[ikanreed]

DerekShannon wrote: They get a lot of submissions, so we’ve already slipped off the top of the firehouse–You’ll have to hit “many more” at the bottom and search the page (we all know CNTRL+F, yes?) for “fusion” to quickly find when it has popped back up, then ++++ ;-D

Commenting on the submission is another good way to show interest!

Yeah, it’s already too late. Slashdot “editors” aren’t known for their dedication to finding the best stories.

[ikanreed]

Breakable wrote: Great guys, tnx for not dismissing me out of hand.

but matter IS energy. How do you propose to control the kind of energy the you get?

Why control, just make a big boom first 😉

No, when I said control what kind, I meant, how do you know that what you get back out isn’t just more matter? It’s just so abstract an assertion that I don’t get what you’re converting to what. You’re mistaking confusion with pragmatism. Only certain kinds of energy are useful for doing work. How do you intend to get those?

[ikanreed]

I don’t follow exactly. I get that you want to alter the waveform of matter under the idea of inducing it to become energy, but matter IS energy. How do you propose to control the kind of energy the you get?

[ikanreed]

Every blow against fission is a blow against fusion in the short run too. It decreases demand for experts in nuclear reactions, it reinforces the misconception that scientists don’t understand nuclear power well enough, and hurts the money going into the blanket field of nuclear research. Nobody wins.

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:
…snip…

Up = Fdr = mc^2

…snip…

This is not how relativistic force works at all. Equation for total kintetic energy from wikipedia, which at low velocities approximates F*dr. Now, I don’t know if this is “backyard lab” verifiable, but it’s been experimentally tested since 1908. E = MC^2 was Einstein’s rest mass formula, not total energy formula. This is Physics 101 stuff.

[ikanreed]

How do you feel about a pie-in-the-sky response? It’s sounding like graphene has a lot of the properties you’re wanting. Absorbtion of high frequency radiation, excellent electrical conductivity, resistant to chemical changes like rusting, and durable. Too bad mass production of the stuff hasn’t started anywhere.

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:

1. Give an example where the measurements are more accurate to your theory versus the standard model(Null hypothesis validation)
or
2. Give where the calculations get the same results for existing measurements, but simplify the formulas(Occam’s razor validation)

That’s it. Those are the only two ways you can have a decent improvement on existing science.

You are quite right, and what I have proposed so far is nothing more than a hypothesis, and now it is a matter as quoted above, to show mathematically that it is either more accurate or at least simpler than existing theory,

…and if it turns out to be rubbish, then it’s just another piece of paper for the basket, I have had plenty of those.

I believe it is better to try many ideas than to sit around waiting for a perfect one 🙂

Steven

It’s not a matter of perfect. It’s a matter of testable. A real hypothesis makes a testable assertion. I get what you’re saying about not rejecting ideas out of hand, but in my mind, the scientific method has a subset of rules for doing just that. I’m of the opinion that ideas, especially ideas that turn a field upside down, are a dime a dozen, and testable assertions(like DPF) are where progress is made. But I acknowledge that science itself is a philosophy and as such, there are multiple approaches to it. Don’t let me stop you from thinking.

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:

If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

I think we must accept the quantization of charge, experimental evidence is solid. All I can think of is that we postulate that the transfer of potential between one atom and another is quantized and can only be exchanged in 511 kev packets. Single atoms can however fall to a lower energy potential by emitting a photon or gamma.

Why this quantum happens to be 511 Kev. is an interesting puzzle in itself.

The fact that we can synthetically create electron-positron pairs from nothing, supports my idea. No positron needs to be created when potential is transferred from one particle to another, because the electron is a temporary particle.

I often like to compare physics to economics, in my theory, the atom is the equivalent of a bank account with a large positive balance, and the electron is the equivalent of a one dollar coin. There are actually no physical one dollar coins in your bank account, but if you want to transfer money from the account to another account, you need the one dollar coin to do it, and consequently your bank balances must be an integer of the one dollar quantum (assuming one dollar is the smallest coin).

Steven

This doesn’t even begin to work. Forget positrons, you need to justify your theory for the atom first. There are all sorts of very basic theories of chemistry(let’s not worry too much about physics right now), that depend on electrons themselves existing in particular orbitals, a key element in the electron as particle theory, to justify the bonding mechanisms that create molecules. I hate to be one of those people you allege is holding new theories back, but what you’re saying is not even wrong. It’s just conjecture. Moreover, said orbitals have been mapped by SEMs before, in a pattern matching the exact theories proposed by the standard model.

If you could give a testable prediction regarding how your theory differs from the Bohr model of the atom, this is the kind of thing that sounds like it could be tested in a high school chemistry lab. It’s far easier to argue all of science is wrong than it is to justify that assertion with even one empirical observation. Arguments from analogy are good for communicating and all, but for science, is a terrible form of justification for a hypothesis(an overvaluation of this kind of pointless conjecture).

