Science

We don't talk about Science and Engineering enough here, which is a shame as we have a lot of smart people. So let us kick off a new discussion with a question:

How is the work of Dr Robert Bussard related to the HiPER project and why does the EMC2 Fusion corp only wany $200m compared to the billions that HiPER needs.

http://www.emc2fusion.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

http://www.hiper-laser.org/

From the EMC2 website:

Fusion R&D Phase 1 - Validate and review WB-6 results:
1.5 - 2 years / $3-5M

Fusion R&D Phase 2 - Design, build and test full scale 100 MW Fusion System:
5 years / $200M

Successful Phase 2 marks the end of fossil fuels

^^^ this reminds me of that episode of Blackadder II where Lord Percy tries to discover the secret of alchemy:

Percy: I intend to discover, this very afternoon, the secret of alchemy --
the hidden art of turning base things into gold.

Edmund: I see, and the fact that this secret has eluded the most intelligent
people since the dawn of time doesn't dampen your spirits at all.

Percy: Oh no; I like a challenge!

In other words, the EMC2 project seems a bit like wishful thinking. Meanwhile, given the cost of the LHC as comparison, the budget for the HIPER project seems a lot more realistic.

I first became aware of Bussard when he gave a talk to Google (see video above) about his work no that long before he died and he certainly didn't seem anything other than thoughtful and realistic, although I will admit that the EMC2 website is setting itself up for a fall and I have no idea of the calibre of the scientists behind it now.

What makes me suspicious is that:
a) Bussard argued that there was no need to build increasingly larger test models, that the US Government should fund a full scale fusor straight away. But why didn't he just build the test models, given that was the only way that he was realistically going to get funding?
b) EMC2 claim that Bussard was just about to prove that the fusor/polywell prototype would work when the government cut funding. My reading of the US government/DoD/DARPA/etc. is that they'll fund a lot of hare-brained schemes, especially as...
c) EMC2 only want $5 million to "evaluate" (whatever they mean by that) the data from the prototype. $5 million? How much has the US government spent on stupid fantasy garbage like remote viewing/gravity beams/etc.? How much did they spend on SDI? If there was any chance that Bussard's research was going to work out, it would have easily been allocated such a small budget.
d) There's no peer review of any of Bussard's work on his polywell/fusor design - bad sign

I did not know that last point.

I should clarify - public peer review, as the whole project was classified by the US Navy between 1994 and 2006. Presumably there were private reviews by US Navy scientists. Bussard did presentations summarising his work after that period.

What is wrong with this? Plenty of reasons to be sceptical.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2223/78/
http://venturebeat.com/2008/05/30/blacklight-power-claims-nearly-free-energy-from-water-is-this-for-real/
http://www.blacklightpower.com/introguide.shtml

It does sound more interesting than yer basic overunity device. But then so did cold fusion.

The wikipedia article breaks it down succinctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills

1) relies on the existence of a form of hydrogen atom that can't exist according to quantum theory.
2) the bits of Mills' book that actually make sense are allegedly plagiarised.
3) Mills' company has built a 50kW generator - so why not simply show it to the public?

Also, the generator relies on the generation of "dihydrino gas" - two hydrinos stuck together, which seems a bit "have your cake and eat it", since wouldn't the dihydrino molecule become hydrogen gas?

I stopped reading when they said it depends on an electron orbit of lower energy than 1s.

There are quite a few good science threads, btw Ed. Is this the cranky eco-science/cold-fusion thread?

(xpost) exactly - if there was a lower state than 1s, hydrogen would naturally exist in that lower state anyway, and we'd be calling that state "1s"

I guess the interesting part of the story is that the results have allegedly been reproduced and validated by a team at Rowan University. Again, as with cold fusion, I know scientists can be over-eager, and just as daft as the rest of us, but this would be bad news for the university and a death-blow to many careers if they turn out to have been hoodwinked, or even in on the scam. Of course stupidity or greed are more plausible explanations than having to rewrite the laws of physics - nevertheless this would have to involve colossal amounts of stupidity or greed.

Not quite. You can imagine a lower energy state that is only available under special conditions. There's no problem with that. The problem is this guy has one existing between a proton and an electron at room temperature.

(xp)

"Of course stupidity or greed are more plausible explanations than having to rewrite the laws of physics - nevertheless this would have to involve colossal amounts of stupidity or greed."

This seems like a pretty good argument against it rather than for it.

"Hydrino theory was developed by physician Randell L. Mills as a new model of the hydrogen atom that posits the existence of orbital states for the electron of a hydrogen atom with enhanced binding energy compared to the conventional ground state of hydrogen."

Isn't there something better to talk about on a thread called "Science"?

Maybe the thread could be renamed "Pseudo-Science Free Energy Cobblers"?

I still think it's a good thread though. It's good mental exercise to critically examine ideas and say "that is fantasy lala-land because XYZ", rather than simply shout "BALLS!!!"

Yah, it's not something I find interesting, but whatevs. Silly thread title though.

The title reflects the fact that we have never had much science on ILE.

Feel free to rename the thread as 'Science Cobblers'

live bbc dara o'brian thing whatever

dr helen czerski tho

Sugar Nutrition UK, which represents British sugar producers, dismissed the study. "Expert reviews of the scientific evidence are clear and in agreement – sugar does not cause diabetes," said Dr Glenys Jones, its nutrition communications manager.

:D

love how there has to be denial - like the poker-faced refusal to acknowledge even tenuous causality is hardwired into every food company rep upon initiation (itself a daunting ceremony involving a kidnapped paddyfield worker, two tons of silage and an exploding tomato)

also love that there's a group called Sugar Nutrition UK - glucose being the basic fuel for respiration in all living things. it's almost like they've gotta bluesky ways to make us want to be more alive than ever before

PATIENT EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-3-most-exciting-words-in-science-right-now-the-pitch-dropped/277919/

Possible Ig Nobel contender. Video helps its chances.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3737

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuG_CeEZV6w

VAT DE FUCK!

dr helen czerski tho

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Tuesday, 4 December 2012 22:17 (four years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dr helen czerski tho

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Tuesday, 4 December 2012 22:17 (four years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― brat_stuntin (darraghmac), Thursday, 9 March 2017 21:45 (eleven months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dr dmac thirsty morelike

are we discussing this room temperature superconductor anywhere

This one?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02401-2

Dias and his collaborators published a paper in Nature in October 20202 reporting that they had created a superconductor that worked at about 15 ºC under extreme pressure greater than one million atmospheres

brb finding a room with a pressure greater than one million atmospheres

no theres one today at normal pressure

havent link im on phone soz!

Erm. Maybe. Resistivity drops but no magnetisation changes?

I assumed the bump was because of UFOs.

My only question about this alleged "room temperature" (very scientific, that) superconductor is: what's in it for me?

pressure is force per area, so you can get absurdly large numbers by making the area small (ie the pressure at the very tip of a diamond needle exerts a reasonable force one a tiny tiny area giving absurd nominal pressure)

so that’s the application, you want a superconducting sensor working at very fine scale that doesn’t require a microscopic cryogenic system

if that’s not good enough we’ll know when it gets invented, marconi wanted a death ray but instead we got 5g wifi ie slow brain death rays

nope - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02585-7

Washington State’s Puget Sound could face previously unknown earthquake risks, according to a new study that has pinned down the date of an ancient earthquake using tree rings and the radiation left by a mysterious cosmic force https://t.co/876FGSz1hc

— Scientific American (@sciam) September 27, 2023