteries and make them last longer and perform better. You are a clown making insults up when you are totally unaware of who you're dealing with. I've given you enough hints that you should be smart enough to stop. You're not.
And yet you make blunders. You ignore the point about what the plasmoid process entails, and just carry on regardless about the whole system instead of focusing on the plasmoid conditions/processes involved. You keep talking about flux tubes that are 'empty' but contain mass to be ejected. You keep missing the point that it is the plasma streams that are the critical elements in the swirling/oiling process which produces the plasmoid, not the flux tube per se. And you miss that the flux tube we see above the surface of the sun is an arc which ends on each respective 'spot pair' pole region where the flux tube DESCENDS into the depths and is PINCHED OFF there. And that lower down still there may be only the plasma flows/currents writing as part of the convetion and current-magnetic field interactions chaos which do not require flux tubes as seen on the surface, but ONLY the plasma streams themselves which swirl and coil into transient plasmons.

And you cannot 'defame' people who have tried to push OBVIOUSLY FLAWED publish or perish BS like the BICEP2 'team' did. And it was also the mainstream that took them to task after I did. They saw it almost immediately also.

Schneib, when will you and the rest stop making excuses to defend the indefensible? You fell for it hook line and sinker, and now must yourselves pay the price for NOT being scientifically objctive as to work/claims just because you approved' the source. Learn your lessons from that fiasco and move on as better scientists, for crying out loud. And stop preaching to one who DIDN'T fail in his scientific duty there and elsewhere, ok? Sheesh.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
LOL

You're still criticizing me for being honest.

Transparent trolling. Highly amusing.

There are no plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic fields aren't strong enough to contain a plasmoid on or in the Sun, RC.

The BICEP2 team never made the claims you say they did, RC.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Are the denialists always this easy?

Yes. Yes they are.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
LOL

You're still criticizing me for being honest.

Transparent trolling. Highly amusing.

There are no plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
Being honest? You? How can you be honest when you ignore what I explained and just keep on your one track mind about things which are NOT what I am explaining about? Do you even understand what a transient plasmoid phenomena is? If so, then why the hell do you go on about all that other stuff that has no baring on the plasmoid phenomena/process as described to you?

And if you didn't know where the mass was ejected from, then how the blazes can you even pretend that you know what you are talking about?

And since you fell for that BICEP2 crap, and I did not, and aid so for the record at the time I suggested you do OBJECTIVE scientific scrutiny BUT you attacked me instead of doing that, then how can you keep a straight face while pretending you are not the ignorant troll? Rich.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2014
I admitted when I was wrong, something you are totally incapable of because you are not an honest person, RC. I even admitted it when no one had challenged me on it, because I believe in being honest. It's my way.

It's a shame you can't understand that. It's even more a shame if you do, but ignore it because you want to "win."

As far as BICEP2, I pwnt you on that one long ago, and it's typical trolling to bring it up again without acknowledging that fact.

Moving right along, actually, I knew more about the origin of the mass in CMEs and flares and solar storms than you did; you claimed it came from the surface. It doesn't. It comes from the atmosphere. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2014
And there still aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic field isn't strong enough to form them, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I admitted when I was wrong, something you are totally incapable of because you are not an honest person, RC. I even admitted it when no one had challenged me on it, because I believe in being honest. It's my way.

It's a shame you can't understand that. It's even more a shame if you do, but ignore it because you want to "win."
So, you have admitted to being wrong...after you had downvoted me kneejerk prejudiced fashion all along? And since you are wrong, and now admit it, why do you still pretend to be in the right and call ME a troll? Obviously the ignorant and wrong troll has ben you all along the way, compounded with your self-serving downvoting based on your wrong understandings. How many times does it take? You should STOP DOWNVOTING when you haven't clue one what it is you are downvoting. Only then will you actually LISTEN when being told something, so that you won't be so wrong and hypocritical so often. You keep accusing/downvoting others unfairly. See?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
And you tried to use it against me: you're criticizing me for being honest, and trying to "win" by harping on it.

Disgusting.

Despicable.

1 star. I'd vote -1 if they let us do that.

It's still immaterial to the points I made, RC.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Honesty is the best policy, RC. It's something you don't seem to have learned.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
And there still aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic field isn't strong enough to form them, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
*Sigh* It's the local flows that writhe around and coil and form the necessary enhanced fields locally around the plasmoids as they form and constrict and increase the containing field intensity, pressures and temps etc until fusion ignites and the whole thing explodes as a hot local spike in the hear/pressure 'globule' that may be the mass that is ejected/raised towards the surface (depending on where any plasmoid-fusion particular event is occurs). That's the possibility I have considered for the occasional huge mass ejection which is not explicable by the usual magnetic reconnection approach.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
The local flows only form flux tubes in the solar atmosphere where they can exist, RC.

There are no plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC.

There is no fusion within 300,000 miles of the surface of the Sun, RC.

Your conjecture violates laws of physics and denies brute physical facts, RC.

Your conjecture is not necessary to explain CMEs, flares, and solar storms, RC.

Magnetic reconnection does a fine job, and agrees with the laws of physics and the brute physical facts, RC.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Schneib, you're so fixated on the 'pwning' and 'personality cult' aims, and 'winning' by premature downvoting tactics etc, and you still try to preach to me? I haven't 'used' your honesty against you. I merely pointed out that you should not be so 'certain' and so 'cocky' while you unfairly downvote willy nilly, precisley because you could BE wrong again. Yes? That was the point there.

As to you 'pwning' me on BICEP2, you're dreaming again, mate. Drop it now bfore you embarrass yourself and your troll mates who fell for it like self-serving elitist suckers not objective scientists. You all took umbrage at my caution about it, and now you want to be DISHONEST and claim you 'pwned' me on it? You have serious issues, my boy. See to them before you try to take the high ground with me, ok? You failed the objectivity test re BICEP2. End of story. No more hypocritical claims about who 'pwned' who on that, ok? Good. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
No, I'm fixated on the truth, RC, which you apparently can't imagine, RC. To you "winning" is far more important than facts. This is a character flaw you should fix immediately if you want anyone to think you're worth talking to.

"Pwnt" is what I do to liars.

Why don't you just give it up, dude? It's apparent to all at this point that you have no idea what you're talking about, your "T"OE is not a theory but a conjecture and one that is opposed to the brute physical facts, and you're trolling shamelessly. Why bother? Why not just act like a normal person and maybe even learn something?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No, I'm fixated on the truth, RC, which you apparently can't imagine, RC. To you "winning" is far more important than facts. This is a character flaw you should fix immediately if you want anyone to think you're worth talking to.
"The truth". How is you now claiming you 'pwned' me re BICEP2 "the truth"? Your "truth" is a self-serving concoction to save face after falling hook line and sinker for that BICEP2 crap. It was crap. Everyone has seen it was crap by now, except you deny it all and come back with that 'truth' you imagined would save you from the lessons you obviously STILL need to learn. Learn and move on instead of making false 'truths' for your own denial convenience, mate. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Sorry, RC, your arguments about BICEP2 were all with the publicist, not the scientists or the scientific data.

Just like you criticizing me for being honest. I hope they sue you for defamation. It's getting more popular.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
I'm not denying. I'm affirming, and the physics community at large agrees with my affirmations. You are the one denying both the consensus, and the brute physical facts, RC.

There are no plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC.

Flux tubes cannot exist beneath the solar atmosphere, RC.

Fusion happens in the Sun 300,000 miles away from the surface, RC.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

As far as I can tell you wouldn't know a truth if it jumped up and bit you on the butt.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Sorry, RC, your arguments about BICEP2 were all with the publicist, not the scientists or the scientific data.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
Wrong. That is the story that you lot have tried on to save face. It wont wash. The 'team' still later came out and denied that they did wrong. They tried to make it look like they were innocent of the obvious misteps which they should have avoided if they were not so eager to 'be first before the Planck team'. It was later acknowledged by all objective commentators and scrutinizers that it was a 'publish or perish' exercise compounded with a lust for glory which they thought would come their wy if they took the gamble to use confirmation biased methods all along the way in order to 'confirm gravity waves' and 'GR' and 'Big Bang etc' model/theory before anyone else. They were self-deluded and made grave errors of judgement and procedure etc, some of which I categorised at the time I cautioned you. ok?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Actually I proved it on the Higgs thread.

You left and stopped talking about physics you don't know anything about, without ever addressing what the actual scientists said; all you did was keep repeating what the publicist said.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC. I have the links to prove it, RC. Are you going to make me post them? Because I will.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Actually I proved it on the Higgs thread.

You left and stopped talking about physics you don't know anything about, without ever addressing what the actual scientists said; all you did was keep repeating what the publicist said.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC. I have the links to prove it, RC. Are you going to make me post them? Because I will.
You trying to rewrite what went down, mate? Your atguments all based on self-serving rationalizations and excuses for defending the indefensible. And you're still doing it! Why not spend a little time on actually going back and reading the whole sorry saga UNbiased for a change? Leave the 'personal angst' about the 'team' out of your objective scientific ONLY assessment, and you will find what every other objective commentator/scrutineer saw. They tried it on and failed. Simple as that. No excuses. They should NOT have tried on the confirmation biased methods which they KNEW deep down were NOT science.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
On this thread: http://phys.org/n...urt.html

you got pwnt for not providing any evidence to support your claims. Anyone can search on your handle in the thread and see that, and that you never provided any evidence after that either.

You are lying again, RC. You are trolling again, RC.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
On this thread: http://phys.org/n...urt.html

you got pwnt for not providing any evidence to support your claims. Anyone can search on your handle in the thread and see that, and that you never provided any evidence after that either.

You are lying again, RC. You are trolling again, RC.
You failed the test again, Schneib. Why do you do it to yourself? You left out where I explained that saying any more would risk plagiarism by others. How is that honest of you, leaving that important fact out, again?

If this is the sort of reading bias you brought to reading/following of the full saga in the press/science peer review/commentary on the BICEP2 fiasco, no wonder your 'pwned' claim is also so blatantly self-serving 'version' of what really went down.

Look, mate, give it up and learn from it all and be a better scientist/discourser and move on, and no more need be said, hey? The BICEP2 team have by now. Why can't you? :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
t where I explained that saying any more would risk plagiarism by others

You do realize that 'any more' would neccesitat that you did say anything at all in the first place?

Hot air and bluster - nothing more.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
On this thread: http://phys.org/n...urt.html]http://phys.org/n...urt.html[/url]

you got pwnt for not providing any evidence to support your claims.
You failed the test again, Schneib.
There is no test except in your head.
You left out where I
Made up an excuse for not posting the evidence to support your claims.

You do realize that 'any more' would neccesitat that you did say anything at all in the first place?
Oh, he did- he slandered the BICEP2 team, and then declined to provide any evidence to support his claim when challenged. Here's another thread where he continued the practice: http://phys.org/n...urt.html]http://phys.org/n...urt.html[/url]
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
t where I explained that saying any more would risk plagiarism by others

You do realize that 'any more' would neccesitat that you did say anything at all in the first place?

Hot air and bluster - nothing more.
You can't let it go, can you? I categorized the falws at the time. I cautioned you all to do due diligence for yourselves before bashing cranks with flawed work. But what happened? You all went doolally and attacked ME for giving you the heads up.

Why not look to your own woeful motives and performance in that instance, instead of trying to blame the messenger, still.

The BICEP2 team have learned a valuable lesson, and moved on with their work as better and more scrupulously objective and cautious scientists than they were before. But YOU and other trolls, who wouldn't listen to objective advice just because the 'source' was not to your personal liking, are still trying to save face because you fell for BS from a 'source' you liked. Move on, mate.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Again, I'm not antialias_physorg.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with that, RC. Paranoid much? Just askin'.

Also the above link was munged by the server. Let's try again: http://phys.org/n...urt.html
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Meanwhile, here's the original thread: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

You posted defamation of the BICEP2 team and never, ever backed it up with anything at all.

Disgusting.

Despicable.

A waste of my taxpayer dollars YOU caused with your BS about your "eclectic universe."
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Again, I'm not antialias_physorg.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with that, RC. Paranoid much? Just askin'.

Also the above link was munged by the server. Let's try again: http://phys.org/n...urt.html
The previous link within my quote of your post worked just fine for me earlier.

Anyway, I was referring to 'you' as collective of trolls who then as now prefer to still attack the messenger to save face for falling for BS from a 'source' just because you 'personally preferred' rather than being objective irrespective of 'source'. My caution etc was ignored by the trolls en-masse, because they didn't like the source that gave them good objective advice! Go figure, hey?

Who would have thought personal considerations would be allowed to color one's scientific objectivity! Surely that can never happen in science, can it? Nor....horror!....here at physorg, in the discussions/ratings pages? [sarcasm]

Learn, move on, mate. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
I'm interested in facts, not self-appointed "messengers" who lie about honest scientists and then make up excuses so they don't have to support their claims. I'm also pretty angry that scientists my tax dollars paid for were wasting their time responding to your BS.

I think you should take your "eclectic universe" and shove it in your... pipe.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Meanwhile, here's the original thread: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

You posted defamation of the BICEP2 team and never, ever backed it up with anything at all.

Disgusting.

Despicable.

A waste of my taxpayer dollars YOU caused with your BS about your "eclectic universe."
Why do this to yourself, mate. No 'defamation' involved. The 'work' was obviously flawd, and they knew it, then and now. They have suffered enough. They have learned from it and moved on. But you keep pretending they were pure as the driven snow in that 'exercise'. They weren't. No defamation if I was correct. And anyone could see I was correct IF they took a few minutes to actually really objectively check it out. Mainstream scientists soon did after my heads up. I was correct. You are trying to defend the indefensible by maligning the objective messenger. Not a good sign if you want to be a scientist some day, mate. So learn from it and move on. Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
The work was not obviously flawed, you made it all up. You wasted their time and my money on your BS. They should make you pay for what you wasted.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I'm interested in facts, not self-appointed "messengers" who lie about honest scientists and then make up excuses so they don't have to support their claims. I'm also pretty angry that scientists my tax dollars paid for were wasting their time responding to your BS.

I think you should take your "eclectic universe" and shove it in your... pipe.
What's this about "Electric Universe"? I have no such ToE in that vein whatsoever. You must be conflating me with someone or some associations which I have no connections with in any way shape or form. Any discussions I make of plasma aspects is just plain known science, not some theory of my own. I just objectively observe the phenomena and surrounding aspects and make connections based on the science involved, not some plasma theory of my own.

Maybe that explains some of your hostility. You again let 'personal likes and dislikes', and mistaken identity prejudices etc, color your objectivity and makes you subjective. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The work was not obviously flawed, you made it all up. You wasted their time and my money on your BS. They should make you pay for what you wasted.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.
What money did I cause anyone to "waste", mate? And how am I supposed to have "done" that? Are you ok? You seem a little distrait and not making a whole lot of sense now. Maybe you should take a rest. Leave it be, mate. The team has suffered enough, no need to keep making excuses which only makes their past mistake more poignant because you keep trying to defend the indefensible and attack innocent objective scientific observer me instead. Go on, go rest. And cheer up! Better things to do with your time and intellect than to needlessly drag this on, mate. Let's say no more about it, ok? G'night. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
Oh, he did- he slandered the BICEP2 team, and then declined to provide any evidence to support his claim

That's what I meant. He continually keeps alluding to having said already 'too much' that would give others a head start on their work. But whenever I read his posts I cannot - for the life of me - ever find any kind of argument or scientific fact.

In other threads he's already confessed that his ToE doesn't contain any math or make any predictions - i.e. that he just 'intuits' stuff as he puts it.

But from what is evident in this thread he doesn't even bother to check whether his ToE fits already observed phenomena.

So yeah: It is a ToE...just not of this universe (it's of the universe that circles the center of his head inside his skull).
saposjoint
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I can see why you got kicked off Sapo's Joint.
No you don't. You don't know the half of it, mate. He sold out in order to make his buddies happy and try to curry favor with crooked types in order to benefit his own site and to try to suck his way into other sites, at whatever cost to his own impartiality and honor and reputation, such as it was. Leave it alone, mate. G'night. :)


You were booted because of the same crap you spout here, and because there were some folks who wouldn't post at my joint because of your continued membership. Insane clown.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
Oh, he did- he slandered the BICEP2 team, and then declined to provide any evidence to support his claim
That's what I meant. He continually keeps alluding to having said already 'too much' that would give others a head start on their work. But whenever I read his posts I cannot - for the life of me - ever find any kind of argument or scientific fact. In other threads he's already confessed that his ToE doesn't contain any math or make any predictions - i.e. that he just 'intuits' stuff as he puts it. But from what is evident in this thread he doesn't even bother to check whether his ToE fits already observed phenomena. So yeah: It is a ToE...just not of this universe (it's of the universe that circles the center of his head inside his skull).
Oh come come, mate. How self-serving was that troll post of yours? I obviously couldn't say any more than what I already said to you and others over the years already. I especially could not go into any detail on the specific BICEP2 flaws I spotted which are to be an important part of the explanatory details of the whole cosmology which the ToE leads to. And why don't you read posts before making obviously misleading claims about the maths. I already pointed out I also develpoed a reality-based axiomatic maths which CAN handle the reality physics without 'blowing up' into singularities, undefineds and undetermineds which conventional philosophy-notions-based (eg, 'dimensionless point' etc) axiomatic maths cannot handle. I have based the reality-based physics ON the reality from go to whoa, so you saying that I "haven't checked" is a bit silly of you. You can't save face for falling for that BICEP2 crap by still personally disparaging the mesenger, mate. Give it up and go discuss something without being 'personally' biased beforehand, hey? It was that bias that got you into the mess with the BICEP2 fiasco, making you fall for it hook line and sinker despite my good objective advice to be careful before bashing the cranks with it. Drop it, anti, it's been done to death. The BICEP2 team have learned from it and moved on. You do the same, hey? G'night. :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I can see why you got kicked off Sapo's Joint.
No you don't. You don't know the half of it, mate. He sold out in order to make his buddies happy and try to curry favor with crooked types in order to benefit his own site and to try to suck his way into other sites, at whatever cost to his own impartiality and honor and reputation, such as it was. Leave it alone, mate. G'night. :)


You were booted because of the same crap you spout here, and because there were some folks who wouldn't post at my joint because of your continued membership. Insane clown.