1. Give an example where the measurements are more accurate to your theory versus the standard model(Null hypothesis validation)
or
2. Give where the calculations get the same results for existing measurements, but simplify the formulas(Occam’s razor validation)

That’s it. Those are the only two ways you can have a decent improvement on existing science. What you’ve proposed here appears to be neither.

[ikanreed]

AaronB wrote: Regarding the relationship of science, religion, spirituality and faith, they all boil down to dots, lines, and constellations. Dots are the facts. Lines connect the dots in meaningful ways. Lines are connected to form constellations, or meaningful, higher orders of pictures. Science is supposed to be objective, starting with the dots, and working its way up to find higher levels of order without preconceived ideas. Religion starts with a given picture in mind, based on some source of authority, and finds dots and lines that fit that picture. However, religion has the advantage of not requiring dots. Faith can fill in the dark spots. Scientists can get a subjective picture in their head and exercise a measure of faith until they accumulate data that either fits or doesn’t fit the model. As asymmetric_implosion said, it’s human nature to exercise faith and have personal biases. We are hard-wired to look for patterns and project order into chaos. However, I do believe it is a conspiracy, but conspiracies are just organized plans of action between people. They’re not all bad. Our Focus Fusion project is a conspiracy to beat all the big fusion projects to the ultimate prize. Is that bad? No. It is a competition, and teams conspire against each other to gain advantages. That’s just the way it is. The bad part is when conspirators resort to cheating, falsifying, or using undue influence to tip the scales in their favor.

“Mainstream science” is the most popular constellation of ideas. Once the majority of scientists have a commonly accepted way of organizing the dots, they tend to expect future dots to fall within the lines of their constellation, and the money usually follows. Since new dots are constantly being found, the picture evolves. Some parts become more established while others require a significant change in perception. The center of the universe has moved significantly over the last few hundred years from the earth to the sun to the galaxy to who-knows-where. Science and religion have both gone through crises of belief and have adapted; some adapted more successfully than others. Skepticism is valuable because without it, there is no motivation to confront problems. Confronting problems leads to progress. Skepticism is not the same as cynicism. I don’t see any people here on this board who are cynics, but I see a lot of healthy skepticism, and that’s good.

Our project is fairly open, and people are free to interpret the results as they see fit. We don’t claim to have the final solution to the fusion challenge yet. We have ideas and hypotheses that we think are worth testing, because if they prove to be valid, we have a good chance of success. We share our data when it comes in so fans, skeptics, and pundits can chew on it. FoFu-1 isn’t the largest DPF, but it is a strong contender. Our theories have yet to be proven conclusively, and we are just now getting FoFu-1 to its full power regime where we expect either confirmation or disproval. We’ll see soon enough. In the meantime, it’s fun to debate different ideas.

Now see, this is the way the scientific method works. Even though you are personally vested in the success of your theories, you acknowledge exactly how they can be invalidated. This is the exact perspective that advances humanity. Too many people think about science in terms of revolutions(which as far as fusion goes we’re all hoping for), and not in the extraordinarily difficult(and enlightening) challenge of trying to prove yourself wrong.

As far as your constellation metaphor goes, I like it. It misses a lot of nuance, but what metaphor doesn’t?

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote: Some things we take for granted, but when we consider it carefully, it may not be so obvious after all.

Everyone thinks they know the answer…

…oh that’s simple, if something has more electrons than protons, then it holds negative charge, and if something has less electrons than protons it holds a positive charge.

Then when we realize that the above expression makes no sense at all, because charge is relative, and there is no way to know how many electrons something has.

Ground potential means absolutely nothing, because a bird sitting on a 10,000V power line feels no charge, in fact we can put a scientist inside a metal cage, charge it to -10,000 volts, and ask him to find the extra electrons, and of course he won’t find them, because inside his cage everything is just fine and normal.

So it is generally accepted that negative ions have extra electrons.

Could there be another explanation (without upsetting the chemists)?

If charge was nothing more than electrical potential and the electrical potential alone represented the total energy of matter, then what we call ground potential, would be in the order of +930 Mev (the proton mass energy of the most stable element Ni62). Just like the bird on the wire, we would be sitting at a potential of almost 1 Gev. without even knowing it.

Electrons need not necessarily exist within the nucleus at all, they might simply be a means to transfer potential between one particle and another, ergo a quantum particle that transfers 511 Kev of electrical potential from A to B, and once the transfer has taken place, the particle no longer exists.

From this, a simple rule could be formulated, objects of higher electrical potential fall towards objects of lower electrical potential, just as water runs down hill.

The known forces including gravity may be replaced by one single parameter, being the difference in electrical potential.

The arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, so we may say that the future is down and the past is up, and what we perceive as time, is the continuous drop in potential, resulting from the matter we and the Earth are made from, falling to lower and lower potential, by undergoing continuous fission/fusion/chemical reactions……we are (I think) imploding!

