Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 This guy has a funny idea of zero energy input
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

skepticality
Skeptic Friend

USA
105 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2005 :  23:05:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit skepticality's Homepage Send skepticality a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Skepticality should interview this inventor.



Dude...

Don't tempt me...

Derek Colanduno
host - skepticality
http://www.skepticality.com/
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2005 :  00:30:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by skepticality

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Skepticality should interview this inventor.



Dude...

Don't tempt me...

Phone interview. Don't actually invite the guy into the the studio. I'm sure he's...unhinged.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2005 :  03:27:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:
Originally posted by skepticality

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Skepticality should interview this inventor.



Dude...

Don't tempt me...

Phone interview. Don't actually invite the guy into the the studio. I'm sure he's...unhinged.



I gotta sawbuck I'll bet against a bent nickle that you won't get this clown in either type of an interview. A better idea would be to invite him in here where we can all drink his blood....

But he wouldn't show for that, either, alas.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend

USA
82 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2005 :  04:41:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send CourseKnot a Private Message
You think that guy is nutz? Check out this guy!

http://www.cheniere.org/

I don't think i'll be buying his DVD. He claims "energy from the vacuum is not the same as zero point energy.

Sheesh

Just flying through space with the rest of you...
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/07/2005 :  20:31:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message

Well I don't think it is *crazy* to propose that useable energy can be extracted from the the quantum vaccuum.

Storm referenced a very good site (http://www.calphysics.org/) on another thread which has as it's primary goal,

"the formulation and execution of experiments to elucidate the properties of the quantum vacuum and to search for possible technological applications."

(Hint, that may very well include extracting energy from the vaccuum.)

Speaking of vaccuum energy, many think that it may have something to do with what is behind the various (and spotty) "cold fusion" results.

Here's extracts from a recent article at

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050712.Xu.fusion.html

describing an experiment that essentially confirms that fusion can indeed occur on a tabletop apparatus:

quote:
...A key component of the experiment was a glass test chamber about the size of two coffee mugs filled with a liquid called deuterated acetone, which contains a form of hydrogen known as deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. The researchers exposed the test chamber to subatomic particles called neutrons and then bombarded the liquid with a specific frequency of ultrasound, which caused cavities to form into tiny bubbles. The bubbles then expanded to a much larger size before imploding, apparently with enough force to cause thermonuclear fusion reactions.

Fusion reactions emit neutrons that fall within a specific energy range of 2.5 mega-electron volts, which was the level of energy seen in neutrons produced in the experiment. The experiments also yielded a radioactive material called tritium, which is another product of fusion, Xu and Butt said....

"The two key signatures for a fusion reaction are emission of neutrons in the range of 2.5 MeV and production of tritium, both of which were seen in these experiments," Xu said.


It would be ironic indeed if in a few decades some crochety old skeptics who mocked cold fusion in their youth are having their buns warmed by electicity generated by cold fusion stations. :o


Mark

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 09/07/2005 :  20:55:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
It would be ironic indeed if in a few decades some crochety old skeptics who mocked cold fusion


Skeptics don't mock cold fusion.... they mock the bad science that permeated the claims of cold fusion.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend

Australia
249 Posts

Posted - 09/07/2005 :  21:28:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dry_vby a Private Message

Bring it on.

I'd rather be warm than right, anytime.


"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."

Bob Dylan
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9680 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2005 :  06:15:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
...A key component of the experiment was a glass test chamber about the size of two coffee mugs filled with a liquid called deuterated acetone, which contains a form of hydrogen known as deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. The researchers exposed the test chamber to subatomic particles called neutrons and then bombarded the liquid with a specific frequency of ultrasound, which caused cavities to form into tiny bubbles. The bubbles then expanded to a much larger size before imploding, apparently with enough force to cause thermonuclear fusion reactions.

Fusion reactions emit neutrons that fall within a specific energy range of 2.5 mega-electron volts, which was the level of energy seen in neutrons produced in the experiment. The experiments also yielded a radioactive material called tritium, which is another product of fusion, Xu and Butt said....

"The two key signatures for a fusion reaction are emission of neutrons in the range of 2.5 MeV and production of tritium, both of which were seen in these experiments," Xu said.


It would be ironic indeed if in a few decades some crochety old skeptics who mocked cold fusion in their youth are having their buns warmed by electicity generated by cold fusion stations. :o

Mark


To start with, bombarding a matter with neutrons, there will be cases where neutrons fuse with other nucleus. When a neutron fuses with deuterium, tritium is formed. Tritium does not necessarily have to come from fusion.

About "emission of neutrons in the range of 2.5 MeV" I have no comment at this time, other than I always though that when fusion occurs, photons and neutrinos were emitted, not neutrons.
I bet one of our nuclear-power-working members can shed more light on this.

[snipped long rant about bubbles and vacuum]

For a hydrogen nucleus to fuse with another, it must first be stripped of its electron. In that state it is plasma, and cannot be bound to an acetone molecule. So why use acetone in the first place? Why not heavy water, that will have a much higher yield of hydrogen (greater chance of getting a reaction)?
Acetone however do have a lower boiling-point (50-60 degrees Celsius) which makes it bubble easily when heated, which is cool-looking and impressing to laymen when doing woo-woo experiments.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26015 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2005 :  20:13:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by markie


Well I don't think it is *crazy* to propose that useable energy can be extracted from the the quantum vaccuum.