As I said, you put others you preferred before impartiality. You are a clown, a troll of the first water, sabotaging discussions/people you couldn't comprehend in a month of sundays, yet you pretend to have the 'intellectual' wherewithal to 'justify' your mindless trolling insults and sabotage posts. Give over, two faced, creep! We all know what your 'character' and 'integrity' is worth: nada.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Der.. Snieb
"There are no plasmoids on or in the sun."

Hand waving doesn't make it so, these other standard theorists don't agree.

https://www.ras.o...ruptions

Whose lying now?

And "magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience" despite your continued reference to the process. Remember there is no magnetic fields w/o electric currents, those flux tubes are in fact Birkeland currents.

No, they're visible in a telescope, and their explanations are available from standard physics.


Yep, and those explanations are wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Otto beat me to the punch. I recieved the third confirmation of Rossi's apparatus in yesterdays mailbox


"New, Safe Nuclear-Like Process Exhibits Excess Energy Release, Isotope Change... A comprehensive report by reputable scientists on a potentially very important technology was released yesterday that could herald the beginning of a new era of energy production" -New Energy Foundation
saposjoint
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Repeating a con-man's sales pitch doesn't make it any less a con. Nor does calling gullible fools "scientists" make them so.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Your source relies on reconnection, cd85.

Oops.

Also, they used simulations.

Oops.

And there still isn't any fusion happening in them.

However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.

So there you go. Happy now?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Repeating a con-man's sales pitch doesn't make it any less a con. Nor does calling gullible fools "scientists" make them so.
I will remind folks that Uri Geller fooled a bunch of unwary physicists, who swore they'd seen him bend a spoon by telekinesis until James Randi showed them how the sleight-of-hand was accomplished by bending a spoon himself. The reason they were fooled? Insufficient null hypothesis controls. Scientists are just as vulnerable to a con-man as anyone.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Hey schneib

Just to be clear, I think rc is a turd like everybody else does. But if Im talking about something else, you really shouldnt 1/5 me unless you want to talk about it as well.

Unless you think you own the thread? Jus' askin' y'all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Repeating a con-man's sales pitch doesn't make it any less a con. Nor does calling gullible fools "scientists" make them so.
So 1) you assume you know enough about recent developments to decide that its a con job, 2) that you know enough about the ref to dismiss it as a sales pitch, and 3) that Im someone who's gullible enough to be conned. Thats a lot of ass-uming dont you think?

I assume you havent read the latest report.
http://www.siffer...bmit.pdf

-You could choose to discuss it or you could choose to just bitch slap me again.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Hey schneib

Just to be clear, I think rc is a turd like everybody else does. But if Im talking about something else, you really shouldnt 1/5 me unless you want to talk about it as well.

Unless you think you own the thread? Jus' askin' y'all.
You're pushing what appears to be a con job.

For the record, I think LENR is probably real; there are efforts underway that have nothing to do with Rossi. But I think Rossi is a con-man. I've seen his TV appearances on Youtube, and I've reviewed his history and there is nothing that makes me think anything different. Every time, there's some loophole he could sneak through. He won't share his results, like all con-men. Everything always comes out perfect; that's not how real experiments go. There are screwups, there is uncertainty, careful work and careful calculation are required to figure out how it went wrong, and then they make an advance. Never happens with this guy.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; but it's going to take rigor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
From the report

"Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi's businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA."

"All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturers' laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings

"Throughout the test, all the above instruments were connected to the same computer, wherein all the acquired data was saved.

"The shutdown date had already been decided when organizing the test, and had nothing to do with the potential of the reactor..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
You're pushing what appears to be a con job.
Im not pushing anything. Im bringing some interesting developments to the attention of the physorg readership.

Im assuming that there are some readers here who will take the time to read the report, which does seem to be compelling.
For the record, I think LENR is probably real; there are efforts underway that have nothing to do with Rossi. But I think Rossi is a con-man
Rossi is no longer in charge.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
I assume you havent read the latest report...

You could choose to discuss it or you could choose to just bitch slap me again.
I read it. They have insufficient controls. There's a loophole again.

Give complete control of the apparatus and tell the scientists what to put in the tube and they'll go out and buy their own, mix it up, assay it, use it, and assay it again. Rossi never touches it, and the scientists all sign NDAs until his patent is approved. THAT I *might* believe, if the scientists are independent and there are some non-Italians among them.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
"Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi's businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA."

"All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturers' laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings

"Throughout the test, all the above instruments were connected to the same computer, wherein all the acquired data was saved.

"The shutdown date had already been decided when organizing the test, and had nothing to do with the potential of the reactor..."
Insufficient controls. Sorry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Give complete control of the apparatus and tell the scientists what to put in the tube and they'll go out and buy their own, mix it up, assay it, use it, and assay it again. Rossi never touches it, and the scientists all sign NDAs until his patent is approved. THAT I *might* believe, if the scientists are independent and there are some non-Italians among them
But it doesnt really matter what is in the tube. It put out much more energy than could be explained by any known chemical reaction.

Why should the owners disclose their formula without patent protection? Would you?

The energy output is the key. You would have to explain how that much energy could be generated for a month in an independent lab under the control of 3rd parties. From one gram of fuel.
Insufficient controls. Sorry
Are you swatting flies? Independent lab, no access by owners, equipment owned and calibrated by the testers.

Maybe rossi is james bond.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
And Uri Geller bent the spoon. And all the physicists said, "Wow! He can really do telekinesis!" until Randi showed them it was a trick.

Insufficient controls. They haven't disproven the null hypothesis.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Your source relies on reconnection, cd85.

Oops.

Also, they used simulations.

Oops.

And there still isn't any fusion happening in them.

However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.

So there you go. Happy now?

I mentioned they were standard theorists, hence the reliance upon pseudoscience. If there are plasmoids, which you acknowledge, then the likelihood of fusion taking place is very high. It's what plasmoids do...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
No, it's not. Plasmoids are just a term for magnetically confined plasma. Has nothing to do with fusion, though if you compress the plasmoid enough, you can get the trapped material to fuse; the Sun's magnetic field, however, is many orders of magnitude too weak. That's why Lerner has to generate a moving electric field that generates a billion-gauss magnetic field to get any results. This is duh.

And if they're wrong (according to you) then where does the energy released by magnetic reconnection in the Earth's magnetosphere come from? Keep in mind this has been measured by a satellite orbiting right through the middle of the reconnection event, all sensors working furiously.

You're denying half of what they say, but trying to pretend the rest is just fine. By denying reconnection, furthermore, you are denying brute fact, not theory. Reconnection has been observed both in the lab and in space.

You are internally and externally inconsistent.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Reconnection has been observed both in the lab and in space.


A process occurs, there is no doubt about it and not denying that. However, the description of "magnetic reconnection" where magnetic field lines break and reconnect is complete pseudoscience.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Ummm, unfortunately RC, it seems you're beating up on the Cap'n for agreeing with you.
Say "d'oh."
@DaSchneib
he is a bit stupid

23 hours ago
From CapS in response to that from Cd
Again from Cd to CapS
And again from CapS in response to that from Cd
@realitycheck
TL;DR
additionally, my comments above were to cd and not to you
BAITING/TROLLING
FLAMING
reported
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
RC points out, you are completely wrong once again
@cd
mr paragon of truth, reality and rational thought? Mr. Science himself?
unless he brings empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source that has an impact in asctrophysics etc, then he can do the same thing you can do: shut up and cry about it
precludes your ability to grasp that there is fusion in an electric sun as well
you eu acolytes were the ones saying differently, spark boy
did you even read the stupidity your eu friend was spouting? http://www.tim-th...sun.html
you've already proclaimed your inability and lack of desire to learn anything new
Oh, i gotta see that... please QUOTE me and provide a link to the source so I can verify that you can read, thanks
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
However, the description of "magnetic reconnection" where magnetic field lines break and reconnect is complete pseudoscience
@cd
UNFORTUNATELY for you... the "description of "magnetic reconnection" " is shown here:
http://www.pppl.g...nnection
Magnetic reconnection (henceforth called "reconnection") refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma. In the process, magnetic field energy is converted to plasma kinetic and thermal energy.
so the "process" that occurs that you do not deny IS THE PROCESS OF MAGNETIC RECONNECTION
as defined by PLASMA PHYSICISTS and DEMONSTRATED on PPPL.gov in my link above...

but what do i know, right?
i don't know how to learn new stuff... right?
LMFAO

guess I DO know how to READ and comprehend physics though! sorry cd

your pseudoscience is showing!
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.
Thanks for being brave and honest once more, mate. It's good to see you come along nicely like this and working your way towards becoming a real objective scientist. To that end, I would again give you some good objective advice, for your own benefit and that of science: wean yourself away from that 'gang of stupids' pretending to the high ground while mindlessly downvoting as a block based on person/source and other objectivity-compromising irrelevancies and prejudices. Such 'gangs' and 'tactics' are anathema to objective scientific method, not to mention fairminded humanity discourse/ethics.
So there you go. Happy now?
It's not a question of anyone being happy or not, it's about the objective science and ongoing fairminded discourse ethics trumping personality/source considerations/prejudices etc. :)

And as for the likelihood of fusion going on within the solar plasmoids in question, you need to consider further peripheral aspects like 'positive feedback' loop effects wherein the current density and magnetic field strengths increase suddenly and exponentially with each positive feedback loopflow iteration as the plasmoid is forming. The upshot is that regardless of what the 'ambient' field strengths may be initially, once the plasmoid self-forming/pinching/concentrating process is triggered in the swirls of the flow lines involved, the plasmoid itself creates the necessary HUGE LOCALISED fields/temps/densities that initiate fusion and heats the 'plasma mass globule' that explodes/jets out as usual in such plasmoid fusion, as demonstrated in the Focus Fusion Device prroesses.

Anyhow, Schneib, it is increasingly apparent that do you have what it takes to be a brave and true scientist if you keep at it and avoid gangs and other irrelevant ego-tripping encumberances to you honesty and objectivity. Good luck Mate!...I mean it sincerely, Schneib....you are on the way to being a great scientist if you learn your lessons from mistakes while others do not. Cheers, mate, everyone. Bye all again, for now. :)

PS:...Scneib: Whatever you do, keep away from this insensible namedropping parroting suck-up dipstick called Capatin Stumpy and his 'personality' and hyocrisy' tactics and excuses for his pretending to be any sort of 'investigator' of any objectivity at all. He can't help himself but troll and bait as aagain just above. Again, that is good objective advice from someone who wishes you and your futue science efforts well. Bye. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
RC
So you're ToE is a novel...|
Your "conversations" NEVER end, you ramble on and on with the same tripe. You post crap and I'll vote 1 every single time
@OZGuy
Yeah... this is the same problem poor reg has... and i tried to tell him about it too
(and I will bet $100 he uses a vanity press instead of a legit science publisher too)
People who publish pseudoscience like to do so in books because they CANNOT PUBLISH in Peer reviewed journals are NOT publishing science, they are pushing pseudoscience as it says here: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
you will never see reg or rc in a peer reviewed journal... i've seen some of his ToE
NOT science
this is a HUGE red flag for pseudoscience as well
they are the result of the "currently accepted" models of ideal MHD ionized gas mainstream astrophysics rely on
@cd
which also includes plasma physics, so don't bother going there, because i've already shown you that you were wrong about the sun models not including plasma physics
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Poor poor CapS. Big mouth, no brains or self-awareness or integrity to speak of. He hasn't a clue what my complete reality-maths-physics ToE consists of, and is making his self-serving mindless and uninformed opinions like the personality cult ignoramus and trolling suck-up that he has turned out to be. Anyone believing uncritically anything that the CapS idiot says will rue the day he did.

For here we are, me, Schneib and others discussing real science and concluding real possibilities/insights therefrom on all sides, and what does this Captain Dipstick Suckup twerp do?...he comes gratuitously and stupidly into the discussion, yet again, with his usual personality baiting and trolling crap! The sad thing is that this CapS Blabbermouth Simpleton Parrot and Me-Too insensible BS merchant is pretending to have 'conversations' and 'connections' with others he seeks to PREJUDICE likewise based on his own stupidity and incomprehension of either side of any arthodoxy/alternative ideas/discussions.

Keep well clear of this Sorry CapS idiot lest you get 'infected' with his particularly intractable 'learning resistant' insensibility bug.

Don't say you weren't given the heads up about him, folks! Bye for now, everyone.

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Poor poor CapS
TL;DR
BAITING
TROLLING
FLAMING
reported

You do realize that 'any more' would neccesitat that you did say anything at all in the first place?

Hot air and bluster - nothing more.
@Antialias_physorg
Actually, poor rc pitifully posted some of her ToE on a page along with her address, phone number and name...

of course, you see a lot of the same logic and science as above... mind you
you will not see any reality on it, though
nor science that is backed up by legitimate empirical evidence either

almost forgot. going to a funeral... i will be in and out for a while
i had to come laugh at the above trolling of DaSchneib though!
funnier that she really believes it too
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
And yet more proof of that trolls insensibility to the foregoing facts in evidence and his lack of self-awareness of how pathetically hypocritical and just plain idiotic his irrelevant baiting and trolling posts have become for all to see for themselves. The bigmouthed CapS SuckUp jackass doesn't know when to just shut his big mouth and learn from his mistakes like others much braver and better than he have done. QED.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
TL;DR
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported
you put others you preferred before impartiality
no, he put SCIENCE first
the rest: TL;DR
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported
And yet more proof of
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported

And "magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience" despite your continued reference to the process
@cd
magnetic reconnection is PLASMA PHYSICS and PROVEN: http://www.pppl.g...nnection
eu is pseudoscience for ignoring empirical evidence gleaned from experimental data and proven by repeated validation from verious other plasma physics labs- read Da Schneib's replies
one more reason eu is pseudoscience
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
Poor poor Captain Parrot-Spam birdbrain. Hasn't a clue but still keeps opening his big mouth and SPAMMING insensibly as usual. Sad case of internet making people even more stupid than they started out. Doesn't know when to just shut it and stop digging. A 'modern case study' indeed. Obviously. QED.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
Poor poor Captain
TL;DR
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2014
The poor parrot is STILL going, folks! It hasn't stopped to check out how the previous science conversation between me and Schneib went, so it hasn't a clue STILL, but it doesn't stop his hypocrisy and parroting one whit. How mindless can such parrots get! Sad. QED.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
The poor parrot
TL;DR
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS. Still hasn't twigged that he is being the troll here, and should be reporting himself if he had an ounce of self-awareness and integrity! Poor 'case study' in mindless parrot hypocrisy syndrome. Some keen and enterprising young psychology student should do a 'study' on him for their thesis. What a rich vein of insensible psychosis they would strike if once they started to dig into that birdbrain's character. He still hasn't stopped to check the science discussion above that amply demonstrates he is the sad loser troll here, and should 'report' himself asap, for his own sanity's sake. QED.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS. Still hasn't twigged
TL;DR
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2014
Unbelievable! Such vast insensibility and hypocrisy to be contained in just one CapS 'hyper-dullard class' troll, hey folks! QED.

PS: Wait for it...wait for it....
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
PS: Wait for it...
i got nothing but time
TL;DR
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported

from here on out, though, I will not post again.
Just consider that every time you see that I 1star you, it is reported for no content, baiting, flaming, trolling etc...
Just so you know.
I hate filling up the comments like you do...
because i know that you have some sort of OCD that makes you post whenever someone tells you that you are reported or even mentions you in any post (even if it is pinion and not directed at you)
in some insane way you think this means you got the last word and somehow "won" the argument...

go ahead
post again
i will report it AGAIN

good night
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2014
PS: Wait for it...
i got nothing but time
TL;DR
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported


...and there you have it, folks! He has no brains, no sense, no integrity, no clue, no way no how!....but he is ok, he DOES have plenty of time to be an insensible hypocritical jerkoff trolling suckup nitwit with! Whewww! That's a relief for science and humanity at large, to know that this simpleton troll has "nothing but time" to waste for his own mindless hypocritical TROLLING ego-trips and delusions. Sad case. QED.
saposjoint
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Wow. I guess Rossi, RealityCheck and Stupidity win tonight's round of shit-slinging.

Good Job, RC! You had the highest spotty-bottom rating of them all!
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Uncle Ira


@ Really-Skippy. Why you want to drag me into this one too? I haven't posted any comments for four or three days, you are lying again. I did not even make any comments at all on this article.

Do Better diligence so I don't have to come back and defend my honor from all your dishonorable lies.
OZGuy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
@IRA
Maybe RC's all knowing ToE has a section on ttime travel and he's commenting on something you are going to write. On the other hand it could just be that he's bracque I'm sure all will be revealed when the ToE is published, hahahahahahahaha, that ToE claim just makes me LAUGH!

OZGuy
5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
I have a ToE I tell you a ToE and NOBODY but me is smart enough to understand it!
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2014
Unless you have the intellectual wherewithal and patient determination and scrupulously objective independence of mind and logic and knowledge based on reality-referential starting points, you will have nothing that is any good to us, OZ. By your continuing uninformed opinions about what you have no clue about, you demonstrate you have none of the above qualities necessary for independent original work. Better luck with your personal-political MO in whatever you will be doing while others are doing the necessary because they do have the necessary. You will not understand that that is so with every major advance in science so far. The useless drones scoff while the dedicated types get on with the necessary original work. Laugh, OZ....it's about all you're good for if you keep up that attitude. :)
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
you eu acolytes were the ones saying differently, spark boy
did you even read the stupidity your eu friend was spouting? http://www.tim-th...sun.html


Where on this pseudoskeptic blogsite does it mention the EU's position there is no fusion? There is a neutrino problem still, contrary to Timmy's claims. Once again you are far too stupid to grasp the actual argument.