This implosion process gives us the illusion of an expanding Universe, which I agree is definitely a more palatable future, but sadly I think it might be wrong.

Steven

My only reply to this has to be the oil drop experiment. Your explanation does not fit with the quantized nature of electric charge. If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

[ikanreed]

That’s kind of unfair. Everyone who seriously “works in science” is published, meaning they’ve done the launching of a novel idea. It’s not a lack of empathy towards the proposers of ideas that keeps them from being accepted, but rather the scientific method’s approach to burden of proof: i.e. that revolutionary claims require substantially more evidence than incrementally different claims. Personally, I don’t think you’ve articulated where the proximate flaw in the modern physics paradigms lies. No offense, but suggesting it’s too complicated without citing how that complexity might be reduced is reminiscent of creationist arguments against evolution.

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote: For the amusement of lateral thinking minds only…

How would it be if we were to do a complete rewrite of physics and cosmology, discard everything we know and believe, and look at everything with fresh eyes?

For what we have created over the past 2000 years is a monstrous patchwork of theories, a huge jigsaw of pieces that don’t fit together.

Newtonian physics
Einsteins Relativity
Quantum Theory
Big Bang
Black Holes
Gravity
Strong Interaction
Weak Interaction
Electric force
Quarks
Protons
Neutrons
Electrons
Bosons
Leptons
…and the rest of the Zoo

These terms may be absolutely meaningless, yet we cling to them out of fear, that all our studies and past papers written might be wasted. More than enough scientists have been recruited to complete the puzzle, yet it is plain obvious that the pieces don’t fit. The best contenders create theories with such complexity that no one can disprove them, so we award them a nobel price instead.

Imagine if we could somehow erase all knowledge of the current physics theories, without erasing our knowledge of experimental outcome, how would we explain the world.

I am almost certain that it would not come out the same.

Dare to think…

Steven

Very unlikely(except if certain kinds of experiments become possible). Physics is not a patchwork because new theories are hard to propose(brane and string theory come to mind), but rather because the mathematical commonality between major branches is very limited. Also, as far as I’m aware, the only divided theories are the standard model and special relativity, and that most of what you just listed falls in the former’s domain. Your allegation that physicists stick to existing models out of fear completely misses the point of the scientific method. Special relativity has been an untested theory for 50 years, then 5 years ago, they launch a satellite, and we have falsifiability, and not only that, the theory is born out by the experimental results.

If your erasure happened, we’d end up in a very similar place with different names for things. It’s hard to look at the chemistry experiments and not instantly arrive on the notion of atoms and electrons, which sets you on a natural course for finding subatomic particles. There are very few things that are basically explained from ignorance. The supernova data that suggests an expanding universe, the redshift that suggests an acceleration, and the common wavelengths in the background radiation of the universe. The big bang + dark matter + dark energy is a pretty compelling theory to explain those phenomena, but impossible to verify.

You dare us to consider the implications of modern physics being misguided. I dare you to consider the implications of it being dead on.

[ikanreed]

zapkitty wrote:

Whoa. Experimental pB11 fusion validation is old news… in fact the most recent experiments along those lines showed that the reaction should be even easier to tap for direct conversion to electricity than was previously thought:

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/04/15/the-boron-11-hydrogen-fueled-fusion-looks-better-than-thought/

I wasn’t referring to energetic output, but the inputs necessary to cause fusion.

… errrr…

…. how do you think they got the output they used to measure energy distribution?

By fusing the inputs. Did the paper state how much energy they put into the system first? If they were already net positive, there’d be no point to FoFu. Do you think I was saying no one had fused hydrogen to boron before?

[ikanreed]

Whoa. Experimental pB11 fusion validation is old news… in fact the most recent experiments along those lines showed that the reaction should be even easier to tap for direct conversion to electricity than was previously thought:

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/04/15/the-boron-11-hydrogen-fueled-fusion-looks-better-than-thought/

I wasn’t referring to energetic output, but the inputs necessary to cause fusion. Nor was I suggesting that even that was unlikely, or that I have any disagreement with the theory that got us here. It’s just that everything needs experimental verification. It’s fantastic that we’re going to try that verification so soon.

Also I was just using that as an example of an area where the theory and the experimental process haven’t perfectly unified with each other, there are more questions that require a far more in-depth understanding of plasma physics than I possess.

[ikanreed]

Everyone should embrace the scientific method like this. However, I’d like to point out that the biggest liability that you should look for potential problems in is the theory, not the particulars of mechanical implementation.

What are the assumptions about plasma and nuclear physics they’re relying on here? How many of those are already well supported by existing research? How many have been verified at least tentatively by experiments so far? For example, I’m not sure anyone has ever actually experimentally verified the enthalpy needed to fuse boron and hydrogen, even in energetically wasteful ways like particle accelerators . If the theory is even a little off from the reality, the whole concept might not work, ever. But even for things like this, we at least know the premise well enough to know what experiments LPP will need to complete before they know.

[Author]

Posts