Storm referenced a very good site (http://www.calphysics.org/) on another thread which has as it's primary goal,

"the formulation and execution of experiments to elucidate the properties of the quantum vacuum and to search for possible technological applications."

(Hint, that may very well include extracting energy from the vaccuum.)
Bigger hint: the articles they list don't seem to indicate any such thing. Searching for applications isn't the same thing as dreaming one up and attempting to force-fit physics to your dream, as every one of the zero-point-energy kooks out there has done.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2005 :  22:06:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot

You think that guy is nutz? Check out this guy!

http://www.cheniere.org/

I don't think i'll be buying his DVD. He claims "energy from the vacuum is not the same as zero point energy.

Sheesh



I am trying to get a free copy, by offer listed here.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 09/15/2005 09:22:57
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/09/2005 :  20:38:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Bigger hint: the articles they list don't seem to indicate any such thing. Searching for applications isn't the same thing as dreaming one up and attempting to force-fit physics to your dream, as every one of the zero-point-energy kooks out there has done.

Well, here are a few quotes form the site:

quote:
The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.
quote:
If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel.
quote:
A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless.


So are guys like Bernard Haisch borderline 'kooks'? I tip my hat to guys like this who try and push the envelope.

It's clear to me that what is observed with UFOs, namely apparent freedom from gravitational and interial considerations, is entirely consistent with what Haisch and company are getting at. It is also consistent with the proposal that UFOs extract energy from space for interstellar travel.

quote:
Originally posted by dude
Skeptics don't mock cold fusion.... they mock the bad science that permeated the claims of cold fusion.
If by bad science you mean the lack of consistent repeatability, I think a reevaluation is in order. Generally, scientists are simply reporting what they have observed, and if their results are not repeatable, who is to say it doesnt' have to do with some non-evident experimental conditions which unknowingly are not transferred to the new experiment? There are *alot* of unknowns in highly experimental work. Repeatability should be more a benchmark requirement for experiments having to do with phenomena which are already presumed to be well understood, unlike cold fusion.

Who might not like the idea of cold fusion? I have some guesses as to where the original, strongest dissenting voices regarding cold fusion came from. Sometimes the loudest voices of orthodoxy are heard over the whispers of emerging truth. Most skeptics I imagine prefer the loud and clear sounds.

Mark


Go to Top of Page

sts60
Skeptic Friend

141 Posts

Posted - 09/09/2005 :  22:27:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sts60 a Private Message
I don't care about loud or quiet, just as long as the claim is described accurately, and the way the results were obtained is described accurately. When someone with an extraordinary claim can't or won't describe accurately how they got it, or they do but no one can repeat their claims, and the original claimants keep pointing out how someone didn't cock their head just so when they did the experiment, or didn't look in the 12th sigma hard enough for results, or whatever, that's not science - that's wishful thinking and self-delusion. At best.

The capper is when the kvetching about "powerful forces" and "orthodoxies" bent on suppressing this bold new science starts. Cold fusion, hafnium isomer power generation... we keep hearing how the breakthrough is just around the corner. The faithful will keep following with bated breath, but sometimes there's just nothing there.
Go to Top of Page

sts60
Skeptic Friend

141 Posts

Posted - 09/09/2005 :  22:30:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sts60 a Private Message
Not long after CF started to lose momentum, some Japanese scientists reported how they obtained a reduction of mass with some spinning-apparatus thing. They did good science: they published their results and exactly how they were obtained. Others were able to figure out their mistake, which they acknowledged.

A pity. At the time, I was hoping for cold-fusion-powered, room-temperature-superconductor-wired, anti-gravity machines.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9680 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2005 :  03:22:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If by bad science you mean the lack of consistent repeatability, I think a reevaluation is in order. Generally, scientists are simply reporting what they have observed, and if their results are not repeatable, who is to say it doesnt' have to do with some non-evident experimental conditions which unknowingly are not transferred to the new experiment?
You know the saying... Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Cold Fusion is an extraordinary claim. Consistent repeatability is a major part of that evidence. Scientists are human, and humans have flaws (greed and a need to make a name for themselves among many things). To take a ground-beaking discovery at face value from a scientist without double checking his work is unwise.

quote:
Who might not like the idea of cold fusion? I have some guesses as to where the original, strongest dissenting voices regarding cold fusion came from. Sometimes the loudest voices of orthodoxy are heard over the whispers of emerging truth. Most skeptics I imagine prefer the loud and clear sounds.

Who wouldn't like to have access to cold fusion?
My understanding is that we don't know any shortcuts. Massive energy is needed to fuse two atomic nucleus, and playing with acetone bubbles won't solve a thing.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2005 :  05:30:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
Generally, scientists are simply reporting what they have observed, and if their results are not repeatable, who is to say it doesnt' have to do with some non-evident experimental conditions which unknowingly are not transferred to the new experiment?


Like i said, bad science. If you can't explain to another how to duplicate your results, then you are conducting bad science.

quote:
There are *alot* of unknowns in highly experimental work. Repeatability should be more a benchmark requirement for experiments having to do with phenomena which are already presumed to be well understood, unlike cold fusion.



Nope. Repeatability is what you need to prove your work. If it isn't repeatable, then you didn't do what you think you did, and any claims based on such will be (rightly so) rejected.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.38 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000