Oh, i gotta see that... please QUOTE me and provide a link to the source so I can verify that you can read, thanks

http://i.imgur.com/oulfvUX.gif
UNFORTUNATELY for you... the "description of "magnetic reconnection" " is shown here:
http://www.pppl.g...nnection
Magnetic reconnection (henceforth called "reconnection") refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma. In the process, magnetic field energy is converted to plasma kinetic and thermal energy.


Yep, exactly as I said, pseudoscience! Magnetic field lines cannot do anything, just as lines on a topo map cannot do anything.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
http://i.imgur.com/oulfvUX.gif
@cd
and then i went back to school... guess i wasn't as old as I thought... you know, i have six grand-kids, one driving and graduating high school in 2 years!
there is NO excuse for you, so why aren't you trying to learn the REALITY of what is going on?
Yep, exactly as I said, pseudoscience! Magnetic field lines cannot do anything, just as lines on a topo map cannot do anything
saying it isn't so is the same thing as blowing your nose... it is completely irrelevant and has the same impact as dirty tissue. none
Where is the empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics showing and proving your comment that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience and not possible? after all, i am using PLASMA PHYSICS (your favourite thing, right?) proving my comments
Once again you are far too stupid to grasp the actual argument
PROOF/LINKS
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
Reconnection has been observed both in the lab and in space.


A process occurs, there is no doubt about it and not denying that. However, the description of "magnetic reconnection" where magnetic field lines break and reconnect is complete pseudoscience.
Ummm, you can actually trace magnetic lines. Remember the experiment with a magnet, a sheet of paper, and iron filings? You can see the magnetic lines. We have a lot more sophisticated means of tracing them than sheets of paper and iron filings, obviously- and we can see reconnection occur.

You're just plain wrong. Reconnection is a fact. And if you're denying facts, then there's nowhere for this conversation to go; you might as well deny the Earth orbits the Sun.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
You're just plain wrong. Reconnection is a fact. And if you're denying facts, then there's nowhere for this conversation to go; you might as well deny the Earth orbits the Sun.
@DaSchneib
Yep!
that is why i used his plasma physics to show him he was wrong... that PPPL link is one he has tried to use in the past to prove eu is a viable theory when in fact it is a philosophy.

it is a tired old argument... one that we could copy/paste as it simply goes in the same circle time and time again... like above.

Tim Thompson already proved and showed a lot of this to cd in other threads, but he ignored it then, like he will now.
and will continue to do...

one more nail in his coffin, i say

There is a neutrino problem still, contrary to Timmy's claims. Once again you are far too stupid to grasp the actual argument
@cantthink
I noticed that you couldn't and wouldn't refute his posts (with science), by the way
OZGuy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
Once upon a time in a land far far away.... oops am I plagiarising the opening lines from the ToE? But that's how traditionally fairy tales begin isn't it?

hahahahahahaha

Yeah I'm laughing and will keep laughing at your magical, mystical ToE.
hahahahahaha

Publish and prove me wrong!

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2014
Well well, what a brave and productive pastime for you, OZ. Is that how YOU are going to complete the ToE? By laughing mindlessly all the time at things/people you haven't clue one about? Good luck with that approach to completing the ToE, OZ. I'm rooting for ya, mate!
OZGuy
5 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
Mate your Toe is total effing BS.

I'm not writing a ToE, NO-ONE is writing.

Publish and prove me wrong!

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Ummm, you can actually trace magnetic lines. Remember the experiment with a magnet, a sheet of paper, and iron filings? You can see the magnetic lines.

You have fallen into the same trap as the rest of the magnetic reconnectors, by reifying a mathematical construct (field lines) into real objects. Field lines are not physical entities, they are merely drawn to help people visualize the magnetic field. In your iron fillings experiment, it is the matter which is aligned in the field and the nearby matter. Magnetic fields are a continuum, it's not a collection of discrete lines.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Dude, take a piece of paper and put a magnet under it and sprinkle iron filings on it.

You, personally, yourself, can SEE the magnetic field lines. WITH YOUR OWN EYES.

Do you deny it?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
So you know, RC, I'm not responding to your posts any more unless they have science in them, and if they don't I'm reporting them all. Eventually the moderators will do something about you. I'm tired of watching you deface this forum. Go spray graffiti someplace else, please.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
cd85, the entire point of field lines is that they represent the magnetic vector field. When a pole of a magnet approaches another pole of another magnet, the vectors' directions change; that's what magnetic reconnection is. You can see it by putting another magnet under the paper and shaking the paper to show how the field has changed; the field lines now connect the new pole to an old one (if they are opposite poles); those field lines used to connect the two poles of the original magnet to one another. That's magnetic reconnection, and as I said, you can SEE IT FOR YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN EYES.

Do you not believe your own eyes? Really?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
So you know, RC, I'm not responding to your posts any more unless they have science in them, and if they don't I'm reporting them all. Eventually the moderators will do something about you. I'm tired of watching you deface this forum. Go spray graffiti someplace else, please.
@DaSchneib
I wonder how he keeps on here
I know that others have been reporting him for months... MONTHS
since at least the BICEP fiasco that he still hasn't answered for...
he is still here, though, and cannot answer even questions that he brings up, or point out the things that he points out are about him (he can't say WHY, just calls it trolling and thinks we should not have the right to think bad thoughts about him without his permission - like every other troll out there)

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
I'll trust the moderators to do their jobs, and help by not responding to him any more unless he behaves appropriately for a science forum. I suggest you do the same. Starved trolls die.

Playing with trolls can be fun, but when it gets to this point, it's not fun any more; it's just ugly. It's time to stop this.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
take a piece of paper and put a magnet under it and sprinkle iron filings on it.
I'm not being in any way critical or otherwise condescending in my following caution, ok? Magnetic/electric field 'lines' are not real things in themselves, they only represent the 'resonance-boundary-condition states' along a 'contact surface' between different field gradient regions. The linear/sheath effect and arrangement of said 'lines', as made obvious in the iron filings and magnet case, is merely where the forces on the iron 'rods' or 'particulate poles' are forced to align in a way that minimizes their energy state and equalizes the effect of forces acting on the filings/particulate poles. That's classical understandings, not 'alternative'. I can't say any more because this area is one involved intimately with some ToE explanations/insights of mine. Again, please don't take this contribution the wrong way. I've growing respect for your talent. I'm just helping. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2014
Hi Schneib.
So you know, RC, I'm not responding to your posts any more unless they have science in them, and if they don't I'm reporting them all. Eventually the moderators will do something about you. I'm tired of watching you deface this forum. Go spray graffiti someplace else, please.
Fair enough, mate! No hard feelings. It might help even more, though, if you directed that to CapS. If he didn't keep making hypocritical cheap shot bait and troll posts to/about me I probably wouldn't post more than once a day, if that.

I also trust you take no umbrage at my previous post in content or intent. Been nice knowing you, mate, despite everything. Good luck. Sincerely. :)

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
take a piece of paper and put a magnet under it and sprinkle iron filings on it.
I'm not being in any way critical or otherwise condescending in my following caution, ok? Magnetic/electric field 'lines' are not real things in themselves, they only represent the 'resonance-boundary-condition states' along a 'contact surface' between different field gradient regions.
Correct, but they represent something real: the magnetic vector field. When reconnection occurs, the vectors abruptly change, "flopping" from the state where they connect the two poles of the original magnet to the state where they connect the closest pole of the original magnet to the closest pole of the new magnet. This is "magnetic reconnection," and when it happens, it generates energy. In little magnets you can use on your tabletop, this energy is extremely small; but when the magnetic field is the size of the Sun, the energy released when they "flop" is enormous.

contd
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
Yes, there are no discrete field lines in a magnetic field. You can SEE the iron filing arranged in lines, due to the nature of matter and how it behaves when magnetized, but the actual real magnetic field is NOT made up of individual lines. IT IS A CONTINUUM! Find a book on EM theory, this notion will be covered not far past page one. What can and does "reconnect" are the electric currents flowing in circuits which create the magnetic fields. The process of "magnetic reconnection" was explained by Alfven decades ago while solving problems related to Swedish electrical grid issues. The exploding circuit and double layers he described is the basis of the theory. Problem is, the MHD models you rely upon don't explain these phenomena, they can't, the models are too generalized to describe these types of features. These features are vitally important to describe the energy transport in the plasma. Not including these phenomena results in pseudoscience.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
This energy is what drives CMEs, flares, and solar storms. The energy is released into the plasma of the solar atmosphere, and heats a portion of it up; that portion forms the flare, CME, or solar storm, as it exits the atmosphere (in a flare) or as it exits the corona (in a CME or solar storm).

Incidentally, note that the orientations of the two fields determine if reconnection happens or not.

The linear/sheath effect and arrangement of said 'lines', as made obvious in the iron filings and magnet case, is merely where the forces on the iron 'rods' or 'particulate poles' are forced to align in a way that minimizes their energy state and equalizes the effect of forces acting on the filings/particulate poles.
The filings arrange themselves so their longest axis is along the net direction of the vector field along their length. This is the lowest *force* (not energy!) configuration in which they experience no net force that can make them turn. It's the same as a compass.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
That's classical understandings, not 'alternative'.
Correct.

Now that we see that reconnection is a real reorientation of the vector field, we understand the underlying reality beneath the field line concept; this is one of the best analogies in physics, because the "field line" concept can represent not only the *direction* of the vector field, but its *strength* as well, and that's about all a magnetic vector field has, direction and strength. Incidentally, in the Maxwell equations, the magnetic field is symbolized as "B," and the direction is called "curl."

I can't say any more because this area is one involved intimately with some ToE explanations/insights of mine. Again, please don't take this contribution the wrong way. I've growing respect for your talent. I'm just helping.
This post is the kind of thing you should be doing here. I gave you a 5. Please try to stick to this kind of thing. It's much better. I enjoyed responding. Thanks for the post.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
When those fields "flop" to the new configuration, the circuit which is producing the field changes. In the circuit model , every circuit that contains an inductance is intrinsically explosive. As Alfven mentioned, "the entire energy of a circuit can be released at the point where a double layer or instability forms regardless of the source of the energy of the circuit."
Basically you have circuit A, and Circuit B. The circuits interrupt each other which causes catastrophic explosive collapse of both circuits. Out of the morass, a completely new circuit C emerges from the ashes of the previous fields.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2014
Hi Schneib (and Cd).
This energy is what drives CMEs, flares, and solar storms. The energy is released into the plasma of the solar atmosphere, and heats a portion of it up; that portion forms the flare, CME, or solar storm, as it exits the atmosphere (in a flare) or as it exits the corona (in a CME or solar storm). Incidentally, note that the orientations of the two fields determine if reconnection happens or not.
The linear/sheath effect and arrangement of said 'lines', as made obvious in the iron filings and magnet case, is merely where the forces on the iron 'rods' or 'particulate poles' are forced to align in a way that minimizes their energy state and equalizes the effect of forces acting on the filings/particulate poles.
The filings arrange themselves so their longest axis is along the net direction of the vector field along their length. This is the lowest *force* (not energy!) configuration in which they experience no net force that can make them turn. It's the same as a compass. contd
Yes, your restatement of the scenario confirms the least enegy/forces' explaination I gave.

As to the 'reconnection' issue between you and Cd, perhaps you two could discuss which, if any, is the more prime consideration at play when two ordinary uninsulated elecrtical wires crossed and 'shorted' such that the new current path cuts out the 'shorted loop' of wire which was effectively pinched off at/by the crossing point of contact.

I will be interested to observe your respective 'takes' on the primacy of magnetic and/or electric field/current in the transiton phenomena from one stable cinfiguartion to the resultant stable configuration. Good luck to you both, and enjoy your mutual interaction in the spirit of discovery and mutua benefit. Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
cd85, I am a degreed electronics engineer, and you are not. I guarantee I have forgotten things about magnetism you will never know.

The magnetic field line concept was invented by a genius named Michael Faraday in the nineteenth century, according to historians around 1838. It is an extremely good analogy, since it can represent all the characteristics of the true vector field; both its strength (more lines through a surface perpendicular to the lines = higher strength) and its direction (the direction of the lines). Modern vector treatments are much more mathematically sophisticated, but the lines represent the complete state of the vector field at macroscopic distances.

The concept therefore remains in use today. We can discuss the vector math if you like, but in fact it adds a great deal of complexity without introducing any additional understanding. Since you are obviously neither an EE nor a physicist, it's best if you stick to the field line understanding.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Now, if you'd like to relate the field line concept to the more complex underlying reality of the vector field, what actually happens is that at a certain critical distance, as the pole of the new magnet approaches the pole of the original magnet (provided they are of opposite polarity), a point is reached where the vectors "flop" or "snap" to a new direction. Actually, it happens gradually, as the fields impinge on one another; but for any given point in the vector field, there is a point in the approach of the new pole where that point's vector "snaps over" from pointing along the field to the other pole of the original magnet, to pointing along the field to the new pole.

This is "magnetic reconnection," and in the field line analogy, it can be visualized as the field lines progressively "flopping" from pointing at the original other pole to the new pole.

This is, as I have repeatedly said, a brute physical fact. It is not a theory. It can be directly observed.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
You can also have circuit A which develops a double layer, that double layer can explode which, once again, releases the energy contained in the circuit.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
When those fields "flop" to the new configuration, the circuit which is producing the field changes.
There is no "circuit." We're talking about bar magnets. You can demonstrate reconnection with them, as I've been telling you for several posts. You can see it for yourself.

Now, for the record, tell me why the "field line" concept is insufficient to represent this phenomenon completely. To my mind, it seems to be a complete representation of a physical reality that is quite obvious, but then again, I'm an EE, so what seems obvious to me might not be to you. However, that doesn't mean I'm wrong; it just means you don't understand how the analogy works. Instead of trying to "prove I'm wrong," which you will never do, why not learn something?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
As to the 'reconnection' issue between you and Cd, perhaps you two could discuss which, if any, is the more prime consideration at play when two ordinary uninsulated elecrtical wires crossed and 'shorted' such that the new current path cuts out the 'shorted loop' of wire which was effectively pinched off at/by the crossing point of contact.
Since the point of the short has the same voltage as itself, no current flows through the loop. This is the standard understanding in EE. In reality, there is a small potential between the points where the two wires meet, so a very small current flows; but this has no effect on the current in the main circuit, since any current that flows around the loop re-enters it. The real effect will be a slight additional increment of resistance due to the microcurrent in the loop. It's unlikely in a real circuit that you would be able to measure it without extremely sensitive (far more than usual EE equipment) instruments.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
Two additional notes to the above two posts:

1. The explanations of reconnection using the field line concept are far more accessible to the general public, so when talking to reporters, the scientists "dumb it down" for their expected audience. This doesn't mean that the phenomenon depends upon the field line concept; that's merely how they're explaining it for Joe Sixpack. They expect that sophisticated readers will understand the relation between the true vector field representation and the field line representation. I have tried to explain both so that everyone can see that there's an underlying explanation in the more sophisticated formalism of the vector field concept.

2. Standard EE uses the first or second approximation; these use a number of simplifications that are true to three or four decimal places. If there is need, there is a third approximation available but the circumstances where that's necessary are generally physics experiments; appliances work fine without that.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
There is no "circuit." We're talking about bar magnets.

I'm talking about plasma, which is relevant to solar plasma, bar magnets have no relation to this plasma. When dealing with plasma phenomena, you must consider the electric circuit which creates the magnetic fields. Don't get caught up with the astrophysicists who believe the magnetic fields are "frozen-in" to the plasma, this is once again pseudoscience.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
The laws of magnetism are the same no matter where the magnetic field comes from. And no matter what it passes through, unless it's a paramagnetic or diamagnetic substance, which plasma is not (or only weakly).

The magnetic field comes from the core. The core is 300,000 miles away from the surface.

You have completely ignored the conversation about the field line vs. vector field representations of the magnetic field.

You are trolling. I'm going to start reporting all your posts if you keep doing this.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
There aren't any net currents in a bar magnet.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
And the currents that generate the solar magnetic field are happening in the solar core, 300,000 miles from the surface. There is no need to discuss the currents. The magnetic field is acting far from the currents that are generating it, and there is no net electric field far away because of the composition of the core.

The electric currents that generate the solar magnetic field have nothing to do with phenomena at the surface; only the magnetic field emerges.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
Incidentally, the magnetosphere is generated in the Earth's core, and the currents in the core produce no net electric field either. So Alfven is wrong when talking about the Earth's or the Sun's magnetic field; there are no currents far from the site where the fields are generated.

Actually, I think it's more likely he said so and you're just neglecting to post it. Alfven wasn't a crank, although a bunch of cranks have tried to turn his observations to their causes.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
The magnetic field comes from the core. The core is 300,000 miles away from the surface.

The sun is not a bar magnet, and once again you are applying a hypothetical assumption as fact. Earlier on you agreed that the sun itself may be a plasmoid, it would require a circuit to drive it.

http://www.holosc...cuit.jpg

A better understanding of EM in plasma will serve you well, here is a peer-reviewed paper written by a professor in EE.
http://electric-c...2007.pdf

You have completely ignored the conversation about the field line vs. vector field representations of the magnetic field.


I gave a description of the process of the exploding circuit, discussion of reified objects is meaningless. In my opinion referring to the phenomena as MR is misleading. It suggests magnetism is primary, but without electric currents these fields cannot exist.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
Your dynamo theory is very speculative. BTW there are many, many localized fields on the sun, created by electric currents that flow all over the sun.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
The magnetic field comes from the core. The core is 300,000 miles away from the surface.
The sun is not a bar magnet
So you're claiming the laws of magnetics are different on the Sun?

Why?

Your dynamo theory is very speculative


LOL

We have mapped the dynamos.

No speculation at all. And not theory. They're more brute facts.

That you're denying again.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Just so everyone knows, the USGS runs a set of magnetic monitoring observatories, and monitors seismic data, which allows a full mapping in real time of the Earth's core and the dynamo in it that generates the Earth's magnetic field.

The NOAA uses this data and other data from satellites about the extended field, called the "magnetosphere," to forecast space weather, such as solar storms and reconnection events, both of which can interfere with communications and power grids.

This has been going on for decades. None of this is new, theoretical, or in any way anything but more brute fact that would be false if cd85 were correct.

And if this data were incorrect, hikers would be lost, ships would be lost, aircraft would be lost, and anyone who uses the power grid or the communications grid would be subject to regular outages during which these vital services would be unavailable for unpredictable amounts of time. Not everyone has GPS, you know. Or LORAN or whatnot.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Hey cd85, do you know what magnetic declination is? Ever been hiking, or sailed, or flown? Did you use a compass and a map? Do you even know how to do that?

BTW, when I said sailed or flown, I meant as the operator of the craft, not a passenger.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Here's an article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences regarding fluid flow in the core and observations from satellites that have measured it: http://www.pnas.o...129.full

No paywall, looks like this one is open for public access. The embargo period must have expired. Enjoy.

cd85, hate to say it but you're still denying brute physical reality.

Here's an excerpt:
Continuous satellite measurements made from 1999 to 2010 (16) have been used to build high-resolution models of the core magnetic field and its recent variations. Applying specifically devised methods, it is possible—globally—to improve from this model our knowledge of the core field and its variations, with a very high resolution in both space and time. The GRIMM models series (17, 18) are based on CHAMP satellite data and magnetic observatory hourly means.
Hourly, dude. Over ten years.

Any questions?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
Oh and BTW both magnetic and gravitic observations are used. These are extremely high-resolution examinations of the core of the Earth; interference from lithic and atmospheric magnetic phenomena are accounted for and eliminated. And you can't interfere with gravity very much unless you've got an invisible moon to sling around or something.

See, this is the problem with basing your arguments on stuff from the 1960s.
KBK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
The third independent E-Cat test came back, and it is full of explicit details. Specific constructional details that will allow others to make E-Cats and test for themselves. To be independent in their energy production, and energy needs.

This test was done by some very forward thinking people, who were willing to risk. and they came up with the goods.

Cold fusion decentralized power is going to be the way of it, over hot fusion centralized controllist regime power.

The end of oligarchies. This hot fusion discussion in a old mindset and environment is like so much unproductive pissing in a deadbeat rain.

...and that's all she wrote.
MR166
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
Folk wisdom says that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. If Rossi's cold fusion turns out to be the exception to the rule I will be the first to buy stock in a generating company using his technology. Until then, I remain unconvinced.
baudrunner
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already.
Bullocks!

From Wikipedia..
In 1927, Paneth and Kurt Peters published his results on the transformation of hydrogen to helium, now known as Cold fusion.[1] They later retracted the results, saying they had measured background helium from the air.[2][3]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
Specific constructional details that will allow others to make E-Cats and test for themselves.
OK, tell us the exact composition of this mysterious powder that was used and how it was prepared. Quote it from the paper and link to the paper that contains this information.

Thanks in advance.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2014
Hi Schneib & Cd. :) I will risk it again and give the following hints for the benefit of your polite discussion.

The modeling of 'current' and 'spin' in the QM and macro concepts/terminologies is still a problem for the 'professional theories' integration at the most fundamental level necessary for the GUT. A similar discontinuity in modeling between GR and QM gravity mechanism/concept afflicts that particular aspect of the professional theory. Unless you both actually identify and agree on a commonality of terms/concepts identifying/explaining what 'electric current' and 'QM spin property' actually are in real energy-space mechanistic terms, you will never be sufficiently 'on the same page', and so will never be able to resolve your present discussion to objective consensus stage.

I leave it to you and everyone reading your discussion to figure out what that 'bridging insight' between GR and QM might entail. I cannot say more on that, for reasons previously stated.

Good luck to you both; and if you can figure out that necessary 'bridging insight' before I publish it in my ToE, then I will gladly congratulate you most heartily!). Cheers, and enjoy your polite discourse, guys! :)

zoljah
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
I would love to review their plans; 2.8b US$ is a lot to deal with.. stop beeing outrageous - we can build this for 28m if we wanted to (we would if it would be safe and .. would be working at all)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
The modeling of 'current' and 'spin' in the QM and macro concepts/terminologies is still a problem for the 'professional theories' integration at the most fundamental level necessary for the GUT.
"Current" has a very specific meaning in both EE and physics; the concept is expanded to cover forces other than the EM force in physics, and includes the colored gluons, the W and Z bosons, and presumably will cover gravitons when we figure out how quantum gravity works. In fact, it's also expanded to cover other fermions than electrons, as well. A "current," then, is any consistent flow of particles from one point to another over some non-zero period of time. In EE these particles are generally electrons and quasiparticles like holes and phonons; in physics they may be any particle that has charges or expresses them as a virtual particle of the vacuum. In fact they need not possess charges; there are "neutral currents" as well.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
A similar discontinuity in modeling between GR and QM gravity mechanism/concept afflicts that particular aspect of the professional theory.
It's not like that. What's really going on is that when mathematical/theoretical physicists try using the methods that have worked for creating quantum field theories (QFTs) of the EM, electroweak, and color/strong forces, instead of yielding usable numbers they give infinities. It's not a "discontinuity in modeling," it's a missing piece in the SM.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
Unless you both actually identify and agree on a commonality of terms/concepts identifying/explaining what 'electric current' and 'QM spin property' actually are in real energy-space mechanistic terms, you will never be sufficiently 'on the same page', and so will never be able to resolve your present discussion to objective consensus stage.
"Spin" is technically called "spin angular momentum," and appears to be quantized angular momentum possessed by quanta of all fields. It behaves and combines the same way (in quantum terms) as regular momentum, with the exception that it is subject (like all quantum values) to uncertainty under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I have already defined "current" above.

These are extremely precise definitions, which lead to Laws of Spin and Statistics for fermions and bosons, in the case of "spin," and which lead to transfer of various charges (or particles without charges) in the case of "current."
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
An error in the above: I said "when mathematical/theoretical physicists try using the methods that have worked for creating quantum field theories (QFTs) of the EM, electroweak, and color/strong forces, instead of yielding usable numbers they give infinities."

I should have said "when mathematical/theoretical physicists try using the methods that have worked for creating quantum field theories (QFTs) of the EM, electroweak, and color/strong forces to make a QFT (or even a simpler quantum theory) of gravity, instead of yielding usable numbers they give infinities."

And a further comment: these definitions are the generally accepted ones for these phenomena in physics and subdisciplines of it like electronics. Electronics, of course, defines "current" as a transfer of charged particles, specifically electrons (thus its name) from one point to another.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
the "missing piece" in the SM
is the Philosopher stone seeker's strategy how to prolong the futile search for nonsensical concepts. Technically the scope of SM is subatomar physics, wheres the http://www.aether...raph.gif and it represents the complex reality at the human observer scale.
You apparently don't understand the differences between field theories like Maxwell's Equations and relativity, quantum theories like the Dirac theory of the interaction of the EM force with electrons, and quantum field theories like the QFTs of the color, weak, and EM forces.

From this perspective the "missing piece" is obvious. And it has nothing to do with the eighteenth century long-disproven and discarded "aether" theory.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
Oct 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2014
Specific constructional details that will allow others to make E-Cats and test for themselves.
OK, tell us the exact composition of this mysterious powder that was used and how it was prepared. Quote it from the paper and link to the paper that contains this information.

Thanks in advance
The latest round of tests, conducted in an independent lab by professional 3rd parties, sought to confirm and document excess energy. They DID this.

It doesn't matter what the material was. It didn't matter how Orville wrights plane flew, the fact was that it DID.

In order to discredit the ecat you need to explain how heat in excess of any known chemical process could be generated in the controlled setting that it was.

You may be able to do this. Others are trying very hard to do so at the moment. But asking irrelevant questions, is not the way to do it.

MODS - since you're in a cleaning frenzy please consider RealityCheck the serial abuser.
saposjoint
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
Heartily seconded!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
MODS - since you're in a cleaning frenzy please consider RealityCheck the serial abuser.
I'll support that!
THIRDED
PLEASE DO
OK, tell us the exact composition of this mysterious powder that was used and how it was prepared. Quote it from the paper and link to the paper that contains this information.

Thanks in advance
@Da Schneib
It was brought up before and I will repeat it here that it looked like a possible thermite reaction considering the ingredients published to date (including AL powder, etc, which is also an accelerant)

GOOD QUESTION

I am taking the same stand as Mr166
Folk wisdom says that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. If Rossi's cold fusion turns out to be the exception to the rule I will be the first to buy stock in a generating company using his technology. Until then, I remain unconvinced
Good call, Mr166
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
it looked like a possible thermite reaction
Neither thermite nor any other EXOTHERMIC chemical reaction can account for the observed net energy produced. I suspect that youre getting this confused with the BLP/hydrino discussion we had awhile ago. Thermite cant account for that either.

"Key findings: COP of COP of 3.2-3.6 over a 32 day period and isotopic change in nickel and lithium was found to have changed substantially after run.

"The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume."
http://www.e-catw...eleased/

One gram for one month. 1.5 MWh. In an independent laboratory, in a different country, on a different continent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Folk wisdom says that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is
ALL of our major scientific advances in the last century have looked too good to be true. ALL OF THEM. Electricity, internal combustion, heavier-than-air flight, radio, nuclear, electronics, computers, space travel, etcetcetc.
http://zimmer.csu...opid.lis

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind
of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformations
of these atoms is talking moonshine." -- Ernest Rutherford, 1930

-Your reactions are expected, predictable, understandable, and as usual, disappointing. We cant know if the ecat or the hydrino are realistic or not because we dont as yet have enough info. But mounting evidence in both cases continues to be compelling and cant be ignored.

Its always better to keep an open mind. Closed minds are a well-known indication of old age. We should resist the tendency.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2014
Until the contents of the mysterious powder and its preparation techniques are released, this is not science. Science is open, there are no mysterious powders.

The energy readings are, I agree, anomalous. However, science, as I have said, proceeds openly. Until this is open, and the powder has been reproduced by a third party, and the results fully measured using standard equipment like an ammeter, I'm going to continue to be very skeptical of it.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
I suspect that youre getting this confused with the BLP/hydrino discussion we had awhile ago
@Otto
You are correct
I did get those two confused

Apologies to everyone for that. I misspoke
Sorry

I am still in agreement with Mr166 and Da Schneib
Until this is open, and the powder has been reproduced by a third party, and the results fully measured using standard equipment like an ammeter, I'm going to continue to be very skeptical of it.
I have patience
as well as an open mind
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Until the contents of the mysterious powder and its preparation techniques are released, this is not science. Science is open
In your dreams maybe. Bloom energy still has not disclosed the composition of its catalyst even though it has hundreds of units in operation.

But it doesnt have to be 'science'. It only has to WORK. The science can come later, as it did with aeronautics. And metallurgy. And fire.

"The most important news of the year, perhaps, not just the last seven days? The results of a new investigation into the Rossi reactor (allegedly a high-power cold fusion reactor), involving running the reactor over a 32-day period, are now out. The report not only confirms output power far in excess of anything possible by chemical reaction, but also gives a clear indication that a nuclear reaction is occurring, on the basis of a substantial change in the isotopic proportions of Li and Ni over the period of the run." -Brian Josephson, nobel laureate 10-09-14
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2014
I am still in agreement with Mr166 and Da Schneib
Manufacturers have no obligation to disclose their ingredients or manufacturing processes. What is coca cola made of? Fracking fluid? Industrial espionage is big business because there is much secrecy in industry.

Youre not going to know exactly what is in rossis powder, or how it is prepared, until he has an ironclad patent in place, if thats even possible. But the report is pretty forthcoming about the main ingredients.

"The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium."

-Apparently things like particle size are important, and much work was done to optimize this.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
Manufacturers have no obligation to disclose their ingredients or manufacturing processes. What is coca cola made of?
@Otto
Not to nitpick, but coca-cola has the ingredients listed on the can

any food items or items that will be consumed by the purchaser or end user are required, by law (in the US) to provide a list of the ingredients to insure that the end user or consumer is informed for multiple reasons, from diet to allergies

You ARE correct about the manufacturing process though. The chemicals are named but the manufacturing process is not spelled out nor does it have to be

And I see where you are coming from, but i still am going to take the "wait and see" approach simply because I don't have enough information for my personal satisfaction

Again, note that I said personal, not anything else
this is IMHO
I remain skeptical of the objects until I know more
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
Hi Ghosty! :)

First this from you...
Its always better to keep an open mind. Closed minds are a well-known indication of old age. We should resist the tendency.
...and then this from you...
MODS - since you're in a cleaning frenzy please consider RealityCheck the serial abuser.
...seems somewhat rich, Ghosty. An uncharitable objective observer might call that not a little disingenuous; more than a tad hypocritical, and possibly unadulterated 'cognitive dissonant' of you to boot; especially in view of your own overall posts record here; and more especially in view of the recent exchange between us in the following thread...

http://phys.org/n...ill.html

...where your closed mind was apparent and obviously rooted in your naked self-interested personal-political agenda to disparage other 'energy alternatives' while shilling for the Rossi show.

Leave me out of your 'hypocrisy show', and I won't have to respond to you at all, hey? :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2014
Hi CapS, Ghosty and saposjoint (alias Dr-toad, sapo etc etc).

It is always tragi-comic to see a bunch of the worst trolls suggesting others are trolls. Even more tragi-comic that this very same bunch of trolls, who gleefully mindlessly block-bot downvote 1's irrespective of posted content, but based only on the 'gangs list' of their personal-political 'likes and dislikes' ON A SCIENCE SITE, pretend they have any right to 'judge' others! Funny-sad-tragics, the lot of you. Poor poor drunken drugged up sots. Your total contribution to original science and humanity discourse can be summed up as follows: Nada. Worse than Nada, totally negative and counter-intelligent to the worst degree because you sabotage for ego-power-tripping trollish agendas which makes you the smallest, meanest so-called 'minds' here. Sober up and wake up to yourselves and your rampant malice and hypocrisy.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)

Great exposition re 'current' and 'spin' aspects as defined currently, mate. That was already understood, which is why I specifically made this qualification in that post...
Unless you both actually identify and agree on a commonality of terms/concepts identifying/explaining what 'electric current' and 'QM spin property' actually are in real energy-space mechanistic terms, you will never be sufficiently 'on the same page', and so will never be able to resolve your present discussion to objective consensus stage.


I said "...in real energy-space mechanistic terms..." advisedly, as current definitions/interpretations are essentially abstract maths/modeling treatments/interpretations which do not actually go to the real (not abstract) underlying energy-space physical mechanisms.

So, again, unless you and Cd can come to that energy-space bridging insight/mechanism understanding as a common underpinning for your discussion, it will never resolve. Cheers. :)
nicholas_scholten5
1 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
As long as it takes years to develop it will be accepted.

E-cat is ready now, however, to many people would lose money if we had cheap power.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
"Manufacturers have no obligation to disclose their ingredients or manufacturing processes"

They certainly do here in Australia and New Zealand.

http://www.foodst...ing.aspx

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
They certainly do here in Australia and New Zealand.

http://www.foodst...ing.aspx
@OZGuy
Thanks for that... it is a good thing to know
PEACE

Hi CapS, Ghosty and saposjoint (alias Dr-toad, sapo etc etc).
@rc
TL;DR

NOT going to reply to you again either
just assume that when I 1star you, the following is posted below it
(so you can have your argument all by yourself, which is what you are doing anyway)

TL;DR
BAITING
TROLLING
FLAMING
reported

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
not to nitpick but
Not to nitpick but

"The Coca-Cola formula is The Coca-Cola Company's secret recipe for Coca-Cola syrup that bottlers combine with carbonated water to create its line of cola soft drinks. As a publicity, marketing, and intellectual property protection strategy started by Robert W. Woodruff, the company presents the formula as a closely held trade secret known only to a few employees."

-Before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about you really ought to check. This includes actually reading papers and reports I cite rather than aping group opinions on their validity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
Before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about you really ought to check
@otto
maybe because i know you too well, did you consider that I did F*cking check?
No, you want to play "i know it all"

on my coke can, it says: "Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors caffeine"

http://www.fda.go...ault.htm

Are you not in the US otto?
doesn't the CFR's and federal gov't regulate labeling on food items?

WTF ?
perhaps you should also remember your own words, spanky
-Before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about you really ought to check.
and i did say that food items are required BY LAW in the US to be labeled for allergies/etc

so i guess ya better quit "aping" for the "group opinions on their validity" , eh?

and yeah... i read that on coke site too
live with it
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2014
The Coca-Cola formula

Note that it says: 'formula' - not 'ingredients' (formula is merely the relation of the various ingredients).
crusher
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
"on my coke can, it says: "Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors caffeine"

Your're a bore antialias
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
crusher lamented maybe with modicum of satire
"on my coke can, it says: "Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors caffeine"
Your're a bore antialias
I happen to have studied food science post grad, 3rd uni qualification in 2010. Here's the rub:-

- food co managers/board will use what they can to make profits by reasonable means
- labeling guidelines are just that, only guidelines
- This means co can & often will obfuscate to cloud essential details of value to competitors

Eg. High fructose corn syrup doesnt disclose other parts of 'syrup', like occasional DNA snippets which survived processing Eg Monsanto's arbitrary fired additions in USA or 'natural anti-oxidants' & various oddities like peroxide, other sugars, partial fermentation byproducts etc.
Governments concede to the co's too much labeling is a waste of resources & most people don't care anyway, educated or otherwise.

Highest profits come from air & water!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014

Your're a bore antialias

Well, at least I tried to add something to the proceedings.How 'bout you try first before trolling?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
Until the contents of the mysterious powder and its preparation techniques are released, this is not science. Science is open
In your dreams maybe. Bloom energy still has not disclosed the composition of its catalyst even though it has hundreds of units in operation.
False analogy. Bloom energy isn't claiming to have made a scientific breakthrough like cold fusion. Fuel cells are a well-known technology proven for decades on spacecraft.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Fucking check
Well we have no idea what nasty materials comprise some of your 'ingredients' now do we? Burnt almonds is a natural flavor. Old shoe leather is a natural flavor. Please provide a detailed list. I'm sure it's on the Internet somewhere. Some coal tar colorants have been shown to cause cancer did you know it? (Don't eat marischino cherries)

The 'secret coke formula' meme is a very popular one. I am sorry you never heard of it.

Rossi is under no obligation to disclose the ingredients of his Wunderstoff. So I don't recommend you try to eat it. Perhaps the head of Brillouin Energy can help you out as he seems to know exactly what's in rossis brew.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Great exposition re 'current' and 'spin' aspects as defined currently, mate.
That's actually THE definition of current and THE definition of spin. There aren't any others.

I said "...in real energy-space mechanistic terms..." advisedly, as current definitions/interpretations are essentially abstract maths/modeling treatments/interpretations which do not actually go to the real (not abstract) underlying energy-space physical mechanisms.
No, the underlying "real energy-space mechanistic terms" are that spin is real angular momentum; that is, it translates in real terms in light into circular polarization, which has measurable classical angular momentum. The individual photons have angular momentum too, but they're quanta, so their angular momentum is quantized.

And current is real flow of observable particles.

There is no further definition of either spin or current. They are fully defined in both quantum and classical terms.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Comparing the commercial and scientific enterprises is footless and a waste of time.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Great exposition re 'current' and 'spin' aspects as defined currently, mate.
That's actually THE definition of current and THE definition of spin. There aren't any others.
That was my point. The present definitions are abstractions when boiled down. Not in real energy-space mechanistc terms, as I wanted to convey was necessary for further discussions between you and Cd, because without such, all these discussions involving 'current' and 'spin' concepts will continue to be at cross/vague purposes and never properly be resolved into a common understand based on real energy-space terms.

[continued...]
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2014
[...continued]

I said "...in real energy-space mechanistic terms..." advisedly, as current definitions/interpretations are essentially abstract maths/modeling treatments/interpretations which do not actually go to the real (not abstract) underlying energy-space physical mechanisms.
No, the underlying "real energy-space mechanistic terms" are that spin is real angular momentum; that is, it translates in real terms in light into circular polarization, which has measurable classical angular momentum.
This only moves the 'abstractions problem' back further to 'momentum' also not being defined in real energy-space terms, only same maths/modeling abstraction terms. In other words, the present "Abstractions All The Way Down" approach is not getting us anywhere when it comes to unifying the 'abstractions physics' let alone the reality energy-space physics. That's all I was trying to point out for you and CD and your discussion. Cheers. :)

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Great exposition re 'current' and 'spin' aspects as defined currently, mate.
That's actually THE definition of current and THE definition of spin. There aren't any others.
That was my point. The present definitions are abstractions when boiled down.
I must disagree. Classical momentum is not an abstraction, nor is angular momentum, nor are particles; we can see individual particles, for example hitting a scintillation screen, or making tracks in a cloud or bubble chamber, or making marks on film, or making a Geiger counter tick, or any of numerous other ways, and a flow of particles therefore is not abstract any more than a mountain stream is abstract.

These two concepts, spin and current, are completely concrete. They are brute physical facts we can observe directly without equipment. Your eye can see a single photon, and current flows surround you; streams of water, laser beams, even the wind, none of which are at all abstract.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
I said "...in real energy-space mechanistic terms..." advisedly, as current definitions/interpretations are essentially abstract maths/modeling treatments/interpretations which do not actually go to the real (not abstract) underlying energy-space physical mechanisms.
No, the underlying "real energy-space mechanistic terms" are that spin is real angular momentum; that is, it translates in real terms in light into circular polarization, which has measurable classical angular momentum.
This only moves the 'abstractions problem' back further to 'momentum' also not being defined in real energy-space terms, only same maths/modeling abstraction terms.
Momentum is not abstract, as you will discover if you fail to apply the brakes in time on your car, or catch (or don't!) a baseball headed for your face. It's a brute physical fact.

You're confusing theory with fact, rc.

contd
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
In other words, the present "Abstractions All The Way Down" approach is not getting us anywhere when it comes to unifying the 'abstractions physics' let alone the reality energy-space physics. That's all I was trying to point out for you and CD and your discussion.
First, I've shown that angular momentum (and linear momentum) and current are not abstract at all, nor are they theoretical; we can actually see them directly in our personal experience. So it's certainly not "abstractions all the way down." Second, you're saying Newton and Galileo were wrong (not just Einstein) because they dealt with linear and angular momentum, and Newton dealt with currents. Sorry, I don't believe that either. Finally, you're still confusing theory with brute physical fact. Linear and angular momentum, and current, are not "theories." They are brute physical facts, observed by all.

I gave you threes because you're wrong, but you're arguing rationally.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
This only moves the 'abstractions problem' back further to 'momentum' also not being defined in real energy-space terms, only same maths/modeling abstraction terms.
Momentum is not abstract, as you will discover if you fail to apply the brakes in time on your car.... You're confusing theory with fact, rc.
We also 'observe and describe and calculate and predict' the 'effects' of GRAVITY, but these are mathematical abstractions from reality OF active gravity energy-space process/mechanism, not identifying/explaining the reality mechanisms themselves. The same applies to 'momentum' observations and interactions descriptions etc'. They are abstractions at root, and not in energy-space real mechanism terms. That was the overall context for everything (including 'current', 'spin') being discussed in abstractions terms, and hence at cross/vague purposes, until identified/explained in real energy-space terms. That's all time for now Schneib/Cd. Cheers!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
This only moves the 'abstractions problem' back further to 'momentum' also not being defined in real energy-space terms, only same maths/modeling abstraction terms.
Momentum is not abstract, as you will discover if you fail to apply the brakes in time on your car.... You're confusing theory with fact, rc.
We also 'observe and describe and calculate and predict' the 'effects' of GRAVITY, but these are mathematical abstractions from reality OF active gravity energy-space process/mechanism, not identifying/explaining the reality mechanisms themselves.
Just because we don't know the underlying quantum mechanics doesn't mean we don't understand the concrete classical physical effects. We don't need a quantum theory of gravity to explain why it is an inverse-square force, for example; the classical physics explains this quite neatly in the "field theory" regime, since the surface area of a sphere increases as the square of the radius.

contd
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
And this same brute physical fact, the inverse square law (verifiable by constructing spheres of various radii and measuring their surface area), is a brute physical fact.

The same applies to 'momentum' observations and interactions descriptions etc'. They are abstractions at root, and not in energy-space real mechanism terms.
I repeat, momentum is a brute physical fact, and you can discover it by catching a baseball.

That was the overall context for everything (including 'current', 'spin') being discussed in abstractions terms, and hence at cross/vague purposes, until identified/explained in real energy-space terms.
Actually I explained momentum, angular momentum, spin angular momentum, and current in real, brute physical observation/fact terms. There are no other definitions of these observed phenomena.

Meanwhile, if you think gravity is abstract, as the saying goes, go jump off a cliff and come back and tell us how "abstract" it is.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) I re-iterate: The effects are known and understood, and described and calculated and predicted etc etc. That is not the point. The point is the mechanisms which produce these effects have yet to be explained in real energy-space terms instead of maths modeled observations of effects. That is what the complete reality-based ToE is all about. Providing the underlying real mechanisms in real energy-space terms which explain how the effects arise rather than merely describing and quantifying them etc. See? I don't contest what you say about 'effects', as these are self-evident observations, only that these effects require the next step reality treatment, in real energy-space terms/modeling. Hence my work in reality-maths/physics ToE completion. Gotta go. Bye for now, mate. I really have run out of time for internet interactions for the time being. I have enjoyed your increasingly scientific attitude, mate! A great talent and plenty of scientific potential. Kudos. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) I re-iterate: The effects are known and understood, and described and calculated and predicted etc etc. That is not the point.
But you see, that *is* the point of physics: first and foremost, to observe and measure physical phenomena.

First you have to know what's really happening and be able to describe it, before you start trying to account for it. And the things you are denying aren't abstract; they're as concrete as eating an orange or getting hit with a baseball. Until you understand the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and brute physical fact you're going to keep making this same mistake over and over again.

The point is the mechanisms which produce these effects have yet to be explained in real energy-space terms instead of maths modeled observations of effects.
So we should abandon observation and experiment?

Really?

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
That is what the complete reality-based ToE is all about. Providing the underlying real mechanisms in real energy-space terms which explain how the effects arise rather than merely describing and quantifying them etc. See?
No, I don't. Before you can discuss anything you MUST describe and quantify it. If you can't do that you're not doing physics, you're doing philosophy, and staring at your navel and pretending nothing else exists. Which may be a good meditation technique, but is not at all helpful in physics.

I don't contest what you say about 'effects', as these are self-evident observations, only that these effects require the next step reality treatment, in real energy-space terms/modeling.
In fact, doing any physics at all requires modeling not only theories, but concrete observations; the model MUST reproduce all observations or it MUST be discarded because it is false.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Mathematics is a tool, tailored to fit our observations. ALL of them. Calculus was invented because it is necessary to describe real motion, not as an abstraction. In fact, mathematics is required to quantitatively describe just about anything at all, as my two oranges example shows clearly. In fact, "quantities" are described accurately only by mathematics; witness the definition of "a few" oranges. It's more than one, and less than five; highly abstract. We can only reduce it to the concrete by saying "two" or "three" or whatnot, and now we've quantified it. Quantity is a basic fact of reality. Another brute physical fact. And only math can deal with it so that we all feel we've been dealt with fairly when we trade oranges for dollars.

In the end, we must quantify reality if we wish to understand it. And once you do that, you've accepted mathematics, and there's no way back.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Mate, why strawman me like that? Who said anything about abandoning observation and experiment, for cryin out loud! I already stipulated that these are what they are. I only make the point that 'abstractions' have become the stumbling block to moving ahead to the reality stage for explaining same in real energy-space terms. That's all. No more no less than that. It is the NEXT STEP I have been talking about. The step away from 'abstractions all the way down' which all observations etc ultimately boil down to in the 'partial theory' to date. Completion of said theory will require reality based maths and physics energy-space concepts and mechanisms if it is to be achieved. Ok? Now please don't strawman me again like that, because it compromises the steady progress I have observed in you of late. Cheers! Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) Mate, why strawman me like that? Who said anything about abandoning observation and experiment, for cryin out loud! I already stipulated that these are what they are.
OK, then tell me why "two oranges" is neither abstract nor concrete, which is what you said. I say it's concrete, and this means mathematics is too.

I only make the point that 'abstractions' have become the stumbling block to moving ahead to the reality stage for explaining same in real energy-space terms.
But the things you claim are "abstract" are in fact concrete.

That's all. No more no less than that. It is the NEXT STEP I have been talking about. The step away from 'abstractions all the way down' which all observations etc ultimately boil down to in the 'partial theory' to date. Completion of said theory will require reality based maths and physics energy-space concepts and mechanisms if it is to be achieved.
You just ignored me; I showed these concepts are not abstract at all.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
rc, you need to have some reasoned response other than just saying the same thing over and over after it's shown to be incorrect, and then leaving when this is (or is about to be) pointed out. This is probably the most irritating of your bad habits to me.

And BTW claiming that quantization is "abstraction" is silliness. In fact it's one of the most concrete things you can do; it reduces everything to concreteness by counting it.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. Ok, mate, have it your way; since I have run out of time for this. I have said all I can say about it at this time. If that was not enough, then so be it. I don't want to jeopardize the real maths-physics based ToE insights/explanations any more than I have done already before publication complete. Thanks for your constructive interactions to date, Schneib! Good luck to you! Bye for now. :)

PS: Again some good advice for budding scientists: Eschew the ratings system being 'played' by scoundrels. No real scientist worth their salt would be inveigled into such persona-political tactics and irrelevant distractions and 'pressure from the ignoramuses who resort to such measures because they have failed to contribute anything worth a damn to science of humanity'. Good luck! :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
It's not "my way." It's the scientific method. Observe and describe; conjecture; find a test and hypothesize; perform the test and theorize. But first of all, observe and describe, and that requires quantization and counting. So if you think counting is "abstract," then you're suggesting we do something other than observe and describe. What exactly would that be? Make stuff up? It's about the only alternative there is.

This is foundational to the inventions of everything from the lever and the wheel, to the weather satellite, jet engine, refrigerator, and computer, and on and on. Are you suggesting we abandon the method that brought us all this success, and continues to do so in ever-increasing ways today, and into the future as far as we can see?

First, observe and describe. Now, tell me how you do that without counting.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
It's not "my way." It's the scientific method. Observe and describe; conjecture; find a test and hypothesize; perform the test and theorize.
No, you misconstrue. By "have it your way", I was referring to the discussion points between us ONLY. The scientific method itself has never been in question.

Schneib, why keep making these strawmen? You don't need them. You have intellect enough to be able to discuss without resort to such things.

At least do yourself the favor of looking up the origins for the 'point' concept. You will find that that concept is a NOTION only, and not real in any sense. The mathematical axiom/s based/constructed from that starting 'point' axiom are 'unreal'. Check it out for yourself and rethink things based on what I have already said for your benefit, mate.

I must go, there is life and work awaiting me. Bye. Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
You're questioning the physical basis of concepts like "number," "current," and "angular momentum." I'm not sure, after that, what you question and what you don't.

And you still haven't explained how you can quantitatively describe anything (which is one off the most basic concepts in science) without counting, since you deride all of mathematics as "abstract." It seems extremely concrete to me to count how many oranges you have.
mbee1
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
D Schneib, you really sound like someone who has their nose in the air and know everything. I really do not care why you do this but is it really that important to the this article? We both know this is a huckster article from people looking for money to feather their own nests. The experimental device does not appear to be much different from many other designs that have not worked in the past as nobody has solved the problem of instability in the plasma as you increase the power. On a minor note, the fusion of Hydrogen is not clean, it generates plenty of neutrons which make everything radiative in short order including your coolent so at the end of the day it is not much different than a nuclear reactor. The only saving grace is you do not have Uranium breckdown products to worry about.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
We both know this is a huckster article from people looking for money to feather their own nests.

I'd be careful trying to speak for someone else. You're likely wrong.

short order including your coolent so at the end of the day it is not much different than a nuclear reactor.

The amount of nuclear waste is comparatively small and the half life of the products is (again comparatively) benign to nuclear fission plants.

The absolute worst case is a breach in the cooling system which would mean some ground contamination (assuming that any catch basins are also compromised). But that's about as bad as you can get with with fusion powerplants. With fission...well...you get Chernobyl.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
Well, you get Chernobyl if you're totally arrogant about science and ignore the scientific method, and let a bunch of political hacks and bean counters tell you how to run a nuclear plant. If you're not so arrogant about science then you only get a Fukushima, and only if you're dumb enough to build a nuclear plant where tsunami can get at it. Which is a bean counter/political hack thing.

And actually you'd have to breach the inner coolant loop to release any radiation from any nuclear plant of any description; that's never happened anywhere but Chernobyl and a few Russian submarines, and maybe one US submarine (they're not telling). Oh, and an icebreaker; the admiral's personal Khazak cook decided one day he needed some steam to clean his pots, walked into the reactor room, and turned on a valve to the inner coolant loop. Nobody had the balls to tell the Admiral's pet "no." The admiral later died of a 9mm brain hemorrhage. After the secret trial.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
Stressing over nuclear waste from fusion plants is like worrying about five birds a year getting killed by flying into the beams from a solar plant. If it's a hundred birds a year, it's a problem; if it's five, it's no more of a hazard than your risk of getting hit by a meteorite today. The birds will figure it out before long and not fly there.

Now, the waste from *fission* plants is something else again; and the refusal of the US to reprocess is criminal. It would reduce the waste by an order of magnitude, and it would remove the fissionable fuel that makes the waste so dangerous from the waste. It was the used fuel, which still contained considerable fissionable material, that caused the problems at Fukushima.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
D Schneib, you really sound like someone who has their nose in the air and know everything.
Why do people always assume that people who know more than they do are arrogant? I find this irritating. It's just knowledge. You can go get some too anytime you want.

We both know this is a huckster article from people looking for money to feather their own nests.
Actually it looks very much like one of the more successful efforts so far.

The experimental device does not appear to be much different from many other designs that have not worked in the past as nobody has solved the problem of instability in the plasma as you increase the power.
This is incorrect. Read the EMC² results from June. In fact they have shown that the plasma in cusp-based containment systems is highly stable even in the face of major perturbations. I linked them above. Did you read the thread?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
Well, you get Chernobyl if you're totally arrogant about science and ignore the scientific method, and let a bunch of political hacks and bean counters tell you how to run a nuclear plant.

While I agree that fission plants can be made safe in theory we do live in the real world - which means lowest cost bidding (i.e. just barely adequate materials for any and all components), less-than-honest individuals now and again, and human error (in construction , maintenance and operation). None of which can be eliminated.
If we think about using fission much more widespread (i.e. in a range where it makes a difference with regards to climate change) those problems are just going to get worse.

So saying that worst-case-scenarios shouldn't happen isn't going to help. They can and they will. The faster the more of the stuff we build.

I feel the worst-case from fusion is acceptable by comparison. Especially since it's also better than the worst-case from coal.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2014
Schneib, you really sound like someone who has their nose in the air and know everything
@mbee1
In Schneib's defense (No, i am not schneib, no matter what alche et al say)
Just because he is knowledgeable and shares it doesn't mean he has his nose up and is conceited... he is sharing it so that people who don't have a strong science background don't fall for the pseudoscience, like aw/daw pushed by zephir, or the eu philosophy which is debunked in modern astro/physics
We both know this is a huckster article from people looking for money to feather their own nests
C'mon, you can do better than that... if this is the case, present the empirical evidence that made you believe in this being a huckster article so that we can all share in the knowledge (or is that simply personal conjecture?)

Personally, I would like to THANK Schneib and the others for promoting SCIENCE and teaching us as we read
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
we have no idea what nasty materials comprise some of your 'ingredients' now do we?
@Otto
my apologies.i was in a bad mood (for personal reasons) sorry i got irritable

ingredients can be researched
Please provide a detailed list
already gave you the list above
The 'secret coke formula' meme is a very popular one. I am sorry you never heard of it
again, there is a difference between formula and ingredients, which i showed and AA_P pointed out
and no, i don't know about the meme
and really don't care either
AND this is irrelevant
like I said... the FDA blah blah blah (See above)
Rossi is under no obligation to disclose the ingredients
this is true, but as soon as someone gets one apart there will be info... and if it is a hoax, that will become apparent too

like i said: IF he has created something that works, then great
but I remain a skeptic until I see more and better proof
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2014
Why do people always assume that people who know more than they do are arrogant? I find this irritating. It's just knowledge. You can go get some too anytime you want.

The same is true for yourself, you claim the high ground while misinterpreting Lerner's modeling of the plasma. If Lerner is correct and is successful in creating fusion with his device it falsifies the standard theory MHD models of the sun. As Alfven has claimed, and Lerner is putting to practice, the particle/circuit models are required to properly understand these plasmas.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
If Lerner is correct and is successful in creating fusion with his device it falsifies the standard theory MHD models of the sun
@cd
I don't see where this is correct
and i doubt you will be able to provide any technical reasons why this might be true

and i KNOW you will not be able to provide any empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source supporting this assertion

So I put in a request to the author of the study to clarify this issue

When i get a reply, i will let you know
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2014
already gave you the list above
-which doesnt include what specific 'natural flavors' are used, nor their composition. Nor the composition of 'caramel color'. Please provide a list of the ingredients of these materials. Let me help you out a little bit.

"Caramel [color] is manufactured by heating carbohydrates, either alone or in the presence of acids, alkalies, and/or salts. Caramel is produced from commercially available nutritive sweeteners consisting of fructose, dextrose (glucose), invert sugar, sucrose, malt syrup, molasses, starch hydrolysates and fractions thereof. The acids that may be used are sulfuric, sulfurous, phosphoric, acetic, and citric acids; the alkalies are ammonium, sodium, potassium, and calcium hydroxides; and the salts are ammonium, sodium, and potassium carbonate, bicarbonate, phosphate (including mono- and dibasic), sulfate, and bisulfite. Antifoaming agents, such as polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, may be used as processing aids..." etc
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2014
Rossis fairy dust is composed primarily of nickel, hydrogen, and lithium. But, like coca cola, the important aspects are the trace elements, and the specific manner of manufacture.

Some more details of the powder can be found here, along with a pretty picture of a nickel particle
http://www.e-catw...l-e-cat/

-Rossi and his team seem to be even more mystified as to the process involved due to the presence of unexpected isotopes in the ashhttp://www.e-catw...-report/
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
I don't know that I disagree with any of that, AA, but the Chinese and Indians are about to build a large number of generation plants. And they don't have fusion. So, should they build coal plants, or nuclear plants? I guarantee they're not going to sit around and wait for the lights to go out.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2014
Hi Schneib. :) I'm only able to spend a few minutes here today, so briefly...
You're questioning the physical basis of concepts like "number," "current," and "angular momentum." I'm not sure, after that, what you question and what you don't.
You misunderstand me again, mate. I am merely pointing out that the abstract 'explanations etc' of the underlying physical basis are just that, abstract; not actually explaining/identifying real underlying physical energy-space processes/mechanisms involved which effect what is observed and abstractly modeled as at present.

And you still haven't explained how you can quantitatively describe anything (which is one off the most basic concepts in science) without counting,...
That is what my novel contextual, reality-based axiomatic maths system is all about (can't say more for now).

BTW, did you wiki origins/basis of 'point' concept?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
You're questioning the physical basis of concepts like "number," "current," and "angular momentum." I'm not sure, after that, what you question and what you don't.
You misunderstand me again, mate. I am merely pointing out that the abstract 'explanations etc' of the underlying physical basis are just that, abstract; not actually explaining/identifying real underlying physical energy-space processes/mechanisms involved which effect what is observed and abstractly modeled as at present.
But they're not abstract at all. They're as concrete as a punch in the nose. And you keep denying that, and ignoring my evidence. That's not very scientific.

contd
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
And you still haven't explained how you can quantitatively describe anything (which is one off the most basic concepts in science) without counting,
That is what my novel contextual, reality-based axiomatic maths system is all about (can't say more for now).
So you got nothing.

Thought so.

You can't do science without counting things. It's ridiculous to assert you can.

BTW, did you wiki origins/basis of 'point' concept?
It's irrelevant to momentum and current.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2014
The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind
of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformations
of these atoms is talking moonshine

Now that's speaking in Earnest. Interesting is the synonymy between the illegal drug alcohol (at the time) and crackpottery.

Incredibly interesting are the results of the latest ecat eval – isotopic abundances of Ni and Li spectacularly off in the ash sample, and the high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn found in the fuel were not found at all in the ash. But the ash sample apparently was only three granules, each different, 1 large and 2 small ones.

Additionally, the null readings for any radiation whatsoever (alpha, beta, gamma, or even neutrons) from the fuel/reactor before, during and after the test is quite amazing. Fascinating physics it would appear...

Can't help wondering if UW's prototype spheromak would work well as an igniter in fusion rockets :)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2014
I don't know that I disagree with any of that, AA, but the Chinese and Indians are about to build a large number of generation plants.

They're a bit like the US and Russians in that repect: They have land to spare/throw away. If a plant goes boom then they'll just cordon off a couple of hundred square kilometers and forget about it (and ignore any ramifications to their population due to widespread contamination...much like the US and Russia, really) .

For other, developed countries (who are the ones with the highest energy demand) that isn't an option. If you put a couple of hunderd square kilometers off limits in central Europe you have just eliminated an entire country. Forever. Not a winning proposition.

So, should they build coal plants, or nuclear plants?

India and China have abundant potential for solar wind and wave. It's not "either fission or coal". That's a false dichotomy.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2014
Protoplasmix offered re e-cat
..latest ecat eval – isotopic abundances of Ni and Li spectacularly off in the ash sample, and the high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn found in the fuel were not found at all in the ash. But the ash sample apparently was only three granules..
Frought with error opportunity !

Any researcher who understands experimental methods, especially in respect of nuclear processes, has great problems with these 'interesting' results. Given whats know re nuclear interactions, many of them being probabilistic, its not tenable to have so many elements disappear AND they shouldn't have been there in the first place for proper evaluation - unless they are required for catalysis...

Its virtually impossible for contamination to (completely) disappear, there are issues of measurement uncertainties in ALL experimental procedures !

Rather more interesting is to please link us direct to the specific report/evaluation ?

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2014
cont

Protoplasmix
.. null readings for any radiation whatsoever (alpha, beta, gamma, or even neutrons) from the fuel/reactor before, during and after the test is quite amazing..
Much more likely is some serious errors re radiation sensors, calibration AND how they accommodate (normalise) for ANY background radiation.

Protoplasmix
Fascinating physics it would appear..
Not at all likely :-(

There is ALWAYS background radiation - its the levels that are important & HOW the experimenters accounted for it re "Baseline" !!!!

ie. Noise is present in ALL measurement systems & FAR MORE in such an environment. It is NOT at all easy to correct results from (scintillation) counters.

Late 1970's I worked on Cs137 & Co60 e- sources for nucleonic ore flow gauge mass flow measurement for Mt Newman Mining's iron ore contract with Pretron Electronics in Perth, Western Australia.

Managing focused radiation spread in counters is VERY HARD !

Report link please ?
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2014
If you put a couple of hunderd square kilometers off limits in central Europe you have just eliminated an entire country. Forever. Not a winning proposition.


That's why you clean it up and re-settle.

The areas needed to be cordoned off after a nuclear disaster are greatly exaggerated due to the faulty LNT assumption about radiation health hazards. The offical assumption is that there is no treshold to radiation tolerance so the guidelines state that the land is forever verboten because some residual radiation always remains, when in reality there is a treshold that can be measured, and anything that falls below that or can be cleaned to meet the limits is again habitable.

A great deal of Chernobyl could be re-inhabited without issues. People are just too scared to.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
India and China have abundant potential for solar wind and wave. It's not "either fission or coal". That's a false dichotomy.


It isn't.

Until they develop massive grid storage technology to buffer the output, it is either coal or fission, because they can't integrate more than a fraction of their energy needs in renewables.

Of course they could dam some large rivers and cause untold environmental damage to gain some ability to store energy, but that cure is rather worse than the disease.

Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2014
Rather more interesting is to please link us direct to the specific report/evaluation ?

Sure, http://www.siffer...bmit.pdf

Weed it and reap :)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2014
Until they develop massive grid storage technology to buffer the output, it is either coal or fission

Grids based on all renewables can be stable - with minimal buffer capacity.
http://www.fraunh...ant.html
This does not require high tech, but mainly smart software (and India and China certainly have their share of smart software engineers...or they can just download the Kombikraftwerk software).

Expanding their production with the old types of powerplants will just let prices for the fuels skyrocket...and nuclear/coal aren't even competitive right now (without massive hidden subsidies).
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
"and nuclear/coal aren't even competitive right now (without massive hidden subsidies)."

Now you are just being plain silly. The government regulates coal out of existence with costly regulations and then you claim that it needs subsidies to be competitive. Germany wrecked it's economy with overpriced solar and now regrets it.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
BTW Germany is burning coal now to make up for the nuclear reactors that they shut down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2014
much more likelier of some serious errorisms re radiator sensors
How would you know mikey? You haven't even bothered to look at the report. Fusion may not always involve radiation; see aneutronic and widom-larsen.

But the bigger question is: why are you commenting on something you know nothing about? Many very serious pros involved in this peer-reviewed round of testing and evaluating. Read the report and find fault with it instead of guessing and ass-uming.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2014
cordon off a couple hundred square kilometers
?? Most nuke plants are built near highly-populated areas.

An accident like Chernobyl will never happen again. Reactors like that no longer exist. The worst disaster the US saw, 3 mi island, caused no casualties and no relocations. Quit fear-mongering.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
BTW Germany is burning coal now to make up for the nuclear reactors that they shut down.

Renewables are projected to make up for the lack of nuclear by 2020

If you look at the actual numbers then the rise in coal usage is quite tame (brown and black bars in the image - representing brown and black coal respectively) as the majority of the shortage left by switching off nuclear powerplants is due to expanded use of renewables
http://de.wiktion...land.svg

If you look at the numbers for primary energy generation
http://de.wikiped...erbrauch
You will notice that the total sum over the various coal types has actually dropped (despite shutting down some nuclear powerplants).
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
n accident like Chernobyl will never happen again. Reactors like that no longer exist.

Yeah. That's what they said about reactors after the accident before that...and before that.

The weird thing about these unforeseen accidents is: they are unforeseen. You can only make calculations about likely failure times if you know all the variables (and some variables are just assumed - like that all building materials are up to spec...which they sometimes aren't, as the reports from the Belgian reactors show).

Now color me suspicious, but I'm not at all confident that mass producing reactors in any part of the world (least of all India or China) will lead to up-to-spec buildings every time. These countries, specifically, have a very bad history concerning quality control and/or corruption.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2014
before that and before that
-at which point you run out of accidents.

"There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity."
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
Anti you still have not addressed the fact that Germany has the highest electric rates in Europe due to renewable subsidies.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Anti you still have not addressed the fact that Germany has the highest electric rates in Europe due to renewable subsidies.

I addressed this several times. But here's the gist of it:
Coal subsidies to date: excess of 200bn EUR
Nuclear subsidies to date: Excess of 180bn EUR (subisdy in the first years of nuclear: in excess of 70ct/kWh (!) )
Renewable subsidies to date (all combined): Roughly 40bn EUR (current subisdy 6.4ct per kWh)

Renewables are already outsripping nuclear in its heyday when it comes to percentage of energy supplied (nuclear peaked at 22%). So you tell me which technology is the better bang for the subsidy-buck. (and remember: Renewables don't go 'bang', either...which is a bonus no money can buy)
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Perhaps you should mention the economy of Spain, the poster child for renewables, and how well it is doing.
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
some serious errorisms

lol, best to be avoidalistic when it comes to those analyticalities.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Ghost, even Fukushima could have been avoided or at least contained if someone had asked for international help. From what I have gathered, just a few megawatts of portable generating capacity could have kept the cooling systems working and avoided the whole problem.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2014
TheGhostofOtto1923 being simplistic & argumentative again
How would you know mikey? Not only did I study uni physics I worked in nucleonics.

TheGhostofOtto1923
You haven't even bothered to look at the report.
My comments were in relation to the post (only) here, thats WHY I asked for the link - doh !

TheGhostofOtto1923 doesnt understand "so much"
Fusion may not always involve radiation..
Point you miss is the 'fuel' contained other elements WHILST there was a claim of nil radiation, capisce - doh ?

U need education in physics, there's ALWAYS background radiation, to claim there is NIL is impossible as it would imply an isolated reaction changed environment outside the reaction at sensors to stop or negate background radiation or the more likely scenario is removing noise if so how ! as its probabilistic - doh !

Have just returned & will look at the link shortly - creep !

TheGhostofOtto1923 don't be Ass !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2014
Protoplasmix saw something telling
some serious errorisms
lol, best to be avoidalistic when it comes to those analyticalities.
Unfortunately this proves TheGhostofOtto1923 manipulates quotes - ie He's a bare faced LIAR & not a good one.

Sadly this is what gives TheGhostofOtto1923 & those like him a bad name, this time his hubris made him alter a quote in the SAME thread the comment was made - how stupid !!!

I understand from reading some of his additions he has done this before cross thread but not been caught, I certainly have lost patience with the creep. How stupid is it to complain I haven't read the report when I had to FIRST ask get the link - doh !

TheGhostofOtto1923 has lost it in so many ways & just confirms he prefers to argue without appreciating some are here to inspect, deduce & address failures of method which is sadly far too common.

TheGhostofOtto1923 even showed he imagines a video is better than a signed off report !
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2014
My comments were in relation to the post (only) here, thats WHY I asked for the link - doh !

TheGhostofOtto1923 doesnt understand "so much"
-This is only because you are too lazy to review the entire thread. Links already posted.
Unfortunately this proves TheGhostofOtto1923 manipulates quotes - ie He's a bare faced LIAR & not a good one
Uh no mikey my iphone is not letting me copy/paste. But obviously it was an opportunity to make fun of you.
TheGhostofOtto1923 even showed he imagines a video is better than a signed off report
But rossis company produced a 'signed off (?) report' and you did not bother to read it before commenting on it. So what good is requesting a 'signed off report' to U then? Mikey?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2014
Ghost, even Fukushima could have been avoided or at least contained if someone had asked for international help. From what I have gathered, just a few megawatts of portable generating capacity could have kept the cooling systems working and avoided the whole problem.
-Or if they had put the backup generators somewhere besides in the basement. Or if they had built the seawall high enough to counter anticipated tsunami heights. Even so

"The 10-km alienation zone around the Fukushima nuclear power plant is likely to be fit for human habitation in about five years, a Russian nuclear expert said on Friday.

"Pollution levels are low, and such territories are easy to rehabilitate," said Rafael Arutyunyan, first deputy director of Russia's nuclear safety problems institute. "I think it will be clear in five years, and people will live there."
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
Yet another fusion device. Has "tomorrow" finally come?

http://pjmedia.co.../fusion/
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2014
I don't know that I disagree with any of that, AA, but the Chinese and Indians are about to build a large number of generation plants.
They're a bit like the US and Russians in that repect: They have land to spare/throw away. If a plant goes boom then they'll just cordon off a couple of hundred square kilometers and forget about it (and ignore any ramifications to their population due to widespread contamination...much like the US and Russia, really).
No one died at TMI.
So, should they build coal plants, or nuclear plants?
India and China have abundant potential for solar wind and wave. It's not "either fission or coal". That's a false dichotomy.
Unfortunately, solar wind and wave are not sufficient for their needs. They will build more plants. What kind do you prefer?
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Sadly this is what gives TheGhostofOtto1923 & those like him a bad name

Actually his stylisticality with the sublimified graciosity is deservatorily worth your gratitudinal thankification, all opinionality asidely notwithforeshadowing. If I may say so.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
Unfortunately, solar wind and wave are not sufficient for their needs. They will build more plants. What kind do you prefer?

Check out Solar Wind Energy Tower Demonstration – works day/night all year round in suitable areas.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
But they'll still need something more than renewables.

You're not addressing the problem, you're avoiding talking about it.
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2014
An interesting development not yet reported by Phys.org here:

http://www.reuter...20141015
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
It doesn't appear they have any breakthrough. It's more Lockheed announcing "we're working on fusion and maybe we'll have something real soon now. In a few short decades. Yeahsureyoubetcha." Just more hype.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
No one died at TMI.

I was referring to what would happen when (not if) such a plant has a Fukushima or Chernobyl type accident. The US can afford to ignore loss of people and land. Most developed nations cannot.

Unfortunately, solar wind and wave are not sufficient for their needs.

A Fraction of the Gobi desert in China could deliver enough energy to power the world with PV alone.
China is big. India is big (and India has copious amounts of coastline, too.). They could go renewable any time they wanted to. Problem is more that no one makes much money off building renewables - while building large nuclear plants is big business (because you can get to a point where you can force governments to throw worse money after bad to get it finished at all).
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Problem is more that no one makes much money off building renewables

Excellent point – highlighting the root of many problems – that being the erroneous belief that "making money" is the engine of prosperity when in fact it is science that has always been the engine of prosperity. The 'invisible hand of the market' is form of state religion, is woefully unscientific in practice, and is the root of most of the problems humanity faces these days. The planet is awash in energy.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
"that being the erroneous belief that "making money" is the engine of prosperity when in fact it is science that has always been the engine of prosperity."

One needs to make a profit in order to pay employees and keep the plant going. Having the government provide the profit only masks the problem with the business model. This can be helpful in the beginning of a new technology but it will hurt everyone if taken to extremes.

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
One needs to make a profit in order to pay employees and keep the plant going

What employees? The plant is fully automated and runs off the energy supplied for free (in various forms) by the sun. The plant's equipment is automatically replaced/refurbished according to respective MTBF schedules. Any monetarist obfuscation added to that process is an unnecessary burden at best and sociopathic tyranny/oppression at worst. Enough of this digging coal while not being compensated sufficiently to afford food from the company store already, MR166, as dyin' slow in poverty ain't much of a livin'. Humanity deserves better.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
No one died at TMI.
I was referring to what would happen when (not if) such a plant has a Fukushima or Chernobyl type accident. The US can afford to ignore loss of people and land. Most developed nations cannot.
They can't afford global warming either.

Also, it's never happened in the US or Europe.

Unfortunately, solar wind and wave are not sufficient for their needs.
A Fraction of the Gobi desert in China could deliver enough energy to power the world with PV alone.
I'd like to see that substantiated.

China is big. India is big (and India has copious amounts of coastline, too.). They could go renewable any time they wanted to. Problem is more that no one makes much money off building renewables - while building large nuclear plants is big business (because you can get to a point where you can force governments to throw worse money after bad to get it finished at all).
Problem is they don't see why they should and no one can make them.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
One other thing to keep in mind, AA: China is not a democracy, and although there are greedy people there, they always keep in mind that there are a billion people who will come and kill them if they get scared enough. Nuclear weapons won't help against that. And their money will be worthless if they're dead. So they're reconsidering their plan to build a bunch of coal plants. So there is hope. What we need to do is convince them not to. It doesn't matter what else they build (other than a bunch of natural gas plants- that also would be disastrous, though less so than coal). Renewables are fine; nukes are fine; with any luck they'll also have fusion to do it with fairly shortly. But whatever it is, it must not be coal.

Da Reality is money.
Da Reality is Da Money. If you're gonna say it, say it right, finn.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
What employees?
The plant's equipment is automatically replaced/refurbished according to respective MTBF schedules.
That's "what employees."

Any monetarist obfuscation added to that process is an unnecessary burden at best and sociopathic tyranny/oppression at worst.
Worse than Chernobyl?

Enough of this digging coal while not being compensated sufficiently to afford food from the company store already, MR166, as dyin' slow in poverty ain't much of a livin'. Humanity deserves better.
While that's true, it's also true that people need work to eat and people who want to make money provide work. As long as there's oversight to prevent them making an unfair profit and starving their employees, it works OK. The problem is, they're using propaganda to convince those same people that they'll lose their unsatisfying, unremunerative jobs if they try to make them behave like grownups. They've got them voting against their own interests by scaring them.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
"that being the erroneous belief that "making money" is the engine of prosperity when in fact it is science that has always been the engine of prosperity."

One needs to make a profit in order to pay employees and keep the plant going. Having the government provide the profit only masks the problem with the business model. This can be helpful in the beginning of a new technology but it will hurt everyone if taken to extremes.
Unfortunately, the "extremes" appear to be people starving in the streets due to greedy unrestrained capitalism without oversight. Not to mention not having a cadre of properly trained engineers who have the ethics to walk out when the bean counters start trying to put off required upgrades and repairs. A couple of those and there won't be any more putting off.

Nuclear plant engineering should be like being in the Army. And the command shouldn't be in the hands of capitalists. Oversight, oversight, oversight. Otherwise, mess, mess, mess.
MR166
3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
"What employees? The plant is fully automated and runs off the energy supplied for free (in various forms) by the sun. The plant's equipment is automatically replaced/refurbished according to respective MTBF schedules."

Ah what a brilliant idea, no employees. Just give away for free the products that it produces. Of course the government will build this plant for the benefit of it's citizens. Even China and Russia have abandoned this pipe dream.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
Well, technically it's not currently anywhere near cost-effective to have robots and automation try to maintain a power plant. You have to have people. We are a long way from making any kind of automation that can do what a trained engineer can do easily, and even further away from doing so cost-effectively. It is, indeed, a pipe-dream.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
As far as the wisdom of governments go the US cannot even figure out that is is wise to limit flights from Ebola infected countries in order to limit the spread of the virus. They cannot even advise a nurse with a fever that treated and Ebola patient not to fly. BTW they did say that it is ok to drive there. Lets hope that she does not need to get gas on the way. Lets hope it is not a rental car that she is driving.

This is truly "Hope and Change"!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
...and you'd be whining about totalitarianism if they stopped YOU from flying. It would be another Demorat gummint cunspirisy to deprive you of your freedumbs. And you'd be tagging it with your same "Hope and Change" BS.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
Da it is obvious that you cannot overcome your political biases when analyzing facts. Perhaps this will help. If George Bush was still president what would you think of the CDC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
I would blame the Congress for not providing the CDC enough money to do something about it.

Which is exactly what I'm doing now.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
So Schneib exactly how much money does it take to limit flights from the infected countries. You are a true liberal, it is always someone else's fault when your policies fail. The US can give 3 billion dollars to Palestine but does not have enough money to protect it's own citizens.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
So you just want to let them die?

Typical Libertardian attitude, as demonstrated by a bunch of you assholes on national TV. "Let them die." Quote unquote. https://www.youtu...0VSN1_T4

If it affects you, screw the brown people, let them die.

Disgusting. What about when it's YOUR turn to do the dying? Let them whine, says I. Stuff your money you saved in your... kit bag.

You are a true Libertardian mefirster. A trillion bucks for Big Oil and not a nickel for brown people.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
I hope you die of painful cancer and they deny you pain medication because you tried to declare bankruptcy.

Or, real comeuppance, you catch Ebola and get to watch your flesh slough off your bones while you scream in agony because you didn't want to pay to contain it.

What a self-centered disgusting denier you are.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
That's "what employees"

No, reread the sentence without omitting "automatically" and reconsider the actual point: technological innovation is proceeding at an accelerated pace in terms of eliminating the need for human labor, and is greatly in excess of the rate at which humans can be retrained/reeducated. Couple that with the fact that the "monetary cost" of education actually prohibits the remedy of retraining anyway. As though imparting additional new knowledge is somehow labor intensive or difficult to do. The old system only works "OK" for tyrants and populations of 'happy idiots', who, 'when the mornin' light comes streamin' in, get up and do it again... Say a prayer for the pretender', Da Schneib, 'he knows all his hopes and dreams begin and end there.'
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
Not fast enough for that. We're a long, long way from machines that can think like a person. And if an emergency happens, I want someone whose life is on the line just like mine in charge, not a machine.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
As far as monetary cost, society recoups the cost of education many times over. Bucky Fuller suggested that patents should be government property, and should pay for education; any left over goes to the inventor. It would be a highly profitable venture for the inventor and for society at large, and would more than pay the costs of full education through college for everyone with money left over (for the inventors). He produced the figures to support it, too. And today, it would be even more true. Let the companies who want to make money in the marketplace from these ideas pay for the education to develop them. Seems fair to me.

Frankly, I program computers for a living and I would never leave one in charge of a nuclear plant. I can't imagine one that I would trust to jump the right way. I can say that of some people, too... but there are people I'd trust with it. There aren't any machines I would.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
Between
We're a long, long way from machines that can think like a person

and
Frankly, I program computers for a living

it's rather amazing you don't recognize the efficacy of encoding a human thought process onto a bit of hardware that subsequently mimics the specific process and produces error-free results every time. You're conflating "thinking" with "sentience", and encoding the latter is absolutely unnecessary as far as ending modern human slavery using mechanization. The way is not long at all, certainly not long, long; in fact the way already exists.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
And what's it do in an emergency? What is the priority, the plant, or the people? Who decides that? The beancounters? Or the engineers?

My experience is it's the beancounters. Which is unacceptable.

Automation is nice, but it's no replacement for judgment. Nor, for that matter, for ethics.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is...
That said, however, it is inevitable that the simpler, more effective design of something will produce results that stagger the imagination...
We are. as a species, enjoying the fruits of that process of simplification...
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Right Da, it is cold and heartless not to let everyone into the US at will. Only bigots would think of enforcing immigration rules. Never mind that this has the possibility of being the biggest plague of modern times, it is "unkind" to exclude potential plague carriers until Ebola is under control.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Straw man detected again.

Lying detected again.

It won't ever be under control if we stand around and do nothing because you're too f'ing cheap and racist to pay to save brown people.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Straw man detected again.

Lying detected again.

It won't ever be under control if we stand around and do nothing because you're too f'ing cheap and racist to pay to save brown people.

What's with the "brown people" thing? They're PEOPLE....
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Viruses evolve, man. What if ebola evolves to be airborne? What then? The more times they replicate, the more times they come up with a new genetic structure; that's their survival mechanism. Just like 'flu.

Flu (H1N1) caused the last pandemic ever (2009), and two of the last three (1918). The second-to-last pandemic was HIV. Do you really want to see an ebola pandemic? Keep pretending you can fix it by excluding brown people from your white Amurca. And keep pretending you don't have to send any help.

You are playing with fire, dude.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Oct 16, 2014
Straw man detected again.

Lying detected again.

It won't ever be under control if we stand around and do nothing because you're too f'ing cheap and racist to pay to save brown people.

What's with the "brown people" thing? They're PEOPLE....
Yep. People who get no medical help because idiots like this guy think "let them die" and "it's not my problem" and then blame it on Obama.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Da, how does letting the virus spread indiscriminately to all nations help save one life?????

The US has sent drugs and help to Africa to help contain the problem. Please show me where I said anything at all about limiting spending on containment or the cure! It is you that has turned this into a race issue.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
And what's it do in an emergency?
Fail safely.
What is the priority, the plant, or the people?
The people, always.
Who decides that?
The people, democratically, equitably and scientifically.
The beancounters?
Perhaps retrained in biology to count species, populations, etc. but they should be free to choose their own direction in continuing education.
Or the engineers?
Their decisions are based on science and experience, and the world needs more of them (both scientists and engineers), and their integrity and professionalism in the face of extreme corruption (e.g., Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and climate science to name a couple areas) is an example for all with respect to ethics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2014
Please show me where I said anything at all about limiting spending on containment or the cure! It is you that has turned this into a race issue.
So Schneib exactly how much money does it take to limit flights from the infected countries. You are a true liberal, it is always someone else's fault when your policies fail. The US can give 3 billion dollars to Palestine but does not have enough money to protect it's own citizens.
We done here?

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
And what's it do in an emergency?
Fail safely.
Not good enough. No programmer can foresee all potential failure modes; we're limited by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Computer programs are not sufficiently sophisticated to deal with nuclear emergencies. If you examine the license documents closely, you will find that both Microsoft and Oracle limit their responsibility if you choose to use their software for nuclear plant control, or for critical medical care. You do so at your own risk, and against their express recommendation.

Having worked for one of them, I believe this is ethical and correct. Personally, I think you're nuts, even thinking of allowing computer programs to run an energy plant of any description. The possibilities for an accident are unacceptable; you'll never get insurance.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
Consider this carefully: a computer under the influence of nuclear radiation may take *any action it is programmed for and many that it is not*. Its actions are completely unpredictable. Do you wish to give this computer control over the control rods in the reactor, or over the coolant loop, when there is a possibility that it could take random actions with these controls if there is an accident? Humans die, but they don't start doing random stuff; they just fall over, and don't unstoppably drain the coolant loop and pull the control rods all the way out.

Worse yet, computers do stuff like this under the influence of mere heat. I've seen a graphics card overheat, trash the monitor, and start popping chips off the board when it got too hot because a fan failed; I've seen a SCSI controller command the drive to format itself for the same reason, and seen random behavior by CPUs that had been damaged by an air conditioner fail.

No way, man.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
If Lerner is correct and is successful in creating fusion with his device it falsifies the standard theory MHD models of the sun
@cd (and the rest of the eu acolytes)

first reply from the author states he is in conferences giving presentations and cannot answer with a more detailed description till next week, but states this
In short, MHD is a well established theory and works exceptionally well for fusion devices. It it by no means a complete theory, no set of equations is, but it does its job well within it's known assumptions and limits
so it appears that you might have jumped the gun with your assumptions
if the author is saying MHD works exceptionally well for fusion devices, then even that simple answer is enough to show where your assumptions about MHD are wrong (imagine that)

I will post the replies he gives in detail when he answers
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
Personally, I think you're nuts, even thinking of allowing computer programs to run an energy plant of any description

Well, do some research on "stuxnet". And then maybe check on fly-by-wire systems comparing the record of aviation safety with, say, just standing on the ground in a thunderstorm. And after obtaining a clue or two about the field in which you derive your living, maybe then you can offer some psychoanalysis that is meaningful instead of offensive.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2014
a fraction of the gobi desert could power the entire world with pv
-Aa I thought you were some sort of electrical engineer or something?

"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 km (4,300 mi). For alternating current it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi), though all transmission lines in use today are substantially shorter than this."

-How would you propose to transport this electricity worldwide?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
In short, MHD is a well established theory and works exceptionally well for fusion devices. It it by no means a complete theory, no set of equations is, but it does its job well within it's known assumptions and limits

so it appears that you might have jumped the gun with your assumptions
if the author is saying MHD works exceptionally well for fusion devices, then even that simple answer is enough to show where your assumptions about MHD are wrong (imagine that)


Yep, that's why 60 years on and billions of dollars later there is no functional fusion power plants. They can continue down their path while Lerner takes his own, and makes more progress than they in a fraction of the time and funds.

'The Race is On' http://www.youtub...qYs7T7hY ; we'll see who "wins". If it's the particle/circuit model championed by Alfven, et al. then it's back to the drawing board for the astrophysicists, among others.


Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
-How would you propose to transport this electricity worldwide?

High-temp superconductors, lossless transmission. Or maybe wireless, using microwave or laser …? AA may have other suggestions.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
Not good enough. No programmer can foresee all potential failure modes; we're limited by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Consider this carefully: a computer under the influence of nuclear radiation may take *any action it is programmed for and many that it is not*. Its actions are completely unpredictable.


Nirvana fallacy and one-sided assesment.

There are means to harden computer systems against radiation, such as simply encasing them in enough lead, and they can be built with multiple redundancy and error detection and correction. The Space Shuttle for example had five computers with four running and a fifth for spare, and the four computers - because they were operating in a high radiation environment of space - had to vote to make decisions.

It's very unlikely that two of the four computers would be corrupted in exactly the same way to return the same wrong command, and even in that case they'd just turn on the fifth computer and ask for a majority opinion.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014

Renewables are already outsripping nuclear in its heyday when it comes to percentage of energy supplied (nuclear peaked at 22%). So you tell me which technology is the better bang for the subsidy-buck.


You're making a grossly misleading comparison.

You're counting biomass, hydroelectric power and other sources in your "renewables", which account for the majority of energy produced, while the majority of subsidies go to wind power and solar power that aren't pulling their weight.

In reality, in the US and elsewhere, nuclear power recieves about 20 times less subsidies per unit energy than wind and solar power. wind and solar power produce neglible amounts of energy per subsidy dollar, and haven't much improved in the 20 years they've been subsidized. Quite the opposite.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
The subsidy situation in Germany is roughly as follows.

Biomass and hydroelectric power produce 44% of the renewable energy mix, wind power makes 40%, photovoltaics produce 16%. Other forms of renewable energy fit within the rounding errors because they're so neglible.

Solar power gets 60% of the subsidies. Wind power gets 20%, and biomass gets 13% of the subsidies. Geothermal power gets nearly 5% although it doesn't really even show up in the grid. Hydropower gets practically nothing.

So most of the subsidy euros go towards the types of energy that produce the least energy.

Is that a good investment?
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2014
Personally, I think you're nuts, even thinking of allowing computer programs to run an energy plant of any description
Well, do some research on "stuxnet". And then maybe check on fly-by-wire systems comparing the record of aviation safety with, say, just standing on the ground in a thunderstorm. And after obtaining a clue or two about the field in which you derive your living, maybe then you can offer some psychoanalysis that is meaningful instead of offensive.
I wasn't trying to be offensive.

The computer programs stuxnet was aimed at weren't running a nuclear plant; they were running a refining operation, and stuxnet targets the programmable logic controllers, not the computer.

Fly-by-wire is not a case where there is no human controlling the aircraft, even in drones. All the FBW program does is translate human control actions into appropriate motions of the control surfaces when they are of unusual character.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2014
Nirvana fallacy
Link please?

and one-sided assesment.
Perhaps; however, having seen idiots from marketing screw up numerous software projects, my faith in the efficacy of software is rather diminished from my original bright-eyed enthusiasm.

No software engineer goes to work and says, "Today I'm going to write a bug."

There are means to harden computer systems against radiation, such as simply encasing them in enough lead, and they can be built with multiple redundancy and error detection and correction.
What about heat?

It's very unlikely that two of the four computers would be corrupted in exactly the same way to return the same wrong command, and even in that case they'd just turn on the fifth computer and ask for a majority opinion.
What if all five are corrupted and each one gives a different answer?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2014
Hi Guys. Haven't much time, so briefly...

The best way to allow for computer-control malfunction/failure due to heat/radiation, flood or whatever, is to include a physical pathway wherein all computer output 'signals' depend on getting through a physical 'gateway' which may be in the simple forms of 'fuses' and such-like 'governers' etc which respond to said heat/radiation etc extremes by cutting off the computers altogether. At which point, if the computer controls were 'always on' type whose instructions were necessary for the reactor components/system to remain functional, then when said computer instructions are cut off altogether, the reactor/system design will enter a 'self-shutdown mode' which is always 'pending', but kept from executing while main computers are still connected/actively 'inhibiting' same. If heat/radiation damage sufficient to affect computers, these separate 'circuits' will have already been 'physically affected' to trigger fixed hardwired shutdown actions.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2014
Power stations of all types store enormous amounts of heat.

Heat doesn't just "stop." It's a conserved physical quantity.

Fukushima eventually exploded and released radiation not because of the core, but because of the stored nuclear waste; when the power shut off, the waste kept generating heat, and eventually hydrogen, which exploded and blew the roofs off the containments. All the tricky programming in the world wouldn't have stopped it; but if they had asked for help, they'd've had an immediate response which would have provided power for the waste cooling pumps and prevented the disaster. You can't fix that with programming.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2014
See, rc, this is where you usually fail; you imagine the heat just "disappearing" somewhere.

It doesn't. This is another of those brute physical facts you keep tripping over.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
stuxnet targets the programmable logic controllers, not the computer.

Sorry, could you repeat that – targets the w-h-a-t logic controllers? When I said, "encoded onto bits of hardware" I had in mind computers, microcontrollers, PLCs, and even FPGAs. Standard practice in industry, Da Schneib, pretty much all of them. So you read Eikka's post about the space shuttle's programmable hardware, I see. Have you checked on the hardware that the Curiosity rover uses for all its routine "thinking" while performing science? You realize that the time lag in communicating with Curiosity requires that the rover "think for itself" pretty much full time within a specific set of mission parameters? Boatload of moisture there behind those audio receivers, mr. programmer :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
stuxnet targets the programmable logic controllers, not the computer.

Sorry, could you repeat that – targets the w-h-a-t logic controllers? When I said, "encoded onto bits of hardware" I had in mind computers, microcontrollers, PLCs, and even FPGAs. Standard practice in industry, Da Schneib, pretty much all of them. So you read Eikka's post about the space shuttle's programmable hardware, I see. Have you checked on the hardware that the Curiosity rover uses for all its routine "thinking" while performing science? You realize that the time lag in communicating with Curiosity requires that the rover "think for itself" pretty much full time within a specific set of mission parameters? Boatload of moisture there behind those audio receivers, mr. programmer :)
You keep coming up with examples that have nothing to do with power plants.

Clutch at straws much?

Just askin'.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to comment on the fact you confused reactors with enrichment equipment.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
What if all five are corrupted and each one gives a different answer?


Then they each vote each other out and the system is rebooted. That however is one in a billion years scenario.

Or the system fails, but that possibility has to be taken into account by passive safety features. Watchdog and dead-man mechanisms are commonplace in industry.

Link please?


It's on wikipedia. Nirvana fallacy is rejecting a good working solution because it is not the perfect solution that happens to be impossible.

You keep coming up with examples that have nothing to do with power plants.


It's called an analog. You don't need to have an exact duplicate of a situation to have similiar problems and solutions.

the waste kept generating heat, and eventually hydrogen


The waste heat didn't create the hydrogen. It was zirconium that acted as an unintended catalyst.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
What if all five are corrupted and each one gives a different answer?


Then they each vote each other out and the system is rebooted.
While the plant melts.

Or the system fails, but that possibility has to be taken into account by passive safety features. Watchdog and dead-man mechanisms are commonplace in industry.
And won't work for a system that contains enough heat to melt itself.

Link please?


It's on wikipedia. Nirvana fallacy is rejecting a good working solution because it is not the perfect solution that happens to be impossible.
I have a good working solution: a person. Cheap, too, compared to the alternative you're defending.

contd
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
You keep coming up with examples that have nothing to do with power plants.
It's called an analog. You don't need to have an exact duplicate of a situation to have similiar problems and solutions.
Unfortunately these analogs fail to capture the salient features of the problem, instead avoiding it by changing the parameters. This is usually called "changing the subject."

the waste kept generating heat, and eventually hydrogen
The waste heat didn't create the hydrogen. It was zirconium that acted as an unintended catalyst.
I never said the heat created the hydrogen. I said the waste created it. Did you misread?

Also, where was the hydrogen going when the power was on? Oh, wait, it was cool so the zirconium cladding wasn't exposed to steam, and wasn't generating hydrogen. And the zirconium is part of the waste. So saying it was either the waste, or the heat, would be correct.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
Finally, Eikka, you never addressed the fact that no automation could have prevented Fukushima; only human actions could have. Which is, after all, the point I was making.

And I never said "waste heat." I'm pretty sure this was a misread.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2014
-How would you propose to transport this electricity worldwide?

High-temp superconductors, lossless transmission. Or maybe wireless, using microwave or laser …? AA may have other suggestions.
Yah maybe Germans can afford that stuff. Americans can only afford to expend people and land. And fighter planes.

Hey remember Deutschmarks? They were cool. I used to make jewelry out of them.
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2014
You keep coming up with examples that have nothing to do with power plants.

Clutch at straws much?

Just askin'

Actually, if you reread my original statement you'll see it referred to a plant in general, intended to cover production, manufacturing, distribution, etc. You assumed it applied specifically to power generation, and it does. Then you said that's nuts and I showed you it most certainly isn't, and provided plenty of good examples showing it's not only not nuts, but is in fact standard practice. So basically I clutched at straws with about as much vim and vigor as you appear to have clutched at reading comprehension. And rather than just acknowledge the 'brutal facts', you keep attacking the messenger. Much.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2014
No, actually you proposed running a high-temperature solar plant without humans.

And that's nuts given the present state of computer science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2014
Finally, Eikka, you never addressed the fact that no automation could have prevented Fukushima; only human actions could have. Which is, after all, the point I was making
Sure it could have. If the backup generators hadn't been in the basement they wouldn't have flooded out and would have automatically provided power for cooling until more fuel could be delivered. Ditto with redundant power lines.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
So the backup generators magically levitate out of the water?

Neato. How do you propose to have them do that, exactly, in the middle of a disaster?

Because, actually, the humans would have had to move the generators, or ask for more generators after the accident started. You're going to preprogram that? What about the next unforeseen problem?

A human can react to an unforeseen problem. A computer program can't; it can only react to foreseen problems. That is the nature of humans, and of computer programs.
Protoplasmix
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
No, actually you proposed running a high-temperature solar plant without humans.

And that's nuts given the present state of computer science.

Let's recap, shall we Da Schneib?

AA: can't make much money from renewables
Me: good point, money's not the engine of prosperity, science is.
MR166: "One needs to make a profit in order to pay employees and keep the plant going. Having the government provide the profit only masks the problem with the business model."
Me: Not if the plant's automated/mechanized [subject = business model, actually].
You: No way, impossible, crazy. Because I program computers for a living. And Godel's theorem.
Me: Way. We've been doing it for decades, good safety records across the board. Get a clue.
Eikka: Way. Space shuttle.
You: Proto's a crazy straw clutcher, clutching the straws.
Me: I'm arguing with a guy who doesn't even know how to spell Schnieb
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2014
Cute but wrong in so many ways.

For example, write a computer program that can react to the unexpected. Good luck.

So, troll much?

Just askin'.

Oh, and reported. Have a nice day. Go spray your urine someplace else, thanks, see ya wouldn't wanna be ya.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2014
I love it when they start trolling. Means they're out of logical arguments and lies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
generators magically levitate
What, are you being dense on purpose schnipe? They were designed and installed in the wrong place.

"The greatest problem was the location of most of the water-cooled generators in the basement of a poorly-protected turbine building. Fukushima Dai-ichi was equipped with 13 emergency diesel generators, one of which was out of service for maintenance on March 11. TEPCO had three air-cooled backup generators located 10−13 metres above sea level. In addition there were the 10 water-cooled generators.

After the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, only one of the air-cooled generators, which sat 13 metres above sea level, was still functional after the tsunami (it helped protect reactors #5 and #6). The other two air-cooled generators were rendered useless by the tsunami despite being 10 metres above sea level. All 10 of the plant's water-cooled generators were inundated by the tsunami."

-Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
-And just in case you still don't understand the logistics, these generators weigh many tons, are anchored to concrete pads, and are connected to building systems. They cannot be moved without engineering design and construction contracts.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
For example, write a computer program that can react to the unexpected. Good luck.

Sub Evaluate()
_x = SensorData
_If Conditions(x) < ExpectedLowerbound Or Conditions(x) > ExpectedUpperbound Then
__OptionsList() = ReactTo(Conditions(x))
_Else
__OptionsList() = "All is well", "No reaction required"
_End If
Evaluate = OptionsList()
End Sub

Function ReactTo(y As Integer) As String
_If y > 0 Then
__ReactTo() = "Unexpected excess encountered"
_Else
__ReactTo() = "Unexpected Da Ficiency encountered"
_End If
End Function
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2014
So that's going to fix it when the tsunami wipes out your generators, Proto?

Hey, maybe the humans can't fix that either... but they've got a better chance than a computer program. Ultimately, ReactTo() has to scream for help, which is what you have it doing by printing "Unexpected () encountered." Makes my point precisely.

If there's nobody there your plant is hosed while the computer program waits for someone to do something.

generators magically levitate
What, are you being dense on purpose schnipe? They were designed and installed in the wrong place.
...which a computer program can't fix. Exactly my point, Ghost.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2014
Don't get me wrong, automation is a Good Thing, and tricky programs make it work pretty well, most of the time. But the time it's most likely to fail is exactly when the emergency comes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2014
Exactly my point, Ghost
No, your point was about some misperception that there were a few portable generators sitting in a basement that a crack team of operators could quickly relocate.

Engineers located them in the wrong place. They were designed to operate automatically in case they were needed, but couldnt because they were under water.

Computer programs cant compensate for human error. Usually.

"The utility that owns the Fukushima nuclear plant has admitted that it failed to take proper safety measures that could have prevented the meltdowns triggered by the tragic earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan in March 2011.

"The tsunami knocked out emergency generators that powered the cooling system at the Fukushima-Daiichi reactors, causing three of them to melt down.

"In a damning internal report available on its website, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) bluntly confesses that "the problem was that preparations were not made in advance."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
And BTW the other 2 disasters were caused by human error complicated by poor engineering design (human error)

"Critical human factors and user interface engineering problems were revealed in the investigation of the [TMI] reactor control system's user interface. Despite the valve being stuck open, a light on the control panel indicated that the valve was closed. In fact the light did not indicate the position of the valve, only the status of the solenoid being powered or not, thus giving false evidence of a closed valve. As a result, the operators did not correctly diagnose the problem for several hours."

"MOSCOW — A series of six human errors committed during testing at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant led to the April 26 accident that has claimed 31 lives, Soviet officials said yesterday... Experts state that if at least one violation out of the six had been removed, it wouldn't have happened"

-Humans are no longer qualified to operate the machines they are building.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Exactly my point, Ghost
No, your point was about some misperception that there were a few portable generators sitting in a basement that a crack team of operators could quickly relocate.
Straw man fallacy detected.
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
So that's going to fix it when the tsunami wipes out your generators, Proto?

It would act to prevent it. If the system was unable to correct or mitigate the unexpected excessive moisture condition at the location where the backup equipment was stored, it would secure, cover, protect or otherwise relocate the at-risk equipment. You wanted to see code for reacting to the unexpected. Not shown are routines like Main, DeepEval, ActionList, ActionPlan and others, for "fixing it".
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Prevent what? The tsunami? The beancounters who decided not to spend money on setting up emergency equipment properly? They'd've ignored the program just like they ignored the reality that a tsunami could wipe them out.

Good luck with that. I'd rather see humans trying to solve those problems, not computer programs. Humans are fallible, but computer programs are inflexible.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
One day we will make computer programs that are flexible enough; but by the time we do, it will be a serious question whether unplugging the computer is murder. It's not a matter of power; we're within an order of magnitude of the power of a human brain with current clusters, in fact they're more powerful than a cat or dog brain.

The deficiency is in the programming. Human brains run 23rd generation programs; we're up to coding 4th or 5th generation programs. We've got a long way to go, we'll probably initially require a great deal more power than a human brain, due to our lack of knowledge about the human mind algorithms, and making them as efficient as a human mind is well beyond our capabilities at present. And the limitation is software, not hardware.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
See, rc, ...you imagine the heat just "disappearing" somewhere. It doesn't. This is another of those brute physical facts
Will you please stop with your strawman/opinion-as-brutal-fact tactics? You are the one implying any 'disappearing heat'. I said no such thing.

As for any human backup, that's what all automated systems have final resort to when automatics fail.

But even in your own argument, you failed to consider that the human element failed when siting the back-up generators. Even worse, your humans failed to call in urgent assistance that could have avoided the Fukushima disaster.

Maybe an automated system which would ALSO call automatically for assistance from a CENTRAL AGENCY and bypass local company employees (who failed in this case) would have got the assistance immediately?

That would be another advantage of taking 'decisions/actions' out of the hands of FALLIBLE/SELF-INTERESTED 'set' of humans.

Consider everything!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
Well,
As for any human backup, that's what all automated systems have final resort to when automatics fail
is my point.

What the humans did, and how they did it wrong, is immaterial to the efficacy of the automation. The automation could not have solved those problems, and that's due to its limitations.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Let's take TMI as an example.

They took hours to figure out that the state of the valve was being indicated by the current sent to the solenoid that operated the valve, not the actual state of the valve.

This is exactly the sort of programming problem that makes software fail in the presence of unexpected conditions, such as a stuck valve. Predicting this on the part of a programmer is impossible, unless they point it out to the marketing idiots... who tell them not to bother programming for it because "it can never happen."

They stopped TMI from fully melting down and contaminating a large portion of New York State because there were humans on site who finally figured it out.

Automation couldn't have done that, because it wasn't programmed to deal with anything the programmers didn't foresee.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Well,
As for any human backup, that's what all automated systems have final resort to when automatics fail
is my point.

What the humans did, and how they did it wrong, is immaterial to the efficacy of the automation. The automation could not have solved those problems, and that's due to its limitations.

Was that your point? Then why not go for better and more failsafe design/computer systems in the first instance which remove the need for fallible humans to cause/exacerbate accidents? Like I said. Simple failsafe systems can be integrated to allow for computer failure and still prevent disaster by pre-designed 'failure modes' which are 'safe' by design. For example, solar mirrors can automatically swing to pre-set different-from-its-neighbour orientation if 'active' computer controls fail and inhibitor-removal safe-fail-pathway kicks in by default.

ie, include computers, failsafe systems, later human involvement, as a whole, not as afterthoughts.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Here's a more useful suggestion: how about we let the nuclear engineers run the nuclear plant without interference from bean counters? They'll run it as efficiently as they can, and when they decide where to put the emergency generators they won't get flooded.

And if they do, they'll ask for more generators instead of counting beans. Or worrying about losing face.

Just sayin'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 19, 2014
This is exactly the sort of programming problem that makes software fail in the presence of unexpected conditions
No,

"In fact the light did not indicate the position of the valve, only the status of the solenoid being powered or not, thus giving false evidence of a closed valve. As a result, the operators did not correctly diagnose the problem for several hours."

The light was supposed to alert operators of your so-called 'unexpected condition'. The malfunction was not unexpected which was why the warning light was installed.

But in addition to the faulty engineering of the warning system (human error) and the inability of the operators to interpret it correctly (human error) the accident occurred.

The obvious answer was to correct the engineering of such automated systems. From the lessons learned report;

"Improvements in the safety monitoring and human factors enhancement of controls and control displays"

-Not more people, better instrumentation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 19, 2014
The automation could not have solved those problems, and that's due to its limitations
No, automation is used because people are incapable of acting quickly or dependably enough to prevent problems. Two improvements to soviet reactors after chernobyl:

1) SCRAM (rapid shut down) sequence reduced from 18 to 12 seconds.

2) Precautions against unauthorized access to emergency safety systems.

-IOW to further prevent humans from interfering with automated systems.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2014
Does this look like global warming to you????

http://weather.un...anom.gif
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2014
Hi MR166. :)
Does this look like global warming to you????

http://weather.un...anom.gif
Since you linked that, can you please explain what it 'looks like' to you? And also how it supposedly supports your stance?

I ask as an objective observer of this discussion/topic, mate. Back tomorrow to see your explanation. Thanks, MR166. :)
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2014
Reality I am just saying that NH sea temperatures look to be well below normal.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
The graph is useless; it uses the same colors for three different temperature anomaly ranges. No one can tell anything from that.

And this is the fusion thread, not the global warming thread.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
Da Schneib it seems that you are unable to understand the most basic of temperature maps and yet you feel qualified to comment on fusion power and AGW. Perhaps you can only understand data that supports your position.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
I understood it perfectly well; it's got a legend at the bottom. And that legend has three copies of the same set of colors.

You're apparently counting on something someone else did that you don't understand. And hand-waving when you get caught.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
"I understood it perfectly well; it's got a legend at the bottom. And that legend has three copies of the same set of colors."

Very good! Keep working on it and perhaps one day you will understand what it means.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2014
...and you can't explain it.

That means you are the one who doesn't understand it.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2014
MR166 still doesn't understand how to communicate
Does this look like global warming to you????
http://weather.un...anom.gif
Why MR166 r u causing perturbation and wasting time with a picture of unclear provenance with no detail ?

Why don't you avail yourself of this:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

And especially the RSS data, especially this link:-

http://www.remss....eratures

Context ?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2014
MR166 claimed
Reality I am just saying that NH sea temperatures look to be well below normal.
Where ?

Look to be means what - can you tell did u touch it, smell it, drop your elbow in it, know about instrumentation ?

Did you know you dropped the link ?

r u losing it MR166 ?

What is your hypothesis MR166 ?

That somehow the extra heat in the system due to the known thermal properties of CO2 are somehow evaporating - hey maybe through water vapour escaping the earth and um going to the moon or even mars, part of a new conspiracy you can now claim to get us all to go to mars by getting water there first ?

;-)

Learn MR166 to communicate rather smarter than you have, links, hypothesis, provenance, something tangible - don't be so boring like a fish in a barrel FFS, puh-lease !
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2014
Mike, NH sea temperatures look to be well below normal. Does that look like warming to you?

And if it does, please tell me how increasing CO2 levels and a warming earth could allow this to happen.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
MR, the only evidence you've presented that sea temperatures are "below normal" is a chart that you don't understand the meaning of (see the legend on the chart), that's from a company that has nothing to do with geophysics (Unisys). Looks like programmer propaganda with a cute cherry-picking twist to me.

Got something a little more compelling?

Just askin'.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2014
Da it is good to see that you are making progress in understanding the data. In fact you have determined that it is contrary to your beliefs "see the legend on the chart), that's from a company that has nothing to do with geophysics (Unisys). Looks like programmer propaganda with a cute cherry-picking twist to me." and have progressed all the way to the denial of data mode.

Keep up the good work!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
Da it is good to see that you are making progress in understanding the data
I understood it the first time I saw it, and you still don't.

MR, stop lying.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2014
@MR166
Why do you link maps that are almost unreadable? Here friend the same map from the NOAA. http://www.ncdc.n...anom.php Nobody know who they are, I know. But I am sure it will help you to clarify your position anyway.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2014
Nice, Techno. Thanks for the unobfuscated data.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.